LAFCO
Yuba LAFCO Countywide MSR - Appendix A
Read the report at Local Agency Formation Commissions ↗
Yuba Local Aggencyy
Formation Commission
Municipal
Service
Review:
AAppppeennddiixx AA
Final
Adopted July 24, 2008
Burr Consulting
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE .............................................................................................................................................................. VIII
1. CITY OF MARYSVILLE ....................................................................................................................................... 1
AGENCY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................. 1
WASTEWATER SERVICE ............................................................................................................................................. 8
FIRE & EMS SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................ 14
LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES................................................................................................................................ 17
STREET SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................... 21
DRAINAGE SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................... 25
PARKS & RECREATION SERVICES ............................................................................................................................ 26
CEMETERY SERVICES .............................................................................................................................................. 30
2. CITY OF WHEATLAND ..................................................................................................................................... 31
AGENCY OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................ 31
WATER SERVICE ...................................................................................................................................................... 39
WASTEWATER SERVICE ........................................................................................................................................... 45
FIRE & EMS SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................ 51
LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES................................................................................................................................ 54
STREET SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................... 58
DRAINAGE SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................... 63
PARKS & RECREATION SERVICES ............................................................................................................................ 65
3. BROPHY WATER DISTRICT ............................................................................................................................ 68
AGENCY OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................ 68
WATER SERVICE ...................................................................................................................................................... 71
4. BROWNS VALLEY CEMETERY DISTRICT .................................................................................................. 77
AGENCY OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................ 77
CEMETERY SERVICE ................................................................................................................................................ 80
5. BROWNS VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT ................................................................................................ 81
AGENCY OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................ 81
WATER SERVICE ...................................................................................................................................................... 86
ELECTRIC SERVICE .................................................................................................................................................. 95
RECREATION SERVICE ............................................................................................................................................. 96
6. BROWNSVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT ....................................................................................................... 97
AGENCY OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................ 97
CEMETERY SERVICE .............................................................................................................................................. 100
7. CAMP FAR WEST IRRIGATION DISTRICT ............................................................................................... 101
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 101
WATER SERVICE .................................................................................................................................................... 105
8. CAMPTONVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT .................................................................................................. 110
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 110
9. CAMPTONVILLE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT .......................................................................... 112
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 112
WATER SERVICE .................................................................................................................................................... 115
FIRE SERVICE ........................................................................................................................................................ 121
BY BURR CONSULTING A-i
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
CEMETERY SERVICE .............................................................................................................................................. 124
10. CORDUA IRRIGATION DISTRICT ............................................................................................................. 126
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 126
WATER SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................. 128
11. DISTRICT 10 – HALLWOOD COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT .................................................... 134
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 134
FIRE & EMS SERVICES .......................................................................................................................................... 137
12. DOBBINS-OREGON HOUSE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ............................................................... 140
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 140
FIRE & EMS SERVICES .......................................................................................................................................... 143
13. FOOTHILL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ............................................................................................. 146
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 146
FIRE & EMS SERVICES .......................................................................................................................................... 149
14. KEYSTONE CEMETERY DISTRICT ........................................................................................................... 152
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 152
CEMETERY SERVICE .............................................................................................................................................. 154
15. LINDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT .......................................................................................................... 156
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 156
WATER SERVICE .................................................................................................................................................... 161
WASTEWATER SERVICE ......................................................................................................................................... 167
16. LINDA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ...................................................................................................... 173
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 173
FIRE SERVICE ........................................................................................................................................................ 179
17. LOMA RICA – BROWNS VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT .......................................... 183
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 183
FIRE & EMS SERVICES .......................................................................................................................................... 186
18. MARYSVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT ...................................................................................................... 189
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 189
19. MARYSVILLE LEVEE DISTRICT ............................................................................................................... 191
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 191
RECLAMATION SERVICE ........................................................................................................................................ 194
20. NEVADA IRRIGATION DISTRICT .............................................................................................................. 197
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 197
WATER SERVICE .................................................................................................................................................... 202
21. NORTH YUBA WATER DISTRICT .............................................................................................................. 204
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 204
WATER SERVICE .................................................................................................................................................... 209
22. OLIVEHURST PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT ............................................................................................. 216
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 216
WATER SERVICE .................................................................................................................................................... 222
WASTEWATER SERVICE ......................................................................................................................................... 230
FIRE SERVICE ........................................................................................................................................................ 236
DRAINAGE ............................................................................................................................................................. 239
PARKS & RECREATION SERVICES .......................................................................................................................... 240
A-ii PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
23. PEORIA CEMETERY DISTRICT ................................................................................................................. 243
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 243
CEMETERY SERVICE .............................................................................................................................................. 246
24. PLUMAS-BROPHY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ................................................................................ 248
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 248
FIRE SERVICE ........................................................................................................................................................ 252
25. RAMIREZ WATER DISTRICT ...................................................................................................................... 255
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 255
WATER SERVICE .................................................................................................................................................... 258
26. RECLAMATION DISTRICT 10 ..................................................................................................................... 263
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 263
RECLAMATION SERVICE ........................................................................................................................................ 266
27. RECLAMATION DISTRICT 784 ................................................................................................................... 268
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 268
RECLAMATION SERVICE ........................................................................................................................................ 272
28. RECLAMATION DISTRICT 817 ................................................................................................................... 276
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 276
RECLAMATION SERVICE ........................................................................................................................................ 280
29. RECLAMATION DISTRICT 2103 ................................................................................................................. 282
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 282
RECLAMATION SERVICE ........................................................................................................................................ 286
30. RIVER HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ................................................................... 290
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 290
WATER SERVICE .................................................................................................................................................... 294
WASTEWATER SERVICE ......................................................................................................................................... 295
STREET SERVICE .................................................................................................................................................... 297
PARKS & RECREATION SERVICE ............................................................................................................................ 297
31. SMARTVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT ...................................................................................................... 299
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 299
CEMETERY SERVICE .............................................................................................................................................. 302
32. SMARTVILLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ........................................................................................ 304
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 304
FIRE SERVICE ........................................................................................................................................................ 308
33. SOUTH FEATHER WATER & POWER AGENCY .................................................................................... 310
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 310
WATER SERVICE .................................................................................................................................................... 313
ELECTRIC SERVICE ................................................................................................................................................ 314
RECREATION SERVICE ........................................................................................................................................... 315
34. SOUTH YUBA WATER DISTRICT ............................................................................................................... 316
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 316
WATER SERVICE .................................................................................................................................................... 320
35. STRAWBERRY VALLEY CEMETERY DISTRICT ................................................................................... 326
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 326
CEMETERY SERVICE .............................................................................................................................................. 328
BY BURR CONSULTING A-iii
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
36. SUTTER-YUBA MOSQUITO & VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT .......................................................... 330
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 330
MOSQUITO & VECTOR CONTROL SERVICES .......................................................................................................... 333
37. UPHAM CEMETERY DISTRICT .................................................................................................................. 334
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 334
CEMETERY SERVICE .............................................................................................................................................. 337
38. WHEATLAND CEMETERY DISTRICT ...................................................................................................... 338
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 338
CEMETERY SERVICE .............................................................................................................................................. 341
39. WHEATLAND WATER DISTRICT .............................................................................................................. 343
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 343
WATER SERVICE .................................................................................................................................................... 348
40. YUBA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT ................................................................... 352
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 352
RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICE ..................................................................................................................... 355
41. YUBA COUNTY WATER AGENCY ............................................................................................................. 358
AGENCY OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 358
WATER SERVICE .................................................................................................................................................... 362
FLOOD CONTROL SERVICE .................................................................................................................................... 368
ELECTRIC SERVICE ................................................................................................................................................ 368
RECREATION SERVICE ........................................................................................................................................... 369
42. COUNTY SERVICE AREAS ........................................................................................................................... 370
CSA OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................... 372
MAJOR CSAS ........................................................................................................................................................ 374
MINOR CSAS ......................................................................................................................................................... 389
INACTIVE CSAS ..................................................................................................................................................... 470
43. NON-LAFCO AGENCIES ............................................................................................................................... 474
BEALE AIR FORCE BASE ........................................................................................................................................ 474
BI-COUNTY AMBULANCE ...................................................................................................................................... 485
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME .................................................................................................... 487
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION ........................................................................ 489
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL ............................................................................................................................ 493
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY .............................................................................................................. 496
COUNTY OF YUBA ................................................................................................................................................. 502
DRY CREEK MUTUAL WATER CO. ......................................................................................................................... 527
HALLWOOD IRRIGATION COMPANY ...................................................................................................................... 528
PLUMAS MUTUAL WATER COMPANY .................................................................................................................... 529
REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY ..................................................................................................... 531
U.S. FOREST SERVICE ............................................................................................................................................ 532
YUBA-SUTTER DISPOSAL INC. ............................................................................................................................... 533
YUBA-SUTTER TRANSIT ........................................................................................................................................ 534
44. DEVELOPMENT BY AGENCY ..................................................................................................................... 536
A-iv PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE A-1-2: MARYSVILLE WASTEWATER PROFILE ............................................................................................. 10
TABLE A-1-3: MARYSVILLE FIRE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 16
TABLE A-1-5: MARYSVILLE POLICE SERVICE PROFILE .......................................................................................... 20
TABLE A-1-6: MARYSVILLE STREET SERVICE PROFILE .......................................................................................... 22
TABLE A-1-7: MARYSVILLE PARK PROFILE ........................................................................................................... 28
TABLE A-2-2: WHEATLAND PLANNED AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS ................................................................ 35
TABLE A-2-3: WHEATLAND PLANNING DOCUMENTS ............................................................................................ 37
TABLE A-2-4: WHEATLAND WATER PROFILE ........................................................................................................ 41
TABLE A-2-5: WHEATLAND WASTEWATER PROFILE ............................................................................................. 47
TABLE A-2-6: WHEATLAND FIRE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 53
TABLE A-2-8: WHEATLAND POLICE SERVICE PROFILE .......................................................................................... 57
TABLE A-2-9: CITY OF WHEATLAND STREET SERVICE .......................................................................................... 60
TABLE A-2-10: WHEATLAND PARK PROFILE ............................................................................................................ 66
TABLE A-3-1: BWD WATER SERVICE PROFILE ...................................................................................................... 73
TABLE A-4-1: BVCD PLOT AND ENDOWMENT FEES .............................................................................................. 79
TABLE A-5-1: BVID WATER DELIVERY RIGHTS .................................................................................................... 88
TABLE A-5-2: BVID WATER SERVICE PROFILE ..................................................................................................... 90
TABLE A-6-1: BCD PLOT AND ENDOWMENT FEES ................................................................................................. 99
TABLE A-7-1: CFWID WATER SERVICE PROFILE ................................................................................................ 106
TABLE A-9-1: CCSD WATER SERVICE PROFILE ................................................................................................... 117
TABLE A-9-2: CCSD FIRE SERVICE PROFILE ....................................................................................................... 123
TABLE A-10-1: CID WATER SERVICE PROFILE ...................................................................................................... 130
TABLE A-11-1: D10-HCSD FIRE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 139
TABLE A-12-1: DOHFPD FIRE SERVICE PROFILE ................................................................................................. 145
TABLE A-13-1: FFPD FIRE SERVICE PROFILE ....................................................................................................... 151
TABLE A-14-1: KCD PLOT AND ENDOWMENT FEES .............................................................................................. 154
TABLE A-15-1: LCWD LAFCO RECORD .............................................................................................................. 157
TABLE A-15-2: LCWD PROJECTED WATER DEMAND (MGD) ................................................................................ 162
TABLE A-15-3: LCWD WATER SERVICE PROFILE ................................................................................................. 163
TABLE A-15-4: LCWD WASTEWATER SERVICE PROFILE ...................................................................................... 169
TABLE A-16-1: LFPD FIRE SERVICE PROFILE ....................................................................................................... 181
TABLE A-17-1: LRBVCSD FIRE SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................... 188
TABLE A-20-1: NID PLANNING DOCUMENTS ......................................................................................................... 200
TABLE A-21-1: NYWD WATER SERVICE PROFILE ................................................................................................. 212
TABLE A-22-1: OPUD PLANNING DOCUMENTS ..................................................................................................... 221
TABLE A-22-2: OPUD WATER SERVICE PROFILE .................................................................................................. 226
TABLE A-22-3: OPUD WASTEWATER SERVICE PROFILE ....................................................................................... 232
TABLE A-22-4: OPUD FIRE SERVICE PROFILE ....................................................................................................... 238
TABLE A-22-5: OPUD PARK SERVICE PROFILE ..................................................................................................... 241
TABLE A-23-1: PCD PLOT AND ENDOWMENT FEES ............................................................................................... 245
TABLE A-24-1: PBFPD FIRE SERVICE PROFILE ...................................................................................................... 254
TABLE A-25-1: RWD WATER SERVICE PROFILE .................................................................................................... 259
TABLE A-31-1: SCD PLOT AND ENDOWMENT FEES ............................................................................................... 301
TABLE A-32-1: SFPD FIRE SERVICE PROFILE ........................................................................................................ 309
TABLE A-34-1: SYWD WATER SERVICE PROFILE ................................................................................................. 322
TABLE A-35-1: SVCD PLOT AND ENDOWMENT FEES ............................................................................................ 328
TABLE A-37-1: UCD PLOT AND ENDOWMENT FEES .............................................................................................. 336
TABLE A-38-1: WCD PLOT AND ENDOWMENT FEES .............................................................................................. 341
TABLE A-39-1: WWD WATER SERVICE PROFILE ................................................................................................... 350
TABLE A-41-1: YCWA WATER SERVICE PROFILE ................................................................................................. 365
TABLE A-42-1: CSA SERVICE MATRIX .................................................................................................................. 370
TABLE A-42-2: CSA CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS, FY 05-06 ...................................................................................... 373
TABLE A-42-3: CSA EXTENDED SERVICE PROVIDERS ........................................................................................... 373
BY BURR CONSULTING A-v
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
TABLE A-42-4: CSA 52 PARK SERVICE PROFILE .................................................................................................... 377
TABLE A-42-5: CSA 52 STREET SERVICE PROFILE ................................................................................................ 378
TABLE A-42-6: CSA 66 ASSESSMENTS BY ZONE OF BENEFIT ................................................................................ 382
TABLE A-42-7: CSA 66 STREET SERVICE PROFILE ................................................................................................ 383
TABLE A-42-8: CSA 69 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 386
TABLE A-42-9: CSA 2 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................... 391
TABLE A-42-10: CSA 4 SERVICE PROFILE............................................................................................................... 394
TABLE A-42-11: CSA 5 ANNEXATIONS, 1979-83 ..................................................................................................... 395
TABLE A-42-12: CSA 5 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................... 397
TABLE A-42-13: CSA 8 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................... 399
TABLE A-42-14: CSA 9 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................... 401
TABLE A-42-15: CSA 10 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 403
TABLE A-42-16: CSA 11 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 406
TABLE A-42-17: CSA 12 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 408
TABLE A-42-18: CSA 14 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 412
TABLE A-42-19: CSA 15 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 414
TABLE A-42-20: CSA 16 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 417
TABLE A-42-21: CSA 17 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 419
TABLE A-42-22: CSA 22 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 422
TABLE A-42-23: CSA 30 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 424
TABLE A-42-24: CSA 34 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 426
TABLE A-42-25: CSA 36 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 428
TABLE A-42-26: CSA 37 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 430
TABLE A-42-27: CSA 38 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 433
TABLE A-42-28: CSA 39 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 435
TABLE A-42-29: CSA 40 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 437
TABLE A-42-30: CSA 42 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 440
TABLE A-42-31: CSA 43 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 442
TABLE A-42-32: CSA 44 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 444
TABLE A-42-33: CSA 45 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 447
TABLE A-42-34: CSA 46 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 449
TABLE A-42-35: CSA 48 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 452
TABLE A-42-36: CSA 53 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 454
TABLE A-42-37: CSA 54 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 457
TABLE A-42-38: CSA 55 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 459
TABLE A-42-39: CSA 59 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 461
TABLE A-42-40: CSA 60 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 464
TABLE A-42-41: CSA 61 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 466
TABLE A-42-42: CSA 63 SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 468
TABLE A-42-43: INACTIVE CSAS ............................................................................................................................. 470
TABLE A-43-1: AMBULANCE RESPONSE TIMES. 2006 ............................................................................................ 486
TABLE A-43-2: CALFIRE SERVICE PROFILE ......................................................................................................... 491
TABLE A-43-5: CHP SERVICE PROFILE .................................................................................................................. 495
TABLE A-43-6: CAL WATER SERVICE PROFILE ...................................................................................................... 498
TABLE A-43-7: SUPERVISORIAL ELECTION TURNOUT ............................................................................................ 502
TABLE A-43-9: COUNTY PLANNING DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................. 506
TABLE A-43-10: COUNTY GENERAL FUND REVENUES, FY 06-07 ............................................................................ 507
TABLE A-43-11: COUNTY ROAD FUND REVENUES, FY 06-07 .................................................................................. 508
TABLE A-43-13: SHERIFF SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................................. 512
TABLE A-43-14: COUNTY STREET SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................... 516
TABLE A-43-15: COUNTY PARK SERVICE PROFILE .................................................................................................. 523
TABLE A-43-16: COUNTY LIBRARY SERVICE PROFILE ............................................................................................. 526
TABLE A-44-1: YUBA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ..................................................................................... 536
A-vi PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE A-1-1: MARYSVILLE POPULATION, 2000-8 ................................................................................................... 4
FIGURE A-1-4: MARYSVILLE CRIME RATE, 1996-2006 ........................................................................................... 18
FIGURE A-2-1: WHEATLAND POPULATION, 2000-8 ................................................................................................. 33
FIGURE A-2-7: WHEATLAND CRIME RATE .............................................................................................................. 55
FIGURE A-43-3: CHP PROPERTY CRIMES ................................................................................................................ 493
FIGURE A-43-4: CHP FELONY AND MISDEMEANOR ARRESTS ................................................................................. 494
FIGURE A-43-8: YUBA COUNTY POPULATION, 2000-8 ............................................................................................ 503
FIGURE A-43-12: CRIME RATE, UNINCORPORATED YUBA COUNTY .......................................................................... 510
BY BURR CONSULTING A-vii
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
P R E FA C E
This appendix supplements the public review draft municipal service review (MSR) background
report on Yuba County prepared for the Yuba Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).
This supplemental appendix provides agency profiles containing the data presented in the MSR
background report. Each profile has been reviewed by the respective local agency for accuracy.
The MSR background report contains analysis and MSR determinations including the
advantages and disadvantages of government structure alternatives. Agency maps are located in
Appendix B.
GUIDE TO APPENDIX
The appendix provides an agency overview as well as service-specific sections for water,
wastewater, drainage, police, fire, street, parks and recreation, cemetery, and other services provided
by agencies within Yuba County.
The formation and boundary history section summarizes when, why, and how each agency was
formed and describes the current boundary and SOI. The local accountability and governance
section describes each agency’s governance structure, public outreach efforts, disclosure of
information to the public, participation in this MSR project, approach to handling constituent
complaints, and other activities that reflect on the agency’s accountability to its constituents.
The growth and population projections section provides the current population in the agency’s
boundaries and, if different, service area. The section identifies economic activity, projected long-
term growth and significant growth areas.
The management section describes the agency’s management practices, such as staffing and
management structure, employee evaluations, audits, and planning efforts.
The financing section describes the agency’s revenue level, revenue sources, long-term debt,
reserve levels and practices, and joint financing arrangements.
The service-specific overviews for each local agency focus on services provided by or for the
particular agency. Each service-specific overview includes a description of the nature, extent and
location of services provided. Service configuration, service demand, service adequacy, facilities,
infrastructure needs and deficiencies, growth and service challenges, and regional collaboration
efforts are covered.
CONSTITUENT GUIDE
The table on the following pages identifies service providers by community. For providers by
specific location, please refer to the maps in Appendix B.
A-viii PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
PREFACE
Service Wheatland Beale Ostrom Camp Far West Smartville
Public Safety
Police City of Wheatland Beale AFB County Sheriff, CSA 70 County Sheriff, CSA 70 County Sheriff, CSA 70
Fire & EMS City of Wheatland Beale AFB Plumas Brophy FPD Plumas Brophy FPD Smartville FPD
Ambulance Bi-County Ambulance Bi-County Ambulance Bi-County Ambulance Bi-County Ambulance Bi-County Ambulance
Utilities
Water Retailers - Domestic City of Wheatland Beale AFB Private wells Private wells Private wells, River
Highlands CSD, Nevada
ID
Water Retailers - Irrigation City of Wheatland Beale AFB South Yuba WD, Wheatland Camp Far West ID, Nevada ID
WD, Dry Creek MWC Wheatland WD
Wastewater City of Wheatland Beale AFB Private septic Private septic River Highlands CSD,
Private septic
Solid Waste Yuba-Sutter Disposal Yuba-Sutter Disposal Yuba-Sutter Disposal Yuba-Sutter Disposal Yuba-Sutter Disposal
Public Works
Flood Control Reclamation District 2103 None Reclamation District 817 None YCWA
Drainage City of Wheatland Beale AFB Yuba County Yuba County, Yuba County, CSAs 14,
CSA 14 (private roads) 30, 46 (private roads)
Street Maintenance City of Wheatland Beale AFB Yuba County Yuba County Yuba County
Street Maintenance - None None None CSAs 14, 17 CSAs 14, 30, 46
Private Roads
Street Lighting City of Wheatland Beale AFB None None None
Community Services
Park Maintenance City of Wheatland Beale AFB None None None
Recreation Wheatland Volunteer Beale AFB None None None
Cemetery Wheatland CD Wheatland CD Wheatland CD Wheatland CD Smartville CD
Library Yuba County Beale AFB Yuba County Yuba County Yuba County
Transit Yuba-Sutter Transit None None None None
Land Use City of Wheatland Beale AFB Yuba County Yuba County Yuba County
Mosquito & Vector SYMVCD Beale AFB SYMVCD SYMVCD SYMVCD
Resource Conservation City of Wheatland, YCRCD YCRCD YCRCD YCRCD
YCRCD
BY BURR CONSULTING
A-ix
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Service Marysville Linda Olivehurst Plumas Lake Brophy
Public Safety
Police City of Marysville County Sheriff, CSA 70 County Sheriff, CSA 70 County Sheriff, CSA 70 County Sheriff, CSA 70
Fire & EMS City of Marysville Linda FPD, CSA 52 Olivehurst PUD, Linda FPD, CSAs 66 & 69 Linda FPD
CSAs 66 & 69
Ambulance Bi-County Ambulance Bi-County Ambulance Bi-County Ambulance Bi-County Ambulance Bi-County Ambulance
Utilities
Water Retailers - Domestic Californa Water Service Linda County WD, Olivehurst PUD Olivehurst PUD, Private Wells
Company Private Wells Private wells
Water Retailers - Irrigation None None None Plumas Mutual Water Brophy Water District
Company
Wastewater City of Marysville Linda County WD, Olivehurst PUD, Olivehurst PUD, Private septic
Private septic Private septic Private septic
Solid Waste Yuba-Sutter Disposal Yuba-Sutter Disposal Yuba-Sutter Disposal Yuba-Sutter Disposal Yuba-Sutter Disposal
Public Works
Flood Control Marysville Levee Reclamation District 784 Reclamation District 784, Reclamation District 784, None
Commission CSA 66 CSA 66
Drainage City of Marysville Reclamation District 784, Reclamation District 784, Reclamation District 784, Yuba County
Yuba County, CSA 52 Yuba County, CSAs 48 Yuba County, CSAs 66, 69
(private roads), 66, 69
Street Maintenance City of Marysville Yuba County, CSA 52 Yuba County, CSAs 66 & 69 Yuba County, CSAs 66, 69 Yuba County
Street Maintenance - None None CSA 48 None None
Private Roads
Street Lighting City of Marysville Yuba County, CSA 52 Yuba County, CSAs 48, 66, 69 Yuba County, CSAs 22, 66, 69 None
Community Services
Park Maintenance City of Marysville Yuba County, CSA 52 Olivehurst PUD, CSAs 66, 69 Yuba County, CSAs 66, 69 None
Recreation None None Olivehurst PUD None None
Cemetery City of Marysville None None None None
Library Yuba County Yuba County Yuba County Yuba County Yuba County
Transit Yuba-Sutter Transit Yuba-Sutter Transit Yuba-Sutter Transit Yuba-Sutter Transit None
Land Use City of Marysville Yuba County Yuba County Yuba County Yuba County
Mosquito & Vector SYMVCD SYMVCD SYMVCD SYMVCD SYMVCD
Control
Resource Conservation City of Marysville, YCRCD YCRCD YCRCD YCRCD
YCRCD
A-x PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
PREFACE
Service Hallwood/Honcut Loma Rica/ Dobbins/Oregon House Camptonville Brownsville/Strawberry
Browns Valley Valley
Public Safety
Police County Sheriff, CSA 70 County Sheriff, CSA 70 County Sheriff, CSA 70 County Sheriff, CSA 70 County Sheriff, CSA 70
Fire & EMS District 10- Loma Rica- Dobbins-Oregon House FPD Camptonville CSD Foothill FPD
Hallwood CSD Browns Valley CSD
Ambulance Bi-County Ambulance Bi-County Ambulance Bi-County Ambulance Bi-County Ambulance Bi-County Ambulance
Utilities
Water Retailers - Domestic Private wells Private wells North Yuba WD, Private wells Camptonville CSD, North Yuba WD,
Private wells Private wells
Water Retailers - Irrigation Ramirez WD, Cordua IC, Cordua IC, North Yuba North Yuba WD, Browns Private wells North Yuba WD,
Hallwood IC WD, Browns Valley ID, Valley ID, Private wells Private wells
Private wells
Wastewater Private septic Private septic Private septic Private septic Private septic
Solid Waste Yuba-Sutter Disposal Yuba-Sutter Disposal Yuba-Sutter Disposal Yuba-Sutter Disposal Yuba-Sutter Disposal
Public Works
Flood Control Recalamation District 10 None None None None
Drainage Yuba County Yuba County, CSAs 36, 37, Yuba County , CSAs 44, 45, Yuba County Yuba County, CSA 4, 43
38, 39, 40, 42, 55, 60, 61, 63 53, 54, 59 (private roads) (private roads)
(private roads)
Street Maintenance Yuba County Yuba County Yuba County Yuba County Yuba County
Street Maintenance - CSAs 5, 12, 15, 16, 34, 36, CSAs 2, 5, 8, 11, 44, 45, 53, 54, CSAs 9, 10, 43
Private Roads 37, 38, 39, 40, 55, 60, 61, 63 59
Street Lighting None None CSA 59 None None
Community Services
Park Maintenance None Yuba County None None Yuba County
Recreation None None None None None
Cemetery Peoria CD Peoria CD, Keystone CD, Upham CD, Peoria CD, Camptonville CSD Strawberry Valley CD,
Browns Valley CD Keystone CD Brownsville CD
Library Yuba County Yuba County Yuba County Yuba County Yuba County
Transit None Yuba-Sutter Transit Yuba-Sutter Transit None Yuba-Sutter Transit
Land Use Yuba County Yuba County Yuba County Yuba County Yuba County
Mosquito & Vector SYMVCD SYMVCD None None None
Control
Resource Conservation YCRCD YCRCD YCRCD YCRCD YCRCD
BY BURR CONSULTING
A-xi
CITY OF MARYSVILLE
1. C I T Y O F M A RY S V I L L E
The City of Marysville provides sewer, drainage, law enforcement, street maintenance, park,
cemetery, and planning services. The California Water Services Company provides water services.
The City contracts with the California Department of Forestry for fire and emergency medical
services.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
The City of Marysville incorporated on February 5, 1851. The City is organized as a charter city.
The City’s boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The boundary area extends west to the
Feather River, south to the Yuba River, east along the northern levee of the Yuba River, and north
to Nadene Drive. To the northeast, the City boundary extends to the landfill area, as shown on Map
B-1. The City has a boundary area of 3.67 square miles, of which 3.51 is land and the remainder is
water.1
Boundary History
There have been three annexations to the City’s boundary recorded by the Board of
Equalization. In 1970, 81 acres of City-owned property in the southwest corner was annexed; this
annexation extended the City boundary to the confluence of the Yuba and Feather Rivers.2 In 1980,
the 44-acre Thornetree area, which is located northwest of the previous city limit in the Ellis Lake
area, was annexed.3 In 1984, the 180-acre landfill area to the northeast of the City was annexed; this
area is located along North Levee Road south of SR 20.4
Sphere of Influence History
The City’s SOI was adopted by LAFCO in 1986.5 In adopting the City’s SOI, LAFCO
designated three areas: a primary SOI, an ultimate growth area and an ultimate sphere planning area.
These areas are described below:
1 The area source is the 2000 Census.
2 LAFCO resolution 1970-2.
3 LAFCO resolution 1980-6. This area was annexed to accommodate disposal of weeds removed from Ellis Lake.
4 LAFCO resolution 1984-14.
5 LAFCO resolution 1986-50.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-1
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
• The primary SOI area includes the City’s boundary area as well as territory north of the city
limits. The primary SOI is located north of the Yuba River, and extends north to Woodruff
Lane in the northeast and Ramirez Road in the northwest, east to Kibbe Road, and west to
the Yuba-Sutter County line. LAFCO intended the primary SOI to represent lands where
annexation is encouraged “which can reasonably be expected to develop within the next 20
years” and recommended that the City initiate pre-zoning of this area.6
• The “ultimate growth area” is located north of the City’s primary SOI. This area is bounded
by Ramirez Road in the south and east, the Yuba-Sutter County line in the west, and the
Yuba-Butte County line in the north. LAFCO’s vision was that this area “may not develop
within the next 20 years, but ultimately will be developed.” LAFCO envisioned in 1986 that
this area would ultimately be annexed by the City after 10 years, and encouraged the City to
plan for development in this area “in a timely and logical fashion, including seeking methods
of financing the healthy expansion of City boundaries.”7 LAFCO adopted a policy to
consider the City’s ability to service this area prior to forming any special districts to serve
the area.
• The “ultimate sphere planning area” is located south of the City limits. This rather large area
extends south to the middle of the Plumas Lake Specific Plan area. The southern boundary
of the ultimate sphere planning area is Algodon Road in the southwest and Plumas Arboga
Road in the southeast; the area extends east to Virginia Road and Brophy Road, and to the
Yuba-Sutter County line in the west. LAFCO envisioned this as an area where future
growth would impact the City, and indicated the City “should be included in the review of
proposed development projects for this area.” LAFCO did not envision annexation of this
area, and specifically indicated that annexations in this area (other than City-owned land)
would not be approved. LAFCO recommended that the City not conduct prezoning studies
in this area until LAFCO decided to place the area within the City’s primary SOI.8 LAFCO
policies require the County to refer all proposed development within this area to the City for
review and comment, and require the City to refer all proposed development bordering
unincorporated land to the County for review and comment.9
In interpreting which of these designated areas is indeed part of the City’s SOI, it is important to
understand the legal definition of an SOI at the time of adoption and presently. At the time of SOI
adoption, the Cortese-Knox Act defined a sphere as the “probable ultimate physical boundaries and
service area of a local agency.” In 1993, the Legislature redefined SOIs by striking the word
“ultimate” from the definition in response to LAFCO complaints that the former statutory
definition forced them to plan for a distant future instead of using realistic forecasts.10
6 Yuba LAFCO. City of Marysville Sphere of Influence Study. August 1, 1986, pp. 4, 6. Attachment A to the LAFCO resolution adopting
the City of Marysville SOI.
7 Ibid., pp. 4-7.
8 Ibid., pp. 5, 7.
9 Ibid., p. 7.
10 California Senate. Bill Analysis, Assembly Bill 1335 – Gotch Bill. July 14, 1993, p. 1.
A-2 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF MARYSVILLE
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The Marysville City Council consists of five members elected-at-large to staggered four-year
terms. Current council members are Bill Harris (Mayor), Christina Billeci (Vice Mayor), Michael
Selvidge, Benjamin Wirtschafter, and Jim Kitchen.
The Council meets twice a month on the first and third Tuesday in Council Chambers located at
the Marysville City Hall. The City broadcasts City Council meetings on cable television. Meeting
agendas are posted on the City website and at the Marysville post office four days before a meeting.
The City maintains a website where a calendar of meetings is available, in addition to program
documents, such as the General Plan, contact information, a calendar of events, and service
brochures to inform the public of City services and upcoming projects.
The most recent contested City Council election was held in November 2006. The 53 percent
voter turnout rate for the election is comparable to the countywide gubernatorial election voter
turnout of 53 percent.11
The City demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with
LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with LAFCO
map inquiries and document requests.
With regard to customer service, complaints most often relate to public services and code
enforcement. Complaints may be submitted through phone calls, email, letters, and in-person to the
City Council, department heads or the city manager. Complaints regarding specific services, such as
sidewalk, streetlight and pothole repair, can be submitted through online web forms. The city
manager serves as the City’s ombudsman. Complaints are directed to the appropriate department
and monitored by the city manager to ensure that appropriate action was taken. The City does not
track the number of complaints related to city services, but reported 220 code enforcement
complaints in 2006, of which 130 were abated.
The City updates constituents through regular press releases, mailed notices and updates, and its
website.
11 There were no county-level races in this election for comparison.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-3
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The City limits encompass a wide range of land use areas including residential, commercial,
industrial, civic, and open space. The City considers its customer base to be the residents and
employers located in the City.
Figure A-1-1: Marysville Population, 2000-8
There were 12,719 residents in the
City in January 2008, according to 12,500
DOF. The City’s population has
10,000
grown historically; although, there was
a slight decline in population in 2005
7,500
and 2006, recent population growth
has been fairly stable. The City’s
5,000
population grew by six residents in
2007 (0.05 percent). 2,500
The City is densely populated with 0
a service area of 3.67 square miles. Its
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
population density—3,624 per square
mile—is substantially higher than the County average density of 114 per square mile and the City of
Wheatland density of 2,306 per square mile.
Local business activities include construction, retail, hospitality, medicine, banking and
restaurants. There were approximately 7,807 jobs located within the city limits in 2007, according to
SACOG. The 2005 jobs-housing balance was 1.6 within the city limits; by comparison, there were
1.4 jobs per housing unit on average in Sacramento region cities and 0.8 jobs per housing unit in
unincorporated Yuba County.
Growth Projections
The City’s 1985 General Plan estimated that the maximum population size would be 11,500 at
build-out within the city limits, and did not estimate build-out population in the planning area.12
According to SACOG projections, Marysville will have a population of 12,953 in 2035—assuming
expansion of the city limits north to Laurellen Road, west of SR 70 to the Feather River. These
projections appear to be low as there were already 12,719 residents in the City in 2007.
The 1985 General Plan planning area extends north to Ellis Road; it excludes the northern
portion of the primary SOI area and the entire “ultimate growth area” and ultimate SOI planning
area portions of the SOI designated by LAFCO in 1986. A draft specific plan proposed in 1991
(North Marysville Specific Plan) contemplated growth north of the City limits; however, the plan
was never adopted. The City identified approximately 2,000 acres in the north and east of interest to
develop. The City anticipates that at build-out of the two areas there would be a total of
12 City of Marysville, General Plan, August 1985, p. 18.
A-4 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF MARYSVILLE
approximately 8,000 new dwelling units. There were no planned or proposed developments in these
areas, as of the drafting of this report.
Growth opportunities within the existing city limits are primarily infill and redevelopment
projects. Recent commercial growth has been concentrated at the south end of Ellis Lake and along
the SR 70 corridor. The City has completed three commercial centers adjacent to Ellis Lake. Major
projects currently under construction within the City limits include the replacement of the Caltrans
District 3 Headquarters building, which will accommodate 776 employees in a six-story building,
two office buildings on Third and B streets totaling over 9,000 square feet, and a charter school
expansion of 7,500 square feet. Projects under planning review or pending planning application
submittal include two new offices on Ramirez and Twelfth streets totaling over 8,000 square feet, a
38,000 square foot expansion of a car dealership, a 46,000 square foot industrial complex on Ninth
Street, and a 240,000 square foot expansion of Rideout Memorial Hospital.
The primary growth constraint within the existing city limits is a lack of vacant land. There is
minimal developable land remaining. As of the 1985 General Plan, there were 35 acres of vacant
land remaining (15 residential acres, 10 commercial acres and less than 10 industrial acres). The
levee system that protects the city from flooding also limits growth in that development of areas
north of the City would require new levee infrastructure.
Growth Strategies
The City’s primary growth objective is to encourage commercial development and
redevelopment in the downtown area. The City’s 2004 economic development strategic plan for
downtown Marysville outlines a vision to revitalize downtown and compete with neighboring
commercial centers (e.g., Yuba City). The City’s strategy is to capitalize on its small-town charm and
preserve historic landmarks and character to attract regional spending power and tourists. The City
envisions catalytic redevelopment projects and infill development projects, including rehabilitation
of a number of large buildings, such as the historic Marysville Hotel, the State Theater and
development of several mixed use commercial and housing projects. In addition to typical infill
challenges, constraints include parking and signage deficiencies, blight, and empty storefronts. The
City’s downtown marketing plans call for showcasing the City’s history, improving the presentation
of empty storefronts, and active retention and recruitment of businesses. The City has faced
challenges in implementing this vision and competing with Yuba City as a business location.
The only adjacent growth areas that could accommodate greenfield development is annexable
territory north of the city lying between SRs70 and SR 2013 and towards the community of
Hallwood.14 Due to costs of extending wastewater (west of Jack Slough) and drainage infrastructure
to these areas, viable development would require critical mass, most likely a large proposed
development. The City anticipates that significant investment in drainage and sewage infrastructure
would be necessary, including 100-200 year flood protection. New growth is greatly constrained by
the lack of sufficient flood protection and the need for expansion or upgrade of the levee system in
the north and east. The City estimates that each additional mile of levee structure would cost
approximately $1 million. Expansion of the sewer system would include extension of a sewage
13 City of Marysville, General Plan, August 1985, p. 20.
14 Interview with David Lamon, City of Marysville, July 25, 2007.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-5
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
pipeline across Jack Slough, running under the slough or over a bridge. The City anticipates that all
necessary wastewater and drainage infrastructure would be funded by development impact fees. The
City does not anticipate that significant water infrastructure investments would be needed to serve
the area.
MANAGEMENT
The City had 65.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees in FY 06-07. There were seven
administrative employees, 37 police employees, one-half of an FTE engaged in administering fire
protection activities, and 21 community services employees.
The city manager reports directly to the City Council. The City Council meets with staff and
residents in joint study sessions to discuss and develop long-range goals and objectives.
The city manager directly oversees six senior staff. The six department and sub-department
heads have management responsibilities and oversee department staff. The City conducts employee
(including contract employee) performance evaluations on an annual basis. Weekly senior staff
meetings monitor staff productivity and evaluate City operations. The City did not identify any
benchmarking practices.
The City last adopted a General Plan update in 1985. The City’s Housing Element was most
recently updated in 2003. In addition, the City adopted an economic development strategic plan for
the downtown area in August 2004 and prepared a Downtown Marysville Marketing Plan in 2006.
The Stormwater Management Plan was updated in 2004. The City prepared a parking plan for the
downtown in 2005 and completed a comprehensive update to the Zoning Code. The City has not
adopted any master plans.
Financial planning efforts include an adopted annual budget and annual financial audits. Long-
term capital improvement outlays through 2012 are outlined in the City’s 2007 Capital Improvement
Plan.
The City identified its accomplishments in the last five years as several police department
commendations, elimination of the budget deficit, and successful new commercial development.
FINANCING
The City’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and legal
limitations on revenue increases. The MSR found the City has managed to provide adequate
services within these resource constraints with some exceptions. The City requires additional capital
financing to meet wastewater regulatory standards. The City has not implemented best practices by
annually adjusting wastewater rates to reflect current costs; its most recent wastewater rate increase
was in 1999. Additional capital financing is needed for street improvements to alleviate freeway
traffic and associated congestion within city limits. At present, the only available financing source to
address capital needs at the inactive, historic cemetery is the general fund; additional financing is
needed.
The City prepares audited financial reports on an annual basis and practices appropriate use of
fund accounting. The City’s major governmental funds are its general fund, gas tax fund, capital
A-6 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF MARYSVILLE
projects funds, community development block grant fund, and redevelopment funds. The City
reports its wastewater activities in an enterprise fund.
The City finances police, fire, public works, park and recreation, and economic development
services through its general fund. Marysville’s general fund revenues were $8.3 million in FY 06-07,
which amounted to $622 per capita. Primary general fund revenue sources were sales tax (22
percent), property tax (13 percent), vehicle code fines (14 percent), vehicle license fees (12 percent)
and YSDI landfill tipping fees (8 percent).15
The City had $1.7 million in long-term debt associated with governmental activities at the end of
FY 06-07, which consists of lease revenue bonds, capital lease obligations and compensated
absences. The City had $1.3 million in outstanding bonded debt related to governmental activities.
The lease revenue bonds financed city hall improvements and redevelopment activities; the capital
lease obligation financed the acquisition of street lighting in 1999. The City’s wastewater enterprise
carried debt of $7.5 million, of which $5 million is new debt for acquisition of a commercial parcel
and $1.8 million in debt is a State Water Resources Control Board loan that financed wastewater
system improvements in 1995.
By way of financial reserves, the City had an unreserved general fund balance of $1.9 million at
the end of FY 06-07. This amounted to 16 percent of the City’s general fund expenditures. The
City maintained approximately two months of general fund working capital. The City’s special
revenue funds and capital project funds had a total unreserved balance of -$0.9 million at the end of
FY 06-07, primarily due to a negative capital projects fund balance. The proprietary fund had
unrestricted net assets of -$0.4 million. The City has no formal policy on target financial reserves.
The City engages in joint financing arrangements with the District 10-Hallwood Community
Services District. The CSD contracts with the City for fire protection services to the area north of
the city limits. Hallwood CSD contributes $100,000 annually. The City provides retirement-related
benefits to its employees through the California Public Employees Retirement System, a multiple-
employer defined benefit plan for public employees. The City participates in the State’s Local
Agency Investment Fund to pool certain investments of fund balances with other public agencies.
As a member of the Northern California Cities Self Insurance Fund, the City pools workers
compensation risk with 20 other cities, and also purchases excess liability insurance.
15 Property tax revenues exclude in-lieu sales tax. Vehicle license fees and related revenues include in-lieu property taxes related to
vehicle license fees.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-7
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
WASTEWATER SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
The City provides wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services. The City owns and
operates a wastewater treatment plant and owns, inspects, cleans and repairs sewer collection
structures in the service area such as pipes, manholes and lift stations. Preventative maintenance
services include closed-circuit television inspection of sewer lines and regular system flushes. A
portion of treated effluent is used as recycled water for irrigation of an orchard and soccer fields.
LOCATION
The City provides wastewater services to all structures within the City limits. Service is not
provided outside of the City limits. Recycled water is available in limited areas.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Key infrastructure includes the wastewater treatment plant and percolation/evaporation disposal
ponds.
The WWTP, which is located just north of the Yuba River, provides secondary treatment to
most wastewater and tertiary treatment to a portion. The plant has a design capacity of 2.1 mgd
(secondary)16 and 0.8 mgd (tertiary). While the design capacity of the components of the treatment
plant may total 2.9 mgd, the capacity of the percolation ponds is the limiting factor on plant
capacity. The RWQCB permits the City to discharge up to 1.7 mgd in (monthly) ADWF. The
average dry weather flow is 1.35 mgd and peak day wet weather flow is 2.4 mgd. Treatment
processes are sedimentation, flotation, sludge digestion, and chemical treatment.
Most of the treated effluent is discharged into percolation/evaporation ponds, and the
remainder is treated to tertiary standards and discharged to Becksworth Riverfront Park to irrigate
soccer fields. Some of the percolation/evaporation pond capacity (50 acres) is located adjacent to
the WWTP and the remainder (27 acres) is located south of the Yuba River. The total discharge
capacity at the ponds is 1.7 mgd. The city transports effluent via pipeline under the Yuba River to
the offsite ponds and to irrigate a walnut orchard.
Occasionally, peak wet weather flow exceeds 1.7 mgd; however the ponds are managed to
handle the temporary excess flow such that the ponds meet freeboard requirements. During periods
of dry weather some ponds are removed from service and used to address any wet weather flow.17
16 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Draft Yuba-Sutter Regional Recycled Water Facilities Master Plan, 2006, p. 46.
17 Interview with David Lamon, City of Marysville, May 20, 2008.
A-8 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF MARYSVILLE
The collection system includes 38 miles of sewer pipe lines, three lift stations, and three lift
basins. Portions of the sewer collection system were originally constructed in the early 1900’s;
portions of the system were expanded and replaced over the years, most recently in the 1980s. The
pipes are made primarily of clay with some concrete and transite.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-9
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-1-2: Marysville Wastewater Profile
Wastewater Service Configuration and Demand
Service Configuration
Service Type Service Provider(s)
Wastewater Collection Direct
Wastewater Treatment Direct
Wastewater Disposal Direct
Recycled Water Direct (limited service area)
Onsite Septic Systems in Service Area
None
Septic Regulatory/Policies
Septic systems are not allowed within the city limits.
Service Demand FY 05-06
Connections Flow (mgd)
Type Total Outside Bounds Average Peak
Total 5,244 0 1 .4 2 .4
Residential 4,750 0 0 .9 1 .55
Commercial 494 0 0 .5 0 .85
Industrial 0 0 NA NA
Projected Demand
2006 2010 2015 2020
Flow (mgd) 1.36 NP NP NP
Note:
(1) NA: Not Applicable; NP: Not Provided.
continued
A-10 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF MARYSVILLE
Wastewater Infrastructure
Wastewater Treatment & Disposal Infrastructure
System Overview
Treatment level: Effluent is treated primarily to a secondary level. A portion is treated to tertiary levels for
irrigation.
Disposal method: Secondary treated effluent is discharged into percolation ponds and used for walnut orchard
irrigation. Tertiary treated effluent is sprayed on nearby soccer fields.
Facility Name Capacity Condition Yr Built
Marysville Wastewater Treatment Plant 2.1 mgd1 Good 1949
Tertiary Treatment Unit 0.8 mgd Good 1990s
33 evaporation/percolation ponds 1.7 mgd Good 1962/1989
Treatment Plant Daily Flow Average Dry Peak Wet
Marysville WWTP 1.36 2.4
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The evaporation/percolation ponds have reached capacity (CVRWQCB Order No. R5-2004-0072, p. 1).
According to the City's waste discharge requirements, the City needs to expand pond capacity and/or a reduce
infiltration/inflow. The off-site percolation ponds are not protected from a 100-year flood event, which the
RWQCB required by April 2006. The City failed to comply with this requirement. The City submitted a
feasibility study to RWQCB in June 2007, outlining the two preferred options to protect the percolation
ponds—a regional WWTP with LCWD or modification of the City's plant to directly discharge to the river.
The recommended option has not yet been determined.
Wastewater Collection & Distribution Infrastructure
Collection & Distribution Infrastructure
Sewer Pipe Miles 38 Manholes 500
Sewage Lift Stations 3
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
Portions of the pipelines were originally installed in the early 1900s and need ongoing pipe repair and
replacement, according to the City. A majority of the collection system is in good condition, with
approximately five percent in fair condition. Infrastructure needs include replacement of several rear-lot line
sewer mains and the sewer line along Twelfth Street and J Street. Sewer mains, particularly those along rear lot
lines, are often shallow, prone to root problems, and difficult to access for maintenance.
Infiltration and Inflow
The City plans to assess I/I over the 2007-08 and 2008-09 wet weather cycles and complete a study on the
issue in 2009.
Wastewater Regional Collaboration and Facility Sharing
Regional Collaboration
In collaboration with Yuba City and Linda County Water District, the City is assessing the potential for a
regional recycled water facility.
Facility Sharing Opportunities
The City is assessing the feasibility of sharing a WWTP with LCWD.
Note:
(1) The design capacity as reported in the Draft Yuba-Sutter Regional Recycled Water Plan, pg. 46.
continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-11
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Wastewater Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning
Sewage Spills/Overflows1
Date Spill Site Cause Gallons Contained?
3/11/2000 Percolation Pond Hole in the pond bank 2-3 million No
3/22/2001 Percolation Pond Overfill of pond 1,000 Yes
12/10/2003 Irrigation Field Treated effluent ran off field into a 1 0,000 No
storm drain
Service Adequacy Indicators
Reported Spills 3 Sewer Overflows 20062 3
Treatment Effectiveness Rate3 100% Sewer Overflow Rate4 8
Total Employees (FTEs) 6 Response Time Policy5 30 mins
Employees Certified? Yes Response Time Actual 30 mins
Regulatory Compliance Record
RWQCB issued a Cease and Desist Order in 2004, due to failure by the City to meet waste discharge requirements
outlined in the permit, including failure to provide 100-year flood protection to the ponds, nonoperational TTU,
insufficient flow meters to determine pipeline leakages under the Yuba River, and insufficient lining of the sludge
drying beds. RWQCB issued a Administrative Civil Liability Complaint in 2005, for failure to comply and the City
was fined $15,000. The City had complied with all portions of the Cease and Desist Order, with the exception of
flood protection for the ponds, as of the drafting of this report. The City submitted a feasibility study to RWQCB in
June 2007, outlining the two preferred options to protect the percolation ponds—a regional WWTP with LCWD or
modification of the City's plant to directly discharge to the river. The recommended option has not yet been
determined. The City anticipates completion of the flood protection plan by 2012.
Source Control and Pollution Prevention Practices
A study is underway to identify potential problem dischargers to be regulated, according to the City.
Collection System Inspection Practices
The City performs visual and CCTV inspections on problematic sewer lines about 5-10 times a year. The City does
not perform regular inspections.
Service Challenges
The City reported compliance with changing state regulations as a challenge to providing service.
Wastewater Planning
Plan Description Planning Horizon
Wastewater Master Plan None NA
Wastewater Collection Plan None NA
Capital Improvement Plan 2004 2009
General Plan (Resource) 1985 Not Reported
Plan Item/Element Description
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Plan 2004
Seismic/Emergency Plan 2004
Wet Weather Flow Capacity Plan 2004
Other Relevant Plans
None
Notes:
(1) Includes sewage spills/overflows reported to the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services between 2000 and 2005.
(2) Total number of overflows experienced (excluding those caused by customers) in 2006 as reported by the agency.
(3) Total number of non-compliance days in 2006 per 365 days.
(4) Sewer overflows (excluding those caused by customers) per 100 miles of collection piping.
(5) Agency policy, guidelines or goals for response time between service call and clearing the blockage.
A-12 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF MARYSVILLE
Wastewater Rates and Financing
Rate Zones
Wastewater rates are the same throughout the City.
Rate-Setting Procedures
Policy Description: Service charges are based on a flat rate of $13.04 per residence. Rates are updated on an as-
needed basis.
Last Rate Change 1/1/1999 Frequency of Rate Changes Every 5-10 years
Wastewater Development Fees and Requirements
Connection Fee Approach The connection fee is a flat rate based on land use type.
Connection Fee Timing Upon building permit issuance.
Connection Fee Amount1 Residential: $1,650
Land Dedication Req. None
Development Impact Fee None
Wastewater Enterprise Revenues, FY05-06 Expenditures, FY 05-06
Source Amount % Amount
Total $1,066,924 100% Total $1,407,788
Rates & Charges $1,043,476 98% Administration $86,566
Property Tax $0 0% O & M $929,551
Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $278,415
Interest $23,448 2% Debt $113,256
Connection Fees $21,630 2% Other $0
Notes:
(1) Connection fee amount is calculated for a single-family home and an average-sized restaurant.
(2) Miscellaneous revenue not displayed.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-13
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
FIRE & EMS SERVICES
NATURE AND EXTENT
The City provides fire-related services. Since 1997, all City fire services have been provided
through a contract with the California Department of Forestry (CALFIRE). CALFIRE Battalion 19
staffs administrative services and operations on a reimbursable basis. The City owns and maintains
all fire facilities and equipment directly.
CALFIRE provides fire suppression and prevention, Basic Life Support (BLS) for medical
emergencies, rescue, hazardous materials response, arson and fire investigation, education services,
fire prevention inspection, plan checking, and code development. Fire suppression and protection
services include structural, vehicle and vegetation fires. CALFIRE provides BLS until Bi-County
Ambulance, a privately owned ambulance company, arrives to perform Advanced Life Support and
provide ambulance transport services.
In the fire chief’s capacity as the City’s fire marshal, the chief is responsible for checking all new
building plans to ensure compliance with the fire code, in addition to conducting inspections of new
business sites upon opening and annual inspections of existing businesses. According to the 2005
CALFIRE Fire Management Plan, in addition to fire suppression, the battalion anticipated staff time
of 120 hours of commercial business inspection, 24 hours of updating fire pre-plans for businesses,
and 63 hours conducting fire plan review.
Marysville FD provides specialized hazardous material (hazmat) response to the state Office of
Emergency Services in Region 3, as well as Yuba and Nevada counties and the City of Wheatland by
agreement. The battalion received 26 calls for hazmat service in 2006.
CALFIRE staff includes one battalion chief, three captains, five fire engineers, 12 reserves, and
an administrative assistant. Full-time personnel are employees of the state, and receive state training
prior to assignment. The station is staffed with one battalion chief, one fire captain, and two fire
apparatus engineers on a 24-hour basis. Reserves provide support on an on-call basis, and are
compensated at $7.66 to $9.25 per hour.
Dispatch Services
All 911 calls made from land lines within the city limits are automatically routed to the Marysville
Police Department (MPD). Radio dispatch services are provided by MPD; hence, MPD is the
Public Safety Answering Point. Once the dispatcher determines a call requires fire department
response, it directly dispatches CALFIRE personnel. For medical emergencies, the MPD calls Bi-
County Ambulance and the company dispatches the nearest ambulance. Most calls to 911 from
cellular phones are initially routed MPD, while some are routed to the California Highway Patrol
(CHP). CHP relays the call to MPD, and dispatching then follows the same protocol as for 911 calls
from land lines.
A-14 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF MARYSVILLE
LOCATION
The City provides for coverage of the existing city limits through its CALFIRE contract, and
arranges for CALFIRE service to District 10-Hallwood CSD, north of the city limits, in the CSD’s
contract with the City. Due to proximity, mutual aid is often provided by CALFIRE’s Marysville
station outside of the City limits to Linda FD and Yuba City FD service areas. Mutual aid is
reciprocated by both agencies when events require additional staffing within the city limits.
CALFIRE also provides contract fire services to Hallwood Community Service District, to the north
of the City bounds, and hazardous material response to Yuba and Nevada counties and the City of
Wheatland by agreement.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The City owns one fire station within the City limits at 107 Ninth Street. The station is used for
operations, equipment storage, and training. A drill tower, located on Seventh Street, is used for
training purposes.
The fire station was built in 1959. CALFIRE reported that it is in fair condition and requires a
new roof, and exhaust system, upgraded lighting, and a new driveway. The bathroom plumbing was
upgraded in 2007.
The training tower is also in fair condition and is in need of remodeling. Infrastructure needs
identified by CALFIRE include new paint, roof repairs, and upgrading of lighting throughout the
facility.
Vehicles at the City station include a structure fire engine, a reserve engine, a medical and vehicle
accident engine, two wildland fire engines, a ladder truck, a hazmat unit, a squad truck, and a water
tender. According to CALFIRE, there are five vehicles over 20 years old that are in need of
replacement—the ladder truck, the structure engine, the water tender, and both wildland engines.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-15
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-1-3: Marysville Fire Profile
Fire Service
Service Configuration Service Demand
Fire Suppression CDF Statistical Base Year 2006
EMS CDF Total Service Calls 2,259
Ambulance Transport Bi-County % EMS 61.5%
Hazardous Materials CDF % Fire 10.4%
Air Rescue & Ambulance Helicopter CDF % False Alarm 11.5%
Fire Suppression Helicopter CDF % Fire & False Alarm 21.9%
Public Safety Answering Point Yuba County Sheriff % Other 16.6%
Fire/EMS Dispatch Marysville PD Calls per 1,000 people 178
Service Adequacy Resources
ISO Rating Class 4 Fire Stations in City 1
Median Response Time 4:00 Fire Stations Serving City 1
90th Percentile Response Time 6:00 Sq. Miles per Station1 3.7
Response Time Base Year 2007 Total Staff 22
Training Total Full-time Sworn Staff 8
Training for reserves is held two hours per week. Total On-call Sworn Staff 13
Sworn Staff per Station 21
Sworn Staff per 1,000 2
Full-time Sworn Staff per 1,000 1
Service Challenges Staffing Base Year 2007
CDF identified low staffing as a challenge to providing adequate service Fire Flow Water Reserves 0.8 mg
within the City limits. Fire Flow Pressure 50+ psi
Facilities
Station Location Condition Staff per Shift Apparatus
Marysville 107 Ninth St., Marysville Fair 1 Battallion Chief Engine 211
Fire 1 Captain Engine 214
Station 1 2 Apparatus Engineers Engine 216
Truck 217
Hazmat Unit
Engine 236
Squad 237
Water Tender 238
Drill Seventh St., Marysville Fair None None
Tower
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
According to CDF, there are five vehicles over 20 years old that need replacement, including a ladder truck, a structure
engine, a water tender, and two wildland engines. The station needs a new roof, an air exhaust system, upgraded lighting,
and the driveway needs to be replaced due to cracked cement. Infrastructure needs identified for the training tower include
new paint, roofing, and electrical work.
Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Mutual/Automatic Aid Providers
Current Practices: The training facilities can be used on request. Yuba College
uses the facilities for fire academy classes. CDF (Nevada Yuba Placer) and Yuba
County Sherriff have also made use of the training room. Linda FD, OPUD, WFA, Yuba City FD,
Opportunities: CDF is considering using Yuba County for dispatch services to Sutter County, Beale AFB, Loma Rica -
enhance interoperability as all valley fire departments would then be dispatched Browns Valley CSD
by the same entity and mutual aid partners would have improved access to
frequencies.
Notes:
(1) Service area of the Marysville Fire Station includes Hallwood CSD. Hallwood CSD also receives service from an unstaffed station.
A-16 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF MARYSVILLE
LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
NATURE AND EXTENT
The Marysville Police Department (MPD) is the primary provider of police services within the
City’s bounds. MPD provides law enforcement in the form of uniformed patrol and investigative
services, traffic and parking enforcement, crime prevention, canine services, animal control services,
dispatch, police support on the high school campus, and permit regulation for taxis, burglar alarms
and massage therapists. MPD relies on the Yuba County Sheriff for temporary and long-term
holding facilities animal holding, and search and rescue services.
Crime lab services are provided by the California Department of Justice at no charge, and
SWAT services are provided by the Metro SWAT team comprised of the Yuba City Police
Department and MPD.
City police services are provided by a full-time chief, one captain, five sergeants, 15 full-time
police officers, 20 reserves, 14 non-sworn employees and 13 volunteers. With this staffing level, the
Department provides 24-hour services.
There are on average three full-time officers on duty for 12-hour shifts at any given time. Law
enforcement services are provided by sworn officers who patrol two beats (east and west) around
the City on an ongoing basis. Reserves provide volunteer on-call support, usually covering about 20
percent of all routine beat assignments.
MPD does not provide academy training. All recruits are required to have completed POST
academy training prior to the date of hire. In addition, staff attends various POST courses covering
topics such as field training, interview and interrogation, instructional technology, firearms and
defensive tactics, and assertive supervision. Staff attended a total of 2,224 hours of POST courses in
2006—averaging 52 training hours per employee. MPD reports that it is meeting all POST
standards. MPD requires field training for recruits and probationers for a period of three to 18
weeks at 40 hours per week.
The Traffic Bureau, comprised of a traffic officer and a non-sworn parking enforcement officer,
provide full-time traffic enforcement services.
Through a regional collaborative effort, MPD provides narcotics law enforcement. The City is a
member of the Net-5 joint narcotics task force team with Yuba and Sutter County sheriff
departments, Yuba City PD, CHP, and the State Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement. The task force
is in its 28th year of operation. It targets illegal drug use, possession, manufacturing and sales in
Yuba and Sutter counties.
The Special Enforcement Team (SET) was established in 2006 to respond to gang violence,
drug-related crimes, and stolen vehicles. SET is staffed by one sergeant and three reserve officers.
Full-time officers may work on the team by using flex time, in order to reduce overtime. From the
launching of the task force in October 2006 through December 2006, SET was responsible for 262
arrests, including 50 drug-related arrests and 38 parolees at large.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-17
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Dispatch
The City provides dispatch services with nine dedicated staff. All 911 calls from land lines
within the City limits are initially routed to the Marysville Police Department—the Public Safety
Answering Point. Most calls from cellular phones are initially routed to MPD; however some are
routed to the California Highway Patrol (CHP). CHP relays police-related calls to the Department.
Once the city dispatcher determines a call requires police response, it directly dispatches city police
personnel. Dispatch services are provided by one full-time records/dispatch supervisor, four full-
time dispatchers, and three reserve dispatchers.
Figure A-1-4: Marysville Crime Rate, 1996-2006
Demand 700
600
Similar to the state, there has been a 500
general decrease in the number of 400
serious crimes in the City of Marysville 300
where MPD has jurisdiction. The crime 200
rate, illustrated in Figure A-1-4, shows 100
the occurrence of violent crimes and 0
property crimes (excluding larcenies
under $400) per 10,000 people. Crime
declined in Marysville between 1996 and
1999, increased between 1999 and 2002,
then declined again until 2004. Between
2004 and 2006; serious crime increased from 349 to 397 reported instances for every 10,000
residents. California State as a whole saw a decrease in the serious crime rate in the same time
period—from 332 per 10,000 in 1996 to 282 in 2006.
Similarly, calls for service between 2004 and 2005 increased from 17,412 to 20,132. However, in
2006, the number of calls for service to MPD declined by over five percent from 2005—indicating a
general decline in demand for service.
Complaints
Citizen complaints can be submitted via a formal complaint form or by mail. In 2006, the
Department received two complaints, one for excessive use of force and one for use of a taser. All
complaints are reviewed by a sergeant, and then forwarded to the chief who determines if the
complaint should be handled administratively or if an Internal Affairs investigation is warranted.
Accomplishments
In 2006, the accomplishments of MPD include the establishment of SET, the re-establishment
of the cadet program, receipt of an Alcohol Beverage Control grant for $60,000 to target alcohol-
related crimes, operation of the Avoid the 9 Anti-DUI Task Force, and procurement of a grant from
Homeland Security to purchase interoperability equipment.
A-18 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
stnediser
000,01
rep
semirC
6991 7991 8991 9991 0002 1002 2002 3002 4002 5002 6002
Violent Property
CITY OF MARYSVILLE
LOCATION
The Marysville Police Department has jurisdiction within the City bounds. Yuba City Police
Department, Sutter County Sheriff’s Department, and Yuba County Sheriff’s Department
occasionally provide back-up when required within the City limits. MPD responds outside of its
bounds to provide support to CHP and Yuba and Sutter counties in the event that they are not
capable of a timely response. MPD does not provide contract services to other jurisdictions.
INFRASTRUCTURE
MPD operates out of the City Hall located downtown on Sixth Street. The building is also used
by the City public works and planning departments. The station is shared with the Parent Exchange
Network, which uses the facility as a safe place to exchange custody of children. The station is open
for meetings of the Yuba County parole and probation department and other regional task forces.
The station was built in the 1930s as part of a federal project. The station originally housed jail
facilities, which were converted to office space in the 1960’s. There have been no other major
upgrades or renovations. The station is in fair condition and requires new carpeting, paint and bullet
proof glass. MPD identified a need for additional space for all staff areas and locker rooms. There
are no plans for significant upgrades or expansions in the City’s CIP planning horizon.
Vehicles used to provide police services include a pick-up truck, 12 Crown Victoria patrol cars,
two watch commander vehicles, five unmarked cars, two motorcycles, and the Yuba County
Command Post. The command post is a mobile command post for large emergency events. It is
co-owned by MPD, the Sheriff, Wheatland PD, OES, all county fire districts, and the Office of
Health Services. MPD reported a need to replace all 12 patrol vehicles, all of which have in excess
of 100,000 miles. Due to budgeting constraints, MPD purchased used patrol cars from CHP. Each
vehicle is equipped with a removable laptop for officers to write reports and download at the
headquarters upon return to the station.
The City is currently built-out and does not anticipate growth or increased demand for services
in the near future. Should the City choose to expand, then MPD would require additional officers
and potentially a new station to accommodate additional demand.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-19
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-1-5: Marysville Police Service Profile
Police Service
Service Configuration Service Demand
Patrol Direct Statistical Base Year 2006
Dispatch Direct Total Service Calls 19,025
Search and Rescue Sheriff 911 Calls1 4,124
Crime Lab DOJ Non-Emergency Calls 14,107
SWAT Metro SWAT2 % 911 Calls 22%
Temporary Holding Sheriff 911 Calls per 1,000 people 324
Bomb Squad Beale AFB3 Arrests 2006 2,106
Canine Services Direct Citations 21,975
Academy Training Yuba College Violent Crime Rate per 10,0004 87
POST Certified? Yes Property Crime Rate per 10,000 320
Service Adequacy Resources
Complaints in 2006 2 Total Staff 56
Priority One Response Time5 4:40 Full-time Sworn Staff 22
Response Time Base Year 2006 Reserves 20
Response Time Note None Sworn Staff per 1,000 3
Property Clearance Rate6 16% Staffing Base Year FY 2006-07
Violent Clearance Rate 47% Marked Police Vehicles 10
Service Challenges
None reported.
Facilities
Station Location Condition Other Purpose Built
Marysville Police 316 6th St., Marysville Fair Marysville City Hall and city 1940s
Department public works and planning
departments
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
The station requires new carpeting, paint and bullet proof glass. MPD identified a need for additional space for all staff
areas and locker rooms.
Regional Collaboration
MPD reported that officers participate in a number of regional task forces, which benefit the City by providing
additional special enforcement support when needed, including the Narcotic Enforcement Team (NET-5); the Yuba-
Sutter Anti-Gang Enforcement Team (YSAGE); the Violent Gangs, Fugitive and Sexual Predators (VGFSP) Safe
Streets Task Force; the Multi-Agency Terrorism Task Force (TTF); the Yuba-Sutter Stolen Vehicle Special Enforcement
Team (VSET); North State Area Gang Enforcement Team (NSAGE); Yuba County Sexual Assault Response Team
(SART); Avoid the 9 anti-DUI campaign, Alcoholic Beverage Control Task Force, Yuba County Child Death Review
Team, the Yuba County Elder Abuse Coalition, the Yuba County Tobacco Coalition, and the Yuba County Multi-
Disciplinary Interview Center. The City did not identify opportunities for facility sharing in the future.
Notes:
(1) 911 calls from cellular phones are not included.
(2) The Metro SWAT team is comprised of MPD and the Yuba City Police Department.
(3) Yuba County Sheriff reported that Beale AFB provides ordinance disposal but may not render civilian ordinances safe unless it poses an
imminent threat. Sacramento County Sheriff provided bomb disposal service for the most recent incident in the County. Placer and Butte County
Sheriff Departments also have bomb disposal units that may be used for service.
(4) Crime rates are based on crimes reported in 2005.
(5) The average response time reported is for all calls.
(6) Clearance rates are aggregated for the period between 2000 and 2006.
A-20 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF MARYSVILLE
STREET SERVICES
NATURE AND EXTENT
The City provides street services, including maintenance of structural roadway sections (asphalt
and base material), damaged curbs and sidewalks, gutters and road-related drainage infrastructure.
LOCATION
Street services are provided within the City’s boundaries. The City does not provide street
services outside its bounds. Caltrans provides road-related services to SR 20 and 70 within the City’s
limits.
KEY INFRASTRUCTURE
The City’s key infrastructure includes 58.7 centerline miles of roads and five signalized
intersections. The City maintains the 14th Street underpass and jointly maintains the 5th Street
Bridge across Feather River, along with Yuba County, Yuba City and Sutter County. The City owns
1,176 street lights.
Upcoming infrastructure improvements by the City include the reconstruction of Rideout Way
from Hall Street to Covillaud Street by FY 08-09 ($481,000), the reconstruction of 3rd Street from E
Street to J Street ($750,000) by FY 10-11, the reconstruction of Huston Street from Gengler Way to
Johnson Street ($950,000) by FY 10-11, and the reconstruction of Del Pero Street, Edwards Street
and Foust Street between East 22nd Street and Johnson Way ($675,000) by FY 11-12.
A long-range infrastructure improvement planned by the City is the rebuilding and widening of
the 5th Street bridge to six lanes across the Feather River to Yuba City. The bridge rebuilding and
widening is estimated to cost in excess of $70 million and be completed by 2018.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-21
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-1-6: Marysville Street Service Profile
Street Service Configuration and Demand
Service Configuration
Street Maintenance Direct Street Lighting Direct
Street Sweeping Yuba Sutter Disposal Signal Maintenance Direct
Street Sweeping Frequency: Bi-weekly in residential areas, every other weekday in commercial areas.
Service Demand
Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel, 20051 134,580 Service Requests 2006 35
DVMT per Street Mile, 20052 2,293 Service Calls per Street Mile 0.6
Circulation Description
SR 20 and 70 are the main thoroughfares in the City. SR 20 generally runs east and west connecting with Yuba City
via the Feather River Bridge in the west, and proceeds northeast from the City to Grass Valley. SR 70 runs north
and south through the City connecting to Oroville in the north and Sacramento in the south. SR 20 proceeds along
9th St., 10th St., 12th St., E St., and B St. within the City, with SR 70 proceeding along B St., E St. and 9th St. 5th
St. also serves as an arterial within the City. North-south collectors within the city are Ramirez St., Hall St.,
Covillaud St., and H St. East-west collectors within the city are 22nd St., E. 10th St. and 14th St. The remainder of
the streets within the City are local streets.
Infrastructure
Street Centerline Miles 58.7 Signalized Intersections 5
Urban Minor Arterial 9.9 Street Lights 1,176
Urban Collector 12.7 Bridges and Tunnels3 2
Urban Local 36.1
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
Reconstruction of 0.6 miles of Rideout Wy. from Hall St. to Covillaud St. is scheduled to be completed in FY 08-
09. The City reports that other street infrastructure upgrades are constrained by the transportation budget and
project funding.
Major Structures Description Condition Provider
Feather River Bridge/SR 20 Across Feather River to Yuba City NA Caltrans
Yuba River Bridge/SR 70 Across Yuba River to Linda NA Caltrans
Twin Cities Memorial Bridge/5th Across Feather River to Yuba City NA Joint with Yuba City/Sutter
St. County/Yuba County
A St. Railroad Bridge Crossing over 12th St./SR 20 NA UPRR
A St. Railroad Trestle From 2nd St. to 4th St. NA UPRR
B St. Railroad Bridge Crossing over B St./SR 70 NA UPRR
14th St. Underpass Under UPRR tracks west of I St. Good City of Marysville
Note:
(1) Daily vehicle miles of travel (DVMT) in 2006, according to Caltrans.
(2) 2006 DVMT divided by total mileage of County-maintained public road system in 2006.
(3) Of the two bridges within the City, one is maintained by the City and the other is maintained jointly with Yuba County, Yuba
City and Sutter County.
continued
A-22 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF MARYSVILLE
Street Service Adequacy and Planning
Pavement Condition
Pavement Management System Yes Street Miles Seal Coated FY 05-06 1.52
PMS last update 2001 % Seal Coated 3%
Pavement Condition Index 2006 80 Miles Rehabilitated FY 05-06 1.6
Maintenance Cost per Street Mile1 $29,268 % Rehabilitated 3%
Average Street Repair Reponse Time2 Not Tracked Miles Needing Rehabilitation 7.5
Reponse Time Policy No Policy % Needing Rehabilitation 13%
Level of Service (LOS)
Current: The City reports that no City-maintained streets operate at LOS E or F. SR 20 and 70 operate
at LOS E or F but are maintained by Caltrans.
Policy: The City does not currently have a standard LOS policy.
Build-Out: The City is fully built out.
Planning Year Planning Horizon
City of Marysville General Plan 1984 20 years
Capital Improvement Plan 2004 5 years
Regional Collaboration and Facility Sharing
Collaboration:
The City participates in regional planning as a member of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments. Also, the
city intends to investigate the potential for Yuba Sutter Disposal to share the costs of rehabilitating residential roads.
Existing Facility Sharing:
Yuba Sutter Transit helps to maintain the street areas adjacent to their more heavily used bus stops.
Facility Sharing Opportunities:
None identified
Service Challenges
Service challenges arise from the large volume of traffic that passes through the City on SR 20 and 70. The traffic
signals in the City frequently cause traffic to back up, causing congestion.
Note:
(1) City road maintenance expenditures in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-23
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Street Service Financing
General Financing Approach
Street services are financed primarily by gas tax revenues and federal revenues.
Development Fees and Requirements
Residential (per unit) Single Family: None Multi-Family: None
Non-residential (per 1,000 sq. ft.) Commercial: None Industrial: None
Development Requirements: None
Streets and Roads Financial Information, FY 05-061
Revenues Expenditures
Total $1,798,644 Total6 $2,350,599
Gas Tax $242,410 Maintenance $2,078,350
VLF In-Lieu2 $0 Street $1,710,666
Traffic Congestion Relief $57,161 Lights & Signals $324,977
Other State Revenues $0 Other $42,707
Federal Revenues $1,035,000 Capital $103,583
Local Revenues3 $0 New Construction7 $0
City Revenues $464,073 Reconstruction $0
Interest $9,871 Signals & Lights $0
Bond proceeds $0 Other $103,583
General Fund $452,644 Undistributed Costs8 $10,965
Assessments4 $0 Plant & Equipment $0
Other5 $1,558 Other Public Agencies $0
Note:
(1) Financial information as reported in the Annual Street Report to the State Controller.
(2) Includes motor vehicle license fees used for street purposes and/or being accounted for in a street-purpose fund.
(3) Includes other funds distributed by the local agencies other than the County and the cities.
(4) Includes benefit assessments (also called special assessments) collected to finance street improvements and street lighting under
the Landscape and Lighting Assessment Act of 1972, the Improvement Act of 1913 and the Street Lighting Act of 1931.
(5) Includes traffic safety funds, development impact fees, redevelopment agency funds, and miscellaneous local sources.
Excludes payments from other governmental agencies for contract services.
(6) Total before adjustments for reporting changes since prior years.
(7) Includes new construction and betterment of streets, bridges, lighting facilities, and storm drains, as well as right-of-way
acquisitions.
(8) Engineering costs that are not allocated to other expenditure categories or projects because the work is not specific or such
allocation is impractical. Administration cost is an equitable pro rata share of expenditures for the supervision and management of
street-purpose activities.
A-24 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF MARYSVILLE
DRAINAGE SERVICES
NATURE AND EXTENT
The City of Marysville maintains internal drainage facilities and provides stormwater services.
MLD is responsible for maintenance of project levees protecting the City boundary area and a
roadway along an SR 20 evacuation route that is protected by levee spurs.
The City of Marysville provides stormwater services. To the maximum extent practicable, it
must develop stormwater plans and implement best management practices (BMPs). BMPs include
program elements, such as stenciling, public education, monitoring and inspections of facilities, and
“good housekeeping” practices at municipal facilities.
LOCATION
Drainage services are provided throughout the City of Marysville, and not outside the City.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Marysville runoff is drained via three discharge points through the ring levee. Two of these
discharge through the levee only by pumping. The third discharge point is associated with Ellis
Lake, which is essentially a large detention pond. Ellis Lake discharges primarily by gravity flow
through the levee, except during periods of high river flows outside of the levee ring, it discharges by
pumping through the levee.
Infrastructure problems include numerous storm drains that are undersized, and lack of curb
and gutter, or damaged curb and gutter, on some streets to direct runoff to drainage inlets. Needs
are to replace aging pump motors, replace undersized storm drains, and construct and repair curb
and gutters. The City’s pumping capacity problem will be addressed when replacing the storm
drainage pump engine at North Ellis Lake in FY 07-08.18 In the future, Marysville may consider
increasing its pumping capacity and relying more on pumping for removing interior runoff.
The City prepared a stormwater management plan in 2004.19 The 2004 plan identified goals and
implementation schedules for the BMPs, as required by the NPDES permit. In collaboration with
the County, the agencies have established a complaint hotline, disseminated brochures, labeled
storm drain inlets, identified problem areas, and conducted cleanup of debris and vehicles along the
Yuba River. Marysville must implement best management practices to achieve the six minimum
control measures—to improve 1) public education, 2) public participation, 3) illicit discharge
detection, 4) construction site stormwater runoff control, 5) post construction stormwater
18 City of Marysville City Services Department, Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan, July 2004.
19 City of Marysville, City Of Marysville Storm Water Management Program, June 2004.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-25
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
management, and 6) pollution prevention for municipal operations by July 2008 under its NPDES
permit. The City anticipated fully implementing the measures by the end of FY 07-08.20
PARKS & RECREATION SERVICES
NATURE AND EXTENT
The City of Marysville maintains and operates city-owned public parks. City public works staff
directly provides park maintenance services. The City does not provide recreation services,
however, it supports several programs that are offered and maintained through other entities in
cooperation with the City on the City parklands. These include the off-highway vehicle park, Yuba
Sutter Youth Soccer League, Little League, and the BMX track.
LOCATION
Park facilities are provided at 15 sites in the City of Marysville. Most parks and sport facilities are
available for use by residents and non-residents without fees, however, some park facilities and
venues are available for rent.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The City owns 15 public parks. Most of the parks were constructed prior to 1950. All have been
refurbished and rehabilitated in the last five years with the exception of one. They are classified as
regional parks, community parks, neighborhood parks, and passive parks. Many of the parks include
recreational facilities and sport fields available for rent. The City of Marysville owns the Plumas Lake
Country Club and Golf Course. It is operated and maintained under an agreement with the Plumas
Lake Golf Club. The City is not actively involved in the operations and maintenance of the course.
Each city-owned park provides various forms of recreational facilities.
• Ellis Lake: gazebo island available for wedding rental, picnic facilities, paddle boats, path for
walking or jogging;
• East Lake: picnic facilities;
• Bryant Field: home of the Yuba-Sutter Gold Sox, available for rental;
• Riverfront Park Complex: an OHV Motocross Course, soccer fields, a picnic area, a boat
ramp, softball fields, a BMX track, and Mervyn’s Pavilion which can be used for various
events and camping;
• Gavin Park: picnic tables, benches, play equipment, and an open play area;
20 County of Yuba and City of Marysville, Annual Report: General Permit for the Discharger of Storm Water from Small Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer Systems, FY 06-07.
A-26 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF MARYSVILLE
• Miner Park: play equipment, tot equipment, benches, a picnic table, basketball hoops, and a
large open play area;
• Motor Park: play equipment, tot equipment, benches, picnic tables, a full basketball court,
and an open play area;
• Stephen J. Field (Circle) Park: play equipment, tot equipment, benches, picnic tables, and an
open play area;
• Triplett Park, Veterans Park and Yuba Park: play equipment, picnic tables and open play
areas;
• Basin Park: used for storm drainage storage during the rainy season, and is available for sport
practices when the area is dry;
• Third and D Streets Mini-Park: benches in historic downtown;
• Plaza Park: benches and picnic tables;
• Washington Square: outdoor dining and recreation, farmer’s markets during summer.
The city budget for FY 06-07 identifies several capital improvement projects for the following
parks: Motor Park, Triplett Park, Yuba Park, Circle Park, Gavin Park, Miner Park, 3rd & D Mini-
park, and Ellis Lake.
The Marysville capital improvement plan, developed in 2004, describes several planned park
projects to be completed by 2009, including installation of cushioning material around tot play
equipment, benches, additional drainage, and new playground equipment for several park sites. A
total of $100,000 ($80,000 from general fund and $20,000 from TDA) was allocated over five years
to rehabilitate Ellis Lake by repairing the cobblestone bank, fixing the sidewalk and increasing its
width to six feet. Ellis Lake also received funds for fountain repairs and replacement of existing
bridges on North Ellis Lake Island.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-27
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-1-7: Marysville Park Profile
Park and Recreation Service Configuration
Service Configuration
Park Maintenance Direct Local Parks 15
Recreation None Recreation and Senior Centers None
Marina None Golf Courses 1
Service Demand
Park Frequent Visitor Population1 Park Visitors per Year NP
Children 3,374 Annual Recreation Participant Hours 0
Seniors 1,607
Service Adequacy FY 05-06
Park Acres per Capita2 20.7 Recreation Center Hours per Week 0
Park Maintenance FTE 2 Recreation FTE per 1,000 Residents 0
Recreation FTE 0 Maintenance Cost per Acre FY 05-063 $1,269
Service Challenges
Due to funding constraints the City does not provide any recreational programs or maintain any buildings.
Park Planning Description Planning Horizon
Park Master Plan None NA
Capital Improvement Plan 2004 5 years
General Plan 1985
General Financing Approach
Park maintenance is provided through general fund revenues. Capital improvements are financed through
bonds, Proposition 12 funds, and the general fund.
Developer Fees and Requirements
Development Impact Fee None
Land Dedication Requirement 10 acres per 1,000 people
In-Lieu Fees None
Notes:
(1) From 2000 Census numbers, children are classified as aged 18 and under, senior residents are aged 65 and over.
(2) Developed park acreage per 1,000 residents.
(3) Estimated actual FY 05-06 per FY 06-07 adopted budget.
continued
A-28 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF MARYSVILLE
Park and Recreation Facilities
Park Acreage
Total 263.4 School Parks 0
Local Parks 70.4 Regional Parks 193.0
Recreation Facilities and Parks
Name Location Condition Year Built Acres
Ellis Lake Between 9th, B, 14th and D streets Good Pre-1950 37.2
East Lake Yuba St between 14th and 17th streets Good Pre-1950 9.4
Bryant Field 14th and C St. Good 1996 2.1
Riverfront Park Complex On Bizz Johnson Dr. adjacent to the Good Redone mid 193
Feather River 1980s
Gavin Park Johnson Ave. and Val Dr. Good 1980s 2.7
Miner Park Between Swezy and Sampson streets Good Pre-1950 2.1
and E 14th and E 15th streets
Motor Park 14th and G St. Good Pre-1950 2.1
Stephen J. Field (Circle) Park Good Pre-1950 1.1
Rideout Way between Greeley Dr. and
Boulton Way
Triplett Park Rideout Way and Covillaud St. Good Pre-1950 2.1
Veterans Park 5th St. between G and H streets Good Pre-1950 2
Yuba Park Yuba St. and E 10th St. Good Pre-1950 3
Basin Park Hall St. between E 17th and Harris Good Pre-1950 2.4
streets
3rd and D streets Mini-Park 3rd and D St. Excellent 2005 0.5
Plaza Park 1st and D St. Good Pre-1950 1.2
Washington Square 10th and E St. Good Pre-1950 2.5
Facility Needs/Deficiencies
None
Facility Sharing
There is an opportunity to share facilities with the school district if the need were to arise.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-29
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
CEMETERY SERVICES
NATURE AND EXTENT
The City owns and operates Marysville City Cemetery—an inactive historic cemetery. The City’s
public works staff mows and weeds the cemetery and provides irrigation and lighting maintenance as
needed. As the cemetery is not active and has no endowment for continual maintenance, funds are
provided through the City’s general fund and park fund.
The Marysville City Cemetery Commission advises the City on issues pertaining to historic
preservation and maintenance of the cemetery. Required maintenance, in addition to that provided
by the City, is provided by the volunteer Cemetery Commission.
LOCATION
Services in the form of maintenance are only provided at the cemetery facility within the City’s
bounds. Services are not provided outside of the City’s limits.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Key infrastructure consists of the Marysville City Cemetery and maintenance equipment,
including a mower and weed eater.
The Marysville City Cemetery is located in northern Marysville on SR 70, within the Feather
River floodplain. The cemetery encompasses approximately 13 acres of developed cemetery land. It
was established in the 1850’s, and is a registered historic site. According to burial records, the
earliest recorded interment was in 1849. The cemetery has not been active since the last burials took
place in the late 1920’s. Due to water damage, the exact number of burials is unknown. According
to the most recent update to records, there were over 6,400 burials listed. The Commission
estimates that there are over 8,000 grave sites. The Cemetery has suffered from high water and
vandalism and is in fair condition, according to the LAFCO site visit. There are several plots with
broken headstones and piles of collapsed brick work throughout the cemetery. The gates are kept
locked to prevent vandalism but can be opened upon request. The Cemetery Commission is hoping
to obtain funds dedicated to improvement of historic sites to mitigate damage.
A-30 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF WHEATLAND
2. C I T Y O F W H E AT L A N D
The City of Wheatland provides water, sewer, drainage, fire, emergency medical, law
enforcement, street maintenance, park, and planning services.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
The City of Wheatland incorporated on April 14, 1874. The City is a general law city.
The City’s boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The boundary area extends north along SR
65 to south of the Dry Creek Levee Road, west along Wheatland Road to Baxter Road, south along
Malone Avenue to the Yuba-Sutter and Yuba-Placer county lines, and east along Spenceville Road
to the Hudson Way, as shown on Map B-2. The City has a boundary area of 1.5 square miles (974
acres).21
The City’s SOI extends beyond the boundary north to Dairy Rd (west of SR 65) and Dry Creek
Levee (east of SR 65), west of Oakley Lane (0.75 miles in the southwestern portion and one mile in
the northwestern portion), south to the Yuba-Sutter and Yuba-Placer county lines, and east to the
western Camp Far West area.
Boundary History
Since LAFCO was formed in 1964, there have been 13 annexations to the city limits.
• Uninhabited City-owned land of 4.7 acres located north of the Nichols subdivision and
adjacent (to the east) of the Southern Pacific railroad, west of C Street (LAFCO resolution
1970-1)
• An area west of the railroad and north of Olive Street then owned by Gene and Marilyn
Zepp, located adjacent (to the east) of C Street (LAFCO resolution 1972-3)
• An area northeast of the city then owned by Phillips, along present day Nichols Road
(LAFCO resolution 1972-8)
• A 12-acre property northeast of the city then-called Greathouse, located between the Zepp
property in the west and the Phillips property in the east (LAFCO resolution 1973-2)
• A 2.2-acre property south of Olive Street, north of Wheatland Road/First Street, west of
Hooper Street, owned by Feather River Baptist Church (LAFCO resolution 1975-3)
21 The area source is GIS analysis of the 2007 city boundary area.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-31
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
• A 62-acre property east of the city limits then owned by the Nichols family. This area
currently makes up the most eastern portion of the city, north of Spenceville Road, east of
Nichols Road. (LAFCO resolution 1977-23)
• A 6.4-acre property adjacent (to the east) of the railroad, west of C Street, then owned by
Boehm (LAFCO resolution 1978-7)
• A 0.5-acre property also owned by Boehm, located adjacent to the northeast of the previous
Boehm annexation (LAFCO resolution 1979-9)
• An approximately 0.4-acre property located northeast of the City, adjacent to the Phillips
and Nichols properties, owned by Dunmore (LAFCO resolution 1979-21)
• A 4.78-acre property southeast of the City owned by Dean Webb, located at the end of C
Street, adjacent to the Southern Pacific railroad (LAFCO resolution 1984-12)
• A 31-acre property called Islands Ranch located southwest of the City, south of Olive Street,
north of Wheatland Road (LAFCO resolution 2006-0006)
• A 194-acre property called Jones Ranch located southwest of the City, south of Wheatland
Road (LAFCO resolution 2006-0007)
• A 254-acre area called Heritage Oaks located southwest of SR 65, along Malone Avenue, to
the Yuba-Sutter and Yuba-Placer county lines (LAFCO resolution 2006-0008)
The Islands Ranch, Jones Ranch, and Heritage Oaks annexations were reconsidered and
approved under LAFCO policies in effect in 2002.22 No subsequent boundary changes have been
adopted.
The City’s SOI was adopted in 1992.23 A minor SOI amendment was adopted in 2006 to include
the southern portion of the Heritage Oaks annexation area.24
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The Wheatland City Council consists of five members elected at large to staggered four-year
terms. Current council members are Enita Elphick (Mayor), James Barrington (Vice Mayor), Lisa
McIntosh, Jay Pendergraph, and David Coe.
The Council meets twice monthly on the second and fourth Tuesdays. Council meeting and
public hearing announcements are published in the Wheatland Citizen newspaper and emailed to a
subscription list. Meeting minutes are available to a regular mailing list and at the City Clerk’s office.
22 LAFCO resolutions 2006-0003, 2006-0014 and 2006-0015.
23 LAFCO resolution 1992-4.
24 LAFCO resolution 2006-0004.
A-32 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF WHEATLAND
The City recently created a website where meeting information and documents are available. In
addition, certain planning documents are available online through City consultants’ websites.
The most recent contested council election was held in November 2006. The 55 percent voter
turnout rate was slightly higher than the 53 percent countywide gubernatorial election voter
turnout.25 There were no countywide races in this election for comparison purposes.
The City demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with
LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with LAFCO
map inquiries and document requests.
With regard to customer service, complaints most often relate to public services and code
enforcement. Complaints may be submitted through phone calls, email, letters, and in-person to the
City Council, department heads or the city manager. Complaints are most often received by letter or
at a City Council meeting. The city manager serves as the City’s ombudsman. The City does not
track the number of complaints, but estimates that between 50 and 100 complaints were received by
all departments in 2006.
The City updates constituents through regular press releases, email and mail notices and updates,
and project-specific public workshops.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The City bounds encompass a wide range of land use areas including residential, commercial,
schools, open space, and limited agriculture.
Figure A-2-1: Wheatland Population, 2000-8
The City considers its customer base
4,000
to be the residents and employers
located in the City. However, the
3,000
number of city customers is determined
by utility bills, which quantifies
households receiving utility services. As 2,000
of May 2007, the City reported that there
were 1,156 utility bills. By comparison,
1,000
there were 1,169 occupied housing units
in January 2008, according to DOF
0
estimates.
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
There were 3,510 residents in the
City in January 2008, according to DOF. The City’s population density is 2,306 per square mile,
compared with the countywide density of 114.
The City has experienced recent growth and urban development. The City population grew
dramatically in 2002 and 2003, with the growth rate peaking in 2003, and declining thereafter.
25 City voter turnout rate based on ballots cast for citywide Measure M.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-33
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
During 2006, the population grew by 1.4 percent, which is comparable to statewide growth within
cities of 1.5 percent. The City’s population declined, however, in 2007 by three residents.
Local business activities include restaurants, retail and banking. Local school districts are
significant employers. There were 34 acres of developed retail land and two acres of developed
office and other employment uses at the beginning of 2007.26 There were approximately 728 jobs
located within the city limits in 2005.27 The 2005 jobs-housing balance was 0.6 within the city limits;
by comparison, there were 1.4 jobs per housing unit on average in Sacramento region cities and 0.8
jobs per housing unit in unincorporated Yuba County.
Growth Projections
The City’s 2006 General Plan projects the population will grow to 30,100 by the year 2025
within the General Plan planning area. The planning area for the purposes of this report is the area
for which the City conducted land use and other planning— the City’s SOI excluding the territory
east of Jasper Lane and north of Dry Creek.28 The estimated General Plan build-out population is
approximately 32,780 residents.29 Additional development is anticipated outside the planning area in
the Johnson Rancho and Northwest Quadrant areas; future General Plan updates will address land
use designations and growth in these areas.
The General Plan anticipates significant commercial growth, with the job-housing balance
increasing from 0.5 in 2003 to 0.9 by 2025.
The primary 2007 construction project within the City limits was a retail development known as
Wilson’s Settler Village and located on SR 65 north of the downtown area. Wilson’s Settler Village
has 42,000 square feet of retail space, 2,800 square feet for fast food, and 320 square feet for a
coffee shop.
Significant growth is anticipated within the City within the next five years as proposed
developments begin construction within City bounds and to the northwest of the City, as shown in
Table A-2-2. Proposed developments within the City’s existing bounds include Almond Estates,
Heritage Oaks East and West, and Jones Ranch.
In the long-term, proposed developments outside of the City bounds, but inside the City’s SOI,
include Johnson Rancho, Eagle Meadows I, II and III, Nichols Grove, Weststar Roddan Ranch, and
two Landmark developments. There are limited plans outside of the existing SOI—the Raney
development and the new WWTP, both in the northwest quadrant.
26 City of Wheatland, Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report, January 2007, p. 17.
27 City of Wheatland, General Plan, July 2006, p. 3-25.
28 City of Wheatland, General Plan Background Report, July 2006, Table 3-9. This MSR report describes the planning area to include the
area for which the City has conducted land use and other planning. The General Plan defines the “planning area” as more expansive,
covering the entire SOI area as well as territory currently outside the County that is north of the Bear River; certain areas within the
“planning area” (e.g., the future site of Johnson Rancho) were designated as “urban reserve.”
29 The General Plan study area excludes the planned 82-acre Raney development where approximately 371 housing units are
anticipated.
A-34 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF WHEATLAND
Total acreage for these residential developments is 5,134. At build-out of the plans there are
16,673 proposed single-family units and over 340 acres of proposed commercial and industrial
space.
Table A-2-2: Wheatland Planned and Proposed Developments
Housing Non-residential
Project Name Acres Units Acres1 Status April 2008
Within 2007 Wheatland City Limits
Almond Estates 42.9 169 0.0 Development Agreement discussions ongoing
with the City.
Heritage Oaks Estates-East 176.1 604 19.1 Ten-year Tentative Map extension approved by
City Council July 10, 2007.
Heritage Oaks Estates-West 59.7 174 NP Ten-year Tentative Map extension approved by
City Council November 27, 2007.
Jones Ranch 190.8 552 2.5 Ten-year Tentative Map extension approved by
City Council August 14, 2007.
Outside Wheatland City Limits, Within SOI
Johnson Rancho 3,371.0 9,200 300 City awaiting completion of SR 65 Bypass
Study and submittal of revised site plan.
Nichols Grove 485.0 1,609 11.4 City awaiting additional hydrology information
prior to release of EIR.
Eagle Meadows I 130.3 737 0.0 Project on hold.
Eagle Meadows II & III 299.2 1,632 10.0 Project on hold.
Roddan Ranch 98.7 377 0.0 City expecting applicant to resubmit application
for annexation and prezone only.
Landmark-Dale 57.7 390 NP Project on hold.
Jim Raney 16.9 85 NP Project on hold.
Wheatland Hop Farm 132.0 700 NP City submitted revised scope of services for
EIR and planning on September 28, 2007.
Outside of Wheatland's SOI/Application Processed by the City
Jim Raney 74.0 444 NP Application for SOI amendment and general
plan amendment pending.
Wheatland WWTP 55.0 0 NP EIR in progress.
Notes:
(1) Excludes parks and open space.
In the short-term, key growth constraints for accommodating proposed and planned
development are wastewater treatment capacity, flood control and highway infrastructure upgrade.
The City has allocated existing treatment capacity, and plans to develop additional capacity to serve
growth at a second plant to be constructed by 2009. RD 2103 began a three-phase capital project in
2007 to rehabilitate and relocate levees in the Wheatland vicinity to provide adequate protection
against a 200-year flood. The first phase is scheduled for completion in November 2007 and the
second phase is funded. An SR 65 bypass study is currently being prepared to analyze the feasibility
of various highway realignments in conjunction with development in and around the City, although
the project is not expected to be completed until at least 2025.
Growth Strategies
The City holds primary responsibility for implementing growth strategies within its bounds.
Guiding principles for future growth adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council are:
• create a strong local employment base
BY BURR CONSULTING A-35
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
• balance development on both sides of the existing SR 65 and railroad tracks
• reinforce downtown as the traditional and cultural core of the city but not as the central
commercial district
• plan the City to accommodate future freeway and arterial expansion
• emphasize neighborhood-oriented growth.
The General Plan identified three strategies to accommodate projected long-term growth—
annex additional land outside of the City limits, continue infill development where land is available
and encourage the re-use of underutilized lands. The City has pursued the first strategy already,
having annexed 479 acres in 2006 and doubled the size of the city. Several infill projects have been
approved since the General Plan update.
Commercial development will be directed to the area adjacent to the proposed SR 65 bypass,
downtown, and the northeastern portion of the planning area. Residential policies include
preservation and enhancement of the existing neighborhoods through maintenance, rehabilitation,
and infill development and development of distinct neighborhoods with a range of services such as
parks, schools, and neighborhood shopping. Other growth strategies adopted by the City are
identified in the City’s General Plan, which outlines goals, policies, standards and implementation
programs for land use and development through 2025 within the City’s General Plan study area.
The General Plan prescribes land use designations within the existing city limits and a portion of
the City’s SOI area, and defines goals, policies, and programs to guide decisions concerning land use.
MANAGEMENT
City staff is composed of 23 employees: city manager, public works director, public works
superintendent, four water and sewer system employees, chief building official, police chief, five
police officers, finance director, two account clerks, and a city clerk. The city planner, attorney and
engineer are consultants rather than employees.
The city manager and attorney report directly to the City Council. The City Council and senior
staff hold an annual retreat to discuss and prioritize upcoming issues and projects; these priorities
encourage city staff to budget time and finances accordingly. The city manager directly oversees
seven senior staff. Three department heads have management responsibilities. Police officers
report to the police chief, public works employees report to the public works director, and account
clerks report to the finance director. The City conducts annual employee performance evaluations
where past performance is appraised and goals are made for the following year. The City indicated
that an employee productivity tracking mechanism was under development in 2008. City operation
evaluations are completed twice a year during an annual senior staff retreat and operating budget
deliberations.
City management practices include annual financial audits and benchmarking practices. The City
recently began benchmarking efforts and has performed municipal salary comparisons.
To guide its efforts, the City adopted a General Plan update in 2006 that identifies goals for
services and planning through 2025 and policies to realize those goals. In addition, the City has
A-36 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF WHEATLAND
adopted master plans for water, sewer, public safety, flood control, drainage, and streets. The City
has not adopted a parks master plan.
Financial planning efforts include an adopted annual budget and annual financial audits. The
City updated its development impact fees in 2007; the development impact fee nexus study identifies
long-term capital improvements. The various plans cover a planning horizon of 2025, and cover
different geographic areas. Some plans exclude portions of the city limits and some exclude
portions of the existing SOI; for clarity sake, these plans are summarized on Table A-2-3. The City
does not currently prepare a long-term capital improvement plan, and budgets capital expenditures
on an annual basis. The City reported that it had drafted its first five-year capital improvement plan
in April 2008, but had not yet adopted it, as of the drafting of this report.
Table A-2-3: Wheatland Planning Documents
Plan Date Excluded SOI Areas Planning Horizon
General Plan 2006 Eastern SOI area (east of Jasper Lane), NW 2025
SOI area (north of Dry Creek)1
General Plan Housing 2005 SOI areas outside existing city limits 2007
Element Update
Development Impact Fee 2007 Eastern SOI area (east of Jasper Lane), NW Build-out
Nexus Report SOI area (north of Dry Creek)
Master Water Plan 2005 Existing city limits, 2025
Eastern SOI area (east of Jasper Lane), NW
SOI area (north of Dry Creek)
Sewer Collection System 2005 Existing city limits, 2025
Master Plan Eastern SOI area (east of Jasper Lane), NW
SOI area (north of Dry Creek)
Wastewater Treatment 2004 Existing city limits, 2025
Facilities Master Plan Eastern SOI area (east of Jasper Lane), NW
SOI area (north of Dry Creek)
External Source Flood 2005 Eastern SOI area (east of Jasper Lane), NW Unknown
Protection Master Plan SOI area (north of Dry Creek)
Internal Source Drainage 2005 None excluded; study area extends beyond 2025
Report existing SOI.
Public Safety Services 2004 Not Identified 2025
Master Plan
Street Master Plan 2006 Existing city limits (mostly)2 2025
Eastern SOI area (east of Jasper Lane), NW
SOI area (north of Dry Creek)
Master Facilities Plan 2007 Not Identified Build-out
Notes:
(1) Areas assigned interim "urban reserve" land use designations in the General Plan are defined by the City as in the “planning area."
For clarity sake, this table focuses on geographic areas that have been substantively planned.
(2) The street master plan excludes most of the street system within the city limits, but includes roads within city limits that will need
improvement to facilitate the GPU system (i.e., a new road in northwest Wheatland, grade crossing and signals in the downtown area).
City accomplishments between 2002 and 2007 include completion of multiple planning
documents and recognition from the Yuba-Sutter Economic Development Corporation.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-37
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
FINANCING
The City’s financial ability to provide services is constrained primarily by a lack of tax-generating
commercial activity; the City has managed to provide adequate service levels within these resource
constraints with some exceptions. The City provides a fire service level of two paid staff manning
three stations—the City’s fire station and two PBFPD stations—during daytime hours on week days
when call firefighters are less abundant; funding was enhanced in FY 06-07 through a special benefit
assessment. The City requires additional capital financing to meet wastewater regulatory standards,
and had raised approximately 10 percent of funding for a new sewer treatment plant as of FY 07-08;
funding progress since 2005 has been affected by the housing market downturn. Additional capital
financing is needed for street improvements to alleviate highway traffic and associated congestion
within city limits.
The City prepares audited financial reports on an annual basis and practices appropriate use of
fund accounting. The City’s major governmental funds are the general fund, a general plan update
fund and a community facilities district fund. The City reports its water and wastewater-related
activities in enterprise funds.
The City finances police, fire, park maintenance, community development and general
administrative and management services through its general fund. Wheatland’s general fund
revenues were $1.8 million in FY 06-07, which amounts to $513 per capita. Primary general fund
revenue sources were property taxes (22 percent), vehicle license fee in-lieu revenues (16 percent),
licenses, fees and permits (40 percent), and sales and use taxes (four percent). Fire operating funds
are supplemented by a $45 per home assessment approved by property owners in 2006. Sales tax
revenue is not a significant financing source for the City, as there is limited commercial activity with
taxable sales. Taxable sales per capita in the City were $2,590 in 2006, compared with $7,080 in the
unincorporated areas and $14,153 in the City of Marysville.
The City finances water and sewer operations with service charges and finances water and sewer
capital projects with impact fees; the City implements best practices by annually adjusting water and
wastewater rates to reflect current operating costs. Street maintenance is financed primarily with gas
tax revenue, and secondarily with Yuba County Measure D and general fund monies (to meet
maintenance of effort requirements). The City finances future growth-related capital improvements
through development impact fees.
The City had $159,675 in long-term debt associated with governmental activities at the end of
FY 06-07, which consists of a developer reimbursement agreement and compensated absences. The
City had no outstanding bonded debt related to governmental activities. The City had $4.9 million
in long-term debt associated with its water and wastewater enterprises and other business-type
activities. Most of this debt ($4 million) consists of Rural Utilities Service loans from the USDA to
be repaid through Certificates of Participation (i.e., lease revenue bonds). The loans funded
wastewater collection system repairs. The City had $0.7 million in debt associated with the
Wheatland Westside Funding Agreement in which the City makes payments to the school district
and Forecast Homes as development impact fees are collected.
By way of financial reserves, the City had an unreserved general fund balance of $0.82 million at
the end of FY 06-07. This amounted to 56 percent of the City’s general fund expenditures. The
City maintained approximately seven months of general fund working capital. The City’s water
enterprise posted -$0.27 million in unrestricted net assets at the end of FY 06-07. The City’s sewer
A-38 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF WHEATLAND
enterprises collectively had unrestricted net assets of -$0.22 million. As a result of sewer collection
system repair needs, the City imposed user fees in FY 05-06 designed to establish reserves for sewer
replacement. By the end of FY 07-08, the City budget anticipated a balance of $5.2 million in sewer
impact fees, of which the City subsequently loaned $2 million for levee repairs. The City has no
formal policy on target financial reserves.
The City engages in joint financing arrangements with the Plumas Brophy FPD for the
Wheatland Fire Authority. According to the Joint Powers Agreement, the City agreed to contribute
49.3 percent of WFA expenses under the approved budget. The amount contributed in any given
year is not to exceed the base year contribution adjusted by the Consumer Price Index for inflation.
The first full fiscal year (2006-07) of WFA operation, the City contributed $77,800, which
constituted 39 percent of the budget after PBFPD contributed $125,000. In FY 07-08, WFA
reported that the City planned to contribute approximately $90,000 or 34 percent of the WFA
budget after PBFPD contributions of $175,000. The City is also a member of the Public Agency
Risk Sharing Authority of California, a JPA, for workers’ compensation and liability insurance
purposes.
WATER SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
The City of Wheatland provides retail water services to 1,058 customers in the form of
groundwater pumping, treatment, water quality testing, conveyance, storage, and delivery.
LOCATION
The City provides all water service within the City bounds, with the exception of a private
irrigation well in a senior apartment housing project. Water service is not provided outside of the
City limits.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Key infrastructure includes six wells, two storage tanks, one pump station, 20.9 miles of pipe
line, water meters, and a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. The water
supply system has a maximum pumping capacity of 6.1 mgd when all six wells are online; however,
the there are on average two to three wells operating at any given time with a pumping capacity of
approximately 3 mgd.
The City’s water supply is provided entirely by the South Yuba Groundwater Basin. The aquifer
has not undergone analysis to determine the maximum or safe yield water supply. The water is
treated with chlorine to meet disinfection requirements set by the Department of Health Services.
The City upgraded its water system between 2001 and 2003 with financing from a USDA Rural
Development loan and grant funds. The upgrade included well improvements, water main
replacements, metering of all connections, construction of a ground-level storage tank and booster
pumps, and installation of a SCADA system.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-39
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The six water wells have capacities ranging from 550 gpm to 800 gpm, with a total capacity of
4,245 gpm. Two of the wells were installed recently with financing from the USDA loan; they are
equipped with standby power and automatic transfer switch (ATS), and are in excellent condition.
Of the remaining four wells, two have standby power and ATS and the others are equipped with
receptacles for a portable generator. Well infrastructure needs include standby power for two wells
and gravel pack service for two wells. DPH has identified multiple well contamination
vulnerabilities including the sewer collection system, home manufacturing, grazing animals,
automobile repair shops and gas stations, construction, chemical pipelines, septic systems, and
equipment storage yards. Well 6 has a particularly high mineral content; due to problems this causes
for wastewater treatment, the City limits use of this well.
The City’s two storage tanks provide 743,000 gallons in storage capacity—one 66,000 gallon
capacity elevated tank and one 667,000 gallon capacity ground level tank. The Public Safety Master
Plan identified a deficiency in water supply capacity should two fires (one residential and one
commercial) occur simultaneously, in addition to maintaining maximum daily use and a 20 percent
reserve. While this deficiency could be mitigated with additional wells, supplementary above-ground
storage is the preferred solution according to the plan.
The water system consists primarily of looped mains, with the exception of cul-de-sac streets.
The system is in good condition due to the 2001-2003 rehabilitation of water mains. The General
Plan identifies two sections of asbestos cement water line in need of replacement to meet current
standards—1,400 feet on Olive Street and 600 feet on Fourth Street.
Water meters were installed with the USDA loan, and the City converted to a metered usage
charge in 2005. The meters are in excellent condition.
The recently installed SCADA system provides continuous monitoring and control of all well
sites, water tanks, and pumps from the City’s control center. The system provides warnings to the
control center and an on-call employee in the event of any problems. The system is in excellent
condition and there are no identified deficiencies.
According to the General Plan, the upgraded system is sufficient to service the existing city
limits (as defined in 2005) at build-out. Subsequently annexed areas, including the proposed
developments of Jones Ranch and Heritage Oaks, are required to provide a well, storage tank, a
water line loop, and SCADA connection. Any additional annexed territories are required to provide
plans for all necessary water system improvements prior to development. The plans are reviewed
for consistency with the Master Water Plan. All funds for water system expansion are provided by
the developers, and the extended system is accepted as part of the city water system upon
completion to specifications.
The 2005 water master plan projected that it will cost $36.8 million for water system
improvements—new water lines, storage tanks, wells with standby power, and SCADA system—to
accommodate growth and development to build-out of the City’s SOI area west of Jasper Lane and
south of Dry Creek, excluding the existing city limits. In addition to several miles of new water
lines, the new system will require 18 new wells with 800 gpm capacity and standby power and four
storage tanks each with 1.5 million gallon capacity, booster pumps and standby power. The timeline
for construction of the new water system infrastructure is dependent upon development in the area.
A-40 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF WHEATLAND
Table A-2-4: Wheatland Water Profile
Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure
Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s)
Retail Water Direct Groundwater Recharge None
Wholesale Water Direct Groundwater Extraction Direct
Water Treatment Direct Recycled Water None
Service Area Description
Retail Water Within City boundaries
Wholesale Water None
Recycled Water None
Boundary Area 1.5 sq. miles Population (2007) 3,513
System Overview
Average Daily Demand 0.72 mgd Peak Day Demand 1.79 mgd
Supply2
6.1 mgd (Pumping capacity of water system when all six wells are online.)
Major Facilities
Facility Name Type Capacity Condition Yr Built
None
Other Infrastructure
Reservoirs 0 Storage Capacity (mg) 734,000
Pump Stations 1 Pressure Zones 0
Production Wells 6 Pipe Miles 20.9
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The existing system was modernized in 2001 and is adequate to serve the existing city limits. Further growth
will require additional facilities and infrastructure as outlined in the Master Water Plan. Currently, there are
two wells that are in need of gravel pack service and two wells in need of standby power. Two sections of
asbestos cement water line require replacement to meet current standards.
Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration
Current Practices: The City is collaborating with County OES to develop seismic and emergency policies.
Opportunities: The City identified a possible regional collaboration opportunity with Yuba County Water
Agency to import surface water for conjunctive use. Preliminary discussions have begun between the City
and YCWA. No facility sharing opportunities were identified at this time.
Notes:
(1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet.
(2) Based on maximum supply capacity of system when all six wells are running simultaneously. There are on average two to three
wells running at any given time, which can supply up to approximately 3 mgd.
continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-41
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Water Demand and Supply
Service Connections Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds
Total 1,058 1,058 0
Irrigation/Landscape 7 7 0
Domestic 1,045 1,045 0
Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 0 0 0
Recycled 0 0 0
Other 6 6 0
Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year)1
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Total NP 665 924 NP NP NP NP
Residential NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Commercial/Industrial NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Irrigation/Landscape NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Other NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year)
Source Type Average Maximum Safe/Firm
South Yuba Groundwater Basin Groundwater 806 NP NP
Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year)2
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Total NP 698 970 NP NP NP NP
Imported 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Groundwater NP 698 970 NP NP NP NP
Surface 0 0 0 NP NP NP NP
Recycled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Conjunctive Use
None
Supply Constraints
There has not been analysis to determine the maximum available water supply from the aquifer. An overdraft of
the aquifer occurred in the 1980s; however, water levels have returned to previous levels.
Drought Supply and Plans
Drought Supply (af) Year 1: NP Year 2: NP Year 3: NP
Significant Droughts 1977
Storage Practices Storage is for short-term emergencies only.
Drought Plan The City will use an even/odd system of water rationing for outdoor use and may
eliminate lawn watering if necessary.
Water Conservation Practices
CUWCC Signatory No
Metering Yes
Conservation Pricing No
Other Practices None
Notes:
(1) The City reported that future demand could not be projected as the level of future development is unknown.
(2) The City anticipates that the future water supply will be entirely groundwater to match demand, unless the City reaches an agreement
with YCWA regarding conjunctive use of surface water and a financing source can be identified for the necessary infrastructure.
continued
A-42 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF WHEATLAND
Water Rates and Financing
Domestic Water Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 06-071
Rate Description2 Consumption3
Residential Flat Bimonthly: $36.35 12 ccf/month
Water Use: $0.34 per ccf after 150 ccf,
$0.44 per ccf over 450 ccf
Non-Residential
Retail Flat Bimonthly: $72.70 38 ccf/month
Water Use: $0.34 per ccf after 150 ccf,
$0.44 per ccf over 450 ccf
Industrial Flat Bimonthly: $116.32 215 ccf/month
Water Use: $0.34 per ccf after 150 ccf,
$0.44 per ccf over 450 ccf
Special Rates
Water rates are the same throughout the City.
Rate-Setting Procedures
Policy Description The City adjusts metered water rates annually according to the CPI
index and operating costs.
Most Recent Rate Change 10/1/06 Frequency of Rate Changes Annually
Water Development Fees and Requirements
Connection Fee Approach The fee is based on land use type. The fee is set to recover the cost of
time and materials expended by the Public Works department if the
developer does not complete the connection.
Connection Fee Timing Upon building permit approval
Connection Fee Amount NP
Land Dedication Requirements None
Development Impact Fee $3,507/Single Family Unit $1,150/sq ft for retail
Water Enterprise Revenues, FY 05-06 Expenditures, FY 05-06
Source Amount % Amount
Total $584,297 100% Total $650,992
Rates & charges $584,297 100% Administration $39,000
Property tax $0 0% O & M $261,185
Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $165,483
Interest $0 0% Debt $185,324
Connection Fees $0 0% Purchased Water $0
Notes:
(1) Rates include water-related service charges and usage charges, and exclude utility users' taxes.
(2) Base rates were calculated based on 1 inch meters for residential connections, 1.5 inch meters for retail connections and 2 inch
meters for industrial connections.
(3) Water use assumptions by customer type were used to calculate average monthly bills. Assumed use levels are
consistent countywide for comparison purposes.
continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-43
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Water Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Indicators
Water Planning Description Planning Horizon
Water Master Plan 2005 2025
UWMP None, not required NA
Capital Improvement Plan None NA
General Plan (Resource) 2006 2025
Plan Item/Element Description
Emergency Plan None
Other Plans
None
Service Challenges
The City did not identify any challenges to water service.
Service Adequacy Indicators
Connections/FTE 264.5 O&M Cost Ratio1 $360,456
MGD Delivered/FTE 0.18 Distribution Loss Rate 5%
Distribution Breaks & Leaks 3 Distribution Break Rate2 14.4
Response Time Policy Immediate Response Time Actual Immediate
Water Pressure 20+ normal day; 20+ psi fire flow
Drinking Water Quality Regulatory Information3
# Description
Health Violations 2 Exceeded Coliform levels twice (1997)
Monitoring Violations 1 Initial tap sampling of lead and copper not completed (1993)
DW Compliance Rate4 100%
Employee Indicators
Total Employees (FTEs) 4 Certified as Required? Yes
Notes:
(1) Operations and maintenance costs (exc. purchased water, debt, depreciation) per volume (mgd) delivered.
(2) Distribution break rate is the number of leaks and pipeline breaks per 100 miles of distribution piping.
(3) Violations since 1995, as reported by the U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System.
(4) Drinking water compliance is percent of time in compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
A-44 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF WHEATLAND
WASTEWATER SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
The City provides wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services to 1,051 connections.
The City owns and operates a wastewater treatment plant and inspects, cleans and repairs all sewer
collection structures in the service area such as pipes, manholes and lift stations. Preventative
maintenance services include closed-circuit television inspection of sewer lines and regular system
flushes.
LOCATION
The City provides wastewater services to all structures within the City limits, with the exception
of four residences that were recently annexed into the City and are currently on septic systems.
These residences are expected to connect to the City sewer system as sewer lines are extended to the
parcels. Service is not provided outside of the City limits.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Key infrastructure includes the wastewater treatment plant, three percolation/evaporation
ponds, 55 miles of sewer pipe lines, and five lift stations.
The WWTP has a capacity of 0.62 mgd (ADWF) at secondary treatment standards. The plant
was built in 1969 and last upgraded in 1990. The City described the plant as being in good
condition. It consists of a headworks structure, a mechanically aerated oxidation ditch, one
secondary clarifier, a sludge pump station, a sludge storage basin, three sludge drying beds, an
effluent pumping station, an emergency retention basin and a laboratory. Treated effluent is
pumped into three percolation/evaporation ponds and dried sludge is disposed of at a local landfill.
Recent improvements to the plant include new aerators, a return activated sludge (RAS) pump, a
screw lip trash remover for the headworks, and plug valves.
In 2003, the City Engineer identified the following WWTP infrastructure needs which have not
been rectified to date: additional sludge drying beds and a second clarifier, installation of a grit
chamber and debris removal device, and relocation of the existing percolation ponds from inside the
Bear River levee.
The WWTP is located outside of the Bear River levee; however, the percolation ponds are
located inside the levee in the Bear River flood area. In 2005, heavy precipitation caused the Bear
River water level to rise and overflow into the percolation ponds, which resulted in an effluent
discharge into the river. RWQCB issued a Notice of Violation of the City’s waste discharge
requirements which required the City to report on steps taken to repair the levees and prevent future
discharges. RWQCB has commented that it will not allow the existing percolation ponds unless
they are raised or otherwise receive 100-year flood protection. In addition, there is likely a hydraulic
connection between the percolation ponds and the Bear River, which is the equivalent of a direct
discharge into the river. A direct discharge into the river would require higher effluent treatment
standards under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Currently,
BY BURR CONSULTING A-45
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
the City is regulated by waste discharge requirements last updated in 1991 to discharge only into the
percolation ponds.
The City is working to comply with anticipated discharge requirements and expand sewer
treatment capacity for proposed developments. The Wastewater Treatment Facilities Master Plan
has recommended that a new membrane bio-reactor plant, with a 3.82 mgd capacity, be built to
accommodate the existing city and anticipated growth and the effluent be treated to standards
allowing the facility to directly discharge into the Bear River or Dry Creek under an NPDES permit.
The existing treatment plant would be decommissioned once the new plant is operational. The City
Council has decided to move forward on the recommended plant. The timeline for construction is
contingent upon construction funding through arrangements with developers. As of December
2007, the City had collected $6.2 million from developers towards the plant planning and
construction. According to the master plan, the plant will be built in two phases and is projected to
cost $47 million for construction and an additional $1.4 million annually for operation and
management. A site for construction had not been determined, as of the drafting of this report.
A majority of the sewer collection gravity system predates 1962. The oldest sewer lines consist
primarily of clay pipe and cement joints; some of the lines are asbestos cement pipe. The newer
portion of the system is located in Wheatland Ranch, Park Place and Ryantown subdivisions.
The City Engineer identified several sewer line deficiencies in 2003. Since that time, a majority
of the deficiencies have been remedied; a $4 million USDA Rural Development loan financed
replacement of old sewer mains and deteriorated manholes. Remaining deficiencies include
upgrades to the C Street lift station, such as standby power and automatic transfer switches.
The Sewer Collection System Master Plan outlines plans to expand the collection system to
accommodate anticipated growth. The proposed collection system, including the area in the existing
City limits, will have a capacity of 5.04 mgd. The new system, which is expected to cost $12.6
million, will be served by a gravity sewer trunk system, allowing the existing lift stations to be
eliminated. Similar to the new treatment plant, construction is contingent upon funds from
development and a timeline is yet to be determined.
A-46 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF WHEATLAND
Table A-2-5: Wheatland Wastewater Profile
Wastewater Service Configuration and Demand
Service Configuration
Service Type Service Provider(s) Service Area
Wastewater Collection Direct City of Wheatland
Wastewater Treatment Direct City of Wheatland
Wastewater Disposal Direct City of Wheatland
Recycled Water NA NA
Onsite Septic Systems in Service Area
Due to an annexation in 2006, there are four residences with septic tanks within the City limits.
Septic Regulatory/Policies
The City does not allow septic systems in the City. The four systems that were recently annexed
into the City were granted a temporary waiver of this policy. As the City's sewer lines are extended
to these parcels, the owners will be required to connect to the City sewer system.
Service Demand FY 05-06
Connections Flow (mgd)
Outside
Type Total Bounds Average Peak
Total 1,051 0 0.32 0.65
Residential 996 0 NA NA
Commercial 45 0 NA NA
Industrial 0 0 NA NA
Projected Demand2
2006 2010 2015 2020 Build-out
Flow (mgd) 0.29 NP NP NP 5.04
Note:
(1) NA: Not Applicable; NP: Not Provided.
(2) 2006 ADWF reflects demand within the city limits. The build-out projection reflects anticipated demand in the city
limits and the portion of the City's SOI west of Jasper Ln. (i.e., it excludes Johnson Rancho).
continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-47
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Wastewater Infrastructure
Wastewater Treatment & Disposal Infrastructure
System Overview
Treatment level: Secondary
Disposal method: Three percolation/evaporation beds
Facility Name Capacity Condition Yr Built
Wheatland Wastewater Treatment Plant 0.62 Good 1969
Treatment Plant Daily Flow Average Dry Peak Wet
Wheatland WWTP 0.29 0.37
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
In 2003, the City Engineer identified the following WWTP infrastructure needs which have not been
rectified to date: additional sludge drying beds and a second clarifier, installation of a grit chamber and
debris removal device, and relocation of the existing percolation ponds from inside the Bear River
levee.
Wastewater Collection & Distribution Infrastructure
Collection & Distribution Infrastructure
Sewer Pipe Miles 55 Manholes 222
Sewage Lift Stations 5
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The City Engineer identified several sewer line deficiencies in 2003. Since that time, a majority of the
deficiencies have been remedied; a $4 million USDA Rural Development loan financed replacement of
old sewer mains and deteriorated manholes. Remaining deficiencies include upgrades to the C Street
lift station, such as standby power and automatic transfer switches.
Infiltration and Inflow
The wastewater collection system experiences some infiltration and inflow entering the gravity system,
particularly during periods of rain. Inflow locations and necessary corrective measures have not yet
been identified.
Wastewater Regional Collaboration and Facility Sharing
Regional Collaboration
None
Facility Sharing Opportunities
The City has had informal discussions with Beale AFB regarding the possibility of sharing the new
treatment plant. Beale AFB is looking for options to discontinue treatment on the Base. The City
reported that there are no known impediments to flow from the Base to the location of the proposed
plant.
continued
A-48 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF WHEATLAND
Wastewater Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning
Sewage Spills/Overflows1
Date Spill Site Cause Gallons Contained?
8/27/2002 820 Redwood Ave. Ongoing problem due to lack of 200-300 No
maintenance
5/18/2004 Redwood Ave. Ongoing problem due to lack of 15-20 No
maintenance
12/31/2005 WWTP Precipitation 243,000 Yes
Service Adequacy Indicators
Reported Spills 2 Sewer Overflows 2006 0
Treatment Effectiveness Rate 100% Sewer Overflow Rate2 0
Total Employees (FTEs) 4 Response Time Policy3 Immediate
Employees Certified? Yes Response Time Actual 30 mins - 1 hr
Regulatory Compliance Record
On April 3, 2006, the RWQCB issued a notice of violation in response to the December 31, 2005 Bear River
overflow into the percolation ponds, which resulted in a wastewater discharge to the river. The notice of violation
required the City to submit a report detailing corrective actions completed to prevent future discharges.
Source Control and Pollution Prevention Practices
The City does not have a formal source control program, but expects to adopt prevention ordinances before the
new WWTP goes online. The City requires all new restaurants to install grease traps. The area has limited
industry, consequently industrial source controls have not been an issue in the past.
Collection System Inspection Practices
The City performs visual inspections annually. In 2006, cameras were used in the collection system to perform a
visual inspection of the entire system.
Service Challenges
The City identified a prevalence of grease in the pipelines, which could lead to blockages. Grease could be
removed by a vacuum truck; however, it is costly.
Wastewater Planning
Plan Description Planning Horizon
Wastewater Treatment Plan 2004 20 years
Wastewater Collection Plan 2005 20 years
General Plan (Resource) 2006 20 years
Capital Improvement Plan None
Plan Item/Element Description
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Plan None
Seismic/Emergency Plan Date Unknown
Wet Weather Flow Capacity Plan None
Other Relevant Plans
None
Notes:
(1) Includes sewage spills/overflows reported to the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services between
2000 and 2005.
(2) Sewer overflows (excluding those caused by customers) per 100 miles of collection piping.
(3) Agency policy, guidelines or goals for response time between service call and clearing the blockage.
continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-49
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Wastewater Rates and Financing
Rate Zones
Wastewater rates are the same throughout the City.
Rate-Setting Procedures
Policy Description: Service charge increases annually with inflation. Additional increases may be made based
on demonstrated need.
Last Rate Change 10/1/2006 Frequency of Rate Changes Annually
Wastewater Development Fees and Requirements
Connection Fee Approach The residential fee is based on number of units; the non-residential and
commercial fee is based on square footage. The fee is set to recover the cost
of time and materials expended by the Public Works department if the
developer does not complete the connection.
Connection Fee Timing Upon building permit issuance.
Connection Fee Amount NP
Land Dedication Req. The City accepts land dedications if needed for utility service.
Development Impact Fee1 Residential: $9,486
Wastewater Enterprise Revenues, FY05-06 Expenditures, FY 05-06
Source Amount2 % Amount
Total $2,209,781 100% Total $1,188,966
Rates & Charges $548,538 25% Administration $18,557
Property Tax $0 0% O & M $326,163
Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $71,939
Interest $12,159 1% Debt $50,000
Connection Fees $961,143 43% Capital Expenditures $722,307
Loan Proceeds $616,185 28% Other $0
Notes:
(1) Development impact fee amount is calculated for a single-family home.
(2) Actuals for FY 2005-06 for the sewer, sewer deferred maintenance, sewer construction and sewer impact funds.
continued
A-50 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF WHEATLAND
FIRE & EMS SERVICES
NATURE AND EXTENT
The City provides fire-related services through the Wheatland Fire Authority (WFA), a joint
powers authority (JPA) of the City of Wheatland and PBFPD and has done so since January 2006.
The JPA directly employs staff, including the captain and call firefighters formerly employed directly
by the City and PBFPD prior to the 2006 JPA agreement.30 WFA occupies, uses and maintains all
fire facilities and equipment, but the City and PBFPD retain ownership of facilities and equipment
owned at the time WFA was formed. New equipment and facilities acquired by WFA are the
property of the Authority.
The JPA is funded by contributions from each party. Wheatland contributes 49.3 percent of
WFA expenses under the approved budget, and PBFPD contributes the remaining 50.7 percent. In
the first full fiscal year (FY 06-07) of WFA operation, the City contributed $77,800.
WFA provides fire suppression and prevention, Basic Life Support (BLS) for medical
emergencies, rescue, fire inspection, education services, and standby safety and emergency medical at
local high school football games. Fire suppression and protection services include structural, vehicle
and vegetation fires. WFA provides BLS until Bi-County Ambulance, a privately owned ambulance
company, arrives to perform Advanced Life Support and provide ambulance transport services.
WFA has technical expertise in confined space, low and high angle, and trench rescues. Educational
services include fire prevention and CPR instruction in local schools and a hazardous materials
awareness program.
The fire chief conducts inspections with the building inspector at new construction sites;
however, there is not a Uniform Fire Code. Annual fire inspections are conducted at business sites
and at residences upon request.
Dispatch Services
All 911 calls made from land lines are automatically routed to the Yuba County Sheriff. Radio
dispatch services are provided by the Sheriff for the Wheatland Fire Authority; hence. Yuba County
is the Public Safety Answering Point. Once the County Sheriff dispatcher determines a call requires
fire department response, call personnel and the captain are dispatched through pagers. For medical
emergencies, the Sheriff calls Bi-County Ambulance and the company dispatches the nearest
ambulance.
Calls to 911 from cellular phones are initially routed to the California Highway Patrol (CHP). If
the call is north of the Bear River, then it is routed to Chico CHP. If the call if placed south of the
Bear River, it is routed to Sacramento CHP. CHP relays the call to Yuba County Sheriff, and
dispatching then follows the same protocol as for 911 calls from land lines.
30 Wheatland Fire Authority Joint Powers Agreement, 2006.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-51
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
LOCATION
WFA provides service to all areas within the City of Wheatland and PBFPD (which includes
small portions of Placer and Sutter County) bounds. Due to proximity, mutual aid is often provided
outside of WFA bounds to the Olivehurst Fire Department service area and California Department
of Forestry and Fire Protection in the Sheridan community (Placer County).
INFRASTRUCTURE
The City owns one fire station at 313 Main Street; the station is used for operations, equipment
storage, and training. WFA also provides service from two stations owned by PBFPD. The chief
and paid firefighter have management responsibility for all three stations, and are on site during
business hours (8 a.m.-5 p.m.) on weekdays.
Vehicles at the City station include three engines from 1976, 1982, and 2002. The WFA
identified a need for some equipment to be replaced due to old age. Specific equipment needs were
not identified.
WFA reported that the station is in good condition; however, it has limited space and the
location hinders response times when trains are passing through the City. Given the projected
demand, the current facility does not have the capacity to serve future development. In order to
accommodate future growth, the Public Safety Master Plan identifies a need for a new station within
the city limits on the west side of SR 65.
The Master Facilities Plan outlines plans for a headquarters station with 10,472 square feet of
space for administration, training, six vehicles, and dormitories for 10 firefighters. The capital cost
of the new facility is estimated at $5.4 million. The City had not begun construction or site
acquisition when this report was drafted. The City expects that this facility will be completed by
2010. To accommodate future growth at build-out, the Master Facilities Plan identifies a need for
two more stations (in addition to the previously mentioned new headquarters) and a training facility.
In total, capital costs for all new facilities are estimated to be $13 million.
Other infrastructure needs identified include additional fire flow water reserves. The City can
provide 600,000 gallons of usable water for fire flow from two storage tanks and six wells. In the
event that two simultaneous fires should occur, one residential and one commercial, the current
reserves would be inadequate by 200,000 gallons, according to the General Plan.
A-52 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF WHEATLAND
Table A-2-6: Wheatland Fire Profile
Fire Service
Service Configuration Service Demand
Fire Suppression WFA Statistical Base Year 2006
EMS WFA Total Service Calls1 349
Ambulance Transport Bi-County % EMS 75.6%
Hazardous Materials Marysville Fire Dept. % Fire 6.3%
Air Rescue & Ambulance Helicopter CDF % Mutual Aid 9.2%
Fire Suppression Helicopter CDF % Vehicle Accident 5.7%
Public Safety Answering Point Yuba County Sheriff % Other 12.3%
Fire/EMS Dispatch Yuba County Sheriff Calls per 1,000 people 99
Service Adequacy Resources
ISO Rating Class 6 Fire Stations in City 1
Median Response Time 2:00 Fire Stations Serving City 3
90th Percentile Response Time2 3:00 Sq. Miles per Station 1.5
Response Time Base Year 2006 Total Staff3 19.4
Training Total Full-time Sworn Staff 1.4
Training is held 48 hours annually towards Volunteer Firefighter I Total On-call Sworn Staff 18
Certification—11 volunteers have received certification. Sworn Staff per Station4 6
Sworn Staff per 1,0005 3
Full-time Sworn Staff per 1,000 0.2
Service Challenges Staffing Base Year FY 07-08
According to the WFA, there are no areas within the City bounds that are Fire Flow Water Reserves 600,000 g
a challenge to serve. Fire Flow Pressure6 20 psi
Facilities
Station Location Condition Staff per Shift Apparatus
Wheatland 313 Main Street Good 2 staff per business Engine 411
Fire weekday shift rotated Engine 412
Station among the 3 WFA Engine 413
stations
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
According to the Public Safety Master Plan, a new station is recommended on the west side of SR65. The Master Facilities
Plan outlines plans for a 10,472 square foot headquarters station with space for administration, training, six vehicles, and
dorms for 10 firefighters. The total estimated capital cost is $5,420,010. The new facility is expected to be completed by
2010.
To accommodate future growth, the Master Facilities Plan identifies a need for two new stations (in addition to the new
headquarters) and a training facility.
To provide enough capacity in the event of a simultaneous residential and commercial fire, the City needs an additional
200,000 gallons in fire flow capacity.
Regional Collaboration Mutual/Automatic Aid Providers
The City is a partner with the Plumas Brophy Fire Protection District in the
Linda FPD, Olivehurst FD,
Wheatland Fire Authority—a joint powers authority formed to provide fire
CDF, Beale AFB, Sutter County
protection and EMS related services to the City and District.
Notes:
(1) Calls within the City's boundaries.
(2) The response time is for the area within the City limits.
(3) While all WFA staff serve the three authority-operated stations, PBFPD full-time staff based on the ratio of time the WFA chief and
captain spend at the PBFPD stations. PBFPD call firefighter staffing based on the ratio of service calls within PBFPD bounds.
(4) Based on ratio of sworn staff to the number of stations. Actual staffing levels of each station vary.
(5) Sworn staff ratio based on 2006 DOF population of Wheatland and 2000 Census population of the PBFPD bounds.
(6) Tested for simultaneous residential and non-residential fires on a maximum day of water use.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-53
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
NATURE AND EXTENT
The Wheatland Police Department (PD) is the primary provider of police services within the
City’s bounds. The Wheatland PD provides uniformed patrol, investigative services, traffic
enforcement, special patrol services for school and public events, animal control services, and
administrative services. The Wheatland PD relies on Yuba County for temporary and long-term
holding facilities, dispatch, search and rescue, animal shelter facilities, and canine services.
YCSD holding facilities are utilized by Wheatland PD free of charge, unless the agency’s three-
year average of non-felony bookings is exceeded, in which case the County can charge a jail access
fee for each booking.31 YCSD reported that it has on occasion provided investigative services free
of charge to WPD when the City is confronted with a complex case. The City uses the County
firing range for training at no cost. In addition, YCSD has in the past provided training to WPD in
firearms, tasers, defensive tactics, batons, and CLETS at no expense to the City. The City reported
that it currently trains jointly with MPD. Crime lab services are provided by the California
Department of Justice at no charge, and SWAT services are provided by Yuba City Metro SWAT
Team through a mutual aid request.
City police services are provided by a full-time chief and seven full-time police officers. With
this staffing level the Department is able to provide 24-hour services to the City. At all times, there
is one full-time officer on duty for 10 to 12 hour shifts.
The Department provides limited training for officers including the initial field training program,
roll call and briefing training. Officers must receive basic academy training prior to hire from any
POST-certified academy. The Department reports that it is meeting all POST standards.
Dispatch
The City contracts with the Sheriff for dispatch services, hence Yuba County, not the City is the
Public Safety Answering Point. All 911 calls from land lines are initially routed to the Yuba County
Sheriff. Calls from cellular phones are initially routed to the California Highway Patrol (CHP); CHP
relays police-related calls to Yuba County Sheriff. Once the County Sheriff dispatcher determines a
call requires police response, it directly dispatches City police personnel.
Demand
Due to recent population growth and development there has been a significant increase in
serious crimes within the City of Wheatland in the last five years. The crime rate, illustrated in
Figure A-2-7, shows the occurrence of violent crimes (homicide, forcible rape, robbery, and
aggravated assault), property crimes (burglary, motor vehicle theft, and larceny theft over $400), and
arson per 10,000 people. Crime was at a low in 2002; however, between 2002 and 2005, serious
31 Government Code §29551.
A-54 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF WHEATLAND
crimes increased from 78 to 199 reported instances for every 10,000 people. In 2006, the crime rate
declined to 152 instances per 10,000 residents. California State as a whole saw a decrease in the
serious crime rate in the same time period—from 332 per 10,000 in 1996 to 282 in 2006.
Figure A-2-7: Wheatland Crime Rate
Similarly, the Wheatland PD has
250
experienced an increase in service calls
received during the same time period. 200
Service calls per 1,000 residents rose from
150
1,200 in 2000 to 2,673 in 2006.
100
Complaints 50
0
According to the Department’s citizen
complaint policy, complaint forms are
available at City Hall and the police station.
Complaints about police service may also be
conveyed to the city manager or police chief
in person. In 2006, Wheatland PD received one citizen complaint regarding non-criminal conduct
of an officer.
LOCATION
The Wheatland Police Department has jurisdiction within the City bounds. Wheatland PD
responds outside of its bounds on occasion to provide support to CHP and Yuba and Placer
counties in the event that they are not capable of a timely response. Wheatland PD does not
provide contract services in other jurisdictions.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The Police Department operates a station located downtown on Second Street. The station is
comprised of two trailers: one used for administration and the other for storage purposes. The
administration trailer is a double-wide trailer that was installed in 1983 as a temporary facility; it is
only used for administration purposes. The second trailer is used for storage purposes, but is now
full. Until recently the station has received minimal maintenance; the City now has a contract with a
private maintenance company for continual maintenance needs. The station was identified as being
in fair condition with no major immediate infrastructure needs, according to the City.32
The General Plan identifies that this facility is inadequate for future needs. At build-out, it is
projected that the Department will need an additional 39 officers to maintain the same response
capabilities that are provided now. Financing constraints have prevented the building of a new
facility. In addition, the police station location is too small to accommodate construction of a new
facility.
32 Interview with Mike McCrary, Police Chief, City of Wheatland, May 20, 2008.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-55
stnediser
000,01
rep
semirC
6991 7991 8991 9991 0002 1002 2002 3002 4002 5002 6002
Violent Property
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The Master Facilities Plan outlines plans for a 17,600 square foot station that will provide space
for 44 law enforcement officers. The facility will included space for administration, patrol,
investigation, records, traffic control, analytical and support staff, evidence storage, report writing,
training, meetings, lockers, and showers. The station will likely be near the current station, although
a site has not been identified. The total expected capital construction cost is $8.4 million. The City
has not yet begun construction, site acquisition, or developed a timeline for the new facility.
A-56 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF WHEATLAND
Table A-2-8: Wheatland Police Service Profile
Police Service
Service Configuration Service Demand
Patrol Direct Statistical Base Year 2006
Dispatch Sheriff Total Service Calls 2,673
Search and Rescue Sheriff 911 Calls1 NP
Crime Lab DOJ Non-Emergency Calls NP
SWAT Metro SWAT2 % 911 Calls NP
Temporary Holding Sheriff Calls per 1,000 people 761
Bomb Squad Beale AFB3 Arrests 181
Canine Services Sheriff Citations 32
Academy Training Yuba College 2005 FBI Index Crimes 1 28
POST Certified? Yes Crime Rate per 10,000 369
Service Adequacy Resources
Complaints in 2006 1 Total Staff 8
Priority One Response Time 3:36 Full-time Sworn Staff 8
Response Time Base Year 2006 Reserves4 0
Response Time Note None Sworn Staff per 1,0005 2
Property Clearance Rate6 5% Staffing Base Year 2006
Violent Clearance Rate 53% Marked Police Vehicles 5
Service Challenges
None
Facilities
Station Location Condition Other Purpose Built
Wheatland Police 413 Second St Fair Headquarters and storage 1980
Station
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
The double-wide trailer has had minimum maintenance until recently when the City began contracting with a private
maintenance company. The trailer has reached capacity is will likely require replacement between 2012 and 2014.
The City did not identify any major immediate infrastructure needs.
Regional Collaboration
The Department reported that officers participate in a number of regional law enforcement programs, which benefit
the City by providing additional special enforcement support when needed. In 2007, staff participated in the Yuba
Sutter County Gang Task Force lead by the Yuba County Sheriff's Office, the Sexual Assault Response Team lead
by the Yuba County District Attorney's Office, the Underage Drinking Task Force lead by the Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control, the Child Abuser Vertical Prosecution Project lead by the Yuba County Distinct
Attorney's Office, the Avoid the 9 DUI Campaign lead by the Maryville Police Department, and the Yuba Sutter
Substance Abuse Steering Committee.
Notes:
(1) 911 calls from cellular phones are not included.
(2) The Metro SWAT team is comprised of MPD and the Yuba City Police Department.
(3) Yuba County Sheriff reported that Beale AFB provides ordinance disposal but may not render civilian ordinances safe unless it poses an
imminent threat. Sacramento County Sheriff provided bomb disposal service for the most recent incident in the County. Placer and Butte
County Sheriff Departments also have bomb disposal units that may be used for service.
(4) The City employs two Level I reserves that may patrol individually.
(5) Sworn staff includes full-time sworn staff and reserves.
(6) Clearance rates are aggregated for the period between 2000 and 2006.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-57
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
STREET SERVICES
NATURE AND EXTENT
The City provides street services, including maintenance of structural roadway sections (asphalt
and base material), damaged curbs and sidewalks, gutters and road-related drainage infrastructure.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) owns and maintains most of the street lights in the City.
The City reports that it owns street lights, but these are also maintained by PG&E.
LOCATION
Street services are provided within the City’s boundaries. The City does not provide street
services outside its bounds.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Key infrastructure includes nine centerline miles of roads. The street system within the City
includes the arterial streets of Main Street and Spenceville Road, the collectors of McDevitt Drive,
Evergreen Drive, Nichols Road, and First Street/Wheatland Road, and various local roads.
There is one signalized intersections within the City, located at First Street and SR 65. There are
plans to install another signal at the intersection of Main Street and SR 65. There are no significant
bridges or tunnels located within the City boundaries. The City did not report any existing facility
sharing.
The City reports that 75 percent of streets need some level of rehabilitation or major
maintenance activities, as the majority of the City's road system has not been overlaid or
reconstructed since 1960. The City has established a priority list of streets for rehabilitation or
major maintenance activities, and the plan will be implemented as funding becomes available.
Recent infrastructure projects identified by the City of Wheatland include the handicapped ramp
installation and repaving of 4th Street, and the installation of traffic signals at Main Street and SR 65
and First Street and SR 65. All of these projects were planned to be completed by FY 07-08. The
City recently completed the repaving of C Street from Fourth to Mesa Street. Proposition 1B funds
totaling $190,000 will be used to complete the repaving of multiple sections of roads by the end of
2008, including 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and Main Streets from SR 65 to E Street and 3rd and 2nd Streets from
SR 65 to the railroad tracks. The streets to be prioritized for the remaining $200,000 in Proposition
1B funds had not yet been determined as of the drafting of this report.
The City General Plan established LOS “C” as the minimum standard for acceptable traffic
operations at signalized intersections and on roadway segments within the City. All city-maintained
streets operate at LOS “A,” with the exception of Spenceville Road (west of Cyrus Dam Road)
which operates at LOS “B.” Currently all five portions of SR 65 (maintained by Caltrans) studied in
the General Plan operate at LOS “F.”
A-58 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF WHEATLAND
The LOS “C” threshold for SR 65 in Wheatland is 12,000 ADT.33 The current daily volume on
SR 65 in Wheatland as of the 2006 General Plan was 15,000 ADT. Traffic studies cited in the
General Plan project ADT ranging from 26,200 to 29,000 on SR 65 through downtown Wheatland
by 2010, more than double the acceptable LOS for the roadway. The SR 65 bypass around
downtown Wheatland will reduce the volume of traffic in the City, but the project is not planned to
be completed until at least 2025. By then, even with a regional SR 65 bypass, traffic volumes
through downtown Wheatland (from Main Street to Olive Street) are projected to range from 15,000
to 20,000 ADT (LOS “F”).
Financing
The City primarily funds street maintenance through gas tax revenues and other City revenues,
including development impact fees. New developments are required to construct all internal street
system improvements associated with their projects. The City also requires a traffic impact fee of
$6,350 per detached dwelling (or $4,239 per attached dwelling) for improvements on external streets
to accommodate increased use. Additionally the City requires a regional bypass project fee of $3,077
per detached dwelling (or $2,055 per attached dwelling) to help fund the Wheatland bypass project.
33 According to the 2006 Wheatland General Plan, Average Daily Traffic (ADT) represents the average number of vehicles that pass a
specified point during a 24-hour period.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-59
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-2-9: City of Wheatland Street Service
Street Service Configuration and Demand
Service Configuration
Street Maintenance Direct Street Lighting PG&E
Street Sweeping Direct Signal Maintenance No signals
Street Sweeping Frequency Downtown weekly, the remainder of the City monthly.
Service Demand
Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel, 20061 4,880 Service Requests 2006 4
DVMT per Street Mile, 20062 542 Service Calls per Street Mile 0.44
Circulation Description
SR 65 provides primary north-south circulation in the City. East-west circulation is provided primarily by the
collector roads of First St. and Main St.
Infrastructure
Street Centerline Miles 9.0 Signalized Intersections 0
Rural Collector 0.6 Street Lights TK
Rural Local 8.4 Bridges and Tunnels 0
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
The City reports that 75 percent of streets need some level of rehabilitation or major maintenance activities,
as the majority of the City's road system has not been overlaid or reconstructed since 1960.
Service Challenges
Providing adequate funding for street maintenance, especially in the newly developing areas.
Notes:
(1) Daily vehicle miles of travel (DVMT) in 2006, according to Caltrans.
(2) 2006 DVMT divided by total mileage of County-maintained public road system in 2006.
continued
A-60 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF WHEATLAND
Street Service Adequacy and Planning
Service Adequacy
Services completed in FY 2005-06 consisted of four service requests to fill in potholes.
Pavement Condition
Pavement Management System No Street Miles Seal Coated FY 05-06 0
PMS last update NA % Seal Coated NA
Pavement Condition Index 2006 NA Miles Rehabilitated FY 05-06 0
Maintenance Cost per Street Mile1 $12,027 % Rehabilitated NA
Average Street Repair Reponse Time2 1-2 Days Miles Needing Rehabilitation 6.75
Reponse Time Policy 2 Days % Needing Rehabilitation 75%
Level of Service (LOS)
Current: All streets operate at LOS "B" or above.
Policy: LOS "C" is minimum standard for City-maintained roads.
Build-Out: LOS "C" or better.
Planning Year Planning Horizon
Street Master Plan Cost Allocation Technical Report 2006 20 years
Wheatland Circulation and Fee Study 2005 20 years
City of Wheatland General Plan 2006 20 years
Regional Collaboration and Facility Sharing
Collaboration:
The City participates in regional planning as a member of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments.
Existing Facility Sharing:
None identified
Facility Sharing Opportunities:
None identified
Note:
(1) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
(2) City road maintenance expenditures in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-61
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Street Service Financing
General Financing Approach
Street services are financed primarily by gas tax revenues and City revenues, including development impact
fees. The City has a separate development impact fee schedules to fund the regional bypass project.
Development Fees and Requirements (Bridges, Signals and Thoroughfares)
Residential (per unit) Single Family: $6,350 Multi-Family: $4,239
Non-residential (per 1,000 sq. ft.) Retail: $6,203 Commercial Lodging: $3,340
Development Requirements New developments are required to construct all internal street system
improvements associated with their projects.
Streets and Roads Financial Information, FY 05-061
Revenues Expenditures
Total $186,293
Total6
$170,563
Gas Tax $68,654 Maintenance $108,245
VLF In-Lieu2 $0 Street $108,245
Traffic Congestion Relief $15,342 Lights & Signals $0
Other State Revenues $0 Other $0
Federal Revenues $0 Capital $62,318
Local Revenues3 $0 New Construction7 $0
City Revenues $102,297 Reconstruction $0
Interest $0 Signals & Lights $62,318
Bond proceeds $0 Other $0
General Fund $7,490 Undistributed Costs8 $0
Assessments4
$0 Plant & Equipment $0
Other5
$94,807 Other Public Agencies $0
Note:
(1) Financial information as reported in the Annual Street Report to the State Controller.
(2) Includes motor vehicle license fees used for street purposes and/or being accounted for in a street-purpose fund.
(3) Includes other funds distributed by the local agencies other than the County and the cities.
(4) Includes benefit assessments (also called special assessments) collected to finance street improvements and street
lighting under the Landscape and Lighting Assessment Act of 1972, the Improvement Act of 1913 and the Street
Lighting Act of 1931.
(5) Includes traffic safety funds, development impact fees, redevelopment agency funds, and miscellaneous local sources.
Excludes payments from other governmental agencies for contract services.
(6) Total before adjustments for reporting changes since prior years.
(7) Includes new construction and betterment of streets, bridges, lighting facilities, and storm drains, as well as right-of-
way acquisitions.
(8) Engineering costs that are not allocated to other expenditure categories or projects because the work is not specific or
such allocation is impractical. Administration cost is an equitable pro rata share of expenditures for the supervision and
management of street-purpose activities.
A-62 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF WHEATLAND
DRAINAGE SERVICES
NATURE AND EXTENT
The City of Wheatland operates and maintains internal drainage facilities and provides
stormwater services. RD 2103 is responsible for maintenance of levees protecting the City boundary
area and portions of the existing SOI.
The City has participated in planning and financing of levee improvements. Through its 2005
General Plan Update, the City evaluated capacity, needs and alternatives for internal drainage and
external source flood protection. Its drainage plan is essentially a tool to be used to ensure that
future development does not worsen conditions. The plan recommends improvements, including
developer-funded regional detention basins to reduce flows.34 The City has evaluated and imposed
associated development impact fees, and extended a loan in 2008 to help fund Bear River levee
improvements.
Stormwater NPDES permits are issued to protect water quality from non-point source
discharges, such as road runoff or construction sites. RWQCB issues individual NPDES permits to
cities and counties with population of 100,000 or more, and has issued a general permit to smaller
jurisdictions that either a) meet the EPA definition of urbanized areas, or b) are designated as
regulated areas by RWQCB in light of high population growth, population density, growth potential,
and/or discharge levels. In urban areas, counties and cities must develop stormwater plans and
implement best management practices (BMPs). BMPs include program elements, such as stenciling,
public education, monitoring and inspections of facilities, and “good housekeeping” practices at
municipal facilities. Counties and cities must show that they are implementing BMPs to the
maximum extent practicable in urban areas. The City of Wheatland has not been designated as a
regulated entity, but would be subject to these requirements if projected growth should occur.
LOCATION
Drainage services are provided throughout the City of Wheatland.
The City does not directly serve areas outside the City, although a few of its facilities are located
outside city limits and the City’s drainage system receives flows from outside the City’s bounds.35
Facilities located outside City bounds are the City’s northwest detention pond, discharge pumps and
a ditch connecting the Wheatland Ranch subdivision detention basin with Dry Creek.36
City drainage facilities receive flows originating outside city limits.
34 Civil Engineering Solutions, Inc., Wheatland General Plan Update: Draft Drainage Report for Internal Drainage, Nov. 2005.
35 Civil Engineering Solutions, Inc., Wheatland General Plan Update: Draft Drainage Report for Internal Drainage, Nov. 2005.
36 Raney Planning & Management, Inc., City of Wheatland General Plan Update: Environmental Impact Report, July 2006, p. 4.8-5.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-63
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
INFRASTRUCTURE
Existing infrastructure includes a detention basin and pump station, channels and drainage
culverts.
The Wheatland area generally drains from the northeast to the southwest. A ridge of high
ground separates the historic floodplains of the Bear River and Dry Creek.
Grasshopper Slough conveys runoff from areas northeast of the City in a northwesterly
direction to Dry Creek east of SR 65. As the channel flows through a gap in the ridge, it is diverted
through a 36-inch culvert under the Dry Creek levee. The culvert is gated to prevent Dry Creek
flows from backing into Grasshopper Slough. The culvert does not have the capacity to drain 100-
year flows through Grasshopper Slough.
Another tributary of Grasshopper Slough North conveys drainage mostly from agricultural areas
north of the City through an open channel that crosses SR 65 and the railroad at bridges. The
historic channel was filled in between SR 65 and Oakley Lane, and runoff sheetflows westerly 1,300
feet to the Sohrakoff Drainage Channel. The channel, which lacks capacity for 100-year flows,
drains into a detention basin near Dry Creek. A dual pump system at the detention basin lifts flows
from the basin into Dry Creek west of SR-65.
The detention basin and pump station is located west of SR 65 along Dry Creek. The pump lifts
flows from the basin into Dry Creek. The pumping plant has a capacity of 41 cfs at the elevation of
68.2. The estimated storage volume of the detention basin is 109 af.37
Grasshopper Slough South drains the area south and west of the City. Agricultural runoff
generated upstream of the railroad drains into the channel at the railroad; that channel travels west
past Oakley Lane where it turns north. The slough drains southwest to join with Dry Creek through
a 60-inch culvert located near the confluence of Dry Creek and Bear River.
Engineering analysis of the existing drainage system found that much of the City’s planning area
would be inundated in a 100-year flood. Most existing culverts do not have adequate capacity for
100-year flows. During flood events, ponds could occur behind the culverts. Infrastructure needs
to convey the 100-year future flows include enlarging some existing culverts, and culvert crossings at
proposed roadways.
The City plans to finance nine storm drainage capital projects required to construct the network
of pipes and small drainage channels for growth envisioned in its General Plan. The City’s drainage
capital needs are expected to cost $79 million. The City has structured a development impact fee of
up to $7,257 per unit to finance these needs.38
The City is implementing regional detention basins to provide capacity to convey peak drainage
flows. The City requires new development to install drainage infrastructure, specifically channels,
37 Civil Engineering Solutions, Inc., Wheatland General Plan Update: Draft Drainage Report for Internal Drainage, Nov. 2005, p. 8.
38 Revenue & Cost Specialists, LLC, Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of Wheatland, California, Jan. 2007.
A-64 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF WHEATLAND
culverts and storm drains, to limit post-development flows to existing conditions. In some areas
where new systems are installed, treatment facilities may be used at the detention facilities.
PARKS & RECREATION SERVICES
NATURE AND EXTENT
The City of Wheatland maintains and operates public parks. The City provides park maintenance
services directly with the exception of pest control services for which it contracts with a private
provider. Currently, recreation within the City is provided through the Wheatland Volunteer
Recreational Association. A new community center, owned and operated by the City, opened in
May 2007.
LOCATION
Park services are provided throughout the City of Wheatland. Two parks are located in
downtown Wheatland, and two other parks are located in the Park Place and Wheatland Ranch
subdivisions. Both residents and non-residents may use the city parks. There are no non-resident
fees for parks, but the fee for use of the community center are be higher for non-residents than
residents.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The City of Wheatland’s infrastructure includes four public parks and a community center which
opened in May 2007. Sports are organized by the Wheatland Volunteer Recreational Association.
There are no regional parks, golf courses, or other community facilities owned by the City.
The City reported that all park facilities maintained by the City are in excellent condition and
there are no needs or deficiencies identified for current facilities.
The community center opened in 2007. The center was constructed with donated funds. The
City is providing funding for the operation of the center.
Other planned facilities include community parks in Jones Ranch (a 4.7 acres neighborhood
park, 24.8 acres of open space/drainage and a 1.2 acre pedestrian path), Heritage Oaks Estates West
(8.1 acres), and Heritage Oaks Estates East (23.1 acres). The City plans to acquire approximately 90
acres of land for use as neighborhood, community and sports parks. Development of these parks
includes grading, irrigation, turfing, sports facilities, drinking fountains, picnic tables, restrooms, and
barbeques. All park development is expected to cost $44,359,023. A timeline for acquiring and
constructing these new facilities has not yet been developed. The City’s recent General Plan Policy
Document includes a policy to initiate the financing, design, and development of a City-owned
community park adjacent to the new Civic Center site (Policy 6.A.1).
BY BURR CONSULTING A-65
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-2-10: Wheatland Park Profile
Park and Recreation Service Configuration, Demand, Adequacy, and Financing
Service Configuration
Park Maintenance Direct Number of Local Parks 4
Recreation WVRA Number of Recreation and Senior Centers¹ 1
Marina None Golf None
Service Demand
Park Frequent Visitor Population² Park Visitors per Year Unknown
Children 748 Annual Recreation Participant Hours NA
Seniors 287
Service Adequacy FY 05-06
Park Acres per Capita³ 3.0 Recreation Center Hours per Week4 NA
Park Maintenance FTE 1.2 Recreation FTE per 1,000 Residents NA
Recreation FTE NA Maintenance Cost per Acre FY 05-06 $1,129
Service Challenges
None
Park Planning Description Planning Horizon
Park Master Plan None NA
Capital Improvement Plan None NA
General Plan 2006 20 years
General Financing Approach
General fund revenues and assessments (Wheatland Ranch)
Parks and Recreation Financial Information, FY 04-05 Actuals
Revenues Expenditures
Total Revenues $37,178 Total Park Expenditures $37,178
Park & Recreation Fees5 NA Park Maintenance $30,591
Other General Fund $37,178 Recreation and Senior Services NA
Special Tax NA Enterprise NA
Enterprise Revenues6 NA Administrative & Other7 $5,253
Developer Fees and Requirements
Flat fee per dwelling: detached dwelling- $5,516, attached dwelling- $4,901, mobile
Development Impact Fee Approach home dwelling- $3,324.
Land Dedication Requirement 5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 new residents
Park construction in-lieu fee is levied on residential development and based on
In-Lieu Fees number of detached and attached dwelling residents to be developed.
Notes:
(1) Community center scheduled to open May 2007.
(2) From 2000 Census numbers, children are classified as aged 18 and under, senior residents are aged 65 and over.
(3) Developed park acreage per 1,000 residents.
(4) Community center scheduled to open May 2007.
(5) Park and recreation fees include fees for recreation services, facility rentals and concessions.
(6) There are no enterprise services in the City such as golf courses or marinas.
(7) Other includes administrative costs, trust fund, contract management, and other operating costs.
continued
A-66 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CITY OF WHEATLAND
Park and Recreation Facilities
Park Acreage
Total 27.1 School Parks 0
Local Parks 27.1 Regional Parks 0
Recreation Facilities and Parks
Name Location Condition Year Built Acres
Nichols/C Street Park E of SR 65 between C St. and Excellent NP 3.9
Union Pacific tracks
Front St./Tomita Park Next to the Union Pacific tracks, Excellent Lease 0.4
west side of Front Street agreement
Park Place Park McDevitt and Spruce Excellent 2001 17.9
Wheatland Ranch Park Wheatland Ranch subdivision Excellent 2001 4.9
Community Center 101 C St. Excellent 2007 NA
Facility Needs/Deficiencies
According to the City, all park facilities in the City of Wheatland are in excellent condition.
Facility Sharing
The City is not currently sharing facilities with other agencies, but reports that it is in the process of
developing shared facility plans with the high school and elementary school districts.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-67
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
3. B RO P H Y WAT E R D I S T R I C T
The Brophy Water District (BWD) provides retail water delivery for agricultural irrigation and
rice decomposition.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
BWD was formed January 26, 1965 as an independent special district.39 The District was formed
to provide agricultural irrigation to the territory encompassing the area northeast of the community
of Linda to the Goldfields, and east of SR 70 and Rancho Road to Beale Air Force Base, north of
Ostrom Road.
The principal act that governs the District is the California Water District Law.40 The act
empowers water districts to produce, store, transmit and distribute water for irrigation, domestic,
industrial, and municipal purposes and to provide related drainage services. Districts must apply and
obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those services authorized by
the principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.41
BWD’s boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The boundary area is located east of the
communities of Linda and Olivehurst to Beale Air Force Base, and extends north of Hammonton
Smartville Road to the Goldfields, and south to Ostrom Road, as shown on Map B-3. The District
has a boundary area of 26.9 square miles.
The SOI of the District is coterminous with the District bounds.
Boundary History
Since formation in 1965, there have been eight annexations to the District. In 1980, the Staas
annexation added 241 acres northwest of the dogleg in Virginia Road, south of Erle Road.42 The
district boundary was extended to Ostrom Road in the south by the Foley annexation in 1988, and
the Lassaga and Deep Violet Farms annexations in 1991, collectively expanded the District by nearly
3,300 acres.43 The northwestern portion of the District was expanded in 1991 by the Carranza,
39 Board of Equalization Official Date.
40 California Water Code §34000-38501.
41 Government Code §56824.10.
42 LAFCO resolution 1980-10.
43 LAFCO resolutions 1988-13, 1991-18 and 1991-20.
A-68 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
BROPHY WATER DISTRICT
Huckins and Smith annexations.44 The Carranza annexation added nearly 20 acres to the District
north of North Beale Road and east of Griffith Avenue. The Huckins annexation added 86 acres
south of North Beale Road and east of Griffith Avenue, and the Smith annexation added 240 acres
southwest of the intersection of Hammonton Smartville Road and Bryden Road. The last
annexation to the District occurred in 1996 with a second Huckins property annexation—44 acres
south of North Beale Road, adjacent to the previous District boundary.45
The SOI for BWD was adopted in 1988 to be coterminous with the district bounds following
the annexation of the Foley property.46 The SOI was amended five separate times in 1991 along
with each of the five annexations that took place that year (Carranza, Huckins, Smith, Lassaga, and
Deep Violet Farms), with the SOI being coterminous with District bounds following each
annexation.47 The SOI for the District was last amended in 1996 along with the second Huckins
property annexation, resulting in a sphere coterminous with District bounds.
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District has a five-member governing body. Board members are to be elected by the
landowners to staggered four-year terms; however, in practice, positions are rarely contested and
board members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Board members in 2007 are H. Earl
Parker, Jr. (President), William Baggett, Brian J. Bertolini, Al Lassaga, and Donald Staas.
Regular Board meetings are held at 7:30 p.m. on the second Tuesday of each month at the
Bertolini Ranch Office on Beale Road. Board meeting agendas are posted in a covered box on the
south side of North Beale Road at the entrance to Bertolini Farms where the District leases space
within the farm’s headquarters to hold its meetings. Agendas are also posted on the door of the
meeting room. Minutes are available at the following meeting or upon request. The District does
not have a website, so its documents are not available online.
All elections for governing body members since 1995 have been uncontested. Since there have
been no contested elections in recent history, landowners in the district have not participated in
elections and voter turnout rates are not available.
The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with
LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with LAFCO
map inquiries and document requests.
Complaints may be submitted through phone calls, email, letters and in-person. The District
reported that it did not receive any complaints in 2006. Complaints would most often pertain to
service provided by the ditch tender.
44 LAFCO resolutions 1991-11, 1991-14 and 1991-16.
45 LAFCO resolution 1996-3.
46 LAFCO resolution 1988-3.
47 LAFCO resolutions 1991-11, 1991-13, 1991-15, 1991-17, and 1991-19.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-69
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The District updates constituents attending board meetings and by word of mouth. The District
does not conduct community outreach activities.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The area within the District’s bounds is largely agricultural. Business activity in the District
includes farming of rice, prunes, peaches, walnuts and corn. The District considers its customer
base to be the farmers that own the approximately 10,000 acres of irrigated land within the District.48
There were 1,049 residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. The
District’s population density is 39 per square mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Significant growth is anticipated within the District when the proposed developments of
Woodbury and Chippewa begin construction. Woodbury is a 1,633-acre development located
northeast of the intersection of SR 65 and 70 and south of Erle Road. Reynen & Bardis
Communities proposed to develop over 6,300 residential units, along with over 60 acres of
neighborhood commercial areas, and a 56-acre business park located in the northwest of the
development. In total the development will contain over 217 acres of business and commercial
uses. Chippewa, by RAH Development, is a 368-acre project located to the immediate southeast of
the Woodbury development, east of the intersection of SR 65 and 70. At build-out, Chippewa will
contain nearly 1,100 single-family and 280 multi-family residential units. The single family
residential units would be built at a density ranging from four to six dwelling units per acre, with the
multi-family residential units being built at a density of 20 dwelling units per acre.
Also planned to be located within District bounds is the 2,492-acre Yuba County Research and
Development Park, located between Ostrom Road and Erle Road, southwest of Beale AFB. The
County aims to attract corporate campuses, office complexes, and other commercial or light
industrial ventures to this location in the future.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies. The District is concerned about the planned developments within
its boundaries, as the conversion of agricultural land uses to urban land uses would decrease
revenues to the District, as well as increase the demand for groundwater in the area. The District’s
contract with YCWA provides that it may sell water only for agricultural and wildlife habitat
purposes and only to customers within District bounds. It allows for the District to convert a
portion of its contractual water supply to municipal use if irrigable acres decline by 20 percent or
more over the 1990-2016 contract term.
MANAGEMENT
District staff consists of one ditch tender, provided through a contract with YCWA.
Management practices, including performance measurement and workload monitoring, are
performed by YCWA.
48 Interview with William Baggett and Donald Staas, Directors, Brophy Water District, March 15, 2007.
A-70 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
BROPHY WATER DISTRICT
BWD adopted a Groundwater Management Plan in 2004. The District has not prepared a
master plan or other documents which outline the long-range goals of the District.
Financial planning efforts include annual financial audits. The District does not have an adopted
CIP, and does not adopt an annual budget.
FINANCING
The District’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and
landowner preferences on water rates. The District has managed to provide adequate service levels
within these resource constraints. The District has not implemented best practices by annually
adjusting water rates to reflect current costs; the most recent water rate increase was in 2004. The
District reported that its current financing level is sufficient to provide adequate services.
The District tracks its finances through a single enterprise fund to provide irrigation services.
The District received $526,964 in operating and non-operating revenue in CY 2006. The
primary revenue sources for the District were water sales (60 percent) and assessment charges (33
percent). The District does not receive property taxes.
Total district expenditures for the same CY were $361,838, of which 53 percent constituted
water purchases, 16 percent for repairs, 13 percent professional services and 11 percent for a ditch
tender.49
The District had no long-term debt at the end of CY 2006.
The District did not report any upcoming significant capital outlays.
By way of financial reserves, the District had unrestricted net assets of $468,057 at the end of
CY 2006. This amounted to 129 percent of the District’s annual expenses. The District maintained
approximately 16 months of working capital. The District has no formal policy on target financial
reserves.
The District engages in joint financing arrangements related to maintenance of the YCWA
Canal. Brophy Water District pays 42 percent of canal operation and maintenance costs, and
SYWD and Dry Creek Mutual Water Company pay for the remainder.
WATER SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
BWD distributes irrigation water to landowners. District users all rely on a system of canals and
ditches for water delivery, with water flowing from the Yuba River diversion point, near the
Daguerre Point Dam, through the YCWA Main Canal to the BWD distribution system. BWD
49 Expenditures for CY 2006 do not include $8,619 in depreciation of capital assets.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-71
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
repairs and monitors the ditch system. BWD is not directly responsible for maintenance of the
Main Canal; it reimburses YCWA for a pro rata share of Main Canal operation and maintenance
expenses.
BWD does not provide water treatment services.
LOCATION
BWD provides services within District bounds, and does not provide services outside its
bounds. Approximately 10,000 acres of the 17,000 acres within District bounds purchased surface
water, as of early 2008.50 Parcels not receiving surface water are scattered throughout the boundary
area.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The BWD water source is the Yuba River. The water supply is primarily influenced by
snowpack.
As a result of an overdraft of the underground water basin in 1982, the District implemented a
plan to begin the use surface water to meet most of the area’s irrigation demand. In 1983, the
District entered into an agreement with Yuba Natural Resources for the provision of surface water
from the Yuba Goldfields and the transportation of that water to a point just north of the District
and to the east side of the District, respectively.
The original flow of water from the Goldfields was insufficient to provide water to BWD and
also for the needs of SYWD. In 1985, the two districts entered into a contract with YCWA to
purchase surface water from the Yuba River. BWD has a project base contract to 43,470 af and a
supplemental contract to 32,177 af. Water is diverted from the Yuba River at the Daguerre Point
Dam and transported via the canal developed by the two districts. In 1991, YCWA purchased the
Main Canal and now provides for all canal maintenance and operation through charges to BWD and
SYWD.
Key infrastructure within the District consists of 17 miles of earthen canals and ditches. The
District did not identify any needs or deficiencies in the ditch and canal system.
50 Interview with Donald Staas, May 15, 2008.
A-72 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
BROPHY WATER DISTRICT
Table A-3-1: BWD Water Service Profile
Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure
Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s)
Retail Water Direct Groundwater Recharge None
Wholesale Water None Groundwater Extraction Direct
Water Treatment None Recycled Water None
Service Area Description
Retail Water BWD's boundary lies primarily northeast of the community of Linda to the Goldfields,
and east of SR 70 to Beale Air Force Base, north of Ostrom Road.
Wholesale Water None
Recycled Water None
Boundary Area 26.9 sq. miles Population (2000) 1,049
System Overview
Average Daily Demand 54.5 mgd Peak Day Demand 175 af
Supply 75,647 af surface water
Infrastructure
Reservoirs 0 Storage Capacity (mg) 0
Pump Stations 0 Pressure Zones 0
Production Wells 0 Pipe Miles 0
Other: 17 miles of earthen ditch distribution system, siphons, check structures
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The District in collaboration with YCWA and SYWD is attempting to make upgrades on the fish screen at the
diversion point to meet Department of Fish and Game standards. The District estimates that to upgrade the fish
screen would cost approximately $200,000, and a new fish screen would cost more than $10 million.
Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration
Current Practices: Water is delivered to BWD through the YCWA-owned Main Canal. That canal also delivers
water to SYWD and Dry Creek Mutual Water Company.
Opportunities: Future groundwater pumping and conjunctive use projects would be implemented by YCWA and
its member units to provide water transfers to areas outside Yuba County.
Notes:
(1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet.
continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-73
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Water Demand and Supply
Service Connections1 Total Within Bounds Outside Bounds
Total 30 30 0
Irrigation/Landscape 30 30 0
Domestic 0 0 0
Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year)
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Total 49,314 62,728 61,096 NP NP NP NP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Commercial/Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Irrigation/Landscape 44,775 56,202 51,324 NP NP NP NP
Other2 4,539 6,526 9,772 NP NP NP NP
Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year)
Source Type Average Maximum Safe/Firm
Yuba River surface 57,713 75,647 Unknown
South Yuba Groundwater Subbasin groundwater NP NP Unknown
Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year)
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Total 75,647 75,647 75,647 NP NP NP NP
Imported 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Groundwater3 0 0 0 NP NP NP NP
Surface 75,647 75,647 75,647 NP NP NP NP
Recycled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Conjunctive Use
The District relies completely on surface water and does not practice conjunctive use; however, private wells are
used occasionally for micro-irrigation of 300 acres of orchards.
Supply Constraints
BWD has rights to 75,647 af annually of Yuba River surface water through a contractual agreement with YCWA.
There was groundwater overdraft in the area in the early-1980s. Precipitation and irrigation water percolate into
the groundwater basin with average annual recharge of the entire South Yuba Basin estimated at 21,500 af
annually, with an average of 17,000 af related to surface water deliveries.
Drought Supply and Plans
Drought Supply (af) Year 1: NP Year 2: NP Year 3: NP
Significant Droughts 1976, 1977 and 1987 through 1991, 1993
Storage Practices Surface water accumulates in Bullards Bar Reservoir, and is made available as needed by
YCWA during the year.
Although never invoked, the YCWA drought plan calls for 15% curtailments when the
flow forecast as of April 1 is 51-85% of normal levels, and 30% curtailments when the
Drought Plan flow is 40-50% of normal levels.
Water Conservation Practices
CUWCC Signatory No
Metering No
Conservation Pricing None, rate structure is flat.
Other Practices Tail water returns to the ditch system for further use.
Notes:
(1) The District reported the number of customers. Each customer may have multiple connections.
(2) Other water demand is water fowl habitat, as reported by YCWA.
(3) The District does not pump groundwater. All wells are privately owned by farmers.
continued
A-74 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
BROPHY WATER DISTRICT
Water Rates and Financing
Agricultural & Irrigation Water Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 06-071
Crop Rate Description
All crops $10.43 annual assessment per acre on 95% of acreage, stand-by charges are the same
on unserved land
Rice $30 per acre
Pasture and Field Crops $24 per acre
Orchards $18 per acre
Special Rates
Water rates are the same throughout the District.
Rate-Setting Procedures
Policy Description Service charges are imposed on a cost-of-service basis. Water use is not
metered, but is estimated for rate calculation purposes.
Most Recent Rate Change 2004 Frequency of Rate Changes as needed
Water Development Fees and Requirements
Connection Fee Approach Those landowners within the District that have more 40 acres of land
were assessed for new infrastructure when the District first received
surface water and would not be required to pay a connection fee should
they choose to receive water from the District. Any new water users
that were not assessed the original infrastructure fee are required to pay
the cost of connecting to the system plus $110 per acre.
Connection Fee Timing Upon connection
Connection Fee Amount 5/8 inch pipe: NA 1 inch pipe: NA
Land Dedication Requirements None
Development Impact Fee None
Water Enterprise Revenues, CY 06 Expenditures, CY 06
Source Amount % Amount
Total $526,964 100% Total $370,457
Rates & charges $488,443 93% Administration $68,468
Property tax $0 0% O & M $101,929
Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $8,619
Interest $15,667 3% Debt $0
Misc. - Refund $22,854 4% Purchased Water $191,441
Notes:
(1) Rates include water-related service charges and usage charges, and exclude utility users' taxes.
continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-75
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Water Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Indicators
Water Planning Description Date/Status
Groundwater Management Plan 2004 None
Water Master Plan None
UWMP None, not required
Capital Improvement Plan None
Plan Item/Element Description
Emergency Plan None
Other Plans
None
Service Challenges
The District identified coordinating fish screen improvements with the Department of Fish and Game as a
challenge to providing service. The District hopes to complete the necessary improvements as soon as
possible.
Service Adequacy Indicators
Connections/FTE 30.0 O&M Cost Ratio1 $1,869
MGD Delivered/FTE 54.5 Distribution Loss Rate Unknown
Employee Indicators
Total Employees (FTEs) 1 Certified as Required? Not required
Notes:
(1) Operations and maintenance costs (exc. purchased water, debt, depreciation) per volume (mgd) delivered.
A-76 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
BROWNS VALLEY CEMETERY DISTRICT
4. B ROW N S VA L L E Y C E M E T E RY
D I S T R I C T
The Browns Valley Cemetery District (BVCD) provides cemetery operations and maintenance
services to the community of Browns Valley.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
BVCD was formed on January 8, 1935 as an independent special district.51 The District was
formed to provide cemetery services and maintenance to the community of Browns Valley.
The principal act that governs the district is Public Cemetery District Law.52 The principal act
authorizes the district to own, operate, improve, and maintain cemeteries, provide interment services
within its boundaries, and to sell interment accessories and replacement objects (e.g., burial vaults,
liners, and flower vases). Although the district may require and regulate monuments or markers, it is
precluded from selling them. The principal act requires the district to maintain cemeteries owned by
the district.53 The law allows the district to inter non-residents under certain circumstances.54
Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those
services authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.55
The District’s boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The boundaries of BVCD extend west
from Englebright Lake to the intersection of Spring Valley Road with SR 20, and north of the Yuba
River to include the community of Browns Valley, as shown on Map B-4. The District has a
boundary area of approximately 30 square miles. There have been annexations to the District since
formation.
The SOI for BVCD was adopted in 1986 to be coterminous with the boundaries of the
District.56 There have been no amendments to the SOI since adoption.
51 Board of Equalization Official Date.
52 California Health and Safety Code §9000-9093.
53 California Health and Safety Code §9040.
54 Non-residents eligible for interment are described in California Health and Safety Code §9061, and include former residents,
current and former taxpayers, family members of residents and former residents, family members of those already buried in the
cemetery, those without other cemetery alternatives within 15 miles of their residence, and those who died while serving in the
military.
55 Government Code §56824.10.
56 LAFCO resolution 1986-52.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-77
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District has a three-member governing body. The Trustees are appointed by the County
Board of Supervisors to staggered four-year terms. Current Trustees are Maryanne Andrews (Chair),
Ivadene Leech and Sheila Lancieri.
The Trustees meet once per month from January to October, and do not meet in November or
December. The District reports that it is contemplating reducing the frequency of meetings to once
every other month. Meeting agendas are posted at the cemetery, and minutes are available by request
through the District secretary. The District does not have a website, so its documents are not
available online.
The district demonstrated partial accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation
with LAFCO. The agency cooperated with LAFCO’s request for interviews, but failed to provide a
financial statement and answer follow-up questions.
Complaints can be submitted through phone calls, letters and in-person, and are reviewed by the
Board. The District does not track the number of complaints. The District did not provide an
estimate of how many complaints were received in 2007.
The District does not conduct community outreach activities.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The District considers its customer base to be residents within the District. There were 532
residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. The District’s population
density is 18 per square mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Significant population growth is anticipated in the future if the Spring Valley development in
Spring Valley is approved. The County adopted a specific plan for the area in 1992. The
development plan calls for up to 3,500 dwelling units and 27.5 acres of commercial land spread over
2,450 acres at build-out. Only a portion of the total acreage would be contained with BVCD, in the
east of the District south of Spring Valley Road. A development agreement was approved in 1996
between the County and the developer, Axel Karlshoej. The developer was in the process of
negotiating with Browns Valley Irrigation District for water service and anticipated submitting a
tentative map to the County after approaching the community in Summer 2008, at the time this
report was prepared.
The area within the District’s bounds is largely rural residential and agricultural. Major crops are
irrigated pasture and rice. Business activity in the District includes a gas station and convenience
store.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies.
MANAGEMENT
The District employs a part-time secretary and groundskeeper. The secretary reports directly to
the Trustees. The part-time groundskeeper also serves as a Trustee. The District does not conduct
A-78 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
BROWNS VALLEY CEMETERY DISTRICT
productivity monitoring, but does continually evaluate performance of the secretary and
groundskeeper at its regular meetings. The groundskeeper performs year-round maintenance;
however, maintenance activities are scaled back during winter months.
No strategic or capital improvement plans have been adopted by the District. Capital
improvement needs are addressed in the District’s budget. Because the groundskeeper is also a
Trustee of the District, maintenance and infrastructure needs are routinely evaluated and discussed
at meetings and as needed.
The District’s financial planning efforts include an annually adopted budget and the preparation
of audited financial statements. The District reports that financial statements had regularly been
audited every two years, but due to increased costs have not been audited since FY 03-04.
FINANCING
The District’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and legal
limitations on revenue increases. The MSR found the District has managed to provide adequate
service levels within these resource constraints.
As the District did not provide a financial statement, finance data is from the State Controller’s
Special District Annual Report for FY 05-06.
Table A-4-1: BVCD Plot and Endowment Fees
Price
Table A-4-1 shows the plot and endowment fees
charged by BVCD. Non-residents must pay an Full Plot $350
additional $250 for cemetery services. Cremains Plot $200
Opening and Closing (Cremains) $200
The District received $23,032 in total revenues in Non-Resident Fee $250
FY 05-06. BVCD relies primarily on property taxes, Endowment Fee $100
consisting of 89 percent of revenues. The remaining
Transfer Fee $35
revenues were from interest income (nine percent)
Saturday Burial $150
and State sources (one percent). Expenses in FY 05-
06 were $11,586. Revenues received for interment services were not reported.
The District did not report its unreserved fund balance. The District has no formal policy on
target financial reserves.
According to the Health and Safety Code §8725, cemetery authorities must establish, operate
and maintain an endowment care fund. Fund monies are received through sale of cemetery
property and land and must be placed in a trust account for perpetual care of the cemetery. The
principal must be invested, and only the income from the investment may be used for care,
maintenance and embellishment of the cemetery. The District reports that it has an endowment
care fund through the County, but the fund balance and annual contributions were not provided.
BVCD had no long-term debt or bonded debt at the end of FY 05-06.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-79
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
CEMETERY SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
BVCD provides operation and professional maintenance services to the Browns Valley
Cemetery. Routine maintenance activities such as mowing and weed eating are performed year-
round, however, less frequently during winter months. Other burial services, such as grave opening,
casket lowering and headstone setting, are provided by the mortuary of the customer’s choice.
Burials are not allowed on Memorial Day weekend.
The District estimates that there were 10-15 burials in the cemetery from 2004 to 2007. The
District did not provide remaining capacity at the facility.
LOCATION
The District is authorized to provide burial plots to residents and certain non-residents, as
described in the Principal Act. Higher fees for service are charged to non-residents.
The Browns Valley Cemetery is located at 9406 Browns Valley School Road, in the community
of Browns Valley. The Browns Valley Cemetery is open to the public 24-hours a day. Neighboring
cemetery service providers include the Peoria Cemetery District, the Keystone Cemetery District
and Smartville Cemetery District.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The District’s key infrastructure consists of the cemetery facility, and miscellaneous maintenance
equipment. The District did not indicate the developed acreage or total acreage of the cemetery.
Equipment owned by the District includes a mower, a weed eater and various tools. The
District uses an old mausoleum for equipment storage.
In terms of infrastructure needs, the District reports that it would like to build a proper storage
unit for its equipment and tools, instead of using the mausoleum. No infrastructure projects were
identified as planned for FY 07-08.
The LAFCO site visit did not identify any maintenance needs or infrastructural deficiencies.
The cemetery appeared clean and well-maintained. The cemetery facility is spacious, and appears to
have ample room for expansion.
A-80 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
BROWNS VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT
5. B ROW N S VA L L E Y I R R I G AT I O N
D I S T R I C T
The Browns Valley Irrigation District (BVID) provides wholesale water for irrigation and
domestic purposes, retail water for irrigation purposes, hydroelectric power generation, and
recreation services.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
BVID was formed on September 19, 1888 as an independent special district by the Wright
Irrigation Act.57 The District was formed to provide agricultural water to the community of Browns
Valley.58
The principal act that governs the District is the Irrigation District Law.59 The principal act
empowers such districts to provide water “for any beneficial use” and may do any act to put to any
beneficial use any water under its control. In addition, irrigation districts may provide water-related
drainage services and, under certain circumstances, electric and wastewater services. Districts must
apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those services
authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.60
The District’s boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The boundaries of BVID extend from
the Yuba River and Browns Valley area in the south to the Loma Rica area in the north, and from
Ramirez Road in the west to Englebright Lake in the east, and to the northeast along the North
Fork of the Yuba River, as shown on Map B-5. The District has a boundary area of approximately
86.6 square miles. The boundary overlaps with NYWD; the overlap area is approximately 2,821
acres based on GIS analysis.
The SOI for BVID is generally consistent with the boundary of the District. There is one area
north of the district, west of Collins Lake, where the bounds extend beyond the SOI due to an
annexation that occurred without a corresponding SOI amendment.61
57 Formation date reported by the District.
58 1988 LAFCO SOI Study.
59 California Water Code §20500-29978.
60 Government Code §56824.10.
61 LAFCO resolution 2000-6.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-81
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Boundary History
The LAFCO record for BVID begins in 1978 with the 200-acre Doty annexation in the
southwest of the District.62 In 1979, the Honcut Creek Users annexation added 1,800 acres to the
west of the District.63 The Honcut Creek Users annexation consisted of nine parcels that had been
detached from Ramirez Water District by LAFCO resolution 1979-10. In 1980 and 1982 the
O’Brien I and O’Brien II annexations added approximately 600 acres to the northwest of the
District.64 In 1989, the Stonehedge & Red Hill annexation added five areas consisting of over 1,700
acres to the northeast of the District.65 In 1995, a reorganization took place that added six areas to
District, and removed one existing area.66 The six areas that were annexed to the District consisted
of over 2,400 acres, four of which were located to the west of the existing District bounds and two
to the east. The area that was detached from the District was located in the east of the District and
consisted of approximately 50 acres. Finally, in 2000 the Yuba Investment Company annexation
added over 260 acres to the north of the existing District boundary.67
The SOI for BVID was adopted in 1988 to be coterminous with the District boundary.68 The
SOI was amended in 1995 to be coterminous with the District’s boundary at that time following the
reorganization of the District by LAFCO resolution 1995-12.69 There have been no amendments to
the SOI since 1995.
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District has a five-member governing body. Each board member must reside in one of the
five voting divisions. Board members are elected at-large by voters, who may cast one vote for a
candidate from each division up for election. Board members serve staggered four-year terms.
Current board members are Robert Winchester (Chair), Diana Wheeler, Russell Woods, Bill Lowe,
and Robert Bordsen.
The Board meets twice a month on the second and fourth Thursdays at the District office.
Board meeting agendas are emailed to constituents. Minutes are available by request after approval
by the Board. In addition, the District has a website, where its calendar, minutes, a news feed,
service applications, and project-specific information are available.
62 LAFCO resolution 1978-5.
63 LAFCO resolution 1979-11.
64 LAFCO resolutions 1980-1 and 1982-1.
65 LAFCO resolution 1989-10.
66 LAFCO resolution 1995-12.
67 LAFCO resolution 2000-6.
68 LAFCO resolution 1988-12.
69 LAFCO resolution 1995-11.
A-82 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
BROWNS VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT
The District’s most recent contested election was held in 2006. Voter turnout for that election
was 65 percent of registered voters, which was significantly higher than the 53 percent countywide
turnout rate for the gubernatorial election in the same year.
The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with
LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with LAFCO
map inquiries and document requests.
With regard to customer service, complaints most often relate to a service problem, such as a
lack of water flow due to clogged plates. Complaints can be submitted through phone calls, email,
letters and in-person to the general manager or the Board. Complaints are generally resolved by the
operations manager. If a complaint is not handled to a customer’s satisfaction, complaints are
reviewed by the Board. The District does not track the number of service-related complaints. In
2007, the District received two written complaints regarding a lack of service to a certain area and a
construction easement for a new pipeline.
Public outreach efforts include an annual newsletter enclosed with customer bills and the
District’s website. To promote communication between the District and constituents regarding the
Spring Valley development, the District created an advisory committee consisting of nine volunteers
from various locations throughout the District.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The area within the District’s bounds is largely rural residential and agricultural. Major crops are
irrigated pasture and rice. Business activity in the District includes a grocery store, two gas stations
and convenience stores, a bar, and a feed store. The District considers its customer base to be the
water customers determined by the number of service connections. The District estimated that
there were approximately 1,500 installed connections; however, only 1,200 connections had
requested and were receiving water service, as of February 2008.
There were 3,569 residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. The
District’s population density is 41 per square mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
The District has experienced moderate growth in recent years as some large parcels have been
subdivided; however, this growth has not led an increase in demand for irrigation water, as the land
area has remained the same. Water use in on the subdivided lots is primarily for non-agricultural
purposes such as large landscape irrigation.
Further growth is anticipated in the future, if development in the Spring Valley Specific Plan area
is approved. The County adopted a specific plan for the area in 1992. According to the specific
plan, the project could accommodate up to 3,500 dwelling units and 27.5 acres of commercial land
spread over 2,450 acres at build-out. A development agreement was approved in 1996 between the
County and the developer at the time. The current developer, Axel Karlshoej, was in the process of
negotiating with BVID for water service, at the time this report was prepared, and anticipated
submitting a tentative map to the County after approaching the community in Summer 2008. A
draft water supply study by the District indicated that sufficient water is available from Yuba River
BY BURR CONSULTING A-83
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
water rights to supply the development.70 An SB 610 water supply assessment will be financed by
the Spring Valley project developer and is expected to be completed in 2009. The BVID Board of
Directors is considering expanding services to include domestic water service to accommodate the
development.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies. The District has identified two long-term strategies to provide
adequate service to accommodate planned growth in the District, 1) make water available to all areas
within the District and 2) replace all open distribution ditches with pipelines in order to maximize
conservation of water currently lost to seepage and evaporation. The District reported that it is
presently constructing the $1.4 million Peoria/Ellis pipeline. The District has not yet designed,
planned or funded additional pipelines.71
MANAGEMENT
The District employs 12 full-time staff—a general manager, an operations manager, an office
manager, a crew foreman, and seven utility workers. In addition, the District has created a full-time
planning/GIS position. Two of the seven utility workers perform regular operation of the system,
while others work on construction projects and answer service calls. All utility staff report to the
operations manager, who has oversight of day-to-day maintenance activities. The operations
manager and office manager are directed by the general manager. The general manager reports to
the Board at semi-monthly meetings.
The operations manager performs evaluations of the utility crew prior to advancement. As a
majority of the crew has reached the highest pay level, the District indicated evaluations are rarely
necessary. Overall assessments of District operations are performed by the Board by comparing
budgeted to actual expenditures, receiving oral and written reports from the general manager, and
reviewing comments from customers. Crew workloads are monitored for construction projects
only; regular maintenance tasks are not logged. The District did not report any benchmarking
practices.
The District has prepared a water supply study for the Spring Valley project, and plans to
complete an SB 610 water supply assessment in 2009. The District has not adopted other planning
documents such as a master plan; although, the District has been involved in three regional planning
efforts, including the Sacramento Valley IRWMP, the Yuba County IRWMP and the Yuba County
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. The District recently adopted a resolution to consent to inclusion in
the YCWA groundwater management plan.
District financial planning efforts include annual audits and an annually adopted budget. The
District does not have a formal CIP, but plans for capital improvements on an annual basis in the
budget and maintains a list of future pipeline projects, which it updates as requests are submitted.
70 BVID, Draft Water Supply Assessment for the Spring Valley Project, 2007, p. 1.
71 Correspondence from BVID General Manager, Walter Cotter, to LAFCO Consultant, Beverly Burr, June 26, 2008.
A-84 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
BROWNS VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT
District accomplishments since 2002 include the completion of payments on the 1983
hydroelectric power plant in 2005, the initiation of a district website and the installation of 62,000
feet of pipeline.
FINANCING
The District’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and
landowner preferences on water rates. The MSR found the District has managed to provide
adequate service levels within these resource constraints, and that the District implements best
practices by annually adjusting water rates to reflect current costs. The District reported that the
current financing level is adequate to deliver services; however as the costs of labor and energy
increase the District anticipates that the water rate will need to be raised.
The District tracks its finances through a single water enterprise fund.
The District received $1.7 million in operating and non-operating revenues in CY 2006. Primary
revenue sources included water sales to landowners (38 percent), hydroelectric sales (37 percent) and
assessments (13 percent). The District actively markets available unused water supplies to enhance
its revenues. The District has historically transferred water to Santa Clara Valley Water District
(SCVWD), but in 2006 did not complete a transfer. In 2007, transfers to SCVWD yielded $330,000.
The District does not receive property taxes.
The District had $521,094 in long-term debt at the end of CY 2006. Refunding bonds issued in
2006 comprised $100,000 of the debt. The refunded bonds were originally issued to pay the
construction costs of the Virginia Ranch Dam, which created Collins Lake. The District anticipates
repaying the bonds in full by 2012. The remaining long-term debt is a State construction loan for
the installation of Upper Main Pipeline between Virginia Ranch Dam and Selby Ranch. The District
will repay this loan by 2013.
The District’s planned capital expenditures in 2008 are expected to cost a total of $0.4 million.
In addition to the purchasing of multiple vehicles, the District also plans to complete phase two of
the Peoria/Ellis pipeline, upgrade a turbine and pump, implement an irrigation return water
recapture project, and electrify a well. All capital improvements are planned and financed by
operating revenues or Proposition 50 grant funds. The District finances pipeline projects using
revenue from out-of-District water transfers, and initiates pipeline projects as funding becomes
available.
By way of financial reserves, the District had unrestricted net assets of $1.1 million at the end of
CY 2006. This amounted to 77 percent of the District’s annual expenses. The District maintained
approximately nine months of working capital. The District has no formal policy on target reserves.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-85
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
WATER SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
BVID distributes irrigation water to landowners. Homes rely on groundwater from private
pumping for domestic water. BVID installs, repairs and monitors the raw water distribution system.
The District does not provide water treatment services.
The District provides wholesale water to a 70-residence subdivision called Cathedral Oaks, and
has done so since 1964. The District makes transfers to SCVWD through a conservation program.
In 1990, the District installed a pipeline to replace its Upper Main Canal, which experienced a high
rate of distribution rate loss. The District documented conservation of 3,100 af of water through its
Upper Main Canal water conservation project, and was subsequently approved by the State in 1994
to transfer that amount. Transfers to SCVWD began in 2003 for $300,000 annually. Transfer
volumes are dependent on sufficient annual water flows in the Yuba River Basin, and the District’s
ability to transfer water is subject to the availability of carriage capacity through the Delta.
LOCATION
The District serves customers within its bounds and 12 connections located outside of its
bounds to the northeast near Old Marysville Road.72
The District serves approximately 23,133 acres within its 55,437-acre boundary area. The
District reported that it is not serving approximately 3,070 acres of irrigable land within bounds,
including both connections that are currently not receiving service, and areas where service is not
available, primarily in the southeast and western portions of the District. The District indicated that
it hopes to extend service into these areas as it completes its ongoing pipeline projects. Of the
unserved areas, approximately 2,842 acres of rice are receiving water from 15 private wells.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Water Sources
District users all rely on a system of canals, ditches and pipelines for water delivery from three
surface water sources: 1) Dry Creek/Collins Lake, 2) the Yuba River and 3) Tennessee Creek. The
District has rights to deliver up to 82,734 af per year from the three water sources. The contribution
from each water source varies depending on season, according to limitations on the District’s water
rights, as shown in Table A-5-1.
A primary water source is Dry Creek/Collins Lake, making up 56 percent of the BVID water
supply. This includes water directly diverted from Dry Creek and water released from storage at
Collins Lake. BVID has post-1914 appropriative rights to surface water from Dry Creek to serve a
maximum of 11,000 acres within its boundaries. In any year, BVID is prohibited from directly
72 The District sold 88 af to connections outside bounds in 2007.
A-86 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
BROWNS VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT
diverting from Dry Creek more than 11,000 af from November to June, and withdrawing from
storage at Collins Lake more than 35,600 af.73 Collins Lake water may be withdrawn at any time
during the year; the current practice is to withdraw during the summer months, as described by the
District. The District may store an additional 16,300 af in Collins Lake.74 Water from Collins Lake
is released through the bottom of the Virginia Ranch Dam, and is distributed to the southeast
through the Upper Main Pipeline, to the north by the Thousand Trails Ditch, or to the west via the
Tennessee Ditch and the Harding Canal. Water is distributed to the south from Dry Creek and dam
releases via the Sicard Ditch. This water source generally serves the upper portion of BVID.
The other primary source is Yuba River surface water, which supplies 41 percent of the
District’s water. BVID has pre-1914 water rights to 24,462 af of Yuba River surface water and a
base contract of 9,500 af with YCWA. The District’s Yuba River water rights were the only District
rights impacted by SWRCB Revised Decision 1644, which reduced the original amount from 34,203
af to 24,462 af, by limiting use during part of the year. The District indicated that it is negotiating
with the State Water Board to restore at least part of the lost right and anticipates concluding those
negotiations after the Yuba Accord is completed. Water flows from the Yuba River diversion point,
northwest through the Pump Line Canal to the BVID distribution system. A majority of this water
is used for rice irrigation. This water source generally serves the lower portion of the District.
73 BVID, 2007, p. 19.
74 State Water Resources Control Board, License for Diversion and Use of Water: License 13608, 2005.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-87
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-5-1: BVID Water Delivery Rights
Water Right/ Purpose(s) Place Diversion Amount
Source of Use1 of Use2 Season (af)
Collins Lake 3
Irrigation, Domestic, 11,000 acres within BVID
Post-1914 Oct. - Apr. 35,600
Recreation boundaries
Dry Creek
Irrigation, Domestic, 11,000 acres within BVID
Post-1914 Nov. - Jun. 11,000
Stockwatering boundaries
Yuba River
Pre-1914 Irrigation4 40,000 acres within BVID Year-round 24,462
Irrigation, Wildlife,
YCWA Contract BVID Boundaries Apr. - Oct. 9,500
Municipal, Industrial
Tennessee Creek
20,000 acres in Townships
Post-1914 Irrigation, Domestic 16 and 17 North and Apr. - Oct.5 2,172
Ranges 4 and 5
Sources: SWRCB Permits 5083, 8649, 9703, and 16792; SWRCB Revised Water Right Decision 1644; YCWA.
Notes
(1) Restricted uses by permit or contract.
(2) Maximum land area to be served according to permit.
(3) Season represents the authorized season for diversion; use is authorized year-round. The amount represents the maximum
annual withdrawal from storage at Collins Lake authorized by Licenses 13608 and 13609.
(4) The purpose and place of pre-1914 water rights can be altered without application, if no impact on other users can be
substantiated.
(5) Although the District is not currently providing domestic services, Tennessee Creek surface water may be used year-round
for domestic purposes.
The District receives minimal surface water from Tennessee Creek, which serves the northern
territory of the District. BVID has post-1914 appropriative water rights to Tennessee Creek surface
water for a maximum of 2,172 af. For water right restrictions, refer to Table A-5-1. Not included in
the table are BVID water rights for power purposes, and an additional 16,300 af in Collins Lake
storage rights that exceed annual withdrawal rights.
Groundwater is used to supplement surface water during dry years. The District maintains a
single well for irrigation purposes, which was installed in 2000. The well is in excellent condition.
Infrastructure
Key infrastructure owned and maintained by the District includes a dam and lake, 200 miles of
ditches, 70 miles of pipelines, and a well.
The Virginia Ranch Dam was completed by the District along Dry Creek in 1963, which created
Collins Lake, a reservoir with a storage capacity of 57,000 af. The cost of constructing of the dam
totaled $3.3 million. The District did not identify any dam needs or deficiencies.
BVID identified a need for three agricultural production wells to supply warmer water during
the critical rice germination period, to reduce Yuba River diversions and to provide additional
A-88 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
BROWNS VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT
supplies during drought years. The proposed wells would be located in the western portion of the
service area, and have a capacity of 3,600 afa. The project would cost approximately $2 million.75
The District owns and maintains 200 miles of earthen open ditches and 70 miles of pipelines for
distribution of irrigation water. The District has identified multiple challenges with its distribution
system.
• Some pipelines have reached maximum capacity and cannot maintain adequate pressure.
• The open ditches have a high rate of distribution loss due to evaporation and percolation.
• The open ditches may be a safety hazard and are not protected from contamination.
• There are areas within the District that are unserved due to a lack of pipelines, primarily in
the southeast and western portions of the District. Some customers have been requesting
service since 1990. The District’s goal is to develop infrastructure to deliver water to these
areas; however, there are no plans besides the Peoria/Ellis pipeline in place at this time and
other pipelines have not yet been designed.76
To resolve these issues the District has been installing new pipelines to unserved areas and
replacing open ditches with pipelines since the mid 1980’s, as part of an annual pipeline replacement
project. The District estimates that construction of all necessary pipelines will take approximately 30
to 50 years to complete. The District is in the process of constructing the Peoria/Ellis pipeline—a
100,000 linear-foot pipeline intended to bring service to a previously unserved area in the northeast
part of the District; the planned pipeline capacity is 5,000 gpm and cost estimate is $1.4 million (in
2006 dollars). The pipeline was started in 2007; 10,000 feet had been completed as of February
2008.
BVID plans to construct a pumping plant and pipeline to capture and recycle agricultural return
flows presently discharged into Dry Creek and Little Dry Creek. The project would reduce Yuba
River diversions, and is estimated to cost approximately $2 million.
The District has received $1 million as part of a $12.5 million grant from Proposition 50 funds
in conjunction with multiple other water agencies comprising the Northern California Joint Exercise
of Powers Authority. The grant will fund the Dry Creek Recapture Project, designed to recapture
agricultural tailwater and reuse it on rice fields for the purposes of conserving water and reducing
the thermal, pesticide and nutrient loading of waters entering the Yuba River. The project will
include installation of a pump and 2.1-mile pipeline to deliver water from Dry Creek to the
headgates of the Pump Line Canal, which serves the southwest portion of the District. After
completion of the project, the District will be using up to 10 cfs of recycled water, which will reduce
diversions from the Yuba River by approximately 4,000 af. The project is expected to be completed
by the end of 2008.
75 GEI Consultants, Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, 2008, Appendix B, Project GW1.
76 Correspondence from BVID General Manager, Walter Cotter, to LAFCO Consultant, Beverly Burr, June 26, 2008.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-89
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-5-2: BVID Water Service Profile
Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure
Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s)
Retail Water Direct Groundwater Recharge None
Wholesale Water Direct Groundwater Extraction Direct
Water Treatment None Recycled Water None
Service Area Description
Retail Water The boundaries of BVID extend from the Yuba River and Browns Valley in the south to
Loma Rica in the north, from Ramirez Road in the west to Englebright Lake in the east,
and to the northeast along the North Fork of the Yuba River.
Wholesale Water The District provides untreated water to the 70-unit Cathedral Oaks subdivision. Based
on need and availability, the District also transfers 3,100 af to Santa Clara Water District.
Recycled Water None
Boundary Area 86.6 sq. miles Population (2000) 3,569
System Overview
Average Daily Demand2 36.8 mgd Peak Day Demand 123.4 mgd
Supply 82,734 af
Major Facilities
Facility Name Type Capacity Condition Yr Built
Collins Lake Reservoir 57,000 af Good 1963
Infrastructure
Reservoirs 1 Storage Capacity (mg)3 57,000 af
Pump Stations 5 Pressure Zones 0
Production Wells 3 Pipe Miles 70
Other: 200 miles of earthen ditch distribution system, siphons, check structures
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The Districts most significant infrastructure needs are the continual replacement of open ditches and extension of
pipelines to unserved areas. Agricultural production wells are needed in the western portion of the District to supply
warmer water for rice germination, reduce Yuba River diversions and enhance water reliability.
Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration
Current Practices: The District is a participant in the Yuba Accord. By contract, the District permits PG&E to use
the District's Yuba River water rights water for generation purposes before the District diverts it for consumptive
purposes.
Opportunities: Future groundwater pumping and conjunctive use projects would be implemented by YCWA and
its member units to provide water transfers to areas outside Yuba County.
Notes:
(1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet.
(2) The average daily demand is the annual average in 2005.
(3) The District does not have any storage tanks. Collins Lake constitutes the District's storage capacity.
Continued
A-90 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
BROWNS VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT
Water Demand and Supply
Service Connections1 Total Within Bounds Outside Bounds
Total 1,501 1,489 12
Irrigation/Landscape 1,501 1,489 12
Domestic 0 0 0
Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year)
1995 2000 2005 2011 2016 2021 2026
Total2 42,142 47,676 40,619 42,650 48,275 49,493 50,712
Residential3 0 0 0 0 4,000 4,000 4,000
Commercial/Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Irrigation/Landscape 34,601 46,853 37,579 40,682 42,307 43,525 44,744
Transfers 5,500 0 0 NP NP NP NP
Other4 2,041 823 3,040 1,968 1,968 1,968 1,968
Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year)
Source Type Average Maximum Safe/Firm
Yuba River surface 14,971 3 3,962 Unknown
Dry Creek surface 27,520 4 6,600 Unknown
Tennessee Creek surface 1,800 2 ,172 Unknown
Groundwater groundwater NP NP Unknown
Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year)
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Total 82,734 82,734 82,734 NP NP NP NP
Imported 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Groundwater 0 0 0 NP NP NP NP
Surface 82,734 82,734 82,734 NP NP NP NP
Recycled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Notes:
(1) In lieu of the number of connections served, the District provided the number of landowners served.
(2) Total water projections are based on the assumed construction of the Spring Valley proposed development in 2015 and
anticipated growth in agricultural demand as reported in the draft water supply assessment applied to the demand in 2005.
(3) Projected residential demand assumes construction of and service to the Spring Valley development.
(4) Other water demand is water fowl habitat, as reported by YCWA. Projections for other uses based on average demand
from 1995, 2000 and 2005, assuming constant demand for waterfowl habitat.
Continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-91
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Water Conservation
Conjunctive Use
The District relies primarily on surface water but also uses groundwater from privately owned wells and a district-
owned well during dry years when transfers are necessary.
Supply Constraints
BVID has pre-1914 water rights to 24,462 af of Yuba River surface water and a base contract of 9,500 af with
YCWA. BVID has post-1914 appropriative rights for surface water from Dry Creek, not to exceed 35,600 af
from Collins Lake and 11,000 af from Dry Creek. In addition, the District has rights to surface water from
Tennessee Creek to divert 3 cfs or a total of 2,712 af. The recharge rate of the groundwater source within the
District's boundaries is unknown; however, precipitation and irrigation water percolate into the neighboring North
Yuba groundwater basin with an estimated average annual recharge rate of 11,000 af.
Drought Supply and Plans
Drought Supply (af) Year 1: NP Year 2: NP Year 3: NP
Significant Droughts 1976, 1977 and 1987 through 1991, 1993
Storage Practices Surface water accumulates in Bullards Bar Reservoir and at Collins Lake, and is made
available as needed by YCWA and BVID during the year.
Drought Plan Although never invoked, the YCWA drought plan calls for 15% curtailments when the
flow forecast as of April 1 is 51-85% of normal levels, and 30% curtailments when the
flow is 40-50% of normal levels. The District makes preparations for drought years at
the end of the rainy season. If storage at Collins Lake is 40-50,000 af then the District
will deliver 90% of flow, storage less than 40,000 af will lead to 75% delivery.
Water Conservation Practices
CUWCC Signatory No
Metering Yes
Conservation Pricing Yes
Other Practices The District strives to keep leaks to a minimum and recently refurbished the main ditch
to minimize distribution loss. The District received a grant from the State for $1
million to initiate an agricultural return flow recapturing project. The project will
capture and recycle irrigation flows that are being discharged into Dry Creek.
Continued
A-92 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
BROWNS VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT
Water Rates and Financing
Agricultural & Irrigation Water Rates-Ongoing Charges CY 07
Crop Rate Description
Flat Fee $120 all irrigation connections
Rice $14.29 per af
Other $90 per miners inch
Special Rates
Water rates are the same throughout the District.
Rate-Setting Procedures
Policy Description Service charges are imposed on a cost-of-service basis. All connections
are metered and charged based on usage.
Most Recent Rate Change 2007 Frequency of Rate Changes Annually
Water Development Fees and Requirements
Connection Fee Approach Connection fee is a flat rate for each irrigation connection.
Connection Fee Timing $550 prior to connection, and monthly payments plus interest for the
remainder
Connection Fee Amount All connections $2,950
Water Enterprise Revenues, CY 06 Expenditures, CY 06
Source Amount % Amount
Total $1,710,942 100% Total $1,661,823
Rates & charges $988,772 58% Administration $415,789
Assessments $215,524 13% O & M2 $1,047,005
Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $183,069
Interest $68,393 4% Debt $25,407
Miscellaneous3 $438,253 26% Purchased Water $15,960
Notes:
(1) Rates include water-related service charges and usage charges.
(2) Salaries apportioned to O&M based on the actual CY 06 O&M salary ratio in the 2007 budget. O&M includes
expenditures for power generation as all expenditures are tracked in a single fund and services to the power facility were not
discernible.
Continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-93
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Water Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Indicators
Water Planning Description Date/Status
Groundwater Management Plan YCWA Groundwater Management Plan adopted in 2005
Water Master Plan None
UWMP None, not required
Capital Improvement Plan None
Plan Item/Element Description
Emergency Plan The District does not have a water related emergency plan. The District
does have an adopted multi-hazard mitigation plan.
Other Plans
Water Supply Study for the Spring Valley Project
Service Challenges
The District identified the lack of capacity of the pipelines and maintaining sufficient pressure as challenges to
providing service.
Service Adequacy Indicators
Connections/FTE 166.8 O&M Cost Ratio1 $28,873
MGD Delivered/FTE 4.0 Distribution Loss Rate Unknown
Distribution Breaks & Leaks 2 5 Distribution Break Rate2 36
Employee Indicators
Total Employees (FTEs) 9.0 Certified as Required? Not required
Notes:
(1) Operations and maintenance costs (exc. purchased water, debt, depreciation) per volume (mgd) delivered.
(2) Distribution break rate is the number of leaks and pipeline breaks per 100 miles of distribution piping.
A-94 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
BROWNS VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT
ELECTRIC SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
The District generates hydroelectric power at the Virginia Ranch Dam and wholesales all
generated electricity to PG&E. The power plant generates under two conditions, 1) the lake is
approaching spill level during the winter months, and 2) when the District releases water to meet
customer demands during the irrigation season.
The District also permits YCWA and PG&E to use a portion of the District’s Yuba River water
rights water for electricity generation at the Colgate and Narrows hydroelectric plants along the
Yuba River. The water is then used for irrigation purposes by BVID customers downstream.
LOCATION
All hydroelectric generation by the District occurs within its bounds.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Key hydroelectric generation infrastructure owned by the District includes the dam and
powerhouse at Collins Lake and 700 feet of transmission line from the powerhouse to a link with
PG&E’s transmission system.
The hydroelectric plant was built in 1983 by a private developer. BVID negotiated to purchase
the plant in 1990. The plant was paid off in 2005. The powerhouse can generate up to one
megawatt of electricity and consists of a 950 kW generator and a 50 kW generator.
The District reported that the 50 kW generator needs to be replaced, because its capacity is too
small to justify the expense of maintaining it. The District hopes to purchase a 250 kW unit, but
purchase of the new unit is contingent upon selling the old unit as directed by the Board. No
timeline for purchase has been determined. The District did not report any other needs or
deficiencies at the plant.
The District is considering a second plant located in the center of the District to augment
hydroelectric generation revenues. The District was not actively pursuing this project, as of the
drafting of this report.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-95
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
RECREATION SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
All maintenance and operations of the recreation area at Collins Lake is provided through a 50-
year contract between the District and Pineland Development Company (the concessionaire).
Under the contract, the concessionaire has the exclusive right to collect fees for parking, picnicking,
camping, boat launching, and boat registration, as well as construct, operate and maintain the
marina, restaurants, onshore recreation facilities and any other type of recreation or commercial
facility. The District receives two percent of gross receipts annually as rent from the concessionaire.
The contract expires in 2022.
The concessionaire tracks usage of the recreational facilities. In 2006, there were 113,439
overnight uses and 36,107 daytime uses.
LOCATION
The recreation area lies completely within the District’s boundaries on the west shore of Collins
Lake. The District does not provide recreation services outside of its boundaries. Residents and
non-residents of the District pay the same fees for use of the Collins Lake recreation area.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Key infrastructure at the Collins Lake Recreation area consists of 186 campsites, 40 day-use
picnic spaces, an unimproved open camping area, and a boat ramp for skiing and fishing boats.
Commercial facilities include a store, laundry, restrooms, showers, and an RV dump station.
The facilities were constructed in 1963. The District identified the facilities as being in good
condition with no infrastructure needs or deficiencies. The concessionaire has plans to expand the
recreation area. Specific plans for this expansion were not provided.
A-96 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
BROWNSVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT
6. B ROW N S V I L L E C E M E T E RY
D I S T R I C T
The Brownsville Cemetery District (BCD) provides cemetery maintenance, operations and
interment services to the communities of Brownsville and Challenge. Interment services provided
by the District include the opening and closing of graves, lowering of caskets and setting of
headstones.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
BCD was formed on November 15, 1949 as an independent special district.77 The District was
formed to provide cemetery services and maintenance to the communities of Brownsville and
Challenge.
The principal act that governs the district is Public Cemetery District Law.78 The principal act
authorizes the district to own, operate, improve, and maintain cemeteries, provide interment services
within its boundaries, and to sell interment accessories and replacement objects (e.g., burial vaults,
liners, and flower vases). Although the district may require and regulate monuments or markers, it is
precluded from selling them. The principal act requires the district to maintain cemeteries owned by
the district.79 The law allows the district to inter non-residents under certain circumstances.80
Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those
services authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.81
The District’s boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The boundaries of BCD extend west of
New Bullards Bar Reservoir and the North Fork of the Yuba River to the Yuba-Butte county line, as
shown on Map B-6. The District has a boundary area of approximately 57 square miles. There have
been no annexations to the District since formation.
77 Board of Equalization Official Date.
78 California Health and Safety Code §9000-9093.
79 California Health and Safety Code §9040.
80 Non-residents eligible for interment are described in California Health and Safety Code §9061, and include former residents,
current and former taxpayers, family members of residents and former residents, family members of those already buried in the
cemetery, those without other cemetery alternatives within 15 miles of their residence, and those who died while serving in the
military.
81 Government Code §56824.10.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-97
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The SOI for BCD was adopted in 1986 to be coterminous with the boundaries of the District.82
There have been no amendments to the SOI since adoption.
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The district has a three-member governing body. The Trustees are appointed by the County
Board of Supervisors to staggered four-year terms. Current Trustees are Jim Bamford (Chair), Leora
Keller and Cynthia Paloma.
The Trustees meet once per month from January to October, and do not meet in November or
December. The District reports that it is contemplating reducing the frequency of meetings to once
every other month. Meeting agendas are posted at the cemetery, and minutes are available by request
through the District secretary. The District does not have a website, so its documents are not
available online.
The district demonstrated partial accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation
with LAFCO. The agency cooperated with LAFCO’s request for interviews, but failed to provide a
financial statement and answer follow-up questions.
Complaints can be submitted through phone calls, letters and in-person, and are reviewed by the
Board. The District does not track the number of complaints. The District did not provide an
estimate of how many complaints were received in 2007.
The District reports that in years past they held a volunteer community clean-up and barbeque
event to conduct community outreach, but the event has been discontinued.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The District considers its customer base to be residents within the District. There were 1,699
residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. The District’s population
density is 30 per square mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Population growth within the District is anticipated to be stable as there are no planned or
proposed developments within the District.
The area within the District’s bounds is primarily rural residential. Business activity in the
District includes a market, a doctor’s office, a landscaping business, and a dog kennel service.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies.
MANAGEMENT
The District employs a part-time secretary, cemetery manager and groundskeeper. The cemetery
manager oversees the day-to-day maintenance activity of the groundskeeper, and the secretary and
82 LAFCO resolution 1986-55.
A-98 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
BROWNSVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT
cemetery manager report directly to the Trustees. The District does not conduct productivity
monitoring, but does evaluate performance of the secretary and cemetery manager at its regular
meetings. The groundskeeper performs year-round maintenance; however, maintenance activities
are scaled back during winter months.
No strategic or capital improvement plans have been adopted by the District. Capital
improvement needs are addressed in the District’s budget.
The District’s financial planning efforts include an annually adopted budget and the preparation
of audited financial statements. The District reports that financial statements had regularly been
audited every two years, but due to increased costs have not been audited since FY 03-04.
FINANCING
The District’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and legal
limitations on revenue increases. The MSR found the District has managed to provide adequate
service levels within these resource constraints.
As the District did not provide a financial statement, finance data is from the State Controller’s
Special District Annual Report for FY 05-06.
Table A-6-1: BCD Plot and Endowment Fees
Price
Table A-6-1 shows the plot and endowment fees
charged by BCD. Non-residents must pay an Full Plot $350
additional $250 for cemetery services. Cremains Plot $250
Endowment Fee $100
The District received $20,724 in total revenues Non-Resident Fee $250
in FY 05-06. BCD relies primarily on property Opening and Cloing (Full Body) $1,000
taxes, consisting of 84 percent of revenues. The
Opening and Closing (Cremains) $225
remaining revenues were from interest income (13
Marker Setting $200
percent) and State sources (3 percent). Expenses in
Moving Existing Marker $75
FY 05-06 were $421. Revenues received for
Transfer Fee $35
interment services were not reported.
Saturday or Holiday Burial $150
The District did not report its unreserved fund
balance. The District has no formal policy on target financial reserves.
According to the Health and Safety Code §8725, cemetery authorities must establish, operate
and maintain an endowment care fund. Fund monies are received through sale of cemetery
property and land and must be placed in a trust account for perpetual care of the cemetery. The
principal must be invested, and only the income from the investment may be used for care,
maintenance and embellishment of the cemetery. The District reports that it has an endowment
care fund through the County, but the fund balance and annual contributions were not provided.
BCD had no long-term debt or bonded debt at the end of FY 05-06.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-99
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
CEMETERY SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
BCD provides cemetery operations, maintenance and interment services to the Brownsville
Cemetery. Interment services provided by the District include the opening and closing of graves,
lowering of caskets and the setting of headstones. Routine maintenance activities are performed
year-round, however, less frequently during winter months.
The District did not report the number of burials within the cemetery from 2004 to 2007, or
give an indication of the remaining capacity of the cemetery.
LOCATION
The District is authorized to provide burial plots to residents and certain non-residents, as
described in the Principal Act. Higher fees for service are charged to non-residents.
The Brownsville Cemetery is located at 8980 La Porte Road, in the community of Brownsville.
The Brownsville Cemetery is open to the public 24-hours a day. Neighboring cemetery service
providers include the Strawberry Valley Cemetery District, Camptonville Cemetery District,
Keystone Cemetery District, and the Upham Cemetery District.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The District’s key infrastructure consists of the cemetery facility and miscellaneous maintenance
equipment. The District did not indicate the developed acreage or total acreage of the cemetery.
Included within the cemetery facility are a paved and covered pavilion area and a storage
shed/cargo container. Equipment owned by the District includes a backhoe, mowers, weed eaters,
and various tools.
In terms of infrastructure needs, the District reports that it is in need of a new sprinkler system.
The existing sprinkler system was installed in the 1950s and requires continual maintenance and
repairs. Other issues identified by the District are the lack of a water and power source at the on-
site storage shed, and the lack of a power source at the covered pavilion. The District would like to
have these features installed in these areas, but has not done so due to financing constraints.
The LAFCO site visit identified general tree branch and debris clearing as the major
maintenance needs. No major infrastructure deficiencies were identified at the site visit. The
cemetery is a large facility with what appears to be ample room for expansion.
A-100 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CAMP FAR WEST IRRIGATION DISTRICT
7. C A M P FA R W E S T I R R I G AT I O N
D I S T R I C T
The Camp Far West Irrigation District (CFWID) distributes irrigation water to landowners west
of the Camp Far West Reservoir in Yuba and Placer counties.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
Camp Far West Irrigation District was formed on September 22, 1924 as an independent special
district.83 The District was formed to provide irrigation water to landowners west of the Camp Far
West Reservoir.
The principal act that governs the District is the Irrigation District Law.84 The principal act
empowers such districts to provide water “for any beneficial use” and may do any act to put to any
beneficial use any water under its control. In addition, irrigation districts may provide water-related
drainage services and, under certain circumstances, electric and wastewater services. Districts must
apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those services
authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.85
The District’s boundary lies within Yuba and Placer counties. The District was formed in Placer
County, and Placer County has historically been considered the principal county. The MSR found
that the majority of CFWID assessed value is now within Yuba County. The next proposal received
relating to the District would be processed by Yuba LAFCO. The eastern portion of the City of
Wheatland SOI, including the Johnson Rancho area, and agricultural areas along the Bear River
between SR 65 and the eastern boundary of the proposed Johnson Rancho development are within
the District’s bounds. The boundary area extends north to Spenceville Road, west to SR 65, east to
the Camp Far West Reservoir, and south to Camp Far West Road in Placer County and beyond, as
shown on Map B-7. The district has a boundary area of approximately 4,700 acres or 7.3 square
miles.
There is no adopted SOI for the District.
Boundary History
The District was formed in 1924. The CFWID boundary history has not been fully
documented. Placer LAFCO provided a map of the District’s bounds, but did not locate annexation
83 Placer County Board of Supervisors resolution adopted September 22, 1924.
84 California Water Code §20500-29978.
85 Government Code §56824.10.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-101
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
resolutions in its archives. According to a 1987 Yuba LAFCO SOI study, territory was annexed in
1969 and 1976. CFWID provided resolutions adopting annexations in 1966 and 1976. In 1966, the
District voted to annex certain Johnson Rancho lands within Yuba County, and to file the boundary
change with the State Water Rights Board.86 In 1976, the District annexed 317 acres along the
District’s southern boundary in Placer County.87 The 1976 annexation affected 24 acres of Vineyard
property, 76 acres of Osborne Property, 199.6 acres of Bear River Land Company property, and 17
acres of Porter property. The 1976 annexation is clearly reflected on Placer LAFCO’s map of the
District’s current bounds.
The Board of Equalization does not maintain records of this particular district’s boundary.
Neither Placer nor Yuba LAFCO has a record of adopting an SOI for the District. The Yuba
LAFCO, in its function as the principal county, is responsible for preparing an MSR and adopting
an SOI for the District in 2007.
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District has a three-member governing body. The principal act provides for CFWID board
members to be elected by landowners with one vote per dollar’s worth of land owned.88 For
convenience, the District administers elections with one vote per landowner. The board members
are elected by division; there are three divisions from which the governing body members are
selected. Board members serve four-year terms. Current board members are William
Waggershauser (chair), Julia Beaman and William Vineyard.
The official schedule of board meetings is the second Tuesday of each month at 9 a.m. The
Board meets as needed, approximately two to three times per year, and more often when there are
canal maintenance and repair concerns. Meetings are held at the AKT Ranch office.
Board meeting agendas are posted on the door of the AKT Ranch office. Minutes are available
upon request from the District secretary. The District does not have a website, so its documents are
not available online.
All elections for governing body members since 1995 have been uncontested. The District
reported that it does not typically cast votes for board elections, because only one candidate has
been nominated for each office.
The district demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with
LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with LAFCO
map inquiries and document requests.
86 The District’s annexation resolution is unsigned, lists a handwritten date of October 1966, and does not mention filing the
annexation with LAFCO.
87 The CFWID annexation resolution references adoption by Placer LAFCO resolution 3-76 on March 2, 1976. The certificate of
completion was prepared by CFWID and filed with the California Secretary of State on April 20, 1976.
88 Water Code 20527.6.
A-102 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CAMP FAR WEST IRRIGATION DISTRICT
The District rarely receives complaints. Due to small size, the District directors and their
employees (i.e., farm operation employees, not CFWID employees) typically identify any problems
in the system proactively. Complaints may be submitted through phone calls, letters and in-person.
Complaints are reviewed by the Board.
The District does not make formal efforts to update constituents.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The District considers its customer base to be landowners. There are 13 water users, of which
one user comprises approximately two-fifths of water use. There are approximately 4,700 acres of
land in the District, of which approximately 3,500 acres have access to irrigation water.
There are approximately 47 residents in the District, according to the District’s estimate. The
District believes the population density is 6.4 per square mile. By comparison, the countywide
density is 114.
Business activity in the District includes farming and ranching operations. Farmers within
CFWID primarily produce orchard crops and rice. The two largest farms are AKT Wheatland
Ranch and Vineyard Brothers.
Johnson Rancho is a proposed 3,300-acre development, a portion of which lies within CFWID
bounds; the District estimated that 35-40 percent of Johnson Rancho is within CFWID bounds.
The proposed development is located east of Jasper Road, south of Spenceville Road, and north of
the Yuba-Placer county line. The development was still in the early planning stages, as of the
drafting of this report. Initial plans include 9,200 residential units and 300 acres of commercial
property. AKT Development, River West Investments and Lennar Communities are the three
major developers of the project. Wheatland City Council affirmed direction to proceed with the
project on February 20, 2007. Existing CFWID water use on the development site is approximately
4,620 afa. CFWID does not currently distribute water for domestic uses. Although the District is
not precluded from doing so by the principal act, its water rights licenses list only irrigation use as
authorized.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies.
MANAGEMENT
The District annually reviews and contracts with two CFWID water users for canal tending
services. The Board believes the arrangements and rates are favorable. The board contracts from
time to time with water users to perform larger projects.
The District does not conduct performance measurement or workload monitoring. The District
does not conduct formal planning efforts, and has no adopted master plan or capital improvement
plan.
The District conducts annual financial audits. The District reported that it prepares an annual
budget, and provided a copy of its 2007 budget.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-103
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The District receives an award from Joint Powers Insurance Authority annually for an
exceptional safety record.
FINANCING
The District’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and
landowner preferences on water rates. It is unknown whether the District implements best practices
by annually adjusting water rates to reflect current costs, as the District did not respond to questions
about the frequency of water rate adjustments.
The District practices governmental accounting practices, and tracks its finances through a single
enterprise fund. CFWID accounting is conducted on a calendar year basis.
The District received $30,757 in revenue in CY 2005. Water charges constituted 74 percent of
revenue in 2005, with the remainder of revenue constituting interest and investment revenue.
CFWID does not receive property tax revenues. The District charges $2 per af of water delivered in
2007. In practice, water rates are charged based on amount and type of irrigated acres. The rate
schedule assumes the amount of water used per acre varies from 2.5 af for field crops (e.g.,
safflower, beans) to 9 af per acre for rice.
The District had no long-term debt at the end of CY 2005.
The District did not provide a capital improvement plan. Its 2007 budget indicates it anticipated
no expenditures for capital improvements, but did provide a contingency fund of $0.3 million for
capital improvements and extraordinary repairs. CFWID finances capital improvements through
service charges, and also uses its fund balance. CFWID spent $14,233 on repairs and engineering
expenses in 2005, and $3,478 in 2006. In the past, CFWID also relied on YCWA to provide certain
capital improvements to conduct improvements to the diversion headworks on the CFWID north
canal, and reimbursed YCWA through CFWID service charges and reserves. Under a 1995
agreement between YCWA and CFWID, YCWA provided improvements to the diversion
headworks on the CFWID north canal. YCWA had anticipated sharing the diversion headworks
with CFWID for a proposed alternate YCWA diversion for use in a proposed water district, but that
project was not developed.
By way of financial reserves, the District had unrestricted net assets of $552,575 at the end of
CY 2005. This amounted to 18 times the District’s annual expenses. The District has no formal
policy on target financial reserves.
The District engages in joint financing arrangements related to reservoir maintenance. The
District pays South Sutter Water District $1,200 annually toward reservoir maintenance costs. The
District invests in the Local Agency Investment Fund administered by the California State Treasurer.
The District procures insurance through the Joint Powers Insurance Authority.
A-104 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CAMP FAR WEST IRRIGATION DISTRICT
WATER SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
CFWID distributes irrigation water to landowners. District users all rely on a system of canals
and ditches for water delivery, with water flowing through the Camp Far West Canals as well as the
South Sutter Canal. CFWID repairs and monitors the canal and ditch system. CFWID is not
directly responsible for maintenance of the dam and reservoir. CFWID does not provide water
treatment services.
LOCATION
CFWID provides services within District bounds, and does not provide services outside its
bounds.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The CFWID water source is the Bear River watershed. The water supply is primarily influenced
by rainfall. In most years, the reservoir is full by mid-February.
One mile downstream from Camp Far West Dam, at river mile 15, is the Camp Far West
Diversion Dam operated by the South Sutter Water District (SSWD). SSWD releases Bear River
water at the diversion dam into the Camp Far West Canal on the north side of the river and the
South Sutter Canal on the south side of the river. On the south side, the water flows down SSWD’s
main canal into a turnout for CFWID’s canal on the south side of the Bear River. The amount of
water released by SSWD is based on water orders submitted by landowners in the District.
CFWID has rights to the first 13,000 af annually of Bear River surface water in the Camp Far
West Reservoir. CFWID water rights are senior to SSWD rights, and are now contractual rights
extended through a 1957 agreement with SSWD. Under a settlement agreement, CFWID and
SSWD agreed to provide water to DWR during dry and critical years, but CFWID is not required to
contribute water to implement the objectives in the 1995 Bay-Delta Plan.89
CFWID infrastructure includes an 8-mile canal system and ditches. The north canal is concrete-
lined for 3.6 miles, with 0.7 miles of earthen segments, and conveys water to CFWID users. The
south canal is earthen for 3.2 miles, with the west 0.5 miles concrete-lined. The ditch system is
earthen.
CFWID practices facility sharing in that it relies on the diversion dam and reservoir owned and
maintained by SSWD. The reservoir was originally built and owned by CFWID in the 1920s.90
CFWID transferred reservoir ownership to SSWD in 1957; at that time, reservoir capacity was 5,000
89 SWRCB Order WR 2000-10, July 20, 2000.
90 State Water Resources Control Board Public Hearing, 1998 Bay-Delta Water Rights Hearing, Phase VIII, April 11, 2000.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-105
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
af. CFWID pays an annual fee of $1,200 to South Sutter Water District for maintenance of the
reservoir.91
Table A-7-1: CFWID Water Service Profile
Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure
Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s)
Retail Water Direct Groundwater Recharge None
Wholesale Water Direct Groundwater Extraction None
Water Treatment None Recycled Water None
Service Area Description
Retail Water CFWID extends north to Spenceville Road, west to Highway 65, east to the
Camp Far West Reservoir, and south to Camp Far West Road in Placer
County and beyond.
Wholesale Water None
Recycled Water None
Boundary Area 7.3 sq. miles Population (2007) 47
System Overview
Average Daily Demand 10.6 mgd Peak Day Demand NP
Supply 13,000 af surface water
Major Facilities
Facility Name Type Condition Yr Built
Camp Far West Canal Canal: 3.6 miles concrete, 0.7 miles earthen Fair NP
South Canal Canal: 0.5 miles concrete, 3.2 miles earthen Fair NP
Other Infrastructure
Reservoirs 1 Storage Capacity (mg) 34,051
Pump Stations 0 Pressure Zones 0
Production Wells 0 Pipe Miles NP
Other: earthen ditch distribution system
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
None identified
Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration
Current Practices: CFWID practices facility sharing in that it relies on the diversion dam and reservoir
owned and maintained by South Sutter Water District (SSWD). The reservoir was originally built and
owned by CFWID in the 1920s. CFWID transferred reservoir ownership to SSWD in 1957. CFWID
pays an annual fee of $1,200 to South Sutter Water District for maintenance of the reservoir.
Opportunities: None identified
Notes:
(1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet.
Continued
91 Camp Far West Irrigation District, Financial Statements, 2006, pp. 12-13.
A-106 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CAMP FAR WEST IRRIGATION DISTRICT
Water Demand and Supply
Service Connections Total Within Bounds Outside Bounds
Total 13 13 0
Irrigation/Landscape 13 13 0
Domestic 0 0 0
Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 0 0 0
Recycled 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0
Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year)
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Total 8,765 9,824 11,543 NP NP NP NP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Commercial/Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Irrigation/Landscape 8,765 9,824 11,543 NP NP NP NP
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year)
Source Type Average Maximum Safe/Firm
Bear River surface 13,000 1 3,000 NP
Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year)
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Total 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000
Imported 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Groundwater 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Surface 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000
Recycled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Conjunctive Use
To the extent that irrigation water percolates into the groundwater basin, local residents and SSWD
groundwater users benefit.
Supply Constraints
CFWID has rights to the first 13,000 af annually of Bear River surface water in the Camp Far West Reservoir
through a contractual agreement with South Sutter Water District. There was groundwater overdraft in the area
in the mid-1950s. CFWID is not required to contribute water to implement the objectives in the 1995 Bay-
Delta Plan.
Drought Supply and Plans
Drought Supply (af) Year 1: NP Year 2: NP Year 3: NP
Significant Droughts 1977
Storage Practices Surface water accumulates in Camp Far West Reservoir, and is made available as
needed during the year.
No drought plan. The District has the first right to water in the Camp Far West
reservoir. It is highly unlikely the reservoir would store less than the District's 13,000
Drought Plan af (of the 104,000 reservoir capacity.
Water Conservation Practices
CUWCC Signatory No
Metering None, users are not metered.
Conservation Pricing None, rate structure is flat.
Other Practices Concrete-lined ditches and solid-set irrigation system.
Continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-107
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Water Rates and Financing
1
Agricultural & Irrigation Water Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 06-07
Crop Rate Description
Rice $18.00 per acre based on assumed 9 af annual need per cultivated acre
Orchard $7.00 per acre based on assumed 3.5 af annual need per cultivated acre
Special Rates
Water rates are the same throughout the District.
Rate-Setting Procedures
Policy Description Service charges are imposed on a cost-of-service basis. Water use is
not metered, but is estimated based on crop type for rate
calculation purposes.
Most Recent Rate Change NP Frequency of Rate Changes NP
Water Development Fees and Requirements
Connection Fee Approach Any new water users are required to pay the cost of connecting to
the system.
Connection Fee Timing Upon connection
Connection Fee Amount 5/8 inch pipe: NA 1 inch pipe: NA
Land Dedication Requirements None
Development Impact Fee None
Water Enterprise Revenues, FY 05-06 Expenditures, FY 05-06
Source Amount % Amount
Total $30,757 100% Total $29,886
Rates & charges $22,698 74% Administration $4,232
Property tax $0 0% O & M $17,210
Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $8,444
Interest $8,059 26% Debt $0
Connection Fees $0 0% Purchased Water $0
Continued
A-108 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CAMP FAR WEST IRRIGATION DISTRICT
Water Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Indicators
Water Planning Description Planning Horizon
Water Master Plan None NA
UWMP None, not required NA
Capital Improvement Plan None NA
Plan Item/Element Description
Emergency Plan None
Other Plans
None
Service Challenges
None identified other than filling vacant board seats.
Service Adequacy Indicators
1
Connections/FTE 81 O&M Cost Ratio $797
MGD Delivered/FTE 66.2 Distribution Loss Rate 10%
Employee Indicators
Total Employees (FTEs) 0.2 Certified as Required? Not required
Notes:
(1) Operations and maintenance costs (exc. purchased water, debt, depreciation) per volume (mgd) delivered.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-109
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
8. C A M P T O N V I L L E C E M E T E RY
D I S T R I C T
The Camptonville Cemetery District is an inactive district that was formed to provide cemetery
services to the community of Camptonville. Cemetery services have been taken over by the
Camptonville Community Services District.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
CCD was formed on November 30, 1954 as an independent special district. 92 The District was
formed to provide for the sale of cemetery plots, cemetery maintenance and grave markers to the
community of Camptonville.93
The principal act that governs the District is Public Cemetery District Law.94 The principal act
authorizes districts to own, operate, improve, and maintain cemeteries, provide interment services
within its boundaries, and to sell interment accessories and replacement objects (e.g., burial vaults,
liners, and flower vases). Although districts may require and regulate monuments or markers, it is
precluded from selling them. The principal act requires districts to maintain cemeteries owned by
the district.95 The law allows districts to inter non-residents under certain circumstances.96 Districts
must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those services
authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.97
The District’s boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The boundaries of CCD consist of an
approximately 56 square mile area bounded by the North and Middle Forks of the Yuba River and
the Yuba-Nevada county line, east of the New Bullards Bar Reservoir, as shown on Map B-8. The
boundaries of CCD are the same as the boundaries of the Camptonville Community Services
District. There have been no annexations to the District since formation.
92 Board of Equalization Official Date.
93 LAFCO resolution 1986-53.
94 California Health and Safety Code §9000-9093.
95 California Health and Safety Code §9040.
96 Non-residents eligible for interment are described in California Health and Safety Code §9061, and include former residents,
current and former taxpayers, family members of residents and former residents, family members of those already buried in the
cemetery, those without other cemetery alternatives within 15 miles of their residence, and those who died while serving in the
military.
97 Government Code §56824.10.
A-110 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CAMPTONVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT
The SOI for CCD was adopted in 1986 to be coterminous with the boundaries of the District.98
There have been no amendments to the SOI since adoption.
CCSD took over cemetery maintenance services from the Camptonville Cemetery District in
1993. According to the motion passed by the County Board of Supervisors, the CCSD Board was
authorized to serve as the Board of Trustees for the Camptonville Cemetery District, and the two
Districts were to be operated as separate special districts.99 However, the CSD ceased operating the
cemetery district as separate entity and now provides cemetery services through CCSD, as Board
actions are taken at CSD meetings and cemetery finances are included in the general fund of the
District’s financial audits. The cemetery district funds have not been transferred to the CSD;
however, CCSD does make deposits into the operating fund of the Camptonville Cemetery District
managed by the County. CCSD has not been authorized by LAFCO to provide cemetery services
pursuant to Government Code §61106.
98 LAFCO resolution 1986-53
99 BOS Minutes, 6/29/93, pg. 301.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-111
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
9. C A M P T O N V I L L E C O M M U N I T Y
S E RV I C E S D I S T R I C T
The Camptonville Community Services District (CCSD) provides fire protection, emergency
medical, retail water delivery, and cemetery services.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
CCSD was formed on December 29, 1987 as an independent special district.100 The District was
formed to provide fire protection and rescue service and water service to the community of
Camptonville.101 CCSD began providing cemetery services in 1993 when it took over the services of
the Camptonville Cemetery District. The Camptonville Cemetery District has not yet been
dissolved by LAFCO.
The principal act that governs the District is Community Services District Law.102 CSDs may
potentially provide a wide array of services, including water supply, wastewater, solid waste, police
and fire protection, street lighting and landscaping, airport, recreation and parks, mosquito
abatement, library services; street maintenance and drainage services, ambulance service, utility
undergrounding, transportation, abate graffiti, flood protection, weed abatement, hydroelectric
power, among various other services. CSDs are required to gain LAFCO approval to provide those
services permitted by the principal act but not performed by the end of 2005 (i.e., latent powers).103
The District is required to gain LAFCO approval to provide services (e.g., cemetery) that CSDs were
not legally authorized to provide in 2005.
The District’s boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The boundary area consists of two
zones, one for fire service and another for water service. The boundaries of CCSD Zone A (the fire
service area) consist of an approximately 56 square mile area bounded by the North and Middle
Forks of the Yuba River and the Yuba-Nevada county line, east of the New Bullards Bar Reservoir,
as shown on Map B-9. The boundaries of CCSD Zone B (the water service area) consist of a 0.25
square mile area east of SR 49, in the vicinity of Cleveland Avenue, Mill Street and Spring Street.104
There have been no annexations to the District since formation.
100 Board of Equalization Official Date.
101 LAFCO resolution 1987-4
102 Government Code §61000-61226.5.
103 Government Code §61106.
104 LAFCO resolution 1987-4.
A-112 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CAMPTONVILLE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
The SOI for CCSD was adopted in 1987 to be coterminous with the boundaries of the District
at its formation.105 There have been no amendments to the SOI since adoption.
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District has a five-member governing body. Board members are to be elected at-large;
however, elections are generally not contested and the members are appointed by the Board of
Supervisors. Board members serve staggered four-year terms. Current board members are Skip
Ness (Chair), Rita Ortega, Richard DicKard, Carol Holland, and Wendy Tinnel.
The Board meets on the third Monday of every month. Board meeting agendas are posted at
the Camptonville School and post office, with minutes available at the next meeting or by request.
The District does not have a website, so its documents are not available online.
All elections for governing body members from 1990-2007 have been uncontested. Since there
have been no contested elections in recent history, landowners in the district have not participated in
elections and voter turnout rates are unavailable.
The district demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with
LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with LAFCO
map inquiries, document requests, and requests for interviews.
Complaints are reviewed by the Board, and can be submitted through phone calls, email, letters
and in-person. The District reports that there have been two complaints from 2003-07, one
regarding an increase in water rates and another regarding rezoning.
The District conducts community outreach by posting articles in The Camptonville Community
Courier two to three times per year relating to fire and water service issues.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
Business activity within the District is limited to small businesses following the decline of the
timber and mining industries. Small businesses located in Camptonville include two markets and
two restaurants.
The District considers its customer base to be the residents, visitors and structures of the
community of Camptonville for fire service, the families within the District for cemetery service, and
the number of connections for water service.
There were 656 residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. The
District’s population density is approximately 12 per square mile, compared with the countywide
density of 114.
Population growth within the District is minimal, and there are no planned or proposed
developments located within the District as of 2008.
105 LAFCO resolution 1987-5.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-113
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies. Growth strategies of the District emphasize the conservation of
the surrounding natural environment and low density housing to maintain the rural setting.
MANAGEMENT
The District employs a part-time secretary and bookkeeper, as well as a full-time water
coordinator, and two part-time assistants to the water coordinator. There are a total of 10 call
firefighters— a chief, an assistant chief, a captain, a lieutenant and six firefighters. Cemetery
maintenance occurs once per year by contract (before Memorial Day), and also by volunteers. The
District has not appointed a general manager pursuant to Government Code §61050.
The secretary and bookkeeper report at regular board meetings. The water coordinator oversees
the two assistant water coordinators, and reports directly to the Board. The Fire Chief oversees the
on call firefighters and reports to the Board.
The District does not routinely evaluate employee performance, but does routinely check water
quality, and conducts benchmarking of fire service calls and response times using National Fire
Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) data.
District planning efforts include the Camptonville Community Health Action Plan, put together
in conjunction with the Camptonville Community Health Action Team and the Camptonville
Community Partnership. The Draft Community Health Action Plan was released in November
2007, and was created as a vehicle for local input into the Yuba County General Plan Update. In
addition, the District participated in the Yuba County Multi-hazard Mitigation Plan and adopted a
local hazard mitigation plan.
District financial planning efforts include annual audits and adopted budgets. The District does
not adopt a formal capital improvement plan, but instead plans for capital needs annually in the
adopted budget and as needs arise. The District did not provide copies of any financial statements.
FINANCING
The District’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and legal
limitations on revenue increases. The MSR found the District has managed to provide minimal fire
and cemetery service levels and adequate water service levels within these resource constraints. The
District lacks resources for paid staffing of its fire protection operation. Although the District
recently increased water rates in 2007, its previous water rate increase was in 1991. Best practices
involve annually adjusting water rates to reflect current costs.
The District tracks its finances for fire and cemetery services through the general fund and all
water services are financed through an enterprise fund.
The District received $160,007 in FY 05-06. A grant constituted 56 percent of the revenues.
Other revenue sources were assessments for fire protection (25 percent) and water rates (17
percent). The District received $69 in property taxes in the same FY.
The District had $4,551 in long-term debt at the end of FY 04-05. The debt is related to state
construction financing for the water system.
A-114 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CAMPTONVILLE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
According to the District’s adopted budget, with the exception of minor water system
maintenance and repairs, there are no major planned capital expenditures in FY 07-08.
By way of financial reserves, the District had unrestricted net assets of $155,156 at the end of FY
05-06. This amounted to 230 percent of the District’s annual expenses. The District maintained
approximately 28 months of working capital. The District has no formal policy on target financial
reserves.
The District pays $1,250 annually to the Yuba County Rural Fire JPA to maintain five
communication repeaters and equipment in the foothills of Yuba County. The JPA maintains two
fire frequencies, one which is used as a backup to communicate around hills. The JPA also funded
the installation of an alternate dispatch center at FFPD’s Station 1 through a grant from the Yuba
County Terrorism Task Force.
According to the Health and Safety Code §8725, cemetery authorities must establish, operate
and maintain an endowment care fund. Fund monies are received through sale of cemetery
property and land and must be placed in a trust account for perpetual care of the cemetery. The
principal must be invested and only the income from the investment may be used for care,
maintenance and embellishment of the cemetery. While the District maintains an endowment fund
under the Camptonville Cemetery District County maintained funds, deposits have not been made
into the fund at least since FY 03-04. During that time, approximately six burials in the
Camptonville Cemetery have occurred. The District reported no knowledge of an endowment fee.
The endowment fund has a balance of $1,018.
WATER SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
CCSD provides retail water services to 60 residences and eight commercial connections in the
community of Camptonville in the form of surface water diversion, groundwater pumping, water
treatment, water quality testing, conveyance, storage, and delivery.
LOCATION
CCSD provides water service within a 0.25 square mile area east of SR 49, in the vicinity of
Cleveland Avenue, Mill Street and Spring Street. The District does not provide water service outside
the District’s Zone B boundaries.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The District’s primary water supply is surface water from Campbell Gulch. The District has pre-
1914 water rights to 33.8 af per year from Campbell Gulch at a rate of diversion of 0.33 cfs. The
water from Campbell Gulch was identified as being very good quality. Groundwater is used to
augment the surface water supply during dry years and during storm events, which can make
Campbell Gulch water muddy and unusable. The groundwater has a high iron and manganese
content, which puts stress on the treatment system. The District reported that groundwater levels
decrease during times of pumping; although, the degree to which the levels decline is unknown as no
BY BURR CONSULTING A-115
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
studies have been performed. The District reported that adequate water supply would likely be an
issue during multiple dry years.
Key water infrastructure owned by the District includes a water treatment plant, a storage tank,
one mile of distribution pipeline, two wells, and meters at every connection.
Water is diverted from the gulch one mile north of town and is gravity fed to the District’s water
treatment plant. Treatment includes sand filtration and chlorination. The treatment facility was
built in 1991 and is in good condition. The District is considering improvements to the facility to
address high mineral content in the groundwater. The District has had no health or monitoring
violations within the last 10 years (1998 to 2008).
Water is stored at the treatment plant in a 64,000 gallon storage tank. The inside of the tank was
recoated in 1991. The tank showed no signs of visible chipping or peeling during an inspection by
the County Environmental Health Department (CEHD). The District identified a need for
additional water storage for fires, times of high summer demand, and dry years. The District has
begun discussions regarding storage needs; however, no plan to address the issue had been
identified, as of the drafting of this report.
The District owns and maintains two wells. The District recently installed measurement
equipment on the wells to track the amount pumped at any given time. The District started
monitoring groundwater pumping volume in 2006. The two wells were identified as being in good
condition by the CEHD.
The distribution system consists of one mile of PVC mains. Maintenance activities include
flushing of the entire system twice a year.
According to the CEHD, the District’s entire system was in good condition and there were no
deficiencies identified during the inspection in 2006.
A-116 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CAMPTONVILLE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
Table A-9-1: CCSD Water Service Profile
Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure
Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s)
Retail Water Direct Groundwater Recharge None
Wholesale Water None Groundwater Extraction Direct
Water Treatment Direct Recycled Water None
Service Area Description
Retail Water A 0.25 square mile area east of SR 49, in the vicinity of Cleveland Avenue, Mill
Street and Spring Street.
Wholesale Water None
Recycled Water None
Boundary Area2 0.25 sq. miles Population (2007) 180
System Overview
Average Daily Demand 0.03 mgd Peak Day Demand 0.075 mgd
Supply NP
Major Facilities
Facility Name Type Capacity Condition Yr Built
Treatment plant Treatment 0.095 mg Good 1991
Other Infrastructure
Reservoirs 0 Storage Capacity (mg) 0.06 mg
Pump Stations 0 Pressure Zones 0
Production Wells 2 Pipe Miles 1
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The District identified a need for additional storage capacity and an improved treatment facility to treat
groundwater.
Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration
Current Practices: None
Opportunities: None identified.
Notes:
(1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet.
(2) The boundary area shown is for Zone B, which is the water service area.
continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-117
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Water Demand and Supply
Service Connections Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds
Total 68 68 0
Irrigation/Landscape 0 0 0
Domestic 60 60 0
Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 8 8 0
Recycled 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0
Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year)
1995 2000 2005 2007 2015 2020 2025
Total NP 33 27 33 NP NP NP
Residential NP 28.9 23.6 28.9 NP NP NP
Commercial/Industrial NP 4.1 3.4 4.1 NP NP NP
Irrigation/Landscape 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year)
Source Type Average Maximum Safe/Firm
Campbell Gulch Surface Water 31 33.8 NP
Groundwater Groundwater 1 NP NP
Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year)
1995 2000 2005 2007 2015 2020 2025
Total NP 33 27 33 NP NP NP
Imported 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Groundwater NP 0 0.3 NP NP NP NP
Surface NP 33 26.9 NP NP NP NP
Recycled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Conjunctive Use
The District uses primarily surface water but does pump groundwater from two district-owned wells during dry
years.
Supply Constraints
The District has pre-1914 water rights to 33.8 af of water from Campbell Gulch. During dry years the District
must pump groundwater to provide adequate water.
Drought Supply and Plans
Drought Supply (af)1 Year 1: NP Year 2: NP Year 3: NP
Significant Droughts 1976, 1977 and 1987 through 1991, 1993
Storage Practices Storage is for short-term emergencies only.
Drought Plan The District does not have an adopted drought mitigation plan but recognizes that a
drought of longer than one year would have serious impacts on the District's ability to
provide water.
Water Conservation Practices
CUWCC Signatory No
Metering Yes
Conservation Pricing Yes
Other Practices Monthly monitoring of each connection for excessive use. If excessive use is identified,
then the system operator meets with the individual to explain conservation methods.
The District also educates constituents on water conservation in the local newspaper.
continued
A-118 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CAMPTONVILLE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
Water Rates and Financing
Domestic Water Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 06-071
Rate Description
Single Unit 0 to 60,000 gallons per month
(includes residential Flat Monthly: $30
and commercial) Water Use: $1.50 per 1000 gallons in excess of 30,000 gallons
More than 60,000 gallons per month
Flat Monthly: $75
Water Use: $2.00 per each 1,000 gallons
Two Units 0 to 60,000 gallons per month
Flat Monthly: $60
Water Use: None
More than 60,000 gallons per month
Flat Monthly: $60
Water Use: $1.50 per 1,000 gallons in excess of 60,000 gallons
Special Rates
Water rates are the same throughout the District.
Rate-Setting Procedures
Policy Description Service charges are based on a flat rate per connection and metered
water consumption. Rates are updated on an as-needed basis.
Most Recent Rate Change 2007 Frequency of Rate Changes last changed in 1991
Water Development Fees and Requirements
Connection Fee Approach The connection fees are in the process of being updated. The
District has only had one new connection since 1991.
Connection Fee Timing NA
Connection Fee Amount NA
Land Dedication Requirements NA
Development Impact Fee None
Water Enterprise Revenues, FY 04-052 Expenditures, FY 05-06
Source Amount % Amount
Total $29,115 100% Total $36,233
Rates & charges $26,582 91% Administration $22,232
Property tax $1,898 7% O & M $2,852
Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $11,149
Interest $635 2% Debt $0
Connection Fees $0 0% Purchased Water $0
Notes:
(1) Rates include water-related service charges and usage charges.
(2) Water enterprise revenues from the State Controller's Office report.
continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-119
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Water Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Indicators
Water Planning Description Planning Horizon
Water Master Plan None
UWMP None
Capital Improvement Plan None
Plan Item/Element Description
Emergency Plan Emergency notification plan
Other Plans
Multi-hazard Mitigation Plan
Service Challenges
The District identified maintaining a sufficient water supply during storms and fires as a challenge to service.
Service Adequacy Indicators
Connections/FTE 243 O&M Cost Ratio1 $795,400
MGD Delivered/FTE 0.11 Distribution Loss Rate 3.5%
Distribution Breaks & Leaks 0 Distribution Break Rate2 0
Response Time Policy None Response Time Actual 3 hours
Water Pressure varies from 25 to 120 psi
Drinking Water Quality Regulatory Information3
# Description
Health Violations 0 None in the last 10 years (1998-2008).
Monitoring Violations 0 None in the last 10 years (1998-2008).
DW Compliance Rate4 100%
Employee Indicators
Total Employees (FTEs) 0.28 Certified Yes
Notes:
(1) Operations and maintenance costs (exc. purchased water, debt, depreciation) per volume (mgd) delivered.
(2) Distribution break rate is the number of leaks and pipeline breaks per 100 miles of distribution piping.
(3) Violations since 1995, as reported by the U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System.
(4) Drinking water compliance is percent of time in compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2006.
A-120 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CAMPTONVILLE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
FIRE SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
CCSD provides fire suppression (structural, vehicle and vegetation fires), fire prevention, Basic
Life Support (BLS) for medical emergencies, rescue, hazardous materials response, and education
services.
The District’s boundaries overlap with the CALFIRE State Response Area in some areas and
Plumas National Forest in the remaining territory. CALFIRE and the U.S Forest Service have
jurisdiction for any wildland fires in the area. The District generally provides initial wildland fire
response and then supports the agency with jurisdiction during fire season.
CCSD provides BLS until Bi-County Ambulance, a privately-owned ambulance company,
arrives to perform Advanced Life Support and provide ambulance transport services.
The District responds to hazardous material incidents to provide initial identification. The Yuba
County Office of Emergency Services determines which agency will provide hazardous material
clean-up and mitigation. Marysville Fire Department typically provides specialized hazardous
material response to areas within Yuba County.
Dispatch
All 911 calls made from land lines are automatically routed to the Yuba County Sheriff. Radio
dispatch services are provided by CALFIRE dispatch for all foothill fire departments. Once the
County Sheriff dispatcher determines a call requires fire department response, the call is transferred
to CALFIRE in Grass Valley, which then dispatches the appropriate responder. For medical
emergencies, the Sheriff calls Bi-County Ambulance and the company dispatches the nearest
ambulance.
Calls to 911 from cellular phones are initially routed to the California Highway Patrol (CHP).
CHP relays the call to Yuba County Sheriff, and dispatching follows the protocol discussed above.
LOCATION
CCSD provides fire service for the entire area within District bounds. The District also
occasionally provides service outside of bounds through mutual aid agreements with neighboring
providers in Sierra County, including Downieville FPD, Pike FPD, and North San Juan FPD.
The District reported that within the District it has a high concentration of service calls at
Bullards Bar Reservoir each year, due to the influx of recreation tourists.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The District operates a single fire station. Station 1 was built in 2001, and financed through
fundraisers and donations. The District identified the station as being in fair condition and in need
of regular maintenance and improvements. The District reported that the station requires
BY BURR CONSULTING A-121
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
completion of the electrical system, installation of dry wall, improved plumbing, landscaping, and
minor improvements in the bathroom.
The District plans to open another station (Station 2) on Moonshine Road. The station building
has been acquired, and the District needs another engine to begin operations out of the station. The
District did not have a timeline for opening the station, as of the drafting of this report.
The District owns three engines and one rescue truck. The three engines were recently
purchased and are in good condition. The District would like to purchase a water tender and
another engine to store at Station 2. The District reported that it is in the early stages of applying
for grants to fund the two vehicles.
The Multi-hazard Mitigation Plan identified a need for 40,000 gallons of additional water storage
throughout the CCSD service area. The current water supply is from streams that are low during
fire season or is difficult to access.
A-122 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CAMPTONVILLE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
Table A-9-2: CCSD Fire Service Profile
Fire Service
Service Configuration Service Demand
Fire Suppression Direct Statistical Base Year 2006
EMS Direct Total Service Calls 53
Ambulance Transport Bi-County % EMS 79.2%
Hazardous Materials Marysville Fire Dept. % Fire 9.4%
Air Rescue & Ambulance Helicopter CALFIRE % False Alarm 1.9%
Fire Suppression Helicopter CALFIRE % Fire & False Alarm 11.3%
Public Safety Answering Point Sheriff % Other 11.3%
Fire/EMS Dispatch CALFIRE Calls per 1,000 people1 81
Service Adequacy Resources
ISO Rating 9/10 Fire Stations in District 1
Median Response Time 20:00 Fire Stations Serving District 1
90th Percentile Response Time NP Sq. Miles per Station 56.4
Response Time Base Year 2006 Total Staff 10
Training Total Full-time Sworn Staff 0
CCSD conducts in-house training once a week for two to three hours. The Total On-call Sworn Staff 10
District also participates in regional training with neighboring fire districts in Sworn Staff per Station2 10
Sierra County.
Sworn Staff per 1,0003 15
Full-time Sworn Staff per 1,000 0
Service Challenges Staffing Base Year 2007
Fire Flow Water Reserves 30,000 g
The District identified a challenge due to a lack of call firefighters responding
during the day. The agency covers extreme fire hazard areas with vegetation,
minimal water and steep terrain. In addition, snow covered roads in the Fire Flow Pressure4 25+
winter are difficult to maneuver.
Facilities
Station Location Condition Staff per Shift Apparatus
Camptonville Mill Street Fair Unstaffed 3 Engines
Fire Station 1 Rescue Truck
Station 2 Moonshine Road Fair Unstaffed None
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
The District needs a water tender and a new engine. In addition, there are multiple improvements that the District identified
need to be completed on Station 1.
Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Mutual/Automatic Aid Providers
Current Practices: The District is member agency of the Yuba County Rural Downieville FPD, Pike FPD, North San
Fire JPA that coordinates communications and radio infrastructure. Juan FPD, USFS, CALFIRE, DOHFPD
Opportunities: The main station was designed to house a YCSD substation.
Notes:
(1) Service call ratio based on 2000 Census population.
(2) Based on ratio of sworn staff to the number of stations.
(3) Sworn staff ratio based on 2000 Census population.
(4) For are served by hydrants within the District's water service area (Zone B).
BY BURR CONSULTING A-123
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
CEMETERY SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
CCSD took over cemetery maintenance services from the Camptonville Cemetery District in
1993. According to the motion passed by the County Board of Supervisors, the CCSD Board was
authorized to serve as the Board of Trustees for the Camptonville Cemetery District, and the two
Districts were to be operated as separate special districts.106 However, the CSD ceased operating the
cemetery district as separate entity and now provides cemetery services through CCSD, as Board
actions are taken at CSD meetings and cemetery finances are included in the general fund of the
District’s financial audits. The cemetery district funds have not been transferred to the CSD;
however, CCSD does make deposits into the Camptonville Cemetery District funds managed by the
County.107 CCSD has not been authorized by LAFCO to provide cemetery services pursuant to
Government Code §61106.
CCSD provides limited maintenance services to the Camptonville Cemetery. Major
maintenance activities such as weed eating, brush clearing and tree trimming take place once a year,
before Memorial Day through a private service contract. Due to financial constraints, the District
relies heavily on volunteers for additional maintenance activities. Other burial services, such as
grave opening, casket lowering and headstone setting, are provided by the mortuary of the
customer’s choice.
The District is authorized to provide burial plots to residents and certain non-residents, as
described in the principal act. Plots for full burials and/or cremains in the Camptonville Cemetery
are available for a fee of $120. The District reported that it does not have an endowment fee for
burials. The Camptonville Cemetery District does have an endowment fund that is managed by
Yuba County. At the end of FY 06-07 the endowment fund balance was $937.108
According to the District, approximately four individuals were interred in Camptonville
Cemetery between 2004 and 2007. A former cemetery maintenance worker for CCSD estimated
that the cemetery had approximately 500 years of space at two to three interments per year.
LOCATION
The Camptonville Cemetery is located at the east end of Spencer Street and Cleveland Avenue in
the community of Camptonville. There are two principal access points to the cemetery which
remain unlocked and open to the public 24-hours a day. Neighboring cemetery service providers
include Keystone Cemetery District, Brownsville Cemetery District and Strawberry Valley Cemetery
District.
106 BOS Minutes, 6/29/93, pg. 301.
107 Funds 619, 620 and 621.
108 Balance of fund 621 at the end of FY 06-07 was provided by the Yuba County Auditor-Controller.
A-124 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CAMPTONVILLE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
INFRASTRUCTURE
What is now known as the Camptonville Cemetery was originally three separate cemeteries: a
public cemetery, a Freemasons cemetery and an Odd Fellows cemetery. The earliest burial in the
area has been traced back to 1854, just after the establishment of the community of Camptonville.
Traditionally, the plots in all three cemeteries were maintained by the families of the deceased;
however, as this became increasingly less common the need for a cemetery district that would
provide maintenance services arose. In response to this, the Camptonville Cemetery District was
formed in 1954, and shortly thereafter a fence was put up around the entire area, effectively
consolidating all three historical cemeteries into one.
The District’s key infrastructure consists of the Camptonville Cemetery, and related maintenance
equipment including a lawn mower, a tree trimmer and a weed eater. The District identified that all
three of these items are old and are in need of replacement. The District also expressed a desire to
construct a facility (such as a columbarium) for the interment of cremains, but no formal planning
or budgeting efforts have been undertaken.
The LAFCO site visit identified vegetation control and general tree branch and debris clearing as
the major maintenance needs. Broken and cracked headstones and structural deficiencies in a
curbed plot were also observed. Many of these maintenance needs are due to financing constraints,
and the fact that the site visit was conducted in the winter when maintenance does not occur.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-125
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
10. C O R D UA I R R I G AT I O N D I S T R I C T
The Cordua Irrigation District (CID) provides retail water delivery for agricultural irrigation.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
CID was formed in 1919 as an independent special district.109 The District was formed to
provide agricultural irrigation to the community of Hallwood.
The principal act that governs the District is the Irrigation District Law.110 The principal act
empowers such districts to provide water “for any beneficial use” and may do any act to put to any
beneficial use any water under its control. In addition, irrigation districts may provide water-related
drainage services and, under certain circumstances, electric and wastewater services. Districts must
apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those services
authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.111
The District’s boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The boundaries of CID extend from
Woodruff Lane and SR 20 in the south to Ramirez Road in the north, and west from the vicinity of
Lincoln Road to just west of the Western Pacific Railroad, as shown on Map B-10. The District has
a boundary area of approximately 18 square miles.
An annexable SOI for CID was adopted in 1988. The SOI is generally consistent with the
District boundary, but also includes three parcels outside of the boundary in the east of the District.
There have been no amendments to the SOI since its adoption.
Boundary History
The LAFCO record for CID begins with the 1974 annexation of approximately 19 acres to the
westernmost portion of the District.112 In 1982, a 23-parcel annexation added over 3,600 acres to
the District, mainly to the center and north of the present day boundaries.113 Included in the 23-
parcel annexation to CID were the seven parcels detached from Ramirez Water District (RWD) by
LAFCO resolution 1982-3, including the 190-acre Nemanic parcel.
109 Interview with Charlie Mathews, Chairman, February 18, 2008.
110 California Water Code §20500-29978.
111 Government Code §56824.10.
112 LAFCO designation 3-ANNX-74.
113 LAFCO resolution 1982-4.
A-126 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CORDUA IRRIGATION DISTRICT
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District has a three-member governing body. The principal act provides for board
members to be elected by the landowners who may cast one vote per acre. In practice, the board
member positions are typically uncontested, and the Board of Supervisors appoints the candidates.
Board members serve staggered four-year terms. Current board members are Charlie Mathews
(Chair), Keith Davis and Kay Siller.
The Board meets once a month on the second Tuesday at 10 a.m. at the YCWA office. Board
agendas are posted at the rice dryer inside the District and the YCWA office one week before each
meeting. Minutes are presented at the next meeting and are available upon request from the
secretary. The District does not have a website, so its documents are not available online.
All elections for governing body members since 1995 have been uncontested. Since there have
been no contested elections in recent history, landowners in the District have not participated in
elections and voter turnout rates are unavailable.
The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with
LAFCO. The agency cooperated with LAFCO map inquiries, document requests and interview
requests. The District did not provide a copy of its most recent budget.
With regard to customer service, complaints most often relate to a lack of water service.
Complaints can be submitted through phone calls, email, letters and in-person to board members or
at board meetings. The District attempts to resolve all service related issues immediately. The
District does not track the number of complaints, and was unable to provide an estimate of the
number received in 2006.
The District updates landowners at an annual meeting covering issues of interest, such as water
rate changes and the Yuba Accord.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The land within the District is largely rural residential and agricultural. Business activities are
farming primarily of rice and secondarily prunes. The District considers its customer base to be the
landowners. The District estimated that there were approximately 80 landowners in the District as
of 2008.
There were 257 residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. The
District’s population density is 14 per square mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
There has been no growth or change in service demand within the District in recent years. The
area is largely zoned for 80-acre parcels, which limits development. There are no planned or
proposed developments within the District’s boundaries.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-127
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
MANAGEMENT
The District employs a full-time ditch tender, a part-time assistant to the ditch tender and a part-
time secretary. The assistant reports to the ditch tender. The secretary and ditch tender report to
the Board at monthly meetings.
District management practices include annual evaluations of employees in December. The
District does not perform overall evaluations of District operations. The ditch tender tracks
workload by keeping a log of all maintenance performed. There is no formal benchmarking
performed by the District; however, board members farm in other water and irrigation districts and
are aware of the practices within those districts.
The District does not conduct formal planning efforts, and has no adopted master plan or
capital improvement plan.
District financial planning efforts include annual audits and an annually adopted budget;
however, the District did not provide a copy of the most recently completed budget for FY 07-08.
The District does not have an adopted CIP, but plans for capital improvements on an annual basis
in the budget.
FINANCING
The District tracks its finances through a single enterprise fund.
The District received $452,972 in operating and non-operating revenues in CY 06. Revenues
consisted of water sales for irrigation and contract purposes (75 percent) and a settlement payment
from a liability claim (25 percent). The District does not receive income from property taxes.
The District had $100,000 in long-term debt at the end of CY 06. A loan was obtained from
YCWA in 2003 to meet then-current liabilities. Payment for the loan is due May 2008.
By way of financial reserves, the District had unrestricted net assets of $43,212 at the end of CY
06. This amounted to 13 percent of the District’s annual expenses. The District maintained
approximately 1.5 months of working capital. The District has no formal policy on target financial
reserves.
The District practices joint financing with Hallwood Irrigation Company for the maintenance of
the fish screen at the diversion point in the Yuba River. CID contributes approximately 55 percent
of maintenance costs annually, depending on water use during the year.
WATER SERVICES
NATURE AND EXTENT
CID distributes irrigation water to landowners, monitors groundwater levels on a monthly basis,
and conveys water to Ramirez Water District. District users all rely on a system of canals and
ditches for water delivery, with water flowing from the Yuba River diversion point through the
A-128 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CORDUA IRRIGATION DISTRICT
Cordua/Hallwood Canal to the CID distribution system. CID repairs and monitors the ditch and
canal system. CID does not provide water treatment services.
Approximately 90 percent of the rice fields are flooded for straw decomposition and waterfowl
habitat during the winter.
LOCATION
The District provides service within its bounds and to approximately seven parcels
(approximately 480 acres) outside of bounds. Of those seven parcels, three are within the District’s
adopted SOI. The District is not providing service to 266 acres of orchards in the northwest
portion of the District, where groundwater is used for micro-irrigation.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The CID water source is the Yuba River. The water supply is primarily influenced by snowpack.
The District has rights to 60,000 af of Yuba River surface water—a pre-1914 appropriative right to
divert up to 75 cfs from the Yuba River for agricultural use, and 1940 and 1948 appropriative rights
to divert an additional 90 cfs.114 In addition, CID has 12,000 af in YCWA base contract rights. The
District has been using water from the Yuba River since the late 1890s and began deliveries from
YCWA in 1971.115
Key infrastructure within the District consists of 15 miles of an earthen main canal and 20 miles
of earthen distribution lateral ditches. The District did not identify any needs or deficiencies in the
ditch and canal system.
The Cordua/Hallwood Canal diverts water from the Yuba River at the Daguerre Point Dam,
which then flows through the Hallwood Irrigation Company service area and into the CID
boundaries. CID then diverts the necessary water from the canal to its distribution ditches. The
remaining water in the canal flows to Ramirez Water District’s three delivery points for use.
Ramirez Water District reimburses CID for conveyance services.
The District jointly maintains a fish screen at the Yuba River diversion point with Hallwood
Irrigation Company. The District replaced the fish screen in 2001 at a cost of $360,000 to comply
with Department of Fish and Game requirements. The District did not identify any needs or
deficiencies for the fish screen.
114 HDR Engineering and Surface Water Resources, Inc., Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord: Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2007, p. 5-
7.
115 YCWA, Yuba County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, 2008, p. 2-14.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-129
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-10-1: CID Water Service Profile
Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure
Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s)
Retail Water Direct Groundwater Recharge None
Wholesale Water None Groundwater Extraction None2
Water Treatment None Recycled Water None
Service Area Description
Retail Water CID's boundary lies northeast of the City of Marysville in the community of Hallwood,
east of the Western Pacific Railroad, and north of Woodruff Lane to approximately
Ramirez Road. The District also provides service outside of District bounds to 480
acres.
Wholesale Water None
Recycled Water None
Boundary Area 18.0 sq. miles Population (2000) 257
System Overview
Average Daily Demand 55.3 mgd Peak Day Demand3 194 mgd
Supply 72,000 af
Infrastructure
Reservoirs 0 Storage Capacity (mg) 0
Pump Stations 0 Pressure Zones 0
Production Wells 0 Pipe Miles 0
Other: 15 miles of main canal and 20 miles of earthen lateral ditch distribution system, siphons, check
structures
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
None identified
Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration
Current Practices: The District and Hallwood Irrigation Company each maintain the portion of the
Cordua/Hallwood Canal within their district. CID delivers water to Ramirez Water District's points of delivery
through a contract agreement. In addition, the District maintains a fish screen at the Yuba River diversion point in
conjunction with Hallwood Irrigation Company.
Opportunities: Future groundwater pumping and conjunctive use projects would be implemented by YCWA and
its member units to provide water transfers to areas outside Yuba County.
Notes:
(1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet.
(2) The District does not own any wells to pump groundwater; however, farmers maintain private wells.
(3) Peak day demand includes the amount distributed to Ramirez Water District.
continued
A-130 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CORDUA IRRIGATION DISTRICT
Water Demand and Supply
Service Connections1 Total Within Bounds Outside Bounds
Total 133 126 7
Irrigation/Landscape 133 126 7
Domestic 0 0 0
Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year)
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Total 72,209 74,970 61,969 NP NP NP NP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Commercial/Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Irrigation/Landscape 52,181 52,590 46,192 NP NP NP NP
Other2 20,028 22,380 15,777 NP NP NP NP
Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year)
Source Type Average Maximum Safe/Firm
Yuba River surface 69,716 72,000 Unknown
North Yuba Groundwater Subbasin groundwater NP NP Unknown
Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year)
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Total 72,000 72,000 72,000 NP NP NP NP
Imported 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Groundwater3 0 0 0 NP NP NP NP
Surface 72,000 72,000 72,000 NP NP NP NP
Recycled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Conjunctive Use
The District relies primarily on surface water but also uses groundwater from privately owned wells during dry
years when transfers are necessary. Private wells are used for micro-irrigation of 266 acres of orchards.
Supply Cponstraipnts pp p g pp y , ,
addition to a contract with YCWA for a base amount of 12,000 af. Precipitation and irrigation water percolate
into the groundwater basin with average annual recharge of the entire North Yuba Basin estimated at 11,000 af
annually.
Drought Supply and Plans
Drought Supply (af) Year 1: NP Year 2: NP Year 3: NP
Significant Droughts 1976, 1977 and 1987 through 1991, 1993
Storage Practices Surface water accumulates in Bullards Bar Reservoir, and is made available as needed by
YCWA during the year.
Drought Plan Although never invoked, the YCWA drought plan calls for 15% curtailments when the
flow forecast as of April 1 is 51-85% of normal levels, and 30% curtailments when the
flow is 40-50% of normal levels.
Water Conservation Practices
CUWCC Signatory No
Metering No
Conservation Pricing None, rate structure is flat.
Other Practices The ditch tender monitors the drainage leaving fields. If it is excessive, then the water is
turned off and the problem resolved.
Notes:
(1) In lieu of the number of connections served, the District provided the number of parcels served. A single headgate may
serve multiple parcels.
(2) Other water demand is water fowl habitat, as reported by YCWA.
(3) The District does not pump groundwater. All wells are privately owned by farmers.
continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-131
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Water Rates and Financing
Agricultural & Irrigation Water Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 06-07
Crop Rate Description
Rice $10 per acre (Class 1)/$20 per acre (Class II & III)
Other and Winter $8.50 per acre (Class 1)/$17.00 per acre (Class II & III)
Ponds $15.00 per acre, $50 min. (Class 1)/$30.00 per acre, $100 min. (Class II & III)
Special Rates
Water rates are double for those areas not receiving water or outside of the District prior to 1980, which are
designated as Class II or III land. Those landowners inside the District receiving water prior to 1980 (Class 1
land) assisted in the construction of the distribution ditches.
Rate-Setting Procedures
Policy Description Service charges are imposed on a cost-of-service basis. Water use is not
metered, but is estimated for rate calculation purposes.
Most Recent Rate Change 2007 Frequency of Rate Changes Annually
Water Development Fees and Requirements
Connection Fee Approach Any new water users are required to pay the cost of connecting to the
system.
Connection Fee Timing Prior to connection.
Water Enterprise Revenues, CY 06 Expenditures, CY 06
Source Amount % Amount
Total $452,972 100% Total $327,836
Rates & charges $339,196 75% Administration $113,826
Property tax $0 0% O & M $159,011
Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $25,839
Interest $0 0% Debt $4,043
Misc. - Settlement $113,776 25% Purchased Water $29,160
Notes:
(1) Rates include water-related service charges and usage charges, and exclude utility users' taxes.
continued
A-132 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
CORDUA IRRIGATION DISTRICT
Water Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Indicators
Water Planning Description Date/Status
Groundwater Management Plan None
Water Master Plan None
UWMP None, not required
Capital Improvement Plan None
Plan Item/Element Description
Emergency Plan None
Other Plans
None
Service Challenges
The District identified the water needs of Southern California and maintaining good relations with the
Department of Fish and Game as challenges to providing services.
Service Adequacy Indicators
Connections/FTE 88.7 O&M Cost Ratio1 $2,874
MGD Delivered/FTE 36.9 Distribution Loss Rate 10%
Employee Indicators
Total Employees (FTEs) 1.5 Certified as Required? Not required
Notes:
(1) Operations and maintenance costs (exc. purchased water, debt, depreciation) per volume (mgd) delivered.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-133
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
11. D I S T R I C T 1 0 – H A L LWO O D
C O M M U N I T Y S E RV I C E S D I S T R I C T
The District 10-Hallwood Community Services District (D10-HCSD) provides fire prevention,
fire suppression and emergency medical services. Services are provided by CALFIRE through its
contract with the City of Marysville.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
D10-HCSD was formed on November 13, 1985 as an independent special district.116 The
District was formed to provide fire protection and rescue services to the communities of Hallwood
and District 10.117
The principal act that governs the District is Community Services District Law.118 CSDs may
potentially provide a wide array of services, including water supply, wastewater, solid waste, police
and fire protection, street lighting and landscaping, airport, recreation and parks, mosquito
abatement, library services; street maintenance and drainage services, ambulance service, utility
undergrounding, transportation, abate graffiti, flood protection, weed abatement, hydroelectric
power, among various other services. CSDs are required to gain LAFCO approval to provide
additional services beyond those they were already providing at the end of 2005.119 Districts must
apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those services
authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.120 The principal
act requires that districts have five-member governing boards and appoint a general manager to
implement board policies.121
The District’s boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The boundaries of D10-HCSD extend
north from the Yuba River to the Yuba-Butte county line, excluding the City of Marysville, and
from Sutter County in the west to Ramirez Road, Mathews Lane and Kibbe Road in the east, as
116 Board of Equalization Official Date.
117 LAFCO resolution 1985-5.
118 Government Code §61000-61226.5.
119 Government Code §61106.
120 Government Code §56824.10.
121 Government Codes §61040 and 61050.
A-134 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
DISTRICT 10 – HALLWOOD COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
shown on Map B-11. The District has a boundary area of approximately 60 square miles.122 There
have been no annexations to the District since formation.
The SOI for D10-HCSD was adopted in 1986 to be coterminous with the boundaries of the
District.123 There have been no amendments to the SOI since its adoption.
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District has a five-member governing body. Board members are to be elected at-large;
however, elections are generally not contested and the members are appointed by the Board of
Supervisors. Board members serve staggered four-year terms. Current board members are Chris
Haile (Chair), Peter Hall, Terry Dennis, Stephen Roper, and Chuck Wilson.
The Board meets four times a year at the Marysville Fire Station. Meetings are held on the third
Wednesday in January, April, July, and October. Board meeting agendas are posted at the Marysville
Fire Station, on the County website and occasionally in the Appeal-Democrat. Minutes are available by
request from the secretary. The District does not have a website, so its documents are not available
online.
All elections for governing body members since 1995 have been uncontested. Since there have
been no contested elections in recent history, voters in the district have not participated in elections
and voter turnout rates are unavailable.
The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with
LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with LAFCO
map inquiries and document requests.
With regard to customer service, complaints most often relate to property assessments.
Complaints can be submitted through phone calls, email, letters and in-person to the District’s
secretary. Complaints are generally handled by the secretary. If a complaint is not resolved to a
constituent’s satisfaction, then the complaint is reviewed by the Board. The District does not track
the number of complaints, but estimates that four were received in 2007.
The District did not report any customer outreach activities.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The land within the District is largely rural residential and agricultural. Business activities are
primarily farming of prunes, kiwis and rice. Major employers within the District are farms and fruit
packing companies, such as Gordon Valley Fruit Packing, Chase National Kiwi Farms, and
Shintaffer Farms.
122 LAFCO resolution 1985-5.
123 LAFCO resolution 1986-41.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-135
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The District considers its customer base to be the landowners that pay assessments within the
District. There are approximately 1,090 parcels assessed by the District.124
There were 1,906 residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. The
District’s population density is 32 per square mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
The District has experienced limited growth in recent years, resulting in a slight increase in
service demand. It is anticipated that the District will continue to experience the same growth in the
near future as there were no planned or proposed developments within the District, as of the
drafting of this report.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies. Plans to adequately serve any new growth are addressed when the
District renews its contract with the City every five years.
MANAGEMENT
The District employs a part-time secretary and bookkeeper as an independent contractor. The
secretary reports at regular board meetings. The District provides fire and emergency medical
services through a contract with Marysville Fire Department (MFD). The Marysville Fire Chief
reports annually to the Board on the number and type of calls during the year.
The District does not perform formal evaluations of the secretary or fire department, as no
problems have warranted evaluations, according to the District. Other management practices
include productivity monitoring of service calls and response times by the Chief. The District did
not report any benchmarking activities.
The District adopted an engineer’s report in 2006, while going through the process of increasing
its assessment. The report outlines the District’s needs and the necessary assessment level to fund
those needs. No other planning documents have been adopted to date.
District financial planning efforts include annual audits and adopted budgets. The District does
not adopt a formal capital improvement plan, but instead plans for capital needs annually in the
adopted budget.
FINANCING
The District’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and legal
limitations on revenue increases. The MSR found the District has managed to provide adequate
service levels within these resource constraints. The District identified its financing level as adequate
to provide services to projected growth at least until 2013.
The District tracks its finances out of a single general fund.
124 D10-HCSD, Engineer’s Report, 2006, p. 11.
A-136 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
DISTRICT 10 – HALLWOOD COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
The District received $90,889 in FY 05-06. Primary revenue sources were special benefit
assessments (62 percent), fire mitigation fees (12 percent) and interest (11 percent). The District
received $8,511 in property taxes constituting nine percent of all revenues.
In 2006, District residents passed a new assessment to fund the increased cost of the MFD
contract. The original assessment was adopted in 1984 without an annual adjustment for inflation.
The new assessment is based on structure size on developed property and is a flat assessment for
undeveloped parcels. The assessment for a 2,000 square foot home would be approximately $55.20.
The assessment is adjusted annually for inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index.
The contract with MFD was renewed in August 2007. At that time, reimbursement to the City
for services rendered increased from a flat fee of $50,072 to $100,000 a year, plus an additional
$5,000 annually for equipment replacement costs, actual costs for responding to calls in excess of
300 per fiscal year, and retention of fees collected for fire code enforcement.
The District had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The District’s budget did not outline any significant capital expenditures in FY 07-08.
By way of financial reserves, the District had unrestricted net assets of $357,678 at the end of FY
05-06. This amounted to 550 percent of the District’s annual expenses. The District maintained
approximately 5 years of working capital. The District has no formal policy on target financial
reserves.
FIRE & EMS SERVICES
NATURE AND EXTENT
D10-HCSD provides fire and medical related services through a contract with the MFD, which
is operated by CALFIRE through a contract with the City. According to the District’s contract with
the City, the MFD provides fire suppression, basic life support, fire investigation, fire prevention
and fire inspection services to the area. Services excluded in the contract are hazardous materials
response and weed abatement. Hazardous materials response is provided by MFD under a separate
contract with the County for all county territory.
All vehicles and equipment are owned by the City of Marysville. The District occasionally
purchases new vehicles, which are then donated to the City to maintain and insure.
Dispatch Services
All 911 calls made from land lines within the District’s limits are automatically routed to the
Yuba County Sheriff’s Office (YCSO)—the Public Safety Answering Point. All fire-related calls are
transferred to Marysville Police Department (MPD). Once the MPD dispatcher determines a call
requires fire department response, it directly dispatches MFD personnel. For medical emergencies,
the MPD calls Bi-County Ambulance and the company dispatches the nearest ambulance. Calls to
911 from cellular phones are initially routed to the California Highway Patrol (CHP). CHP relays
the call to MPD, and dispatching then follows the same protocol as for 911 calls from land lines.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-137
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
LOCATION
The District provides for coverage within its boundaries through its contract with MFD. Due to
proximity, mutual aid is often provided by MFD in LRBVCSD along the northeastern edge of D10-
HCSD. The boundary between D10-HCSD and LRBVCSD runs down the centerline of Mathews
and Woodruff lanes. Which district will respond to incidents on either side of those streets is
dependent on staffing levels and time of day.
MFD also provides mutual aid response to Linda FPD and Yuba City FD; mutual aid is
reciprocated by both agencies when events require additional staffing within the City and District.
Butte County Fire Department also provides back-up support in the northern portion of the
District, along the Yuba-Butte county line.
INFRASTRUCTURE
MFD provides service to the District from two stations. Station 1 is located outside of the
District, within the City of Marysville. This station is the fire department headquarters and is used
for operations, equipment storage, and training. The fire station was built in 1959. MFD reported
that it is in fair condition and requires a new roof, exhaust system, upgraded lighting, and a new
driveway.
Station 2 is located within Hallwood on SR 70. The station is leased from a private landowner
and is located at a private residence. It is unstaffed and used only as storage for a single Type 1
Engine. MFD identified the station as being in good condition. Given the limited demand within
the District, MFD reported that there is no need for an additional fire station.
However, the District intends to reduce fire insurance costs for residents and has begun the
process of constructing and equipping an additional fire station to improve the District ISO rating.
As part of that objective, the District was in negotiations with Cordua Irrigation District (CID) to
share CID’s facility at 3489 Kibbe Road, at the time this report was prepared. The facility would be
shared free of charge to store an engine. The District hopes to provide enhanced service to the
eastern portion of the District and reduce insurance rates for those within five miles. It is expected
that the engine will begin to be stored there in Summer 2008.
MFD operates a training tower within city limits. The training tower is in fair condition and
needs remodeling. Infrastructure needs identified by MFD include new paint, roof repairs, and
upgrading of lighting throughout the facility.
Vehicles at Station 1 include a structure fire engine, a reserve engine, a medical and vehicle
accident engine, two wildland fire engines, a ladder truck, a hazmat unit, a squad truck, and a water
tender. Station 2 houses a fire engine. According to MFD, there are five vehicles over 20 years old
that are in need of replacement—the ladder truck, the structure engine, the water tender, and both
wildland engines. Specifically, service within the District would benefit from a new water tender and
an additional engine.
A-138 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
DISTRICT 10 – HALLWOOD COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
Table A-11-1: D10-HCSD Fire Profile
Fire Service
Service Configuration Service Demand
Fire Suppression Marysville Fire Dept. Statistical Base Year 2007
EMS Marysville Fire Dept. Total Service Calls 225
Ambulance Transport Bi-County % EMS 60.4%
Hazardous Materials Marysville Fire Dept. % Fire 12.9%
Air Rescue & Ambulance Helicopter CALFIRE % False Alarm 4.0%
Fire Suppression Helicopter CALFIRE % Fire & False Alarm 16.9%
Public Safety Answering Point Sheriff % Other 22.7%
Fire/EMS Dispatch Sheriff Calls per 1,000 people1 118
Service Adequacy Resources
ISO Rating 9/10 Fire Stations in District 1
Median Response Time 8:00 Fire Stations Serving District 2
90th Percentile Response Time 14:00 Sq. Miles per Station 31.8
Response Time Base Year 2007 Total Staff 3
Training Total Full-time Sworn Staff 1
Training for reserves is held two hours per week. Total On-call Sworn Staff 2
Sworn Staff per Station2 0
Sworn Staff per 1,0003 1.6
Full-time Sworn Staff per 1,000 0.5
Service Challenges Staffing Base Year 2007
MFD identified low volunteer response, the expansive size of the District and Fire Flow Water Reserves4 4,400
a lack of water reserves as challenges to providing service. Fire Flow Pressure5 N/A
Facilities
Station Location Condition Staff per Shift Apparatus
Marysville Fire 107 Ninth St., Fair 1 Battallion Chief Engine 211
Station 1 Marysville 1 Captain Engine 214
2 Apparatus Engineers Engine 216
Truck 217
Hazmat Unit
Engine 236
Squad 237
Water Tender 238
Station 2 9562 SR 70 Good Unstaffed Type 1 Engine
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
Station 1 needs a new roof, an air exhaust system, upgraded lighting, and the driveway needs to be replaced due to cracked
cement. The District identified a need for an additional station structure within the District to reduce ISO ratings. Vehicle
needs for service within the District include a water tender and an engine.
Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Mutual/Automatic Aid Providers
Current Practices: The training facilities at the Marysville fire station can be LFPD, OPUD, WFA, Yuba City FD, Sutter
used on request. Yuba College uses the facilities for fire academy classes. County Fire, LRBVCSD, Beale AFB,
CALFIRE (Nevada, Yuba and Placer) and Yuba County Sherriff have also made CALFIRE Butte County FD
use of the training room.
Opportunities: The District is negotiating with Cordua Irrigation District to
begin storage of an engine at the CID facility beginning in the summer of 2008.
Notes:
(1) Service call ratio based on 2000 Census population.
(2) The station within the District's bounds is unstaffed.
(3) Sworn staff ratio based on 2000 Census population.
(4) Reserves listed are for a single water tender and the engine at Station 2. There are no storage tanks; however, from April to November
MFD can draft from agricultural ditches and year round from ag wells.
(5) There are no hydrants within the District.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-139
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
12. D O B B I N S - O R E G O N H O U S E F I R E
P RO T E C T I O N D I S T R I C T
The Dobbins-Oregon House Fire Protection District (DOHFPD) provides fire prevention, fire
suppression and emergency medical services.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
DOHFPD was formed on July 31, 1986 as an independent special district.125 The District was
formed to provide fire protection and rescue services to the communities of Dobbins and Oregon
House.126
The principal act that governs the District is the Fire Protection District Law of 1987.127 The
principal act empowers fire districts to provide fire protection, rescue, emergency medical,
hazardous material response, ambulance, and any other services relating to the protection of lives
and property.128 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in
other words, those services authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end
of 2000.129
The District’s boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The boundaries of DOHFPD generally
extend from Collins Lake in the southwest to the New Bullards Bar Reservoir in the northeast, as
shown on Map B-12. The North Yuba River serves as the southeastern boundary of the District,
with Foothill Fire Protection District sharing the northern border of DOHFPD. The District has a
boundary area of approximately 70 square miles.130 There have been no annexations to the District
since formation.
The SOI for DOHFPD was adopted in 1986, and includes approximately 5.2 square miles
located along the southern boundary of the District, abutting the northern boundary of Smartville
Fire Protection District.131 There have been no amendments to the SOI since its adoption.
125 Board of Equalization Official Date.
126 LAFCO resolution 1986-40.
127 Health and Safety Code §13800-13970.
128 Health and Safety Code §13862.
129 Government Code §56824.10.
130 LAFCO resolution 1986-40.
131 LAFCO resolution 1986-51.
A-140 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
DOBBINS-OREGON HOUSE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District has a five-member governing body. Board members are to be elected at-large. In
practice, the board member positions are typically uncontested, and the Board of Supervisors
appoints the candidates. Board members serve staggered four-year terms. Board members in 2007
were Pete Hammontre (Chair), Mike Hatherly, John Norris, Rick Brown, and Lloyd Appleby.
The Board meets once a month on the first Thursday at 6:30 pm at Station 1. Board meeting
agendas are posted at local post offices. Minutes and tapes of each board meeting are available upon
request from the secretary. The District does not have a website, so its documents are not available
online.
All elections for governing body members since 1995 have been uncontested. Since there have
been no contested elections in recent history, voters in the district have not participated in elections
and voter turnout rates are unavailable.
The District demonstrated partial accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation
with LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with
LAFCO map inquiries and document requests. The District did not provide information on service
calls and response times.
Complaints can be submitted through phone calls, email, letters and in-person to the Chief or
the Board. Complaints are reviewed by the Board. The District reported one complaint in 2006.
There have been no complaints regarding personnel since 1999. Complaints most often relate to
assessment rates.
The District provides educational programs relating to brush removal, fire prevention and water
tank maintenance. Four times a year, the District distributes CDs on property maintenance and
emergency preparation of homes. In addition, the District sponsors a free chipping program
through funding from a State grant. The auxiliary group runs a volunteer thrift shop and plans
fundraising events throughout the year to fund District services.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The area within the District’s bounds is largely rural residential and agricultural with several
recreational waterways and a national forest. Business activity in the District includes logging and
forestry, utilities, camping and recreational facilities, as well as a medical office, a studio, a law office,
and an olive company. The District considers its customer base to be the structures and residents
within the District. According to the District’s multi-hazard mitigation plan, there were
approximately 1,615 residential structures and 29 businesses within District bounds in 2004.
There were 2,256 residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. The
District’s population density is 32 per square mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
The District has experienced increased demand for service in recent years related to an increase
in recreation tourists at Collins Lake, the Yuba River, Bullards Bar Reservoir, Lake Mildred, and
Lake Francis. The District reported moderate residential growth and development within the
District. Further growth is anticipated as lots are split and proposed developments are approved
and begin construction.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-141
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Two developers have contacted the District regarding potential developments. Frenchtown
Estates is a proposed development by Dane Sillers to be composed of 26 parcels of 20 acres each.
To continue with development, the developer must comply with water requirements for fire
suppression purposes. As a result of the current housing market downturn, the developer has
temporarily put a hold on development plans.
The Eric Johnson Family Trust has shown interest in two subdivision areas—a 535-acre area to
be comprised of 250-single family homes and a 140-acre parcel with a proposed 50 to 75 single
family homes. Plans for these developments are only in the preliminary stages. No application has
been filed with the County.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies. The District tracks the number of building permits issued to
inform future service and infrastructure needs.
MANAGEMENT
The District relies entirely on call and call personnel. Call sworn staff includes a chief, two
assistant chiefs, four captains, one lieutenant, and 12 firefighters. In addition, the District has a part-
time secretary and a part-time bookkeeper. All sworn staff report to the Chief. The Chief makes
monthly reports to the board at meetings.
District management practices include evaluations of all sworn staff by the Chief four times a
year—one annual and three quarterly evaluations. Apprentice firefighters are evaluated on an on-
going basis during their probation period. The District does not perform regular evaluations of the
District’s overall performance; however, the District does monitor productivity by tracking service
calls and response times and reporting to the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS)
database. The District reported informal benchmarking at the County’s annual Muster—a
competition of skill among the various firefighting agencies.
The District adopted a multi-hazard mitigation plan in 2007 to guide planning efforts. In
addition, the District has participated in regional planning documents, such as the Yuba County
Wildland Fire Protection Plan and the Yuba County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.
District financial planning efforts include annual financial audits and an annually adopted
budget. The District was in the process of completing its FY 05-06 financial audit and was unable
to provide the most recent audited financial statement. Capital improvements are planned for three,
five, 10 and 20-year time frames. A District subcommittee ensures that these plans are updated
annually.
District accomplishments include no lost duty time due to personnel injuries since 2002. In
addition, the District won four of seven awards at the 2006 Muster competition.
FINANCING
The District’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and legal
limitations on revenue increases. The MSR found the District has managed to provide minimal
service levels within these resource constraints, but lacks resources for paid staffing.
A-142 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
DOBBINS-OREGON HOUSE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
The District was in the process of completing an audited financial statement for FY 05-06; the
following numbers are based on unaudited reported actuals for FY 05-06.
The District tracks its operational finances through a general fund.
The District received $130,691 in FY 05-06. Major revenue sources were benefit assessments
(34 percent), property taxes (32 percent), mitigation fees (21 percent), and interest (nine percent).
The District’s original special benefit assessment was adopted in 1986. The assessment was
based on a fee per unit, where a parcel is one unit and each structure on the parcel is an additional
unit. The fee was increased annually for inflation according to the Consumer Price Index. In the
late 1990s, the assessment reached the approved maximum limit of $12.50 per unit. In 2004, voters
approved an assessment increase of $4.50. Only the assessment increase is to be increased annually
for inflation. The total assessment per unit in 2008 was $17.42.
The District had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06. Major capital improvements
planned for FY 07-08 include the construction of a new station. The station is expected to cost
between $390,000 and $450,000 for construction, and will be funded by revenues and donations
accumulated since 1996.
The District’s unreserved fund balance at the end of FY 05-06 could not be determined from
the financial statement provided. The District has no formal policy on target financial reserves but
tries to retain 12 to 15 percent of revenues each year.
The District pays $1,250 annually to the Yuba County Rural Fire JPA to maintain five
communication repeaters and equipment in the foothills of Yuba County. The JPA maintains two
fire frequencies, one which is used as a backup to communicate around hills. The JPA also funded
the installation of an alternate dispatch center at FFPD’s Station 1 through a grant from the Yuba
County Terrorism Task Force.
FIRE & EMS SERVICES
NATURE AND EXTENT
DOHFPD provides fire suppression (structural, vehicle, and vegetation fires), fire prevention,
Basic Life Support (BLS) for medical emergencies, rescue, hazardous materials response, and
education services.
The District’s boundaries overlap with the CALFIRE State Responsibility Area in some portions
and Plumas National Forest in the remaining territory. CALFIRE and the U.S Forest Service have
jurisdiction for any wildland fires in the area. The District generally provides initial wildland fire
response and then supports the agency with jurisdiction during fire season.
DOHFPD provides BLS until Bi-County Ambulance, a privately-owned ambulance company,
arrives to perform Advanced Life Support and provide ambulance transport services.
The District responds to hazardous material incidents to provide initial identification. The Yuba
County Office of Emergency Services determines what agency will provide hazardous material
BY BURR CONSULTING A-143
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
clean-up and mitigation. Marysville Fire Department typically provides specialized hazardous
material response to areas within Yuba County.
In conjunction with the Fire Safe Council, DOHFPD sponsors a chipping program financed by
Proposition 40 funds. Homeowners in fire prone areas clear vegetation within 100 feet of their
residence, and the vegetation is chipped free of charge.
Dispatch
All 911 calls made from land lines are automatically routed to the Yuba County Sheriff. Radio
dispatch services are provided by CALFIRE dispatch for all foothill fire departments. Once the
County Sheriff dispatcher determines a call requires fire department response, the call is transferred
to CALFIRE in Grass Valley, which then dispatches the appropriate responder. For medical
emergencies, the Sheriff calls Bi-County Ambulance to dispatch the nearest ambulance.
Calls to 911 from cellular phones are initially routed to the California Highway Patrol (CHP).
CHP relays the call to Yuba County Sheriff, and dispatching follows the protocol discussed above.
LOCATION
DOHFPD provides services to all areas within District boundaries. Services are also provided
outside of District bounds into the eastern portion of LRBVCSD near Collins Lake, due to
proximity. Along the southern boundary of the District, there is a six square mile area that does not
have a designated fire provider. The undesignated area lies between DOHFPD and Smartville FPD.
The District reported that it serves the area and has better access and shorter response times to the
area than Smartville FPD.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The District operates out of three fire stations. All stations were identified as being in good
condition. Station 1 is located near the community of Oregon House. It was built in 1991. The
District is in the process of building a new Station 1 to replace this facility as District headquarters.
Station 1 currently lacks a training facility and adequate storage space for the vehicles. In addition,
there is no place to land a helicopter within the vicinity of one of the District’s fire stations. The
District received a building permit in February 2008 and hopes to complete construction by Fall
2008. The new station will have five bays, two offices, a training facility, and storage space for
equipment, supplies and records. After completion of the new station, the old station will be
transferred to the auxiliary group to expand the thrift shop used for fundraising.
Station 2 was built in the community of Dobbins in 2004. While the station is in good
condition, it lacks restroom facilities. The station has the space and infrastructure to add a restroom
in the future. In addition, the District reported a need for insulation in the station. Station 3 was
built in the early 1990’s at Collins Lake. The District borrows the facility at no cost from the Collins
Lake Resort. This station also lacks a restroom; however, it is not feasible to add one at this time.
The District reported that, with the exception of the rescue engine, all vehicles were recently
upgraded. The District plans to replace the rescue engine by the end of 2009.
A-144 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
DOBBINS-OREGON HOUSE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
Table A-12-1: DOHFPD Fire Service Profile
Fire Service
Service Configuration Service Demand
Fire Suppression Direct Statistical Base Year 2007
EMS Direct Total Service Calls 304
Ambulance Transport Bi-County % EMS 74.3%
Hazardous Materials Direct % Fire 17.4%
Air Rescue & Ambulance Helicopter CALFIRE % False Alarm 7.3%
Fire Suppression Helicopter CALFIRE % Fire & False Alarm 24.7%
Public Safety Answering Point Sheriff % Other 1.0%
Fire/EMS Dispatch CALFIRE Calls per 1,000 people1 135
Service Adequacy Resources
ISO Rating 8 Fire Stations in District 3
Median Response Time2 4:00 Fire Stations Serving District 3
90th Percentile Response Time 8:00 Sq. Miles per Station 23
Response Time Base Year 2006 Total Staff 23
Training Total Full-time Sworn Staff 0
Training is held every other Wednesday for two to three hours at the station Total On-call Sworn Staff 20
and includes courses on wildland fires, structural fires, and EMT skills. The Sworn Staff per Station3 7
District participates in regional training coordinated by the Fire Chiefs
Sworn Staff per 1,0004 9
Association.
Full-time Sworn Staff per 1,000 0
Service Challenges Staffing Base Year 2007
The agency covers extreme fire hazard areas with vegetation, minimal water Fire Flow Water Reserves5 75,000 g
and steep terrain. In addition, rough terrain with no road access is an
Fire Flow Pressure6 N/A
occasional challenge to service.
Facilities
Station Location Condition Staff per Shift Apparatus
Station 1 9150 Marysville Good Unstaffed 1 Rescue Vehicles
Road 1 Water Tender
1 Fire Engines
1 Attack Engine
Station 2 14358 Merriam Good Unstaffed 1 Water Tender
Road 1 Fire Engine
1 Brush Engine
Station 3 Collins Lake Resort Good Unstaffed 1 Chief's Unit
1 Fire Engine
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
The District identified a need for a new rescue truck, restrooms at Stations 2 and 3 and insulation at Station 2. The District
would like dorm facilities in the next 20 years.
Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Mutual/Automatic Aid Providers
Current Practices: The District stores an SCBA fill station for use by other CDF, U.S.F.S., Foothill FPD, LR-BV CSD,
districts. Camptonville CSD, Smartville FPD
Opportunities: There are plans for the Sheriff's Department to have a substation
at the new Station 1 once it is completed.
Notes:
(1) Service call ratio based on 2000 Census population.
(2) The District reported response times are from the time of leaving the station to response at the scene, and do not include the time from
dispatch of volunteers to exiting the station.
(3) Based on ratio of sworn staff to the number of stations.
(4) Sworn staff ratio based on 2000 Census population.
(5) Water reserves includes three District storage tanks and a private storage tank in a subdivision.
(6) The District relies on water tenders for all fire service calls.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-145
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
13. F O O T H I L L F I R E P RO T E C T I O N
D I S T R I C T
The Foothill Fire Protection District (FFPD) provides fire prevention, fire suppression and
emergency medical services.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
FFPD was formed on July 14, 1986 as an independent special district.132 The District was
formed to provide fire protection and rescue services to the communities of Rackerby, Brownsville
and Challenge.133
The principal act that governs the District is the Fire Protection District Law of 1987.134 The
principal act empowers fire districts to provide fire protection, rescue, emergency medical,
hazardous material response, ambulance, and any other services relating to the protection of lives
and property.135 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in
other words, those services authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end
of 2000.136
The District’s boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The boundaries of FFPD extend from
the Yuba-Butte county line in the west to the Yuba-Plumas and Yuba-Sierra county lines in the most
northeastern portion of Yuba County. The southeast boundary of the District is the North Fork of
the Yuba River and the New Bullards Bar Reservoir. The District’s southern boundary abuts
Dobbins-Oregon House FPD, and its eastern boundary is adjacent to Camptonville CSD. The
District has a boundary area of approximately 106 square miles.
The SOI for FFPD was adopted by LAFCO in 1986 and consists of two discrete areas, one
adjacent to the north of the District encompassing the community of Forbestown in Butte County,
and the other consisting of the Strawberry Valley area, in the northeast of the District, as shown on
Map B-13.137 There have been no amendments to the SOI since adoption.
132 Board of Equalization Official Date.
133 LAFCO resolution 1986-33.
134 Health and Safety Code §13800-13970.
135 Health and Safety Code §13862.
136 Government Code §56824.10.
137 LAFCO resolution 1986-42
A-146 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
FOOTHILL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
Boundary History
At formation, the FFPD boundary did not include the Strawberry Valley area.138 The 1996
Strawberry Valley annexation added this area to the northeast of the district.139 There have been no
annexations to the District since 1996.
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District has a five-member governing body. Board members are to be elected at-large to
staggered four year terms; but, in practice, elections are rarely held due to a lack of constituent
interest and board members are appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Current board members are
Don Bunker (Chair), Alice Rodenberg, Dwight Lunkley, Leonard Travis, and Janice Sciarrotta.
The Board meets once a month on the second Monday at 7 pm at the Foothill Fire Station.
Agendas and minutes are posted at the local post offices and in front of the fire station.
All elections for governing body members since 1995 have been uncontested. Since there have
been no contested elections in recent history, voters in the District have not participated in elections
and voter turnout rates are unavailable.
The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with
LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with LAFCO
map inquiries and document requests.
With regard to customer service, complaints most often relate to call firefighters speeding in
their private vehicles to a service call. Complaints can be submitted to the Chief or the Board
through phone calls, email, letters and in-person. Complaints are reviewed by the Board. The
District does not track the number of complaints, but estimates that approximately three were
received in 2006.
The District updates constituents through occasional columns in the local newspaper—the
Rabbit Creek Journal. The District performs education programming at schools during National Fire
Prevention Week. In addition, the auxiliary group operates the fire department thrift store and
manages special fundraising events. The District has started a website and plans to add content in
2008.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The area within the District’s bounds is largely rural residential, agricultural and a national forest.
Business activity in the District includes logging and timber work, three summer camps, a bank, a
few general stores, and two gas stations. Major employers are Soper Wheeler, Yuba Feather School,
the U.S. Forest Service, and the Yuba County Department of Public Works.
138 LAFCO resolution 1986-33.
139 LAFCO resolution 1996-01.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-147
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The District considers its customer base to be the structures and residents within the District.
There were 1,989 residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. The
District’s population density is 19 per square mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
The District reported that there has been limited growth within District bounds. Growth in the
valley portion of Yuba has led to an increase in recreational tourists at the national forest and New
Bullards Bar Reservoir, resulting in an increase in service demand on the District.
Future growth is anticipated to continue to be minimal, as there are no planned or proposed
developments within the District.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies.
MANAGEMENT
The District relies entirely on call and volunteer personnel. Call sworn staff includes a chief, two
deputy-chiefs, three captains, 13 firefighters, a medical officer, a property officer, a training officer,
and three probationary firefighters. In addition, the District has a volunteer secretary. The District
identified a need for a paid full-time person to staff Station 1 during the day. District management
practices closely follow agency bylaws and standard operating guidelines, according to the Chief.
The Chief reports to the board at monthly meetings.
The District does not have a formal evaluation policy. Evaluations of call personnel consist of
verbal evaluations at the monthly officer meetings. The Chief is not formally evaluated. The Board
evaluates district operations informally at the monthly meetings. The District monitors productivity
by tracking service calls, which is reported to the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS)
on a regular basis, as well as logging equipment maintenance and hose testing. The District did not
report any benchmarking practices.
The District has not adopted any formal planning documents. The District collaborated with
the County on the Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan and adopted a local plan.
Financial planning efforts include annual audits and annually adopted budgets. The most recent
completed financial audit was for FY 04-05. The District has not adopted a capital improvement
plan, but instead plans to purchase a new engine every seven years.
FINANCING
The District’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and legal
limitations on revenue increases. The MSR found the District has managed to provide minimal
service levels within these resource constraints, but lacks resources for paid staffing. The District
reported that it currently maintains a comfortable level of cash reserves to provide for equipment
needs and failures; however, the benefit assessment recently reached its maximum limit and the
District foresees the need to increase the assessment to meet State and Federal safety standards and
maintain an adequate level of service given an anticipated increase in demand.
A-148 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
FOOTHILL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
The most recent financial information provided by the District was for FY 04-05, as reported
below. The District reported that it was in the process of completing audits for FY 05-06 and FY
06-07.
The District tracks its finances separately for the general fund and mitigation fee funds.
The District received $377,652 in FY 04-05. Major revenue sources were grants (54 percent),
benefit assessments (25 percent) and donations (17 percent). The District does not receive any
property tax revenue. The District collects a special benefit assessment of approximately $32 per
parcel and structure.
The District had no long-term debt at the end of FY 04-05. District’s planned capital
expenditures in FY 07-08 include an expansion of Station 1, which will cost an estimated $25,000.
The expansion will be funded by general district income (assessments and donations).
By way of financial reserves, the District had an unreserved fund balance of $174,118 at the end
of FY 04-05. This amounted to 45 percent of the District’s annual expenses. The District
maintained approximately five months of working capital. The District has no formal policy on
target financial reserves; however, it tries to maintain approximately 10 percent of annual
expenditures.
The District pays $1,250 annually to the Yuba County Rural Fire JPA to maintain five
communication repeaters and equipment in the foothills of Yuba County. The JPA maintains two
fire frequencies, one which is used as a backup to communicate around hills. The JPA also funded
the installation of an alternate dispatch center at FFPD’s Station 1 through a grant from the Yuba
County Terrorism Task Force. In addition, the District finances insurance for one of the JPA
repeater sites within the District.
FIRE & EMS SERVICES
NATURE AND EXTENT
FFPD provides fire suppression (structural, vehicle, and vegetation fires), Basic Life Support
(BLS) for medical emergencies, rescue, hazardous materials response, and education services.
The District’s boundaries overlap with the CALFIRE State Response Area in some portions and
Plumas National Forest in the remaining territory in upper elevation areas. CALFIRE and the U.S
Forest Service have jurisdiction for any wildland fires in the area. The District generally provides
initial wildland fire response and then supports the agency with jurisdiction.
FFPD provides BLS until Bi-County Ambulance, a privately owned ambulance company, arrives
to perform Advanced Life Support and provide ambulance transport services.
The District responds to hazardous material incidents to provide initial identification. The Yuba
County Office of Emergency Services determines what agency will provide hazardous material
clean-up and mitigation. Marysville Fire Department typically provides specialized hazardous
material response to areas within Yuba County.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-149
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Dispatch
All 911 calls made from land lines are automatically routed to the Yuba County Sheriff. Radio
dispatch services are provided by CALFIRE dispatch for all foothill fire departments. Once the
County Sheriff dispatcher determines a call requires fire department response, the call is transferred
to CALFIRE in Grass Valley, which then dispatches the appropriate responder. For medical
emergencies, the Sheriff calls Bi-County Ambulance and the company dispatches the nearest
ambulance.
Calls to 911 from cellular phones are initially routed to the California Highway Patrol (CHP).
CHP relays the call to Yuba County Sheriff, and dispatching follows the protocol discussed above.
The District noted concerns that calls to the Clippermills area are occasionally routed to
CALFIRE in Oroville, as opposed to Grass Valley, and FFPD is not dispatched for automatic aid,
delaying response to the area.
LOCATION
FFPD provides services to all areas within district boundaries. Services are also provided
outside of district bounds in the Clippermills and Forbestown communities of Butte County as part
of an automatic aid agreement with the Butte County Fire Department.
The Clippermills community was originally served by the Clippermills Volunteer Fire
Department; however, the department disbanded in 2002 due to lack of volunteers. FFPD now
leases the former Clippermills station (Station 2), and provides automatic aid to the community,
which consists of approximately 200 to 250 parcels.140 The station is located on La Porte Road,
which also passes through to the Strawberry Valley portion of the District. Hence, the station is also
used to provide service within District bounds.
FFPD does not receive reimbursement for calls in Butte County. The District regularly arrives
at service calls in the area before Butte County Fire Department and would like to be the primary
dispatch to the Clippermills area.141
INFRASTRUCTURE
The District operates out of two fire stations—stations 1 and 2. Station 1 was built in 1988 and
was identified as being in good condition. The District reported that the station requires increased
equipment storage space; the expansion is expected to be completed in 2008.
Station 2 provides storage space for equipment and vehicles. The station was identified as being
in fair condition. The District recently added a shower and restroom to the station. The District
reported that the station lacks a phone line and is heated by a wood stove. There are no plans for
improvements in the near future.
140 The cost to lease Station 2 is $1.
141 Interview with Chief Rick Cunningham, October 11, 2007.
A-150 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
FOOTHILL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
All vehicles are in good condition. A new rescue engine was purchased in 2005 with grant funds
from FEMA and donations from the auxiliary. The District reported a need for an additional water
tender, as there are limited water sources within the District. A financing source was not identified.
Table A-13-1: FFPD Fire Service Profile
Fire Service
Service Configuration Service Demand
Fire Suppression Direct Statistical Base Year 2006
EMS Direct Total Service Calls 359
Ambulance Transport Bi-County % EMS 71.9%
Hazardous Materials Marysville Fire Dept. % Fire 20.1%
Air Rescue & Ambulance Helicopter CALFIRE % False Alarm NP
Fire Suppression Helicopter CALFIRE % Fire & False Alarm NP
Public Safety Answering Point Sheriff % Other 4.2%
Fire/EMS Dispatch CALFIRE Calls per 1,000 people1 180
Service Adequacy Resources
ISO Rating 6/9 Fire Stations in District 2
Median Response Time 10:00 Fire Stations Serving District 2
90th Percentile Response Time 18:00 Sq. Miles per Station 53.0
Response Time Base Year 2006 Total Staff 28
Training Total Full-time Sworn Staff 0
All personnel are certified in first responder hazmat. Approximately 75% of Total On-call Sworn Staff2 25
the personnel are EMT certified, and the remainder are first responder Sworn Staff per Station3 13
medical certified. All personnel have a minimum of 40 hours of wildland fire
Sworn Staff per 1,0004 13
training.
Full-time Sworn Staff per 1,000 0
Service Challenges Staffing Base Year 2007
The small roads in the western portion of the District are difficult to access. Fire Flow Water Reserves5 1.47 mg
CALFIRE has easier access from the Robinson Mills station in Butte County.
Other challenges include a lack of county road maintenance and vegetation Fire Flow Pressure6 25+ psi
control on certain roads.
Facilities
Station Location Condition Staff per Shift Apparatus
Station 1 16796 Willow Glen Good Unstaffed 1 Rescue Engine
Road 2 Wildland Engines
1 Structure Engine
1 Water Tender
Station 2 12139 La Porte Fair Unstaffed 1 Rescue Engine
Road 1 Wildland Engine
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
The District identified a need for additional equipment storage space at Station 1 and a phone line and heater at Station 2.
Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Mutual/Automatic Aid Providers
CDF, U.S. Forest Service, DOHFD,
Current Practices: The District leases space in Station 1 to the Yuba County
LRBVCSD
Sheriff's Office. In addition, the District is member agency of the Foothill Fire
Joint Powers Authority that coordinates communications and radio infrastructure.
Opportunities: None identified.
Notes:
(1) Service call ratio based on 2000 Census population.
(2) Call firefighter are volunteers and are not reimbursed for service.
(3) Based on ratio of sworn staff to the number of stations.
(4) Sworn staff ratio based on 2000 Census population.
(5) In addition to the storage tanks noted, other water reserves include usable lakes and ponds.
(6) The pressure reported is for the Merry Mountain subdivision hydrants, which are operated by NYWD. The District relies on a water
tender elsewhere.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-151
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
14. K E Y S T O N E C E M E T E RY D I S T R I C T
The Keystone Cemetery District (KCD) provides cemetery maintenance services to the
Keystone Cemetery located in the communities of Dobbins and Oregon House.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
KCD was formed on July 2, 1934 as an independent special district.142 The District was formed
to provide cemetery services and maintenance to the communities of Dobbins and Oregon House.
The principal act that governs the District is Public Cemetery District Law.143 The principal act
authorizes districts to own, operate, improve, and maintain cemeteries, provide interment services
within its boundaries, and to sell interment accessories and replacement objects (e.g., burial vaults,
liners and flower vases). Although districts may require and regulate monuments or markers, it is
precluded from selling them. The principal act requires districts to maintain cemeteries owned by
the district.144 The law allows districts to inter non-residents under certain circumstances.145
Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those
services authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.146
The District’s boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The boundaries of KCD extend west of
New Bullards Bar Reservoir and the North Fork of the Yuba River to the Collins Lake area in the
east, as shown on Map B-14. The southern boundary of the District reaches the confluence of the
South Fork of the Yuba River and Englebright Lake, along the Yuba-Nevada County line. The
District has a boundary area of approximately 72 square miles. There have been no annexations to
the District since formation.
The SOI for KCD was adopted in 1986 to be coterminous with the boundaries of the District.147
There have been no amendments to the SOI since adoption.
142 Board of Equalization Official Date.
143 California Health and Safety Code §9000-9093.
144 California Health and Safety Code §9040.
145 Non-residents eligible for interment are described in California Health and Safety Code §9061, and include former residents,
current and former taxpayers, family members of residents and former residents, family members of those already buried in the
cemetery, those without other cemetery alternatives within 15 miles of their residence, and those who died while serving in the
military.
146 Government Code §56824.10.
147 LAFCO resolution 1986-56.
A-152 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
KEYSTONE CEMETERY DISTRICT
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District has a three-member governing body. The Trustees are appointed by the County
Board of Supervisors to staggered four-year terms. Current Trustees are Robert Roberts (Chair),
Morris Moody and Daniel Lucero.
District meetings are held quarterly in January, April, July, and October. Board meeting agendas
are posted at the Dobbins post office, and minutes are available by request through the secretary.
The District does not have a website, so its documents are not available online.
The District demonstrated full accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation
with LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with
LAFCO’s request for interviews and documents.
Complaints can be submitted through phone calls, letters and in-person, and are reviewed by the
Board. The District reports that no complaints were received from 2001 to 2007.
The District does not conduct community outreach activities.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The District considers its customer base to be the residents of the District. There were
approximately 2,215 residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. The
District’s population density is 31 per square mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Business activity in the District includes logging and forestry, utilities, camping and recreational
facilities, as well as various local small businesses. The District has not experienced significant
growth, and there are no planned or proposed developments within the District boundaries.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies.
MANAGEMENT
The District employs a part-time secretary and a cemetery manager that works 25-30 hours per
week. Both employees report directly to the Board. The District does not conduct productivity
monitoring, but does evaluate the performance of both the secretary and the manager at its quarterly
meetings.
No strategic or capital improvement plans have been adopted by the District. Informal planning
efforts on the part of the cemetery manager include the long-term forecasting of demand relative to
available plots.
The District’s financial planning efforts include audited financial statements and an annually
adopted budget. The most recent financial statement provided was FY 02-03. The District reports
that financial statements are typically audited every one or two years, but due to cost increases they
have not been audited since FY 02-03.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-153
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
FINANCING
The District’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and legal
limitations on revenue increases. The MSR found the District has managed to provide adequate
service levels within these resource constraints.
Table A-14-1: KCD Plot and Endowment Fees
Table A-14-1 shows the plot and endowment Resident Non-resident
fees charged by KCD. Non-residents are charged a Burial Plot $85 $200
higher fee than District residents. In addition to Cremation Plot $50 $100
those listed, KCD also charges $25 for the opening and closing of a cremains site, and $50 to open
and close an existing full plot for the burial of cremains.
The District received $41,103 in total revenues in FY 05-06. KCD relies primarily on property
taxes, consisting of 74 percent of revenues. Revenues received for interment services were not
reported for FY 05-06. Expenses in FY 05-06 were $26,313.
The District did not report its unreserved fund balance at the end of FY 05-06; however, the
fund balance was $232,406 as of December 2007. The District has no formal policy on target
financial reserves.
According to the Health and Safety Code §8725, cemetery authorities must establish, operate
and maintain an endowment care fund. Fund monies are received through sale of cemetery
property and land and must be placed in a trust account for perpetual care of the cemetery. The
principal must be invested, and only the income from the investment may be used for care,
maintenance and embellishment of the cemetery. The District reports that it does not have a
separate endowment fee; instead all charges for service are deposited into the District’s endowment
fund. The endowment fund balance at the end of FY 05-06 was not reported; however, the
endowment fund balance was $57,621 as of December 2007.
KCD had no long-term debt or bonded debt at the end of FY 05-06.
CEMETERY SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
KCD provides professional operation and maintenance services to the Keystone Cemetery.
Routine maintenance activities include mowing, weed abatement, and the raking of leaves and
debris. Operational services include the sales and staking of interment plots. Burial services such as
the opening and closing of grave sites, casket lowering and headstone setting are provided by the
mortuary of the customer’s choice. The opening and closing of cremains sites is offered by the
District for an additional fee, but families often do this themselves.
In the last three calendar years the District has accommodated 28 burials, including 10 in both
2006 and 2007, and eight in 2005. Of the total 1,574 full burial sites, 935 are occupied, 206 are
reserved and 433 are open for purchase.
A-154 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
KEYSTONE CEMETERY DISTRICT
LOCATION
The District is authorized to provide burial plots to residents and certain non-residents, as
described in the principal act. Higher fees are charged to non-residents. The District reports that in
order to be considered a resident the individual must have resided within the District for at least 10
years.
The Keystone Cemetery is located on Indiana Ranch Road, near the intersection of Indiana
School Road, in the community of Dobbins. The cemetery manager is on-site daily from 7 a.m. to
12 noon, but the facility is open to the public 24 hours a day.
Neighboring cemetery service providers include Brownsville Cemetery District, Browns Valley
Cemetery District and Peoria Cemetery District.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The earliest known burial in the Keystone Cemetery is from 1853. Originally the area was
owned by the Griffith family, when it was known as the Keystone Burial Ground. Eventually the
cemetery was deeded to the community, and the Keystone Cemetery District was officially formed
in 1934.
The District’s key infrastructure includes a riding lawnmower, leaf blower, weed eater, chainsaw,
a wood chipper/shredder, and a backpack chemical sprayer. The cemetery manager identified that
all equipment is in good condition. Also contained on-site are the manager’s office, a shop building
for maintenance and repair activities, and two storage sheds. Other major infrastructure includes an
irrigation system installed in 2005, and a paved and covered pavilion area with benches. There is
also a paved roadway that passes through the entire cemetery.
Planned infrastructure improvements within the next year include paving a small gravel parking
area and the installation of a handicapped accessible outhouse. As a long-range infrastructure need,
the cemetery manager expressed the desire to build a new shop building on higher terrain, as the
current shop floods with mud during rain events.
The LAFCO site visit did not identify any pressing maintenance needs or infrastructure
deficiencies. The cemetery appeared clean and well-maintained.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-155
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
15. L I N DA C O U N T Y WAT E R D I S T R I C T
The Linda County Water District provides water and wastewater services.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
Linda County Water District (LCWD) was formed on December 29, 1954 as an independent
special district. The District was originally formed to provide water and sewer services to the
community of Linda.
The principal act that governs the District is the Water District Act.148 The principal act
empowers the District to “acquire, plan, construct, maintain, improve, operate, and keep in repair
the necessary works for the production, storage, transmission, and distribution of water for
irrigation, domestic, industrial, and municipal purposes, and any drainage or reclamation works.”149
The District’s boundary is entirely within Yuba County, and encompasses the community of
Linda. The boundary area extends north to Simpson Dantoni Road, west of the Yuba County
Airport, south to Erle Road and south along Feather River Boulevard, and one mile east of Griffith
Avenue, as shown on Map B-15. The District has a boundary area of six square miles.
The District’s SOI is an annexable sphere, extending north of Simpson Dantoni Road and Levee
Road, west beyond Riverside Drive and Feather River Boulevard, south to Erle Road and areas
surrounding the Yuba County Airport to the north and west, and east one mile beyond Griffith
Avenue.
Boundary History
The LAFCO record for LCWD begins in 1963, as seen in Table A-15-1. From 1963 to 2006
there are 45 actions that give the present District bounds—the more significant annexations are
outlined here. The 1980 George Short Development annexation added 33 acres to LCWD in east
Linda, near the northern boundary of the District (LAFCO resolution 1980-4). From 1989 to 1990,
three annexations totaling nearly 100 acres occurred in the northern region of the District, west of
Alberta Avenue between Simpson Dantoni Road and North Beale Road (LAFCO resolutions 1989-
11, 1990-7 and 1990-8). The 1991 Edgewater annexation added 374 acres to the southern boundary
of the District along Erle Road (LAFCO resolution 1991-8). In east Linda, the 1995 Lands of East
Linda annexation added nearly 31 acres south of Hammonton Smartville Road (LAFCO resolution
1995-3). The 2002 Hamakar/Stone annexation added 58 acres to the District south of North Beale
Road (LAFCO resolution 2002-2). The 2004 Springview Estates and Sierra View annexations
148 California Water Code §34000-38501.
149 California Water Code §35401.
A-156 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
LINDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
collectively added over 243 acres to the southern boundary of the District along Erle Road (LAFCO
resolutions 2004-0025 and 2004-0027).
Table A-15-1: LCWD LAFCO Record
LAFCO LAFCO
Resolution Resolution
Number Annexation Name Acres Number Annexation Name Acres
1963-1 Five-parcel Annexation Unknown1984-2 Seven-parcel Annexation 14.0
1963-2 Annexation 1963-2 6.2 1985-1 Schuette 0.8
1964-2 Albrecht 1.5 1988-8 Brown/Montgomery 1.4
1964-3,4,5 Galloway 36.5 1989-11 College View 19.4
1965-1 Mahoney 0.6 1990-7 Butler Estates 54.0
1965-2 Coupe 1.7 1990-8 Stamas 24.4
1965-3 Rowles 0.8 1991-8 Edgewater 373.8
1966-4 Treatment Plant 5.0 1992-15 Peachtree Golf and Country Club 8.2
1971-1 Linda Mall 37.6 1992-18 Sierra Vista (same as 1995-3) 30.6
1972-1 Viverito 50.7 1992-3 Cummings 1.2
1975-5 Annexation 1975-5 5.2 1993-6 Takhar 0.8
1976-1 West Linda Park 22.3 1995-3 Lands of East Linda (same as 1992-18) 30.6
1977-4 Dress-Goulding-Bull 11.4 1997-01 Yuba Transmission and Ted Dress 10.9
1978-2 Fletcher 2.8 1997-02 Tarr 6.2
1978-3 Arostegui 1.3 2002-05 Lepage 0.1
1978-4 Leighton 4.0 2002-2 Hamakar/Stone 58.0
1979-13 Anderson (alberta oaks) 11.0 2002-8 Caltrans 28.0
1979-25 Sims 5.0 2004-0022 Hibber-Jones 7.5
1979-5 Nordic Trucking 10.0 2004-025 Springview Estates 161.8
1980-16 George Short Development 33.3 2004-027 Sierra View 81.6
1980-4 King-Roben 15.0 2006-0017 Lanza 61.4
1983-2 Skycrest Unit IV 11.0 2006-0025 Hampac 15.7
The Lanza annexation of 61.4 acres, southeast of the District bounds, was approved by LAFCO
in 2006 (LAFCO resolution 2006-0017); however, as of the drafting of this report, the action was
not yet considered official as the certificate of completion is pending receipt of an “agricultural
acknowledgement statement.” This annexation is not represented on the District map.
There have been three detachments from the District since formation. From 1979 to 1980, two
detachments from LCWD to OPUD occurred totaling 25 acres, and in 2002, a 28-acre detachment
from LCWD to OPUD occurred. All three territories were in the area of Industrial Tract No. 1,
north of the Yuba County Airport. 150
The SOI for LCWD was adopted in 1988 to include the community of Linda and the East Linda
Specific Plan area, ranging from Riverside Drive in the west to beyond Griffith Avenue in the east,
north of Erle Road and beyond Simpson Dantoni Road.151 The SOI was amended in 2002 along
with the Lepage annexation, and consisted of 0.13 acres between Riverside Drive and Poplar
Avenue.152 There have been no subsequent amendments to the SOI.
150 LAFCO resolutions 1979-5, 1980-4 and 2002-8.
151 LAFCO resolution 1988-14.
152 LAFCO resolution 2002-07.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-157
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District is governed by a five-member board. Board members are elected-at-large and serve
staggered four-year terms. Current board members are Joan Saunders (President), Keith Whitaker
(Vice President), Charles Carver, John McAleer, and Dale Henley.
The Board meets once a month on the second Monday of every month.
Meeting announcements are posted in the newspaper and on service bills. Board meeting
agendas and minutes are available at the district office. The District does not have a website, so its
documents are not available online.
District voters are allowed to cast their votes for up to two board candidates. The last contested
election was in November 2006. The voter turnout was 45 percent, compared to the 53 percent
countywide gubernatorial election voter turnout. There were no county level races in this election
for comparison.
The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with
LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with LAFCO
map inquiries and document requests.
With regard to customer service, complaints most often relate to water quality and water
pressure. In 2005, the District received 32 complaints for taste and odor (10), color (five), and
pressure (17). Complaints are usually submitted through phone calls to a district secretary and
logged on a complaint form, which is reviewed by the general manager. The District provides same-
day response for all complaints by means of a site investigation and any necessary mitigation
measures.
Community outreach is primarily performed through announcements in service bills.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The District bounds encompass primarily urban residential and commercial areas. Local
business activities include construction, auto sales, storage, restaurants, retail, the Peach Tree Golf
and Country Club, and Yuba Community College.
The District considers its customer base to be the number of water and sewer connections to
which service is provided. As of 2006, there were approximately 3,360 service connections.
There were 12,439 residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis.
The District’s population density is 2,073 per square mile, compared with the countywide density of
114.
The District has experienced recent growth and urban development. Significant growth is
anticipated within the District in the next few years as planned developments begin and continue
construction primarily in the East Linda Specific Plan (ELSP) area—to the east of SR 70 between
Erle and Simpson-Dantoni Roads. The ELSP area is approximately 70 percent within LCWD
bounds and encompassed by the District’s SOI (with the exception of a single parcel to the
A-158 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
LINDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
northeast of the District along Simpson-Dantoni Road). Planned and approved developments
within the District’s bounds or SOI are shown in Table A-44-1.
Major developments located within the District are the 389.7-acre Edgewater development and
the 108.1-acre Montrose at Edgewater development, as well as the 129.7-acre Orchard development.
Infrastructure has been laid and residences are under construction in both Edgewater and Montrose.
All three development areas are located along Erle Road, at the southern boundary of the District.
The total acreage of development area within the District bounds and SOI is in excess of 860
(including over 17 acres of non-residential), with over 3,100 planned dwelling units.
Additional developments have been proposed to the south of the District, including the
Woodbury development. Woodbury is located on 1,633 acres adjacent to the District’s southern
boundary and SOI along Erle Road and extends south along SR 70 to Hale Road. Reynen & Bardis
Communities proposes to develop 6,321 residential units, 60 acres of neighborhood commercial,
and a 56-acre business park.
According to UWMP projections, population will increase by 440 percent in the District
(assuming future district boundary expansion) from 10,230 in 2005 to 55,162 in 2030—causing
annual demand for domestic water to increase by 340 percent, from 3,267 acre-feet per year in 2005
to 14,402 by 2030. The projected rate of wastewater demand growth in the LCWD area is
comparable to projected population growth but higher than water demand growth. Wastewater
flows are expected to increase by 450 percent, from 1.2 mgd ADWF in 2005 to 6.6 in 2030. LCWD
projections are based on SACOG projections and Yuba County actual growth rates and growth
estimates, in conjunction with planned and proposed developments in the East Linda and
Woodbury specific plan areas, including Woodbury, Edgewater, Orchards & Montrose, Sierra Vista,
and 200 units in other developments. Projected population for each development was estimated
based on the assumption of three individuals per housing unit.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies.
MANAGEMENT
The District employs eleven full-time administrative and operator staff. Additional services are
provided by contract with a legal firm and an engineering firm. All staff report to the General
Manager.
The District reported that employee performance evaluations are usually performed on an
annual basis; however, evaluations have not been completed in the past few years. Employees
receive step plan pay increases automatically. The District does not perform routine evaluations of
District operations.
The District monitors staff productivity through daily management checks at sites. Visual
inspections are performed regularly on the equipment and facilities. The staff works a routine
schedule and is cross-trained to provide support for both wastewater and water services when
needed.
The District’s management practices include annual financial audits. The most recent financial
audit was completed for FY 05-06. No benchmarking practices were identified.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-159
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
LCWD has adopted a mission statement, an Urban Water Management Plan (2005) and Water
(1988) and Wastewater (1986) System Master Plans. A supplement to the Master Plans was adopted
in 1991. Additional planning documents include a Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and
Expansion Plan and the project EIR.
LCWD financial planning efforts include an annual budget and annually audited financial
statement. The District has not produced a capital improvement plan. Capital outlays are
determined on an annual-basis in the adopted budget.
District accomplishments in the last five years include installation of radio-read meters to
improve billing efficiency. As of the drafting of this report, approximately 30 percent had been
installed. The District anticipates completing installation of all meters in 2020. In addition, the
District received the WWTP of the Year award in 2001 and 2003 from the California Water
Environmental Association.
FINANCING
The District’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and
constituent preferences on water and wastewater rates. The MSR found the District has managed to
provide adequate water service levels within these resource constraints, but requires additional
capital financing to meet wastewater regulatory standards. The District implements water and
wastewater rates biennially to reflect current costs.
The District operates out of two enterprise funds for the two services provided—water and
sewer.
The District received $6,115,113 in operating and nonoperating revenue in FY 05-06. Primary
revenues were connection charges for sewer service (47 percent), charges for water and wastewater
services (37 percent), interest income (eight percent), and connection charges for water service
(seven percent). The District does not receive property taxes.
The District levies service charges which are used to cover the cost of providing those services.
Financing for capital improvements is primarily from connection fees such as installation, extension
and annexation charges.
The District had $70,570 in long-term liability at the end of FY 05-06, of which $10,000 is the
outstanding amount for a USDA loan and the remainder is liability for compensated absences.
The District’s adopted budget for FY 07-08 anticipates $3.2 million in capital outlays for the
year. A majority ($2 million) of anticipated capital expenditures in FY 07-08 will be used for the
WWTP upgrade and expansion. The plant expansion is estimated to cost $50 million for
construction and $1 million annually for operation. The District has pre-applied for a low interest
State Revolving Fund loan to finance approximately half of the expected construction costs.
Approximately $10 million will be provided by the District, and the remaining portion will be
funded by developers.
By way of financial reserves, the District had unrestricted net assets of $12.3 million at the end
of FY 05-06. This amounted to approximately 550 percent of the District’s annual expenses. The
District has no formal policy on target financial reserves; however approximately $10 million of the
A-160 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
LINDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
current unrestricted net asset balance is expected to be used to finance the WWTP upgrade and
expansion project. The remaining balance is reserved for emergency repairs for which funds are
needed immediately but will eventually be reimbursed by the insurance company.
WATER SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
LCWD provides retail water services to approximately 3,360 customers in the form of
groundwater pumping, treatment, water quality testing, conveyance, storage, and delivery.
Preventative maintenance includes annual distribution system flushing and annual valve exercising.
Connections are primarily residential with limited light commercial uses. There are no
significant industrial customers.
LOCATION
The District provides domestic water service to all areas within the District bounds. Service is
not provided outside of the District bounds.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Key infrastructure includes six production wells, eleven booster pumps, approximately 40 miles
of pipe line, and four treatment facilities. The water supply system has a maximum pumping
capacity of 14.7 mgd.
The District’s water supply is provided entirely by the South Yuba Groundwater Basin from six
wells. The wells have capacities ranging from 1.2 mgd to five mgd, with a combined pumping
capacity of 14.7 mgd. Wells 3 and 4 were constructed in 1956. Wells 12, 14, 15 and 16 were
constructed in 1979, 1980, 1986, and 2005 respectively. Wells 3, 4, 12, 14, and 15 are all in good
condition, and Well 16 was identified as being in excellent condition. The District reported that the
pumps on Wells 14 and 15 will need to be pulled and inspected in the next three to five years. Well
17, under construction next to the Orchard subdivision, will have a pumping capacity of
approximately five mgd. Each well is equipped with a wellhead treatment system to treat taste, odor
and color. All wells have back-up power generators, which automatically start in the event of
electrical failure. The generators are designed to provide 24 hours of power at the wells maximum
pumping capacity.
In 2002, the Department of Public Health (DPH) identified well contamination vulnerabilities
which include the sewer collection system, automobile repair shops and gas stations. Well 12 has a
particularly high risk for contamination because it is adjacent to a leaky underground storage tank
site; however, monitoring of the well has shown no contamination.153
153 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Linda County Water District 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, 2005, p. 17.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-161
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Contaminants are removed by the four treatment facilities—located at Wells 3 and 4, Wells 12
and 14, Well 15, and Well 16. Gases are removed by a forced air draft aeration tower. Iron and
manganese are filtered out by anthracite and silica sand. All treatment facilities were reported as
being in good or excellent condition. The District did not identify any treatment facility needs or
deficiencies.
The water distribution system is constructed of approximately 40 miles of cast iron pipe, ranging
in size from four to 12 inches. In 2005, the District oversaw the design and construction of the 2.5
mile Edgewater trunk extension to serve subdivisions along Erle Road. The 2006 annual inspection
by DPH noted that the distribution system is in good condition. The system averaged 8.25 percent
in distribution losses, in 2004. According to the UWMP, the District hopes to reduce system losses
to less than five percent by 2010.
All connections were equipped with meters in 1956 to monitor consumption and promote water
conservation. The District has begun shifting to radio-read meters to minimize meter reading time
and allow for increased billing efficiency. Of the 3,360 water connections, 1,100 radio-read meters
had been installed as of the drafting of this report.
The District does not maintain water storage reserves. Currently, all needs are met exclusively
by well pumping capacity. The UWMP identified a need for storage capacity and/or additional
pumping capacity to meet maximum daily demands of future growth.
Table A-15-2: LCWD Projected Water Demand (mgd)
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
The current
water system has Current Maximum Supply 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7
the pumping Max Daily Demand 11.6 17.6 22.0 27.6 34.7
capacity to serve Required Additional Supply 0 2.9 7.3 12.9 20.0
anticipated growth Source: LCWD Urban Water Management Plan, 2005.
until 2010,
according to UWMP projections. However, if growth occurs as predicted, an additional three mgd
capacity will be needed by 2015 and an additional 20 mgd by 2030 to accommodate maximum daily
demand. The additional five mgd of pumping capacity from Well 17 is expected to meet the needs
of the District beyond 2015. According to the District, developers will provide necessary
infrastructure to meet additional capacity needs.
The aquifer serving the District has not undergone analysis to determine the safe or firm yield
water supply. The District is considering conjunctive use of surface or recycled water. In 1984, the
District entered into a service contract with YCWA to receive water rights to 5,000 acre-feet per year
of Yuba River surface water; however, construction of a treatment plant to provide domestic water
at required health standards would require a significant capital investment.154 The District has
received grant funds in collaboration with the Cities of Marysville and Yuba City to assess the
regional potential for wastewater recycling as a possible water source. Recycled water would most
likely be used for agricultural and landscape irrigation, industrial reuse, habitat enhancement, and
wetlands. In addition, the District is planning to update and expand the current WWTP, which will
supply recycled water depending upon demand identified in the regional assessment. According to
154 Contract between YCWA and LCWD, Dec. 13, 1984.
A-162 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
LINDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
the District, it will require dual plumbing in new developments to accommodate any future use of
recycled water.
Table A-15-3: LCWD Water Service Profile
Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure
Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s)
Retail Water Direct Groundwater Recharge None
Wholesale Water None Groundwater Extraction Direct
Water Treatment Direct Recycled Water None
Service Area Description
Retail Water Within District boundaries
Wholesale Water None
Recycled Water None
Boundary Area 6 sq. miles Population (2000) 12,439
System Overview
Average Daily Demand 2.92 mgd Peak Day Demand 7.2 mg
Supply 14.7 mgd (pumping capacity of current water system in 2005)
Major Facilities
Facility Name Type Capacity Condition Yr Built
Wells 3 & 4 Treatment Facility Treatment 2.3 mgd Good 1992
Wells 12 & 14 Treatment Facility Treatment 4.6 mgd Good 1992
Well 15 Treatment Facility Treatment 5 mgd Good 1992
Well 16 Treatment Facility Treatment 5 mgd Excellent 2005
Other Infrastructure
Reservoirs 0 Storage Capacity (mg) 0
Booster Pumps 11 Pressure Zones 0
Production Wells 6 Pipe Miles 40
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
Increased pumping and distribution capacity needs due to development will be financed and constructed by
the developer. Improvements recommended by DHS to the existing system include the retrofitting of the
Station 16 sump hatch to capture and drain storm water and the repair of the raw water sampling taps to
initiate a raw water bacteriological sampling program.
Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration
Current Practices: The District is a member agency of the Yuba County Integrated Regional Water
Management planning group.
Opportunities: The District identified an opportunity to collaborate with other water service providers by
hiring a water conservation coordinator for the Marysville, Linda and Olivehurst areas. In addition, the
District has received a grant to assess the potential of a regional wastewater treatment plant in conjunction
with the City of Marysville and Yuba City, which may be used for recycled water.
Notes:
(1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet.
continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-163
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Water Demand and Supply
Service Connections Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds
Total 3,360 3,360 0
Irrigation/Landscape 14 14 0
Domestic 3,185 3,185 0
Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 162 162 0
Recycled 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0
Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year)
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Total NP 2,642 3,521 4,819 7,311 9,131 11,451
Residential NP NP 2,771 4,056 6,533 8,338 10,642
Commercial/Industrial NP NP 388 396 406 416 427
Irrigation/Landscape NP NP 337 342 347 352 357
Other NP NP 25 25 25 25 25
Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year)
Source Type Average Maximum Safe/Firm
South Yuba Groundwater Basin Groundwater 3,532 18,367 NP
Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year)
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Total NP 2,853 3,803 16,464 16,464 16,464 16,464
Imported 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Groundwater NP 2,853 3,803 16,464 16,464 16,464 16,464
Surface 0 0 0 NP NP NP NP
Recycled 0 0 0 NP NP NP NP
Conjunctive Use
None
Supply Constraints
There has not been analysis to determine the maximum available water supply from the aquifer. An overdraft of
the aquifer occurred in the 1980s; however, water levels have returned to previous levels.
Drought Supply and Plans
Drought Supply (af)1 Year 1: 16,530 Year 2: 14,694 Year 3: 12,857
Significant Droughts 1977, 1990-1992
Storage Practices No storage facilities other than groundwater basin.
Drought Plan If a water shortage requires reduced demand, priority would be given to maintaining fire
flows. Landscape and agricultural irrigation would be reduced. A moratorium on water
use on impermeable surfaces and alternate day watering for residents would be imposed.
Water Conservation Practices
CUWCC Signatory No
Metering Yes
Conservation Pricing No
Other Practices Visual inspection of distribution system for leaks.
Notes:
(1) Firm or safe water supply from the aquifer is unknown. Limits of water during drought are based on maximum supply determined by
the recharge rate of the aquifer.
continued
A-164 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
LINDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Water Rates and Financing
Domestic Water Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 06-071
Avg. Monthly
Rate Description Charges Consumption2
Flat Monthly: $6.50
Residential Water Use: $.70 per ccf $ 30.30 34 ccf/month
Non-Residential
Flat Monthly: $11.70
Retail Water Use: $.70 per ccf $ 38.30 38 ccf/month
Flat Monthly: $22.05
Industrial Water Use: $.70 per ccf $ 172.55 215 ccf/month
Special Rates
Water rates are the same throughout the District.
Rate-Setting Procedures
Policy Description Service charges are based on a flat rate per residence and metered water
consumption. Rates are updated on an as-needed basis.
Most Recent Rate Change 3/1/06 Frequency of Rate Changes Biennially
Water Development Fees and Requirements
Connection Fee Approach The fee is based on meter size.
Connection Fee Timing Upon building permit approval
Connection Fee Amount $2,494/Single Family Unit
Developers are required to build necessary infrastructure and transfer it
Land Dedication Requirements to the District.
Development Impact Fee None
Water Enterprise Revenues, FY 05-06 Expenditures, FY 05-06
Source Amount % Amount
Total $1,633,961 100% Total $1,342,566
Rates & charges $1,134,679 69% Administration $54,240
Property tax $0 0% O & M $759,989
Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $200,523
Interest $98,374 6% Debt $327,814
Connection Fees $400,908 25% Purchased Water $0
Notes:
(1) Rates include water-related service charges and usage charges.
(2) Water use assumptions by customer type were used to calculate average monthly bills. Assumed use levels are
consistent countywide for comparison purposes. For further details, refer to Chapter TK.
continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-165
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Water Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Indicators
Water Planning Description Planning Horizon
Water Master Plan 1988 2010
Supplement to Water Master Plan1991 2015
UWMP 2005 2035
Capital Improvement Plan None NA
Plan Item/Element Description
Emergency Plan Emergency response plan for water and sewage facilities (2004).
Other Plans
None
Service Challenges
No challenges to service were identified by the District.
Service Adequacy Indicators
Connections/FTE 1120 O&M Cost Ratio1 $260,270
MGD Delivered/FTE 0.97 Distribution Loss Rate 8%
Distribution Breaks & Leaks 1 Distribution Break Rate2 2.5
Response Time Policy < 90 mins Response Time Actual < four hours
Water Pressure 55+ normal day; 20+ psi fire flow
Drinking Water Quality Regulatory Information3
# Description
Health Violations 0
Monitoring Violations 1 Nitrate monitoring violation, 2003
DW Compliance Rate4 100%
Employee Indicators
Total Employees (FTEs) 3 Certified Yes
Notes:
(1) Operations and maintenance costs (exc. purchased water, debt, depreciation) per volume (mgd) delivered.
(2) Distribution break rate is the number of leaks and pipeline breaks per 100 miles of distribution piping.
(3) Violations since 1995, as reported by the U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System.
(4) Drinking water compliance is percent of time in compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2006.
A-166 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
LINDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
WASTEWATER SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
The District provides wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services to 3,360
connections. Connections are primarily residential with limited light commercial and no significant
industrial uses. The District owns and operates a wastewater treatment plant and inspects, cleans
and repairs sewer collection infrastructure in the service area such as pipes, manholes and lift
stations.
LOCATION
The District provides all wastewater service within the District bounds. There are no septic
systems inside the District’s boundaries. No services are provided outside of the District’s bounds.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Key infrastructure includes the wastewater treatment plant, seven percolation/evaporation
ponds, 40 miles of sewer pipe lines, and eight lift stations.
The WWTP is located next to the Feather River levee on Myrna Avenue on a 15-acre parcel.
The plant has a facility design flow of 1.8 mgd (ADWF) at secondary treatment standards. The
plant was built in 1960 with significant upgrades in 1996 and 2002, including a new secondary
clarifier, a two-stage anaerobic digestion process, facilities for continuous chlorination and
dechlorination of treated effluent, and a new effluent pump station. The treatment process consists
of the headworks, primary clarification, a trickling filter, secondary clarification, disinfection and
dechlorination, and sludge digesters. Treated effluent is pumped into seven percolation/evaporation
ponds and dried sludge is disposed of at a local landfill. The District maintains a permitted outfall
pipeline for direct discharge of effluent to the Feather River, but the pipeline has not been used for
many years. The pipeline is permitted under the current NPDES permit; however, the existing
WWTP cannot treat to effluent limitations required for direct discharge into the river.
The 2006 Preliminary Design Report (PDR) for the WWTP expansion outlines infrastructure
needs and deficiencies at the existing plant as follows:
• The headworks are undersized for future demand, difficult to operate, and require daily
manual cleaning.
• The influent pump stations have exceeded their useful life and are in need of replacement.
• The biotrickling filter cannot reduce contaminants to target levels and needs to be replaced.
• Additional capacity is needed for the primary clarification, intermediate pump station,
secondary clarification, sludge drying beds, and effluent pump station.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-167
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The percolation ponds have a capacity of 163 acre-feet. Generally, the three shallowest ponds
are kept out of service, and used only during high flow periods. The ponds were constructed in
1960, 1971 and 1975 and are located within the floodplain in Sutter County on the east side of the
Feather River. The soil in the floodplain is alluvial deposits, which allows the treated effluent to
seep into the underlying soil. The ponds have been inundated three times during periods of high
river flow in 1986, 1995 and 1997, and treated wastewater was subsequently discharged into the
river. According to RWQCB, during periods of high river flow the ponds are not accessible and the
District is unable to safely monitor the ponds.155 In addition, RWQCB has indicated there is likely a
hydraulic connection between the percolation ponds and the Feather River, which is the equivalent
of a point discharge of waste to surface water—requiring regulation under an NPDES permit.
Due to growth and development in the District, the UWMP predicts a need for a plant with
design flow capacities of 2.5 mgd by 2010 and 6.6 mgd by 2030. The existing plant is expected to
reach its design flow capacity of 1.8 mgd by the end of 2008. Plans for plant expansion are
underway to accommodate rapid growth. The RWQCB has approved an application to expand the
WWTP to a capacity of up to five mgd and upgrade to a new treatment system. The District
expects it will be completed in 2008. The PDR projects it will cost approximately $50 million for
construction and $1 million annually for operation and maintenance. The upgrades will include an
activated sludge process followed by treatment at a tertiary level, allowing the percolations ponds to
be closed by 2011 and waste to be directly discharged to the Feather River at Shanghai Bend.
The entire collection system is comprised of 40 miles of vitrified clay pipes ranging in sizes from
four to 30 inches. Flow is directed by gravity towards the WWTP. In addition, 10 lift stations are
used for long areas of level terrain. The District completed a collection system expansion and
improvement project in 1996, and recently completed construction of a 30-inch trunk to the plant
from the ELSP area along Erle Road to serve new development. The District identified the
collection system (pipes) as being in good condition overall. Of the 10 lift stations the District
identified two as being in excellent condition and six in good condition. The remaining two pumps
are reaching design capacity and will need to be retrofitted with larger pumps by 2013.
155 Central Valley RWQCB, Order No. 2006-0096, p. 22.
A-168 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
LINDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Table A-15-4: LCWD Wastewater Service Profile
Wastewater Service Configuration and Demand
Service Configuration
Service Type Service Provider(s)
Wastewater Collection Direct
Wastewater Treatment Direct
Wastewater Disposal Direct
Recycled Water None
Onsite Septic Systems in Service Area
None identified
Septic Regulatory/Policies
The County requires all new construction (in a city, town, sanitary district, or sewer maintenance district)
to connect to a sewer system when available.
Service Demand 2004
Connections Flow (mgd)
Outside
Type Total Bounds Average Peak
Total 3,764 0 1.38 3.06
Residential 3,611 0 0.83 1.84
Commercial and Industrial 153 0 0.55 1.22
Projected Demand
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Flow (mgd) 1.19 2.50 3.2 5 5.8
Note:
(1) NA: Not Applicable; NP: Not Provided.
continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-169
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Wastewater Infrastructure
Wastewater Treatment & Disposal Infrastructure
System Overview
Treatment level: Secondary (Following plant upgrades, the WWTP will treat to a tertiary level.)
Disposal method: Percolation/evaporation beds (The District anticipates directly discharging into the Feather
River after plant upgrades are completed.)
Facility Name Capacity Condition Yr Built
Linda Wastewater Treatment Plant 1.8 Fair 1960
Treatment Plant Daily Flow Average Dry Peak Wet1
Linda WWTP 1.19 3.06
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
Due to projected growth, the District is planning to expand and upgrade the WWTP to accommodate
increased demand. This will allow the District to direct effluent into the Feather River and close its percolation
ponds.
Wastewater Collection & Distribution Infrastructure
Collection & Distribution Infrastructure
Sewer Pipe Miles 40 Manholes 785
Sewage Lift Stations 10
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
Two pumps are reaching design capacity and will need to be retrofitted with larger pumps by 2013.
Infiltration and Inflow
The precise extent of infiltration and inflow (I/I) is not available. Based on the peaking factor of 2.6 (the ratio
of peak wet to average dry flow), I/I appear to be within industry norms.
Wastewater Regional Collaboration and Facility Sharing
Regional Collaboration
In collaboration with the cities of Marysville and Yuba City, the District is assessing the potential of a regional
WWTP.
Facility Sharing Opportunities
The District is assessing the feasibility of sharing a regional WWTP.
Notes:
(1) The wet weather peak day flow was observed in February 2004. The UWMP notes that the plant flow meter was out
of calibration for part of 2004, and flows during that time may be artificially high.
continued
A-170 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
LINDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Wastewater Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning
Sewage Spills/Overflows1
Date Spill Site Cause Gallons Contained?
None
Service Adequacy Indicators
OES Reported Spills 0 Sewer Overflows 20062 6
Treatment Effectiveness Rate3 95% Sewer Overflow Rate4 15
Total Employees (FTEs) 4 Response Time Policy5 < 90 mins
Employees Certified? Yes Response Time Actual < four hours
Regulatory Compliance Record
In the last five years, the District has had one water quality violation (10/20/2004) and no reporting violations issued
by RWQCB.
Source Control and Pollution Prevention Practices
The District requires grease, oil or sand interceptors on all new commercial/industrial applications and has an annual
permit requirement for inspection and pumping. Specific requirements for source control, pollution prevention and
pre-treatment practices are covered in the District Code Chapter 3.
Collection System Inspection Practices
The District annually performs visual inspection on approximately 20 percent of the collection system. Lift stations
are inspected three times a week. Areas identified as particularly susceptible to problems are inspected quarterly. The
District is planning to purchase smoke testing equipment in 2008 to identify infiltration and inflow problems.
Service Challenges
None identified
Wastewater Planning
Plan Description Planning Horizon
Wastewater Master Plan 1986 2010
Supplement to Wastewater Master Plan 1991 2015
WWTP Upgrade and Expansion Report 2006 2020
Capital Improvement Plan None
Plan Item/Element Description
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Plan None
Seismic/Emergency Plan 2004
Wet Weather Flow Capacity Plan None
Other Relevant Plans
None
Notes:
(1) Includes sewage spills/overflows reported to the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services between 2000 and 2005.
(2) Total number of overflows experienced in 2006 as reported by the Agency.
(3) Total number of non-compliance days in 2006 per 365 days.
(4) Sewer overflows (excluding those caused by customers) per 100 miles of collection piping.
(5) Agency policy, guidelines or goals for response time between service call and clearing the blockage.
continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-171
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Wastewater Rates and Financing
Rate Zones
Wastewater rates are the same throughout the District.
Rate-Setting Procedures
Policy Description: Service charges are based on a flat rate of $18.50 per residence. Rates are updated on
an as-needed basis.
Last Rate Change 3/1/2006 Frequency of Rate Changes Biennially
Wastewater Development Fees and Requirements
Connection Fee Approach The residential fee is flat for each dwelling unit; hotels pay 1/3 of the
residential connection fee for each guest room; commercial, industrial and
institutional fees are based on square footage.
Connection Fee Timing Upon building permit issuance.
Connection Fee Amount1 Residential: $5,840
Land Dedication Req. Developers are required to build necessary infrastructure and transfer it to
the District.
Development Impact Fee None
Wastewater Enterprise Revenues, FY05-06 Expenditures, FY 05-06
Source Amount % Amount
Total $4,423,328 100% Total $2,497,348
Rates & Charges $1,139,279 26% Administration $152,076
Property Tax $0 0% O & M $836,447
Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $200,523
Interest $360,776 8% Debt $1,458
Connection Fees $2,851,517 64% Capital Expenditures $1,306,844
Loan Proceeds $0 0% Other $0
Notes:
(1) Connection fee amount is calculated for a single-family home.
A-172 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
LINDA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
16. L I N DA F I R E P RO T E C T I O N
D I S T R I C T
The Linda Fire Protection District (LFPD) provides fire protection and emergency medical
services.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
LFPD was formed on August 23, 1948 as an independent special district.156 The District was
formed to provide fire protection services in the community of Linda.
The principal act that governs the District is the Fire Protection District Law of 1987.157 The
principal act empowers fire districts to provide fire protection, rescue, emergency medical,
hazardous material response, ambulance, and any other services relating to the protection of lives
and property.158 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in
other words, those services authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end
of 2000.159
The boundaries of LFPD extend east from the Feather River to Beale AFB along North Beale
Road in east Linda, south of the Yuba River to Erle Road in the southeast, and as far south as the
Yuba-Sutter County line in the southwest, ranging from the Western Pacific Railroad in the east to
the County line in the west, south of the Yuba County Airport, as shown on Map B-16. The
District has a boundary area of approximately 43.6 square miles.
The SOI for LFPD consists of four discrete areas adjacent to the district bounds, in the west,
south, east, and northeast of the District. With the exception of minimal territory along Beale Road
in the eastern portion of the SOI, the SOI does not include territory within district bounds. The
areas extend from south of the Yuba River to the district boundaries in the northeast, east of the
district boundaries to Beale AFB along Erle Road, south of the district boundaries along the
Southern Pacific Railroad south of the community of Linda, and west of the district boundaries to
the Feather River. The SOI area along the railroad south of Linda overlaps with the SOI for OPUD
in that area, and the SOI area west of the district boundaries to the east side of the Feather River is
located entirely in Sutter County.
156 Board of Equalization Official Date.
157 Health and Safety Code §13800-13970.
158 Health and Safety Code §13862.
159 Government Code §56824.10.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-173
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Boundary History
At formation, the LFPD’s boundary extended east of the Feather River to approximately one
mile east of Griffith Avenue, and south of the Yuba River to Erle Road in the southeast and the
Yuba County Airport in the southwest.160 In 1952, the southwest area containing the Yuba County
Airport was detached from the District. In 1953, 98 areas were detached from the District for tax
purposes.161 From 1961 to 1973, BOE and LAFCO records indicate that 96 of the 98 exclusion
areas were subsequently annexed back into the district, leaving 2 exclusions within the District’s
boundary in West Linda.162 In 1956 and 1971, two annexations occurred extending the district
boundaries one and a half miles to the east, from North Beale Road in the south to north of
Hammonton Smartville Road, adjacent to Beale AFB.163 The district boundaries were expanded
again in 1974 with a 119-acre annexation south of North Beale Road, adjacent to Beale AFB.
Three detachments from the District have taken place since the 1970s. In 1974, an 11-parcel
detachment occurred, removing over 700 acres from the northeast of the District, south of the Yuba
River in the vicinity of Dantoni Road.164 In 1979, the Nordic Trucking detachment removed 10
acres from the District, and in 1980 the King-Roben detachment removed 15 acres from the
District, both located adjacent to Furneaux Road, north of the Yuba County Airport.165 In 1982, the
vast 25-square mile Arboga annexation extended the southern portion of the District to the Yuba-
Sutter County line in the southern Plumas Lake area.166 The most recent change to the District
occurred in 1992 with the Butler Estates annexation,167 adding approximately 50 acres south of
Simpson Dantoni Road, west of Dantoni Road.168 A 10-acre exclusion remains in the district
boundary at this location west of Dantoni Road—the site of Well 15 owned by Linda County Water
District.
The SOI for LFPD was adopted by LAFCO in 1986 to include four discrete areas adjacent to
the district bounds, as previously described.169 An amendment to the SOI was adopted in 1987 to
160 Board of Equalization Change Number 42A.
161 Board of Equalization records indicate that 120 areas were excluded from the District. The Board of Equalization provided a letter
from the Yuba County Board of Supervisors dated April 1, 1953 which instructed those wishing to exclude their property from the
District to file with the county assessor by May 1, 1953. Evidence of these exclusions was provided by the Yuba County Assessor’s
Office, in the form of a District map from 1961 showing 98 different exclusion areas. No map depicting the 1953 exclusions was
found at the Board of Equalization, the Yuba County Recorder’s Office, the Yuba County Surveyor’s Office, or in LFPD records.
162 LAFCO resolutions 1971-2, 1972-2 and 1973-1, and Board of Equalization Change Numbers 68B, 107 and 115.
163 LAFCO resolution 1973-1 and Board of Equalization Change Number 42A.
164 LAFCO resolution 1974-5.
165 LAFCO resolutions 1979-4 and 1980-3.
166 LAFCO resolutions 1974-6 and 1982-6.
167 This annexation occurred subsequent to the SOI adoption; however, the annexed territory is not within the SOI.
168 LAFCO resolution 1992-21.
169 LAFCO resolution 1986-49.
A-174 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
LINDA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
exclude the territory in Sutter County—the amendment was subsequently rescinded in 1988. No
further changes have been made to the SOI.
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District has a three-member governing body. Board members are elected at large to
staggered four-year terms. Current board members are William Bellflower (Chairman), James
Brannon (Vice Chairman) and Larry Trama (Secretary). The Board meets on the second Thursday
of every month at 7:00 p.m.
Meeting agendas are posted at Fire Station 1, Fire Station 3 and two community bulletin boards
in grocery stores in east and west Linda. Minutes are available at Fire Station 1. The District
reported that it is in the process of developing a website—targeted to be accessible by the end of
2008. The website will make agendas and minutes available online, in addition to service-related
information.
District voters are allowed to cast their votes for up to two board candidates. The last contested
election was in November 2006. The voter turnout was approximately 48 percent compared to the
57 percent countywide voter turnout rate for Measure D.
The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with
LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with LAFCO
map inquiries and document requests.
Complaints may be submitted through phone calls, email, letters and in-person to the Chief.
Complaints that are not resolved to a constituent’s satisfaction may be brought before the Board at
the monthly meetings. The District does not track the number of complaints, but estimates that less
than 10 are received on average annually. Complaints most often relate to the District’s annual weed
abatement program. District personnel annually inspect parcels within bounds for noxious weeds.
Property owners are informed of the need to rid the parcel of the weeds within an allotted time
period, after which properties still having weeds are abated by the District and the cost is billed to
the property owner.
The District updates constituents through outreach efforts at schools and community meetings.
District employees conduct fire prevention and safety briefings and provide station tours for
elementary school students. During fire prevention week, LFPD provides public safety education to
schools within the District. The Chief attends community meetings to answer fire-related questions.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The District bounds encompass residential and commercial areas, as well as some farmlands.
Local business activities include construction, auto sales, storage, restaurants, retail, food processing,
the Peach Tree Golf and Country Club, the Plumas Lake Golf and Country Club, and Yuba
Community College.
The District considers its customer base to be the structures within the District boundaries and
individuals living or traveling in the District. LFPD protected approximately 2,700 structures prior
to 2003, according to the District. Since then, the area has experienced significant development
resulting in building and population growth. Between 2003 and April 2007, the District estimates an
BY BURR CONSULTING A-175
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
additional 2,600 structures have been constructed—totaling approximately 5,300 structures
protected by the District. DOF population estimates provided by LFPD show a 36 percent growth
in population from 16,477 in 2003 to 22,455 in 2006. The District’s population density is
approximately 510 per square mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Further growth is anticipated within the District in the next few years as planned developments
begin and continue construction within the East Linda Specific Plan (ELSP), Plumas Lake Specific
Plan (PLSP) and North Arboga Study Areas. Planned and approved developments within the
District’s bounds or SOI are shown in Table A-44-1. Excluding the Woodbury subdivision,
development area within the District bounds and SOI is in excess of 6,300 acres (including 91 acres
of non-residential), with over 20,500 planned dwelling units.
Major developments currently under construction within the District are the 535-acre Plumas
Lake Cobblestone development, the 474.5-acre Rio Del Oro development, the 795.3-acre Wheeler
Ranch development, and the 389.7-acre Edgewater development. A majority of the Edgewater
development has been completed with all major infrastructure completed and 963 dwellings
constructed of the proposed 1,358. Major planned development areas include the 577.1-acre
Country Club Estates development and the 549.9-acre Bear River development. The Plumas Lake
Cobblestone, Rio Del Oro, Wheeler Ranch, and Country Club Estates developments are located
within the PLSP area. The Bear River development is located southwest of the PLSP area. The
Edgewater development is located within the ELSP area. The northwestern portion of the 1,633-
acre Woodbury development is partially located within the bounds and SOI of the District, east of
SR 70 and south of Erle Road. The remainder of the development lies within the Plumas Brophy
Fire Protection District bounds.
LFPD is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for implementing
growth strategies. To accommodate growth, the District projects service needs for facility planning
and financing purposes. The District’s 2003 development impact fee study outlines facility,
equipment, and staffing required to minimize response times by maintaining a designated ratio of
fire engines to structures as growth occurs. When planning for a new fire station, the District
prepares revenue and cost projections and monitors development activity, through assessor parcel
data and county recorder planned development data, to optimize timing of new facility construction.
The District anticipates further growth in the near future in the Arboga area and in the eastern
portion of the District, near Erle Road and Griffith Avenue and towards Beale AFB. To
accommodate new development, the development impact fee study recommends replacing the
North Arboga station and building two new stations in East Linda and Plumas Lake (in addition to
the recently completed Plumas Lake station). Land has been purchased for a new Fire Station 2 in
Arboga—the site was chosen after a study determined the most advantageous location. The timing
of new stations will be determined by the pace of construction and the threshold number of
structures to finance the construction and operations of the facilities.
MANAGEMENT
The District’s staff consists of a chief, an assistant chief, three captains, three engineers, and
seven firefighters and an administrative assistant, all of which are full-time. In addition, there are 24
call firefighters. All staff and call firefighters report to the Assistant Chief. The Chief updates the
Board at monthly meetings.
A-176 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
LINDA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
All District employees are evaluated annually. New hires and personnel on one-year promotion
probation are evaluated quarterly. The District is up to date on staff performance evaluations.
District performance is evaluated periodically by the Insurance Services Office (ISO); an ISO
evaluation was most recently completed in April 2007. LFPD evaluates district performance on
large fire or emergency service calls in incident review meetings, which cover topics such as overall
operation efficiency, areas in need of improvement, and personnel that extended extraordinary
effort.
The District monitors productivity on a monthly basis by comparing incidents within the
District and incidents per station with prior months and years. District management also tracks time
spent by staff on training, fire flow testing, pump testing, and outreach activities.
Management practices in use by the District include benchmarking. The District monitors the
number of service calls per station and regularly compares to neighboring agencies.
LFPD has adopted a mission statement and prepared a development impact fee (DIF) study in
2006. The DIF study identifies infrastructure and financing needs to guide long-term capital
improvements through 2015. LFPD does not currently prepare a long-term capital improvement
plan (CIP); however, similar to a CIP, the DIF study outlines future capital improvements through
2015. Other financial planning efforts include an adopted budget and annual financial audits. The
last audit was performed for FY 05-06.
LFPD staff have received several awards for their accomplishments between 2002 and 2007,
including the Sierra-Sacramento Valley EMS Award in 2003 and 2004, the American Red Cross
Hero Award in 2007, and the Linda Elementary School A+ School Partner Award in 2002 and 2003.
FINANCING
The District’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and legal
limitations on revenue increases. The MSR found the District has managed to provide adequate
service levels within these resource constraints.
The District’s finances primarily flow through its general fund—other governmental activity
funds include the special revenue, debt service, and capital project funds. The District finances
public protection services primarily with property and Proposition 172 tax revenues.
The District received $3 million in revenue in FY 05-06 for all governmental activities. Primary
revenues sources were development impact fees (49 percent), property taxes (35 percent),
Proposition 172 funds (eight percent) and county service area assessments (six percent). Property
owners within CSAs 66A and 66C, located in the Plumas Lake area, were assessed $387.60 and
$472.76 in FY 06-07 respectively—$81.60 of which was paid to LFPD for fire protection services.170
Property owners in County Service Area 52B, in the East Linda area, were assessed a total of
170 CSA 66A is located adjacent to the Western Pacific railroad from McGowan Parkway to the Yuba-Sutter county line. CSA 66C
encompasses the northeastern portion of the Plumas Lake Cobblestone development.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-177
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
$232.56, $81.60 of which was allocated to LFPD.171 The assessments increase by two percent
annually.
The District’s property tax revenues were constrained in FY 05-06 and FY 06-07 when a portion
of the property tax revenue in the District’s boundary area was not collected or remitted to LFPD
due to a perception that LFPD had exceeded its Gann limit. The Gann limit is a spending limit for
government services funded by the proceeds of taxes, including property taxes. Development
impact fees, Proposition 172 funds and direct property assessments are not subject to the
appropriation limitations.172 The limit, originally computed in FY 1978-79, increases annually with
cost-of-living and population growth.173 The matter was litigated and ultimately settled by LFPD
and the County Auditor-Controller. In FY 07-08 and future years, LFPD’s property tax revenues
are restored and the District is now responsible for monitoring its compliance with the Gann limit.
The District’s new Plumas Lake station (Station 3), completed in January 2007, cost
approximately $4.1 million to construct. Capital financing for the station was provided through
bonds (certificates of participation) financed over a ten-year period and repaid through a
development impact fee fund.
The District had $4.1 million in long-term liability at the end of FY 05-06, a majority of which
($4.07 million) was for outstanding bonds used to finance Fire Station 3. The remainder was liability
for compensated absences. LFPD received a “stable” (BBB) underlying rating from Standard and
Poor’s.
The District’s adopted budget for FY 07-08 anticipates $0.8 million in capital outlays for the
year. A majority ($0.5 million) of anticipated capital expenditures in FY 07-08 will be used for a new
structure engine and a new command vehicle. The District levies a development impact fee on new
developments for capital improvements. Bond funds were also used to complete Station 3.
By way of financial reserves, the District had a general fund balance of $2.44 million and
restricted net assets of $2.49 million at the end of FY 05-06—leaving a negative unrestricted net
asset balance of $45,411. The District anticipates $0.35 million in reserves at the end of FY 06-07.
LFPD has no formal policy on target general fund financial reserves; however, District management
aims for a reserve of at least four months of working capital or $1.1 million.174 The Board adopted a
$1 million reserve policy for the fire mitigation account.
The District engages in joint financing arrangements related to workers compensation insurance.
The District is a member of the Northern California Special Districts Insurance Authority, which
provides workers compensation insurance to member agencies.
171 CSA 52B encompasses the eastern portion of the Edgewater development and the Eagle Meadows, Orchard, Montrose at
Edgewater, Khairi and Quail Hollow developments in east Linda
172 Interview with Ann Maitlin, California Department of Finance, August 14, 2007.
173 California State Controller, Special Districts Annual Report, 2007, p. xi.
174 Monthly expenditures based on FY 05-06 actual expenditures.
A-178 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
LINDA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
FIRE SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
LFPD provides fire suppression (structural, vehicle, and vegetation fires) and prevention, Basic
Life Support (BLS) for medical emergencies, rescue, hazardous materials response, fire inspection,
education, and burning permit services.
LFPD provides BLS until Bi-County Ambulance, a privately owned ambulance company, arrives
to perform Advanced Life Support and provide ambulance transport services.
The District’s primary prevention strategy is the weed abatement program which is aimed at
minimizing brush fires. Each year personnel inspect parcels within District boundaries and notify
property owners of the need to rid the property of noxious weeds. If the property owner fails to
remove the weeds within the designated time frame, the weeds are abated by the District and the
property owner is charged for the service. In addition, the District offers fire prevention and safety
instruction in local schools and a hazardous materials awareness program, and participates in a task
force with various Yuba County departments which addresses blighted, neglected and hazardous
properties.
The District responds to hazardous material incidents to provide initial identification. The Yuba
County Office of Emergency Services determines what agency will provide hazardous material
clean-up and mitigation. Marysville Fire Department typically provides specialized hazardous
material response to areas within Yuba County. LFPD provides decontamination support to the
responding mitigation team.
The LFPD Chief checks fire plans for new development prior to construction. Initial fire safety
inspections are completed on all new commercial facilities, and random inspections are performed
thereafter. The District also ensures that residential care facilities comply with code to provide adult
and childcare services.
Dispatch Services
All 911 calls made from land lines are automatically routed to the Yuba County Sheriff. Radio
dispatch services are provided by Sheriff dispatch for LFPD; hence, Yuba County is the Public
Safety Answering Point. Once the County Sheriff dispatcher determines a call requires fire
department response, full-time staff are dispatched and call personnel are notified through pagers.
For medical emergencies, the Sheriff calls Bi-County Ambulance and the company dispatches the
nearest ambulance.
Calls to 911 from cellular phones are initially routed to the California Highway Patrol (CHP).
CHP relays the call to Yuba County Sheriff, and dispatching follows the protocol discussed above.
LOCATION
LFPD provides service for the entire boundary area, including the unincorporated communities
of Linda, Arboga, and Plumas Lake.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-179
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Due to proximity, the District is called upon to provide automatic aid to Marysville Fire
Department for the area around SR 70 and Simpson Lane, Olivehurst Public Utility District Fire
Department for the Yuba County Airport and industrial tract, CALFIRE for the area generally
between the northern boundary of Beale AFB and the Yuba River and from County Road 1034 in
the west to North Earle Road in the east, Smartville Fire Protection District for portions of the
Yuba Goldfields and Hammonton-Smartville Road, and Wheatland Fire Authority for the portion of
SR 70 between McGowan Parkway and the Plumas-Arboga Overpass and a portion of Plumas-
Arboga Road adjacent to district bounds.
The area northwest of Beale AFB, south of the Yuba River and to the west of Dantoni Road lies
between LFPD and Smartville Fire Protection District (SFPD) and is not within bounds of a fire
district; consequently, the two fire agencies provide service there when needed—occasionally
arriving unplanned at the same incidents. LFPD provides coverage to another “no man’s land”
which lies beyond the District’s eastern boundary on North Beale Road. LFPD is the primary
responder there, as the Beale Air Force Base Fire Department rarely responds off base, according to
the District.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Key infrastructure owned by the District includes three fire stations and 16 trucks.
Station 1, erected in 1961 and renovated in 1986 and 2005, is used for administration, operations
and equipment storage. Stations 2 and 3 were built in 1983 and 2006 respectively and are used for
operations and equipment storage. Station 3 is also occasionally used for training purposes. Station
1 and 3 are staffed at all times. Station 2 is unstaffed unless call staff is notified of a call.
Due to recent growth and development the District has made plans for additional stations to
service the increased population. Station 3 was recently erected in the Plumas Lake area and began
operations in January 2007. The District anticipates replacing Station 2 within the next two to five
years; the District has purchased property on Plumas Arboga Road. The construction timeline will
depend on the rate of development. An additional station is planned to be built in Plumas Lake
around 2013, if growth occurs as anticipated in the DIF study.
The District owns three command vehicles, four structure engines, six wildland engines, one
water tender, and one rescue squad truck. Ten vehicles have been purchased since 2002 and one
engine was completely refurbished. The District anticipates purchasing a new wildland vehicle and
structure engine in FY 07-08. The District did not report any other vehicle needs or deficiencies;
however, as the District constructs new stations additional equipment will be needed.
A-180 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
LINDA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
Table A-16-1: LFPD Fire Service Profile
Fire Service
Service Configuration Service Demand
Fire Suppression Direct Statistical Base Year 2006
EMS Direct Total Service Calls 2,772
Ambulance Transport Bi-County % EMS 64%
Hazardous Materials Marysville Fire Dept. % Fire 12%
Air Rescue & Ambulance Helicopter CDF % False Alarm 4%
Fire Suppression Helicopter CDF % Vehicle Accidents 7%
Public Safety Answering Point Yuba County Sheriff % Other 13%
Fire/EMS Dispatch Yuba County Sheriff Calls per 1,000 people 123
Service Adequacy Resources
ISO Rating Class 4/8B Fire Stations in District 3
Median Response Time 5:00 Fire Stations Serving District 3
90th Percentile Response Time 8:36 Sq. Miles per Station 14.5
Response Time Base Year 2007 Total Staff 40
Training Total Full-time Sworn Staff 15
Volunteers receive three hours of formal training 26 times a year. Paid staff Total On-call Sworn Staff 24
train during shifts—averaging 200 hours of training per year. Sworn Staff per Station1 13.0
Sworn Staff per 1,0002 1.7
Full-time Sworn Staff per 1,000 0.7
Service Challenges Staffing Base Year 2007
The District reports that there are no areas within bounds that are a Fire Flow Water Reserves3 At least 5,000 g
challenge to serve. Fire Flow Pressure4 20 psi
Facilities
Station Location Condition Staff per Shift Apparatus
Station 1 1286 Scales Ave., Good 1 Chief 3 Command
Marysville 1 Assistant Chief 2 Structural
1 Admin. Assistant 2 Wildland
1 Captain 1 Water Tender
1 Firefighter 1 Rescue Squad
Station 2 1595 Broadway Rd., Good None 1 Structural
Marysville 1 Wildland
Station 3 1765 River Oaks Blvd., Excellent 1 Driver/Engineer 1 Structural
Plumas Lake 1 Firefighter 3 Wildland
Notes:
(1) Based on ratio of sworn staff to the number of stations. Actual staffing levels of each station vary.
(2) Sworn staff ratio based on 2006 DOF population.
(3) Water within the District is provided by Linda County Water District and Olivehurst Public Utility District. LCWD provides all water
from well pumping capacity. OPUD maintains five million gallons in above-ground storage capacity. For areas where fire hydrants are not
available, the District relies on a 5,000 gallon water tender for fire flow.
(4) Tested for flows of 2,000 - 2,800 gpm.
continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-181
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Fire Service
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
The District is planning to replace Station 2 with a new station on purchased property on Plumas Arboga Rd. No specific
construction schedule has been determined; however, the District anticipates the station will be completed in the next two to
five years depending on needs. In addition, the District lacks a dedicated training facility for multiple training tasks. Training
is currently held primarily in the meeting room at Station 1 and in the parking lot at the Feather River Center. District
management is considering building a training tower at the future site of Station 2. Also under consideration is a joint use
training facility in conjunction with Yuba College Fire Academy and Yuba College Police Academy.
Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Mutual/Automatic Aid Providers
Current Practices: The District is participating in the Yuba County Multi-
Hazard Mitigation Plan. LFPD reports attendance at stakeholder meetings,
adoption of a district resolution to support development of the plan, and
supplying fire facility location data for mapping purposes. Station 2 was built by
the District on property owned by Reclamation District 784 and leased to LFPD
through a 99-year lease. The District leases space to the Yuba County Sheriff's OPUD, Wheatland Fire Authority,
Office in Station 3 for use as a substation. In addition, one apparatus bay in Marysville FD, Beale AFB, Sutter County
Station 3 is used to store the Yuba County Mobile Incident Command Vehicle. FD, Yuba City FD, Smartville FPD, CDF
CHP has a substation at Station 1 through an informal arrangement between the
two agencies.
Opportunities: The District is interested in the development of a shared Fire
and Police Academy training facility at Yuba College. LFPD will discuss the
possibility of a substation at the new Station 2 with the Sheriff's Office.
A-182 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
LOMA RICA – BROWNS VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
17. L O M A R I C A – B ROW N S VA L L E Y
C O M M U N I T Y S E RV I C E S D I S T R I C T
The Loma Rica-Browns Valley Community Services District (LRBVCSD) provides fire
protection and emergency medical services.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
LRBVCSD was formed on November 13, 1985 as an independent special district.175 The
District was formed to provide fire protection and rescue services to the communities of Loma Rica
and Browns Valley.176
The principal act that governs the District is Community Services District Law.177 CSDs may
potentially provide a wide array of services, including water supply, wastewater, solid waste, police
and fire protection, street lighting and landscaping, airport, recreation and parks, mosquito
abatement, library services; street maintenance and drainage services, ambulance service, utility
undergrounding, transportation, abate graffiti, flood protection, weed abatement, hydroelectric
power, among various other services. CSDs are required to gain LAFCO approval to provide
additional services beyond those they were already providing at the end of 2005.178 Districts must
apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those services
authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.179 The principal
act requires that districts have five-member governing boards and appoint a general manager to
implement board policies.180
The District’s boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The boundaries of LRBVCSD extend
north from the Yuba River in the Browns Valley area to the Yuba-Butte county line in the
community of Loma Rica, and from Ramirez Road in the west to southwest of Collins Lake in the
east, as shown on Map B-17. The District has a boundary area of approximately 98 square miles.181
There have been no annexations to the District since formation.
175 Board of Equalization Official Date
176 LAFCO resolution 1985-3
177 Government Code §61000-61226.5.
178 Government Code §61106.
179 Government Code §56824.10.
180 Government Codes §61040 and 61050.
181 LAFCO resolution 1985-3.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-183
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The SOI for LRBVCSD was adopted in 1986 to be coterminous with the boundaries of the
District.182 There have been no amendments to the SOI since its adoption.
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District has a five-member governing body. Board members are elected at-large to
staggered four-year terms. Board members in 2008 are Susan L. Cerf (Chair), Cathy Kattuah (Vice
Chair), Dan Ford, Dean Gardner, and David Stipp.
Board meetings are held once a month on the third Monday at 7:30 pm at the fire station on
Loma Rica Road. Board meeting agendas are posted on the District’s website, where committee
meeting agendas, minutes, and information about special events are also available. In addition,
agendas are posted at four public venues—two in Loma Rica and two in Browns Valley—72 hours
prior to a public meeting.
The District’s most recent contested election was held in August 2005. Approximately 55
percent of registered voters turned out for the election. There were no countywide measures or
elections at that time for comparison purposes.
The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with
LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with LAFCO
map inquiries and document requests. However, CALFIRE was unable to provide District response
times as requested.
Complaints may be submitted through phone calls, email, letters, in-person, or through the
website. General complaints are handled by the general manager. If the complaint requires board
action, the issue is agendized and discussed at a monthly meeting. The District reported that it did
not receive any complaints in 2006. Complaints most often pertain to fees and assessments levied
by the District.
The District updates constituents at board meetings and by word of mouth. Additional public
outreach efforts include a biannual newsletter on issues such as fire prevention education and burn
permits and a call firefighter recruitment campaign.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The area within the District’s bounds is largely rural residential and agricultural. Business activity
in the District includes medial and veterinary practices, a land surveying company, a supply store,
and a boat dealership. The District considers its customer base to be the structures and residents
within the District. According to the District’s five-year plan, the District protects approximately
2,172 residences and businesses, as well as 5,250 residents.
There were 4,160 residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. The
District’s population density is 42 per square mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
182 LAFCO resolution 1986-44
A-184 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
LOMA RICA – BROWNS VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
The District has experienced increased growth of approximately 70 homes per year, which has
impacted service demand, as reported in the District’s five-year plan. Further growth is anticipated
in the future, if development in Spring Valley is approved. The County adopted a specific plan for
the area in 1992, which can accommodate up to 3,500 dwelling units and 27.5 acres of commercial
land spread over 2,450 acres at build-out. A development agreement was approved in 1996 between
the County and the developer, Axel Karlshoej. The developer was in the process of negotiating with
Browns Valley Irrigation District for water service and anticipated submitting a tentative map to the
County after approaching the community in Summer 2008, at the time this report was prepared.
In addition, Foster Development Group has proposed an equestrian ranch project that would
include 300 additional homes on 2-acre parcels across 1,500 acres in the northeast of the District.
The plan also calls for a 1,000-acre conservation easement.183 Quail Valley Ranch would be located
in the northwest of the District, bordering Butte County. The developer was in the CEQA process
as of early 2008.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies. The District has adopted a five-year plan, which is intended to
guide district efforts in providing an adequate level of service to continued growth.
MANAGEMENT
The District employs a general manager, and pays a fire chief and four firefighters through a
contract with CALFIRE. In addition, fire services are augmented by eight call firefighters. The
District hopes to increase the number of call firefighters to 25 by 2010. The District retains legal
counsel through contract. The fire chief and general manager make monthly reports to the board on
service calls and other district updates.
Evaluations of staff are completed on an as-needed basis. CALFIRE performance is evaluated
at each board meeting. CALFIRE monitors its productivity by tracking the number and type of
service calls and response times. The District did not report any benchmarking activities.
The District’s planning efforts include a five-year plan. The current plan outlines goals,
objectives, projected demand, and capital needs from 2005 to 2010. The plan is scheduled to be
updated in February 2008.
As part of its financial planning efforts, the District performs annual audits of financial
statements and adopts an annual budget. Capital improvement planning is a part of the District’s
five-year plan that is updated annually.
FINANCING
The District’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and legal
limitations on revenue increases. The MSR found the District has managed to provide adequate
service levels within these resource constraints.
183 Appeal Democrat, “Hills Residences Proposed: North Yuba Eyed for Equestrian-Based Community,” 2007.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-185
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The District tracks its finances separately for two funds—a general fund and a special revenue
fund for mitigation fees.
The District received a total of $443,341 in FY 05-06 in both funds. Primary revenue sources
were assessments (54 percent) and mitigation fees (33 percent). The District also received $17,343
or four percent of revenue in property tax revenues.
The District had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06. District’s planned capital
expenditures from 2008 to 2010 include $320,000 for a new station, $165,500 for a water tender and
$300,000 for a fire engine. The District anticipates fully funding these purchases with mitigation
fees.
By way of financial reserves, the District had unrestricted net assets of $675,908 at the end of FY
005-06. This amounted to 134 percent of the District’s annual expenses. The District maintained
approximately 16 months of working capital. The District has no formal policy on target financial
reserves.
FIRE & EMS SERVICES
NATURE AND EXTENT
LRBVCSD provides fire suppression (structural, vehicle, and vegetation fires) and prevention,
Basic Life Support (BLS) for medical emergencies, rescue, hazardous materials response, education,
and burning permit services. All services are provided through a contract with CALFIRE. During
non-fire season (typically from October to May) the District reimburses CALFIRE to maintain two
firefighters at Station 61, in excess of the 40 hours per week funded by the State, to maintain round-
the-clock coverage. During fire season, CALFIRE staffs the station free of charge.
LRBVCSD provides BLS until Bi-County Ambulance, a privately-owned ambulance company,
arrives to perform Advanced Life Support and provide ambulance transport services.
The District responds to hazardous material incidents to provide initial identification. The Yuba
County Office of Emergency Services determines what agency will provide hazardous material
clean-up and mitigation. Marysville Fire Department typically provides specialized hazardous
material response to areas within Yuba County.
Dispatch
All 911 calls made from land lines are automatically routed to the Yuba County Sheriff. Radio
dispatch services are provided by CALFIRE dispatch for all foothill fire departments. Once the
County Sheriff dispatcher determines a call requires fire department response, the call is transferred
to CALFIRE, which then dispatches the appropriate responder. For medical emergencies, the
Sheriff calls Bi-County Ambulance and the company dispatches the nearest ambulance.
Calls to 911 from cellular phones are initially routed to the California Highway Patrol (CHP).
CHP relays the call to Yuba County Sheriff, and dispatching follows the protocol discussed above.
A-186 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
LOMA RICA – BROWNS VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
LOCATION
LRBVCSD provides services to all areas within district boundaries. Services are also provided in
the Bangor Community of Butte County as part of an automatic aid agreement with the Butte
County Fire Department. In addition, the District responds within the Sicard Flat area of Smartville
FPD and the northern portion of District 10-Hallwood CSD through automatic aid agreements.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The District operates out of two fire stations—stations 61 and 62. Station 61 was built in 2000
in conjunction with CALFIRE and provides space for equipment, administration, training, and
barracks. Station 61 is a bi-agency facility that the District shares with CALFIRE. CALFIRE owns
the land, barracks and one engine bay. The remaining engine bays, the office and training rooms are
owned by the District.
Station 62 was built by the District in 1994 to provide storage space for equipment and engines.
The septic system and well at station 62 are in need of improvements, according to the District;
however, the limited size of the property will not allow for the necessary improvements. The
District has not determined how it will address this issue.
The District also identified a need for a new water tender and Type-1 engine. The District
anticipates purchasing the new vehicles by 2009.
LRBVCSD is planning to begin construction on a third additional station in the northeastern
portion of the District in 2010. The District has purchased the land for $185,000 and anticipates
completing construction of the first phase, including engine bays, a washing and showering area and
a training facility, for approximately $320,000. Timing for the final phase (barracks for full-time
staff) will be determined by service demand and new development. The station will be funded
entirely by mitigation fees.
In order to accommodate increased demand related to the proposed Spring Valley development,
the District anticipates that a fourth station will be necessary. No plans were in progress for a
fourth station, as of the drafting of this report.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-187
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-17-1: LRBVCSD Fire Service Profile
Fire Service
Service Configuration Service Demand
Fire Suppression CDF Statistical Base Year 2006
EMS CDF Total Service Calls 2,259
Ambulance Transport Bi-County % EMS 61.5%
Hazardous Materials CDF % Fire 10.4%
Air Rescue & Ambulance Helicopter CDF % False Alarm 11.5%
Fire Suppression Helicopter CDF % Fire & False Alarm 21.9%
Public Safety Answering Point Yuba County Sheriff % Other 16.6%
Fire/EMS Dispatch Marysville PD Calls per 1,000 people 178
Service Adequacy Resources
ISO Rating Class 4 Fire Stations in City 1
Median Response Time 4:00 Fire Stations Serving City 1
90th Percentile Response Time 6:00 Sq. Miles per Station1 3.7
Response Time Base Year 2007 Total Staff 22
Training Total Full-time Sworn Staff 8
Training for reserves is held two hours per week. Total On-call Sworn Staff 13
Sworn Staff per Station 21
Sworn Staff per 1,000 2
Full-time Sworn Staff per 1,000 1
Service Challenges Staffing Base Year 2007
CDF identified low staffing as a challenge to providing adequate service Fire Flow Water Reserves 0.8 mg
within the City limits. Fire Flow Pressure 50+ psi
Facilities
Station Location Condition Staff per Shift Apparatus
Marysville 107 Ninth St., Marysville Fair 1 Battallion Chief Engine 211
Fire 1 Captain Engine 214
Station 1 2 Apparatus Engineers Engine 216
Truck 217
Hazmat Unit
Engine 236
Squad 237
Water Tender 238
Drill Seventh St., Marysville Fair None None
Tower
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
According to CDF, there are five vehicles over 20 years old that need replacement, including a ladder truck, a structure
engine, a water tender, and two wildland engines. The station needs a new roof, an air exhaust system, upgraded lighting,
and the driveway needs to be replaced due to cracked cement. Infrastructure needs identified for the training tower include
new paint, roofing, and electrical work.
Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Mutual/Automatic Aid Providers
Current Practices: The training facilities can be used on request. Yuba College
uses the facilities for fire academy classes. CDF (Nevada Yuba Placer) and Yuba
County Sherriff have also made use of the training room. Linda FD, OPUD, WFA, Yuba City FD,
Opportunities: CDF is considering using Yuba County for dispatch services to Sutter County, Beale AFB, Loma Rica -
enhance interoperability as all valley fire departments would then be dispatched Browns Valley CSD
by the same entity and mutual aid partners would have improved access to
frequencies.
Notes:
(1) Service area of the Marysville Fire Station includes Hallwood CSD. Hallwood CSD also receives service from an unstaffed station.
A-188 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
MARYSVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT
18. M A RY S V I L L E C E M E T E RY D I S T R I C T
The Marysville Cemetery District (MCD) is an inactive district that was formed to fund
maintenance of cemetery grounds within the Marysville Cemetery. The cemetery is owned and
operated by the City of Marysville. For further information on city cemetery services, refer to
Chapter 2.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
MCD was formed on October 15, 1992 as a subsidiary district of the City of Marysville. 184 The
District was formed by LAFCO to provide an additional funding source (special district
augmentation funds) to the City of Marysville for the maintenance and restoration of the Marysville
Cemetery.185
The principal act that governs the District is Public Cemetery District Law.186 The principal act
authorizes districts to own, operate, improve, and maintain cemeteries, provide interment services
within its boundaries, and to sell interment accessories and replacement objects (e.g., burial vaults,
liners, and flower vases). Although districts may require and regulate monuments or markers, it is
precluded from selling them. The principal act requires districts to maintain cemeteries owned by
the district.187 The law allows districts to inter non-residents under certain circumstances.188
Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those
services authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.189
MCD’s boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The boundary area of the District is
consistent with the boundaries of the Marysville Cemetery, located in the northwest of the City
between SR 70 and the Western Pacific Railroad, as shown on Map B-18. The District has a
boundary area of 14.2 acres, or 0.02 square miles.
184 Board of Equalization Official Date.
185 LAFCO resolution 1992-9, Exhibit A, pp. 2-3.
186 California Health and Safety Code §9000-9093.
187 California Health and Safety Code §9040.
188 Non-residents eligible for interment are described in California Health and Safety Code §9061, and include former residents,
current and former taxpayers, family members of residents and former residents, family members of those already buried in the
cemetery, those without other cemetery alternatives within 15 miles of their residence, and those who died while serving in the
military.
189 Government Code §56824.10.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-189
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
There have been no annexations to the district since formation, and the SOI of the District is
coterminous with the district bounds.190
The Marysville Cemetery District is currently inactive, having never become active following its
formation by LAFCO in 1992.191
190 LAFCO resolution 1992-9.
191 Interview with David Lamon, City Services Director, City of Marysville, July 27, 2007.
A-190 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
MARYSVILLE LEVEE DISTRICT
19. M A RY S V I L L E L E V E E D I S T R I C T
Marysville Levee District (MLD) provides levee construction and maintenance services to the
City of Marysville.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
MLD was formed March 6, 1876 as an independent special district by the California State
Legislature.192 The District was formed to provide funding and maintenance services to all levees
protecting the City of Marysville.
The principal act that governs the District is the Levee District Law of 1959.193 The act
empowers levee districts to construct or acquire and maintain all things reasonable for the
protection of lands within the district from overflow.194 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO
approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those services authorized by the principal act
but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.195
The District’s boundary is entirely within Yuba County, and encompasses a majority of the City
of Marysville. The formation act specifies the boundary as being “all portions of the City of
Marysville within the exterior lines of the City of Marysville levee as now or at any time hereafter
constructed, reconstructed or extended and existing,” as shown on Map B-19.196 No boundary
changes have been approved by LAFCO since district formation.
No SOI has been adopted for the District.
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District has a three-member governing body. Board members are elected by the voters of
the City of Marysville and serve a four-year term. Board members in 2007 were Benjamin Bramer
(President), Patrick Ajuria and Henry Delamere.
Board meetings are not held on a regular basis. A meeting is held on the first Monday in April
to elect a president; other meetings are held on an as-needed basis. In 2007, the Board held seven
192 Board of Equalization Official Date.
193 California Water Code §70000-70272.
194 California Water Code §70150.
195 Government Code §56824.10.
196 Statutes of the State of California, 1875-6, pp. 131-132.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-191
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
meetings. Board meeting agendas are posted three days prior to the annual meeting and one day
prior to any special meeting at the Marysville Post Office. Minutes are available at the Marysville
City Hall upon request. The District does not have a website, but it posts meeting agendas on the
City of Marysville website.
District voters are allowed to cast their votes for up to three board candidates. Constituent
involvement in elections has been low compared to countywide turnout. The last contested election
was in November 2004. The voter turnout was 39 percent, compared to the 57 percent countywide
voter turnout rate for Measure D.
The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with
LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with LAFCO
map inquiries and document requests.
Complaints regarding levee maintenance may be submitted through phone calls, email, letters
and in person at Marysville City Hall, or to any one of the Levee Commissioners. Complaints are
reviewed by the Board. The District does not track the number of complaints, but reported that
none were received in 2006.
The District updates constituents at board meetings and by word of mouth. The District does
not conduct community outreach activities.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The District’s bounds encompass a majority of the developed area of the City of Marysville,
which is primarily residential and commercial land uses.
The District considers its customer base to be the residents and property owners in the City of
Marysville. There were 12,197 residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS
analysis. The District’s population density is 5,221 per square mile, compared with the countywide
density of 114.
Growth opportunities within the District are primarily infill and redevelopment projects. Recent
commercial growth has been concentrated in the vicinity of Ellis Lake. Major projects currently
under construction within the District include the replacement of the Caltrans District 3
Headquarters building, which will accommodate 776 employees in a six-story building, conversion
of a hotel on Third Street to a retail and residential development, and a two-story office building on
E Street. Projects under planning review or pending planning application submittal include two new
office buildings on Third Street and Thirteenth Street totaling almost 9,000 square feet, a 38,000
square foot expansion of a car dealership, a 46,000 square foot industrial complex on Ninth Street,
and a 130,000 square foot expansion of Rideout Memorial Hospital.
Business activity in the District comprises that of the City of Marysville, and includes retail,
hospitality, medicine, banking, and food service.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies.
A-192 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
MARYSVILLE LEVEE DISTRICT
MANAGEMENT
The District’s staffing level consists of one full-time levee manager, with seasonal or temporary
help hired as needed. The general manager reports to the Board at each meeting on the status of
levee maintenance, such as burning and smoothing of the levees, and any infrastructure or
equipment needs.
The District does not perform benchmarking or agency-wide performance evaluations; however,
the District’s maintenance performance is monitored by the Department of Water Resources
(DWR) through its inspection program.
The District has not prepared any planning documents, such as a master plan, or identified goals
to guide levee maintenance efforts.
Financial planning by the District includes annual budgets and audited financial statements. The
District provided an up-to-date audited financial statement for FY 05-06. The District does not
have an adopted capital improvement plan.
No awards, honors or accomplishments between 2002 and 2007 were identified by the District.
FINANCING
The District’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and legal
limitations on revenue increases. MLD has a nearly acceptable levee maintenance record. The
District has not updated its assessments in 20 years, and is overdue for a rate study and increase.
The results of 2008 levee borings will impact future capital financing needs, and may require the
District to increase assessments and/or develop new funding sources.
The District tracks its finances through a single general fund for all levee services.
The District received $141,814 in revenues in FY 05-06. Revenues consisted largely of benefit
assessments (58 percent), property taxes (31 percent) and interest (7 percent). The benefit
assessment was last updated 20 years ago, and the District is hiring a consulting firm in 2008 to
determine an appropriate assessment given infrastructure needs.
In FY 05-06, the District had $99,693 in expenditures, of which 63 percent was spent on
personnel salaries, 25 percent for insurance and the remainder on supplies, contractual services,
utilities, and maintenance.197
The District had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
Capital improvements are financed through assessments, property taxes and reserves. The
District does not have any significant capital improvements planned for the immediate future.
By way of financial reserves, the District had unrestricted net assets of $475,609 at the end of FY
05-06. This amounted to 477 percent of the District’s annual expenses. The District maintained
197 Expenditures excludes adjustments due to depreciation of capital.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-193
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
approximately 4.7 years of working capital, although these funds would not cover major capital
improvement needs. The District has no formal policy on target financial reserves.
The City of Marysville provides funding for the Deputy City Clerk to act as a secretary to the
District for 15 hours a month on average.198
RECLAMATION SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
MLD provides levee maintenance services. The District conducts vegetation removal, weed
abatement and vector (squirrel) control, and upkeep of access roads as part of its levee maintenance
work. The District is also responsible for flood fighting, levee patrol and operation of flood gates
during high water events. Internal drainage services are provided by the City of Marysville.
LOCATION
The District maintains a ring of levees, which surround a majority of the City of Marysville and
are within the District’s bounds. In addition, MLD maintains a levee spur which extends
approximately 3.9 miles outside of the District to the northeast of the City and north of the Yuba
River. The properties protected by the levee spur are not levied a benefit assessment or property
taxes for maintenance, as the primary purpose of the levee is to provide protection for an evacuation
route along SR 20.199
INFRASTRUCTURE
Key infrastructure owned or maintained by the District includes 11.4 miles of project levees, 3.9
miles of access road on non-project levees, seven flood gates, a field office, and four maintenance
vehicles.
The District maintains 11.3 miles of Sacramento River Flood Control Project levees—3.3 miles
on the south bank of Simmerly (Jack) Slough, 1.3 miles along the east side of the Feather River and
6.9 miles on the north side of the Yuba River.200 The levees create a ring around the developed
portion of the City of Marysville and extend 3.9 miles northeast along the Yuba River to Hallwood
Avenue.201
The levee along the Feather River was originally built between 1868 and 1907 and was
subsequently raised five times with dredge tailings, gravel and earth fill until 1956. The Yuba River
198 Interview with Gayle Diemond, Deputy City Clerk, City of Marysville, December 20, 2007.
199 Interview with Frank Miller, General Manager, Marysville Levee Commission, December 17, 2007.
200 Department of Water Resources, Levees, Structures, Channels and Floodways Inspections, 2006, p. A27.
201 Yuba County, Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2007, p. 1-43.
A-194 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
MARYSVILLE LEVEE DISTRICT
levee was built in stages between 1862 and 1907 and raised six times through 1956. The levee along
Simmerly Slough was originally constructed between 1875 and 1907, and portions were subsequently
raised in 1907, 1908, 1935, 1942, and most recently in 1961.
Prior to the formation of MLD, the City was inundated on several occasions, including 1861 and
1874, which lead to considerable damage and loss of lives. While significant flood events have
occurred in the area surrounding the City of Marysville since 1876, there have been no recorded
failures of the levees maintained by MLD. The District is not within a 100-year flood plain. FEMA
has not yet updated the floodplain in the City of Marysville. FEMA has not yet updated the
floodplain in the City of Marysville. The levees most likely offer 100-year flood protection at this
time. The Corps’ Yuba Basin Project established a 300-year flood protection goal for Marysville;
levee improvements are planned. Preliminary DWR boring results indicate that the City is nearing
200-year flood protection.202 After DWR completes its geotechnical analysis program, design will be
required for identified problems with repair projects to follow.
DWR inspects maintenance practices and observable levee conditions twice annually. DWR
identified no major maintenance deficiencies in MLD in 2005.203 MLD overall levee maintenance
has been rated as compliant with federal and state standards from 1996 to 2005. In 2005, District
maintenance was rated as compliant with federal regulations in readiness for flood emergency,
section and grade, vegetation control, rodent control, crack and erosion repair, gate repair, rock
revetment condition, crown and roadway condition, livestock control, and pipe condition, but was
rated as needing improvement in encroachment control on its Yuba River levee. 2006 inspections
rated the District as satisfactory in most areas, with the exception of a section of levee along the
Yuba River that was rated unsatisfactory due to vegetation control issues. In 2007, MLD was rated
minimally acceptable due to vegetation on the Yuba River levee. Maintenance was rated acceptable
in 2007 on the District’s Feather River and Simmerly Slough levees.
DWR is in the planning stages of a new and more in-depth levee integrity evaluation process.
Levee integrity information will be more comprehensive in future MSR reports as a result of these
efforts. DWR anticipates releasing a final geotechnical report on the MLD levees by October 2008.
Borings will provide information on any underseepage issues and indicate what work will be
necessary to achieve 100 or 200 year protection.
During an inspection by the Army Corps of Engineers in 2004, the Corps found the levee
system to be in good condition, with the exception of the Yuba River levee between Walnut Avenue
and Hallwood Boulevard (approximately two miles), which was rated as fair due to excessive
vegetation causing inadequate clearance. The levee was subsequently removed from eligibility for
funding from the Flood Control and Coastal Emergency Act (PL 84-99). Since then, brush has been
cleared from the crown of the levee; and an ensuing inspection by DWR found that the levee was
acceptable and recommended that it be returned to active status under PL 84-99.204 DWR can make
recommendations regarding levee status; however, the District will have to work with the Corps to
become reinstated in the program.
202 Interview with David Lamon, City Services Director, City of Marysville, September 25, 2007.
203 Department of Water Resources, Levees, Structures, Channels and Floodways Inspections, 2006, p. A27.
204 Eckman, Jim, Memorandum: City of Marysville Patrol Road, November 29, 2007.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-195
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The District indentified the need for improvements to a three-mile section of the Yuba-River
levee from Sampson Lane to North Levee Road, which currently consists of a sand cap and some
sand pockets. The levee needs to be widened with clay or a slurry wall installed. The District
discussed their areas of concern and areas of previous problems with DWR for consideration in
their levee evaluation project. The DWR levee evaluation, when complete, will indicate those areas
requiring additional work to meet the 100-year or 200-year levels of protection. The District is
exploring funding options with various Federal, State and local agencies.
In addition to the levees, the District maintains and operates seven flood gates throughout the
ring of levees. The gates are comprised of timber, metal doors or aluminum pallets. The gates are
generally in good condition. The District did not identify any infrastructure needs or deficiencies.
Equipment used to maintain the levees consists of a 1996 Dodge truck with a dump bed, a 1988
Toyota pick-up truck, a 1971 fire truck, and a tractor. The vehicles are in need of minor repairs, but
are generally sufficient for the needs of the District. The District did report a need for new tractor
attachments such as a post-hole digger, as well as a new mower.
The District operates out of a single field office built in 1956 of galvanized metal where all
maintenance equipment is stored, including 20,000 sandbags. The building was recently painted to
match the style of the surrounding buildings. The building is in fair condition with limited space for
all of the equipment, which cannot be stored outside due to potential vandalism. The District
reported a need for a new building with space to house all equipment, in addition to heating and air
conditioning amenities.
Service challenges reported by the District consist of vandalism of the levees and maintenance
equipment, riding of recreational vehicles on the levees, garbage disposal on levees by neighboring
property owners, complaints by property owners regarding burn days and vegetation removal, and
conflict with homeless living on or adjacent to the levees during maintenance.
A-196 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NEVADA IRRIGATION DISTRICT
20. N E VA DA I R R I G AT I O N D I S T R I C T
The Nevada Irrigation District (NID) provides agricultural, raw and treated water services to its
customers in Nevada, Placer and Yuba Counties. In addition, the District provides hydroelectricity
and recreation services in Nevada and Placer Counties.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
NID was formed on August 15, 1921 as an independent special district.205 The District was
formed to provide agricultural, raw and treated water services to the southwest of Nevada County.
The principal act that governs the District is the Irrigation District Law.206 The principal act
empowers such districts to provide water “for any beneficial use” and may do any act to put to any
beneficial use any water under its control. In addition, irrigation districts may provide water-related
drainage services and, under certain circumstances, electric and wastewater services. Districts must
apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those services
authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.207
NID is a multi-county district, with its boundary extending from Nevada County in the north to
Placer County in the south. Communities that are within the service area of the District include
portions of Nevada City, the City of Grass Valley, Alta Sierra, Lake of the Pines, Lake Wildwood,
Cascade Shores, and Penn Valley in Nevada County, North Auburn in Placer County, and the
Smartville area in Yuba County. Nevada is the principal county, and Nevada LAFCO has
jurisdiction over the agency.
The boundary area extends north to the south fork of the Yuba River, west to the Nevada-Yuba
county line, south into Placer County, and east to the Rollins and Scotts Flat Reservoirs, as shown
on Map B-20. The District has a boundary area of 287,000 acres, or approximately 448 square
miles.208
NID serves domestic and raw water in the Smartville vicinity of Yuba County under Railroad
Commission Order (RCO) 15926. This area is not within NID bounds.209 In 1926, Excelsior Water
and Power Company sold its properties in Yuba County to the District, and the District agreed to
205 Nevada County LAFCo Western County Water MSR, January 2004, p. 38.
206 Water Code §20500-29976.
207 Government Code §56824.10.
208 Nevada County LAFCo Western County Water MSR, January 2004, p. 47.
209 RCO 15962 was adopted February 3, 1926.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-197
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
continue service to the area that was previously served by Excelsior but outside of district
boundaries. The Railroad Commission approved the sale with the following stipulations outlined in
RCO 15926:
• Any land within the RCO area was required to be accepted into the boundaries of the
District if an application for annexation was received between 1926 and 1928.
• The charge for water supplied shall not exceed the amount to return eight percent to the
District on its investment and recover reasonable operating expenses.
In 1996, the District approved annexation policies for Railroad Commission Order lands which
state the intent of the District to continue service to the RCO area. However “annexation of lands
will not be allowed under the terms of this RCO Order No. 15926.”210
The RCO area consists of 14,673 acres, of which 9,893 is located in Yuba County. Of the area
in Yuba County, 2,330 acres are currently being provided water.211
The District’s SOI includes the district boundaries within Nevada and Placer Counties, in
addition to the service area in Yuba County required by RCO 15926.212
Boundary History
The District’s boundaries originally encompassed 202,000 acres in the southwest of Nevada
County. In 1926, another 66,500 acres were annexed to the District in Placer County. Since then,
the District has grown to its current size of 287,000 acres.213
In January 2007, Nevada County LAFCO updated the District’s SOI to include the district
boundaries, various islands within the boundaries, and the RCO area in Yuba. The RCO land was
retained in the District’s SOI to indicate a continuing service area.214 Nevada LAFCO anticipates
that no future annexations will occur in the area.215
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District is governed by a five-member board of directors, elected to staggered four-year
terms by district voters. Directors are elected by landowners in one of five geographical divisions
within the District. Open board positions are filled by the Board through an interview and
appointment process. Customers in Yuba County do not vote and are not represented on the
210 NID, Annexation Policy for Railroad Commission Order Lands, 1996, p. 3.
211 NID, Raw Water Master Plan Update, September 2005, p. 52.
212 Nevada County LAFCO, resolution 07-01.
213 Thomas A. Parilo & Associates, 2006, p. 2-1.
214 Ibid.
215 Nevada County LAFCO, Minutes of a Regular Meeting. January 18, 2007, p. 3.
A-198 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NEVADA IRRIGATION DISTRICT
Board. Current board members are Nancy Weber, John H. Drew, W. Scott Miller, R. Paul Williams,
and George V. Leipzig.
The Board meets twice a month on the second and fourth Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. Board
meeting agendas and minutes are posted on the District’s website and on three bulletin boards at the
district headquarters.
The last contested election was held in 2004 in Division 5. The voter turnout rate for this
election was not available.
With regard to customer service, complaints most often relate to billing. Complaints may be
submitted through phone calls, email, letters and in-person. Initially, service representatives attempt
to resolve any complaints to the customer’s satisfaction. If needed, outstanding complaints are then
handled successively by the supervisor, the finance manager, the Administrative Practices
Committee, and finally the Board of Directors. The District does not track the number of
complaints, and was unable to provide an estimate of complaints received.
The District updates constituents through its website where planning documents, rates, contact
information, and various other service related information are available. News releases to local news
outlets report on Board of Directors meetings, current projects, emergency and planned water
outages, and various district programs. The District also publishes NID WaterWays, a quarterly
newsletter that is distributed to all water customers, and provides educational programs to schools,
clubs and community organizations through its Ambassador Program.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The RCO service area is in the rural foothills of the Sierra Nevada mountain range. The area is
known historically for the gold mining operations that boomed here during the Gold Rush era.
Currently, the area is primarily used for agricultural (grazing) and rural residential purposes. Planned
residential densities range from 6,000 square feet to 5-acre minimum lot size.216
The District considers its customer base to be the land owners within the District and service
area. There were approximately 24,000 customers receiving service for raw and treated water
throughout the District and its service areas. Within Yuba County, 44 connections received treated
water service, and 18 connections received raw water for irrigation in 2006.
There were approximately 306 residents in the RCO area, according to 2000 Census data and
GIS analysis. The District’s population density within Yuba County is 19 per square mile, compared
with the countywide density of 114.
The area has not experienced significant growth. There are currently no planned developments
within the RCO area in Yuba County. Growth is anticipated outside of the service area within the
next five to ten years in the Yuba Highlands Specific Plan area to the south of Hammonton-
Smartville Road.
216 Thomas A. Parilo & Associates, 2006, p. 3-13.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-199
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Yuba Highlands is a proposed development of more than 2,900 acres located north of Beale Air
Force Base in the River Highlands Community Plan area. The Yuba Highlands development was
defeated by a ballot measure in February 2008; however, the developer plans to make a revised
proposal for the development. Developer Gary Gallelli originally proposed to develop over 5,101
residential units, over 20 acres of core and neighborhood commercial areas, and 64 acres of business
park. The project EIR was approved by the County Board of Supervisors on July 10, 2007.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies.
MANAGEMENT
The District employs 170 full-time employees and one part-time employee, 154 of which work
in the water division and 16 who work in the hydroelectric division. The District has a defined
organizational structure and job descriptions for every position.217 The general manager oversees
each of the three divisions—water, hydroelectric and recreation. The water division has 12
departments each with a department head that reports to the general manager.
Committees for Administrative Practices, Water and Hydroelectric Operations, Engineering, and
Maintenance and Resources Management facilitate a majority of the decision making. Committees
meet monthly and are comprised of two board members and at least three staff members.218
Annual priorities and objectives for each department are clearly outlined in the District’s
strategic plan. The most recent strategic plan was created for FY 05-06. The District had not
updated its plan for the most recent FY, as of the drafting of this report. Management activities
such as performance measurement and workload monitoring were not reported in the Nevada
LAFCO Municipal Service Review.
Table A-20-1: NID Planning Documents
Plan Date Planning Horizon
The District has produced and
Urban Water Management Plan 2005 2030
adopted various planning
Treated Water Master Plan 1995 Unknown
documents with regards to water
Raw Water Master Plan 2005 2030
services, as shown in Table A-20-1.
Strategic Plan 2005 2006
Project specific planning documents
Capital Improvement Plan 2003 2008
are also prepared for each significant
capital improvement.
District financial planning efforts include a biennial budget and annual audited financial
statements. Anticipated capital outlays are outlined in a 5-year capital improvement plan and the
budget.
217 Nevada County LAFCo Western County Water MSR, January 2004, p. 182.
218 Ibid.
A-200 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NEVADA IRRIGATION DISTRICT
FINANCING
The District runs three divisions which provide water, hydroelectric and recreation services. As
the service area in Yuba County does not receive hydroelectric and recreation services, this section
focuses on the financing of water services. Within the water division, there are separate budgets for
each of the 12 departments and the Board of Directors.
The District received $25.1 million in water division revenues in FY 03-04, as reported in the
Sphere Update Plan. Primary revenue sources were treated water sales (35 percent), property taxes
(25 percent) and irrigation water sales (17 percent).219
All customers in the RCO area pay out-of-district rates for water services, which is 125 percent
of the rate paid by customers within the District. Smartville customers pay $18.90 a month for a
residential domestic connection and $1.45 for each additional 100 cubic feet of treated water after
the initial 100 cubic feet. Raw water customers in Smartville pay $1.20 for any size connection and
$1.03 for each additional 100 cubic feet of water after the initial 100 cubic feet.
Overall water division expenditures in FY 03-04 exceeded $25 million. Primary expenditures
were engineering (21 percent), maintenance (20 percent), water operations (18 percent) and
administration (18 percent).220
The District’s long-term debt was not reported in the Nevada LAFCO MSR. The District’s
underlying credit rating is AAA/Stable as reported by Standard and Poor’s and Baa2, or of average
creditworthiness, as reported by Moody’s.
The District’s planned capital projects between 2003 and 2008 are expected to cost an estimated
$41 million. Projects include canal and water treatment plant upgrades and expansions—none of
which are proposed for the Yuba County service area. Capital improvements are financed primarily
through property assessments, capacity fees, grants, funds from the hydroelectric division and
certificates of participation.
By way of financial reserves, the District had a balance of $70.1 million in its 15 capital and
working reserve funds as of December 2004. This amounted to approximately 157 percent of the
District’s total annual budget. The District maintained approximately 19 months of working capital.
The District has no formal policy on target financial reserves, but “attempts to maintain reserve
account balances in accordance with industry standards.”221
219 Thomas A. Parilo & Associates, 2006, p. 7-1.
220 Ibid.
221 Ibid, p. 7-2.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-201
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
WATER SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
The District provides domestic water to 44 connections and raw water to 18 connections or
2,330 acres in the community of Smartville. If water demand in the Smartville area should exceed
the carrying capacity of the area canals, water is subject to allocation by NID among users.
LOCATION
All district services in Yuba County are provided in the Smartville vicinity under Railroad
Commission Order (RCO) 15926 outside of the District’s boundaries. The out-of-district order
applies to approximately 9,900 acres, of which approximately 2,330 acres are presently served.222
INFRASTRUCTURE
The District’s key infrastructure throughout the three counties includes ten storage reservoirs
with a total capacity of approximately 280,000 acre feet, seven water treatment plants, 37 storage
tanks, seven hydroelectric plants, approximately 425 miles of raw water ditches and pipes and 300
miles of distribution pipelines.223 Within Yuba County, there is a water treatment plant and a limited
canal system—no reservoirs, storage tanks or hydroelectric plants.
The primary water source for Smartville is surface water. During irrigation season, the primary
water supply to the area is surface water from melting snowpack, which is collected in Scotts Flat
Reservoir, and imported water. From mid-April through mid-October, NID releases this water
from the reservoir; during the remainder of the year, there are relatively low flows of this water
source to Smartville. From mid-October to mid-April, the Smartville area water supply is primarily
treated effluent emitted from the Nevada City Wastewater Treatment Plant.224 The wastewater is
treated to a tertiary level, discharged into Deer Creek and conveyed through creeks and canals to
Smartville.
The Smartville WTP intake is fed by the Mead Canal. The source water is considered by the
State to be poor quality, and requires an additional treatment processes for giardia.225 Possible water
contamination sources are the Nevada City WWTP, which discharges into Deer Creek upstream
from the canal, and grazing lands where cattle have access to the canal. The WTP has had a single
treatment technique violation, which was reported in 1993 and rectified in 1997, according to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
222 Ibid., p. 4-30.
223 Ibid., p. 2-2.
224 NID, Urban Water Management Plan, 2005, p. 2-4.
225 Interview with Richard Hindrichs, California Department of Public Health, April 8, 2008.
A-202 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NEVADA IRRIGATION DISTRICT
The Smartville Water Treatment Plant was built in 1976 and rebuilt in 1994. It provides
domestic water to 44 connections north of SR 20. The plant has a capacity of 77,000 gallons per day
which can serve up to 53 connections. Currently served customers are approximately 90 percent of
NID’s capacity to serve the Smartville area due to water treatment plant capacity constraints. There
are no plans to increase the capacity of the treatment plant at this time. The District reports that it
occasionally received requests for domestic water that cannot be accommodated due to capacity
constraints at the WTP.226 The District reports that the present WTP site is not large enough to
accommodate expansion of capacity. A new WTP and site would be needed to increase treatment
capacity.227 Once capacity is absorbed, treated water can be delivered to the area from Lake
Wildwood, but raw water supply to the Lake Wildwood Treatment Plant is also near capacity.228 The
District reported that the plant is in good condition overall. With the exception of a new portable
generator for the water pumps to be purchased in 2007, no capital improvements were anticipated at
the plant.
The length and condition of the treated water distribution system was not reported, however,
the District noted that portions of the system are old and have leaks that require occasional
patching. The District reported that some of the PVC pipelines are adequate for the current needs
of the system but may need to be replaced with steel in the near future.
Earthen canals provide raw water for irrigation in the RCO area. Farm Canal, Ousley Canal,
Town Canal, and Meade Canal total approximately 12 miles.229 Overall, the Meade Canal was
described as being in good condition and accessible for maintenance, with the exception of a
segment which was reported as having low freeboard, according to the Raw Water Master Plan. The
remainder of the canals was not inventoried by the District to determine condition and accessibility.
226 A 35-unit community with poor well yields has approached NID with occasional requests for service over the years, according to
Don Wight, NID Water Operations Manager.
227 Interview with Don Wight, NID Water Operations Manager, April 8, 2008.
228 Ibid., pp. 3-12 – 3-13.
229 Author’s estimates.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-203
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
21. N O RT H Y U BA WAT E R D I S T R I C T
The North Yuba Water District (NYWD) provides domestic and irrigation water services to
residents of the communities of Oregon House, Dobbins, Brownsville, Challenge, and Rackerby in
Yuba County, and the community of Forbestown in Butte County.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
NYWD was formed on July 22, 1952 as an independent special district.230 The District was
formed to provide irrigation services to the communities of Oregon House, Dobbins, Brownsville,
Challenge, and Strawberry Valley. Domestic water service was added in 1965. The District was
named the Yuba County Water District until 2007, when its name was changed to the North Yuba
Water District.
The principal act that governs the District is the California Water District law.231 The act
empowers water districts to produce, store, transmit and distribute water for irrigation, domestic,
industrial, and municipal purposes and to provide related drainage services. Districts must apply and
obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those services authorized by
the principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.232
NYWD is a multi-county agency, as a portion of its northern boundary extends into Butte
County. Yuba is the principal county, and Yuba LAFCO has jurisdiction. Communities within the
District include Oregon House, Dobbins, Brownsville, Challenge, and Rackerby in Yuba County,
and the community of Forbestown in Butte County. The boundary extends northeast from Loma
Rica, and is generally bounded by the North Fork of the Yuba River and the New Bullards Bar
Reservoir in the east, the Yuba-Butte County line in the north, and the Yuba-Plumas and Yuba-
Sierra County lines in the northeast, as shown on Map B-21. The District has a boundary area of
128 square miles. The boundary overlaps with BVID; the overlap area is approximately 2,821 acres
based on GIS analysis.
Boundary History
The boundaries of NYWD contain various excluded areas due to landowner protest at
formation, and subsequent detachments. At formation, approximately one-third of the District was
excluded by landowner protests or petitions. Since formation, there have been a total of 35 actions
230 Board of Equalization Official Date.
231 California Water Code §34000-38501.
232 Government Code §56824.10.
A-204 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NORTH YUBA WATER DISTRICT
to modify the District’s boundary, including seven in the pre-LAFCO period.233 Of the 35 actions,
28 were annexations to the District’s boundary, and seven were detachments from the District’s
boundary. Significant annexations include the 1966 Stonefence Annexation, the 1969 Royal Pines
Annexation, the 1976 Olsen-Byrd Annexation, and the group annexations of 1977 (20 total parcels),
1978 (30 total parcels), 1980 (seven parcels), and 2006 (21 parcels).234 Significant detachments
include the 1961 detachment, the 1965 detachment, the 1966 Soper-Wheeler and Johnson
Detachments (nine total areas), and the 1969 Abernathy Detachment. 235
Annexations to NYWD in Butte County were approved by LAFCO beginning with the
Forbestown annexation of 1966; however, it was never filed with the State Board of Equalization
(BOE).236 In 1968, LAFCO approved a boundary correction for NYWD that included the
Forbestown area, and was properly filed with the BOE, officially including the area within the
District.237 In 1972, LAFCO approved the Woodleaf Annexation of area in Butte County (adjacent
to the Forbestown annexation area), but it also was not filed with the BOE.238 As part of the 2006
group annexation, two non-contiguous parcels in Butte County were annexed into NYWD. One
parcel is located north of the Forbestown annexation area, east of Old Forbestown Road, and the
other is located in the former Woodleaf annexation area, south of Forbestown Road (adjacent to
Bamford Way).
The District does not have an SOI adopted by LAFCO. The 1987 Sphere of Influence Study
for the Yuba County water agencies conducted by LAFCO recommended an SOI “coterminous
with its authorized water service area,” but there is no evidence in the LAFCO archives to confirm
that such an SOI was ever officially adopted. After approval of the MSR, LAFCO will adopt an
SOI for the District.
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District has a five-member governing body representing five divisions. One director is
elected from each division by the registered voters within that division. Board members serve
staggered four-year terms. Current board members are Jenny Brown (President), Bill Hamilton,
Loren Olsen, John Jacobsen, and Don Forguson.
The Board meets once a month on the third Thursday at 4 pm. Board meeting agendas are
posted at six post offices (Brownsville, Rackerby, Oregon House, Challenge, Forbestown, and
Dobbins) and on the office bulletin board. Minutes are available on request. The District does not
maintain a website, so documents are not available online. The District was investigated by the
233 Based on State Board of Equalization and Yuba LAFCO records.
234 LAFCO resolutions 66-3, 69-2, 1976-4, 1977-6, 1977-28, 1978-6, 1979-1, 1980-13, and 2006-0013.
235 LAFCO resolutions 66-5, 66-91 and 1969-1. The 1961 and 1965 detachments are pre-LAFCO, but are contained within State
Board of Equalization records for Change Numbers 75 and 89D.
236 LAFCO file number 6-ANNX-66.
237 LAFCO resolution 68-3.
238 LAFCO resolution 1972-9.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-205
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Grand Jury in FY 05-06 for potential violations of the Brown Act by conducting private board
meetings.239 The alleged violations had not been substantiated, as of the drafting of this report.
The most recent contested election was held in November 2006. The 63 percent voter turnout
rate was higher than the 53 percent countywide gubernatorial election voter turnout.
The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with
LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with LAFCO
map inquiries and document requests.
With regard to customer service, complaints most often relate to water outages and water
quality. Complaints can be submitted through phone calls, email, letters and in-person to the
general manager. Complaints are generally handled by the general manager. If complaints are not
handled to the satisfaction of the customer, the Board reviews the complaint. The District tracks all
complaints. In 2007, the District reported five complaints.
The District updates constituents through notices in the mail on water rate changes and annual
agricultural updates, as well as its annual consumer confidence report.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The area within the District’s bounds is largely rural residential, agricultural and a national forest.
Business activity in the District includes logging and timber work, three summer camps, a bank, a
few general stores, and two gas stations. Major employers are Soper Wheeler, Yuba Feather School,
the U.S. Forest Service, and the Yuba County Department of Public Works.
The District considers its customer base to be the landowners and residents of the District. As
of February 2008, the District estimated that it had approximately 730 domestic customers and 100
agricultural irrigation customers. Irrigation customers include a winery operation, cattle farmers, and
vegetable producers.
There were 3,580 residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. The
District’s population density is 28 per square mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
The District reported that there has been limited growth within District bounds. In 2006, the
District added eight additional connections to the system, which represents a growth rate of
approximately 0.7 percent. The District reported that existing peak demand in its system exceeds
the flow from transmission facilities.240 NYWD estimated its long-term (to 2040) water demand
within its service area to be 27,100 afa;241 by comparison existing demand is 2,945 afa in the service
area.
239 Yuba County Grand Jury Final Report, 2006, p. 61.
240 State Water Resources Control Board, Water Rights Order 2004-0029, 2004, p. 25.
241 State Water Resources Control Board, Water Rights Order 2004-0029, 2004, p. 25.
A-206 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NORTH YUBA WATER DISTRICT
Future growth is anticipated to be moderate, as proposed developments are approved and begin
construction. As of February 2008, there was a single development proposal within the District’s
boundaries. Foster Development Group has proposed an equestrian ranch project that would
include 300 additional homes on two-acre parcels across 1,500 acres in the southwest of the District.
The plan also calls for a 1,000-acre conservation easement.242 The developer was in the CEQA
process as of early 2008.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies. The District has a strategic planning committee that plans for the
next 15 years to accommodate any anticipated growth.
MANAGEMENT
The District employs seven full-time staff, including a general manager, an account clerk, and
administrative assistant, a field superintendent, and three field utility workers. The field workers
report to the superintendent, all other staff report to the general manager. The general manager
makes monthly reports to the Board at meetings. Reports generally cover the overall condition of
the District, any current activities and progress on projects.
The District performs annual evaluations of all staff and overall evaluations of District
operations at board meetings. In addition, the District performs benchmarking in the form of water
rate and salary comparisons. The District did not report any productivity monitoring practices.
The District does not conduct formal planning efforts and has no adopted master plan. In 2005,
the District recently adopted a mission statement to guide District goals and objectives.
Financial planning efforts include annual audits and annually adopted budgets. The District
does not have a capital improvement plan, but instead plans on an annual basis in the budget. The
District reported that it plans to develop a capital improvement plan and master plan after 2010,
when revenues will enable capital improvements, as discussed further in the Financing section.
FINANCING
The District reported that it is struggling financially at the current time, even in light of a recent
water rate increase. There are major capital improvement needs that cannot be financed at the
current income level. The District anticipates that funds will not be adequate until 2010 when it will
be receiving additional revenue from power generation.
The District tracks its finances through a single proprietary fund.
The District received $813,106 in operating and non-operating revenues in FY 05-06. Primary
revenue sources were property taxes (32 percent), domestic water sales (35 percent), water
wholesales (12 percent), assessments (eight percent), and facility fees (four percent).
242 Appeal Democrat, “Hills Residences Proposed: North Yuba Eyed for Equestrian-Based Community,” 2007.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-207
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Assessments are levied in two improvement districts. District 1 was formed in 1964 and
encompasses the irrigation service area, where customers pay 0.2 percent of the lot’s assessed
valuation annually. District 2 was formed in 1966 to augment funds for the domestic service area;
each landowner pays 0.1 percent of the residence’s assessed valuation annually.
The District had $1.1 million in long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06. Of the long-term debt,
$0.5 million was for a Safe Drinking Water Contract with the Department of Water Resources for
improvements on the domestic water system to meet minimum safe drinking water requirements.
Other loans were for emergency drought relief in 1977 and three loans from YCWA to cement
portions of the Dobbins-Oregon House Canal, pay for engineering studies to file a grant application,
and complete a feasibility study for the rehabilitation of a pipeline.
According to the District’s budget for FY 07-08, there are no major planned capital expenditures
for the year. Major capital projects in the past have been funded by loans and grants.
By way of financial reserves, the District had unrestricted net assets of $0.4 million at the end of
FY 05-06. This amounted to 48 percent of the District’s annual expenses. The District maintained
approximately six months of working capital. The District has no formal policy on target financial
reserves.
Following District formation, the District’s water rights were disputed by South Feather Water
and Power Agency (formerly Oroville Wyandotte Irrigation District). Negotiations were completed
in 1959 through a state-mandated agreement, resulting in the District’s current water rights and the
South Feather Power Project (SFPP) joint facilities agreement. South Feather Water and Power
Agency (SFWPA) subsequently funded the construction of three SFPP hydroelectric generation
facilities through bonds, which are to be paid off in 2010. All SFPP facilities are owned and
operated by SFWPA; however, the agreement, which was renegotiated in 2005, calls for NYWD to
receive 50 percent of the net power revenues from SFPP after the repayment of all bonds. NYWD
will receive at least $709,000 annually starting in FY 10-11. Once SFPP has accumulated a $15
million contingency reserve (which is currently projected to occur in 2012), payouts to NYWD will
increase. SFWPA, which will receive an equal amount of net revenues as NYWD, has projected
future revenues of approximately $10 million annually.243 NYWD will be struggling financially until
June 30, 2010. Until that time the District is attempting to keep costs and rates at a minimum. All
major capital improvements are being delayed until after 2010.
The District also engages in joint financing arrangements with SFWPA for use of the
Forbestown Ditch. The District will continue to pay 25 percent of the maintenance costs for the
ditch until 2011, when the ditch will be transferred to District. The District paid $5,352 to SFWPA
in FY 06-07 for maintenance activities of the ditch.
243 Jennifer Slinkard and Michael Glaze, Memorandum to the South Feather Water & Power Agency Board of Directors: Strategic Financial Plan –
Water Division – 2007-2012, Sept. 8, 2006.
A-208 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NORTH YUBA WATER DISTRICT
WATER SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
NYWD provides retail water services to approximately 829 domestic and irrigation connections
in the form of surface water diversion, treatment, water quality testing, conveyance, storage, and
delivery. Preventative maintenance includes flushing of the system twice annually and regular
exercising of the valves.
The District provides wholesale water service to agencies at lower elevations, including the City
of Yuba City.
LOCATION
The District provides services within its bounds. The District does not provide services outside
of its bounds. Domestic water service is provided to four communities—Forbestown, Rackerby,
Challenge, and Brownsville. Irrigation customers are concentrated in the Dobbins and Oregon
House areas. The District provides irrigation service to parcels composing approximately 2,500
acres, although the entire area is not irrigated due to limited water availability.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The District relies entirely on surface water for domestic and irrigation services. The water
sources are Feather River/Slate Creek and Dry Creek.
Domestic Water Rights
The District’s appropriative rights to Feather River/Slate Creek (also known as the South Fork
Project) effectively amount to 3,700 af at present, although NYWD may establish beneficial use in
the future to up to 23,700 af from this source. These water rights are for year-round uses, including
municipal. In 1955, the State Engineer found that these rights were in conflict with South Feather
Water and Power Agency (SFWPA) water rights.244 NYWD and SFWPA negotiated a state-
mandated agreement in 1958.245 That agreement limits NYWD water deliveries at Forbestown Ditch
to 3,700 af through 2010 when the SFWPA agreement with PG&E expires;246 PG&E has required
minimum water flows for its hydroelectric generation purposes.
The NYWD-SFWPA agreement allows for 4,500 af to be delivered to NYWD at Miners Ranch
Terminal, which is located at a lower elevation than the NYWD service area. NYWD sells the
4,500 af in supply initially to PG&E for power generation at the Kelly Ridge Powerhouse, and then
244 State Water Resources Control Board, Water Rights Order 2004-0029, 2004, p. 2.
245 The districts amended that agreement in 1959 and 1965.
246 Water rights for Feather River/Slate Creek are year round at a maximum diversion rate of 12 cfs.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-209
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
to Yuba City, which diverts the flow from the Feather River. In 2010, NYWD may use these rights
in its own service area, but must expand distribution capacity to do so.
The SWRCB approved a water rights order in 2004 that allows NYWD up to 23,700 afa from
the South Fork Project through the Forbestown Ditch. The board intended this amount to provide
for the long-term needs of NYWD. NYWD estimated its own long-term water demand within its
service area to be 27,100 afa by 2040, of which 23,700 afa can be supplied from the South Fork
Project through the Forbestown Ditch.247 Once the SFWPA-PG&E contract expires in 2010,
NYWD will have up to 23,700 in water rights on Feather River/Slate Creek, including the 4,500
presently sold to Yuba City.248
All Feather River/Slate Creek water used in YCWD’s service area under the permits is delivered
by SFWPA. SFWPA diverts the water from the South Feather River at its Little Grass Valley
Reservoir and transported through the SFWPA system for power generation, and then transmitted
through SFWPA’s Forbestown Ditch. Two turn-outs from the Forbestown Ditch are used to
deliver water to YCWD: the Costa Creek turnout for irrigation deliveries and the Forbestown Water
Treatment Plant for domestic uses. Water from the Forbestown Ditch that is released into Costa
Creek flows into Dry Creek and is rediverted at the Brownsville Diversion Dam into the Dobbins-
Oregon House Canal.249
The water quality of Feather River/Slate Creek was identified as being generally excellent by the
Department of Public Health (DPH). In 2003, DPH identified significant Forbestown Ditch
contamination vulnerabilities (those with a vulnerability score of 15 or greater) as active and
historical mining operations, high density septic systems, dredging, unauthorized dumping, lagoons,
managed forests, permitted discharges, pesticides, burn areas, recreation, and utility stations.
In addition, NYWD and SFWPA jointly own water right licenses on the South Fork of the
Feather River for diversion, storage and use of water for hydroelectric generation.250 Although
SFWPA is the owner and operator of the associated South Feather Power Project, the water rights
licenses are held jointly to assure NYWD of the sharing of net revenues from hydroelectric power
sales. See associated discussion in the Financing section of this chapter.
Irrigation Water Rights
The District’s water rights on Dry Creek allow for 6,060 af to be used for agricultural and fire
flow purposes during irrigation season. These appropriative water rights allow NYWD to divert up
to 21.4 cfs, or 6,060 af, between April and mid-October.251 The District is required to maintain at
least 4 cfs of flow in the creek, so the total amount diverted depends on water conditions. The
247 State Water Resources Control Board, Water Rights Order 2004-0029, 2004, p. 28.
248 Agreement between South Feather Water and Power Agency and Yuba County Water District, May 27, 2005, p. 17.
249 State Water Resources Control Board, Water Rights Order 2004-0029, 2004.
250 California water rights licenses 10939, 10940 and 10941.
251 California water rights license 12984.
A-210 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NORTH YUBA WATER DISTRICT
District reported that there was adequate flow in 2007 for only three of the 6.5 months it is officially
permitted to divert.
Water Facilities
Key water service infrastructure owned and maintained by the District includes a water
treatment plant, a SCADA system, five storage tanks, a storage pond, 32 miles of distribution mains,
and 23 miles of irrigation canals.
The District operates a gravity flow water filtration plant that was constructed in 1985. The
plant can treat up to 2.35 mgd. The District reported that the plant is in good condition and there
are no infrastructure needs or deficiencies.
Water from the treatment plant flows into five storage tanks located in Brownsville (300,000
gal.), Rackerby (100,000 gal.), Challenge (100,000 gal.), Forbestown (100,000 gal.), and one at the
plant (500,000 gal.), with a combined storage capacity of 1.1 mg. The District reported that the
Rackerby, Challenge, and Forbestown tanks are in poor condition, undersized and need to be
replaced for a total cost of $3-5 million.252 The District’s highest priority is to replace the redwood
tank in Challenge with a 1 million-gallon steel tank. Most likely, this will be completed after 2010.
The District maintains approximately 32 miles of distribution mains and laterals and 23 miles of
irrigation canals. Mains and laterals are asbestos cement (31 percent), PVC (53 percent), uncoated
steel (10 percent), and cement coated steel (six percent). The PVC pipes have thin walls that have a
tendency to rupture. A majority of the distribution system is undersized and in poor condition, as
reported by the District. In 2005, the California Department of Health Services noted a lack of
preventative maintenance on the distribution system, specifically valves and air relief/vacuum relief
valves.
The irrigation system is composed of an earthen canal and ditch system. The District reported
that the system has a significant distribution loss rate of approximately 60 percent. SFWPA will
transfer ownership of the Upper Forbestown Ditch to NYWD effective January 1, 2011. The
District plans to pipe the canal system after additional revenues are received in 2010. The District
plans to replace the lower 3.5 miles of the Forbestown Ditch with a pipeline for conveyance of both
NYWD’s and SFWPA’s water. The Forbestown Pipeline Project will cost an estimated $4.7 million.
The project is anticipated to be started in 2012, and completed in 2015.
252 The District had estimated the cost at $3 million. The 2007 IRWMP estimated the cost at $4.8 million.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-211
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-21-1: NYWD Water Service Profile
Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure
Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s)
Retail Water Direct Groundwater Recharge None
Wholesale Water Direct Groundwater Extraction Direct
Water Treatment Direct Recycled Water None
Service Area Description
Retail Water Within District boundaries
Wholesale Water Yuba City
Recycled Water None
Boundary Area 128 sq. miles Population (2007) 3,580
System Overview
Average Daily Demand 0.52 mg Peak Day Demand 1.05 mg
Supply 9,760 af
Major Facilities
Facility Name Type Capacity Condition Yr Built
Water Treatment Plant Treatment 2.35 mgd Good 1985
Other Infrastructure
Reservoirs2 1 Storage Capacity (mg)3 1.1
Pump Stations 3 Pressure Zones 8
Production Wells 0 Pipe Miles 32
Other: 23 miles of earthen irrigation canals
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The District identified a need for piping of the canal system to reduce loss, replacement of the fragile
portions of the piping system, and replacement of three storage tanks.
Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration
Current Practices: The District practices facility sharing with South Feather Water and Power Agency.
The two agencies share a ditch from the SFWPA diversion point at SF 14.
Opportunities: In 2010, NYWD and SFWPA will begin to share hydroelectric generation revenues from
SFPP.
Notes:
(1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet.
(2) The District owns and maintains a single pond with 28.8 af of storage.
(3) Storage capacity includes the five storage tanks owned by the District.
Continued
A-212 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NORTH YUBA WATER DISTRICT
Water Demand and Supply
Service Connections Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds
Total 829 829 0
Irrigation/Landscape 100 100 0
Domestic 706 706 0
Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 23 23 0
Recycled 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0
Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year)
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Total 6,800 7,495 7,445 NP NP NP NP
Residential NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Commercial/Industrial NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Irrigation/Landscape1 1,485 1,485 1,485 NP NP NP NP
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wholesale 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500
Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year)
Source Type Average Maximum Safe/Firm
Feather River/Slate Creek Surface water 1,479 3,700 Unknown
Dry Creek Surface water 1,485 6,060 Unknown
Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year)
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Total 9,760 9,760 9,760 34,060 34,060 34,060 34,060
Imported 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Groundwater 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Surface 9,760 9,760 9,760 34,060 34,060 34,060 34,060
Recycled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Conjunctive Use
The District does not practice conjunctive use. All wells are owned by private landowners. The District reported
that the acreage served by private wells is unknown.
Supply Constraints
The District is currently limited by water rights for the domestic water supply. The District reported that it
generally uses almost all of its water rights in any given year.
Drought Supply and Plans
Drought Supply (af) Year 1: NP Year 2: NP Year 3: NP
Significant Droughts 1976, 1977 and 1987 through 1991, 1993
Storage Practices The District maintains 30 days of storage as part of its contract with SFWPA.
Drought Plan The District's domestic water supply has never been affected by drought conditions. In
the case of drought impacts on the agricultural supply, the District eliminates service to
the 15 surplus customers.
Water Conservation Practices
CUWCC Signatory No
Metering Yes
Conservation Pricing Yes
Other Practices The District is in the process of developing a low flow toilet rebate program.
Notes:
(1) Irrigation usage is based on an annual average estimated by the District.
continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-213
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Water Rates and Financing
Domestic Water Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 06-071
Avg. Monthly
Rate Description Charges Consumption2
Residential Flat Monthly: $64.00 for 40 ccf $64.00 12 ccf/month
Water Use: $.30 per ccf in excess of 40
Non-Residential
Retail Flat Monthly: $75.00 for 50 ccf $75.00 38 ccf/month
Water Use: $.30 per ccf in excess of 50
Industrial Flat Monthly: $91.00 for 60 ccf $ 137.50 215 ccf/month
Water Use: $.30 per ccf in excess of 60
Irrigation $288.00 per miners inch up to 3 mi
$324.00 3.5 to 6.0 mi
$378.00 6.5 to 12.0 mi
$441.00 12.5 to 18.0 mi
$522.00 over 18.0 mi
Special Rates
Water rates are the same throughout the District with the exception of the Rackerby area, where rates are
slightly higher due to loans obtained for the purpose of connecting the area to the NYWD system.
Rate-Setting Procedures
Policy Description Service charges are based on a flat rate per residence and metered
water consumption. Rates are updated on an as-needed basis.
Most Recent Rate Change 2002 Frequency of Rate Changes3 As needed
Water Development Fees and Requirements
Connection Fee Approach Any new water users are required to pay the cost of connecting to
the system.
Connection Fee Timing Prior to installation of connection.
Connection Fee Amount $4,300/Single Family Unit
Land Dedication Requirements Developers are required to build necessary infrastructure and
transfer it to the District.
Development Impact Fee None
Water Enterprise Revenues, FY 04-05 Expenditures, FY 04-05
Source Amount % Amount
Total $762,598 100% Total $765,956
Rates & charges $420,253 55% Administration $374,729
Property tax and assessments $293,285 38% O & M $213,634
Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $127,135
Interest $17,972 2% Debt $31,555
Connection Fees $31,088 4% Purchased Water $18,903
Notes:
(1) Rates include water-related service charges and usage charges.
(2) Water use assumptions by customer type were used to calculate average monthly bills. Assumed use levels are
consistent countywide for comparison purposes. For further details, refer to Chapter 4.
(3) The District reported that after the next rate change in April 2008, the rates would be updated annually.
continued
A-214 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NORTH YUBA WATER DISTRICT
Water Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Indicators
Water Planning Description Planning Horizon
Water Master Plan None
UWMP None, not required
Capital Improvement Plan None
Plan Item/Element Description
Emergency Plan None
Other Plans
None
Service Challenges
Challenges to providing service identified by the District include financing and an inadequate distribution system due
to composition and pipeline size.
Service Adequacy Indicators
Connections/FTE 207 O&M Cost Ratio1 $1,125
MGD Delivered/FTE 47.48 Distribution Loss Rate2 Unknown
Distribution Breaks & Leaks 2 Distribution Break Rate3 6.3
Response Time Policy ASAP Response Time Actual < 1 day
Water Pressure 25 to 100 psi
Drinking Water Quality Regulatory Information4
# Description
Health Violations 0
Monitoring Violations 1 Failed to complete all samples for nitrates on schedule in 2002.
DW Compliance Rate5 100%
Employee Indicators
Total Employees (FTEs) 4 Certified Yes
Notes:
(1) Operations and maintenance costs (exc. purchased water, debt, depreciation) per volume (mgd) delivered.
(2) The District reported that the distribution loss rate of the domestic distribution system was unknown. The irrigation canal system has a
particularly high rate of loss of approximately 30 percent.
(3) Distribution break rate is the number of leaks and pipeline breaks per 100 miles of distribution piping.
(4) Violations since 1995, as reported by the U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System.
(5) Drinking water compliance is percent of time in compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2006.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-215
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
22. O L I V E H U R S T P U B L I C U T I L I T Y
D I S T R I C T
The Olivehurst Public Utility District provides water, wastewater, park maintenance, fire
protection, drainage and street lighting services.253
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
OPUD was formed on November 13, 1948 as an independent special district.254 The District
was formed to provide domestic water and fire protection services to the community of Olivehurst.
It has since added wastewater, park and street lighting services.
The principal act that governs the District is the Public Utility District Act.255 The principal act
allows districts to acquire, construct, own, operate, control, or use works for supplying light, water,
power, heat, transportation, telephone service, or other means of communication, or means for the
disposal of garbage, sewage, or refuse matter.256 In addition, any such district may acquire, construct,
own, complete, use, and operate a fire department, street lighting system, public parks and other
recreation facilities, and provide for the drainage of roads, streets, and public places.257 Districts
must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those services
authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.258
The District’s boundary is entirely within Yuba County, and is made up of two noncontiguous
areas. The northernmost noncontiguous area encompasses the Yuba County Airport in the
northwest, the community of Olivehurst in the center and east, and areas along Plumas Arboga
Road and south of Broadway Road in the southwest. OPUD provides fire service to the majority of
this area, as shown on Map B-22. There is an approximately 30-acre area of overlap between
OPUD and Linda Fire Protection District (LFPD) where both are providing fire service to a
property owned by Caltrans, north of Furneaux Road. South of McGowan Parkway, OPUD
boundaries overlap Plumas Brophy Fire Protection District (PBFPD) in a 36-acre area that was
annexed to OPUD by the 2004 Summerfield annexation but was not detached from PBFPD.
253 OPUD, Financial Statement FY 05-06, 2006, p. 6.
254 Board of Equalization Official Date.
255 Public Utilities Code §15501-17501.
256 Public Utilities Code §16461.
257 Public Utilities Code §16463.
258 Government Code §56824.10.
A-216 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
OLIVEHURST PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
The second noncontiguous boundary area is located south of Broadway Road in Arboga and
into the Plumas Lake area, just north of the Yuba-Sutter county line. Fire service in this area is
provided by LFPD, with OPUD providing other services. The District has a boundary area of nine
square miles.
The 1985 SOI adoption for OPUD created two distinct sphere areas for the District. In areas of
overlap between OPUD and LFPD and PBFPD, LAFCO limits OPUD’s services to “recreation,
lighting, domestic water and sewer services only.”259 The limited SOI is located in select areas north
of the District, in a rectangular-shaped area east of the District, south of McGowan Parkway in the
Olivehurst area, along and adjacent to the Rancho Road-SR 65 corridor, in the Arboga area to the
Yuba-Sutter county line in the west, and south of Plumas Arboga Road into the community of
Plumas Lake. OPUD is authorized to provide fire service to an SOI area that consists of the
community of Olivehurst, the Yuba County Airport and Industrial Park, and to select areas
northeast of SR 70. There is one area where the bounds extend beyond the sphere, consisting of
two parcels north of Furneaux Road.
Boundary History
The LAFCO record for OPUD begins with the 1979 Nordic Trucking annexation and the 1980
King-Roben annexation, which added a total of 25 acres to the District in the area north of the
Yuba County Airport, along Furneaux Road.260 In 1992, the CAMCO Properties annexation added
75 acres north of McGowan Parkway, adjacent to the old Western Pacific Railroad, and the Ron
Ward annexation added 34 acres south of McGowan Parkway, between Donald Drive and the old
Western Pacific Railroad.261 In 1994, the River Oaks annexation added 838 acres to the southern
portion of the District in Plumas Lake, just north of the Yuba-Sutter county line along SR 70. In
2002, the Rio Del Oro annexation added 670 acres to the District, creating a large noncontiguous
area in the Plumas Lake area along SR 70.262 Also in 2002, the Caltrans Reorganization added 28
acres north of Furneaux Road after it was detached from Linda County Water District.263 In 2003,
the Hanson Truss annexation added 21 acres south of Skyway Drive, southwest of the Yuba County
Airport.264
In 2004, eight annexations to OPUD took place—all residential developments in the central and
southern portion of the District. The Wheeler Ranch and Leal Properties annexation and the
Meadows annexation added over 600 acres to the District east of Feather River Boulevard, south of
Ella Avenue. 265 The Draper Ranch annexation added two separate areas to the District—a 155-acre
259 LAFCO resolution 1988-15, Section 6.
260 LAFCO resolutions 1979-6 and 1980-5.
261 LAFCO resolutions 1989-3 and 1991-1.
262 LAFCO resolution 2002-03.
263 LAFCO resolution 2002-08.
264 LAFCO resolution 2003-02.
265 LAFCO resolutions 2004-0001 and 2004-0002.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-217
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
area west of Arboga Road, bisected by Ella Avenue, and 160 acres located southwest of Broadway
Road and east of Dye Road.266 The Thoroughbred Acres and the Lakemont Property annexations
added over 230 acres to the District, east of the northern Draper Ranch Property and south of
McGowan Parkway.267 The Fairway North and West annexation added 80 acres to the District
south of Broadway Road, bisected by Dye Road, making up the noncontiguous area in the center of
the District, along with the southern Draper Ranch property.268 The Summerfield annexation added
36 acres to the District between Dan Avenue and Rose Avenue in an area located between SRs 70
and 65. Finally, the Leak Property annexation added 158 acres west of SR 70, adjacent to the Rio
Del Oro development, in the southern Plumas Lake area.269
There have been four annexations to the District since 2004. In 2005, the Tomlinson Property
annexation added 57 acres north of Algodon Road and west of SR 70.270 In 2006, the Hansen Ranch
annexation added 13 acres east of Arboga Road.271 In 2007, the 254-acre Ross Ranch annexation
and the 117-acre Leak/Cobblestone annexation occurred in the Plumas Lake area.272
The SOI for OPUD was adopted by LAFCO on October 12, 1988.273 In the areas overlapping
Linda Fire Protection District and Plumas Brophy Fire Protection District, OPUD “shall provide
recreation, lighting, domestic water, and sewer services only.”274 Overlap between OPUD’s SOI and
LFPD bounds occurs north of the District along Furneaux Road and south of Erle Road in the
community of Linda, and throughout the Arboga and Plumas Lake areas. With the exception of the
Hawes Ranch area, all OPUD boundary and SOI areas south of McGowan Parkway, and west of the
old Western Pacific railroad overlap LFPD bounds. Overlap between OPUD’s SOI and PBFPD
bounds occurs east of the District, along SR 70 north of Plumas Arboga Road, at the junction
between SRs 65 and 70 east of Olivehurst, and along SR 65 and Rancho Road to Morrison Road in
the southeast.
The SOI was amended on September 8, 1993 to include 5,263 acres of the Plumas Lake Specific
Plan area from Plumas Arboga Road in the north, south along SR 70 to the Bear River.275 The
266 LAFCO resolution 2004-0013.
267 LAFCO resolutions 2004-0029 and 2004-0004.
268 LAFCO resolution 2004-0003.
269 LAFCO resolutions 2004-0032 and 2004-0014.
270 LAFCO resolution 2005-0005.
271 LAFCO resolution 2006-0023.
272 LAFCO resolutions 2007-0001 and 2007-0014.
273 LAFCO resolution 1988-15.
274 Ibid.
275 LAFCO resolution 1993-09.
A-218 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
OLIVEHURST PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
sphere area that overlaps Linda FPD by this amendment will continue to be served by Linda FPD
for fire protection, with OPUD providing other services.276
The District’s SOI overlaps a small portion of the Linda County Water District SOI just north
of the Yuba County Airport.
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District has a five-member governing body. Board members are elected at-large to
staggered four-year terms. Current board members are James Carpenter (President), Philip R. Miller,
Michael Morrison, Larry D. Patty, and Catherine Hollis.
The Board meets once a month on the third Thursday at 7:00 p.m. Meetings are held in the
board chambers at the District office. Board meeting agendas are posted on the District’s website.
In addition, the District updates the media through agenda packages before each board meeting.
Minutes are available upon request.
Voter turnout within the District has been slightly lower than the turnout countywide. The most
recent contested election took place in November 2004. The voter turnout was 53 percent
compared to the 57 percent countywide voter turnout rate for Measure D.
The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with
LAFCO. The District responded to LAFCO’s initial written questionnaire, document request and
request for interviews and cooperated with LAFCO map inquiries.
Complaints may be submitted through phone calls, the website, email, mail and in-person to the
agency or directly to the general manager. With regards to customer complaints, the District did not
provide the number and nature of complaints received annually. The District reported that it does
not track the number of complaints for fire, wastewater, park services and street lighting, but does
track water service-related complaints. In 2006, the Department of Public Health (DPH) reported
that several complaints regarding the treatment facility at wells 29 and 30 were not handled
adequately by the District and were subsequently dealt with by DPH.277
The District updates constituents via its website and a newsletter. The newsletter is enclosed
with customer bills at least six times annually and focuses on neighborhood-specific concerns and
fire service issues.278
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The District bounds encompass primarily urban residential and commercial areas. Local
business activities include Shoei Foods, Yuba River Moulding and Millwork (200 employees), Fast
Fabricators (55 employees), and various home manufacturers.
276 Ibid.
277 DPH, Annual Inspection Report (Olivehurst), 2007, p. 7.
278 Interview with Tim Shaw, General Manager, OPUD, March 27, 2007.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-219
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
OPUD considers its customer base to be the developable parcels within the District’s
boundaries. The District estimated that there are approximately 5,000 parcels within the water and
wastewater service area and 3,000 parcels within the fire service area.279
There were 10,271 residents in the District in 2000, according to 2000 Census data and GIS
analysis. The District has experienced significant growth and urban development since the 2000
Census; the District’s 2007 population is approximately 12,259.280 The District’s population density
in 2007 was 1,362 per square mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Further growth is anticipated within the District in the next few years as planned developments
begin and continue construction within the Plumas Lake Specific Plan (PLSP) and North Arboga
Study Areas (NASA). Future developments within the District bounds and SOI encompass over
5,000 acres (including 73 acres of non-residential), with over 16,000 planned and proposed dwelling
units.
Major developments currently under construction within the District are the 535-acre Plumas
Lake Cobblestone development, the 474.5-acre Rio Del Oro development, the 795.3-acre Wheeler
Ranch development—all located within the PLSP area—and the 63.6-acre Draper Ranch North
development located in the NASA. The 206.2-acre Riverside Meadows development, located within
the SOI of the District in the PLSP area, is also currently under construction. Major proposed
developments include the 150.1-acre Draper Ranch South development, the 124.6-acre Meadows
development, the 577.1-acre Country Club Estates development, and the 254.5-acre Ross Ranch
development, all of which are located in the PLSP area. The 549.9-acre Bear River development is
located within the District’s SOI, southwest of the PLSP. Planned and approved developments
within the District’s bounds or SOI are shown in Table A-44-1, located at the end of this appendix.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies. However, the District has adopted various planning documents to
determine infrastructure and financing sources needed to serve anticipated growth in population,
particularly in the PLSP area. The District reported that it maintains contact with developers to
ensure that projects are initiated and completed within an optimal timeline.281
MANAGEMENT
The District employs 25 full-time staff—19 operator and administrative staff and six firefighting
staff in addition to 20 call firefighters. Staff report to the five department heads—the chief plant
operator, water department manager, accountant, public works engineer, and fire chief—who then
report to the general manager.282
279 Ibid.
280 Author’s estimate based on the unincorporated growth in the County from 2000 to 2007 per the Department of Finance. This is
likely an understatement of OPUD’s population, as the area grew faster than most others. No better estimates are currently available.
281 OPUD, Capital Improvement Plan, 2004, p. 1.
282 OPUD Organization Chart, 2007.
A-220 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
OLIVEHURST PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
District employees are evaluated after the probationary period of six months and annually
thereafter. While the District does not perform direct evaluations of District performance, agency-
wide performance evaluations are completed, depending on the service, by regulating or
benchmarking agencies. The fire department was evaluated by the Insurance Services Office (ISO)
in June 2007 and achieved an ISO rating of 3. Water services are evaluated annually by the
California Department of Public Health. The District monitors productivity through a billing
system that tracks service orders such as connections, disconnections and service problems.
The District relies on various planning documents to guide efforts for future service provision.
The District has performed studies and adopted plans focused on the Plumas Lake Specific Plan
PLSP Area, which the District anticipates serving in its entirety. For services and plans outside of
the PLSP area, the District has adopted capital improvement plans for water, wastewater and fire
services. In addition, OPUD recently completed a rate study which evaluates existing infrastructure
needs and replacement costs of sewer and water facilities. District plans and studies are shown in
Table A-22-1.
Table A-22-1: OPUD Planning Documents
Plan Geographic Area Date Planning Horizon
Water and Sewer System Fee Nexus Plumas Lake Specific Plan Area south of 2003 Build-out
Study- PLSP South Zone Plumas Arboga Road.
Water and Sewer System Capacity Plumas Lake Specific Plan Area north of 2006 Build-out
Charge Report- PLSP North Zone Plumas Arboga Road.
Sewer Study Wheeler Ranch and north and central Plumas 2003 Build-out
Lake
Sewer Study - PLSP Plumas Lake Specific Plan Area 2000 Build-out
Water System Study Wheeler Ranch and north and central Plumas 2003 Build-out
Lake
EPANET 2 Model of the Water Plumas Lake Specific Plan Area south of 2006 Build-out
Supply System Plumas Arboga Road.
Park Master Plan Plumas Lake Specific Plan Area and North 2005 Build-out
Arboga Study Area
Sewer and Water Capital Old Olivehurst 2004 2010
Improvement Plan
Capital Improvement Plan for Fire FacFire Service Area 2007 2017
Development Impact Fee Study for Fire Service Area 2007 2011
Fire Facilities
Water & Sewer Rate Study Entire OPUD Water and Sewer System 2007 2017
District financial management practices include annual financial audits and annually adopted
budgets. In addition to the capital improvement plans, capital outlays are determined on an annual-
basis in the adopted budget.
FINANCING
The District’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and legal
limitations on revenue increases. The MSR found the District has managed to provide adequate
service levels within these resource constraints. The District reported that the current level of
BY BURR CONSULTING A-221
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
financing is adequate to deliver services “based on anticipated cash flows and scheduled rate
increases for the next ten years.”283
The District’s primary financial accounts are two enterprise funds for water and sewer services,
as well as a general fund for fire, park, drainage, and street lighting services.
The District received $10.8 million in operating and non-operating revenues in FY 05-06.
Primary revenue sources included development impact fees for park services (28 percent), charges
for water and wastewater services (24 percent), community facilities district property tax assessments
(18 percent), connection and capacity charges for water and wastewater services (14 percent), and
interest income (six percent). The District also received $0.4 million or four percent in property
taxes.
The District levies service charges for water and wastewater which are used to cover the cost of
providing those services. Financing for capital improvements is primarily from development impact
fees, connection fees, and installation, extension and annexation charges. According to the District’s
2004 capital improvement plan, planned capital outlays for water and sewer services, that had not
been completed by the drafting of this report, include $4.1 million for wastewater treatment plant
upgrades and lift station improvements through 2010, $9 million for two new water treatment plants
and a water treatment plant upgrade to be completed by 2010, and $125,000 through 2010 for meter
replacement. Planned capital improvements to fire service facilities through 2011 are expected to
cost a total of $0.7 million and include remodeling the fire station, the addition of temporary
housing, and the purchase of a new fire engine.
At the end of FY 05-06, the District had $1.4 million in long-term debt.284 Of the total debt, 54
percent was for bonds issued by the USDA to finance water treatment facility improvements in
1994, 41 percent for a USDA loan in 2002 to upgrade a water treatment facility, and the remainder
for the lease and purchase of a fire truck scheduled to be paid off by the end of 2008.
By way of financial reserves, the District had unrestricted net assets of $4.7 million in the sewer
and water funds and $3.0 million in the general fund at the end of FY 05-06. This amounted to 100
percent of the District’s annual expenses. The District maintained almost one year of working
capital. The District has no formal policy on target financial reserves.
WATER SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
OPUD provides retail water services to customers in the form of groundwater pumping,
treatment, water quality testing, conveyance, storage, and delivery. These services are provided
283 OPUD, Memorandum from Glen P. Phillips, Office Manager, 3/26/08.
284 The long-term debt reported does not include $7.9 million in certificates of participation which were issued by the Plumas Lake
Community Facility District (CFD). Repayment of the bonds is the responsibility of the CFD; however, OPUD collects the property
taxes and makes payments on behalf of the CFD.
A-222 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
OLIVEHURST PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
through two separate pumping and distribution systems in Plumas Lake and old Olivehurst. The
District served a total of 6,486 connections in 2007 (1,374 in Plumas Lake and 5,472 in Olivehurst).
LOCATION
The District provides domestic water service to all areas within the District bounds. Water
service is not provided outside of the District bounds.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The District operates two separate water systems in the old Olivehurst area and the new Plumas
Lake system. The system in old Olivehurst consists of 10 active wells, three storage tanks, six
pressure vessels for storage, three wellhead treatment systems, and steel pipes. Key water service
infrastructure in Plumas Lake includes two active wells and one standby well, one storage tank, a
treatment plant, and C-900 pipes.
The District’s water supply is provided entirely by the South Yuba Groundwater Basin from 13
wells—10 in Olivehurst and three in Plumas Lake. Water from seven of these wells (1 and 4 in
Plumas Lake and 1, 2, 10, 28, 29, and 30 in Olivehurst) is treated at one of the four treatment
facilities.285 All other wells pump directly into the distribution system during times of high demand,
when the treated wells cannot meet demand.286 The District reported that the untreated wells are a
back-up system and have not been used since upgrades were made to the system in 2006. Well 3, in
Plumas Lake, provides fire flow protection only, and therefore does not require treatment.287 The
total maximum well pumping capacity of both systems is 24,070 gpm, 16,370 gpm in Olivehurst and
7,700 gpm in Plumas Lake. The Department of Public Health (DPH) reported that source capacity
is not a concern in the Plumas Lake area, as maximum day demand in 2005 used only 60 percent of
the system’s capacity. The Olivehurst system has enough source capacity to meet peak demand;
however, providing sufficient treated water to the eastern side of the system has posed a challenge to
the District, as discussed later in this section.
In addition to groundwater supplies, the District has a contract with YCWA for potential future
use of up to 2,700 afa in surface water supplies. The District would have to construct an alternative
diversion facility, which could perhaps be done in conjunction with other water purveyors with
similar surface water contracts with YCWA.
In 2002, DPH identified well contamination vulnerabilities; significant vulnerabilities included
contaminant plumes, underground storage tanks with confirmed leaking, the airport, home
285 Water from wells 1 and 2 in Plumas Lake is treated at the Plumas Lake Water Treatment Plant. Wells 1 and 4 in Olivehurst are
treated by Treatment System 2, wells 10 and 28 are treated by Treatment System 1, and wells 28 and 29 are treated by Treatment
System 3.
286 OPUD, Water Quality Consumer Confidence Report, 2006, p. 1.
287 OPUD, EPANET 2 Model, 2006, p. 2.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-223
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
manufacturing, junk yards, lumber processing, railroad yards, the sewer collection and treatment
system, utility stations, gas stations and septic systems.288
Contaminants are removed by four treatment facilities. The Plumas Lake WTP treatment
process consists of chlorine injection and pressure filtration.289 The three wellhead treatment
facilities in the Olivehurst area have similar systems composed of chlorination, aeration and a sand
filter. With the exception of a few minimal deficiencies noted at the Plumas Lake WTP, DPH
identified the four treatment facilities as being well-operated, monitored and maintained. The
District has plans for three new treatment facilities to be located at Well 3, Well 9 and the northern
Plumas Lake area. Depending on the rate of development, the treatment facilities are anticipated to
be completed by 2009. The wellhead treatment systems, in addition to new wells in north Plumas
Lake, will cost an estimated $13 million. In addition, the District plans to upgrade the south Plumas
Lake treatment plant by 2010 for a further $3 million.290
In recent years, the District has had challenges due to occasional positive tests for coliform, as
well as iron and manganese levels in excess of the secondary MCLs. In 2006, the District failed to
comply with sampling requirements for bacteriological contaminants in January and February, and
DPH issued a citation due to missed samples. In August 2006, the DPH issued a letter with public
notification as a result of two samples which indicated the presence of total coliform bacteria.291 In
May 2007, three routine samples were positive for coliform. All subsequent tests were negative.
The District was operating under an exemption for secondary MCLs for iron and manganese
from 1990 to 2005. In 2005, the District was denied an application to extend the exemption. Due
to the limited availability of treated water meeting iron and manganese MCLs, and two bottlenecks
in the distribution system, sufficient treated water was unable to flow to the eastern areas of the
District along SR 70 and in Johnson Park. As pressure declined on the east side, during times of
high demand, wells without treatment systems would switch on. In October 2006, the District
addressed these issues by completing a one million gallon water storage tank and booster pump
station in the eastern area of the District. In addition, the District added two additional 10-inch
water mains to increase distribution capacity to the east side.292
The District distribution system consists of 46 miles of piping greater than eight inches in
diameter. The distribution system in Plumas Lake was installed between 2003 and 2007. The
system is composed primarily of C-900 piping and a small percentage of ductile iron. The District
recently began a preventative maintenance program for the Plumas Lake system, which includes
regular flushing, largely in the many dead ends of the system. The District reported that the system
is in excellent condition and has no needs or deficiencies.
288 Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Source Assessment, 2002, p. 3.
289 OPUD, EPANET 2 Model, 2006, p. 7.
290 OPUD, Capital Improvement Plan, 2004, p. 5.
291 OPUD, Water Quality Consumer Confidence Report, 2006, p. 4.
292 OPUD, Capital Improvement Plan, 2004, p. 2.
A-224 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
OLIVEHURST PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
The distribution system in old Olivehurst was installed in 1951 and is composed of steel main.
The District flushes dead ends weekly to maintain chlorine levels, flushes the entire system every six
months and turns all valves every six months. According to the capital improvement plan, there are
several thousand feet of steel water main in need of replacement in this system. The District has not
yet identified a timeline for replacement, but anticipates doing so in the next capital improvement
plan after 2010. Other needs include the replacement of 1) four inch mains that do not meet the
required fire flows, 2) the galvanized material on each of the connections which is prone to rotting,
3) sections of main with pinholes, and 4) iron service saddles with bronze saddles to prevent rotting.
Other infrastructure needs include the replacement of approximately 1,000 manual-read meters
installed in 1975 in old Olivehurst that are beyond their useful life and are therefore not being read.
Existing meters are required by the state to be read by 2010. The remaining connections that are
not yet metered must be metered by 2025 to remain in compliance with state regulations. The
District has begun shifting to radio-read meters to minimize reading time and increase efficiency.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-225
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-22-2: OPUD Water Service Profile
Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure
Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s)
Retail Water Direct Groundwater Recharge None
Wholesale Water None Groundwater Extraction Direct
Water Treatment Direct Recycled Water None
Service Area Description
Retail Water Within district boundaries
Wholesale Water None
Recycled Water None
Boundary Area 9.0 sq. miles Population (2000) 10,271
System Overview
Historic Olivehurst:
Average Daily Demand 2.6 mgd Peak Day Demand 6 mgd
Supply 997 mg
South Plumas Lake:
Average Daily Demand 1.2 mgd Peak Day Demand 3.0 mgd
Supply 466 mg
Major Facilities
Facility Name Type Capacity Condition Yr Built
Wellhead System #1 Treatment 4.3 mgd Good 1995
Wellhead System #2 Treatment 3.2 mgd Excellent 2001
Wellhead System #3 Treatment 6.0 mgd Excellent 2007
South Plumas Lake WTP Treatment 8.6 mgd Excellent 2005
LHS Storage Tank Storage 1 mg Excellent 2006
SPL Treatment Plant Tank Storage 2.5 mg Good 2005
Well No. 29 Tank Storage 1.5 mg Excellent 2006
Well No. 30 Tank Storage 0.1 mg Excellent 2006
Other Infrastructure
Reservoirs 0 Storage Capacity (mg) 5.1
Pump Stations 4 Pressure Zones2 2
Production Wells 12 Pipe Miles3 46
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The District identified a need for three new water treatment plants, upgrades to the south Plumas Lake
treatment plant, two water main upgrades to increase distribution capacity to the east side, replacement of
several thousand feet of steel water mains, and replacement of 1,000 water meters in historic Olivehurst.
Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration
Current Practices: The District recently completed an additional water storage tank on the property of
Lindhurst High School through an agreement with the school district. In addition, OPUD participated in
the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan and the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan.
Opportunities: While the District currently relies entirely on groundwater for retail purposes, the District
maintains an agreement with YCWA for 2,700 acre feet annually of surface water from the Feather River.
Should the District choose to begin conjunctive use, further cooperation with YCWA is an option for
regional collaboration.
Notes:
(1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet.
(2) Each of the two systems has a single pressure zone.
(3) Includes pipes of eight inches in diameter and greater.
Continued
A-226 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
OLIVEHURST PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
Water Demand and Supply
Service Connections Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds
Total 5,221 5,221 0
Irrigation/Landscape 0 0 0
Domestic 5,050 5,050 0
Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 171 171 0
Recycled 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0
Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year)1
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Total NP NP 3,430 NP NP NP NP
Residential NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Commercial/Industrial NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Irrigation/Landscape NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Other NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year)
Source Type Average Maximum Safe/Firm
South Yuba Groundwater Basin Groundwater 3,502 NP Unknown
Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year)
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Total 2,880 2,752 3,883 NP NP NP NP
Imported 0 0 0 NP NP NP NP
Groundwater 2,880 2,752 3,883 NP NP NP NP
Surface 0 0 0 NP NP NP NP
Recycled 0 0 0 NP NP NP NP
Conjunctive Use
None
Supply Constraints
There has not been analysis to determine the maximum available water supply from the aquifer. The District
reported that an overdraft of the aquifer occurred in the 1980s; however, water levels have returned to previous
levels.
Drought Supply and Plans
Drought Supply (af) Year 1: NP Year 2: NP Year 3: NP
Significant Droughts 1977, 1990-1992
Storage Practices Storage is for short-term emergencies only.
Drought Plan The District does not have a drought plan. During previous droughts the District
implemented even and odd watering days; however, this practice lead to greater water
demand.
Water Conservation Practices
CUWCC Signatory No
Metering All Plumas Lake conections and 30 percent of the Olivehurst connections are metered.
Conservation Pricing The Plumas Lake system is on a tiered rate by water usage.
Other Practices None
Notes:
(1) The District's computer was stolen with all water demand information. The District only has records for 2001, 2004 and 2005.
Continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-227
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Water Rates and Financing
Domestic Water Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 06-071
Rate Description Consumption2
Residential Flat Monthly: $21.50 12 ccf/month
Metered: Flat Monthly: $15.00, Water Use: $.77 per ccf
Non-Residential
Retail Flat Monthly: $33.00 and up 38 ccf/month
Metered: Flat Monthly: $25.00, Water Use: $.77 per ccf
Industrial Flat Monthly: $210.00 and up 215 ccf/month
Metered: Flat Monthly: $25.00, Water Use: $.77 per ccf
Special Rates
Water rates are the same throughout the District.
Rate-Setting Procedures
Policy Description Service charges are based on a flat rate per residence and metered
water consumption.
Most Recent Rate Change 12/20/07 Frequency of Rate Changes Biennially
Water Development Fees and Requirements
Connection Fee Approach The fee is based on meter size and the location of the subdivision.
Connection Fee Timing Upon building permit approval
Connection Fee Amount (north)3 $5,122/Single Family Unit
Connection Fee Amount (south)4 $2,958/Single Family Unit
Connection Fee Amount (Olivehurst)5 $5,122/Single Family Unit
Land Dedication Requirements Developers are required to build necessary infrastructure and transfer
it to the District.
Water Enterprise Revenues, FY 05-06 Expenditures, FY 05-06
Source Amount % Amount
Total $2,286,129 100% Total $1,488,216
Rates & charges $1,468,018 64% Administration $284,654
Property tax $0 0% O & M $993,402
Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $146,902
Interest $84,559 4% Debt $63,258
Connection Fees $733,552 32% Purchased Water $0
Notes:
(1) Rates include water-related service charges and usage charges, and exclude utility users' taxes.
(2) Water use assumptions by customer type were used to calculate average monthly bills. Assumed use levels are consistent
countywide for comparison purposes.
(3) North refers to the northern portion of the Plumas Lake Specific Plan area, which extends north from Plumas Arboga Road.
(4) The south zone refers to the area within the PLSP area south of Plumas Arboga Road.
(5) Olivehurst refers to the remaining area within OPUD's bounds outside of the PLSP area.
Continued
A-228 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
OLIVEHURST PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
Water Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Indicators
Water Planning Description Planning Horizon
Water Master Plan None NA
UWMP None NA
Capital Improvement Plan 2004 2010
Water Nexus Study - North PLSP 2006 Build-out
Water Nexus Study - South PLSP 2003 Build-out
Water System Study 2003 Build-out
Model of the Water Supply System 2006 Build-out
Plan Item/Element Description
Emergency Notification Plan 2005
Emergency Response Plan None
Service Challenges
All existing meters must be operable and in use by 2010 according to the California Water Code.
Service Adequacy Indicators
Connections/FTE 1 ,740 O&M Cost Ratio1 $247,889
MGD Delivered/FTE 1.3 Distribution Loss Rate 12%
Distribution Breaks & Leaks2 6 Distribution Break Rate3 13
Response Time Policy ASAP Response Time Actual4 Not Tracked
Water Pressure 35+ normal day; 20+ psi fire flow
Drinking Water Quality Regulatory Information5
# Description
Health Violations 4 Exceeded iron and manganese levels (1996-2001),
Coliform (2006)
Monitoring Violations 6 Routine minor monitoring violations for Coliform
and Nitrates
DW Compliance Rate6 99.7%
Employee Indicators
Total Employees (FTEs) 3 Certified as Required? Yes
Notes:
(1) Operations and maintenance costs (exc. purchased water, debt, depreciation) per volume (mgd) delivered.
(2) All breaks and leaks were in the historic Olivehurst system.
(3) Distribution break rate is the number of leaks and pipeline breaks per 100 miles of distribution piping.
(4) OPUD reported that the actual response time depended on the location of the person on call and the severity of the problem.
(5) Violations since 1995, as reported by the U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System.
(6) Drinking water compliance is the percent of time in compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-229
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
WASTEWATER SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
The District provides wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services to 5,221
connections. The District owns and operates a wastewater treatment plant and inspects, cleans and
repairs sewer collection infrastructure in the service area such as pipes, manholes and lift stations.
The District relies on outside contractors for collection system repairs involving digging up
pipes, SCADA technology support and engineering studies.
LOCATION
The District provides wastewater service to all areas within the District bounds. Service is not
provided outside of the District bounds.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Key wastewater infrastructure includes a wastewater treatment plant, a pond, drying beds, 51
miles of sewer pipes greater than eight inches in diameter, and pump stations.
The WWTP consists of a primary clarifier, two aeration basins, two secondary clarifiers, and a
chlorination/dechlorination system. Improvements completed in 2006 included a new pump
station, additional influent and pumping screening capacity, a new grit removal system, two new
oxidation ditches, a new secondary clarifier, equalization basins, tertiary filters, and a UV disinfection
system.293 Treated effluent is directly discharged in the Western Pacific Interceptor Canal. Sludge is
treated by aerobic digestion, dewatered in a pond, dried in drying beds, and disposed off site.294 The
District completed the first of two phases of expansion and upgrade on the WWTP in 2006. The
upgrade improved the treatment level to tertiary standards. The WWTP currently has a permitted
capacity of 3.0 mgd average dry weather flow (ADWF).
A gravity sewer system cannot be used in Plumas Lake due to the flat nature of the terrain;
consequently, the master trunk sewer layout consists of a backbone sewer force main system and
several sewer pump stations. The District indicated that the collection system is aged and undersized
in some areas in old Olivehurst and is in need of improvement or replacement. The District reports
that it is evaluating the collection system to identify which portions have the most critical need for
replacement, and will include those in the next update to the capital improvement plan after 2010.
This evaluation is expected to be completed as part of the Sewer System Management Plan.
Other wastewater infrastructure needs identified in the District’s capital improvement plan
include a lift station odor control bed, which the District installed in FY 07-08.
293 CVRWQCB, Order No. R5-2004-0094, 2004, p. 3.
294 Ibid, p. 5.
A-230 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
OLIVEHURST PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
The District plans to accommodate future development with further plant expansions. Under
the District’s NPDES permit, the District is permitted to expand the plant a second time to a
capacity of 5.1 mgd ADWF. The District reported that it plans to initiate the one-year expansion
project once development needs warrant it. The District does not anticipate beginning the
expansion until after 2012. The second phase will also include an upgrade of the solids treatment
process. The WWTP site can accommodate further expansion up to 8.0 mgd, without the
acquisition of additional land.295 Projected demand within the District’s SOI at build-out of the
Plumas Lake Specific Plan (5.0 - 6.5 mgd),296 North Arboga Study Area (1.2 - 1.45 mgd), in addition
to Olivehurst existing demand (0.9 mgd),297 is approximately 7.1 - 8.85 mgd ADWF. Projected
demand at build-out of the existing service area is comparable to or possibly greater than the
maximum capacity of the current WWTP site.
295 Interview with Tim Shaw, General Manager, OPUD, February 6, 2008.
296 The lower estimate is based on the assumption of 300 gallons per dwelling unit daily. The source for the higher estimate is Yuba
County’s 1992 Plumas Lake Specific Plan (p. 73), which assumes 400 gallons per dwelling unit daily.
297 Based on OPUD flow in 1992, as reported in the Plumas Lake Specific Plan p. 72.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-231
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-22-3: OPUD Wastewater Service Profile
Wastewater Service Configuration and Demand
Service Configuration
Service Type Service Provider(s)
Wastewater Collection Direct
Wastewater Treatment Direct
Wastewater Disposal Direct
Recycled Water None distributed
Onsite Septic Systems in Service Area
Less than one percent of properties rely on septic systems.
Septic Regulatory/Policies
The County requires all new construction (in a city, town, sanitary district, or sewer maintenance district) to
connect to a sewer system when available. When septic systems fail, the County Department of
Environmental Health may compel connection to a district system if available.
Service Demand 2007
Connections2 Flow (mgd)
Outside
Type Total Bounds Average Peak
Total 5,221 0 1.5 8 .0
Residential 5,050 0 NP NA
Commercial and Industrial 171 0 NP NA
Projected Demand
2007 2010 2015 2020 Build-out
Flow (mgd) 1.51 NP NP NP NP
Note:
(1) NA: Not Applicable; NP: Not Provided.
(2) Based on the number of water connections.
Continued
A-232 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
OLIVEHURST PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
Wastewater Infrastructure
Wastewater Treatment & Disposal Infrastructure
System Overview
Treatment level: Tertiary
Disposal method: Direct discharge into the Western Pacific Interceptor Canal
Facility Name Capacity Condition Yr Built1
OPUD Wastewater Treatment Plant 3.0 mgd Excellent 2006
Treatment Plant Daily Flow Average Dry Peak Wet
OPUD WWTP 1.53 8.0
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
OPUD plans to expand its WWTP capacity to 5.1 mgd in phase 2 of its expansion effort once development occurs
and additional capacity is needed.
Wastewater Collection & Distribution Infrastructure
Collection & Distribution Infrastructure
Sewer Pipe Miles2 51 Sewage Lift Stations 18
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The District reported that the collection system is aged and undersized in some areas in old Olivehurst and is in
need of improvement or replacement. The system was not well-designed for the flat terrain, and has an infiltration
and inflow problem. Specific needs will be documented once OPUD completes a baseline CCTV assessment of the
old Olivehurst collection system in FY 08-09. OPUD has budgeted $0.3 million annually for capital replacement.
OPUD needs emergency backup generators for lift stations, and plans to buy them in FY 07-08.
Infiltration and Inflow
In the old Olivehurst area, there are peak flows related to poor original design of the collection system, flat terrain,
and limitations of the drainage system. Stormwater has backed up into residents' yards throughout Olivehurst for
years. OPUD suspects residents drain their yards by pulling the lids on their sewer clean-outs.
Wastewater Regional Collaboration and Facility Sharing
Regional Collaboration
The District participated in the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Facility Sharing Opportunities
The District is not presently practicing any facility sharing with other service providers and did not identify
opportunities for facility sharing in the future.
Notes:
(1) The District completed major renovations to the existing WWTP in 2006. The date the original plant was built is unknown.
(2) Mileage of pipes of eight inches in diameter or greater.
Continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-233
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Wastewater Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning
Sewage Spills/Overflows1
Date Spill Site Cause Gallons Contained?
None
Service Adequacy Indicators
OES Reported Spills 0 Sewer Overflows 2007 4
Treatment Effectiveness Rate 100% Sewer Overflow Rate2 8
Total Employees (FTEs) 5 Response Time Policy3 ASAP
Employees Certified? Yes Response Time Actual 45 minutes
Regulatory Compliance Record
OPUD has attained full compliance with the NPDES permit, according to RWQCB. OPUD has been operating under
a Cease and Desist Order (Order No. R5-2004-0095), as the previous treatment plant could not meet effluent
limitations in the new NPDES permit (Order No. R5-2004-0094) for, among others, aluminum, iron, manganese,
nitrates, and nitrites. The Cease and Desist Order outlined requirements to minimize exceedances of the effluent
limitations prior to coming into compliance as a result of the construction of the expanded and updated plant.
According to the Cease and Desist Order, the District was required to achieve full compliance with NPDES effluent
limitations by November 30, 2007. RWQCB indicated in March 2008 that it anticipated rescinding the Cease and
Desist order in the near future. In October 2007, the District was cited by the RWQCB for 45 violations of effluent
limitations in 2006, which occurred during expansion of the WWTP. The District may face fines as a result of these
violations.
Source Control and Pollution Prevention Practices
Upon connection, new users must disclose pollutant load information. OPUD imposes requirements related to
monitoring, plumbing, and shut-off policy. OPUD reported that it is developing a pre-treatment ordinance for
implementation in FY 08-09.
Collection System Inspection Practices
OPUD retains an outside service to spot-check problem areas. In the Spring of 2008, OPUD plans to begin a
baseline CCTV assessment of the old Olivehurst collection system. The CCTV baseline is anticipated to be completed
by FY 08-09. After completing the baseline assessment, OPUD plans to conduct CCTV assessment on 20 percent of
its system annually.
Service Challenges
1) Inadequate drainage infrastructure increases peak wastewater flows
2) In certain areas, the use of lard for cooking leads to grease build-up
3) Handling peak flows contributed by an aged collection system
4) Ratepayers have misperceptions that rate increases are for funding new development rather than the actual purpose
of funding deferred maintenance, preventive maintenance and minimal reserves.
Wastewater Planning
Plan Description Planning Horizon
Plumas Lake Specific Plan Sewer Study 2000 Build-out
North & Central Plumas Lake Sewer Study 2003 Build-out
Capital Improvement Plan 2004 2010
Sewer Capacity Charge Report - North PLSP 2006 Build-out
Sewer Nexus Study - South PLSP 2003 Build-out
Plan Item/Element Description
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Plan Sanitary Sewer Overflow Procedures (undated)
Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (planned by Aug. 9, 2009)
Seismic/Emergency Plan None
Wet Weather Flow Capacity Plan None
Notes:
(1) Includes sewage spills/overflows reported to the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services between
2000 and 2005.
(2) Sewer overflows (excluding those caused by customers) per 100 miles of collection piping.
(3) Agency policy, guidelines or goals for response time between service call and clearing the blockage.
A-234 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
OLIVEHURST PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
Wastewater Rates and Financing
Wastewater Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 07-081
Avg. Monthly
Rate Description Charges
Residential Flat Charge $24.00
Non-Residential Flat charge based on assigned equivelant $24.00 per EDU
dwelling units according to estimated
wastewater discharge.
Rate Zones
Wastewater rates are the same throughout the District.
Rate-Setting Procedures
Policy Description: The District conducts rate studies, conducts outreach with ratepayers and holds
public hearings to adopt rate changes. The District plans a 4% rate increase in
January 2009 and again in January 2010. Prior to 2008, sewer rates were last increased
in 2005.
Last Rate Change 12/20/2007 Frequency of Rate Changes Annual (in future)
Wastewater Development Fees and Requirements
Connection Fee Approach The fee is based on proposed land use and location of the subdivision.
Connection Fee Timing Upon building permit issuance.
Connection Fee Amount (north)1 Residential:2 $2,034
Connection Fee Amount (south)3 Residential: $1,854
Connection Fee Amount (Olivehurst) Residential: $1,772
Land Dedication Requirements Developers are required to build necessary infrastructure and transfer it to the
District.
Development Impact Fee $6,291/single family dwelling unit for WWTP capacity
Wastewater Enterprise Revenues, FY05-06 Expenditures, FY 05-06
Source Amount % Amount
Total $2,279,634 100% Total $1,751,915
Rates & Charges $1,115,927 49% Administration $234,769
Property Tax and Assessments $0 0% O & M $899,352
Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $607,106
Interest $416,162 18% Debt $0
Connection Fees $747,545 33% Capital Expenditures4 $0
Loan Proceeds $0 0% Other $10,688
Notes:
(1) North refers to the northern portion of the Plumas Lake Specific Plan area, which extends north from Plumas Arboga Road.
(2) Connection fee amount is calculated for a single-family home.
(3) The south zone refers to the area within the PLSP area south of Plumas Arboga Road.
(4) Capital expenditures not reported in the sewer enterprise fund.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-235
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
FIRE SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
OPUD provides fire prevention and suppression (structural, vehicle, and vegetation fires), Basic
Life Support (BLS) for medical emergencies, rescue, hazardous materials response, fire investigation,
education, and burning permit services.
Fire prevention services include pre-fire planning, public education, and school and business
inspections. Education programs offered by the District include tours for pre-school children and
the Fire Explorer program designed to keep teenagers out of gangs. The District also participates in
the Yuba County Code Enforcement Team, which mitigates uninhabitable properties and has
established an arson investigation team.
OPUD provides BLS until Bi-County Ambulance, a privately-owned ambulance company,
arrives to perform Advanced Life Support and provide ambulance transport services.
The District protects approximately 3,500 residential structures, 11 multi-family apartment
complexes, 10 schools, the airport and approximately 70 commercial businesses among others.298
The fire department is staffed by a chief, four captains, an administrative assistant, a
seasonal/temporary firefighter, and 20 call firefighters who are paid per call received. This staffing
level allows the District to provide continuous staffing of the station. The District plans to increase
the staffing level to enable the station to be staffed by two full-time personnel per shift by 2009.
Training is held regularly for required certifications for call and full-time firefighters. In
addition, the department holds bi-weekly training for all personnel for a minimum of three hours
each session and each shift is required to hold two hours of training daily for all full-time personnel.
Dispatch Services
All 911 calls made from land lines are automatically routed to the Yuba County Sheriff. Radio
dispatch services are provided by Sheriff Dispatch for OPUD; hence, Yuba County is the Public
Safety Answering Point. Once the Sheriff dispatcher determines a call requires fire department
response, full-time staff is dispatched and call personnel are notified through pagers. For medical
emergencies, the Sheriff calls Bi-County Ambulance and the company dispatches the nearest
ambulance.
Calls to 911 from cellular phones are initially routed to the California Highway Patrol (CHP).
CHP relays the call to Yuba County Sheriff, and dispatching follows the protocol discussed above.
298 OPUD, Development Impact Fee Study, 2007, p. 7.
A-236 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
OLIVEHURST PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
LOCATION
OPUD provides fire protection services in its original 1949 response and protection area (4.1
square miles), including Olivehurst, the Yuba County Airport, and a portion of the North Arboga
Study Area, while LFPD provides fire services to the remainder of the area within OPUD’s
boundaries. This service arrangement is based on an informal agreement reached in 1989 between
the former fire chiefs of OPUD, LFPD and PBFPD.299 OPUD’s fire service area extends beyond
the District’s boundaries that have been approved by LAFCO between Karen Way and Aspen Way
on the east side of SR 70.
The District reported that it is frequently called upon to provide service within the PBFPD
boundaries, due to proximity to the area south of McGowan Parkway, east of Rancho Road and
south along SR 65 to Forty Mile Road. In addition, the District also responds within the LFPD
boundaries to the area along Arboga Road from Furneaux Road south to Plumas-Arboga Road.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The District currently operates out of a single fire station, comprised of multiple buildings that
were originally built in 1949. The buildings were originally used to provide all District services;
however, the facility is now dedicated to fire services. In 1963, two additional bays were added, and
in 2007, the main office building and living quarters were upgraded to comply with OSHA
standards. With these upgrades and improvements, the District considers the facilities to be in fair
to good condition; however, in order to enhance efficiency the District plans to replace the station
with a single facility by 2012.300 The new station will house all fire offices, living quarters, a training
room, apparatus and maintenance bays, and an additional office for a law enforcement substation.
Land for the proposed station has been donated to the District. The total cost of the new station
had not yet been determined.
The District also indicated a need for an additional station near the corner of Rancho Road and
McGowan Parkway to keep response times between three and five minutes. Current response times
in that area are approximately seven minutes. There is no timeline for construction of this station.
The District provides services with three engines, one truck, two brush trucks, a chief’s vehicle, a
truck, an air unit, a utility vehicle, and a mass casualty incident trailer. Four vehicles were replaced
between 2004 and 2007. The District reported that all apparatus and equipment meet or exceed all
National Fire Protection Association Standards, and there are no vehicle needs at this time. A new
Type 1 Engine is anticipated to be purchased in FY 10-11 for approximately $0.4 million.301
The District identified several dispatching needs to improve service call efficiency by reducing
radio traffic and giving scene information to personnel through the installation of mobile data
terminals in each unit and teletype printers in each station. A timeline for these improvements has
not yet been established and a funding source has not yet been identified.
299 OPUD response to RFI II, May 23, 2007.
300 Ibid.
301 OPUD, Development Impact Fee Study, 2007, p. 16.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-237
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-22-4: OPUD Fire Service Profile
Fire Service
Service Configuration Service Demand
Fire Suppression Direct Statistical Base Year 2006
EMS Direct Total Service Calls 1,263
Ambulance Transport Bi-County % EMS 76.3%
Hazardous Materials Marysville FD (CDF) % Fire 10.8%
Air Rescue & Ambulance Helicopter CDF % False Alarm 5.6%
Fire Suppression Helicopter CDF % Fire & False Alarm 16.4%
Public Safety Answering Point Yuba County Sheriff % Other 7.3%
Fire/EMS Dispatch Yuba County Sheriff Calls per 1,000 people1 128
Service Adequacy Resources
ISO Rating Class 3 Fire Stations in District 1
Median Response Time 4:24 Fire Stations Serving District 1
90th Percentile Response Time 7:00 Sq. Miles per Station 4.1
Response Time Base Year 2006 Total Staff 27
Training Total Full-time Sworn Staff 6
Total On-call Sworn Staff 20
Volunteers must attend an 80-hour probationary training class and be
Sworn Staff per Station2 26
CPR/first aid certified. Full-time firefighters must have the following
certifications: Firefighter I, EMT 1, Firefighter II (within two years of hiring), Sworn Staff per 1,0003 3
Class B drivers license, Penal Code #832, and Apparatus Operator I. Full-time Sworn Staff per 1,000 0.6
Service Challenges Staffing Base Year 2007
The District reports that there are no areas within bounds that are a challenge Fire Flow Water Reserves 3.5 mg
to serve. Fire Flow Pressure4 1,000+ gpm
Facilities
Station Location Condition Staff per Shift Apparatus
OPUD Fire 1962 9th Ave. Fair Two during daytime Engine 312 (1997)
Station hours (full-time Engine 311 (2004)
firefighters), four during Engine 314 (1966/88)
evening hours (one full- Truck 317 (1993)
time firefighter and Brush 326 (1989)
three call firefighters) Brush 315 (2004)
Chief 300 (2005)
Utility 310 (1995)
Air 1 (2002)
MCI 1 (2003)
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
The fire department identified a need to replace the current facility in the next five years. The new facility will house all
necessary apparatus, offices, living quarters, training space, and a law enforcement subsatation.
Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Mutual/Automatic Aid Providers
Current Practices: The District is participating in the Yuba County Multi- Wheatland Fire Authority, Yuba City FD,
Hazard Mitigation Plan. Linda FPD, Marysville FD, Beale AFB
Opportunities: The District plans to provide space for the Sheriff's Office for a
law enforcment substation in the proposed replacement station.
Notes:
(1) Service call ratio based on 2000 Census population.
(2) Based on ratio of sworn staff to the number of stations.
(3) Sworn staff ratio based on 2000 Census population.
(4) The District reported that the water distribution system is undergoing upgrades and most areas can maintain at least 1,000 gpm in
residential areas and 3,000 gpm in commercial areas.
A-238 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
OLIVEHURST PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
DRAINAGE
NATURE AND EXTENT
CALTRANS transferred maintenance services of Johnson Ditch to OPUD in 1970. The
District has provided occasional maintenance services since then. The ditch was last maintained in
2004.
LOCATION
Drainage services are only provided to Johnson Ditch, which lies entirely within the District’s
boundaries.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The District maintains 2,100 feet of Johnson Ditch, which is located to the east of SR 70
adjacent to Lindhurst High School. The District owns the portion of the ditch, according to County
records; however there are no records of how the District came into possession of it.302 The ditch
collects stormwater runoff from SR 70, as well as runoff from Johnson Park.
302 OPUD, Memorandum from John Tilotsin, PE, Director of Public Works, 3/26/08.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-239
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
PARKS & RECREATION SERVICES
NATURE AND EXTENT
OPUD maintains and operates district-owned public parks and recreation centers. District staff
directly provides park maintenance services. The District provides recreation services in the form of
swimming lessons, facility rentals, and space at the Youth Center. Space at the Youth Center is
available to community groups interested in providing youth-oriented programs. In 2008,
cheerleader training was the only recreation program offered at the center.
LOCATION
Park services are provided at 15 sites within the District’s boundaries. All parks are available for
use by residents and non-residents without fees. Recreational activities are provided at a youth
center and a swimming pool. Both residents and non-residents may use recreation services and
facilities for the same fee.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The District’s park and recreation infrastructure includes 13 public parks, a youth center, and a
swimming pool.
The District maintains a more than 41 acres of developed park space. Of the 13 parks owned by
the District, 12 are neighborhood parks and one is a community park. A majority of the parks were
described as being in good or excellent condition with very few needs, as eight of the 13 parks were
constructed after 2004. The District reported that Olivehurst Community Park and Tahiti Village
Park are in need of improved drainage and the Lindhurst Memorial Park sprinkler system needs to
be automated.
Each district-owned park provides various forms of recreation equipment. Facilities available at
the parks includes playground equipment for youth and toddlers, picnic tables, BBQ grills, open area
for sports, basketball courts, and walking trails. The community park has a swimming pool, which is
open to the public for a fee. The swimming pool is generally in good condition, but requires regular
resurfacing of the fiber glass as it bubbles. In the summer of 2007, there were 8,226 visits to the
swimming pool.
The portion of the youth center available for community usage consists of a large hall, two
restrooms, and a kitchen. The center is in good condition.
The District is planning for 38 additional parks, which would add 133 acres in the various
planned and proposed subdivisions in Plumas Lake and North Arboga. New parks will be
constructed by the respective developer and transferred to OPUD for maintenance once completed
to specifications. There are no plans to construct new parks in the Olivehurst area.
A-240 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
OLIVEHURST PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
Table A-22-5: OPUD Park Service Profile
Park and Recreation Service Configuration
Service Configuration
Park Maintenance Direct Local Parks 13
Recreation Direct Recreation and Senior Centers 1
Marina None Golf Courses 0
Service Demand
Park Frequent Visitor Population1 Park Visitors per Year Not Tracked
Children 3,184 Annual Recreation Participants2 ~100
Seniors 1,089
Service Adequacy FY 05-06
Park Acres per Capita3 3.3 Recreation Center Hours per Week NA4
Park Maintenance FTE 4.2 Recreation FTE per 1,000 Residents5 0.2
Recreation FTE 1.6 Maintenance Cost per Acre FY 05-06 $3,939
Service Challenges
The District had financing challenges in 1994 which limited park maintenance; however, this budgetary problem
has since been rectified.
Park Planning Description Planning Horizon
Park Master Plan 2005 Plumas Lake/North Arboga Ongoing review
Developer Fees and Requirements
Development Impact Fee
Developers are required to either construct or fund park facilities. Fees are
Approach
dependent on the amount and type of park space needed as determined in the
Park Master Plan.
Land Dedication Requirement 5 acres per 1,000 people
In-Lieu Fees Fees are dependent upon the cost of acquiring the necessary park acreage.
Notes:
(1) From 2000 Census numbers, children are classified as aged 18 and under, senior residents are aged 65 and over.
(2) Partcipants enrolled in District swimming lessons in 2007.
(3) Developed park acreage per 1,000 residents according to the 2000 Census.
(4) The Youth Center is not open to the public during scheduled hours. The space is available to interested community groups for youth
related activities.
(5) Total recreation full-time equivalent staff per 1,000 residents according to the 2000 Census.
Continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-241
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Park and Recreation Facilities
Park Acreage
Total 41.1 School Parks 0
Local Parks 41.1 Regional Parks 0
Recreation Facilities and Parks
Name Location Condition Year Built Acres
Olivehurst Community Park Powerline Road between 9th and 10th Fair 1950's 7
Ave.
Youth Center 1960 9th Ave. Good 1980 NA
Swimming Pool Powerline Road between 9th and 10th Good 1959 NA
Ave.
Lindhurst Memorial Park McGowan Pwy & Olivehurst Ave. Good 1994 2.7
River Park Missour Bar and Canyon Creek Excellent 2004 1.0
Orchard Glen Park Bridgeport Way & Golden Gate Dr. Excellent 2004 1.3
Chestnut Park Chestnut Road Good 1982 0.5
Johnson Park Evelyn Drive Good 1980's 0.8
Eufay Wood Sr. Park Rio Del Oro Subdivision Excellent 2007 11.5
Donald Brown Park Zanes Dr. and Dark Horse Dr. Excellent 2007 2.4
Bill Pinkerton Park Hidden Creek & Knight Ferry Excellent 2007 2.8
Rolling Hills Park Wilcox Ranch Rd. & Lidenmeir Dr. Excellent 2004 2.5
River Glen Park Olivehurst Ave. Excellent 2006 1.1
Veterans Park Plumas Lake Cobblestone Excellent 2007 4.6
Tahiti Village Park Biglow Dr. & Maplehurst St. Good 1960's 3.0
Facility Needs/Deficiencies
Park facility needs reported by the District include improved drainage at the Olivehurst Community Park and
Tahiti Village Park, automation of the sprinkler system at the Lindhurst Memorial Park, and regular resurfacing
of the pool's fiberglass.
Facility Sharing
OPUD is involved in discussions with the County, the City of Marysville, and the City of Wheatland to discuss a
regional parks authority to develop and maintain parks with regional appeal. The County proposes that the
authority be formed as an independent special district. In addition, the District has developed a joint use
agreement with Cobblestone Elementary for Veterans Park, which is anticipated to be completed by Spring
2008. The District will own the park and the school will use and maintain it during school hours. The District
has similar plans for three additional parks located adjacent to schools, according to the Park Master Plan.
A-242 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
PEORIA CEMETERY DISTRICT
23. P E O R I A C E M E T E RY D I S T R I C T
The Peoria Cemetery District (PCD) provides cemetery operations and maintenance services to
the communities of Loma Rica and Browns Valley.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
PCD was formed on December 20, 1943 as an independent special district.303 The District was
formed to provide cemetery services and maintenance to the communities of Loma Rica and
Browns Valley.
The principal act that governs the district is Public Cemetery District Law.304 The principal act
authorizes the district to own, operate, improve, and maintain cemeteries, provide interment services
within its boundaries, and to sell interment accessories and replacement objects (e.g., burial vaults,
liners, and flower vases). Although the district may require and regulate monuments or markers, it is
precluded from selling them. The principal act requires the district to maintain cemeteries owned by
the district.305 The law allows the district to inter non-residents under certain circumstances.306
Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those
services authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.307
The District’s boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The boundaries of PCD extend from
the vicinity of Lake Collins in the northeast to the District 10-Hallwood area in the southeast, and
south from the Yuba-Butte county line to just north of the community of Browns Valley, as shown
on Map B-23. The District has a boundary area of approximately 85 square miles. There have been
no annexations to the District since formation.
An annexable SOI for PCD was adopted in 1986, to include two areas adjacent to the District
bounds.308 One sphere area is at the southwest of the District, and consists of the District 10-
Hallwood Community Services District area, and the other is at the northeast of the District in the
303 Board of Equalization Official Date.
304 California Health and Safety Code §9000-9093.
305 California Health and Safety Code §9040.
306 Non-residents eligible for interment are described in California Health and Safety Code §9061, and include former residents,
current and former taxpayers, family members of residents and former residents, family members of those already buried in the
cemetery, those without other cemetery alternatives within 15 miles of their residence, and those who died while serving in the
military.
307 Government Code §56824.10.
308 LAFCO resolution 1986-58.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-243
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
area between PCD and Keystone Cemetery District. There have been no amendments to the SOI
since adoption.
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The district has a three-member governing body. The Trustees are appointed by the County
Board of Supervisors to staggered four-year terms. Current Trustees are Ray Bradley (Chair), Nancy
Houser and Bob Sutton.
District meetings are held quarterly. Board meeting agendas are posted at the cemetery at least
72 hours in advance of meetings. The District does not have a website, so its documents are not
available online.
The District demonstrated full accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation
with LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with
LAFCO’s request for interviews and documents.
Complaints can be submitted through phone calls, letters and in-person, and are reviewed by the
Board. The District does not officially track the number of complaints, but estimates that three
were received from 2004-7. Complaints pertained to the lack of a restroom facility, that grass in the
cemetery was growing too tall, and that a van had been parked outside of the cemetery for an
extended period of time. The District reports that these complaints were resolved by renting a
portable outhouse, increasing the frequency of grass mowing and instructing the owner of the
vehicle to park elsewhere.
The District does not conduct community outreach activities.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The area within the District’s bounds is largely rural residential and agricultural. Business activity
in the District includes medical and veterinary practices, a land surveying company, a supply store,
and a boat dealership.
The District considers its customer base to be the residents of the District. There were 3,631
residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. The District’s population
density is 43 per square mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Significant population growth is anticipated in the future if development in Spring Valley is
approved. The County adopted a specific plan for the area in 1992, which can accommodate up to
3,500 dwelling units and 27.5 acres of commercial land spread over 2,450 acres at build-out. A
development agreement was approved in 1996 between the County and the developer, Axel
Karlshoej. The developer was in the process of negotiating with Browns Valley Irrigation District
for water service and anticipated submitting a tentative map to the County after approaching the
community in Summer 2008, at the time this report was prepared.
In addition, Foster Development Group has proposed an equestrian ranch project that would
include 300 additional homes on two-acre parcels across 1,500 acres in the northeast of the District.
A-244 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
PEORIA CEMETERY DISTRICT
The plan also calls for a 1,000-acre conservation easement.309 The developer was in the CEQA
process as of early 2008.
The District reports that if the Spring Valley project is built there will be excess demand for
cemetery services, and that Yuba County should incorporate cemetery needs into its planning efforts
for the development.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies.
MANAGEMENT
The District employs a part-time secretary (approximately 15 hours per week) and cemetery
groundskeeper (approximately 20 hours per week). The secretary reports directly to the Board. The
Chairman of the Board owns a business next-door to the cemetery, so he is closely involved with the
workload of the groundskeeper, and monitors productivity and performance routinely. The District
evaluates the performance of the secretary at quarterly meetings.
No strategic or capital improvement plans have been adopted by the District. Capital
improvement items are addressed as needed in the District’s budget. The FY 07-08 budget for PCD
contains a tree fund (the District reports that a tree fell in the cemetery and funds were needed for
its removal), a headstone fund, and an equipment and maintenance fund (the District is planning on
purchasing a new riding mower).
The District’s financial planning efforts include annually audited financial statements and an
annually adopted budget. The most recent financial statement provided was FY 04-05.
FINANCING
The District’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and legal
limitations on revenue increases. The MSR found the District has managed to provide adequate
service levels within these resource constraints.
Table A-23-1: PCD Plot and Endowment Fees
Resident
Table A-23-1 shows the plot and endowment fees
charged by PCD. The District reports that it does not Plot Reservation Fee $10
have a non-resident fee, as all burial services have been to Endowment Fee (Full Body) $72
District residents. The District reports that it is looking Endowment Fee (Cremains) $20
into establishing a non-resident fee, as of March 2008. According to the Health and Safety Code
§9068, the nonresident fee shall be set “at an amount that at least equals the amount of fees charged
to residents or taxpayers and shall include a nonresident fee of at least 15 percent of that amount.”
The District received $26,809 in total revenues in FY 04-05. PCD relies primarily on property
taxes, consisting of 89 percent of revenues. There were no revenues from charges for service
reported in FY 04-05. Expenses in FY 04-05 were $24,377.
309 Appeal Democrat, “Hills Residences Proposed: North Yuba Eyed for Equestrian-Based Community,” 2007.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-245
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The District’s unreserved fund balance at the end of FY 04-05 was $93,226. This amounted to
382 percent of the District’s expenses in FY 04-05. The District has no formal policy on target
financial reserves.
According to the Health and Safety Code §8725, cemetery authorities must establish, operate
and maintain an endowment care fund. Fund monies are received through sale of cemetery
property and land and must be placed in a trust account for perpetual care of the cemetery. The
principal must be invested, and only the income from the investment may be used for care,
maintenance and embellishment of the cemetery. In FY 04-05 PCD earned $678 from endowment
fees and $300 from interest income, yielding a fund balance of $16,969 in the endowment care fund.
PCD had no long-term debt or bonded debt at the end of FY 04-05.
CEMETERY SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
PCD provides operation and professional maintenance services to the Peoria Cemetery.
Routine maintenance activities include weekly mowing (in the summer months) and weed
abatement. Operational services include the sales and staking of interment plots. Burial services
such as the opening and closing of grave sites, casket lowering and headstone setting are provided by
the mortuary of the customer’s choice.
The District reports that there were 48 burials from 2004-7, including nine in 2004, 19 in 2005,
eight in 2006, and 12 in 2007. The District reports that the cemetery is currently two-thirds full,
with approximately 1,100 plots occupied, 1,023 plots reserved and approximately 1,200 plots
available for purchase.
LOCATION
The District is authorized to provide burial plots to residents and certain non-residents, as
described in the Principal Act. The District reports that it has not provided burial services to non-
residents.
The Peoria Cemetery (also called Peoria Memorial Park) is located at 6240 Marysville Road in
the community of Browns Valley. The facility is open to the public 24-hours a day. Neighboring
cemetery service providers include the Browns Valley Cemetery District and the Keystone Cemetery
District.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The District reports that Peoria Cemetery is one of the oldest cemeteries in California. The
earliest known burial in Peoria Cemetery is from 1867, although the District has other records that
show burials as early as 1807. The land for the cemetery was officially given to Yuba County in
1944 by G.J. and Ruth Schell.
A-246 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
PEORIA CEMETERY DISTRICT
The District’s key infrastructure includes the 3.5-acre cemetery facility, and 1.5 acres of
undeveloped land adjacent to the cemetery. The District also owns a tool shed that is located on-
site. Equipment owned by the District for maintenance of the cemetery includes a lawn mower,
weed eater and chemical sprayer. Other equipment owned by the District includes a marking chain,
flags (the American flag and a POW/MIA flag) and miscellaneous irrigation infrastructure.
The District reports that it is in need of a new mower, and is planning on purchasing one in FY
07-08. No infrastructure improvements or needs were identified.
The LAFCO site visit did not identify any major maintenance needs or infrastructure
deficiencies. Routine maintenance needs identified were the cleanup of branches that had fallen
from nearby trees, although generally the cemetery appeared clean and well-maintained. One
suggested infrastructure improvement would be to pave the gravel automobile path within the
cemetery.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-247
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
24. P LU M A S - B RO P H Y F I R E
P RO T E C T I O N D I S T R I C T
The Plumas Brophy Fire Protection District (PBFPD) provides fire protection and emergency
medical services.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
PBFPD was formed on September 17, 1951 as an independent special district. 310 The district
was formed to provide fire protection services south of Erle Road and Beale AFB in the north, east
of the Western Pacific Railroad to the western Camp Far West area, north of the Bear River.
The principal act that governs the District is the Fire Protection District Law of 1987.311 The
principal act empowers fire districts to provide fire protection, rescue, emergency medical,
hazardous material response, ambulance, and any other services relating to the protection of lives
and property.312 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in
other words, those services authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end
of 2000.313
The District’s boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The PBFPD boundary extends north to
Erle Road in the northwest and to the southern boundary of Beale AFB in the northeast, west to the
Western Pacific Railroad and SR 70 in the northwest, south to the Yuba-Sutter and Yuba-Placer
county lines, and east to the Yuba-Nevada county line, as shown on Map B-24. Most of the City of
Wheatland is excluded from the District, although recent annexations to the City remain within
PBFPD bounds. The District has a boundary area of 80.1 square miles. The communities of
Ostrom and Camp Far West are within the bounds.
The District’s SOI includes only a small portion of the boundary area—the eastern Camp Far
West area and a parcel in the south of the City of Wheatland. Most of the area within District
bounds is not within the existing SOI.
310 Board of Equalization Official Date.
311 Health and Safety Code §13800-13970.
312 Health and Safety Code §13862.
313 Government Code §56824.10.
A-248 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
PLUMAS-BROPHY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
Boundary History
The original 1951 boundary encompassed much of today’s District boundary. The eastern
Camp Far West area (up to the Yuba-Nevada County line) was subsequently annexed. Various areas
subsequently annexed to the City of Wheatland were detached from PBFPD, including an area
between SRs 65 and 70, currently served by OPUD.
From 1959-64 there are nine actions recorded by the Board of Equalization that detached areas
from PBFPD due to their annexation to the City of Wheatland. From 1972-90 there are five actions
listed by the Board of Equalization that detached areas from PBFPD due to their annexation to the
City of Wheatland.
Other than boundary changes due to annexations to Wheatland, the PBFPD boundary has been
changed on four occasions. In 1965, the area between SRs 65 and 70, north and south of McGowan
Parkway, was detached from PBFPD because these areas are served by OPUD.314 In 1968, LAFCO
approved the Ostrom Acres detachment from PBFPD, which removed an area from the District
adjacent to the OPUD area removed in 1965.315 In 2003, LAFCO approved the 6,800 acre
annexation of the eastern Camp Far West area, extending the district boundary to the Yuba-Nevada
County line.316 In 2001, LAFCO approved the 63-acre Trivest annexation, southwest of SR 65 in
the area of the Yuba-Placer County line,317 even though this area was already in bounds.318
LAFCO adopted the SOI on July 9, 1986, to include most of the Camp Far West area but
excluded the rest of the District’s boundary area, apparently due to an oversight.319 LAFCO
amended the SOI on November 9, 1994, to include all of the Camp Far West area up to the Yuba-
Nevada County line.320 On December 12, 2001, LAFCO amended the SOI to include 63 acres of
land for the Trivest annexation southwest of SR 65.321
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District has a three-member governing body. Board members are elected at large to
staggered four-year terms. Current board members are Dan Bradshaw (Chairman), Joel Garcia and
Al Lassaga. The Board meets on the second Thursday of every month.
314 BOE Change Number 90A.
315 LAFCO resolution 1968-1.
316 LAFCO resolution 1994-8.
317 LAFCO resolution 2001-2.
318 Based on map and legal description attached to BOE Change Number 30, and the map and legal description attached to LAFCO
resolution 1966-1.
319 LAFCO resolution 1986-45.
320 LAFCO resolution 1994-7.
321 LAFCO resolution 2001-1.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-249
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Board meeting agendas and minutes are posted in front of Station #1, 72 hours prior to the
meeting. Minutes are posted in the same location. The District does not have a website, so its
documents are not available online.
There have been no contested elections in the District for over a decade.
The district demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with
LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with LAFCO
map inquiries and document and interview requests.
With regard to customer service, the District stated that it had not received any complaints in
the last 20 years. Complaints may be submitted through phone calls, email, letters and in-person at
the Board meetings. Complaints are reviewed by the Board.
The District provides constituent outreach by providing fire prevention education in local
schools and hazardous material awareness education to the community.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The District bounds encompass a wide range of land uses including agriculture, residential, the
Sleep Train amphitheater, a portion of Beale AFB and a landfill. Local business activities include
farming operations, retail, entertainment, and Beale AFB.
The District considers its customer base to be all commercial, residential, industrial, and public
structures within the district boundaries. Records from the County Assessor’s office are used to
determine the quantity and location of structures within the service area. The District did not
provide a count of structures served.
There were 2,512 residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. The
District’s population density is 31 per square mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
The District has experienced limited growth to date. Areas adjacent to the District, such as the
City of Wheatland and Plumas Lake, have experienced recent growth and urban development.
Significant growth is anticipated within the District in the next several years as planned
developments begin construction north of the City of Wheatland and in the northwest corner of the
District. Planned developments in the District include Magnolia Ranch, Feather Creek and
Chippewa.
The Magnolia Ranch development, by Montna Farms, is a 1,028-acre project located northeast
of SR 65, along South Beale Road, south of Ostrom Road. The development will contain 5,000
residential units, along with over 40 acres of neighborhood commercial zoned land. In addition,
over 165 acres will consist of a business park and light industrial center, located in the northeast of
the development at the intersection of South Beale and Ostrom Roads.
Feather Creek is a 700-acre proposed project located southwest of SR 65, east of Forty Mile
Road. Sage Community Group proposes to develop 2,945 housing units, a 20-acre school site, 151
acres of open space and parks, and a four-acre neighborhood commercial site for a possible store
and a gas station. The developer has proposed a specific plan, and related CEQA documentation is
expected to be released for public review in 2008.
A-250 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
PLUMAS-BROPHY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
The Chippewa plan, by RAH Development, is a 368-acre development located to the immediate
southeast of the Woodbury specific plan, east of the SR 65 and 70 intersection. The development
will contain nearly 1,400 residential units. The developers have not indicated that the development
will be zoned for any commercial activity.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies.
MANAGEMENT
PBFPD is managed by the fire chief with the City of Wheatland through the Wheatland Fire
Authority (WFA), a Joint Powers Authority comprised of the District and the City. Onsite full-time
staffing during business hours is provided by a paid firefighter and the fire chief. The paid
firefighter and the fire chief staff the two PBFPD stations and the City of Wheatland station on a
rotating schedule, with a majority of their time spent at the Wheatland station. All other personnel
are WFA call firefighters and provide on-call support.
The paid firefighter reports daily to the WFA Chief on the status of facilities, staff and
equipment. Verbal performance evaluations of the paid firefighter are performed monthly by the
Chief. The Chief’s goal is to conduct annual performance reviews of call personnel.
WFA evaluates its own performance and monitors productivity on a daily basis by documenting
calls, response times and equipment checks. Improvements are made based on needs identified in
these records.
WFA management practices include benchmarking efforts. The WFA conducts regular
comparisons of itself with other districts of similar geographic size and population based on
response times, training, age of equipment, staffing levels and finances.
The District has not adopted a mission statement, a strategic plan or a capital improvement plan.
PBFPD does adopt an annual budget for financial planning purposes. PBFPD has not had a
financial audit performed by an independent auditor in the last five years.
The District is a recipient of an annual appreciation award from Beale AFB for participation in
the Base’s fire protection week.
FINANCING
The District’s financial ability to provide services is constrained. The District has managed to
provide a service level of one paid staff person staffing three stations operated by Wheatland Fire
Authority (WFA) during daytime hours on week days (when call firefighters are less abundant). A
newly imposed assessment has allowed the WFA to double its paid staffing level such that two staff
now man the three stations during daytime hours.
The District operates two funds—a general fund and a special revenue fund strictly for fire-
related development impact fees. According to the District, the special revenue fund is not currently
active and has a cash balance of $17,399.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-251
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The District received $204,921 in FY 05-06. Property taxes comprised 52 percent of revenues.
Other primary revenue sources were Proposition 172 funds (27 percent) and fire mitigation fees (12
percent). Proposition 172 funds are distributed on the basis of service calls to PBFPD, LFPD,
OPUD and SFPD; because the PBFPD boundary overlaps the City of Wheatland, PBFPD is
credited for service calls in the City as well. A special benefit assessment of $45 per housing unit
was imposed in July 2006 in both the PBFPD and City territory; the assessment increases annually
with the Consumer Price Index. The assessment revenue is expected to generate approximately
$100,000 annually based on existing development, and to grow as the area develops.
PBFPD had no long-term debt or bonded debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The PBFPD adopted budget for FY 06-07 indicated no capital outlays for the year.
By way of financial reserves, the District had a cash balance of $134,895 at the end of FY 05-06.
This amounted to 87 percent of the District’s annual expenses. The District maintained
approximately 10 months of working capital. The District has no formal policy on target financial
reserves.
The District engages in joint financing arrangements with the City of Wheatland for the
Wheatland Fire Authority. According to the Joint Powers Agreement, the District contributes 50.7
percent of WFA expenses under the approved budget. Neither PBFPD nor the City is required to
contribute more than the base year contribution adjusted by the Consumer Price Index for inflation.
During the first full fiscal year (FY 06-07) of WFA operation, the District contributed $80,003 (as
required by contract) and an additional $45,000 to cover unanticipated costs. The WFA FY 07-08
budget anticipated PBFPD would contribute $175,000 (66 percent of WFA revenue) and the City of
Wheatland would contribute $90,000, in addition to the assessment revenue.
FIRE SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
As of January 1, 2006, PBFPD provides all fire related services through the Wheatland Fire
Authority. WFA makes use of all PBFPD and City of Wheatland facilities and equipment; however,
the District maintains ownership of all facilities and equipment owned prior to the agreement. The
Chief, full-time paid firefighter, and call firefighters are employed and managed by WFA.322
WFA provides fire suppression and prevention, Basic Life Support (BLS) for medical
emergencies, rescue, fire inspection, and education services. Fire suppression and protection
services include structural, vehicle and vegetation fires. WFA provides BLS until Bi-County
Ambulance, a privately owned ambulance company, arrives to perform Advanced Life Support and
provide ambulance transport services. WFA has technical expertise in confined space, low and high
angle, and trench rescues. Educational services include fire prevention instruction in local schools
and a hazardous materials awareness program.
322 Wheatland Fire Authority Joint Powers Agreement, 2006.
A-252 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
PLUMAS-BROPHY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
Dispatch Services
All 911 calls made from land lines are automatically routed to the Yuba County Sheriff. Radio
dispatch services are provided by Sheriff Dispatch for the Wheatland Fire Authority; hence, Yuba
County is the Public Safety Answering Point. Once the County Sheriff dispatcher determines a call
requires fire department response, call personnel and the paid staff are dispatched through pagers.
For medical emergencies, the Sheriff calls Bi-County Ambulance and the company dispatches the
nearest ambulance.
Calls to 911 from cellular phones are initially routed to the California Highway Patrol (CHP). If
the call is north of the Bear River, then it is routed to Chico CHP. If the call if placed south of the
Bear River, it is routed to Sacramento CHP. CHP relays the call to Yuba County Sheriff, and
dispatching follows the protocol discussed above.
LOCATION
WFA provides service to all areas within PBFPD (which includes small portions of Placer and
Sutter County) and City of Wheatland bounds. Due to proximity, mutual aid is often provided
outside of district bounds to the Olivehurst Fire Department service area and California Department
of Forestry and Fire Protection in Sheridan (Placer County).
INFRASTRUCTURE
The District owns two fire stations—Station 1 on Dairy Road and Station 2 on Erick Lane.
Both stations are used for operations, equipment storage, and training. The fire chief and paid
firefighter staff both PBFPD stations and the Wheatland station between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday
to Friday.
Vehicles at Station 1 include four engines and one tender. The station is an old barrack acquired
from Beale AFB about 40 years ago. It is still in good condition; however the District has identified
a need to replace this station due to increased service demand from planned development. Station 2
houses two engines and one tender. It was built about 20 years ago and is in good condition. The
District did not identify any facility improvement needs at Station 2. The District noted that 75
percent of the vehicles and equipment needs to be replaced due to old age, but they are limited by
financial constraints.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-253
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-24-1: PBFPD Fire Service Profile
Fire Service
Service Configuration Service Demand
Fire Suppression WFA Statistical Base Year 2006
EMS WFA Total Service Calls1 262
Ambulance Transport Bi-County % EMS 38.2%
Hazardous Materials Marysville Fire Dept. % Fire 33.2%
Air Rescue & Ambulance Helicopter CDF % Mutual Aid 9.2%
Fire Suppression Helicopter CDF % Vehicle Accident 21.0%
Public Safety Answering Point Yuba County Sheriff % Other 7.6%
Fire/EMS Dispatch Yuba County Sheriff Calls per 1,000 people 104
Service Adequacy Resources
ISO Rating Class 6/9 Fire Stations in District 2
Median Response Time2 7:00 Fire Stations Serving District 3
90th Percentile Response Time 14:00 Sq. Miles per Station 40
Response Time Base Year 2006 Total Staff3 15
Training Total Full-time Sworn Staff 0.6
Training is held 48 hours annually towards Volunteer Firefighter I Total On-call Sworn Staff 14
Certification—11 volunteers have received certification. Sworn Staff per Station4 5
Sworn Staff per 1,0005 6
Full-time Sworn Staff per 1,000 0.2
Service Challenges Staffing Base Year FY 07-08
The District indicated response time challenges due to the size of the Fire Flow Water Reserves 68,000 g
district when responding to Highway 70 and Camp Far West. Fire Flow Pressure6 NP
Facilities
Station Location Condition Staff per Shift Apparatus
Station 4514 Dairy Rd Fair 2 staff per business 4 Engines
No. 1 weekday shift rotated 1 Tender
among the 3 WFA
stations
Station 2499 Eric Lane Good 2 staff per business 2 Engines
No. 2 weekday shift rotated 1 Tender
among the 3 WFA
stations
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
The District identified a need to replace Station 1 due to increased service demand and limited storage capacity—the
Station is unable to store modern apparatuses. The District noted that 75 percent of the vehicles and equipment needs to
be replaced due to old age.
Regional Collaboration Mutual/Automatic Aid Providers
The District is a partner with the City of Wheatland in the Wheatland Fire Linda FPD, Olivehurst FD,
Authority—a joint powers authority formed to provide fire protection and CDF, Beale AFB
EMS related services to the District and City.
Notes:
(1) Calls within the District's boundaries.
(2) Response times are for the PBFPD area only.
(3) While all WFA staff serve the three authority-operated stations, PBFPD full-time staff based on the ratio of time the WFA chief
and captain spend at the PBFPD stations. PBFPD call firefighter staffing based on the ratio of service calls within PBFPD bounds.
(4) Based on ratio of sworn staff to the number of stations. Actual staffing levels of each station vary.
(5) Sworn staff ratio based on 2006 DOF population of Wheatland and 2000 Census population of the PBFPD bounds.
(6) There are no District policies on water pressure to be maintained. All hydrants are gravity fed, and there are no pumps.
A-254 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
RAMIREZ WATER DISTRICT
25. R A M I R E Z WAT E R D I S T R I C T
The Ramirez Water District (RWD) provides retail water delivery for agricultural irrigation.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
RWD was formed on January 21, 1963 as an independent special district.323 The District was
formed to provide water for irrigation and wildlife habitat to the northwest portion of the County,
north of Ramirez Road along the Western Pacific and Southern Pacific railroads.
The principal act that governs the District is the California Water District law.324 The act
empowers water districts to produce, store, transmit and distribute water for irrigation, domestic,
industrial, and municipal purposes and to provide related drainage services. Districts must apply and
obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those services authorized by
the principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.325
The District is multi-county with Yuba being the principal county. The boundaries of RWD
extend east from the Western Pacific Railroad to Ramirez Road in the east and south, as shown on
Map B-25. The northern boundary of the District extends into Butte County, in the community of
Honcut. The District has a total boundary area of approximately 9.2 square miles.
The SOI for RWD, which was adopted in 1987, is coterminous with the boundaries of the
District following the Ahart detachment.326 There have been no amendments to the SOI since its
adoption.
Boundary History
The LAFCO record for RWD consists of three major detachments.
• In 1979, the Honcut Creek Users detachment occurred, removing nine parcels (over 1,800
acres) in the vicinity of Ramirez Road in the east of the District.327 LAFCO immediately
annexed all nine parcels into Browns Valley Irrigation District (BVID) by resolution 1979-11
(the Honcut Creek Users annexation).
323 LAFCO, 1986.
324 California Water Code §34000-38501.
325 Government Code §56824.10.
326 LAFCO resolution 1987-6.
327 LAFCO resolution 1979-10.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-255
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
• In 1982, a seven-parcel detachment removed over 1,300 acres from the southeast of the
District.328 LAFCO immediately annexed all seven parcels into Cordua Irrigation District
(CID) by resolution 1982-4.
• The last recorded boundary change for RWD is the 1987 Ahart detachment, which removed
approximately 289 acres from the east of the District, south of Fruitland Road.329
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District has a five-member governing body. Board members are to be elected by the
landowners in two divisions within the District. Each landowner may cast one vote per acre. One
division represents 40 percent of the acreage within the District and therefore elects two
representatives. The other division represents 60 percent of the acreage within the District and
elects three representatives. In practice, the board member positions are typically uncontested, and
the Board of Supervisors appoints the candidates. Board members serve staggered four-year terms.
Current board members are James Vantress (President), J.F. Brust, James Hill, David Honeyman,
and Richard Markstein.
The Board meets quarterly at a minimum; occasionally, additional meetings are held based on
need. The time and date of meetings varies according to coordination among the board members.
Meetings are held at the YCWA office in Marysville. Board meeting agendas are posted at the
YCWA office. Minutes are available at the next meeting and upon request. The District does not
have a website, so its documents are not available online.
All elections for governing body members since 1995 have been uncontested. Since there have
been no contested elections in recent history, landowners in the district have not participated in
elections and voter turnout rates are unavailable.
The District demonstrated partial accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation
with LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with
LAFCO map inquiries and document requests. The District did not provide the water rates, a copy
of the groundwater management plan and the length of the distribution system.
With regard to customer service, complaints most often relate to water rates. Complaints can be
submitted through phone calls, email, letters and in-person to a board member. Complaints are
reviewed by the Board at the next meeting. Service related complaints are directed to the ditch
tender for resolution. The District does not track the number of complaints, but estimates that
approximately three were received in 2006.
The District updates the 10 landowners through an annual meeting to discuss any relevant
issues. The District does not conduct other outreach, but indicated that should the need arise,
landowners are could be informed through letters or public notices in the newspaper.
328 LAFCO resolution 1982-3.
329 LAFCO resolution 1987-7.
A-256 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
RAMIREZ WATER DISTRICT
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The land within the District is largely rural residential and agricultural. The principal business
activity is rice farming. The District considers its customer base to be the landowners and reported
that there were 10 landowners in the District as of 2008.
There were 12 residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. The
District’s population density is approximately one per square mile, compared with the countywide
density of 114.
There has been no growth or development within the District in recent years; although, the
District has experienced an increased demand for service. In 2007, the District began service to an
additional 100 acres of farmland within bounds. The area is largely zoned for 80-acre parcels, which
limits any major development. There are no planned or proposed developments within the
District’s boundaries.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies.
MANAGEMENT
The District employs a full-time ditch tender, as well as a secretary and legal counsel through
contract. All employees report to the Board at monthly meetings.
District management practices include annual evaluations of employees when reviewing salary
and contract terms. The District does not have an adopted evaluation process to review overall
District operations; however, it reported assessing safety issues and financial stability on an as-
needed basis. The District monitors productivity and tracks workload by recording groundwater
levels and the volume of water provided on a monthly basis. The District performs occasional
benchmarking through water rate comparisons with other providers.
With the exception of a groundwater management plan, the District does not conduct formal
planning efforts, and has no adopted master plan. The District did not provide a copy of the
groundwater management plan. The District has participated in regional plans, including the Yuba
Accord and the IRWMP.
District financial planning efforts include annual audits and an annually adopted budget. The
District had not yet approved the CY 08 budget as of the drafting of this report. The District does
not have an adopted CIP, but plans for capital improvements on an annual basis in the budget.
FINANCING
The District reported that the current financing level is adequate to deliver services.
The District tracks its financing through a single enterprise fund.
The District received $487,544 in CY 06. Revenues were primarily from irrigation water sales.
The District does not receive revenue from property taxes.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-257
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
In the same CY, the District had expenditures of $579,482—exceeding revenues by $91,937.
CY 2006 was extraordinary, as the District was renegotiating its water service contract with CID and
there were significant legal costs that year. Expenditures have not exceeded revenues in other years.
The District had $63,508 in long-term debt at the end of CY 06. The long-term debt consisted
of two notes payable to YCWA. The primary purpose of the notes payable was to fund pumping
plant improvements, including installation of a variable speed motor to enhance water conservation.
According to the District’s budget, there are no significant planned capital expenditures for CY
08. All capital expenditures are financed by water rates.
By way of financial reserves, the District had an unreserved cash balance of $88,861 at the end
of CY 06. This amounted to 15 percent of the District’s annual expenses. The District maintained
approximately 2 months of working capital. The District has no formal policy on target financial
reserves.
WATER SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
RWD distributes irrigation water to landowners and monitors groundwater levels on a monthly
basis. District users all rely on a system of canals and ditches for water delivery, with water flowing
from the Yuba River diversion point through the Cordua/Hallwood Canal within Hallwood
Irrigation Company and CID boundaries and delivered to RWD at three locations. RWD repairs
and monitors the ditch system within its boundaries. RWD does not provide water treatment
services.
LOCATION
The District provides services within bounds, and does not provide services outside of bounds.
The District does not provide service to a single 5-acre lot with a home within District bounds.
Approximately 4,600 acres in the 5,874-acre boundary area rely on surface water.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The RWD principal water source is the Yuba River. The water supply is primarily influenced by
snowpack. RWD received water from CID from 1978 to 1992. Since 1992, the District has
received contract water from YCWA. RWD has rights to Yuba River surface water through a base
contract with YCWA for 14,790 af and a supplemental contract for 10,311 af. The contract water
may be diverted for use from April to October. Groundwater is plentiful in portions of the RWD
service area, and is used in areas not presently served by surface water and as a supplemental supply
in areas receiving surface water. The precise amount of groundwater used was not available from
the District.
The Cordua/Hallwood Canal diverts water from the Yuba River at the Daguerre Point Dam,
which then flows through the Hallwood Irrigation Company service area and into the CID
boundaries. CID then diverts necessary water to its distribution ditches and the remainder flows to
A-258 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
RAMIREZ WATER DISTRICT
Ramirez Water District at three delivery points for use. Ramirez Water District reimburses CID for
conveyance of the water.
Key infrastructure within the District consists of an earthen ditch system and two pump stations.
The District did not provide the length of the ditch system. The District did not identify any needs
or deficiencies in the ditch and canal system. New pumps were installed at both pump station
locations in 2007 and are in excellent condition.
The District has made strides toward water conservation through its recycling system; the
District did not report when the system was installed. Irrigation drainage is collected in recycling
ponds for reuse. In addition, the District has installed variable speed motors on the two pumps,
which reduces waste by supplying the necessary amount of water.
Table A-25-1: RWD Water Service Profile
Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure
Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s)
Retail Water Direct Groundwater Recharge None
Wholesale Water None Groundwater Extraction Private landowners
Water Treatment None Recycled Water None
Service Area Description
Retail Water The boundaries of RWD extend east from the Western Pacific Railroad to Ramirez
Road in the east and south and extends north into Butte County, in the community of
Honcut.
Wholesale Water None
Recycled Water None
Boundary Area 9.2 sq. miles Population (2000) 12
System Overview
Average Daily Demand 14.15 mgd Peak Day Demand2 36.67 mgd
Supply 25,101 af
Infrastructure
Reservoirs 0 Storage Capacity (mg) 0
Pump Stations 2 Pressure Zones 0
Production Wells 0 Pipe Miles 0
Other: Earthen lateral ditch distribution system, siphons, check structures
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
None identified
Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration
Current Practices: The District receives water from CID's canal system through a wheeling agreement.
Opportunities: Future groundwater pumping and conjunctive use projects would be implemented by YCWA and
its member units to provide water transfers to areas outside Yuba County.
Notes:
(1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet.
(2) Peak day demand based on average daily demand in the peak month in 2005.
Continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-259
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Water Demand and Supply
Service Connections1 Total Within Bounds Outside Bounds
Total 10 10 0
Irrigation/Landscape 10 10 0
Domestic 0 0 0
Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year)
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Total 15,373 21,866 15,850 NP NP NP NP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Commercial/Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Irrigation/Landscape 10,787 15,609 12,580 NP NP NP NP
Other2 4,586 6,257 3,270 NP NP NP NP
Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year)
Source Type Average Maximum Safe/Firm
Yuba River surface 17,696 25,101 Unknown
Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year)
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Total 25,101 25,101 25,101 NP NP NP NP
Imported 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Groundwater3 0 0 0 NP NP NP NP
Surface 25,101 25,101 25,101 NP NP NP NP
Recycled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Conjunctive Use
RWD does not actively conduct conjunctive use operations. Future conjunctive use will be funded by YCWA
water transfer revenues associated with the Lower Yuba River Accord.
Supply Constraints
RWD has rights to Yuba River surface water through a base contract with YCWA for 14,790 af and a
supplemental contract for 10,311 af. Precipitation and irrigation water percolate into the groundwater basin with
average annual recharge of the entire North Yuba Basin estimated at 11,000 af annually.
Drought Supply and Plans
Drought Supply (af) Year 1: NP Year 2: NP Year 3: NP
Significant Droughts 1976, 1977 and 1987 through 1991, 1993
Storage Practices Surface water accumulates in Bullards Bar Reservoir, and is made available as needed by
YCWA during the year.
Drought Plan Although never invoked, the YCWA drought plan calls for 15% curtailments when the
flow forecast as of April 1 is 51-85% of normal levels, and 30% curtailments when the
flow is 40-50% of normal levels.
Water Conservation Practices
CUWCC Signatory No
Metering No
Conservation Pricing None, rate structure is flat.
Other Practices Drainage from irrigation is collected in recycling ponds and reused. The pumps have
variable speed motors so that the amount pumped is dependent on demand.
Notes:
(1) In lieu of the number of connections served, the District provided the number of landowners served.
(2) Other water demand is water fowl habitat, as reported by YCWA.
(3) The District does not pump groundwater. All wells are privately owned by farmers.
Continued
A-260 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
RAMIREZ WATER DISTRICT
Water Rates and Financing
Agricultural & Irrigation Water Rates-Ongoing Charges CY 07
Crop Rate Description
Rice NP
Other and Winter NP
Ponds NP
Special Rates
Water rates are the same throughout the District.
Rate-Setting Procedures
Policy Description Service charges are imposed on a cost-of-service basis.
Most Recent Rate Change 2007 Frequency of Rate Changes Annually
Water Development Fees and Requirements
Connection Fee Approach The District does not charge to connect to the system.
Connection Fee Timing Prior to connection.
Water Enterprise Revenues, CY 06 Expenditures, CY 06
Source Amount % Amount
Total $487,544 100% Total $579,482
Rates & charges $486,760 100% Administration $195,214
Property tax $0 0% O & M $186,624
Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $24,461
Interest $184 0% Debt $699
Misc. - Settlement $600 0% Purchased Water $173,183
Notes:
(1) Rates include water-related service charges and usage charges, and exclude utility users' taxes.
Continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-261
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Water Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Indicators
Water Planning Description Date/Status
Groundwater Management Plan NP 2004
Water Master Plan None
UWMP None, not required
Capital Improvement Plan None
Plan Item/Element Description
Emergency Plan The District did not have an emergency plan, as of the drafting of this
report; however, the District indicated that it was in the process of
developing one.
Other Plans
None
Service Challenges
The District did not identify any challenges to providing services.
Service Adequacy Indicators
Connections/FTE 10.0 O&M Cost Ratio1 $13,189
MGD Delivered/FTE 14.1 Distribution Loss Rate ~5%
Employee Indicators
Total Employees (FTEs) 1.0 Certified as Required? Not required
Notes:
(1) Operations and maintenance costs (exc. purchased water, debt, depreciation) per volume (mgd) delivered.
A-262 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
RECLAMATION DISTRICT 10
26. R E C L A M AT I O N D I S T R I C T 1 0
The Reclamation District (RD) 10 provides maintenance services to state-owned levees, as well
as internal drainage facilities.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
RD 10 was formed in May 1913 as an independent special district.330 The District was formed to
provide levee construction and maintenance along the Feather River, north of the City of Marysville.
The principal act that governs the District is the Reclamation District Act.331 The principal act
empowers RDs to 1) construct, maintain and operate levees, pumping plants, canals, and other
diversion and irrigation infrastructure,332 2) acquire, maintain and operate irrigation systems (dams,
diversion works, canals, pumps) and supply irrigation water to lands within and contiguous to
district bounds,333 3) construct, maintain, and operate transportation (i.e., roads, bridges, and ferry
boats) for access to district facilities and land in the district bounds,334 and 4) retain an agricultural
expert to advise landowners.335 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent
powers or, in other words, those services authorized by the principal act but not provided by the
district by December 31, 2000.336
The District’s boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The boundaries of RD 10 generally
consists of the area within the levees extending north from the City of Marysville to just south of the
Yuba-Butte county line, and west of the Western Pacific Railroad, as shown on Map B-26. The
District has a boundary area of approximately 17.6 square miles. There have been no annexations to
the District since formation.
330 California Department of Public Works, Financial and General Data Pertaining to Irrigation, Reclamation and other Public Districts in
California, Bulletin No. 37, 1930, p. 143.
331 California Water Code, Division 15, §50000-53903.
332 California Water Code §50932.
333 California Water Code §50910.
334 California Water Code §50933.
335 California Water Code §50952.
336 Government Code §56824.10.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-263
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The SOI for RD 10 was adopted in 1988 to be coterminous with the boundaries of the
District.337 There have been no amendments to the SOI since its adoption.
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District has a three-member governing body. Board members are to be elected by
landowners within the District; however, the board member positions are typically uncontested, and
the Board of Supervisors appoints the candidates. Board members serve staggered four-year terms.
Current board members are Tom Schultz (Chair), Sard Johl and Finley Williams.
The Board meets a minimum of once a month on the second Tuesday; however, additional
meetings are necessary at times. Board meeting agendas are posted in front of the meeting location,
on the County website, at the post office, library, and occasionally in the Appeal-Democrat. Minutes
are available upon request. The District does not have a website, so its documents are not available
online.
All elections for governing body members since 1995 have been uncontested. Since there have
been no contested elections in recent history, landowners in the District have not participated in
elections and voter turnout rates are unavailable.
The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with
LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with LAFCO
map inquiries and document requests.
With regard to customer service, complaints most often relate to levee maintenance activities
such as smoke during vegetation burning. Complaints may be submitted through phone calls, email,
letters and in-person to the Board. Most often constituents will call a board member, and the Board
will meet with the landowner to resolve the issue. The District does not track the number of
complaints, but estimates that two were received in 2007.
The District updates constituents through four community outreach meetings annually. The
meetings are used to educate landowners on current issues, such as the proposal for an increased
assessment.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The District considers its customer base to be the landowners in the District. There are
approximately 454 residences, 144 parcels dedicated to agricultural purposes and 17 commercial or
industrial parcels.
There were 1,260 residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. The
District’s population density is 71.6 per square mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
The District reported that there has been limited growth within the boundaries. There are no
planned or proposed developments within the District. The area is zoned primarily for agricultural
337 LAFCO resolution 1988-1.
A-264 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
RECLAMATION DISTRICT 10
uses with 40-acre lots; consequently, the District indicated that while there is occasional interest by
developers, significant growth is not anticipated in the near future.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies.
MANAGEMENT
The District does not have paid staff. A majority of levee maintenance activities are performed
by volunteers (local landowners). Volunteers are reimbursed for equipment usage. The District
occasionally contracts out for significant maintenance needs.
The District performs regular safety evaluations of the levees, while the District’s maintenance
performance is monitored by DWR through biannual levee inspections. Other management
practices include monthly reports by board members at board meetings regarding levee maintenance
activities.
The District has not adopted a master plan or any other such planning document. To date, the
District has used the DWR inspection reports to inform needs and deficiencies of the levees. The
District is in the process of proposing a special benefit assessment. As part of that process, the
District is funding a nexus study to determine needs and the minimal assessment to fulfill those
needs.
The District adopts a budget annually. Capital improvement planning is done on an annual basis
as part of the budget. The District does not perform routine audits of its finances.
FINANCING
The District’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and legal
limitations on revenue increases. RD 10 has an unacceptable levee maintenance record. The
District subsists on property tax revenues, and has not imposed assessments. RD 10 is evaluating
imposition of assessments to increase service levels, with YCWA funding for the related study.
Additional capital financing would be needed to improve the levees in order to support urban
development within the protected area.
As the District did not provide a financial statement, finance data is from the State Controller’s
Special District Annual Report for FY 05-06.
Revenues in FY 05-06 totaled $18,892. Primary revenue sources were property taxes (92
percent) and interest (six percent).
The District had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
District’s planned capital expenditures include $7,000 for levee maintenance in FY 07-08. The
District does not plan to complete any major capital improvements in that time frame.
The District did not report its unrestricted net assets at the end of FY 05-06. The District does
not have a policy on the amount of reserves maintained for contingencies.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-265
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The District approved a special benefit assessment in June 2008 to increase revenues and enable
the District to 1) hire a full-time maintenance supervisor, 2) create a storage unit for equipment
and/or district office, and 3) qualify for matching fund grants. The District received a $50,000 grant
from YCWA to finance the nexus study and public outreach. It is projected that the proposed
assessment will gross $100,000 annually.
The District does not engage in any joint financing arrangements.
RECLAMATION SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
RD 10 provides levee maintenance on state-owned levees. The District conducts vegetation
removal, weed abatement and vector (squirrel) control, grading, and upkeep of access roads as part
of its levee maintenance work. The District is also responsible for flood fighting and levee patrol
during high water events.
LOCATION
The District provides levee maintenance services only within District bounds.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Key infrastructure owned or maintained by the District includes 22 miles of levees, and a truck
and tractor. The District does not have an office or storage facility. Equipment is stored by local
businesses.
The District maintains approximately 22 miles of Sacramento River Flood Project levees—11.2
miles along the east bank of the Feather River, three miles along the southern bank of Honcut
Creek, and 7.7 miles along north bank of Simmerly Slough and the west side of the Western Pacific
Railroad. The levees form a ring around the District.
The levees were originally constructed in the early 1900s by farmers in the area. Subsequent
improvements have been made on an as-needed basis. The levees are composed of a combination
of loam and sand; however, the exact composition is unknown until the DWR boring analysis is
completed.
Since District formation, there has been one recorded failure of District-maintained levees in
1937. A high water event in 1955 brought water to the top of the levees, and in 1986 and 1997, the
District added pumps to the south end of the District to pump internal stormwater over the
levees.338 During a high-water event in 2006, approximately 150 feet of the levee along Simmerly
Slough at LM 1.17 eroded and required immediate repair due to the severity of the damage. The
338 Yuba County, Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan – Annex H, 2007, p. 14.
A-266 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
RECLAMATION DISTRICT 10
repair cost approximately $500,000 and was funded by PL 84-99 funds (designated for emergency
management activities) issued by the Army Corps of Engineers.
A majority of the District lies outside a 100-year flood plain, but within a 500-year flood plain.
A small portion of the District along Simmerly Slough is within a 100-year flood plain (along Ames
and Doc Adams roads, south of South Roberta Way). FEMA is in the process of updating the
Flood Insurance Rate Map for the area. The level of flood protection provided by the levees will be
determined by the DWR boring analysis.
DWR inspects maintenance practices and observable levee conditions twice annually. DWR
found no critical erosion sites, potentially critical erosion sites or major maintenance deficiencies in
RD 10 in 2005.339 RD 10 levee overall maintenance has been rated as compliant with federal and
state standards from 1996 to 2004. In 2005, District maintenance was rated as needing
improvement on rodent control and compliant with federal regulations in all other categories:
readiness for flood emergency, section and grade, encroachment control, vegetation control, gate
repair, rock revetment condition, crown and roadway condition, livestock control, pipe condition,
and repairing cracks, erosion and caving. The 2006 inspection rated the District as marginally
satisfactory in vegetation control and crown surfacing on a portion of the Simmerly Slough levee
and satisfactory in vegetation and animal control on the remainder of the levees. DWR
implemented a more rigorous evaluation process in 2007; RD 10 was rated unacceptable due to
vegetation, animal control and encroachments on its levees.
DWR is in the planning stages of a new and more in-depth levee integrity evaluation process.
Levee integrity information will be more comprehensive in future MSR reports as a result of these
efforts. DWR has not yet developed a timeline for completion of the geotechnical analysis of RD
10 levees but anticipates initiating the analysis sometime in 2009.
The District identified the following levee needs and deficiencies:
• Mitigation of occasional under seepage during high-water events,
• Additional gravel on levee crowns to maintain safe levee patrols during high water, and340
• Grading of the levee sides.
The District does not currently share facilities with any other agencies. The District identified
the possibility of increased efficiencies and decreased costs by sharing levee maintenance workers
and equipment with neighboring reclamation districts.
Service challenges reported by the District include ensuring adequate financing to maintain
levees, limited volunteer time for maintenance activities, landowners piling brush against the levees
and limiting access, and garbage dumping along the levees.
339 DWR Division of Flood Management, 2005 Inspection & Integrity Report, February 2006.
340 Yuba County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Outreach Meeting, January 31, 2006, p. 2.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-267
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
27. R E C L A M AT I O N D I S T R I C T 7 8 4
Reclamation District 784 provides maintenance services to state-owned levees, as well as internal
drainage facilities.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
Reclamation District (RD) 784 was originally formed on May 6, 1908 as an independent special
district. The District was formed to provide internal drainage and protection from flood waters.
The principal act that governs the District is the Reclamation District Act.341 The principal act
empowers RDs to 1) construct, maintain and operate levees, pumping plants, canals, and other
diversion and irrigation infrastructure,342 2) acquire, maintain and operate irrigation systems (dams,
diversion works, canals, pumps) and supply irrigation water to lands within and contiguous to
district bounds,343 3) construct, maintain, and operate transportation (i.e., roads, bridges, and ferry
boats) for access to district facilities and land in the district bounds,344 and 4) retain an agricultural
expert to advise landowners.345 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent
powers or, in other words, those services authorized by the principal act but not provided by the
district by the end of 2000.346
The District’s boundary is primarily within Yuba County, but also extends into Sutter County in
limited areas on the eastern bank of the Feather River, as shown in Map B-27. Yuba is the principal
county and Yuba LAFCO has jurisdiction.
The boundary area extends north to the Yuba River southern levee, west to the inside of the
Feather River levee (i.e., the levee toe), south to the inside of the Bear River levee, and east to the
community of Linda in the northeast, the old Western Pacific Railroad in the central portion, and
beyond SR 70 in the southeast. There are four holes in the District north of Plumas Arboga Road in
the eastern area of the District. The boundaries encompass approximately 33 square miles.
According to the LAFCO record, no SOI has been established for the District.
341 California Water Code, Division 15, §50000-53903.
342 California Water Code §50932.
343 California Water Code §50910.
344 California Water Code §50933.
345 California Water Code §50952.
346 Government Code §56824.10.
A-268 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
RECLAMATION DISTRICT 784
Boundary History
There have been four annexations to the District bounds since 1994. In 2004, the
Thoroughbred Acres annexation added 111 acres to the District east of Arboga Road and south of
McGowan Parkway, and the Feather Glen annexation added 129 acres east of Arboga Road and
north of Plumas Arboga Road.347 In 2006, the Pheasant Pointe annexation added 29 acres to the
District south of 11th Avenue at the intersection of Arboga Road and Skyway Drive, and the
Hansen Ranch annexation added 13 acres east of Arboga Road, west of the old Western Pacific
Railroad, in the vicinity of the Feather Glen annexation.348 In 2007, the Valley Development
annexation added nearly two acres adjacent to Arboga Road and McGowan Parkway in
Olivehurst.349
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District is governed by a five-member board. Board members serve staggered four-year
terms. The principal act provides for board members to be elected by the landowners. Votes are
proportional to the assessed value of the landowner’s property—one vote for every $1 of assessed
value. In practice, elections are typically uncontested and the Board of Supervisors appoints the
candidates. Current board members are Brent Hastey (Chair), Donald Graham, Jeff Phynney, Rick
Brown, and Robert Shin.
As required by the District’s by-laws, the Board meets 12 times per year on the first Tuesday of
every month at 10 a.m. The District may call additional meetings as needed. Board meeting agendas
are posted outside of the District office. Minutes are available at board meetings and upon request.
The District does not have a website, so its documents are not available online; however, some
documents regarding levee projects are available on the Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority
(TRLIA) website. TRLIA is a joint powers authority formed between RD 784 and Yuba County for
the purpose of financing and conducting levee repairs within RD 784’s boundaries.
All elections for governing body members since 1995 have been uncontested due to lack of
interest among potential candidates. Since there have been no contested elections in recent history,
landowners in the district have not participated in elections and voter turnout rates are unavailable.
The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with
LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with LAFCO
map inquiries and document requests.
Complaints may be submitted through phone calls, email, letters and in-person to the general
manger or a board member. Most complaints are resolved without board intervention. In the case
that a complaint is not resolved to the satisfaction of the landowner, the issue may be placed on the
agenda and the constituent may voice concerns at the board meeting. The District does not track
347 LAFCO resolutions 2004-0030 and 2004-0036.
348 LAFCO resolutions 2006-0019 and 2006-0022.
349 LAFCO resolution 2007-09.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-269
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
complaints, but estimates that approximately four complaints were received in 2006. With regard to
customer service, complaints are generally regarding assessment rates.
The District participates in community outreach activities in collaboration with the Yuba County
Sheriff’s Department, the County Office of Emergency Services and the County Supervisor. The
joint public workshops are an effort to inform constituents in new developments of the levee
improvements and how those improvements affect the area. Further workshops will be held to
educate voters on a proposed benefit assessment prior to an election to approve the assessment.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The District bounds encompass residential and commercial areas, as well as some farmlands.
Local business activities include construction, auto sales, storage, restaurants, retail, food processing,
and the Plumas Lake Golf and Country Club.
The District considers its customer base to be the businesses and residences within the District.
As of 2000, the district boundaries included approximately 250 businesses and 3,375 residences,
according to Yuba County GIS.350
There were 10,522 residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis.
The District’s population density was 319 per square mile, compared with the 2008 countywide
density of 114. The area has experienced significant growth and development since that time.
Continued growth is anticipated within the District in the coming years as planned
developments begin and continue construction within the East Linda Specific Plan (ELSP), Plumas
Lake Specific Plan (PLSP) and North Arboga Study Areas (NASA). Planned and approved
developments within the District’s bounds or SOI are shown in Table A-44-1.
Major developments currently under construction within the District are the 535-acre Plumas
Lake Cobblestone development, the 474.5-acre Rio Del Oro development, the 795.3-acre Wheeler
Ranch development, and the 206.2-acre Riverside Meadows development, all located in the southern
PLSP area. The 389.7-acre Edgewater development is partially located within District bounds, in the
southwestern portion of the ELSP area. Major planned developments within District bounds
include the 577.1-acre Country Club Estates project, the 549.9-acre Bear River development, the
254.5-acre Ross Ranch development, and the 150.1-acre Draper Ranch South development, all
located in the PLSP area. The 63.6-acre Draper Ranch North development is located within the
NASA. Excluding Edgewater, the total acreage of development area within the District bounds and
SOI is over 5,400 (including 73 acres of non-residential), with over 17,300 planned dwelling units.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies. However, the District does review all subdivision applications for
conformity with the District’s master drainage plan.
350 Yuba County, Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2007, p. 1-42.
A-270 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
RECLAMATION DISTRICT 784
MANAGEMENT
The District employs a general manager, a secretary, a superintendent, and four workers. The
staff report to the general manager who reports to the Board at monthly meetings. An interim
general manager was hired in October 2007. The District has not yet developed protocol for
employee evaluations and workload monitoring. The District reported that it has not performed
employee evaluations in the past, but hopes to implement evaluations as a function of the new
general manager.
The District does not perform benchmarking or agency-wide performance evaluations; however,
the District’s maintenance performance is monitored by DWR through its inspection program. RD
784 reported that it does prepare audited financial statements; however, the District was in the
process of completing an audit for FY 05-06, as of the drafting of this report.
District planning efforts include a master drainage plan that was adopted in 2002. The District
adopts an annual budget. The District does not prepare a capital improvement plan as the
significant levee improvements are completed through TRLIA.
FINANCING
The District’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and legal
constraints on revenues. With respect to levee improvements funded through TRLIA, financing
sources are adequate to complete levee improvements that are expected to allow the protected area
to achieve protection from a 200-year flood event. In isolated areas with rural or otherwise sparse
development, financing sources are not adequate to improve levees to urban standards. Current
financing sources do not appear to be adequate to address needs for internal drainage facilities,
particularly in low-lying portions of the Olivehurst area; the District and the County are both
considering financing options to improve drainage in such areas.
The District received $0.7 million in revenues in FY 06-07. RD 784 relies primarily on
assessments to fund services. Assessments generated 65 percent of operating revenues in FY 05-06,
and interest income generated 28 percent. In FY 06-07, RD 784 also began receiving assessment
revenue from CSA 66 pass-through funds. CSA 66 levied assessments of $299-482 per home in FY
05-06, with $25 of that amount passed through to RD 784. The CSA 66 assessment is charged in
portions of Plumas Lake and Arboga that lie within RD 784 bounds, in addition to some land north
of McGowan in Olivehurst that lies outside RD 784 bounds. The District also receives plan review
and inspection fees (four percent of revenue) and minimal income from rental fees and other
miscellaneous sources.
Total expenditures for FY 06-07 were approximately $1 million, 50 percent of which were for
payroll, training, trustee compensation, and other contract services such as engineering and
accounting.
The District had approximately $447,604 in long-term debt at the end of FY 06-07. The long-
term debt consists of a YCWA loan for deferred maintenance projects, a loan for a backhoe, and a
loan for a new truck.
All capital improvements on the levee system are currently occurring through TRLIA. The
District did not report any additional plans for significant capital outlays in the near future. The first
BY BURR CONSULTING A-271
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
three phases of TRLIA’s four-phase capital improvement plan were completed with developer fees,
Proposition 13 funds, a YCWA loan, and grants from FEMA ($5 million) and DFG ($7 million).
Proposition 13, which was adopted in 2000, provided bond funds for flood control projects
statewide, of which $63 million were granted to TRLIA. Developers in the Plumas Lake, Arboga
and East Linda areas contributed under developer funding agreements through 2006. The County
imposed development impact fees for TRLIA improvements in 2006; the fee is $84,678 per acre in
the Plumas Lake zone and $11,690 per acre in the East Linda zone.
The fourth phase of the TRLIA levee improvement project underway—construction of a six-
mile Feather River setback levee and other Feather River levee repairs—is projected to cost $191
million. TRLIA is funding the fourth phase primarily with Proposition 1E funds ($138 million)
from the State. Proposition 1E, which was passed by California voters in 2006, authorized $4.1
billion in bond funds for flood control projects. Other phase-four funding sources are a $47 million
loan assumed partly by the County and partly by YCWA, $5 million in developer contributions, and
$1.4 million from RD 784.
The District was not able to provide an accurate assessment of the agency’s unreserved cash
balance, as interest from development impact fees had been incorrectly allocated to the District’s
funds. The District reported it was in the process of correcting the issue. The District has no
formal policy on target financial reserves.
The District engages in joint financing arrangements related to levee improvements with TRLIA.
TRLIA is a joint powers authority formed in 2004 between RD 784 and the County to provide for
flood control improvements, including improvements to the levee system and related drainage
improvements in the County. Financing of TRLIA is primarily through landowner assessments,
State Proposition 13 and 1E funds, bonds sold through a community facilities district, certificates of
participation, grants and development impact fees. Member agencies may make voluntary
contributions or advances of funds to TRLIA to finance improvements or provide personnel,
equipment or property in lieu of contributions or advances.
RECLAMATION SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
RD 784 provides levee maintenance and internal drainage services. The District conducts
vegetation removal, weed abatement and vector (squirrel) control, and upkeep of access roads as
part of its levee maintenance work. The District is also responsible for flood fighting and levee
patrol during high water events.
RD 784 provides most levee and drainage improvements through TRLIA. TRLIA manages and
finances various improvement projects primarily within RD 784’s boundaries. TRLIA has improved
levees along the Feather, Yuba and Bear Rivers, and the Western Pacific Interceptor Canal and plans
to further improve the levees along the Feather River to achieve 200-year flood protection for
southwest Yuba County by 2009. TRLIA maintains the levees and drainage facilities as they are
improved. Once completed and certified, they are returned to RD 784 for maintenance.
Internal drainage infrastructure within the District’s boundaries is maintained by RD 784 in
conjunction with the County. RD 784 maintains drainage channels, detention basins, and pumping
A-272 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
RECLAMATION DISTRICT 784
stations. Drainage facilities and gutters within residential subdivisions are maintained by the County.
Water drains from the subdivisions into district-owned channels and detention basins, and is finally
pumped over the levees into the Feather and Bear rivers and the Western Pacific Interceptor Canal.
LOCATION
RD 784 provides services within its boundary area. The District also maintains approximately
four miles of levees outside of its bounds along the south banks of the Yuba River and Best
Slough.351 The levees along the south bank of the Yuba were previously in State Maintenance Area
8, which was subsequently dissolved. The State transferred levee maintenance responsibility to the
District without additional funding for the services. The levee along the south bank of Best Slough
extends outside the District’s boundaries to Hoffman Plumas Road. The District does not maintain
non-project levees within its boundaries along the western bank of Algodon Canal, the north bank
of Best Slough, and the east bank of the WPIC north of Best Slough. These levees are the
responsibility of the landowners, according to the District.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Key infrastructure in the District includes 35 miles of levees, as well as more than 43 miles of
internal drainage ditches, eight pumping stations, and three detention basins.
RD 784 maintains 35 miles of project levees—12.9 along the east bank of the Feather River, 9.9
on the Western Pacific Interceptor Canal (WPIC), 0.8 on Best Slough, 4.7 on the Bear River, 0.3 on
the north shore of Dry Creek, and 6.1 miles along the south bank of the Yuba River. The levees
were originally constructed of silts, sands, dirt and gravel at least a century ago, and were not
constructed to modern engineering and design standards.
Breaks in the levees in the last century have lead to several serious flood events within the
District’s boundaries. In 1907, the Feather River levee broke causing flooding in the area currently
protected by RD 784. The District was subsequently created in 1908. Breaks in the Feather River
levee maintained by the District have resulted in flooding in 1937, 1955 and 1997. Breaks in the
Yuba River levee resulted in flooding in the community of Hammonton in 1950 and the
communities of Linda and Olivehurst in 1986.
To ensure protection of the area from further flood events, TRLIA is conducting a four-phase
project to achieve a 200-year level of flood protection along the Yuba, Feather and Bear rivers as
well as the Western Pacific Interceptor Canal. Of the four phases of improvements, the first three
had been completed and the fourth phase is under construction and is anticipated to be completed
by April 2009. The improvements are projected to cost a total of approximately $363 million.352
The four phases of levee and drainage improvements consist of:
• Phase I (2004): Construction of a slurry wall on the Yuba River levee;
351 Yuba County, Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2007, p. 1-41.
352 TRLIA, FY 07-08 Budget, 2007, p. 4.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-273
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
• Phase II (2006): Construction of landslide seepage berms on the Yuba Levee, two slurry
cutoff walls along the upper WPIC levee and a landslide toe ditch along the lower WPIC
levee, reconstruction of the upper Bear levee at the confluence with the WPIC, raising of the
crowns on the WPIC and lower Bear River levees, construction of a tie-in for the Bear River
setback levee, installation of the new Pump Station 6, and the Olivehurst detention basin (a
county-owned facility);
• Phase III (2006): Construction of the Bear River 2-mile setback levee, 20 relief wells, two
detention basins, a foundation slurry wall for the Bear River setback levee; and
• Phase IV (2009): Construction of a slurry cutoff wall along Yuba River south levee
(completed 2006). The Feather River 5.2-mile setback levee, construction of slurry walls,
seepage and stability berms, and slope flattening of the Feather River east levee (scheduled
for completion by 2009).
After the improvements are completed, the District does not anticipate any levee infrastructure
needs or deficiencies.
A majority of the RD 784 territory lies outside the official 100-year floodplain. The floodplain is
in flux due to FEMA map modernization, DWR levee evaluation and ongoing capital
improvements. A preliminary 2006 FIRM depicts a majority of the RD 784 territory (with the
exception of portions of the Edgewater subdivision in Linda) in the 100-year floodplain. Through
collaborations on levee improvements with TRLIA, the area is expected to attain 200-year flood
protection by Spring 2009. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) certified 11 miles of
the recently improved levees along the Yuba River, western bank of the WPIC, and a portion along
the Bear River for 100-year standards.353 FEMA has begun revisions of the Flood Insurance Rate
Maps. In 2006, FEMA released Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps; FEMA has subsequently
made modifications to the Linda and Olivehurst maps. As improvements are completed and
certified by the Army Corps, FEMA is expected to amend the preliminary map designations. A map
depicting the projected post-improvement floodplain (Figure 5-1) shows most of RD 784 outside
the 100-year floodplain.
DWR inspects maintenance practices and observable levee conditions twice annually. DWR
found no critical erosion sites potentially critical erosion sites or major maintenance deficiencies in
RD 784 in 2005.354 RD 784 levee overall maintenance has been rated as compliant with federal and
state standards from 1996 to 2005. In 2005, District maintenance was rated as compliant with
federal regulations in all categories: readiness for flood emergency, section and grade, encroachment
control, vegetation control, rodent control, gate repair, rock revetment condition, crown and
roadway condition, livestock control, pipe condition, and repairing cracks, erosion and caving. The
2006 inspection rated the District as satisfactory in vegetation and animal control. DWR
implemented a more rigorous evaluation process in 2007; RD 784 levee maintenance was rated
minimally acceptable due to erosion, vegetation, crown, and encroachment issues on its eastern
WPIC levee and the segment of the Yuba River levee north of Simpson Lane. Maintenance was
353 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers only certifies levees for 100-year protection as this is the federal standard. This does not
preclude the levees from being certified by DWR for 200-year protection.
354 DWR Division of Flood Management, 2005 Inspection & Integrity Report, February 2006.
A-274 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
RECLAMATION DISTRICT 784
rated acceptable in 2007 on the District’s Feather River, Bear River, Dry Creek, western WPIC, and
a segment of its Yuba River levees.
DWR is in the planning stages of a new and more in-depth levee integrity evaluation process.
As the District’s levees are undergoing significant improvements and various engineer evaluations,
DWR has in the interim accepted the Army Corps boring evaluations. DWR is using the
geotechnical boring information gathered by TRLIA as part of its levee repair program, and
reviewing the evaluations and designs prepared by TRLIA consultants to conduct its own
independent levee evaluation. DWR anticipates completing an analysis by August 2008. Levee
integrity information will be more comprehensive in future MSR reports as a result of these efforts.
Service challenges reported by the District include meeting federal and state standards for
seepage, ensuring adequate financing for increased maintenance of the improved levee system, and
controlling the use of levees for recreation, such as motorcycles and other off-road vehicles, which
leads to damage of the levees.
Drainage infrastructure maintained by the District includes 43 miles of internal drainage ditches,
eight pumping stations, and five detention basins. TRLIA has constructed an additional three
detention basins with a combined capacity of 590 acre-feet, which are to be transferred to RD 784
upon completion and certification.
The drainage planning area is the RD 784 watershed, which extends from the community of
Linda to the north, the Feather River to the west, the Bear River to the south, and the WPIC to the
east. The plan found that existing flows exceeded drainage channel capacity in the Plumas Lake
area, existing ponding problems in the north-central portion of the District, and existing ponding at
pump stations in Basin C, and a lack of Algodon Canal capacity south of Linda.
The 2002 drainage master plan determined that pump stations 2 and 3 do not have adequate
pumping capacity to handle 100-year flows.355 In addition, Lateral 14 is undersized at Ella Road,
which causes flows to back up north of the roadway,356 and Algodon Canal and attached culverts
lack capacity, which leads to ponding and possible spills between Gledhill Avenue and Garden
Avenue and between SR 70 and Lindhurst Avenue.357 The additional TRLIA detention basins are
intended to address these issues in part. Remaining drainage deficiencies include a standby pumping
unit and backup power source recommended at Pump Station 3,358 which will be installed as part of
the Phase 4 levee improvements.
355 RD 784, Drainage Master Plan, 2002, p. 5-1 and 6-1.
356 Ibid, p. 6-1.
357 Ibid, p. 7-1.
358 Ibid, p. 6-1.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-275
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
28. R E C L A M AT I O N D I S T R I C T 8 1 7
Reclamation District 817 provides levee maintenance and internal drainage services to an
agricultural area southwest of Wheatland.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
Reclamation District (RD) 817 was formed on November 4, 1910 as an independent special
district.359 The district was formed to maintain the westernmost part of the Dry Creek southern
levee and the Bear River northern levee (between the Dry Creek confluence and RD 2103
boundary).
The principal act that governs the District is the Reclamation District Act.360 The principal act
empowers RDs to 1) construct, maintain and operate levees, pumping plants, canals, and other
diversion and irrigation infrastructure,361 2) acquire, maintain and operate irrigation systems (dams,
diversion works, canals, pumps) and supply irrigation water to lands within and contiguous to
district bounds,362 3) construct, maintain, and operate transportation (i.e., roads, bridges, and ferry
boats) for access to district facilities and land in the district bounds,363 and 4) retain an agricultural
expert to advise landowners.364 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent
powers or, in other words, those services authorized by the principal act but not provided by the
district at the end of 2000.365
The District’s boundary is primarily within Yuba County, but also within Sutter County. Yuba is
the principal county and Yuba LAFCO has jurisdiction. The boundary area extends north to the
Dry Creek southern levee, west to the Bear River and Dry Creek confluence, south to the Bear River
northern levee, and east to the Oakley Lane vicinity. The eastern boundary along the Bear River
Levee is about 0.7 miles west of Oakley Lane, and along the Dry Creek Levee is about .65 miles west
of Oakley Lane, as shown on Map B-28. Some territory north of Dry Creek is included within the
bounds, although only portions of that territory lie within the 100-year flood area. A portion of the
359 The Yuba County Board of Supervisors approved the formation on November 4, 1910.
360 California Water Code, Division 15, §50000-53903.
361 California Water Code §50932.
362 California Water Code §50910.
363 California Water Code §50933.
364 California Water Code §50952.
365 Government Code §56824.10.
A-276 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
RECLAMATION DISTRICT 817
Dry Creek levee just west of Oakley Lane is not within District bounds, according to map
archives.366
The District has a boundary area of approximately 6.6 square miles.
The District’s SOI is coterminous with its boundary.
Boundary History
The boundary was originally established in 1910 upon formation. The RD’s southern boundary
may have been changed in 1922 and 1939 prior to the creation of LAFCO.367 The boundary has not
been changed since the 1940s when the Board of Equalization began recording boundaries in its
archives.
LAFCO adopted the SOI on April 13, 1988 as coterminous with the district boundary.368 There
have been no subsequent boundary or SOI changes.
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The district has a three-member governing body. The principal act provides for board members
to be elected by the landowners. In practice, the board member positions are typically uncontested,
and the Board of Supervisors appoints the candidates. Board members serve staggered four-year
terms. Current board members are Joe Conant (president), John (Jack) Gilbert and Ray Bascochea.
The Board meets four to six times per year. The Board meets in February, June, November and
December to conduct pre- and post-rainy season planning, and on additional occasions as needed.
There is no established schedule for the meetings.
Board meeting agendas are posted at a hardware and agricultural chemical supply store in the
area. Minutes are available at board meetings and upon request. The District does not have a
website, so its documents are not available online.
All elections for governing body members since 1995 have been uncontested due to lack of
interest among potential candidates. Since there have been no contested elections in recent history,
landowners in the district have not participated in elections and voter turnout rates are unavailable.
The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with
LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with LAFCO
map inquiries and document requests.
366 A 1936 deed transferred that land along the Dry Creek Levee to the Sacramento and San Joaquin Drainage District; a title record
stated that the property was within said district. There is no record indicating that levee segment was officially annexed to RD 817.
367 Historic boundary changes are inferred from the RD 817 SOI map in the LAFCO archives that shows a 1922, a 1939 and the
current boundary. No boundary changes were recorded in the LAFCO (1964-present) or BOE (1940s-present) archives. The BOE
archives include the 1922 boundary map and the formation resolution approved by the Yuba County Board of Supervisors.
368 LAFCO resolution 1988-5.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-277
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
With regard to customer service, there are rarely complaints, but the District receives service
requests related to levee maintenance issues (e.g., rusty pipe). Complaints may be submitted through
phone calls, email, letters and in-person. Complaints are reviewed by the Board. The District does
not track the number of complaints, but estimates that none were received in 2006 and one had
been received in 2007.
The District updates constituents by word of mouth. The District does not conduct community
outreach activities.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
RD 817 is a primarily agricultural area with walnut, almond, pear and rice farming operations
and residents. Business activity in the District includes farming operations, and a hardware store.
There were 96 residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. The
District’s population density is 14 per square mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
The District has not experienced significant growth, although adjacent areas east of the District
have experienced recent growth and urban development. Further growth is anticipated east of the
District within the next five to ten years, as farmers continue to sell their land for urban
development. A small portion of the planned Jones Ranch development is within the boundary
area. Jones Ranch, by Lakemont Communities, is a 194-acre development area annexed to the
southwest of the City of Wheatland, south of Wheatland Road. The plan for development includes
over 550 residential units and two acres of neighborhood commercial area. Within the District,
future growth is constrained by flood conditions and infrastructure as well as the distance from
existing infrastructure; however, there is long-term potential for development and growth within the
District’s bounds.
The District considers its customer base to be landowners benefiting from the levee protection.
There are 46 landowners in the District with 103 parcels, of which 93 parcels are in Yuba County
and 10 in Sutter County. There have been no significant changes in the number of landowners. The
District has been affected by growth and development in the Wheatland area, and collaborates with
RD 2103 on Bear River and Dry Creek levee rehabilitation analysis and planning.
The District noted that there have been increased flows on Dry Creek in the last five to ten
years, but no major changes on the Bear River or Best Slough.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies. The District board’s primary growth concern relates to water
quality issues associated with future urban runoff that would flow through Grasshopper Slough.
Grasshopper Slough conveys drainage and runoff from the Wheatland area through the District.
The board expressed concern about future impacts to orchards due to water quality and the volume
and duration of flows resulting from upstream urban growth. The board reasons that flooding
conditions would block life-sustaining oxygen flow to orchard trees.
MANAGEMENT
RD 817 has no staff. Levee inspection and maintenance work is conducted by the board
members and their employees. The District retains the same professional engineer, legal counsel
A-278 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
RECLAMATION DISTRICT 817
and accountant through contractual arrangements as RD 2103. The District’s maintenance
performance is monitored by DWR through its inspection program. The District does not conduct
performance evaluations, workload monitoring, benchmarking or other management practices. RD
817 does not prepare audited financial statements, an annual budget, or a capital improvement plan.
The District does not conduct formal planning, and has no master plan describing District
facilities. A 1962 manual prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers describes the facilities in
place at that time, the flood flows that the levees were designed to contain, and maintenance
standards and checklists.369 That manual does not include information on the northern (right bank)
Dry Creek levee; that levee was formerly the responsibility of RD 784.370
FINANCING
The District’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and
property owners’ preferences on assessment rates. RD 817 has an inadequate levee maintenance
record, according to DWR. The District subsists on property tax revenues, and has not imposed
assessments. RD 817 should evaluate assessments. In coordination with RD 2103 and the City of
Wheatland, a source of future capital financing has been established if urban development perceives
a risk related to levee integrity in the District.
RD 817 reported $19,131 in revenues in FY 05-06. The primary revenue source is property
taxes, which made up 83 percent of District revenue in FY 05-06. Other revenue sources include
interest income and miscellaneous revenues. The District’s property tax revenues are distributed by
Yuba and Sutter counties, with Yuba County remitting approximately 80 percent of District revenue.
RD 817 reported $12,953 in expenditures in FY 05-06. Levee maintenance materials, services
and supplies made up 53 percent of expenditures. Insurance costs constituted 47 percent of
expenditures. Miscellaneous charges and legal fees made up less than one percent of expenditures.
The District does not have an adopted policy or management practice with respect to financial
reserves. The District had a fund balance of $59,156 at the end of FY 05-06. Although these
reserves would fund 4.5 years of operations if costs continue to be at the level spent in FY 05-06,
the reserves would be unlikely to cover significant capital improvements. Major capital
improvements would be designed and constructed by the State in collaboration with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. Capital improvements related to future development in the area could
potentially be financed by developer contributions.
The District engages in joint financing arrangements by participating in the County Treasurer
pool. The District participates in the Wheatland area levee rehabilitation project, although formal
joint financing arrangements have not yet been made. An as-yet-unfunded third phase of this
project would address deficiencies on RD 817 levees. To date, developers and state bond funds
have funded Phase 1 of the project. District counsel anticipated that a joint funding arrangement
369 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Supplement to Standard Operation and Maintenance Manual, Sacramento River Flood Control Project, Unit No.
146 North Levee of Bear River and South Levee of South Dry Creek, R.D. No. 817 and Vicinity of Wheatland, November 1962.
370 Interview with Jeff Fong, DWR Division of Engineering Real Estate Branch, October 1, 2007. DWR levee logs indicate the
northern Dry Creek levee segment was formerly part of RD 784’s unit 6 levee maintenance responsibilities.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-279
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
would be formalized by the City of Wheatland once construction began. A formalized arrangement
would likely involve the City collecting development impact fees to fund the project and potentially
Community Facilities District revenues to fund future maintenance operations.
RECLAMATION SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
RD 817 provides levee maintenance and internal drainage services. The District conducts
vegetation removal, weed abatement and vector (squirrel) control as part of its levee maintenance
work. The District does not provide irrigation services; the area receives irrigation water through
the Dry Creek Mutual Water Company.
LOCATION
RD 817 provides services within its boundary area. The District’s services may affect upstream
areas east of District bounds. A levee break in RD 817 area might cause backflow conditions in RD
2103.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The District maintains 8.9 miles of Sacramento River Flood Control Project levees, 3.9 miles of
which are along the north (right) bank of the Bear River, 3.8 miles along the south (left) bank of Dry
Creek, and 1.3 miles along the north (right) bank of Dry Creek.371 Infrastructure also includes a 48-
inch check valve and maintenance equipment. Internal drainage flows through Grasshopper Slough.
The levees were originally constructed of silts, sands, dirt and gravel at least a century ago, and
were not constructed to modern engineering and design standards. The southern Dry Creek levee
was built between 1935 and 1939. The District estimates that the Bear River levee construction
commenced in 1908 in a few sections, and was built continuously between 1908 and 1927. Levee
construction is a continual process, and repairs and construction continue to this day. Little
information is available on the northern Dry Creek levee; that levee had been the responsibility of
RD 784 until RD 817 voluntarily accepted maintenance responsibility in 1993.372
There are no recorded failures of the levees maintained by RD 817, according to interviewed
board members. Verbal histories indicate a Bear River levee break occurred in the mid-1920s. The
unprotected northern side of Dry Creek experienced flooding in 1986, 1997, 2001, and most
extensively in 2005, according to the District.
371 Levee mileage for the Bear River and south Dry Creek levees is from the 2007 DWR levee inspection report.
372 Assurance agreement with the California Reclamation Board, signed by trustees Gerald Norene and Dean Webb, June 17, 1993.
A-280 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
RECLAMATION DISTRICT 817
Most of the RD 817 boundary area lies within a 100-year floodplain, although some of the
territory north of Dry Creek is in a 500-year floodplain.373 Once currently scheduled improvements
are completed and FEMA updates the maps, much of the RD 817 boundary area is expected to lie
within the 100-year floodplain.
DWR inspects maintenance practices and observable levee conditions twice annually. DWR
found no critical erosion sites, potentially critical erosion sites or major maintenance deficiencies in
RD 817 in 2005.374 RD 817 levee overall maintenance has been rated as compliant with federal and
state standards from 2001 to 2005. Earlier overall maintenance ratings were non-compliant (1999-
2000) and in need of improvement (1996 and 1998). In 2005, District maintenance was rated as
compliant with federal regulations in all categories: readiness for flood emergency, section and
grade, encroachment control, vegetation control, rodent control, gate repair, rock revetment
condition, crown and roadway condition, livestock control, pipe condition, and repairing cracks,
erosion and caving. The 2006 inspection rated the District as satisfactory in most categories;
vegetation control was marginally satisfactory and unsatisfactory in areas, and rodent control was
marginally satisfactory on portions of Dry Creek. DWR implemented a more rigorous evaluation
process in 2007; RD 817 was rated unacceptable due to slope stability, crown, vegetation, tree-
trimming, encroachments, and the presence of a metal pipe on its levees.
DWR is in the planning stages of a new and more in-depth levee integrity evaluation process.
As part of this process, DWR conducted aerial levee surveys of RD 817 in March 2007, the results
of which were not yet available at the time this report was drafted. DWR levee evaluations are
presently focused on urban areas (which do not include the Wheatland area); borings will be
conducted in rural areas in 2008 or 2009. That information will help engineers develop more
detailed alternatives for RD 817. Levee integrity data will be more comprehensive in the future
MSR reports as a result of these efforts.
Infrastructure needs and deficiencies identified by the District include the following:
• A ¾ mile segment of the Bear River levee needs to be replaced and possibly relocated
because it is built on sand and swirling almost caused a break. This levee segment is located
on the easternmost portion maintained by RD 817, just west of Baxter Road.
• The Bear River levee has geotechnical deficiencies, erosion damage and vegetation issues.
• The Dry Creek levee has freeboard and geotechnical deficiencies, and needs to be raised by
approximately three feet.
• Gravel needs to be added to levee crowns.
• Levees need to be “faced” (given a gentle slope and planted with vegetation) to prevent
erosion, particularly on the Bear River where rapid river flow erodes the levees more quickly.
373 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map, August 4, 2006. The base flood elevation is the
height of the base flood (i.e., the one percent annual probability flood, also known as the 100-year flood).
374 DWR Division of Flood Management, 2005 Inspection & Integrity Report, February 2006.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-281
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
29. R E C L A M AT I O N D I S T R I C T 2 1 0 3
Reclamation District 2103 maintains the northern Bear River and southern Dry Creek levees in
the Wheatland area.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
Reclamation District (RD) 2103 was formed on April 20, 1964 as an independent special district,
and was originally called the Wheatland Reclamation District.375 The district was formed to maintain
five miles of the northern Bear River levee and 4.75 miles of the southern Dry Creek levee in the
Wheatland area.376 The Central Valley Flood Protection Board (formerly State Reclamation Board)
had notified local agencies in the area in 1954 of the need for a local agency to assume responsibility
for the levees. “Out of that developed Reclamation District 817’s effort to maintain these levees,
but that has not worked out. The situation finally reached a point where the State Reclamation
Board has in effect said that unless a local agency is formed to maintain these levees, the State will
form a maintenance area.”377 The proponents formed the district due to the lower cost of a locally
operated district compared with a state maintenance area.
The principal act that governs the District is the Reclamation District Act.378 The principal act
empowers RDs to 1) construct, maintain and operate levees, pumping plants, canals, and other
diversion and irrigation infrastructure,379 2) acquire, maintain and operate irrigation systems (dams,
diversion works, canals, pumps) and supply irrigation water to lands within and contiguous to
district bounds,380 3) construct, maintain, and operate transportation (i.e., roads, bridges, and ferry
boats) for access to district facilities and land in the district bounds,381 and 4) retain an agricultural
expert to advise landowners.382 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent
375 LAFCO Resolution 64-3 became effective April 20, 1964.
376 Correspondence from Daniel Gallery of McDonough, Schwartz, Allen & Wahrhaftig to Yuba LAFCO, “Formation of
Reclamation District in vicinity of Wheatland, California,” dated March 20, 1964. LAFCO approved formation as proposed without
modifications or conditions.
377 Correspondence from Daniel Gallery of McDonough, Schwartz, Allen & Wahrhaftig to Yuba LAFCO, “Justification of Proposal
for review by Local Agency Formation Commission,” dated March 20, 1964.
378 California Water Code, Division 15, §50000-53903.
379 California Water Code §50932.
380 California Water Code §50910.
381 California Water Code §50933.
382 California Water Code §50952.
A-282 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
RECLAMATION DISTRICT 2103
powers or, in other words, those services authorized by the principal act but not provided by the
district at the end of 2000.383
The District’s boundary is primarily within Yuba County, but also within Placer and Sutter
counties. Yuba is the principal county and Yuba LAFCO has jurisdiction. The City of Wheatland
and much of the City’s SOI area are within the bounds. The boundary area extends north to the
Dry Creek southern levee, west to Oakley Lane (with the southwest corner extending about 0.7
miles west of Oakley Lane), south to the Bear River northern levee, and east to the vicinity of the
historic Johnson’s Ranch, as shown on Map B-29. The District has a boundary area of 7.1 square
miles.
The District’s SOI is coterminous with its boundary.
Boundary History
The boundary was established upon formation in 1964, and has not been changed since.
LAFCO adopted the SOI on April 13, 1988 as coterminous with the district boundary.384 There
have been no subsequent SOI changes.
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District has a three-member governing body. The principal act provides for board
members to be elected by the landowners who may cast one vote per assessment dollar contributed.
In practice, the board member positions are typically uncontested, and the Board of Supervisors
appoints the candidates. Board members serve staggered four-year terms. Current board members
are Dean Webb (president), Larry Sohrakoff and Darryl Stineman.
The Board meets on an as-needed basis, and has met on a monthly basis in the last several years.
Governing body meetings are held as needed; there is no regular meeting date.
Board meeting agendas are posted on bulletin boards at City Hall, the post office and on Main
Street. Minutes are available upon request. The District does not have a website, so its agendas,
minutes and other documents are not available online.
All elections for governing body members since 1995 have been uncontested. Since there have
been no contested elections in recent history, landowners in the District have not participated in
elections and voter turnout rates are unavailable.
The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with
LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with LAFCO
map inquiries and document requests.
383 Government Code §56824.10.
384 LAFCO resolution 1988-4.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-283
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Complaints and service requests can be submitted through phone calls, email, letters and in-
person. Complaints are reviewed by the Board. The District does not track the number of
complaints submitted, but estimates that five were received in 2006. Complaints most often relate
to people driving on the levees.
The District updates constituents by posting news in a community newsletter and, in this small
community, by word of mouth. Otherwise, the District does not conduct community outreach
activities.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The District considers its customer base to be landowners and other residents benefiting from
the levee protection. The number of landowners in the District was not provided. The number of
property owners has increased and is expected to continue to increase as the area becomes
increasingly urbanized.
There were 2,652 residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. The
District’s population density is 374 per square mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
The District has experienced significant growth and urban development. Further growth is
anticipated within the next five to ten years, as farmers continue to sell their land for urban
development. Planned and proposed development projects include:
• Jones Ranch is a 194-acre development area annexed to the southwest of the City of
Wheatland, south of Wheatland Road. The plan for development includes over 550
residential units and two acres of neighborhood commercial area.
• Heritage Oaks is a 254-acre project area annexed to the southeast of the City of Wheatland,
southwest of SR 65 to the County line. The plan for development includes nearly 780
residential units and over 20 acres of commercial land, including a 120,000-square foot
shopping center, an 80-room hotel, and a 6.5-acre mini-storage facility.
• Nichols Ranch, developed by Designer Properties, is a 486-acre project area running south
from Dry Creek to just north of the current City of Wheatland boundary. The plan for
development includes over 1,600 residential units, including 11 acres of
commercial/residential mixed-use land.
• Johnson Rancho is a proposed 3,300-acre development located east of the City of
Wheatland, bordered by Dry Creek to the north and the Bear River to the south. AKT
Development, River West Investments and Lennar Communities are the three major
developers of the project. The initial plans call for over 9,000 residential units and 300 acres
of commercial property. The development was in the early planning stages and entitlement
process, as of early 2008.
Within portions of the District, future growth is constrained by flood conditions and
infrastructure as well as the distance from existing infrastructure.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies.
A-284 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
RECLAMATION DISTRICT 2103
MANAGEMENT
The District is staffed by its board members who contribute their own volunteer efforts at
maintenance activities. The District retains the same professional engineer, legal counsel and
accountant through contractual arrangements as RD 817. The District’s maintenance performance
is monitored by DWR through its inspection program. The District’s management practices do not
include performance measurement, workload monitoring, annual audits.
The District’s planning efforts are generally informal. The District does not have a master plan
or capital improvement plan. The District retains engineering firms as needed for identification,
design and feasibility assessment of contemplated improvements. The District engineer has
prepared various evaluations of infrastructure needs and levee rehabilitation design.
The District’s financial planning and management efforts include preparation of an annual
budget. The District prepares audited financial statements on an annual basis. The District does
not prepare a capital improvement plan.
The District did not identify any awards, honors and accomplishments in the last five years.
FINANCING
The District’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and
property owners’ preferences on assessment rates. The District plans to conduct a thorough
evaluation of its budget needs to transition to an urban district as development moves forward, and
to explore assessment increases and/or formation of new assessment districts to ensure that
revenues meet urban maintenance standards.385 In coordination with the City of Wheatland, a
source of future capital financing has been established; future growth would generate revenues
needed to improve the levees to meet 200-year flood protection standards.
The District makes use of four separate funds—general funds, developer contributions, grants
and loans—for accounting purposes. The two active funds used in FY 05-06 were the general fund
and the Bear River LOMR fund (funded by developer contributions).
In FY 05-06, the District received $50,783 in ongoing revenue. The primary ongoing revenue
source was direct assessments which made up 61 percent of ongoing revenue. The District received
$9,740 in property tax revenues. Other FY 05-06 revenue sources included a grant from YCWA,
interest income, and a modest payment by Placer County.
In addition to ongoing revenues, the District received $0.9 million in developer contributions in
FY 05-06 for the Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) project. The project purpose is to rehabilitate
levees in the Wheatland vicinity to provide adequate protection against a 200-year flood.386 The
District practices separate fund accounting for this project, and has retained an accountant to handle
385 RD 2103, Audited Financial Statement, FY 06-07, p. 6.
386 The project is named after its objective—to receive (after the improvements are completed) a letter from FEMA revising the
National Flood Insurance Program map to remove Wheatland areas from the 100-year floodplain. Once removed from the 100-year
floodplain, development may occur following regular City of Wheatland or County standards.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-285
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
this particular fund. The RD 2103 LOMR fund spent $0.6 million during the same reporting period
on engineering inspections, evaluation, design, drawings and specifications for Phase 1
improvements.
The District had no long-term debt from bonds or loans at the end of FY 05-06.
The District’s planned capital expenditures primarily involve the LOMR project. The estimated
cost of the LOMR project is $31-55 million.387 To date, the District has conducted evaluation and
design of the Bear River levee rehabilitation (Phase 1), and financed these expenditures from
developer contributions. Funding for half of the $14.75 million Phase 1 construction cost is
expected to be provided through recently enacted state bond funds, and the remainder through
developer contributions.388 The relevant bonds were authorized in November 2006 by California
voters who approved $4.01 billion (Proposition 1E) and $800 million (Proposition 84) for flood
control improvements in California. The District has not yet conducted detailed evaluation of Phase
2 (raising the Dry Creek levee) and Phase 3 (rehabilitating RD 817 levees), and has not yet identified
funding sources.
By way of financial reserves, the District had a general fund balance of $0.5 million at the end of
FY 05-06, of which $0.2 million represented undesignated reserves and the remainder was reserved
for capital projects. This amounted to 76 percent of the District’s annual expenses. The District has
no formal policy on target financial reserves.
The District engages in joint financing arrangements by participating in the County Treasurer
pool (for non-LOMR funds) and in the LOMR project. To date, developers have funded
evaluation, design and a portion of reconstruction costs of the Phase 1 project. The District
anticipated that a joint funding arrangement would be formalized by the City of Wheatland once the
construction phase began. A formalized arrangement would likely involve the City collecting
development impact fees to fund the LOMR project and potentially Community Facilities District
revenues to fund future maintenance operations.
RECLAMATION SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
RD 2103 provides levee maintenance and repair. Ongoing maintenance activities include adding
gravel to levee crowns, gate maintenance, cutting grass, and vegetation removal. The District does
not provide internal drainage or irrigation services.
LOCATION
RD 2103 provides services within its boundary area.
387 Mead & Hunt, October 2005, p. 12.
388 DWR notified the District in September 2007 that it has preliminary eligibility for funding, subject to DWR review of District
documentation of financial capability.
A-286 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
RECLAMATION DISTRICT 2103
In collaboration with RD 817, the District is evaluating a three-phase levee repair project, the
third phase of which would rehabilitate levees in the RD 817 boundary. The first phase of the
project had not yet reached the construction phase at the time this MSR was drafted.
The District’s services affect downstream areas west of District bounds. A levee break in RD
2103 area would cause downstream flooding in RD 817.
INFRASTRUCTURE
RD 2103 maintains 9.8 miles of Sacramento River Flood Control Project levee, with
approximately 5.0 miles of Bear River levees and 4.8 miles of Dry Creek levees. RD 2103 also
maintains approximately two miles of levees along the San Joaquin drainage canal east of the
Wheatland city limits; the canal flows from south to north and discharges into Dry Creek.
The levees were originally constructed of silts, sands, dirt and gravel at least a century ago, and
were not constructed to modern engineering and design standards. The Dry Creek levee was built
between 1935 and 1939. The District estimates that the Bear River levee construction commenced
in 1908 in a few sections, and was built continuously between 1908 and 1927. Levee construction is
a continual process, and repairs and construction continue to this day.
Approximately two miles of levees protecting the San Joaquin drainage canal are also maintained
by the District. The canal is a ditch approximately one mile in length that drains an area east of
Wheatland and south of Spenceville Road. The San Joaquin drainage canal levees were built around
the same time as the Dry Creek levees.
There are no recorded failures of the levees maintained by RD 2103, according to interviewed
board members. However, portions of the RD 2103 boundary area lie within the 100-year flood
plain.389 Generally, the areas in greater proximity to the Bear River and Dry Creek tend to be in the
100-year floodplain. One area just west of the City of Wheatland lies within a 500-year floodplain.
FEMA has not updated the floodplain in the City of Wheatland, portions of the City are elevated on
a ridge and not expected to be included in future floodplain maps.
A 1,500-foot segment of the Bear River levee classified as a critical erosion site was repaired by
DWR in November 2006. DWR repaired two additional Dry Creek sites in 2006—an erosion site
and another site which had water seeping through a spot repaired in 1997 where rodent activity had
caused a levee break.
From 1998 to 2002, RD 2103 rehabilitated the Bear River levee from east of SR 65 (near the San
Joaquin canal) to approximately 13,000 feet west of SR 65. Subsequent geotechnical investigations
found under seepage on the rehabilitated levee section. Rehabilitation of this segment is estimated
to cost $14.75 million. The District is receiving half the funding from Prop. 1E flood control
bonds.
389 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map, August 4, 2006.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-287
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
DWR inspects maintenance practices and observable levee conditions twice annually. DWR
identified no major maintenance deficiencies in RD 2103 in 2005.390 RD 2103 overall levee
maintenance has been rated as compliant with federal and state standards from 1997 to 2007, and
needing improvement in 1996. In 2005, District maintenance was rated as compliant with federal
regulations in readiness for flood emergency, section and grade, encroachment control, vegetation
control, rodent control, gate repair, rock revetment condition, crown and roadway condition,
livestock control, and pipe condition, but was rated as needing improvement in repairing cracks,
erosion and caving on its Bear River levee. Inspections 2006 and 2007 rated the District as
satisfactory.
DWR is in the planning stages of a new and more in-depth levee integrity evaluation process.
As part of this process, DWR conducted aerial levee surveys of RD 2103 in March 2007, the results
of which were not yet available at the time this report was drafted. DWR levee evaluations are
presently focused on urban areas (which do not include the Wheatland area); borings will be
conducted in rural areas in 2008 or 2009. That information will help engineers develop more
detailed alternatives for RD 2103. Levee integrity information will be more comprehensive in future
MSR reports as a result of these efforts.
Infrastructure needs and deficiencies identified by the District include the following:
• A five-mile segment of the Bear River levee needs rehabilitation to address under seepage,
increase flood protection to 200-year flood standards and remove territory from the 100-year
floodplain.
• The Dry Creek levee has freeboard and geotechnical deficiencies, and needs to be raised by
approximately three feet.
• The San Joaquin Drainage canal levees have freeboard and geotechnical deficiencies (not
sloped properly), and need to be raised by approximately three feet on both sides of the
canal.
• Gravel needs to be added to levee crowns.
• Levees need to be “faced” (given a gentle slope and planted with vegetation) to prevent
erosion, particularly on the Bear River where rapid river flow erodes the levees more quickly.
• There are 41 trees that need to be cut to meet DWR standards.
The District is planning a three-phase capital project to address infrastructure needs and
deficiencies. Phase 1 is rehabilitation of a five-mile segment of Bear River levees. To date,
inspections, engineering evaluation, engineering design, drawings and specifications have been
completed. The remaining cost is approximately $14.75 million; the District is financing half the
cost through state bond funds and the other half through developer contributions and City loans.
In 2007, the District conducted approximately 30 percent of the Phase 1 project, involving
construction of shallow slurry walls along non-contiguous sections of the levee. Phase 2 is
390 DWR Division of Flood Management, 2005 Inspection & Integrity Report, February 2006.
A-288 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
RECLAMATION DISTRICT 2103
improvement of the Dry Creek levee and San Joaquin drainage canal levees to provide adequate
freeboard and appropriate levee slope, and to achieve protection against a 200-year flood. Phase 3 is
improvement of levees in RD 817 to achieve protection against a 200-year flood. Detailed
evaluations of phases 2 and 3 have not yet been conducted, and financing has not been arranged.
Service challenges reported by the District include meeting state standards without adequate
financing, meeting conflicting regulatory objectives (e.g., DWR standards for tree removal conflict
with DFG habitat protection standards) and gate maintenance needs required due to vandalism.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-289
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
30. R I V E R H I G H L A N D S C O M M U N I T Y
S E RV I C E S D I S T R I C T
The River Highlands Community Services District provides water delivery, wastewater treatment
and collection, and park services. The District’s latent powers are road and drainage maintenance
services.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
River Highlands Community Services District (RHCSD) was formed on August 5, 1980 as an
independent special district.391 The District was formed to provide water, wastewater and other
services to a then-planned development called River Highlands.392
The principal act that governs the District is Community Services District Law.393 CSDs may
potentially provide a wide array of services, including water supply, wastewater, solid waste, police
and fire protection, street lighting and landscaping, airport, recreation and parks, mosquito
abatement, library services; street maintenance and drainage services, ambulance service, utility
undergrounding, transportation, abate graffiti, flood protection, weed abatement, hydroelectric
power, among various other services. CSDs are required to gain LAFCO approval to provide
additional services beyond those they were already providing at the end of 2005.394 Districts must
apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those services
authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.395 The principal
act requires that districts have five-member governing boards and appoint a general manager to
implement board policies.396
RHCSD’s boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The Gold Village community is within the
bounds. The boundary area consists of three noncontiguous areas along Hammonton-Smartville
Road just west of its intersection with SR 20, as shown on Map B-30. RHCSD has a boundary area
of 0.9 square miles.
391 LAFCO resolution 1979-24. The CSD formation effective date source is the Board of Equalization archives.
392 The formation resolution does not specifically enumerate the District’s powers; however, the resolution preamble notes that the
formation proponents proposed that it provide all services authorized at the time in the principal act.
393 Government Code §61000-61226.5.
394 Government Code §61106.
395 Government Code §56824.10.
396 Government Codes §61040 and 61050.
A-290 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
RIVER HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
The RHCSD SOI is expansive and extends beyond the District’s bounds into Smartville,
Timbuctoo and adjacent areas.
Boundary History
The original 1980 boundary encompassed approximately 425 acres of a then-planned
development, called River Highlands, which ultimately was not built. In 1990, LAFCO approved
annexation of a 147-acre planned development called Gold Village.397 The first of two phases of the
Gold Village planned development was completed. There have been no subsequent boundary
changes.
LAFCO adopted the SOI on June 11, 1986 as proposed by the District.398 At the time, the
district was not yet active and the Gold Village area had not yet been annexed. The district was
investigating potential for developing regional water and wastewater treatment plants to serve
potential development in the area. The District proposed an expansive SOI to “allow it to observe
development trends, providing guidelines for planning and addressing future service needs. The
CSD recognizes that it is highly unlikely that the entire area within the proposed sphere will either be
fully developed or annexed into the District. However, by including the area within the sphere
boundary, Yuba LAFCO will be assisting the CSD in meeting the long-term planning provisions of
the Cortese-Knox Act.”399
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District has a five-member governing body as required by California law; one position was
vacant as of the drafting of this report. Board members are elected to staggered four-year terms. In
practice, the board member positions have been uncontested, and elections have never been held.
Vacancies are appointed by the Board. Current board members are Chris Armstrong (Chair), Brett
Malech, Teresa Brown, and Gary Woodall.
The Board meets the second and fourth Wednesday of every month. Board meeting agendas
and minutes are posted at the entrance of Gold Village, at the District’s meeting site (the SFPD fire
station) and on the District’s website where other documents are also available.
All elections for governing body members since 1995 have been uncontested. Since there have
been no contested elections in recent history, landowners in the district have not participated in
elections and voter turnout rates are unavailable.
The District demonstrated partial accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation
with LAFCO requests for interviews and documents; however, the District failed to respond to
LAFCO’s written questionnaires and requests for additional information.
397 LAFCO resolution 1990-4 became effective November 14, 1990.
398 LAFCO resolution 1986-34.
399 LAFCO resolution 1986-34, Exhibit A, pp. 6-7.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-291
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
With regard to customer service, complaints most often relate to wastewater and water service
issues. Due to the small size of the community, constituents can approach board members on the
street or contact them by phone. Complaints can also be submitted through email, letters and at
board meetings. Complaints are logged by the general manager and reviewed by the Board.
RHCSD did not provide an estimate of complaints received in 2006. The District did acknowledge
that the number of complaints that year had been unusual, due to the October 2006 WWTP failure.
The District conducts community outreach through its website where announcements and
updates are available.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
RHCSD is a rural foothill district. The surrounding area is known historically for the gold
mining operations that boomed here during the Gold Rush era. Currently, the area within the
district boundaries is primarily residential. There is no identified business activity in the District.
RHCSD considers its customer base to be the households receiving service. Currently, the
District is providing water and wastewater service to 84 households in Gold Village.
There are approximately 240 residents in RHCSD bounds. The District’s population density is
267 per square mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Since the original development occurred in Gold Village, the district has not experienced
development-related growth. Development has been proposed outside of the District boundaries
but inside the SOI in the Yuba Highlands Specific Plan area. Yuba Highlands is a proposed
development of more than 2,900 acres located north of Beale Air Force Base in the River Highlands
Community Plan area. The Yuba Highlands development was defeated by a ballot measure in
February 2008; however, the developer plans to make a revised proposal for the development.400
Developer Gary Gallelli originally proposed to develop over 5,101 residential units, over 20 acres of
core and neighborhood commercial areas, and 64 acres of business park. The project EIR was
approved by the County Board of Supervisors on July 10, 2007.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies.
MANAGEMENT
All RHCSD staff are hired by contract. RHCSD staff includes a part-time general manager, a
part-time secretary, an engineer, a financial officer, and an attorney. The general manager reports
directly to the Board through monthly activity reports at the monthly meetings.
400 The developer had not released a revised Yuba Highlands development plan as of July 2008. Opponents of development in Yuba
Highlands indicated that the preferred land use for the area is one at “reasonable grazing densities,” and that a new development plan
for the area would have to be “significantly smaller” in size.
A-292 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
RIVER HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
The Board closely monitors the productivity of the staff and provides feedback at regular board
meetings. The District does not perform routine performance evaluations or monitor productivity
of the agency itself.
The District did not identify any benchmarking practices. Other management practices include
annual audits of financial statements by an independent auditor. The most recently completed audit
was for FY 05-06.
The District has not adopted a strategic or master plan.
RHCSD adopts an annual budget. While the District has not adopted a capital improvement
plan, capital outlays are planned for on an annual basis in the budget. There are no other financial
planning efforts.
The District did not identify any awards, honors and accomplishments received in the last five
years.
FINANCING
The District operates out of a general fund and maintains a reserve general fund. There are two
special revenue funds, one to administer a grant for park improvements and one for expenses
related to the Yuba Highlands development project. Other funds include the water and wastewater
enterprise funds and five trust and agency funds used primarily to act as a broker for the bonded
debt of the Gold Village landowners.
The District received $142,221 in revenue for FY 05-06. Revenue sources were primarily (82
percent) from sewer and water user assessments for service and connections. RHCSD does not
receive any revenue from property taxes.
The District had no long-term debt or bonded debt at the end of FY 05-06.
Gold Village developers borrowed $2.8 million for infrastructure in the community. The
developers went bankrupt and defaulted on their bond payments. The Gold Village homeowners
have paid their share toward bond repayment, according to the RHCSD financial statement for FY
05-06. Although the bond was issued by RHCSD, the developers rather than the District bear
financial responsibility.
The wastewater treatment plant aerator tank cracked in October 2006, and the facility was
deemed irreparable. To “oversee, approve and implement the cleanup and abatement,” the State
Superior Court appointed the Deputy County Administrator of the County Office of Emergency
Services as the receiver of the District, until May 2009, in regards to wastewater services.401 In
addition, the court ordered that the County oversee repairs of the new wastewater facility to bring it
into compliance with state and federal laws, and at the discretion of the County, repair and maintain
the water delivery system.402
401 California Superior Court, Case No. CVCV 07-0000130, p. 2.
402 Ibid.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-293
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
To fund an interim wastewater facility and the initial cleanup of the old facility, the District
received a Cleanup and Abatement (CAA) loan from the State Water Resource Control Board
(SWRCB) for $100,000403 and a settlement from the District’s insurance company. As an interim
solution, the District is leasing an interim facility for $4,700 a month from Process Water
Technology.
The County anticipates a new plant will be constructed sometime in 2008 after funding is
acquired. According to the District, construction of the new plant is expected to cost $1,500,000.
The SWRCB approved an additional Cleanup and Abatement loan for up to $1,000,000.404 The
District is in the process of applying for additional funds from the USDA which could provide a
grant of up to $850,000. The County plans to finance the balance of the costs with the approved
CAA loan.
By way of financial reserves, the District had unrestricted net assets of $76,038 at the end of FY
05-06 in the water, sewer, and general funds combined, prior to the wastewater facility failure. This
amounted to 33 percent of the District’s annual expenses. The District maintained approximately
four months of working capital. The District has no formal policy on target financial reserves.
RHCSD noted that it would like to maintain two months of reserves, but in the last two years the
District has been unable to accumulate reserves due to water and wastewater facility problems.
WATER SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
RHCSD provides retail water services to 84 residences in Gold Village in the form of
groundwater pumping, water quality testing, conveyance, storage, and delivery. The District charges
a flat rate of $80 per month for water delivery.
Yuba County is coordinating with RHCSD to take over wastewater services sometime in the
near future. RHCSD and the County were negotiating the terms of the agreement as of the drafting
of this report.
LOCATION
The District provides retail water services to the area within its bounds in Gold Village.
INFRASTRUCTURE
RHCSD key water infrastructure includes a water treatment site (inactive), five wells (one
operated), a 285,000 gallon water tank, a pump, and one mile of PVC pipelines.
403 SWRCB, Meeting Agenda, 2007.
404 SWRCB, Resolution No. 2007-0005.
A-294 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
RIVER HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
RHCSD provides water entirely from the local groundwater aquifer. The water supply has been
interrupted in the past due to a dropping groundwater table.405 In addition, the District reported that
water quality testing has shown increasing levels of arsenic, which the District contends may be
attributable to the demand on the aquifer.406
The District has had a series of water shortages due to well failures. In the summer of 2006,
there were water shortages due to a pump failure. In the summer of 2007, the District had an
electrical outage at the North Side Well, the single operating well, which drew down storage reserves
and led to water rationing. Again in the Winter of 2007 the Northside Well had electrical problems.
The County reports that all electrical issues have been rectified at the well. The District identified a
need for two more reserve tanks to mitigate future water shortages.
The pipelines were reported to be in good working condition according to the Yuba County
Environmental Health Department. An inspection in 2004 found no leaks. The District reported
that the system is flushed once a month.
In March 2005, the detected Coliform levels, in the District’s water system, in excess of the
maximum contaminate level (MCL) as determined by the EPA. MCL standards were met by the
end of March.407 DPH has identified well contamination vulnerabilities including the wastewater
treatment plant, surface water, transportation corridors, and NPDES/WDR permitted discharges.408
WASTEWATER SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
RHCSD provides sewer collection, treatment and disposal services to 84 residences. The
District charges a flat rate of $120 per month for sewer services.
LOCATION
Wastewater services are only provided within the District bounds to residences in Gold Village.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Key infrastructure includes a wastewater treatment plant with an average dry weather flow
capacity of 0.026 million gallons and less than one mile of sewer mains.
405 RHCSD, Correspondence with YCWA, 12/5/07.
406 Ibid.
407 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008.
408 California Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Source Assessment, 2002.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-295
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Prior to the failure of the WWTP, wastewater was processed through a lift station, a primary
settling tank, an aeration reactor, a secondary settling tank, filters, a chlorine contact tank, and an
ultraviolet disinfection unit. The wastewater was treated to a secondary level, discharged into a
storage pond, and then used to irrigate 7.5 acres of land. A berm ensured that runoff from the
irrigation field did not flow off site. If effluent limitations were met, as outlined in the NPDES
permit, the treated wastewater could also be discharged into Sanford Creek. However, the District
reports it has never discharged there.409
A crack in the aeration tank, in October 2006, caused a failure of the wastewater treatment
system, and raw sewage was treated with chlorine tablets and discharged into the pond. The Central
Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) inspected the facility and found that it was
“poorly operated and maintained” and there were violations of the NPDES permit and Cease and
Desist Order. On November 17, 2006, RWQCB issued a Cleanup and Abatement order requiring
the District to cease irrigating the land with improperly treated wastewater, prevent all discharges to
surface waters, properly dispose of the untreated wastewater already in the pond, and come into
compliance with specified requirements of the NPDES permit.410 However, the District failed to
comply, and RWQCB adopted a resolution to refer the violations to the Attorney General on March
15, 2007.411
The State Water Resources Control Board approved two disbursements of funds from the
Cleanup and Abatement Account (CAA) to assist the District with compliance. In December 2006,
SWRCB authorized $100,000 to respond to the emergency situation; however, it was since
determined that the plant could not be repaired.412 The loan funds and a settlement from the
District’s insurance company are to be used for the interim facility and the initial cleanup of the old
facility.
An interim facility was being leased for $15,000 a month from MicroMedia Filtration until
November 2007. The operators decided to discontinue operations at that time. In lieu of a
temporary facility, the District transported effluent to the Marysville Wastewater Treatment Plant
for $30,000 per month. The District has contracted Process Water Technology to install and
operate a new interim facility for $4,700 monthly. The new interim facility began operation in April
2008. The treated effluent is discharged into the pond and used for irrigation similar to the old
treatment plant.
Construction of the new plant is expected to cost $1,500,000.413 In February 2007, SWRCB
approved an additional $1,000,000 toward installation of a manufactured treatment plant. The Yuba
County Office of Emergency Services is to administer the funds and oversee the project in
409 Central Valley RWQCB, Order No. 2006-0730, p. 1.
410 Ibid, p.6.
411 Central Valley RWQCB, Order No. 2007-0017, p. 2.
412 Ibid, p. 3.
413 RHCSD, Correspondence to YCWA, 12/5/07.
A-296 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
RIVER HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
conjunction with the RWQCB. These funds are to be repaid by the community.414 To fund a
portion of the new treatment plant costs, Yuba County filed an application and was approved for a
Small Community Wastewater Grant from the SWRCB on behalf of RHCSD. The grant was
rescinded due to a lack of SWRCB funds. The County has filed a pre-application for funds from the
USDA rural development grant program. It is anticipated that the federal funds will finance 50
percent of the project. Plans for the new facility had not been specified at the time this report was
drafted.
STREET SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
The District is empowered to provide road and drainage maintenance services. However, the
District failed to provide a scope of the services currently and previously provided. If it cannot be
determined that the District provided this service prior to the end of 2005, then it is considered a
latent power and the District must receive LAFCO’s permission to provide the service in the future.
LOCATION
The District failed to report whether and where street maintenance services were being
provided.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The District failed to provide a description of road and drainage infrastructure that is the
responsibility of the District to maintain.
PARKS & RECREATION SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
The District provides open park space to the residents of Gold Village. The District received a
grant for $120,000 to install an irrigation system, lay lawn, plant trees, and install recreational
equipment in 2002. However, in December 2007, the Board decided to forgo pursuing the grant
money and development of the park due to financial constraints and an inability to procure
sufficient funds to complete and maintain the park on an on-going basis.415
414 SWRCB, Resolution No. 2007-0005, p. 2.
415 RHCSD, Board Meeting Minutes, 12/12/07, p. 6.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-297
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
LOCATION
The District maintains park space within the District bounds in Gold Village.
INFRASTRUCTURE
RHCSD operates one park in the district. Golden Park is a 1.8-acre park in Gold Village.
Currently, the park does not have any landscaping, recreational equipment or facilities.
A-298 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
SMARTVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT
31. S M A RT V I L L E C E M E T E RY D I S T R I C T
The Smartville Cemetery District operates and maintains cemetery grounds, and provides
interment services.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
Smartville Cemetery District (SCD) was formed on July 22, 1968 as an independent special
district.416 The district was formed to provide cemetery maintenance and interment services.
The principal act that governs the district is Public Cemetery District Law.417 The principal act
authorizes the district to own, operate, improve, and maintain cemeteries, provide interment services
within its boundaries, and to sell interment accessories and replacement objects (e.g., burial vaults,
liners, and flower vases). Although the district may require and regulate monuments or markers, it is
precluded from selling them. The principal act requires the district to maintain cemeteries owned by
the district.418 The law allows the district to inter non-residents under certain circumstances.419
Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those
services authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.420
SCD’s boundary is entirely within Yuba County, although the SOI extends into Nevada County.
The Smartville and Timbuctoo communities are within the bounds. The boundary area extends
north to the Yuba River, west along Hammonton Road, south to Hammonton-Smartville Road (and
beyond it in the southeast corner), and east to the Yuba-Nevada county line, as shown on Map B-31.
SCD has a boundary area of eight square miles.
The district’s SOI extends beyond its southern and eastern boundaries. The southern SOI
extends approximately four miles south of the southern SCD boundary (to the northeastern corner
of Beale AFB). The eastern SOI extends approximately 0.9 miles east of the Yuba-Nevada county
line; the SOI area in Nevada County includes Hatchet Creek and Mooney Flat Roads.
416 LAFCO resolution 1967-2 became effective July 22, 1968, according to BOE.
417 California Health and Safety Code §9000-9093.
418 California Health and Safety Code §9040.
419 Non-residents eligible for interment are described in California Health and Safety Code §9061, and include former residents,
current and former taxpayers, family members of residents and former residents, family members of those already buried in the
cemetery, those without other cemetery alternatives within 15 miles of their residence, and those who died while serving in the
military.
420 Government Code §56824.10.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-299
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Boundary History
The SCD boundary has not been changed since its 1968 formation. In 1984, annexation of the
Hammonton and Golden Village areas was considered, but the action was withdrawn and not
adopted.
LAFCO adopted the SOI on September 2, 1986 to include not only the boundary area but also
the River Highlands CSD SOI area and the Mooney Flats area in Nevada County.421 LAFCO
extended the SOI beyond the boundaries to include residents located along Hammonton-Smartville
Road and Mooney Flats to whom the district reported it was providing services, and to include
substantially more territory beyond Hammonton-Smartville Road “to address anticipated
development demands.”422
LAFCO has made no subsequent amendments to the SOI.
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District is governed by a three-member Board of Directors. The Directors are appointed
by the County Board of Supervisors to four-year terms. Board members are Leanna Beam (chair)
and Walter Shackleford. Currently, one director position is vacant.
District meetings are held three times a year or as needed. Prior to Board meetings, the District
posts an announcement at the post office. Minutes are available upon request.
The District receives few complaints regarding its cemetery services in any given year. Most
citizen complaints relate to maintenance levels of the cemeteries. Complaints are generally received
via phone to one of the Directors. All complaints are referred to the Chair for review and response.
The District demonstrated partial accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation
with LAFCO. The District responded to LAFCO’s requests for interviews and cooperated with
initial LAFCO document requests. The District did not respond to additional requests for
information.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The District is in the rural foothills of the Sierra Nevada mountain range. The area is known
historically for the gold mining operations that boomed here during the Gold Rush era. Currently,
the area is primarily used for agriculture (grazing) and residential.
The District considers its customer base to be the residents of the district. There were
approximately 188 residents in the District according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. The
District’s population density is 24 per square mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
421 LAFCO resolution 1986-57.
422 Mariano, Yuba County Cemetery Districts Sphere of Influence Study, 1986, pp. 11-12.
A-300 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
SMARTVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT
The District has not experienced significant growth. Future growth and development is
anticipated as proposed developments are approved and begin construction. The developer Klein
Robinson has proposed a 70 lot development just south of the Yuba River along the Yuba-Nevada
county line. Of the proposed lots in Excelsior, 39 would be estate lots ranging from five to 20 acres
and 31 lots would be on .25 to .33 acre lots. The entire subdivision would consist of 880 acres, of
which 794 acres would be dedicated to open space. The development is in the initial planning
stages, and the developer has not yet submitted an application to County.
Growth is also anticipated outside of the District boundaries, to the south of Hammonton-
Smartville Road. Yuba Highlands is a proposed development of more than 2,900 acres located
north of Beale Air Force Base in the River Highlands Community Plan area. The Yuba Highlands
development was defeated by a ballot measure in February 2008; however, the developer plans to
make a revised proposal for the development. Developer Gary Gallelli originally proposed to
develop over 5,101 residential units, over 20 acres of core and neighborhood commercial areas, and
64 acres of business park. 423 The project EIR was approved by the County Board of Supervisors on
July 10, 2007.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies.
MANAGEMENT
The District employs a part-time groundskeeper to perform maintenance two to three times
annually. The District does not perform regular performance evaluations of itself or the part-time
employee.
The District indicated that it monitors productivity by documenting burials, the number of
hours billed by the maintenance staff, and the number of volunteers on designated cleanup days.
According to the agency, management practices conducted by the agency include triennial
financial audits; however, no audited financial statement was provided to LAFCO. The agency did
not identify benchmarking practices.
No strategic or capital improvement plans have been adopted by the District.
FINANCING
The District’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and legal
limitations on revenue increases. The MSR found the District has managed to provide only minimal
service levels within these resource constraints.
Table A-31-1: SCD Plot and Endowment Fees
The District did not provide a financial
Resident Non-resident
statement for FY 05-06. The primary
Burial Plot $800 $1,200
revenue source is likely burial plots and
Endowment Fee $100 $150
Cremation Plot $350 $450
423 Yuba Foothills Associates, 2004. Endowment Fee $100 $150
BY BURR CONSULTING A-301
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
endowment fees; however, that information was not provided. The District received $550 in
property tax and interest revenues in FY 05-06. Revenue received for goods and services was not
provided by the District.
Expenditures were not reported by the District.
The District’s cash balance at the end of FY 05-06 in the general fund and savings account was
$850. The agency has not adopted an official reserve policy.
According to the Health and Safety Code §8725, cemetery authorities must establish, operate
and maintain an endowment care fund. Fund monies are received through sale of cemetery
property and land and must be placed in a trust account for perpetual care of the cemetery. The
principal must be invested and only the income from the investment may be used for care,
maintenance and embellishment of the cemetery. At the end of FY 05-06, the District had $6,495 in
the endowment care fund, and had earned $149 income on the invested monies.
The District did not report any long-term debt.
CEMETERY SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
The District provides cemetery operation and maintenance, cremation setting services, and
interment accessories. Other burial services, such as grave opening, casket lowering and headstone
setting, are provided by the mortuary of the customer’s choice.
The District provides maintenance services to the Smartville Masonic Cemetery, the Immaculate
Conception Catholic Cemetery, both of which are owned by the District. The agency also provides
maintenance for the privately owned McGanney Cemetery, which abuts the Catholic Cemetery.
Due to financial constraints, the District provides limited maintenance (e.g., weed eating and filling
holes) to both cemeteries two to three times a year, primarily around Memorial and Veteran’s Days.
The District relies heavily on volunteers at those times.
The District did not provide the number of burials for 2004, 2005, and 2006.
LOCATION
Plots for burial and cremation in Smartville Masonic Cemetery and Immaculate Conception
Catholic Cemetery are available for a fee according to place of residence. The District is authorized
to provide burial plots to residents and certain non-residents, as previously mentioned. “The
Hammonton-Smartsville Road area and Mooney Flat area have been provided services but are not
within the District…many Mooney Flat residents have been placed in the District’s cemetery.”424
Consequently, LAFCO adopted an SOI that included the westernmost part of Nevada County. The
424 Yuba LAFCO, Yuba County Cemetery Districts Sphere of Influence Study, 1986, p. 10-11.
A-302 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
SMARTVILLE CEMETERY DISTRICT
District did not identify any restrictions as to which non-residents may not be buried in the
cemeteries.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The District’s key infrastructure consists of two cemeteries and the maintenance equipment.
To provide maintenance services, the District owns two lawnmowers, one riding lawnmower
and two weed eaters.
The Smartville Masonic Cemetery is on Smartville Road. The cemetery was opened by the Free
Masons, and acquired by the District in 1968. According to burial records, the first burial was in
1857. Currently, the cemetery is estimated to be half full. It is in fair condition. The District
identified problems with ground squirrels, lack of water service and squatters. The LAFCO site visit
identified vegetation control deficiencies and broken headstones, apparently related to financing
constraints.
The Immaculate Conception Catholic Cemetery, on McGanney Lane, was acquired by the
district in 1968 from the Roman Catholic Bishop of Sacramento. The earliest burial recorded was in
1862, according to burial records. The cemetery contains 1.5 acres. The District was unable to
provide an estimate of the percentage of land occupied. The District identified problems with
vandalism, gravestone robberies and loss of structural integrity of some concrete covered lots. The
LAFCO site visit identified accessibility and vegetation control deficiencies, broken headstones, and
decaying burial sites.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-303
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
32. S M A RT V I L L E F I R E P RO T E C T I O N
D I S T R I C T
The Smartville Fire Protection District (SFPD) provides fire protection and emergency medical
services.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
SFPD was formed on April 30, 1956 as an independent special district. The District was formed
to provide fire protection services to the Smartville area.
The principal act that governs the District is the Fire Protection District Law of 1987.425 The
principal act empowers fire districts to provide fire protection, rescue, emergency medical,
hazardous material response, ambulance, and any other services relating to the protection of lives
and property.426 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in
other words, those services authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end
of 2000.427
SFPD’s boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The Smartville and Timbuctoo communities
are within the bounds. The boundary area includes the River Highlands Community Plan area, the
northern portion of Spenceville Wildlife Recreation Area, the eastern half of the Goldfields, and
north into the foothills (to the Dobbins-Oregon House FPD’s southern SOI), as shown on Map B-
32. The boundary area is 71.4 square miles.
The SFPD SOI is coterminous with its bounds.
Boundary History
The original 1956 boundary encompassed only the Smartville and Timbuctoo communities.
Since then, the SFPD boundary has been changed on two occasions. In 1986, LAFCO approved a
relatively minor annexation of the Hammonton Golden Village and Estate area.428 In 1989, the
SFPD bounds were substantially expanded by annexation of 42,893 acres.429 The 1989 annexation
425 Health and Safety Code §13800-13970.
426 Health and Safety Code §13862.
427 Government Code §56824.10.
428 LAFCO resolution 1985-11 became effective November 19, 1986, according to BOE.
429 LAFCO resolution 1989-7 became effective September 26, 1989.
A-304 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
SMARTVILLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
areas extend west to the middle of the Goldfields, south past Spenceville Road, and north(west) of
Englebright Reservoir.
LAFCO adopted the SOI on November 13, 1985, and amended it on June 14, 1989.430 All
territory within the 1989 SOI was annexed into the bounds in 1989, and there have been no
subsequent boundary or SOI changes.
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The SFPD is governed by a three-member Board of Directors elected or appointed to four year
terms. Board vacancies are filled by board appointment.
The most recent contested election was held in November 2001. The voter turnout rate was 43
percent. There were no countywide or statewide contests on the same ballot for comparison.
Board meetings are held monthly on the second Thursday at 7:00 p.m. in the SFPD fire station.
A notice of public meetings is posted at the front of the station building and published in the
Appeal-Democrat and Union newspapers. Time is allowed for public comment during the
meetings.
Complaints are received via phone, letters, meetings, and from the Yuba County Sheriff’s
Department. The District has never had a complaint regarding fire protection services. Complaints
are usually from neighbors of the fire station regarding property line encroachment and debris
pickup. All complaints are referred to the District’s attorney for follow-up and appropriate response
to the constituent.
The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with
LAFCO. The District responded to LAFCO’s questionnaires and requests for interviews and
documents.
District community outreach activities include a newsletter to apprise constituents of district
services and activities. A newsletter was produced and sent to all residents of the District, which
included information on the status of the district, truck acquisition, call firefighter recruitment, and
district boundaries. The District reports that it is currently in the process of establishing a quarterly
newsletter.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
SFPD is a rural foothill district. The area is known historically for the gold mining operations
that boomed here during the Gold Rush era. Currently, the area is primarily used for agriculture
(grazing) and residential purposes. Primary facilities in the District include an elementary school, a
post office, a fire station, cemeteries, a church, and a store. Business activity in the District consists
of aggregate mining, ranching, vineyards, recreation and agricultural tourism.
430 LAFCO resolutions 1985-10 and 1989-6.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-305
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SFPD considers its customer base to be individuals residing within the district. The District
estimates that there are approximately 2,000 residents in the District. The District’s population
density is 6.9 per square mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
The District has not experienced significant growth. Growth in the southern portion of the
District is proposed within the Yuba Highlands Specific Plan area. Yuba Highlands is a proposed
development of more than 2,900 acres located north of Beale Air Force Base. The Yuba Highlands
development was defeated by a ballot measure in February 2008; however, the developer plans to
make a revised proposal for the development. Developer Gary Gallelli originally proposed to
develop over 5,101 residential units, over 20 acres of core and neighborhood commercial areas, and
64 acres of business park. The project EIR was approved by the County Board of Supervisors on
July 10, 2007.
The developer Klein Robinson has proposed a 70 lot development just south of the Yuba River
along the Yuba-Nevada county line. Of the proposed lots in Excelsior, 39 would be estate lots
ranging from five to 20 acres and 31 lots would be on .25 to .33 acre lots. The entire subdivision
would consist of 880 acres, of which 794 acres would be dedicated to open space. The development
is in the initial planning stages, and the developer has not yet submitted an application to County.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies.
MANAGEMENT
The District employs four part-time fire fighters including a fire chief. Nine call firefighters
provide additional personnel support. All staff and call personnel are accountable to the Chief who
then reports to the Board at monthly meetings.
The Chief evaluates operations on an ongoing basis. Employee performance is evaluated
annually by the Board and Chief. The Board performs evaluations of the Chief’s performance every
six months. There is no formal evaluation of agency performance.
The District indicated that it monitors productivity daily by logging incident details (i.e., number
or personnel responding, incident type and time period to complete response), training history and
equipment checks. These records are reported monthly to the Board.
Management practices in use by the District include intermittent audits and benchmarking. The
last audit was performed for FY 02-03. The District performs comparisons of response times
throughout the State.
The District has no mission statement but is in the process of developing one. As of yet, there
are no adopted policy objectives.
FINANCING
The District’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and legal
limitations on revenue increases. The MSR found the District has managed to provide minimal
service levels within these resource constraints, but lacks resources for paid staffing on a 24-hour
basis.
A-306 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
SMARTVILLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
The District operates out of a general fund and a capital improvement fund.
The District received $106,094 in revenues in FY 02-03. More recent revenue information was
not available. Property tax revenues accounted for 79 percent of general fund revenues in that FY.
The District also receives Proposition 172 funds, which constituted eight percent of revenues.
Expenses in FY 02-03 were $52,777.
Expenditures in FY 05-06 were $65,160 and consisted of administration and operations (43
percent), insurance (32 percent), fire equipment (17 percent), and utilities (seven percent).
The SFPD undesignated fund balance at the end of FY 05-06 was approximately $157,400,
which constitutes 240 percent of expenses. The agency has not adopted an official reserve policy
but aims to maintain at least 10 percent of revenues for contingency purposes.
No significant capital expenditures were expected in FY 06-07, according to the District’s
adopted budget.
SFPD had no long-term debt or bonded debt.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-307
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
FIRE SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
SFPD provides fire suppression and prevention, Basic Life Support (BLS) for medical
emergencies, fire inspection, and maintenance of the Rosebar Schoolhouse as a community facility.
Fire suppression services include structural and vehicle fires and support for the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) for vegetation fires in the State
Responsibility Area, which encompasses the entire district. Assistance to CALFIRE is provided
primarily during wildfire season—May through October.
SFPD provides BLS until Bi-County Ambulance, a privately owned ambulance company, arrives
to perform Advanced Life Support and provide ambulance transport services.
The District recently began performing fire inspections. In 2006, the Chief informed the public
of the District’s intent to begin an inspection program June 2007. At that time, he performed
courtesy inspections and indicated needed improvements before official inspections begin.
Dispatch Services
Smartville 911 calls are answered by the Yuba County Sheriff’s dispatch center. All related calls
in the SFPD are relayed to the CALFIRE Emergency Command Center in Grass Valley. CALFIRE
then dispatches the SFPD first-response unit.
Phone calls to 911 from cellular phones in the District go through the Chico California Highway
Patrol office. These calls are transferred to the Yuba County Sheriff’s dispatch center and proceed
as mentioned previously.
LOCATION
SFPD provides service for the entire boundary area including the unincorporated communities
of Smartville, Browns Valley, and Gold Village.
Due to proximity, the District is frequently called upon to provide mutual aid to Penn Valley
FPD in Nevada County and Loma Rica-Browns Valley CSD for sections of SR 20. The area
northwest of Beale AFB, south of the Yuba River and to the west of Dantoni lies between SFPD
and Linda Fire Department and is not within bounds of a fire district; consequently, the two fire
agencies provide service there when needed.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The District operates out of one fire station on Blue Gravel Road. Smartville Fire Station 41
provides space for equipment, administration and a meeting area for the community.
A-308 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
SMARTVILLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
The station houses five trucks—a 1974 Ford Howe Type I engine, a 1980 Ford Van Pelt Type I
engine, a 1999 Master Body Type III engine, a 2004 Type IV engine with a utility bed, and a 2005
staff utility chief’s unit.
The station is staffed from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. seven days a week. The original date of
construction is unknown, but the station was upgraded and an addition completed in 1996, which
made space for an administration office and a meeting room.
The District identified a need for kitchen, shower, laundry, and sleeping facilities in order to
provide 24-hour staffing at the station. In order to maintain acceptable response times, the District
acknowledged a need for an additional station in the western portion of the District on
Hammonton-Smartville Road. The District reports that plans for the station are in progress.
Table A-32-1: SFPD Fire Service Profile
Fire Service
Service Configuration Service Demand
Fire Suppression Direct Statistical Base Year 2006
EMS Direct Total Service Calls 205
Ambulance Transport Bi-County % EMS 46.8%
Hazardous Materials Marysville Fire Dept. % Fire 22.0%
Air Rescue & Ambulance Helicopter CDF % Mutual Aid 41.5%
Fire Suppression Helicopter CDF % Vehicle Accident 22.9%
Public Safety Answering Point Yuba County Sheriff % Other 8.3%
Fire/EMS Dispatch CDF Calls per 1,000 people 98
Service Adequacy Resources
ISO Rating Class 9/10 Fire Stations in District 1
Median Response Time 13:00 Fire Stations Serving District 1
90th Percentile Response Time 22:00 Sq. Miles per Station 71
Response Time Base Year 2006 Total Staff 13
Service Challenges Total Full-time Sworn Staff 2.5
Some areas in the northeast of the District are difficult to serve due to Total On-call Sworn Staff 9
private roads, rough terrain and locked gates. Sworn Staff per Station1 13
Sworn Staff per 1,0002 6
Full-time Sworn Staff per 1,000 1
Facilities
Station Location Condition Staff per Shift Apparatus
SFPD 8459 Blue Gravel Rd Good 1 chief or engineer Engine
No. 41 Squad
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
The District identified needs for kitchen, shower, laundry, and sleeping facilities at the station, a new station near
Hammonton-Smartsville Road, and a water tender.
Regional Collaboration Mutual/Automatic Aid Providers
SFPD is a member of the Yuba County Rural Fire Joint Powers Agency, Penn Valley FPD, Olivehurst FD, Linda
which manages frequency of the local radio net. FPD, Beale AFB, CDF, LR - BV CSD,
Wheatland FA
Notes:
(1) Based on ratio of sworn staff to the number of stations. Actual staffing levels of each station vary.
(2) Sworn staff ratio based on 2000 Census population.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-309
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
33. S O U T H F E ATH E R WAT E R & P OW E R
AG E N C Y
The South Feather Water & Power Agency (SFWPA), formerly known as the Oroville-
Wyandotte Irrigation District, provides domestic and irrigation water, hydropower generation and
park and recreation services.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
SFWPA was formed in 1919 as an independent special district.431 The District was formed to
provide irrigation services to the area surrounding the City of Oroville and the community of
Wyandotte.
The principal act that governs the District is the Irrigation District Law.432 The principal act
empowers such districts to provide water “for any beneficial use” and may do any act to put to any
beneficial use any water under its control. In addition, irrigation districts may provide water-related
drainage services and, under certain circumstances, electric and wastewater services. Districts must
apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those services
authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.433
The District’s boundary is primarily within Butte County with two parcels in Yuba County just
east of Ramirez Road along the Yuba-Butte county line in the community of Loma Rica. Butte
County is the principal county, and Butte LAFCO has jurisdiction over this agency. The principal
LAFCO is responsible for preparation of the MSR and SOI of the District. The boundary area
extends north to Lake Oroville, west to the City of Oroville and the community of Palermo, south
to the Yuba-Butte county line, and east to approximately Spring Creek Road, as shown on Map B-
33. The District has a boundary area of 28,974 acres or 45 square miles.434
The District’s SOI extends beyond the District’s bounds in most areas. The SOI encompasses
territory from Pacific Heights Road and Baggett Marysville Road in the west to approximately
Chinese Wall Road in the east, and from Lake Oroville in the north to the Yuba-Butte county line in
the south.
431 SFWPA, Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District Retires, accessed on 4/14/08.
432 California Water Code §20500-29978.
433 Government Code §56824.10.
434 Butte LAFCO, 2006, p. 2.11-1.
A-310 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
SOUTH FEATHER WATER & POWER AGENCY
Boundary History
The two parcels within Yuba County were annexed to SFWPA in 1979, according to BOE
records.
The Agency’s SOI was originally adopted in 1985 by Butte LAFCO. The SOI has not
undergone a comprehensive review and update since then; although, Butte LAFCO has processed
several SOI amendments in conjunction with annexations. Butte LAFCO was in the process of
updating the Agency’s SOI, as of the drafting of this report.
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
SFWPA has a five-member governing body. The board members are elected by registered
voters to represent one of five geographical divisions in the Agency. Board members serve
staggered four-year terms. Current board members are Jim Edwards (President), Dennis Moreland,
Louis Cecchi, Dee Hunter, and Vivian Meyer.
The Board meets once a month on the fourth Tuesday at 2 p.m. in the Agency’s office
conference room. Board meeting agendas and minutes are posted on the agency’s website where
other documents are available as well. Board meeting announcements are also provided to the local
newspaper.
The Butte LAFCO MSR for domestic water and wastewater services found that the Agency
“maintains accountability and compliance in its governance, and public meetings appear to be held
in compliance with Brown Act requirements. There are sufficient opportunities for local
involvement in Agency activities, and information regarding the Agency is readily available to
members of the public.”435
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
Land use within the unincorporated areas of the Agency is primarily agricultural, with citrus and
olives as the principal crops. Approximately five percent of the Agency lies within the City of
Oroville. This area and areas to the immediate east of the City are largely urbanized with single
family residences, mobile home parks and schools.436
The District considers its customer base to be the residential (approximately 6,700) and
irrigation (600) connections served by the District.437 There were approximately 18,278 residents
within the District in 2006.438 The District population density is 406 per square mile, compared with
the Yuba countywide density of 114.
435 Butte LAFCO, 2006, p. 2.11-9.
436 Butte LAFCO, 2007, p. 2-4.
437 SFWPA, FY 05-06 Annual Financial Report, 2006, p. 3.
438 Butte LAFCO, 2007, p. 2-3.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-311
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
According to the Butte County Association of Governments, growth within the City of Oroville
is projected to occur at a rate of 4.6 percent and the unincorporated areas of Butte County are
expected to grow at a rate of 1.1 percent from 2006 to 2030. According to these growth rates, it is
anticipated that the population within the current SFWPA boundaries will grow to 25,570 by 2030.
During this period, agricultural water demand is anticipated to remain relatively constant, while
domestic water demand is anticipated to increase by 53 percent. The Butte LAFCO MSR on
irrigation found that SFWPA has adequate water supplies to meet projected future water needs.439
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies.
MANAGEMENT
The District employs 60 full-time staff and one temporary worker to provide services. The
general manager oversees finance, water and power divisions. Employees within each division
report to the respective division manager who, in turn, reports to the general manager.
District planning efforts include an urban water management plan from 2005, a capital
improvement plan from the mid-1990s and a mission statement. Financial planning efforts include
annual audits, annually adopted budgets and a strategic financial plan, which outlines anticipated
financing levels from 2007 to 2012.
The Butte LAFCO Domestic Water MSR found that the management structure of the Agency is
sufficient to provide necessary services and maintain efficient and effective operations.440
FINANCING
The Butte LAFCO Irrigation, Drainage and Reclamation MSR determined that revenues exceed
expenditures and current rates charged for services are appropriate.441
The Agency tracks its finances through two enterprise funds for water and power generation
services.
The District received $17.5 million in FY 05-06 in revenues. Primary revenue sources were
electricity sales (75 percent) and domestic water sales (14 percent). The District also received
$582,648 in property taxes or two percent of revenues.
The District had $14.5 million in long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06. Of the long-term debt,
$9.8 million consisted of bonds issued in 1960 to finance South Fork hydropower generation
facilities and $5.8 million consisted of bonds issued for the Sly Creek Power Project. The Agency
anticipates completing payment on the South Fork bonds in 2010 and the Sly Creek bonds in 2009.
439 Butte LAFCO, 2007, p. 2-5.
440 Butte LAFCO, 2006, p. 2.11-9.
441 Butte LAFCO, 2007, p. 2-11.
A-312 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
SOUTH FEATHER WATER & POWER AGENCY
By way of financial reserves, the District had unrestricted net assets of $1,543,627 at the end of
FY 05-06. This amounted to 10 percent of the District’s annual expenses. The District maintained
approximately one month of working capital.
As a result of a state-mandated agreement, SFWPA will share power generation revenues from
the South Feather Power Project (SFPP) with the North Yuba Water District (NYWD) beginning in
2010. SFPP is a series of three hydroelectric generation facilities, which were funded and
constructed by SFWPA through bond revenues. All SFPP facilities are owned and operated by
SFWPA; however, the agreement, which was renegotiated in 2005, calls for NYWD to receive 50
percent of the net power revenues from SFPP after the repayment of all bonds, which will occur in
2010. Estimated annual revenue from the project will be $15 million for the Agency annually.
The Agency also engages in joint financing arrangements with NYWD for use of the
Forbestown Ditch. The Agency will continue to pay 75 percent of the maintenance costs for the
ditch until 2011, when the ditch will be transferred to NYWD.
WATER SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
SFWPA provides water for domestic and irrigation purposes. SFWPA’s average annual water
consumption is approximately 28,000 af. Approximately 73 percent of the Agency’s distributed
water goes to agricultural irrigation.
LOCATION
The Agency provides services within its bounds, and as of 2007, provided service to six
customers outside its bounds. The customers outside of bounds are served via surplus water
agreements that are considered for renewal annually.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Key infrastructure owned and maintained by the Agency for water services include a water
treatment plant, five storage reservoirs, four storage tanks, 110 miles of ditches and canals, and 141
miles of pipeline.
The Agency’s water supply is provided primarily from the upper watershed of the South Fork of
the Feather River and upper portion of the Slate Creek watershed. The water is diverted into the
Miner’s Ranch Reservoir, from which the Agency distributes throughout the District.
The Agency has pre-1914 and appropriated water rights from six separate applications for a total
of 957,265 af. The Agency has water rights that exceed the actual yield of the watershed, according
to the Butte LAFCO Water MSR.442 The water is generally of good quality.443
442 Butte LAFCO, 2006, p. 2.11-4.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-313
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Water for domestic use is treated at the water treatment plant at the Miner’s Ranch Reservoir.
The plant has a capacity of 14.5 mgd. The Agency has not exceeded MCL standards and has had no
monitoring or reporting violations since at least 1995.
The Agency owns and maintains five raw-water storage reservoirs (Little Grass Valley, Miners
Ranch, Ponderosa, Lost Creek, and Sly Creek) and four treated-water storage tanks that have storage
capacities of 171,500 af and 5.2 mg respectively. The Butte LAFCO Irrigation MSR found that the
Agency will likely need additional water storage facilities as demand for domestic water grows.
There are approximately 110 miles of canals, ditches and pipelines that provide irrigation water.
The distribution system may have had a distribution loss of rate of as much as 90 percent. The
Agency is in the process of identifying the sections with the greatest seepage problems and
implementing a prioritized canal lining project.444
In general, the Agency has a “proactive maintenance program and has well-maintained
infrastructure that is adequate to meet the existing and anticipated demand,” as determined by the
Butte LAFCO irrigation MSR.445
ELECTRIC SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
SFWPA generates hydroelectric power, which is sold to PG&E in exchange for bond payments.
SFWPA does not provide electric services directly to households or other users.
LOCATION
The Agency’s power generating facilities are located along the South Fork of the Feather River
and Sly Creek.
INFRASTRUCTURE
SFWPA electric generating facilities can produce up to a total of 120 megawatts of electricity a
year and include the following:
• Sly Creek Powerhouse: The facility was built in the early 1980’s and can produce up to 11
megawatts of power.
• Woodleaf Powerhouse: The facility was built in the early 1960’s and can produce
approximately 50 megawatts of electricity. The Agency identified a need to replace the
443 Butte LAFCO, 2006, p. 2.11-5.
444 Butte LAFCO, 2007, p. 2-6.
445 Butte LAFCO, 2007, p. 2-9.
A-314 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
SOUTH FEATHER WATER & POWER AGENCY
transformer at the plant by 2011 as a result of ongoing maintenance. The replacement will
cost approximately $3 million.
• Forbestown Powerhouse: The facility was built in the early 1960’s and can produce
approximately 50 megawatts of power.
• Kelly Ridge Powerhouse: The facility was built in the early 1960’s and can produce up to 11
megawatts of power.
• Kelly Ridge Photovoltaic Facility – This facility was built in conjunction with the Miner’s
Ranch water treatment facility to provide power for operations of the treatment facility. The
power plant generates up to 0.5 megawatts of power per year, which supplies 85 to 90
percent of the treatment facilities power needs.
RECREATION SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
The Agency owns several recreation facilities at its storage reservoirs and other water bodies.
These facilities are open for public access. The camping facilities are operated and maintained by
Northwest Park Management.
LOCATION
SFWPA provides recreational facilities at locations in Butte and Plumas counties.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Recreation facilities owned by SFWPA and activities allowed at each facility include the
following:
• Little Grass Valley: hiking, boating, swimming and camping.
• Sly Creek: camping, boating, fishing, and swimming.
• Lost Creek: camping, boating, fishing, and swimming.
• Ponderosa: camping, boating (no gasoline powered craft), fishing, and swimming.
• South Fork and Slate Creek Diversions: camping and fishing.
• Forbestown Diversion: fishing.
• Lake Wyandotte: fishing.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-315
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
34. S O U T H Y U BA WAT E R D I S T R I C T
The South Yuba Water District provides retail water services for agricultural irrigation.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
South Yuba Water District (SYWD) was formed in 1979 to provide irrigation water. LAFCO
adopted SYWD formation on November 7, 1979.446
The principal act that governs the District is California Water District law.447 The act empowers
water districts to produce, store, transmit and distribute water for irrigation, domestic, industrial, and
municipal purposes and to provide related drainage service. Districts must apply and obtain
LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those services authorized by the
principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.448
SYWD is a multi-county agency due to the fact that a portion of its southeastern boundary
follows Wheatland Road, which crosses into Sutter County for a short distance. Yuba is the
principal county and Yuba LAFCO has jurisdiction over the District.
SYWD’s boundary is primarily located between SRs 70 and 65, south of Olivehurst. There is a
noncontiguous portion of the district adjacent to Rancho Road east of SR 65, a contiguous portion
of the district in the northwest that crosses SR 70, and a small hole in the middle of the district,
south of the intersection of Plumas Arboga and Forty Mile Roads, as shown on Map B-34. The
District has a boundary area of 16 square miles.
The SYWD SOI is located in the northeastern and southeastern portions of the district. The
northeastern portion of the SOI is the noncontiguous area adjacent to Rancho Road. The
southeastern portion of the SOI is located in the most southeastern quadrant of the district, north of
the intersection of Wheatland and Forty Mile Roads.
Boundary History
The original 1979 boundary included all area currently within the district boundary, with the
exception of the Norene and Beukelman properties that have subsequently been annexed to the
district. In 1992, the SYWD bounds were expanded by the 1,114-acre annexation of the Norene
property in the southeast of the district, and the 197-acre annexation of the Beukelman property in
446 LAFCO resolution 1979-23.
447 California Water Code §34000-38501.
448 Government Code §56824.10.
A-316 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
SOUTH YUBA WATER DISTRICT
the northeast of the district.449 In 2000, the SYWD bounds were expanded again, this time by a 132-
acre reorganization of a Norene property (it was detached from Wheatland Water District in order
to be annexed to SYWD), and a 98-acre annexation of a Beukelman property.450 Both of these
annexations added property adjacent to the Norene and Beukelman property annexations from
1992.
The LAFCO archive shows that various attempts were made by a LAFCO consultant to contact
the District in the mid-1980s in order to study and adopt an SOI. According to notes in the archive
from the consultant, the District was unresponsive, and a sphere was not set for SYWD until
1992.451 The sphere that was set in 1992 was coterminous with the 1992 Norene and Beukelman
annexations, but excluded the remainder of the District’s boundary area. The only other sphere
amendment for SYWD came in 2000,452 in order to accommodate the second Norene and
Beukelman annexations. The current SOI for SYWD covers the two Beukelman annexations in the
northeast of the district (the noncontiguous area adjacent to Rancho Road), and the two Norene
annexations in the southeast of the district (north of the intersection of Wheatland and Forty Mile
Roads).453
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District has a five-member governing body. Board members are elected by landowners.
Each landowner is allocated 100 votes for every acre of land. Board members serve staggered four-
year terms. Current board members are Michael Rue (Chair), Gary Miller, Victor Graf, John Belza,
and Gerald Norene.
The Board schedules meetings once a month on the second Monday at 8:00 a.m.; however, the
Board meets approximately three times a year as meetings are generally cancelled due to lack of
agenda items. Meetings are held at the YCWA office in Marysville.
Board meeting agendas are posted; however, the location where they are posted was not
provided. Minutes are available at the following meeting or upon request. The District does not
have a website, so its documents are not available online.
All elections for governing body members since 1995 have been uncontested. Since there have
been no contested elections in recent history, landowners in the district have not participated in
elections and voter turnout rates are unavailable.
449 LAFCO resolution 1992-8.
450 LAFCO resolution 2000-5.
451 LAFCO resolution 1992-7.
452 LAFCO resolution 2000-4.
453 YCWA increased the water quantity to be delivered to the District for the 1992 Norene and Beukelman annexations (First
Amendment to the Amended Contract Between the Yuba County Water Agency and the South Yuba Water District Providing for
Water Service, January 15, 1991). YCWA agreed to increase the water quantity to be delivered to the District for Norene and
Beukelman annexations through a future contract amendment, according to correspondence from District secretary, Paul Minasian, to
the LAFCO Executive Officer, John Benoit, dated June 23, 2008.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-317
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The district demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with
LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with LAFCO
map inquiries and document requests.
Complaints may be submitted through phone calls, letters and in-person. Complaints are
reviewed by the Board. The District did not provide information on the number or nature of
complaints.
The District does not conduct community outreach activities.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The District is primarily an agricultural area with pasture and rice farming operations, residents,
and entertainment activities. Business activity in the District includes farming operations and the
Sleep Train Amphitheater, which provides 650 seasonal jobs.454 In addition to rice and pasture,
crops grown include alfalfa and other forage-type crops.455
The District considers its customer base to be landowners with agricultural irrigation needs.
There are approximately 10,223 acres of land in the District bounds, of which approximately 90
percent is provided irrigation water service.
There were approximately 100 residents in the District.456 The District’s estimated population
density was six per square mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
The District has not experienced significant growth, with the exception of the recently
completed Sleep Train Amphitheater. Adjacent areas west of the District have experienced
significant growth and development in the last five years. Further growth is anticipated west of the
District in the Plumas Lake community and east of the District in the vicinity of the City of
Wheatland in the next five to ten years, as farmers continue to sell their land for urban development.
Feather Creek is a 700-acre proposed project located southwest of SR 65, east of Forty Mile
Road. Sage Community Group proposes to develop 2,945 housing units, a 20-acre school site, 151
acres of open space and parks, and a four-acre neighborhood commercial site for a possible store
and a gas station. The developer has proposed a specific plan, and related CEQA documentation is
expected to be released for public review in 2008.
The Sports and Entertainment Zone is a 1,000 acre planning area, located adjacent to SR 65 in
the northeast and Forty Mile Road to the west. The Sleep Train Amphitheatre occupies 90 acres of
the most southern portion of the Sports/Entertainment Zone.
454 Yuba County, Yuba County Economic Profile 2008, p. 51.
455 Correspondence from SYWD Secretary Paul Minasian, May 19, 2008.
456 The population estimate was provided by Paul Minasian, District Secretary, who indicated that the estimate of 302 residents based
on 2000 Census data and GIS analysis was inaccurate.
A-318 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
SOUTH YUBA WATER DISTRICT
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies. Development within the District is expected as the Feather Creek
Specific Plan is approved and construction begins. As areas within the District become urbanized,
the District anticipates detaching the subdivisions. The District has commented on development
EIRs and reports that “intense uses on lands adjacent to the District canals” could lead to seepage,
trespassing and canal vandalism. The District’s contract with YCWA provides that it may sell water
only for agricultural and wildlife habitat purposes and only to customers within District bounds. It
allows for the District to convert a portion of its contractual water supply to municipal use if
irrigable acres decline by 20 percent or more over the 1991-2016 contract term. The District
reported that it is concerned about the impacts of future urbanization on groundwater supplies, and
that future urban development should be required to contribute to treated surface water facilities.
The District recommends that YCWA would be the appropriate agency to construct a water
treatment plant and wholesale treated surface water to urban purveyors in the vicinity of SYWD.457
MANAGEMENT
The District’s facilities are maintained by a YCWA ditch tender, with reimbursement by SYWD.
The board members hire contractors for maintenance, perform certain maintenance themselves, and
also rely on their own farm employees.
The District’s planning efforts include a Water Conservation Plan (1983), a Watershed
Management Plan and a Groundwater Management Plan (1998). The District reported that long-
range goals and objectives are outlined in the District’s Master Facilities Plan; however, the District
did not provide a copy of that plan.
The District reported that it adopts an annual budget at board meetings, that it prepares audited
financial statements annually, and that it does not prepare a capital improvement plan. The District
provided notes indicating a budget had been adopted for 2007, but did not provide financial
statements. Hence, the consultant cannot confirm the District prepares audited financial statements.
LAFCO confirmed that the District reported FY 05-06 financial information (unaudited) to the
State Controller’s Office.458
No awards, honors and accomplishments in the last five years were identified.
FINANCING
The District fund accounting practices are unavailable, because no financial statement was
provided to LAFCO.
SYWD received $192,478 in revenues in CY 2006. Primary revenue sources were stand-by fees
for service, assessments based on acreage (88 percent) and interest (seven percent). The District
does not receive property taxes.
457 Correspondence from Paul Minasian, SYWD Secretary, May 19, 2008.
458 State Controllers Office, Special Districts Annual Report, FY 05-06, 2006, p. 398.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-319
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Expenditures in CY 2006 totaled $165,311, of which water purchases comprised 46 percent,
operations and management comprised 24 percent, and compensation for a ditch tender constituted
15 percent. Other expenditures included legal fees and consultants, an audit, insurance, and
maintenance.
The District’s long-term debt was unavailable.
No capital expenditures were planned for FY 06-07, according to the District’s budget. The
District did not report any upcoming significant capital outlays.
By way of financial reserves, the District had a cash balance of $530,776 at the end of CY 2006.
This amounted to 320 percent of the District’s annual expenses. The District maintained
approximately 38 months of working capital. The District has no formal policy on target financial
reserves.
The District engages in joint financing arrangements related to maintenance of the YCWA
Canal. SYWD pays a share of canal operations and maintenance costs, and Brophy Water District
pays for the remainder, with the costs allocated based on the amount of water ordered annually.459
WATER SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
SYWD distributes irrigation water to landowners. District users all rely on a canal and ditch
system for water delivery, with water flowing through the South Yuba Canal, also known as the
South Yuba Canal. SYWD repairs and monitors the ditch system. SYWD is not directly
responsible for maintenance of the canal; it reimburses YCWA for canal operations and
maintenance expenses. SYWD does not provide water treatment services.
The District relies on surface water from the Yuba River through a project-based contract
agreement with YCWA for 25,487 acre feet per year and a supplemental contract for 18,843 acre
feet per year. The District has groundwater pumping capabilities to offset cutbacks of surface water
during drought years. The District reported that its landowners used groundwater in 1991 and 2002,
and report to the District when groundwater is used due to concerns about overdraft. The District’s
1998 Groundwater Management Plan indicates that the District will conduct groundwater salinity
testing and may engage in groundwater monitoring efforts relating to groundwater salinity.
Water demand estimates range from four to six af per acre, depending on the type of crop and
the irrigation system.460 In charging its water rates, SYWD assumes each property uses an average of
five af per acre. The District anticipates that future water demand will be lower than existing water
demand as areas become urbanized and detach from SYWD.
459 The canal maintenance cost allocation method was provided by SYWD Secretary, Paul Minasian, in correspondence to the Yuba
LAFCO Executive Officer, John Benoit, dated June 23, 2008. This cost allocation method was not discussed in the SYWD or BWD
contracts with YCWA.
460 South Yuba Water District, Water Conservation Plan, 1983, p. 1.
A-320 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
SOUTH YUBA WATER DISTRICT
The District would become responsible for implementing conjunctive use projects under the
Lower Yuba River Accord. If YCWA and SYWD enter into a conjunctive use agreement, SYWD
would arrange for water users to reduce surface water use and pump an equivalent amount of
groundwater as replacement supplies. These operations would be consistent with the safe yield of
the groundwater basin, with groundwater impacts closely monitored by YCWA.461
LOCATION
SYWD provides services primarily within District bounds. Upon map review, it was found that
it serves an approximately 60-acre property outside its bounds located between Rancho Road and
SR 65.462 Approximately 8,500 acres within the 10,240-acre boundary area purchase surface water.
INFRASTRUCTURE
As a result of an overdraft of the underground water basin in 1982, the District implemented a
water conservation plan and began to use surface water to meet most of the area’s irrigation
demand. In 1983, the District entered into agreements with Yuba Natural Resources and Brophy
Water District for the provision of surface water from the Yuba Goldfields and the transportation
of that water to a point just north of the District, respectively. In 1991, YCWA purchased the canal.
Based on a contract between the District and YCWA, the canal capacity is at least 250 cfs at Ostrom
Road. Based on SYWD and DCMWC contracts with YCWA, the canal capacity is at least 200 cfs at
the headworks just west of SR-65.
The District holds contractual rights for 44,330 af in surface water, of which 25,487 af is base
supply and 18,843 af is supplemental supply. SYWD receives approximately 4,000 af annually in
unused “spill water” from YCWA operations via Reeds Creek and Hutchinson Creek; this water is
held in the main canal to respond to demand fluctuations and service requests.
The District in conjunction with Brophy Water District, under contract with the Department of
Fish and Game, constructed river diversion facilities on the Yuba River with a Gabion-type structure
to prevent fish from entering the water supply canal. A 2005 letter from the District’s attorney
indicates the District potentially bears liability for a portion of the estimated $3-5 million cost of
installing a fish screen at the point of diversion on the Yuba River (near the Daguerre Point Dam).
The District’s key infrastructure consists of earthen irrigation canals, siphons and check
structures.
461 HDR and Surface Water Resources, Inc., Draft EIR for the Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord, June 2007, pp. 3-10 and 3-11.
462 The property makes use of drain water. SYWD became aware of this service outside its bounds in 2007, and has billed the
property for its use of drain water since then, according to SYWD secretary Paul Minasian in a July 17, 2008 interview.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-321
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-34-1: SYWD Water Service Profile
Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure
Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s)
Retail Water Direct Groundwater Recharge None
Wholesale Water None Groundwater Extraction Direct
Water Treatment None Recycled Water None
Service Area Description
Retail Water SYWD’s boundary is primarily located between Highways 70 and 65, south
of Olivehurst.
Wholesale Water None
Recycled Water None
Boundary Area 16.0 sq. miles Population (2000) 302
System Overview
Average Daily Demand 32 mgd Peak Day Demand NP
Supply 44,330 af surface water
Infrastructure
Reservoirs 0 Storage Capacity (mg) 0
Pump Stations 0 Pressure Zones 0
Production Wells 0 Pipe Miles 0
Other: earthen ditch distribution system, syphons, check structures
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
None identified
Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration
Current Practices: Water is delivered to SYWD through the YCWA-owned Main Canal. That canal
also delivers water to Brophy Water District and Dry Creek Mutual Water Company.
Opportunities: Future groundwater pumping and conjunctive use projects would be implemented by
YCWA and its member units to provide water transfers to areas outside Yuba County.
Notes:
(1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet.
Continued
A-322 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
SOUTH YUBA WATER DISTRICT
Water Demand and Supply
Service Connections Total Within Bounds Outside Bounds
Total 20 19 0
Irrigation/Landscape 20 19 1
Domestic 0 0 0
Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year)
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Total 35,976 34,009 35,456 NP NP NP NP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Commercial/Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Irrigation/Landscape1 31,849 27,283 28,423 NP NP NP NP
Other2 4,127 6,726 7,033 NP NP NP NP
Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year)
Source Type Average Maximum Safe/Firm
Yuba River surface 44,330 44,330 Unknown
South Yuba Groundwater Subbasin groundwater NP NP NP
Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year)
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Total NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Imported 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Groundwater NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Surface 44,330 44,330 44,330 NP NP NP NP
Recycled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Conjunctive Use
SYWD does not actively conduct conjunctive use operations. Future conjunctive use will be funded
by YCWA water transfer revenues associated with the Lower Yuba River Accord.
Supply Constraints
SYWD has rights to 44,330 af annually of Yuba River surface water through a contractual agreement
with YCWA. There was groundwater overdraft in the area in the early-1980s. Groundwater at some
wells is saline with TDS levels near or slightly above the secondary mcl. Precipitation and irrigation
water percolate into the groundwater basin with average annual recharge of the entire South Yuba
Basin estimated at 21,500 af annually, with an average of 17,000 af related to surface water deliveries.
Drought Supply and Plans
Drought Supply (af) Year 1: NP Year 2: NP Year 3: NP
Significant Droughts 1976, 1977 and 1987 through 1991, 1993
Storage Practices Surface water accumulates in Bullards Bar Reservoir, and is made available as
needed by YCWA during the year.
Although never invoked, the YCWA drought plan calls for 15% curtailments
when the flow forecast as of April 1 is 51-85% of normal levels, and 30%
Drought Plan curtailments when the flow is 40-50% of normal levels.
Water Conservation Practices
CUWCC Signatory No
Metering No
Conservation Pricing None, rate structure is flat.
Other Practices None identified
Notes:
(1) Includes approximately 4,000 afa in "spill water" via Reeds Creek and Hutchinson Creek.
(2) Other water demand is water fowl habitat, as reported by YCWA.
Continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-323
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Water Rates and Financing
1
Agricultural & Irrigation Water Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 06-07
Crop Rate Description
$5.38 per af on average. A stand-by charge of $19/acre is imposed on 90% of
All crops acres, and a $1 per acre assessment is imposed on all acres.
Special Rates
Water rates are the same throughout the District.
Rate-Setting Procedures
Policy Description Service charges are imposed on a cost-of-service basis. Water use is
not metered, but is estimated for rate calculation purposes.
Most Recent Rate Change 2002 Frequency of Rate Changes as needed
Water Development Fees and Requirements
Connection Fee Approach Any new water users are required to pay the cost of connecting to
the system.
Connection Fee Timing Upon connection
Connection Fee Amount 5/8 inch pipe: NA 1 inch pipe: NA
Land Dedication Requirements None
Development Impact Fee None
Water Enterprise Revenues, CY 06 Expenditures, CY 06
Source Amount % Amount
Total $192,478 100% Total $165,311
Rates & charges $169,344 88% Administration $16,279
Property tax $0 0% O & M $72,308
Grants $0 0% Capital Depreciation $0
Interest $13,534 7% Debt $0
Connection Fees $9,600 5% Purchased Water $76,724
Notes:
(1) Rates include water-related service charges and usage charges, and exclude utility users' taxes.
Continued
A-324 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
SOUTH YUBA WATER DISTRICT
Water Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Indicators
Water Planning Description Date/Status
Groundwater Management Plan Groundwater plan 1998
Water Conservation Plan Water conservation 1983-2003
Capital Improvement Plan None NA
Plan Item/Element Description
Emergency Plan None
Other Plans
None
Service Challenges
None identified
Service Adequacy Indicators
1
Connections/FTE NA O&M Cost Ratio $2,286
MGD Delivered/FTE NA Distribution Loss Rate 10%
Employee Indicators
Total Employees (FTEs) 0 Certified as Required? Not required
Notes:
(1) Operations and maintenance costs (exc. purchased water, debt, depreciation) per volume (mgd) delivered.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-325
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
35. S T R AW B E R RY VA L L E Y C E M E T E RY
D I S T R I C T
The Strawberry Valley Cemetery District (SVCD) provides cemetery maintenance and interment
services to the communities of Strawberry Valley and Clippermills.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
SCVD was formed on October 7, 1955 as an independent special district.463 The District was
formed to provide cemetery services and maintenance to the community of Strawberry Valley.
The principal act that governs the district is Public Cemetery District Law.464 The principal act
authorizes the district to own, operate, improve, and maintain cemeteries, provide interment services
within its boundaries, and to sell interment accessories and replacement objects (e.g., burial vaults,
liners, and flower vases). Although the district may require and regulate monuments or markers, it is
precluded from selling them. The principal act requires the district to maintain cemeteries owned by
the district.465 The law allows the district to inter non-residents under certain circumstances.466
Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those
services authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.467
The District’s boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The boundaries of SVCD extend north
from the North Fork of the Yuba River and are bounded by the Counties of Butte, Plumas and
Sierra, as shown on Map B-35. The District has a boundary area of approximately 29 square miles.
There have been no annexations to the District since formation.
The SOI for SVCD was adopted in 1986 to be coterminous with the boundaries of the
District.468 There have been no amendments to the SOI since adoption.
463 Board of Equalization Official Date.
464 California Health and Safety Code §9000-9093.
465 California Health and Safety Code §9040.
466 Non-residents eligible for interment are described in California Health and Safety Code §9061, and include former residents,
current and former taxpayers, family members of residents and former residents, family members of those already buried in the
cemetery, those without other cemetery alternatives within 15 miles of their residence, and those who died while serving in the
military.
467 Government Code §56824.10.
468 LAFCO resolution 1986-60.
A-326 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
STRAWBERRY VALLEY CEMETERY DISTRICT
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District has a three-member governing body. The Trustees are appointed by the County
Board of Supervisors to staggered four-year terms. Current Trustees are Benjamin Borsoff (Chair),
Cynara Barthelmes and Dennis Travis.
The Trustees meet on the third Monday of each quarter. Meetings are advertised in the Appeal-
Democrat, and minutes are available by request. The District does not have a website, so its
documents are not available online.
The District demonstrated full accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation
with LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with
LAFCO’s request for interviews.
Complaints can be submitted through phone calls, letters and in-person, and are reviewed by the
Trustees. The District does not officially track the number of complaints, but reports that none
were received in 2006 or 2007.
The District does not conduct community outreach activities.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The District considers its customer base to be the residents of the communities of Strawberry
Valley in Yuba County and Clippermills in Butte County.
There were 112 residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. The
District’s population density is 4 per square mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Population growth within the District is minimal due to the mountainous nature of the area and
sparse population. There are no planned or proposed developments located within the District
boundary and SOI area.
Business activity in the District includes a general store, a saw shop and a post office. Land uses
within the District primarily include residential uses and timber production.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies.
MANAGEMENT
The District has no paid staff. Once per year the District hires someone to maintain the
cemetery, typically during the two weeks before Memorial Day. All other cemetery services are
performed by volunteers.
The District’s secretary reports directly to the Trustees. The District does not conduct
productivity monitoring, but does evaluate the performance of the secretary at its quarterly meetings.
No strategic or capital improvement plans have been adopted by the District. Capital
improvement needs are planned for as needed through the annual budget.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-327
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Financial planning efforts include adopting an annual budget and intermittent auditing of
financial statements. The District reports that its financial statements were most recently audited in
FY 05-06. However, the District did not provide a copy in response to the LAFCO request.
FINANCING
The District’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and legal
limitations on revenue increases. The MSR found the District has managed to provide only minimal
service levels within these resource constraints.
Table A-35-1: SVCD Plot and Endowment Fees
Table A-35-1 shows the plot and Resident/
endowment fees charged by SVCD. Non- Property Non Non-
residents and non-landowner residents pay Owner Owner resident
higher fees for service. Burial Plot No Cost $125 $400
Endowment Fee $50 $50 $50
The District received $2,873 in total
revenues in FY 06-07. SVCD relies primarily on property taxes, consisting of 47 percent of
revenues. Charges for service constituted 28 percent of revenues. Expenses in FY 06-07 were
$2,717.
The District did not report its unrestricted fund balance at the end of FY 06-07, so its reserve
ratio compared to expenditures is unknown. The District has no formal policy on target financial
reserves.
According to the Health and Safety Code §8725, cemetery authorities must establish, operate
and maintain an endowment care fund. Fund monies are received through sale of cemetery
property and land and must be placed in a trust account for perpetual care of the cemetery. The
principal must be invested, and only the income from the investment may be used for care,
maintenance and embellishment of the cemetery. In FY 06-07 SVCD earned $200 from
endowment fees, yielding a fund balance of $1,480. The District earned $63 in interest on the
endowment fund for the year.
SVCD had no long-term debt or bonded debt at the end of FY 06-07.
CEMETERY SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
SVCD provides limited maintenance services to the Strawberry Valley Cemetery. Major
maintenance activities such as weed eating, brush clearing and tree trimming take place once a year,
before Memorial Day. Due to financial constraints, the District relies heavily on volunteers for
additional cemetery services. Other burial services, such as grave opening, casket lowering and
headstone setting, are provided by the mortuary of the customer’s choice. The District reports that
it is not uncommon for community members to volunteer to dig the graves and hand-lower the
caskets of loved ones.
A-328 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
STRAWBERRY VALLEY CEMETERY DISTRICT
The District reports that there were five burials within the cemetery between 2004 and 2007.
The District reports that there are approximately 160 occupied plots and 200 unoccupied plots, as of
March 2008.
LOCATION
The Strawberry Valley Cemetery is located on La Porte Road in the community of Strawberry
Valley, and is open to the public 24-hours a day. Neighboring cemetery service providers include
the Brownsville Cemetery District and Camptonville Cemetery District.
The District is authorized to provide burial plots to residents and certain non-residents, as
described in the Principal Act. Higher fees are charged to non-landowner residents and non-
residents.
The District provides service outside of its boundaries to residents of the Clippermills area in
Butte County. The District reports that it considers residents of Clippermills as residents of the
District because the Strawberry Valley Cemetery has historically served the community of
Clippermills, and because of its close proximity to the cemetery itself (the Strawberry Valley
Cemetery is less than three miles northeast of Clippermills along La Porte Road). The nearest
cemetery to Clippermills in Butte County is the private Feather Falls Cemetery, located
approximately eight miles away in a straight-line radius, but over 20 miles away by road travel (a
direct path is obstructed by mountainous terrain and the South Fork of the Feather River).
INFRASTRUCTURE
The area of the Strawberry Valley Cemetery was originally owned by the Birmingham family,
with the earliest burial having occurred in 1851. The cemetery was donated to the residents of
Strawberry Valley by James Birmingham in 1955, at the time of District formation.
The District’s key infrastructure consists of the 4.7-acre cemetery facility, 12 folding chairs,
artificial turf, and various shovels and rakes. The District did not identify any immediate
infrastructure needs, but did express an interest in building a covered pavilion area on a paved slab
to allow for burial services to take place in the rain, or covered from the sun.
The LAFCO site visit was unable to identify any infrastructure or maintenance needs because of
the depth of snow on the ground at the time of the visit.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-329
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
36. S U T T E R - Y U BA M O S QU I T O &
V E C T O R C O N T ROL D I S T R I C T
The Sutter-Yuba Mosquito and Vector Control District (SYMVCD) protects the public from
mosquito and vector borne diseases by controlling mosquitoes and other animals that carry diseases.
Sutter County LAFCO prepared an MSR in 2007 for this agency; findings from that MSR are
summarized in this profile.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
SYMVCD was formed on January 17, 1946 as an independent special district.469 The District
was formed to control mosquitoes and other animals that carry diseases within Yuba and Sutter
counties.470
The principal act that governs the District is the Mosquito Abatement and Vector Control
District Law,471 originally called Mosquito Abatement Act of California of 1915. The principal act
empowers such districts to conduct surveillance programs and other studies of vectors and vector-
borne diseases, appropriate actions to prevent the occurrence of vectors and vector-borne diseases,
and necessary actions to abate or control vectors and vector-borne diseases.472 Districts must apply
and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those services authorized
by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.473
The District’s boundary is within Sutter and Yuba counties. Sutter is the principal county, based
on assessed valuation, and Sutter LAFCO has jurisdiction over this agency. The principal LAFCO is
responsible for preparation of the MSR and SOI of the District. The boundary area within Yuba
County extends north to the Yuba-Butte county line, west to the Yuba-Sutter county line, south to
the Yuba-Sutter and Yuba-Placer county lines, and east to the western region of Loma Rica in the
northeast. In the southeast, the District territory excludes Beale Air Force Base, Smartville, most of
the Camp Far West community, and Spenceville Wildlife Recreation Area, as shown on Map B-36.
The District has a boundary area of approximately 706 square miles in both counties.474
469 Board of Equalization Official Date.
470 Sutter LAFCO, , 2007, p. 1.0-1.
471 California Health and Safety Code §2000-2093.
472 Sutter LAFCO, 2007, p. 1.0-1.
473 Government Code §56824.10.
474 Sutter LAFCO, 2007, p. 1.0-1.
A-330 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
SUTTER-YUBA MOSQUITO & VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT
The SOI for the District is consistent with the District’s bounds in Sutter County and Yuba
counties.475
Boundary History
The Yuba LAFCO record does not show any boundary changes after district formation.
Sutter LAFCO originally adopted an SOI coterminous with the District’s bounds in Sutter
County. This SOI was retained by Sutter LAFCO when it updated the SOI in February 2007.476
Sutter LAFCO did not adopt an SOI for the portion of the District in Yuba County, leaving the
updating the SOI “to the Yuba LAFCO, assuming a responsible agency position with regard to the
adoption of this sphere of influence.”477 The SOI for the portion of the District in Yuba County
was adopted by Yuba LAFCO in 1986, and included the entirety of the County.478 Yuba and Sutter
LAFCO searched their respective archives for substantiating correspondence that Sutter had
officially ceded jurisdiction over the SOI to Yuba LAFCO, and found no substantiation. Hence the
SOI reflects the official SOI adopted by Sutter LAFCO.
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The district is governed by a Board of Trustees that consists of seven members. These members
are appointed by each of the counties and incorporated cities within district boundaries.479 The
current trustees are Erica Jeffrey (Yuba County), David Schmidl (Sutter County), John Sanbrook
(Sutter County), Robert Coykendall (City of Yuba City), Bill Harris (City of Marysville), Charles Epp
(City of Live Oak), and Norman Welker (City of Wheatland).480
The Board meets on the second Thursday of each month at 4:00 p.m. Board meeting agendas
are posted outside the District office. Meetings are accessible to the public. The District has a
website, but agendas and minutes are not available online.
Customer complaints and requests for service can be made online via the agency’s website, in
person, by email, mail, phone, or fax.
The District updates constituents through media (newspapers, radio and television), the
District’s website and announcements posted at public places.481
475 Sutter LAFCO resolution 2007-02 and Yuba LAFCO resolution 1986-35.
476 Sutter LAFCO resolution 2007-02.
477 Yuba LAFCO resolution 1986-35, Exhibit A, p. 2.
478 Ibid.
479 Sutter LAFCO, 2007, p. 1.0-8.
480 Sutter-Yuba Mosquito and Vector Control District, 2007.
481 Sutter LAFCO, 2007, p. 1.0-8.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-331
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The District considers its customer base to be homeowners. It receives approximately 2,000
requests for mosquito control services annually. The requests have increased over the past five years
due to the presence of the West Nile virus in the area.
The population within the District has been steadily increasing. In the Yuba County portion
growth has occurred in the unincorporated area south of Marysville. Further development is
expected there in the future.
Precise data for the population of the SYMVCD are not available. The District uses the
combined population of both counties as an approximation. According to projections by the
California Department of Finance, the population of the two counties will increase by about 17
percent from 2005 to 2015.
The mosquito population will not increase because of urbanization, but the demand for
mosquito services will rise because of agricultural irrigation and the preservation of wetlands. As the
population around agricultural and wetland areas increases, the demand for mosquito control will
also increase.482
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies.
MANAGEMENT
The District manager provides general direction over the operations and activities of SYMVCD.
The general foreman directs and reviews the continuing operations of the District and reports
directly to the manager. Field operations are supervised by field foremen.
The District is considered to be well-managed.483 In order to increase its service provision
efficiency, the District looks at opportunities to either contract for outside services or perform in-
house services whenever appropriate.484 The MSR prepared by Sutter LAFCO did not describe or
identify planning efforts, financial planning efforts, awards and accomplishments.
FINANCING
In FY 04-05, the District reported $2.1 million in revenues. The District relies heavily on
property tax as a source of revenue. About 91 percent of the District’s revenue comes from property
taxes. The rest is provided by special assessments, charges for services, rental income, State in-lieu
funds, interest earned, and other sources. The District has no plans to propose an increase in special
assessments at this time.
482 Ibid, p. 1.0-1.
483 Ibid, p. 1.0-6.
484 Ibid.
A-332 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
SUTTER-YUBA MOSQUITO & VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT
The District reported $2.1 million in expenditures in FY 04-05. Services and supplies
constituted the main expenditure category. The FY 05-06 budget shows an increase in expenditures
by three percent, mostly due to increases in salaries and benefits rather than service and supply
expenditures.
The District maintains three types of reserves: short-term savings to defray expenses between
the beginning of a fiscal year and the receipt of tax revenue, an unappropriated reserve for
emergencies in defraying unanticipated expenses, and a reserve for the possible purchase of land in
East Nicolaus that is currently leased by the District.485
Information regarding the District’s long-term debt, planned capital expenditures and joint
agreements were not reported in the MSR.
MOSQUITO & VECTOR CONTROL SERVICES
NATURE AND EXTENT
The purpose of the District is to control mosquitoes and other animals that carry diseases. The
primary service is mosquito control that includes the use of chemical compounds and natural
predators of mosquitoes, as well as modification of the physical environment to limit mosquito
larval production. Another service provided by the District is an education program to increase
public awareness of mosquito and vector control.486
LOCATION
The District provides services within the valley portion of Yuba County with the exception of
the area within Beale Air Force Base.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The SYMVCD facility is located in Yuba City. The facility consists of offices and storage for
pesticides. The District leases another facility in East Nicolaus in Sutter County. The District owns
and operates numerous vehicles, utility trailers and trucks.487
485 Sutter LAFCO, 2007, p. 1.0-5.
486 Ibid, p. 1.0-1.
487 Sutter LAFCO, 2007, p. 1.0-2.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-333
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
37. U P H A M C E M E T E RY D I S T R I C T
The Upham Cemetery District (UCD) provides cemetery maintenance services in Yuba County
to the community of Rackerby and in Butte County to the community of Bangor.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
UCD was formed on June 18, 1951 as an independent special district.488 The District was
formed to provide cemetery services and maintenance in both Yuba and Butte Counties.
The principal act that governs the district is Public Cemetery District Law.489 The principal act
authorizes the district to own, operate, improve, and maintain cemeteries, provide interment services
within its boundaries, and to sell interment accessories and replacement objects (e.g., burial vaults,
liners, and flower vases). Although the district may require and regulate monuments or markers, it is
precluded from selling them. The principal act requires the district to maintain cemeteries owned by
the district.490 The law allows the district to inter non-residents under certain circumstances.491
Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those
services authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.492
The District’s boundary is located within both Butte and Yuba Counties, with Butte being the
principal county. On the Yuba side, UCD is located in the vicinity of the community of Rackerby,
west of the community of Brownsville, as shown on Map B-37. South Honcut Creek bisects the
District in a north-south direction along the Yuba-Butte county line, and La Porte Road runs
through the District on the Butte County side. The District has a boundary area of approximately
18 square miles, with roughly 9 square miles located in Yuba County. There have been no
annexations to the District since formation.
An annexable SOI for UCD on the Yuba County side was adopted by Yuba LAFCO in 1986,
and included approximately 2.5 square miles north of the District boundary on the Yuba side in the
vicinity of La Porte Road, in the community of Rackerby.493 At the time, Yuba LAFCO incorrectly
488 Board of Equalization Official Date.
489 California Health and Safety Code §9000-9093.
490 California Health and Safety Code §9040.
491 Non-residents eligible for interment are described in California Health and Safety Code §9061, and include former residents,
current and former taxpayers, family members of residents and former residents, family members of those already buried in the
cemetery, those without other cemetery alternatives within 15 miles of their residence, and those who died while serving in the
military.
492 Government Code §56824.10.
493 LAFCO resolution 1986-61.
A-334 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
UPHAM CEMETERY DISTRICT
stated that the area is not serviced by any other cemetery district; however, the area is in fact within
the Brownsville Cemetery District. Because of this oversight, the current SOI for UCD overlaps a
portion of the boundaries of the Brownsville Cemetery District. There have been no amendments
to the SOI by Yuba LAFCO since adoption.
The SOI for UCD on the Butte County side was updated by Butte LAFCO in 2004 and is
coterminous with the District boundary on the Butte side.494 There have been no amendments to
the SOI by Butte LAFCO since 2004.
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The District has a three-member governing body. The Trustees are appointed by the Butte
County Board of Supervisors to staggered three-year terms. Current Trustees are Ramon LeFevre
(Chair), Marvin Larson and Eric Manley.
Board meetings are held quarterly. Agendas are posted at the cemetery at least 72 hours in
advance of a quarterly meeting, and at least 24 hours in advance of an emergency meeting. Minutes
are available by request through the District secretary. The District does not have a website, so its
documents are not available online.
The district demonstrated full accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation
with LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with
LAFCO’s request for interviews and documents.
Complaints can be submitted through phone calls, letters and in-person, and are reviewed by the
Board. The District reports that no complaints have been received from 2005-7.
The District does not conduct community outreach activities.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The District considers its customer base to be the residents within the District in both Yuba and
Butte Counties. There were 725 residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS
analysis.495 The District’s population density is 40 per square mile, compared with the countywide
density of 114.
Land use in the District is primarily rural residential, but also includes land for cattle grazing.
The District has not experienced significant growth, and there are no planned or proposed
developments within the District boundaries.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies.
494 Butte LAFCO resolution No. 37 2003/04
495 Population estimate of 725 includes 500 in Butte County (according to Butte LAFCO MSR) and 225 in Yuba County.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-335
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
MANAGEMENT
The District does not employ any full-time or regular part-time employees. Maintenance
activities are performed by contract three times per year, between April and October. The
performance of maintenance work is evaluated at that time by the Board. The District reports that it
routinely uses the same local contractor for maintenance work and is satisfied with the results.
No strategic or capital improvement plans have been adopted by the District. Capital
improvement needs are addressed as needed in the District’s budget, and via a record of fixed assets
that is maintained by the District and updated annually.
The District’s financial planning efforts include an annually adopted budget and financial
statements that are audited every four years by the Butte County Auditor-Controller.
UCD participated in Butte LAFCo’s 2003 MSR of cemeteries and has implemented many of its
recommendations. According to the District, in 2004 Butte LAFCo considered dissolving UCD to
annex the area into Oroville Cemetery District, but the proposal was dropped due to concerns that
the Oroville Cemetery District could not adequately maintain Upham Cemetery.
FINANCING
The District’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and legal
limitations on revenue increases. The MSR found the District has managed to provide adequate
maintenance with minimal service levels within these resource constraints.
Table A-37-1: UCD Plot and Endowment Fees
Table A-37-1 shows the plot and endowment Resident Non-resident
fees charged by UCD. Non-residents are charged a Burial/Cremains
higher fee than District residents. (Full Grave) $100 $175
Cremains
The District received $11,151 in total revenues
(Existing Grave) No Cost $75
in FY 05-06. UCD relies primarily on property
Endowment Fee $100 $100
taxes, consisting of 66 percent of revenues. UCD is
a bi-county district, with approximately 60 percent of the tax revenue coming from Butte County,
and 40 percent coming from Yuba County. Other revenue sources included a transfer from the
endowment care interest fund (31 percent of total revenue), and homeowners’ property tax relief,
interest income, and charges for current service each yielding one percent of total revenue.
Expenses in FY 05-06 were $6,515.
The District’s unreserved fund balance at the end of FY 05-06 was $6,675. This amounted to
102 percent of the District’s expenses in FY 05-06. The District has no formal policy on target
financial reserves, but tries to maintain reserves equivalent to one year’s expenses (at least $6,500).
According to the Health and Safety Code §8725, cemetery authorities must establish, operate
and maintain an endowment care fund. Fund monies are received through sale of cemetery
property and land and must be placed in a trust account for perpetual care of the cemetery. The
principal must be invested, and only the income from the investment may be used for care,
maintenance and embellishment of the cemetery. The District did not provide the endowment care
fund balance and annual contributions for FY 05-06.
A-336 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
UPHAM CEMETERY DISTRICT
UCD had no long-term debt or bonded debt at the end of FY 05-06.
CEMETERY SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
UCD provides cemetery operation and maintenance services. Major maintenance activities such
as weed eating, brush clearing and tree trimming are performed by contract three times per year,
between April and October. Other burial services, such as grave opening, casket lowering and
headstone setting, are provided by the mortuary of the customer’s choice.
The District reports that there have been 23 burials within the cemetery from 2004-7, and that
there are approximately 2,000 plots available for purchase. The District allows the burial of one full
body or two cremains per plot.
LOCATION
The District is authorized to provide burial plots to residents and certain non-residents, as
described in the principal act. Higher fees for service are charged to non-residents.
The Upham Cemetery is located at 470 Upham Road in the community of Bangor in Butte
County. The cemetery facility consists of a three-acre plot, two acres of which are developed.
Upham Cemetery is open to the public 24-hours a day. Neighboring cemetery service providers
include the Brownville Cemetery District, Peoria Cemetery District and Keystone Cemetery District
in Yuba County, and the Bangor Cemetery District and Oroville Cemetery District in Butte County.
The District provides service outside of its boundaries to residents of the community of
Rackerby, in Yuba County. The District reports that this area has historically been served by
Upham Cemetery. UCD considers residents of Rackerby to be non-residents, but are allowed burial
services at Upham Cemetery provided that the non-resident fee is paid. This area (Sections 4-6 of
Township 18 North, Range 6 East) is within the SOI of UCD, but is also within the District
boundaries of the Brownsville Cemetery District.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The District’s key infrastructure consists of the Upham Cemetery facilities and maintenance
equipment. Facilities located on-site include a well and pump, a restroom building and septic
system, a storage building, and miscellaneous irrigation infrastructure. Maintenance equipment
owned by the District includes various mowers, trimmers, weed eaters, and other landscaping tools.
Future infrastructure needs identified by the District include the installation of a drip irrigation
system, building a covered pavilion area for cemetery services, paving a road to the back gate for
hearse access, and installing a vault inside the storage building to house cemetery records.
The LAFCO site visit did not identify any maintenance needs or infrastructure deficiencies. The
cemetery appeared clean and well-maintained.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-337
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
38. W H E AT L A N D C E M E T E RY
D I S T R I C T
The Wheatland Cemetery District (WCD) operates and maintains cemetery grounds, and
provides interment services.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
WCD was formed on October 5, 1937 as an independent special district. The district was
formed to provide cemetery services.
The principal act that governs the district is Public Cemetery District Law.496 The principal act
authorizes the district to own, operate, improve, and maintain cemeteries, provide interment services
within its boundaries, and to sell interment accessories and replacement objects (e.g., burial vaults,
liners, and flower vases). Although the district may require and regulate monuments or markers, it is
precluded from selling them. The principal act requires the district to maintain cemeteries owned by
the district.497 The law allows the district to inter non-residents under certain circumstances.498
Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those
services authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.499
WCD’s boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The City of Wheatland, the Camp Far West
community and the southern portion of Beale AFB are within the bounds. The boundary area
extends north to North Beale Road, west beyond Old Forty Mile Road, south to the Yuba-Sutter
and Yuba-Placer county lines, and east to the Yuba-Nevada county line, as shown on Map B-38.
WCD has a boundary area of 105 square miles.
The District’s SOI is coterminous with its boundary.
Boundary History
The original 1937 boundary included the Wheatland and Camp Far West areas. Since then, the
WCD boundary was changed on one occasion. In 1990, WCD was consolidated with the Lofton
496 California Health and Safety Code §9000-9093.
497 California Health and Safety Code §9040.
498 Non-residents eligible for interment are described in California Health and Safety Code §9061, and include former residents,
current and former taxpayers, family members of residents and former residents, family members of those already buried in the
cemetery, those without other cemetery alternatives within 15 miles of their residence, and those who died while serving in the
military.
499 Government Code §56824.10.
A-338 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
WHEATLAND CEMETERY DISTRICT
Cemetery District, and the territory formerly in the Lofton Cemetery District became part of
WCD.500 The former Lofton Cemetery District territory includes eastern Johnson Rancho, the
southern portion of Beale AFB, and an area west of Beale AFB (between Beale and Ostrom Roads).
Lofton Cemetery District had been formed in 1935 to maintain Lofton Cemetery—a three-acre
cemetery located just outside Beale AFB (to the southeast). By 1986, Lofton Cemetery District
received minimal revenue from internment fees and no property tax revenues; as a result, the
cemetery was no longer being maintained and had very few new burials.501
LAFCO adopted the SOI on September 2, 1986 to include not only the original WCD territory
(at that time, the WCD boundary area) but also the Lofton Cemetery District bounds.502 LAFCO
has made no subsequent amendments to the SOI.
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
WCD is governed by a three-member Board of Directors. The Directors are appointed by the
County Board of Supervisors to four-year terms.
District meetings are held four times a year or as needed. Prior to Board meetings, the District
posts the meeting time and location on the window of the Main Street post office, the bulletin board
at Wheatland Cemetery, and Plumas Brophy Fire Station on Dairy Road. The District notifies
others depending on the topic to be discussed in the meeting. Minutes from the previous board
meeting are available at the next meeting.
WCD receives few complaints regarding its cemetery services in any given year. There has only
been one customer complaint regarding services received in the last ten years. Most citizen
complaints are from neighbors regarding upkeep of the cemetery. These complaints are conveyed
by word of mouth, letters to the board, or calls to the supervisor and manager.
The District demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with
LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaire, interview and document
requests.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The District bounds encompass a wide range of land use areas including agriculture, residential,
the City of Wheatland, the Sleep Train amphitheater, a portion of Beale AFB and a landfill. Local
business activities include farming operations, banking, restaurants, retail, entertainment, and Beale
AFB.
The District considers its constituents to be individuals residing within the district, although
service is provided to non-residents under certain circumstances. There were 9684 residents in the
500 LAFCO resolution 1990-3 became effective October 4, 1990, according to BOE.
501 Mariano, Yuba County Cemetery Districts Sphere of Influence Study, 1986, pp. 12-13.
502 LAFCO resolution 1986-59.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-339
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS analysis. The District’s population density is 92 per
square mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
The District has experienced growth. The City of Wheatland and adjacent areas west of the
District have experienced recent growth and urban development. Significant growth is anticipated
within the District in the next few years as planned developments begin construction in the City of
Wheatland and north of the City.
Planned developments in the District include Magnolia Ranch, Chippewa, Feather Creek, in the
unincorporated area, and Johnson Rancho, Heritage Oaks East, Nichols Ranch and Jones Ranch
within the City of Wheatland. Total acreage for these developments is 7,330. At build-out of the
plans there will be a maximum of 21,130 dwelling units and 540 acres of commercial and industrial
space.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies.
MANAGEMENT
The District employs three groundskeepers to mow, abate weeds, and stake graves, a part-time
manager to oversee daily operations, and a part-time assistant to write checks and respond to
inquiries. All employees report to the Board at quarterly meetings.
Employee performance evaluations are performed on an ongoing basis. The groundskeepers’
performance is evaluated based on the condition of the grounds. Board members monitor the
appearance of the cemetery. According to the manager, the manager’s performance is evaluated by
the Board at each meeting. The District does not evaluate its own performance.
WCD monitors productivity by documenting the number of interments.
The District’s management practices include intermittent financial audits and performance
benchmarking. The most recent financial audit was completed for FY 02-03. The agency refers to
the California Association of Public Cemeteries’ survey reports for comparisons on grave prices,
worker compensation, administrative fees, and endowment fund fee contributions.
WCD has not adopted a strategic plan.
Annually, the District receives recognition for its perfect safety record from Preferred
Employer’s Insurance in the form of a rebate. Additionally, the District has received a plaque from
the State Compensation Insurance Fund for Outstanding Workers Compensation and Safety.
FINANCING
The District’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and legal
limitations on revenue increases. The MSR found the District has managed to provide adequate
service levels within these resource constraints.
A-340 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
WHEATLAND CEMETERY DISTRICT
The District received $98,456 in total revenues in FY 05-06. WCD relies primarily (94 percent)
on property taxes. Charges for service constituted three percent of revenues. Fees for plots and the
endowment are shown in Table A-38-1. Expenses in the same FY year were $55,380.
Table A-38-1: WCD Plot and Endowment Fees
The District’s unreserved fund balance Resident Non-resident
at the end of FY 05-06 was $81,433. This Burial Plot $150 $250
amounted to 147 percent of the District’s
Endowment Fee $100 $200
expenses in FY 05-06. The agency has not
Cremation Plot $50 $85
adopted an official reserve policy.
Endowment Fee $34 $67
According to the Health and Safety Code §8725, cemetery authorities must establish, operate
and maintain an endowment care fund. Fund monies are received through sale of cemetery
property and land and must be placed in a trust account for perpetual care of the cemetery. The
principal must be invested, and only the income from the investment may be used for care,
maintenance and embellishment of the cemetery. At the end of FY 05-06, WCD had earned $2,200
from endowment fees and had a fund balance of $88,727. The agency earned $836 income from
interest on the endowment fund.
WCD had no long-term debt or bonded debt.
CEMETERY SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
WCD provides cemetery operation and maintenance and sales and staking of interment plots.
Other burial services, such as opening and closing graves, lowering caskets, and setting headstones,
are provided by the mortuary of the customer’s choice.
The District provides maintenance services to the Wheatland Cemetery on a daily basis by the
groundskeepers. Lofton Cemetery is maintained on Memorial Day, Veteran’s Day and September
11th, primarily through volunteers.
In the last three calendar years, the District has accommodated 55 burials. There were 19 burials
in 2004, 24 in 2005, and 12 by November 2006.
LOCATION
The plots for burial and cremation are available in the Wheatland Cemetery to residents and
non-residents (with limitations) of the District for a fee according to place of residence. The District
is authorized to provide burial plots to residents and certain non-residents, as previously mentioned.
Residents must provide proof of residence within the District boundaries. Non-residents eligible for
burial must provide proof that a blood relative is interred in the cemetery. Pre-purchasing of plots is
only available for spouses of the deceased buried in the cemetery.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-341
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
INFRASTRUCTURE
WCD’s key infrastructure consists of two cemeteries and maintenance equipment.
Wheatland Cemetery, on Wheatland Road, was created in 1871. According to burial records, the
first interment was in 1845. WCD acquired the cemetery in 1937, when the District was established.
The cemetery is still active and currently 2,177 plots are occupied or purchased. The cemetery
encompasses 13 acres of developed cemetery land and 12 acres of undeveloped land for expansion.
Facilities at the cemetery include an equipment shed and office space. The cemetery has been well
maintained and is in good condition. The District identified a need for a new roof on the shed. The
LAFCO site visit identified no other deficiencies.
Lofton Cemetery is located past the end of Ostrom Road, just south of Beale AFB. The first
interment, according to gravestone records, was in 1862.503 WCD acquired the cemetery in 1990
through annexation of the Lofton Cemetery District. The Cemetery is approximately three acres
and is about half occupied. The cemetery is open for burials; however, there has been limited use in
recent years. There were two burials in 2005 and, before that, one burial in 2001.504 According to
the District, the cemetery is in fair condition. The District identified a need for maintenance to
repair lifting sidewalks and concrete.
The District owns a tractor with a bucket attachment and multiple lawn mowers. All equipment
is stored in a shed at the Wheatland Cemetery.
503 Gravestone records are limited to markers that are still in place. Records are not available for gravestones lost due to fire or theft.
504 Yuba Roots, 2007.
A-342 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
WHEATLAND WATER DISTRICT
39. W H E AT L A N D WAT E R D I S T R I C T
The Wheatland Water District (WWD) is not presently a service provider, but is expected to
start providing water distribution services to areas north of Dry Creek by 2010.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
WWD was formed in 1954 as an independent special district. The District was formed to
provide irrigation water to the areas surrounding the City of Wheatland. Over the years, there have
been several unsuccessful attempts made by WWD and YCWA to deliver water to the area.
The principal act that governs the District is California Water District law.505 The act empowers
water districts to produce, store, transmit and distribute water for irrigation, domestic, industrial, and
municipal purposes and to provide related drainage service. Districts must apply and obtain
LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those services authorized by the
principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.506
WWD’s boundary is entirely within Yuba County.507 The vast majority of the boundary area is
located north of the City of Wheatland, northeast of SR 65, west of Bradshaw Road, northwest of
Spenceville Road, and south of Beale AFB. The boundary includes two small, noncontiguous areas
to the west and southwest of the City of Wheatland, south of Dairy Road and west of Oakley Lane,
as shown on Map B-39. The District has a boundary area of 17.7 square miles.
The WWD SOI is not identifiable from the LAFCO record. LAFCO will adopt an SOI for
WWD after it approves the MSR determinations.
Boundary History
The District’s boundary history includes 29 separate actions discussed in this section.
Generally, the District’s bounds were expanded by annexations between 1979 and 1984,
although all of the annexed areas were later detached. The first boundary change approved by
LAFCO was the annexation of Norene Ranches in 1979 by LAFCO resolution 1979-20. After that
annexation, the district boundaries consisted of area northwest of Spenceville Road, south and west
of Beale AFB (south of Erle Road), and southwest of the Southern Pacific Railroad. Six annexations
between 1980 and 1984 expanded the boundaries of the district significantly in the northwest and
southwest, including areas west of Beale AFB, southwest of SR 65, and in the City of Wheatland
505 California Water Code §34000-38501.
506 Government Code §56842.12.
507 The southern WWD boundary had originally extended into Sutter County, but that area was detached in 1986 and 2001.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-343
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
vicinity, and northeast of the District bounds in the Camp Far West area. These annexations include
Weststeyn (LAFCO resolution 1980-7), Sohrakoff (LAFCO resolution 1980-8), Beukelman
(LAFCO resolution 1980-9), Deep Violet Farms (LAFCO resolution 1980-11), a 12-parcel
annexation (LAFCO resolution 1984-10), and Sohrakoff and Stephenson (LAFCO resolution 1984-
11).
Between 1985 and 1989, a number of properties detached from WWD, most of which were
located along its western boundary. A 19-acre detachment from WWD to the City of Wheatland
occurred in 1985,508 reducing the boundary area in the southeastern portion of the District north of
Spenceville Road. There were 13 detachments between 1986 and 1989, including Hofman (LAFCO
resolution 1986-20), Boom (LAFCO resolution 1986-21), Norene, et al. (LAFCO resolution 1986-
22), Miers (LAFCO resolution 1986-23), Magnolia Farms, Inc. (LAFCO resolution 1986-24), Deep
Violet Farms, Inc. (LAFCO resolution 1986-25), Beukelman (LAFCO resolution 1986-26),
Weststeyn (LAFCO resolution 1986-27), Jensen (LAFCO resolution 1986-28), David Creps
(LAFCO resolution 1986-36), Lassaga (LAFCO resolution 1988-9), Pullmann (LAFCO resolution
1989-4), and Ehnisz (LAFCO resolution 1989-5).
In 2001, LAFCO approves a reorganization involving detachment of 71 parcels (1,911 acres)
and annexation of 19 parcels (2,411 acres) to the District.509 The detached areas were located in the
western portion of the District. The annexed areas are located along the District’s current western
boundary; most of these had been detached in the late 1980s.
Finally, the 46-acre Forecast Homes detachment occurred, decreasing the District boundary in
the area of the eastern portion of the City of Wheatland. There have been no subsequent boundary
changes to the District.
The current boundary of WWD includes two noncontiguous boundary areas to the west of the
City of Wheatland, south of Dairy Road and west of Oakley Lane. These properties remain within
WWD bounds because they were not detached when surrounding properties detached in the late
1980s. The larger noncontiguous area is an 18-acre parcel, which as of the year 1987, was owned by
Warren.510 The southern noncontiguous area is a parcel less than five acres in size, located adjacent
to (north of) the Miers property detached in 1986.
Sphere of Influence History
LAFCO discussed the District’s SOI at a 1984 hearing. At that hearing, LAFCO staff had
recommended a particular SOI be adopted, District counsel had recommended that LAFCO adopt a
more expansive SOI, and LAFCO staff indicated he would work with the District to update the map
if the Commission desired. The Commission approved the “amended” SOI “as outlined by Mr.
Hurst [the Executive Officer].” It was unclear what action was taken because the SOI should have
been adopted rather than amended, because the Executive Officer had made two different
recommendations and because there was no defined map available at that meeting illustrating the
508 LAFCO resolution 1985-12.
509 LAFCO resolution 2001-3.
510 As indicated by a Wheatland Water District working map, dated September 1987, found in the Yuba LAFCO archive.
A-344 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
WHEATLAND WATER DISTRICT
District’s proposal. There is no record of a resolution or proposed or revised SOI map for the
District in the LAFCO archives.511
LAFCO took another unclear SOI action in 2000.512 The Commission approved an amended
SOI for the District as illustrated on a map exhibit. It is unclear what action was taken because the
SOI should have been adopted rather than amended, and the map exhibit could not be located in
the LAFCO archives.
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The district has a five-member governing body. The principal act provides for board members
to be elected by the landowners who may cast one vote per acre/assessed value/assessments
(depends on legal structure of assessments). In practice, the board member positions are typically
uncontested. The WWD board appoints board members if an applicant steps forward in the
allotted time frame; otherwise, the Board of Supervisors appoints board members. Board members
serve staggered four-year terms. Board members in 2007 are Doug Waltz (chair), Donald Stanfield,
Ramon Johnson, and Stephen Waltz; one seat was vacant at the time this report was prepared. The
District reported that it is challenging to fill the vacant board seat.
The Board is scheduled to meet monthly on the second Tuesday. In practice, the District has
only had agenda items to consider approximately twice annually, and other meetings are canceled.
Board meeting agendas are posted (although the location of the posting was not provided);
minutes are available at the following meeting or upon request. The District does not have a website,
so its documents are not available online.
All elections for governing body members since 1995 have been uncontested. Since there have
been no contested elections in recent history, landowners in the district have not participated in
elections and voter turnout rates are unavailable.
The district demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with
LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with LAFCO
map inquiries and document requests.
Complaints may be submitted through phone calls, email, letters and in-person. Complaints are
reviewed by the Board. The District does not track the number of complaints, but estimates that
one was received in 2006. Complaints and inquiries most often relate to slow progress in the
delivery of surface water to the area.
The District updates constituents at board meetings and by word of mouth. The District does
not conduct community outreach activities.
511 The surviving record is a page from the May 9, 1984 LAFCO minutes duplicated and included in a 1987 SOI study on water
agencies (p. 110).
512 LAFCO resolution 2000-03.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-345
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The District does not presently provide services, although it anticipates initiation of water
service to the portion of the District north of Dry Creek between 2008 and 2010.
The District considers its future customer base to be landowners with irrigation water needs.
There are rice, orchard and pasture agricultural operations in the District bounds. WWD includes
about 11,315 acres, of which 9,750 acres are irrigable. The number of acres presently irrigated was
estimated at approximately 7,800 acres.513 Approximately 9,000 acres would receive surface water in
the future.
WWD property owners presently rely on groundwater pumping to irrigate their lands. Portions
of the District are not irrigated. Presently irrigated lands are estimated to use approximately 26,886
af of groundwater annually. In the area north of Dry Creek, water demand is estimated to reach
35,111 af once surface water is available. There are approximately 2,490 acres located south of Dry
Creek where there are no current plans to extend infrastructure for surface water deliveries.
Portions of the area south of Dry Creek rely on wells with a good water table; other portions of this
southern area are located in the Laguna Formation geologic unit where soil permeability and well
yields are low.
There were approximately 344 residents in the District, according to 2000 Census data and GIS
analysis. The District’s population density is 19 per square mile, compared with the countywide
density of 114.
There are three proposed and planned developments within the WWD boundary area:
• Magnolia Ranch is a 1,028-acre proposed development located northeast of SR 65, along
South Beale Road, south of Ostrom Road. Montna Farms hopes to develop 5,000
residential units, over 40 acres containing neighborhood commercial development, and over
165 acres containing a business park and light industrial center. The contemplated business
park would be located in the northeast of the development at the intersection of South Beale
and Ostrom Roads.
• Nichols Ranch is a 486-acre project area running south from Dry Creek to just north of the
current City of Wheatland boundary. Designer Properties proposes to develop over 1,600
residential units, including 11 acres of commercial/residential mixed-use land.
• Johnson Rancho is a proposed 3,300-acre development located east of the City of
Wheatland, bordered by Dry Creek to the north and the Bear River to the south. AKT
Development, River West Investments and Lennar Communities are the three major
developers of the project. The initial plans call for over 9,000 residential units and 300 acres
of commercial property. A northern portion of the development is within the WWD
boundary.
513 Presently irrigated acres were estimated by the authors based in part on key assumptions in attachments to Amendment 1 of the
YCWA-WWD contract. Specifically, assumption 21 implies that approximately 6,900 acres are presently irrigated in the area to be
served by future surface water. Zone 4 (as shown on Figure 3 of the amendment) was assumed to be presently irrigated, and zone 5
was assumed not to be presently irrigated.
A-346 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
WHEATLAND WATER DISTRICT
Under the District’s contract with YCWA, WWD is authorized to provide water only for
agricultural and recreational purposes within the District boundaries. In order to provide municipal
water, WWD must gain YCWA approval and negotiate new contractual terms with YCWA. WWD
must gain YCWA approval in order to provide water to any areas annexed to WWD in the future.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies. The District has not adopted growth strategies. The Board chair
does not anticipate future annexations and indicated detachments may occur in the future as areas
urbanize.514
MANAGEMENT
The District has not provided water services to date. The District has no staff. Management
activities to date have involved cooperating with YCWA in the development of the future East Side
and Wheatland Canals.
WWD has not conducted planning efforts to date, and has not prepared a master plan or capital
improvement plan. WWD has negotiated contracts with YCWA, which include plans for the
backbone portion of the water delivery system which YCWA plans to develop on WWD’s behalf.
Although YCWA is taking responsibility for developing these canals and related backbone
infrastructure, WWD is responsible for design, construction and expansion of the local irrigation
distribution system and must complete this work by 2010 to retain water supply contractual
commitments made by YCWA. WWD has not planned the local system, but reported that most of
the larger landowners north of Dry Creek will receive service. For example, the land owned by the
WWD chair will be one-half mile from the canal; the private property owner is expected to develop
a distribution system.
The District prepares annual financial statements. It does not prepare audited financial
statement, a budget or a capital improvement plan. It has not prepared a rate schedule for future
water deliveries. It has not yet prepared capital plans and financing plans for development of the
local irrigation distribution system.
The District did not identify any awards, honors and accomplishments in the 2002 to 2007
period.
FINANCING
WWD tracks its financial activities through a single water enterprise fund.
The District received $131 in revenue in FY 05-06. The revenue consisted entirely of interest
revenue on the District’s fund balance. Once it initiates water service delivery, the District will
charge rates for water use and will have operating revenues. The District does not receive property
taxes and is not expected to receive any property tax revenues in the future.
514 Interview with Doug Waltz, March 23, 2007.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-347
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The District had $12,000 in long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06. The District had no bonded
debt at that time. WWD is amassing future debt related to YCWA construction of water delivery
infrastructure on the District’s behalf, although WWD is not required to begin repaying the debt
until the water delivery infrastructure construction is completed. The District’s debt to YCWA is
expected to reach approximately $1 million for canal and pump infrastructure. This debt is
structured as a 30-year loan; WWD will make interest-only payments during the first five years after
completion of the canal system and repay the principal over a 25-year period. By comparison,
YCWA anticipated construction would cost $8.5 million, according to its FY 06-07 budget.
The District’s planned capital expenditures are unknown; however, the District is responsible for
design and construction of a local irrigation delivery system. The District’s financing plan for raising
the revenue to design and construct the local delivery system was not provided. The District is
financing development of the backbone infrastructure through a loan from YCWA. YCWA is
financing a portion of the infrastructure needs through a $3.15 million DWR grant. YCWA is over-
sizing certain components of the infrastructure to accommodate future conveyance needs, and will
pay directly for a substantial portion of the infrastructure costs.
By way of financial reserves, the District had unrestricted net assets of $26,274 at the end of FY
05-06. The District has no formal policy on target financial reserves.
The District engages in joint financing arrangements related to development of the canal delivery
system. YCWA is developing the backbone infrastructure; once the delivery system construction is
completed, the District is responsible for reimbursing YCWA for its share of the capital costs.
WATER SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
WWD does not yet provide water service; however, it anticipates initiating water service in 2009.
The District must complete its local irrigation delivery system and deliver water to customers by
December 1, 2010 in order to retain the water supply commitments provided in its contracts with
YCWA. YCWA anticipates delivering up to 40,000 af of surface water to WWD.515
WWD is precluded from providing municipal water service by its contract with YCWA unless
YCWA explicitly agrees to authorize water uses other than irrigation.
The District would become responsible for implementing conjunctive use projects under the
Lower Yuba River Accord. If YCWA and SYWD enter into a conjunctive use agreement, SYWD
would arrange for water users to reduce surface water use and pump an equivalent amount of
groundwater as replacement supplies. These operations would be consistent with the safe yield of
the groundwater basin, with groundwater impacts closely monitored by YCWA.516
515 HDR and Surface Water Resources, Inc., 2007, pp. 3-23 and 3-24.
516 Ibid, pp. 3-10 and 3-11.
A-348 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
WHEATLAND WATER DISTRICT
LOCATION
WWD does not presently deliver water. Beginning as soon as 2008, the District will deliver
water to the portion of its boundary area north of Dry Creek. Neither the District nor YCWA is
developing infrastructure to deliver water to the boundary area south of Dry Creek. Indeed, a 2004
YCWA-WWD contract anticipated that future project phases would involve extension of service to
the southern portion of WWD, that language was eliminated from the contract under a 2007
amendment. The District reported that the constraints to serving the area south of Dry Creek
include: 1) YCWA concerns over the lack of a permit to use Dry Creek and the time needed to
obtain a permit, and 2) lack of canal capacity to serve all the land in the District bounds south of
Dry Creek.
INFRASTRUCTURE
YCWA is presently developing the infrastructure to deliver water to WWD. Once completed,
the infrastructure will deliver Yuba River surface water through canals and pumping stations to
turnouts and laterals in WWD. The construction project is expected to cost $10.5 million, and to be
financed by DWR, YCWA and WWD.
YCWA will construct the Wheatland Canal—9.2 miles of earthen canal facilities, a 0.6-mile
pipeline and two pump stations—to deliver water from the YCWA South Yuba Canal to WWD.
Specifically, the canal will convey water in a southerly direction and terminate at Dry Creek. It will
be a combination of improving capacity along existing canal sections and excavating new canal
sections. Capacity improvements on existing canal segments will be accomplished by raising or
reconstructing levees. The canal will be designed to convey a maximum flow of 240 cfs, with a
lower design capacity of 217 cfs south of Ostrom Road (all of Brophy Water District’s water will
have been extracted upstream by this point). The design annual water volume conveyed will be
42,200 afa.517
The East Side Canal will be constructed on lands within the Brophy Water District.
Approximately 2,100 feet of the East Side Canal will be constructed in the existing Brophy Canal
alignment; the existing Brophy Canal will be relocated immediately west of its current alignment.
The Jasper Lane Canal will be constructed on lands within WWD boundaries, and will be 3.5 miles
in length. After WWD repays its loan to YCWA, the Wheatland Canal will be transferred to WWD.
Project components include two laterals, two pumping stations, and siphon crossing of streams
and roadways.
517 Yuba County Water Agency and Wheatland Water District, Specifications for Yuba-Wheatland Canal Project Canal And Lateral Work,
March 24, 2008. Taber Consulants, Geotechnical Investigation: Yuba-Wheatland Canal, Oct. 2007
BY BURR CONSULTING A-349
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-39-1: WWD Water Service Profile
Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure
Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s)
Retail Water Direct (2009 or later) Groundwater Recharge YCWA (2009)
Wholesale Water YCWA (2009) Groundwater Extraction None
Water Treatment None Recycled Water None
Service Area Description
Retail Water After completion of the water delivery system, WWD will provide service
within the portion of the District north of Dry Creek.
Wholesale Water YCWA delivers surface water to member units throughout Yuba County.
Recycled Water None
Boundary Area 17.7 sq. miles Population (2000) 344
System Overview
Average Daily Demand NP Peak Day Demand NP
Supply 40,230 af surface water Peak Month Demand
Major Facilities
Facility Name Type Capacity Condition Yr Built
East Side Canal Canal 217-240 cfs Under Construction 2009
Jasper Lane Canal Canal 217 cfs Under Construction 2009
Foley/Tiechert Pumping Plant 185 cfs Planned 2009
S. Beale Rd. Pumping Plant 116 cfs Planned 2009
Other Infrastructure
Reservoirs 0 Storage Capacity (mg) 0
Pump Stations 2 Pressure Zones 0
Production Wells 0 Pipe Miles 0
Other: 12 road and creek crossings are planned
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
Surface water is needed to reduce groundwater overdraft and increasing salinity. The YCWA South Main
Canal and Bechtel Canal need widening and cleaning, the Brophy canal will be relocated west of its
current location. Nine miles of earthen canal need to be constructed. WWD needs to develop a local
distribution system.
Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration
Current Practices: None identified.
Opportunities: WWD will rely on YCWA for surface water deliveries. YCWA infrastructure is
shared with SYWD, Brophy Water District and other member units. YCWA may convey water through
the future Wheatland Canal to reach additional customers in the future.
Notes:
(1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet.
Continued
A-350 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
WHEATLAND WATER DISTRICT
Water Demand and Supply
Service Connections Total Within Bounds Outside Bounds
Total 0 0 0
Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year)
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Total 30,421 30,421 30,421 38,646 NP NP NP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Commercial/Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Irrigation/Landscape 30,421 30,421 30,421 38,646 NP NP NP
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year)
Source Type Average Maximum Safe/Firm
Yuba River1 surface 40,230 40,230 NP
South Yuba Groundwater Basin groundwater NP NP NP
Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year)
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Total 30,421 30,421 30,421 38,646 38,646 38,646 38,646
Imported 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Groundwater 30,421 30,421 30,421 0 0 0 0
Surface 0 0 0 38,646 38,646 38,646 38,646
Recycled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Supply Constraints
Historic groundwater use in the area has caused a pumping depression. Saline water quality has forced
farmers to abandon some wells. The southeast portion of WWD in the Laguna Formation geologic unit
has low soil permeability and well yields. YCWA supplemental water commitments to WWD are junior
to existing YCWA contractors, and subject to drought-related curtailments.
Conjunctive Use
YCWA is developing a conjunctive use project in the WWD area through DWR grant funding. The basin
will be recharged when surface water is available and pumping diminishes; about 70,000 af of aquifer
capacity is available for recharge. The recharge project will increase the safe yield of the groundwater
subbasin.
Drought Supply and Plans
Drought Supply (af) Year 1: NP Year 2: NP Year 3: NP
Significant Droughts 1977
Storage Practices YCWA stores up to 1 million af of surface water in the Bullards Bar Reservoir;
stored water is made available as needed during the year. The South Yuba
Groundwater Basin as a whole has storage capacity of at least 210,000 af.
Drought Plan YCWA has effectively used stored water to provide water deliveries during dry
years. In the event of a severe drought, YCWA first curtails supplemental water
in order of member unit seniority. YCWA prioritizes municipal uses over
irrigation uses in the event curtailments are needed.
Water Conservation Practices
CUWCC Signatory No
Metering None, but all future surface water users are required to be metered.
Conservation Pricing None, surface water rate structure has not yet been prepared.
Other Practices None required by the YCWA-WWD contract.
Note:
(1) YCWA may supply Yuba River surface water, groundwater or a combination under the agreement. Average supply is
expected to be the contractual amount. Safe yield is not available.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-351
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
40. Y U BA C O U N T Y R E S O U RC E
C O N S E RVAT I O N D I S T R I C T
The Yuba County Resource Conservation District provides resource conservation services to
the unincorporated areas and to certain areas that have been annexed to the cities in Yuba County.
The District also facilitates federal conservation programs in partnership with the U.S. Department
of Agriculture’s National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
Yuba County Resource Conservation District (YCRCD) was formed on September 20, 1957 as
an independent special district, originally called the Marysville Soil Conservation District. The
District was formed to provide soil conservation services to the communities of Camp Far West,
Ostrom, Beale AFB, and Smartville.518
The principal act that governs the District is Division 9 of the California Public Resources
Code.519 The principal act empowers resource conservation districts to control runoff, prevent and
control soil erosion, develop and distribute water, and improve land capabilities.520 Districts must
apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those services
authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.521
The District’s boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The boundaries include all areas within
Yuba County with the exception of the incorporated cities of Marysville and Wheatland (as the city
boundaries existed on December 19, 1973).522 Subsequent annexations to the cities have not had
corresponding detachments from the District. Therefore, all territory annexed to the two cities after
1973 lies within the District’s boundaries. The boundary area extends north to the Yuba-Butte
county line, west to the Yuba-Sutter county line, south to the Yuba-Sutter and Yuba-Placer county
lines, and east to the Yuba-Nevada and Yuba-Sierra county lines, as shown on Map B-40. The
district has a boundary area of 625 square miles.
The District’s SOI was adopted to include the entire county with the exception of the two
incorporated cities’ bounds as of May 14, 1986. The SOI has not been updated to reflect
subsequent annexations to the cities.
518 Yuba County Board of Supervisors, 1957.
519 Public Resources Code §9151-9491.
520 Public Resources Code §9151.
521 Government Code §56824.10.
522 LAFCO resolution 1973-5.
A-352 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
YUBA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Boundary History
The original 1957 boundary included Camp Far West, Ostrom, Beale AFB, and Smartville.523
According to LAFCO records, there were four annexations to the District between 1966 and 1973.
The final annexation resulted in the boundaries extending to encompass the entire county with the
exception of the incorporated cities of Marysville and Wheatland at the time. The boundaries have
not changed since May 19, 1973.
The SOI was adopted on May 14, 1986 to include all unincorporated areas of the County at that
time.524 There have been no changes to the SOI since then. Consequently, the District boundaries
include areas outside of the SOI, which were annexed to the cities between December 19, 1973 and
May 14, 1986—the Thornetree (44 acres) and landfill (180 acres) areas in the City of Marysville and
the Feather River Baptist Church parcel (2.2 acres), the Henwood-Nichols property (62 acres), the
Boehm properties (6.35 acres and .5 acres), the Sunrise territory, and the Dean Webb property (4.78
acres) in the City of Wheatland.525
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
The district has a five-member governing body. Directors are appointed to staggered four-year
terms by the Board of Supervisors. To qualify for appointment, the candidate must be a landowner
in the District and provide proof of endorsement from 10 Yuba County registered voters.526 Current
board members are Robert Mathews, Gerald Norene, and John Waskiewicz. Two board seats are
vacant.
The Board meets the first Thursday of every month at 2 p.m. at the Yuba County Agriculture
Commissioner’s office.
The District apprises constituents of upcoming meetings by posting the agenda at the District
office, in the newspaper and at the County Board of Supervisors office. Minutes are available at the
subsequent meeting. The meeting schedule is available on the District website.
The District demonstrated partial accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation
with LAFCO. The agency responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with
LAFCO map inquiries and document requests. The District responded to some requests for
information, but failed to respond to all requests for information.
With regard to customer service, the District reported that it has never received a complaint.
Constituent complaints may be submitted through phone calls, email, letters and in-person.
Complaints would be reviewed by the Board.
523 Yuba County Board of Supervisors, 1957.
524 LAFCO resolution 1986-31.
525 LAFCO resolutions 1980-6, 1984-14, 1975-3, 1977-23, 1978-7, 1979-9, 1979-21, and 1984-12.
526 Yuba County Board of Supervisors, Yuba County Local Appointment List, 2007, p. 8.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-353
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
District community outreach efforts include a website, where program documents and contact
information are available, and program brochures, which are distributed to inform the public of
District services. Other District activities conducted to increase public engagement include
recognition of the Conservationist of the Year, an annual student speaking contest and sponsorship
of a child for Range Camp.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The District considers its customer base to be constituents with inquiries on conservation
efforts. The District did not provide an estimate of annual inquiries.
The District bounds encompass the entire unincorporated areas of the County which contains a
wide range of land uses including agriculture, residential, and Beale AFB.
As of January 2008, there were 55,700 residents in the District according to DOF data and GIS
analysis. The District’s population density is 89 per square mile, compared with the countywide
density of 114.
The District has experienced significant growth and development. Further growth is anticipated
within the District in the next few years as many developments begin or continue construction
throughout the County. Larger planned developments include Johnson Rancho, Magnolia Ranch,
Spring Valley, and Woodbury. In total, Yuba County development plans include 23,000 acres, and
involve as many as 62,000 dwelling units and 1,040 acres of commercial and industrial space. For a
list of all planned and proposed developments in Yuba County, see Table A-44-1.
The District is not a land use authority, and does not hold primary responsibility for
implementing growth strategies. Plans for new developments are available to the District for review;
however, the District has not provided official comment on any of the plans received.
MANAGEMENT
The District employs one full-time employee to manage the various grant programs, one clerk to
take minutes at meetings, and one part-time bookkeeper. The program director position was funded
by a grant from the California Department of Conservation (DOC); the grant lapsed and the
position is funded by various other grants. The program director reports to the governing board.
The program director reports monthly progress at each board meeting.
Productivity is monitored through monthly progress reports to the board. The coordinator does
not receive regular performance evaluations from the Board. The District does not evaluate its own
performance.
According to the District, YCRCD management practices include triennial financial audits. The
most recent financial audit was completed for FY 02-03. No benchmarking practices were
identified.
To guide District efforts, the District adopts a five-year plan which identifies goals and a plan of
action to realize those goals. The most recently adopted long range plan was for 2002 through 2006.
The District reported that it is currently updating the plan.
A-354 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
YUBA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
The District does not adopt an annual budget or a capital improvement plan.
In the last five years, the District has received a District Merit Award from the California
Association of Resource Conservation Districts and an award from the DOC for outreach to
underserved communities.
FINANCING
The District tracks finances through a single general fund. The District did not provide recent
financial information for FY 05-06.
The District received $655 in revenues in FY 02-03. All revenues were interest income. The
District does not receive any property tax revenue. Although there was no grant revenue in FY 02-
03, it was an unusual year. In typical years, the District receives grants. The District received a grant
from the Department of Conservation for $144,000 for the CALFED Watershed Program for 2004-
7, and has applied for grant renewal.
According to the District, there was no long-term or bonded debt at the end of FY 05-06. The
District reported that it does not have any planned capital expenditures for FY 06-07.
By way of financial reserves, the District had an unreserved fund balance of $15,839 at the end
of FY 02-03. This amounted to 350 percent of the District’s expenses that year. The District has
no formal policy on target financial reserves.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
The District provides technical, programmatic, and financial assistance to landowners and land
managers of private lands in providing conservation of the County’s natural resources.
According to the District’s 2000 Annual Report, the District provides the following services:
• soil and other resource inventories;
• development of conservation plans for specific units of land;
• technical assistance to apply conservation practices, including cover crops, pasture
management, pipe drops, ponds, erosion control, spring development, woodland
management, irrigation water management, wildlife habitat improvement, and irrigation
water return systems;
• conservation planning assistance for local units of government;
• distribution of conservation education literature and visual aids to local schools and youth
groups; and
BY BURR CONSULTING A-355
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
• development and coordination of watershed protection programs.
The District’s primary project was the CALFED Watershed Program, which was funded by
grants from California Bay Delta Authority and the DOC. The District received a three-year grant
through May 2007, in conjunction with Sutter RCD. The District received an extension of the grant
until March 2008. The Feather River watershed overlaps both Yuba and Sutter Counties;
consequently, the two RCDs applied jointly for the grant. YCRCD was the administrator of the
grant and maintained the watershed coordinator position. Sutter RCD provided a cash match of
$3,000 to assist with payment of the coordinator’s salary. YCRCD applied jointly with Sutter RCD
for a new CALFED watershed grant, but the application was not approved.
The 2004 grant application outlined the work plan to be completed during the three-year
program, which included development of a combined management plan and a water quality
monitoring plan, an educational and volunteer clean-up campaign, large scale clean-up events at
illegal dumpsites, obtaining funding for technical assistance to landowners, and identifying, assessing
and prioritizing areas in the upper watershed that are in need of restoration. The District did not
provide information on which proposed projects had been completed within the grant period.
YCRCD recently completed an outreach program in conjunction with NRCS and California
Association of Resource Conservation Districts. The RCD received a $5,000 grant from the two
agencies to translate and print all informational brochures to reach Hindu, Sikh, Hmong,
Vietnamese, African-American, Latino, and American Indian communities.
YCRCD is currently collaborating with other conservation agencies (Sutter RCD, Butte RCD,
Yuba, Butte and Sutter County Agricultural Commissioners, University of California Cooperative
Extension, University of California at Davis, Coalition for Urban/Rural Environmental Stewardship,
and the Butte/Yuba/Sutter Water Quality Coalition), to implement the Feather total maximum daily
load assessment for Orchards. The program is funded by a $1.1 million grant from the regional
water quality control board to evaluate the effectiveness of vegetative filter strips to filter dormant
spray runoff. YCRCD provides all outreach and workshops for the program in Yuba County.
In 2005, the Board of Supervisors approved the Voluntary Individual Oak and Oak Woodland
Management Plan, as proposed by YCRCD. The plan outlines guidelines for voluntary oak
conservation on private lands. YCRCD was appointed as the agent of Yuba County to apply for
grant funds, begin negotiations with interested property owners and implement the program.527 As
of the drafting of this report, no funds had been collected.
LOCATION
The District provides services to the unincorporated areas within its boundaries in Yuba County.
527 Yuba County Board of Supervisors resolution 2005-292.
A-356 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
YUBA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
INFRASTRUCTURE
The District owns no facilities or infrastructure. The U.S. Department of Agriculture provides
the District with office space for the watershed management coordinator. This promotes synergies,
equipment efficiencies and the sharing of expertise between the two programs.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-357
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
41. Y U BA C O U N T Y WAT E R AG E N C Y
The Yuba County Water Agency provides water, flood control, electricity generation, and
project recreation and fishery enhancement services.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
FORMATION AND BOUNDARY
Yuba County Water Agency (YCWA) was formed in 1959 as an independent special district.
The Agency was formed to provide wholesale water and flood control services to Yuba County.
YCWA provides wholesale water service to its member units: South Yuba Water District (SYWD),
Dry Creek Mutual Water Company, Brophy Water District, Cordua Irrigation District, Hallwood
Irrigation Company, Ramirez Water District, and Browns Valley Irrigation District. Wheatland
Water District (WWD) is also a member unit with water delivery scheduled to begin in 2009.
The principal act that governs the agency is the Yuba County Water Agency Act.528 The
principal act empowers YCWA to conduct activities providing for sufficient water to be available for
beneficial uses, including irrigation, domestic, and municipal purposes, among others.529 The act also
empowers YCWA to develop and sell hydroelectric power, provide flood control services, transmit
electric energy, and provide public recreation at its project sites.
The YCWA boundary area includes all of Yuba County, and small portions of neighboring
Butte, Placer and Sutter counties. The boundary outside Yuba County automatically adjusts to
reflect changes to member units’ boundaries. There are several small areas within YCWA located
outside Yuba County: 1) an area in Butte County within Ramirez Water District extending north
from the Yuba-Butte County line to Middle Honcut Road, 2) a segment of Wheatland Road where it
crosses into Sutter County within South Yuba Water District’s boundary area, 3) a small area
between the Yuba-Sutter county line and the Bear River within Dry Creek Mutual Water Company’s
service area. The YCWA boundary is shown on Map B-41. YCWA has a boundary area of 631
square miles in Yuba County and 1.1 square miles outside the County.
There is no adopted SOI for this agency.
LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
YCWA has a seven-member governing body of which five members are the members of the
Yuba County Board of Supervisors and two members are elected by voters within the County, one
from north of the Yuba River and one south of the river. Board members serve staggered four-year
528 Water Code Ch. 84.
529 Water Code Ch. 84-4.
A-358 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
YUBA COUNTY WATER AGENCY
terms. Current board members are John Nicolleti (chair), Don Schrader, Dan Logue, Mary Jane
Griego, Hal Stocker, Sid Muck, and Tib Belza.
The Board meetings are scheduled three times a month on the first, second and fourth
Tuesdays. Meetings on the second and fourth Tuesdays are held at 8:30 a.m. in the Yuba County
Government Center. The Board schedules a workshop meeting on the first Tuesday of every
month, which is held on an as-needed basis. Board meeting agendas and minutes are posted on the
Agency’s website, where other planning documents, news updates and contact information are also
available.
The two elected seats on the governing body are often uncontested. The governing body seat
representing north Yuba has been held by Tib Belza since 1989; there have been no contested
elections for this seat. The governing body seat representing south Yuba was last contested in 2002;
elections for this seat in 1998 and 2006 were uncontested. The governing body seats held by
members of the County Board of Supervisors are typically contested, and voter turnout rates for
those seats are typically comparable to countywide voter turnout rates, as discussed under the
County of Yuba section in Chapter A-43.
YCWA demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with
LAFCO. YCWA responded to LAFCO document requests, provided responses to LAFCO’s
questions, and cooperated with LAFCO map inquiries.
With regard to customer service, complaints were not quantified or described by YCWA.
Complaints may be submitted through phone calls, email, letters and in-person. Complaints are
reviewed by agency staff and referred to the board when necessary. Service requests and complaints
are rare, because YCWA does not provide direct services to the public. Past complaints have
included land access issues, groundwater levels, flood control communications and water
conveyance.
The agency updates constituents through its website where news releases and ongoing project
information are available. YCWA primarily provides service to other agencies; through its IRWMP
activities, YCWA staff meets with entities with water-related responsibilities to coordinate regional
water issues. YCWA community outreach activities include press releases, public meetings on flood
control issues, grants funding via water districts and non-governmental organizations to conduct
classroom education and demonstrations on water and habitat conservation and fisheries, and
donates for fishing derbies and duck hatching.
SERVICE DEMAND AND GROWTH
The District considers its customer base to be the residents and businesses within its boundary.
There were 70,745 residents in Yuba County, according to 2007 Department of Finance data. The
population density is 114 per square mile.
There were 17,294 jobs at 1,568 employer sites in Yuba County, according to 2006 Bureau of
Labor Statistics data. Significant employers in the County include Beale Air Force Base (5,700
military and civilian jobs), Naumes Inc. (1,200 seasonal jobs), Sleep Train Amphitheatre (650
seasonal jobs), Baldwin Contracting Co. (300 jobs), KBI Norcal Truss (200 jobs), Bishop’s Pumpkin
Farm (200 seasonal jobs), Yuba River Moulding & Millwork (200 jobs), the Appeal-Democrat (120
jobs), and Shoei Foods (100 jobs). There are a number of farming and ranching operations within
BY BURR CONSULTING A-359
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
the County; major crops produced include rice, walnuts, kiwis, prunes, peaches, olives, grapes, pears,
almonds, row crops, irrigated and non-irrigated field crops, and timber.
Significant residential and commercial growth is anticipated within the County in the coming
years as planned developments begin and continue construction in the vicinity of the City of
Wheatland, and within the East Linda Specific Plan (ELSP), Plumas Lake Specific Plan (PLSP) and
North Arboga Study Areas (NASA).
There are 85 proposed and planned developments within the County, covering in excess of
23,000 acres, including 1,040 acres of non-residential development, with over 62,470 potential new
dwelling units. Proposed and planned residential development projects would add approximately
183,738 new residents countywide if future households are the same size as existing households.530
For a list of all development projects in Yuba County, see Table A-44-1.
The countywide population would reach 254,483 if and when proposed and planned
developments come to fruition;531 this does not include any additional development projects that
might be proposed in the future. By comparison, official growth projections for Yuba County are
substantially lower than proposed and planned development would indicate. SACOG draft
projections released in January 2007 predict a total of 139,484 residents within Yuba County by
2035. The Department of Finance projects 168,040 by 2040.
As lead agency preparing the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP), YCWA
has evaluated the effects of urbanization of agricultural lands. Many agricultural uses rely on surface
water, but urban uses rely on groundwater. Changes in groundwater levels and water quality, and
the need for enhanced flood protection are issues for which the IRWMP is developing strategies.532
MANAGEMENT
YCWA employs a general manager who manages 28 staff. A majority of YCWA staff are
engaged in operating and maintaining agency facilities, such as powerhouses, dams, reservoirs,
tunnels and canals.
YCWA’s management practices include annual financial audits. The District informally
monitors workload and performance. The District administration seeks out efficiencies and cost-
saving opportunities continuously.
Agency planning efforts include various project specific documents and technical reports, as well
as general planning documents, which guide the Agencies efforts. YCWA served as lead agency for
the Groundwater Management Plan (2005) and the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
(IRWMP) released in 2008, and as a participant in the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (2007). The
IRWMP is a collaborative effort with various Yuba County water and reclamation service providers.
530 The average household size in Yuba County was 2.9 in 2007, according to the Department of Finance.
531 Projected population derived from the 2007 County population reported by DOF plus the planned and proposed dwelling units
multiplied by the average household size in Yuba County in 2007.
532 YCWA, IRWMP grant application, May 2005.
A-360 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
YUBA COUNTY WATER AGENCY
YCWA plans for capital and operational expenditures through its annually adopted budget.
Although YCWA does not produce a capital improvement plan, it addresses hydroelectric capital
improvement planning through the PG&E budget process.
YCWA completed its Narrows 2 flow bypass project in 2007; the project is designed to ensure
minimum instream flows when Narrows 2 is offline (i.e., not generating power). YCWA completed
and adopted its hazard mitigation plan in 2007. YCWA completed its groundwater plan in 2005,
and installed groundwater monitoring wells. YCWA is the local partner in the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers’ Yuba Basin flood protection feasibility project, and assists Three Rivers Levee
Improvement Authority in its flood control project.
FINANCING
YCWA tracks its finances through enterprise fund accounting, with separate funds for general,
operations and maintenance, hydro, hydroelectric utility, power revenues, and bonds.
The District received $25 million in revenues in FY 05-06. PG&E power purchase contract
revenues constituted 75 percent of YCWA revenue. Other revenue sources include reimbursements
(12 percent), interest income (seven percent), water sales (four percent), and grants, property taxes,
and camping fees.
The YCWA general fund finances most of its water, flood control and recreation costs.
Irrigation facilities cost $0.2 million, with $3.3 million spent on water-related projects, such as Yuba
River Accord costs, engineering of the future Wheatland Water District irrigation system, and
groundwater monitoring. YCWA spent $0.8 million on flood control activities, including levee
expenses and grants, studies, and its forecasted coordinator operations. Recreation operations and
projects cost $0.5 million in FY 05-06.
Revenue from water transfers averaged $3.6 million annually between 1987 and 2005. YCWA
uses revenues from water transfers to pay for ongoing flood control projects, water right hearings,
water rights litigation challenges of SWRCB water rights decisions, water supply improvement
projects, and its Groundwater Management Plan.533 Revenues from water transfers are YCWA’s
primary source of funding for these activities.
YCWA had $42.1 million in long-term debt outstanding at the end of FY 05-06, of which all was
attributable to bonded debt. The bonds were authorized by voters, and secured on the sale of
energy to PG&E. The District’s underlying credit rating is BBB+ (good financial security
characteristics) as reported by Standard and Poor’s.
The District’s planned capital expenditures for FY 06-07 totaled $27.2 million, according to the
proposed annual budget. Major projects that were planned for FY 06-07 included $4 million for
engineering the forecast coordinated operations project (F-CO). The F-CO project aims to improve
the effectiveness of flood control operations by enhancing flood forecasting (through river gauging
stations and simulation models) and more effectively coordinating releases from Oroville and New
Bullards Bar reservoirs. The F-CO project is primarily grant-funded.
533 HDR and Surface Water Resources, Inc., 2007, pp. 2-13 and 2-14.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-361
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
By way of financial reserves, the District had unrestricted net assets of $40 million at the end of
FY 05-06. This amounted to 225 percent of the YCWA’s annual expenses. The District maintained
approximately 27 months of working capital. YCWA designated much of its reserves for relicensing
($17 million), project development ($6 million), the Narrows 2 bypass project ($2 million), future
administrative costs ($2 million), fishery enhancement ($1 million), and groundwater ($0.7 million).
The District engages in a variety of joint financing arrangements. YCWA employees are eligible
to participate in pension plans offered by the California Public Employees Retirement System—a
multiple-employer defined benefit pension plan. The District had outstanding loans extended for
capital projects to Dry Creek Mutual Water Company ($1.9 million), Yuba County redevelopment
($0.8 million), Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority ($0.7 million), North Yuba Water
District ($0.5 million), and Reclamation District 784 ($0.5 million) at the end of FY 05-06.
WATER SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
YCWA water services include Yuba River control, water storage, groundwater monitoring,
conveyance of surface water to water retailers, and managing fish flows on the Yuba River. YCWA
plays a major role in the management and allocation of surface water supplies in the MSR area and
the region. Its Yuba River Development Project—a series of dams and tunnels completed in 1970
to control Yuba River flows—provides flood control, power generation, water supply, and instream
flows for fisheries and recreation.
The Yuba River water supply is a function of precipitation and instream flow requirements for
fish and recreation. The average annual unimpaired flow at Smartville is about 2.45 million af, and
has varied from 0.4 million af in 1977 to 4.9 million af in 1986. Approximately 12 percent is
diverted for irrigation water supplies for YCWA member units. About 17 percent is diverted to
other watersheds for water supply and energy production (e.g., NID and South Feather Water &
Power Agency). The remainder is allowed to remain in the stream or is diverted from the Delta by
state and federal projects.
YCWA delivers about 310,000 af of surface water annually to its member units. YCWA
transfers about 76,000 af annually (on average) to the State and water providers outside the area.534
Under the Lower Yuba River Accord, YCWA will transfer at least 60,000 af through 2015 and at
least 20,000 af thereafter (the actual transfer is dependent on conditions in the YCWA FERC license
to be renegotiated by 2016) annually to those outside the area. YCWA would deliver as much as
140,000 af in additional supplies during dry years to the California DWR, with up to 60,000 af going
to the environmental water account and the remainder to DWR for distribution. The Lower Yuba
River Accord includes three agreements covering fisheries. YCWA is skeptical that significant water
534 Ibid, p. 2-14 and 5-10. Most transfers have been sold to the State Water Project and Environmental Water Account (for Bay-Delta
fisheries). Over the years, other recipients have included Contra Costa Water District, the City of Napa and East Bay Municipal
Utility District.
A-362 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
YUBA COUNTY WATER AGENCY
supplies would be available for municipal purposes, as it anticipates its supplies will be fully allocated
to existing member units (i.e., the irrigation districts).535
YCWA conducts groundwater monitoring at 23 wells, while DWR monitors 58 wells in Yuba
County.536 Future revenues from water transfers are expected to fund expansion of YCWA’s
groundwater and conjunctive use activities. Under the Lower Yuba River Accord, YCWA will
arrange for member units’ groundwater substitution of up to 71,000 af annually, or 180,000 af in a
three-year dry period.
For the most part, YCWA contracts with its member units prohibit the member units from
selling surface water for municipal purposes without YCWA approval. The member units with the
most anticipated development—South Yuba Water District and Brophy Water District—could
potentially access surface water when their contracts with YCWA are renewed in 2016 if
development affects 20 percent or more of irrigable acres in their boundary areas. Due to the SB
610 requirement for a water supply assessment prior to development, it would still likely require
YCWA approval for its members units to supply municipal water.
LOCATION
YCWA provides irrigation water supplies and conveyance services within its bounds to most of
the agricultural areas in the County. YCWA is developing canal facilities to initiate service to the
Wheatland Water District by 2009. YCWA groundwater monitoring and planning services affect the
valley portions of its service area.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Key infrastructure includes the dams, reservoirs and tunnels that control the Yuba River.
Surface water sources include the North Yuba River, Oregon Creek and the Middle Yuba River.
The inflow of water to YCWA’s primary facility is approximately 1.2 million af annually, on average.
Precipitation is the primary factor affecting the supply from October to March, while snowmelt
runoff is the primary factor from April through September.
The Yuba River Development Project includes the following facilities:
• New Bullards Bar Dam: The primary dam in the system is located on the North Yuba River
near the Dobbins community. The concrete dam is 636 feet in height and was constructed
in 1969. The spillway capacity is 160,000 cfs.
• New Bullards Bar Reservoir. The primary reservoir in the system has a storage capacity of
966,000 af with a minimum pool of 234,000 af for compliance with YCWA’s FERC license.
This is the primary reservoir in the basin for regulation of storm runoff and snowmelt. In
535 Correspondence from YCWA counsel, Paul Bartkiewicz, to Yuba LAFCO consultant, July 11, 2008.
536 YCWA, Groundwater Management Plan, 2005, p. 35. Correspondence from YCWA, May 19, 2008.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-363
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
wet years, most of the summer and early fall flows in the lower Yuba River are releases from
this reservoir.
• Our House Dam: This diversion dam is located on the Middle Yuba River. The dam
diverts water through the 3.7-mile Lohman Ridge Tunnel to Oregon Creek.
• Log Cabin Dam: This diversion dam is located on Oregon Creek. The dam diverts water
through the one-mile Camptonville Tunnel to New Bullards Bar Reservoir.
• New Colgate Powerhouse: This hydroelectric generation facility has a capacity of 315
megawatts. Water is directed to the facility from New Bullards Bar Reservoir through the
New Colgate tunnel.
• Narrows 2 Powerhouse: This hydroelectric generation facility has a capacity of 50
megawatts. It is located at the base on Englebright Dam (operated by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers). PG&E owns the Narrows 1 powerhouse located on the other side of the
river.
A-364 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
YUBA COUNTY WATER AGENCY
Table A-41-1: YCWA Water Service Profile
Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure
Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s)
Retail Water None Groundwater Recharge None
Wholesale Water Direct Groundwater Extraction None
Water Treatment None Recycled Water None
Service Area Description
Retail Water None
Wholesale Water YCWA distributes surface water to South Yuba Water District, Dry Creek
Mutual Water Co. and Brophy Water District, among others, and transfers
water, subject to need and availability to DWR, Contra Costa Water District
and other purveyors outside Yuba County.
Recycled Water None
Boundary Area2 630.7 sq. miles Population (2007) 70,745
System Overview
Average Daily Demand 1,140 af Peak Day Demand 2,273 af (July)
Supply The average annual unimpaired flow is 2.45 million af at Smartville. YCWA
water rights are constrained by complex instream flow requirements.
Major Facilities
Facility Name Type Capacity Condition Yr Built
Our House Dam Diversion Dam 60,000 cfs spillway Good 1969
Lohman Ridge Tunnel Tunnel 3.7 mile tunnel Good 1969
Log Cabin Dam Diversion Dam 12,000 cfs spillway Good 1969
Camptonville Tunnel Tunnel 3.8 mile tunnel Good 1969
New Bullards Bar Dam Dam 160,000 cfs spillway Good 1969
New Bullards Bar ReservoirReservoir 966,103 af capacity Good 1969
South Yuba Canal Canal at least 250 cfs3 Good 1983
Other Infrastructure
Reservoirs 1 Storage Capacity (mg) 3 14,893
Pump Stations 0 Pressure Zones 0
Production Wells 0 Pipe Miles 0
Other: concrete-lined and earthen canal system, 2 hydroelectric generation facilities
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
A new canal is needed to deliver surface water to Wheatland Water District to address a groundwater
pumping depression, increased groundwater salinity, and degraded water quality. A new fish screen is
needed at the head of the South Canal.
Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration
Current Practices: YCWA water flows through Englebright Dam, which is owned by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. YCWA owns Lake Francis land. Water destined for a variety of agencies flows
through YCWA facilities. YCWA is lead agency for regional water management planning in Yuba County.
Opportunities: Under the proposed Lower Yuba River Accord, the State and USBR will purchase
surplus surface water from YCWA.
Notes:
(1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet.
(2) YCWA boundary area and population reflect only the portion within Yuba County.
(3) South Yuba canal capacity is at least 250 cfs at Ostrom Road, according to SYWD secretary Paul Minasian. At the
headworks on the west side of SR-65, the capacity is at least 200 cfs.
Continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-365
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Water Demand and Supply
Service Connections Total Within Bounds Outside Bounds
Total 7 7 0
Irrigation/Landscape 7 7 0
Domestic 0 0 0
Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 0 0 0
Recycled 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0
Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year)
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Total 241,207 285,754 250,731 395,000 405,000 370,000 375,000
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Commercial/Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Irrigation/Landscape 241,207 285,754 244,687 335,000 345,000 350,000 355,000
Transfers 0 0 6,044 60,000 60,000 20,000 20,000
Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year)
Source Type Average Maximum Safe/Firm
Yuba River surface NP NP NP
Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year)
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Total NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Imported 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Groundwater 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Surface NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
Recycled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Conjunctive Use
YCWA conducted a conjunctive use pilot project from 2002 to 2007, funded by a Proposition 13 grant. A well-
run conjunctive use program will help YCWA meet its obligations under the Lower Yuba River Accord.
Supply Constraints
Supply constraints include precipitation levels and instream flow requirements for fish and habitat. Under the
proposed Lower Yuba River Accord, instream requirements will range from 260,000 af in a dry year to over
574,000 af in a wet year.
Drought Supply and Plans
Drought Supply (af) Year 1: NP Year 2: NP Year 3: NP
Significant Droughts 1976, 1977 and 1987 through 1992
Storage Practices Surface water accumulates in Bullards Bar Reservoir, and is made available as needed
during the year.
Drought Plan Although never invoked, the drought plan calls for 15% curtailments when the flow
forecast as of April 1 is 51-85% of normal levels, and 30% curtailments when the flow
is 40-50% of normal. General planning is for a 1% probability (100 year) drought.
Water Conservation Practices
CUWCC Signatory No
Metering Diversions are metered for each member unit.
Conservation Pricing None, rate structure is flat.
Other Practices Member units are responsible. Conjunctive use projects in development.
Continued
A-366 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
YUBA COUNTY WATER AGENCY
Water Rates and Financing
Wholesale Water Rates
Member Units: $1.68 per af for base contractual deliveries. $3.68 per af for supplemental supplies.
Transfers: $50-125 per af, depending on hydrological conditions
Rate-Setting Procedures
Policy Description Member unit rates are increased every five years to adjust for
inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index (California
composite)
Most Recent Rate Change 2005 Frequency of Rate Changes every 5 years
Water Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Indicators
Water Planning Description Date /Status
Groundwater Management PlanGroundwater review and action items Adopted 2005
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard risk, vulnerability assessment Adopted 2007
and mitigation plans
Integrated Regional Water Water supply and balance and flood Adoped 2008
Management Plan control, water management strategies Planning horizon 2030
Lower Yuba River Accord Cooperative settlement of Lower Yuba Adopted 2008
River operations
UWMP None, not required NA
Capital Improvement Plan None NA
Other Plans
None identified
Service Challenges
The primary challenges are increased instream flow requirements for the Yuba River, implementation
of the Lower Yuba River Accord, and financing constraints for groundwater and conjunctive use
projects.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-367
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
FLOOD CONTROL SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
YCWA provides flood control services through its activities associated with controlling Yuba
River flows. YCWA is not responsible for maintaining levees and flood control channels.
The forecast coordinated operations project (F-CO) project aims to improve the effectiveness of
flood control operations by enhancing flood forecasting (through river gauging stations and
simulation models) and more effectively coordinating releases from Oroville and New Bullards Bar
reservoirs. The F-CO project is primarily grant-funded.
LOCATION
YCWA flood control services are provided in accordance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’
rules for New Bullards Bar Dam. New Bullard’s Bar Reservoir must be operated from September
16 to May 31 each year to comply with the Flood Control Act of 1944. YCWA must reserve up to
170,000 af of storage space during that time for flood control.
INFRASTRUCTURE
YCWA flood control services are provided in accordance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’
rules for New Bullards Bar Dam.
ELECTRIC SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
YCWA generates hydroelectric power, which is sold to PG&E in exchange for bond payments
and operation and maintenance cost reimbursement. YCWA’s agreement with PG&E expires in
2016; negotiation of a future agreement creates financing opportunities for YCWA. YCWA does
not provide electric services directly to households or other users.
LOCATION
YCWA power generation facilities are located in north Yuba County.
INFRASTRUCTURE
YCWA power generation facilities include the following:
• New Colgate Power Plant: Located at the base of New Bullards Bar Dam, the power plant
generates 1,314 GWh of electricity annually.
A-368 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
YUBA COUNTY WATER AGENCY
• New Narrows Power Plant: Located at the base of the Englebright Dam (which is owned
and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), the power plant generates 248 GWh of
electricity annually.
RECREATION SERVICE
NATURE AND EXTENT
YCWA provides recreation services at New Bullards Bar Reservoir and Lake Francis.
At New Bullards Bar Reservoir, water recreation opportunities at the 16-mile lake include
fishing, wake-boarding, waterskiing and house-boating. YCWA in conjunction with the Tahoe
National Forest Service manage the recreation area. Emerald Cove Marina, a private vendor, rents
ski boats, pontoon boats, and houseboats. Two launch ramps are available. Other recreation
opportunities include picnicking, hiking and mountain biking. 92 campsites are available at three
campgrounds, in addition to a group campground that accommodates 175 campers. Limited
camping is allowed along the lake’s 55 miles of shoreline.
At Lake Francis, recreation opportunities include fishing, camping, hiking and boating. YCWA
prohibits the use of any gasoline powered motor on Lake Francis. Lake Francis Resort is operated
by a non-profit charitable organization providing services to foster children.
YCWA is exploring additional recreational opportunities along the Lower Yuba River, with
possible recreation associated with levee setback projects.537
LOCATION
YCWA provides recreation services at New Bullards Bar Reservoir and Lake Francis.
Recreation facilities are available to the general public.
INFRASTRUCTURE
The dams and reservoirs are owned and operated by YCWA. The infrastructure is discussed in
the water service section of this profile.
537 Northern California Water Association, Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, 2006, p. 6-104.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-369
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
42. C O U N T Y S E RV I C E A R E A S
There are 44 County Service Areas (CSAs) in Yuba County, 38 of which actively provide
services, and six that are inactive and have not yet been dissolved by LAFCO.
CSAs serve as a financing mechanism to provide for enhanced services in a specific area. CSAs
provide financing for a variety of services, including road construction and maintenance, stormwater
and drainage, street lighting, street sweeping, fire protection and emergency services, law
enforcement, flood control, parks and open space, and landscaping. All CSAs in Yuba County
provide some form of street service, with the exception of CSA 70, which provides extended law
enforcement services to the unincorporated areas of Yuba County.
A majority of the CSAs provide street service to privately maintained roads that do not meet
County design standards, with the exception of CSAs 52, 66 and 69, which provide street services to
publicly maintained roads that have been accepted into the County road system. Street services
provided by Yuba CSAs are to roadways and related drainage infrastructure only; there are no
bridges, tunnels, signalized intersections or other major structures maintained by any of the CSAs.
In addition to street services, CSAs 52, 66 and 69 also provide extended services including fire
protection, emergency medical service, flood control, landscaping, and parks and open space
maintenance, as shown in Table A-42-1.
Table A-42-1: CSA Service Matrix
CSA Location
A-370 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
noitcurtsnoC
daoR
ecnanetniaM
daoR
eganiarD/retawmrotS
gnithgiL
teertS
gnipeewS
noitcetorP
eriF
SME
tnemecrofnE
waL
lortnoC
doolF
ecapS
nepO/skraP gnipacsdnaL
noitavresnoC
lioS
Fire
Street Services Services Other Services
Major CSAs (Various Services)
52 East Linda ∆ ∆ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ×
66 Olivehurst and Plumas Lake ∆ ∆ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
69 Olivehurst and Plumas Lake ∆ ∆ ○ ○ ○ ○
70 Unincorporated Yuba County ○
Minor CSAs (Street Services Only)
2 Oregon House ○ ○
4 Brownsville ○ ○ ○
5 13 areas north of the Yuba River ○ ○
8 Oregon House ○ ○
9 Brownsville ○ ○
10 Challenge ○ ○
11 Oregon House ○ ○
12 Browns Valley ○
14 Camp Far West and Smartville ○ ○
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
CSA Location
BY BURR CONSULTING A-371
noitcurtsnoC
daoR
ecnanetniaM
daoR
eganiarD/retawmrotS
gnithgiL
teertS
gnipeewS
noitcetorP
eriF
SME
tnemecrofnE
waL
lortnoC
doolF
ecapS
nepO/skraP gnipacsdnaL
noitavresnoC
lioS
Fire
Street Services Services Other Services
15 Loma Rica ○ ○
16 Loma Rica ○ ○
17 Camp Far West ○ ○
22 Yuba County Airport ○
30 Smartville ○
34 Browns Valley ○
36 Browns Valley ○ ○
37 Browns Valley ○ ○
38 Browns Valley ○ ○
39 Loma Rica ○ ○
40 Loma Rica ○ ○
42 Browns Valley ○ ○
43 Brownsville ○ ○
44 Dobbins ○ ○
45 Oregon House ○ ○
46 Smartville ○ ○
48 Olivehurst ○ ○ ○
53 Oregon House ○ ○ ○
54 Oregon House ○ ○ ○
55 Browns Valley ○ ○ ○
59 Oregon House ○ ○ ○ ○
60 Browns Valley ○ ○ ○
61 Browns Valley ○ ○ ×
63 Browns Valley ○ ○ ×
67 Linda (CSA is not yet active) × × × ×
Inactive
47 Oregon House × ×
49 Browns Valley × ×
51 Smartville × ×
56 Linda × × × ×
57 Challenge × × ×
58 Browns Valley × × ×
Key:
∆ indicates service provided by agency staff and by contract with another provider
○ indicates service provided directly by contract with another service provider
× indicates formation purpose not presently exercised
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The principal act that governs CSAs is the County Service Area law.538 The principal act
authorizes county service areas to provide a wide variety of municipal services, including street
maintenance, fire protection, extended police protection, water and sewer services.539 A CSA may
only provide those services authorized in its formation resolution unless the Board of Supervisors
adopts a resolution authorizing additional services. If LAFCO approved formation of a CSA with a
condition requiring LAFCO approval for new services, the Board of Supervisors must first get
LAFCO approval before authorizing additional services.540 Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO
approval to exercise latent powers or, in other words, those services authorized by the principal act
but not provided by the district at the end of 2000.541
CSA OVERVIEW
Local Accountability and Governance
All CSAs are governed by the County Board of Supervisors. Board members are elected by
supervisorial district and serve staggered four-year terms. Current board members are Dan Logue,
John Nicoletti, Mary Jane Griego, Donald Schrader and Harold Stocker.
The Board meets weekly on Tuesdays. Meetings are held at 9:30 a.m., except on the first
Tuesday of the month when held at 6:00 p.m. Board meeting agendas are posted at the Yuba
County Government Center, the County Library and on the County’s website. Board meeting
minutes are available at the Yuba County Government Center and on the County’s website. The
County makes available its budget, general and specific plans, transportation master plan, and other
documents on its website. Online CSA information includes maps and financial information
contained in the County budget.
The County Public Works Department manages the CSAs and encourages each CSA to have a
committee or advisory panel to keep the County informed of issues, although any CSA resident may
contact the County CSA Coordinator for service requests. Complaints may be submitted through
phone calls, email, letters and in-person. Complaints are reviewed by the Public Works Department.
Complaints and requests for service within road service CSAs most often relate to road grading,
potholes and washboarding (i.e., a wave-like pattern of ruts on unpaved roads). The number of
complaints received by Public Works is not officially tracked for most CSAs; however, the County
was able to provide the number of complaints for the CSAs shown in Table A-42-2.
538 California Government Code §25210.1-25211.3.
539 California Government Code §25210.4 and 25210.4a.
540 California Government Code §25210.31.
541 Government Code §56824.10.
A-372 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
Table A-42-2: CSA Customer Complaints, FY 05-06
Number of
No CSA public outreach efforts were
CSA Complaints Regarding
identified. The County is not required to notify
14 5 Road Maintenance
the public prior to performing necessary
52 5 Street Lighting
maintenance activities within a CSA.
3 Park Maintenance
66 10 Street Lighting
Management
69 2 Street Lighting
CSAs are staffed and managed by the
County Public Works Department. There is one full-time CSA Coordinator and three
administrative staff that service County CSAs on a part-time basis. The administrative staff handles
the accounting process for all County CSA’s, with the CSA Coordinator managing all other aspects
of road-related CSA maintenance. Funds for fire suppression, emergency services, law enforcement,
parks and open space maintenance, and landscaping are transferred to the appropriate special
district, as shown in Table A-42-3.
Table A-42-3: CSA Extended Service Providers
When property owners within the CSA request Extended Service Direct Service Provider
street services or capital projects, County staff CSA 52
Fire Protection LFPD
reviews the requests for necessity and the availability
Emergency Medical LFPD
of funds to finance the requests. Staff recommends
Parks/Open Space Private Contract
which projects should be performed. The County
Landscaping Private Contract
hires contractors to perform road maintenance
CSA 66
work through a competitive bidding process, or
Fire Protection LFPD/OPUD
performs the maintenance directly and bills the
Emergency Medical LFPD/OPUD
CSA. County staff inspects the work performed
Flood Control RD 784
prior to making payment to a contractor for
Parks/Open Space OPUD
services.
Landscaping Private Contract
CSA 69
The County includes information on CSAs in its
Fire Protection OPUD
budget. The County annually prepares audited
Emergency Medical OPUD
financial statements; however, the CSA information
Parks/Open Space OPUD
is not identifiable in these statements. CSA financial
Landscaping Private Contract
information is tracked separately in the County’s
CSA 70
accounting system. There is no adopted policy on
Law Enforcement Yuba County Sheriff
CSA financial reserves. None of the CSAs have
long-term debt, and are not authorized to issue bonded debt. Planned capital expenditures were not
provided for the CSAs, and the CSAs do not prepare a capital improvement plan.
Financing
CSAs are primarily financed through special benefit assessments. Financing information specific
to each CSA can be found in the following CSA profiles sections.
Development requirements in place by the County require that new developments construct all
internal street system improvements associated with their projects. The County also levies traffic
impact fees for improvements on external streets to accommodate increased use, ranging from
BY BURR CONSULTING A-373
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
$2,756 to approximately $11,000 per single family dwelling unit depending on the location of the
development area.
CSAs engage in joint financing arrangements related to staffing, and share facilities for street
maintenance services and administrative purposes. In addition, the County Administrator’s Office
and the Sheriff’s Department provide administrative services to CSA 70. No other facility sharing
opportunities were identified.
Service challenges for the provision of CSA street maintenance reported by Public Works
include the rising costs of materials and labor, and the fact that assessments in the minor CSAs do
not increase with inflation.
MAJOR CSAS
CSA 52 OVERVIEW
CSA 52 provides maintenance of park and recreation facilities and services, street and highway
sweeping and lighting, drainage control, and road maintenance and improvement services.
Structural fire protection was added as an extended service within the CSA in 2005.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 52 was formed on August 13, 1992 as a dependent special district of the County to provide
maintenance of park and recreation facilities and services, street and highway sweeping and lighting,
soil conservation and drainage control, and road maintenance and improvement services. 542 After
formation, structural fire protection was added as an extended service within the CSA.543 The CSA
provides additional revenues to fire protection districts to fund fire and emergency services.
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The CSA 52 boundary consists of various
noncontiguous areas, but generally occurs within the East Linda Specific Plan area, north of Erle
Road and south of Simpson Dantoni Road, as shown on Map B-42. The CSA has a boundary area
of approximately 1,769 acres, or 2.76 square miles.
The CSA SOI extends beyond district bounds in the north (south of Simpson Dantoni Road)
and east (along North Beale Road and Erle Road). There is a nearly 10-acre boundary area that is
not within the SOI between Park Avenue and Grove Avenue, because no SOI amendment was
passed along with the Hoggan annexation. 544
542 LAFCO resolution 1992-12.
543 LAFCO resolution 2005-0001.
544 LAFCO resolution 2004-0026.
A-374 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
Boundary History
There have been three annexations to the district approved by LAFCO since its formation in
1992. In 2004, the Hoggan annexation added approximately 9.6 acres to the CSA, in between Park
Avenue and Grove Avenue, in the southwestern area of the district. In 2005, the East Linda Estates
annexation added 4.6 acres to the district north of Linda Avenue to the west of the previous district
boundary.545 In 2006, the Eastside Ranch Estates annexation added 14.4 acres to the southeast of
the district, north of Erle Road and east of Griffith Avenue.546
A zone of benefit was formed under CSA 52 on January 4, 2005. Since formation, five
annexations to the zone of benefit have occurred, as reflected by Board of Equalization records.
The annexations to the zone of benefit were approved by the Board of Supervisors. One of the
areas annexed to the zone of benefit (the Khairi development) is within the SOI for CSA 52 but is
outside of the CSA boundaries. The area in question is located between Hammonton Smartville
Road and Simpson Dantoni Road.
There has been only one amendment to the SOI since formation of the CSA. In 2005, the SOI
was amended by 4.6 acres to allow for the East Linda Estates annexation.547
Service Demand and Growth
The District bounds encompass primarily urban residential and minimal commercial areas.
Local business activities include construction and retail. The CSA customer base includes property
owners and residents.
A total of 1,947 households pay assessments to the CSA.548 Service demand in the CSA has
grown in recent years.
The estimated population in the CSA is 5,568.549 The CSA’s population density is 2,784 per
square mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
The District has experienced recent growth and urban development. Significant growth is
anticipated within the District in the next few years as planned developments begin and continue
construction within the East Linda Specific Plan (ELSP) area, which encompasses the District
boundaries, and is largely consistent with the District’s SOI (with the exception of a small area
between Park Road and Grove Road and two parcels northeast of Wood Road). Planned and
approved developments within the District’s bounds or SOI are shown in Table A-44-1.
545 LAFCO resolution 2005-0003.
546 LAFCO resolution 2006-0018.
547 LAFCO resolution 2005-0002.
548 Households figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
549 The estimated population is the product of the number of household paying assessments and average household size. The average
Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-375
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Major developments located within the District are the 389.7-acre Edgewater development, the
129.7-acre Orchard development, and the 108.1-acre Montrose at Edgewater development, all of
which are under construction. All three development areas are located along Erle Road, at the
southern boundary of the District. At build-out, these three development areas will collectively
contain over 2,850 dwelling units and over 17 acres of non-residential development.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 52.
The CSA received $185,870 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream,
constituting 89 percent of revenues. Property owners are assessed $23 for undeveloped and $148
for developed parcels annually. As of FY 05-06, properties within benefit zone B are assessed
$232.56, $81.60 of which is allocated to LFPD.550 The assessment is increased or decreased annually
by the CPI for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area
(CMSA). The CSA also receives interest income, which comprised five percent of revenues in the
same year. The CSA does not receive property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are
collected on the property tax bill.
In addition to financing enhanced fire protection in benefit zone B, the CSA’s primary activity in
FY 05-06 was related to street maintenance, with 82 percent of maintenance expenditures made to
Teichert & Son for dig-outs and overlays. Other expenditures included streetlight operations and
maintenance (8 percent) and reimbursements to the County Public Works Department (three
percent).
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $252,333 at the end of FY 05-06.
This amounted to 113 percent of the CSA’s annual expenses. The CSA maintained approximately
13 months of working capital.
550 Subdivisions within Zone B include the eastern portion of the Edgewater development and the Eagle Meadows, Orchard,
Montrose at Edgewater, Khairi and Dantoni Ranch Estates developments.
A-376 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
CSA 52 PARK SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides maintenance for two parks through a private company. Landscaping services
such as mowing, weed control, irrigation, and basic maintenance are also provided on areas
throughout the CSA. All landscaping and maintenance services are provided on a weekly basis.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff, who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Key infrastructure in the CSA includes approximately 9.8 acres of developed parkland. Facilities
at POW-MIA Park include a playground area, two basketball courts, two softball fields, and picnic
benches. Facilities at Purple Heart Park include paved walking trails.
Table A-42-4: CSA 52 Park Service Profile
Park and Recreation Facilities
Service Configuration
Park Maintenance Private Local Parks in CSA 2
Service Adequacy
Developed Park Acres per Thousand1 1.8 Recreation Center Hours per Week 0
Park Maintenance FTE Private Maintenance Cost per Developed Acre, FY 05-062 $1,272
Park Acreage
Total 14.6 Developed 9.8
Local Parks 14.6 Regional Parks 0
Recreation Facilities and Parks
Name Location Condition Year Built Acres
POW-MIA Park Edgewater Circle at Oakwood Dr. Excellent 2007 7.8
Purple Heart Park West Side of Rupert Ave. Good NP 6.8
Facility Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Notes:
(1) Developed acres of CSA parks based on population estimates according to average household size.
(2) In FY 05-06 only POW-MIA Park (7.8 developed acres) was being maintained by the CSA.
CSA 52 STREET AND LIGHTING SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides maintenance on private and public roads and road drainage facilities, street
lighting, and street sweeping. The County provides road and drainage maintenance through a
combination of direct service and private contractors, which is then reimbursed by the CSA. PG&E
owns and maintains all street lights within the District. Street sweeping is provided by private
contractors on an as needed basis, and compensated by the County with CSA funds. Major roads
are swept regularly by developers until construction is complete.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-377
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff, who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Key infrastructure in the CSA includes 18.5 total miles of public roads, of which six miles is
located within the general CSA boundary and 12.5 miles is located within zone of benefit B. Other
infrastructure in the CSA includes 136 street lights, and various drainage ditches and inlets.
Table A-42-5: CSA 52 Street Service Profile
Street Light Service Profile
Service Configuration
Street Lighting PG&E Number of Street Lights 136
Street Lights Maintained by PG&E All Street Lights Maintained by County 0
Service Demand
Service Requests in 2006 5
Service Adequacy
% of Street Light Calls Resolved1 100% CSA Costs per Street Light $125
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 0.0 Public Road Miles 18.5
Circulation Description
Simpson Dantoni Rd., Hammonton-Smartville Rd., North Beale Rd., and Erle Rd. are major east-west
streets that provide circulation within the CSA. North-south circulation is provided by Griffith Ave. in
the east, along with Dantoni Rd., Alberta Ave., and Marmalade Ln. SR 70 runs north-south, west of
the CSA boundary.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified.
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile2 $9,938 Average Response Time3 3-4 Weeks
Services completed in FY 05-06 were not provided.
General Financing Approach
Proptery owners are assessed of $23 on unimproved property and $148 on improved property.
Properties in zone of benefit B are assessed $232.56.
Note:
(1) Number of street light service requests completed by PG&E divided by the total number of streetlight service requests.
(2) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(3) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
A-378 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
CSA 66 OVERVIEW
CSA 66 provides street and highway sweeping, street and highway lighting, road and drainage
system maintenance, structural fire protection, maintenance of local parks, open space and
recreation facilities, landscape maintenance, and fire and emergency services.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 66 was formed on November 5, 2004 as a dependent special district of the County, to
provide extended services such as structural fire protection, maintenance of local park and recreation
facilities, street and highway sweeping, street and highway lighting, landscape maintenance, park and
open space maintenance, drainage system maintenance, and fire and emergency services.551 The
CSA provides additional revenues to fire protection districts to fund fire and emergency services.
Landscaping services are provided by private contract, and include mowing, weed control, irrigation
and basic maintenance on a weekly basis. Maintenance of local parks is provided by OPUD through
assessments paid to the CSA.
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The CSA 66 boundary is non-contiguous,
located within the Plumas Lake Specific Plan area and the North Arboga Study Area. The CSA
boundary area extends north beyond 11th Avenue in the community of Olivehurst, south to the
Bear River, west to Feather River Boulevard, and just east of the old Western Pacific Railroad, as
shown on Map B-43.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 2,967 acres, or 4.6 square miles.
The CSA SOI extends beyond the boundaries of the district. The SOI ranges from the vicinity
of 11th Avenue in the north, to the old Western Pacific Railroad and SR 70 in the east, to Feather
River Boulevard in the west, and the Bear River in the south.
Boundary History
CSA 66 was formed in 2004, comprised of four areas totaling 1,264 acres. The four areas were
located in what is now the southern portion of the CSA, south of Algodon Road to the Bear River.
In 2004, five annexations to the CSA occurred. The River Glen Property annexation added 80 acres
to the CSA, in the area to the west of Olivehurst Avenue and north of McGowan Parkway.552 The
Leak Property annexation added 158 acres to the CSA, west of SR 70, along River Oaks Boulevard,
south of the previous district boundary.553 The Hawes Ranch Estates annexation added nearly 38
acres to the CSA southeast of the intersection of Ella Avenue and Arboga Road, and the Wheeler
Ranch and Leal Properties annexation added 478 acres southeast of the intersection of Ella Avenue
and Feather River Boulevard.554 The final annexation to occur in 2004 was the 111-acre
551 LAFCO resolution 2003-05.
552 LAFCO resolution 2004-0012.
553 LAFCO resolution 2004-0015.
554 LAFCO resolutions 2004-0021 and 2004-0023.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-379
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Thoroughbred Estates annexation, located south of McGowan Parkway and east of Arboga Road, in
the southwest Olivehurst area.555
In 2006, eight annexations to the CSA occurred, growing the district by over 800 acres. The
Fairway West and North annexations added 80 acres to the CSA west of Dye Road, north of the
Plumas Lake Golf and Country Club.556 The Draper Ranch South and North annexations added 315
acres to the district in the central Plumas Lake area.557 The Pheasant Pointe annexation added 29
acres to the CSA northeast of the intersection of Arboga Road and Skyway Drive, and the Hansen
Ranch annexation added nearly 13 acres east of Arboga Road, southeast of the Draper Ranch South
property.558 The Ross Ranch annexation added over 240 acres to the CSA north of Algodon Road,
and east of the Plumas Lake Golf and Country Club, and the Meadows annexation added 124 acres
to the District east of Feather River Boulevard and north of Broadway Road.559 In 2007, the 117-
acre KB Home annexation added the southern portion of the Cobblestone area into the CSA.560
The Yuba County Public Works Department reports that there are five zones of benefit (ZOB)
within the CSA, formed by the Board of Supervisors between 2005 and 2006.561 Four areas within
ZOB A appear to not be within CSA bounds. The first area is east of Arboga Road and north of
Plumas Arboga Road, and the other three areas are located at the southernmost portion of the CSA,
in the vicinity of SR 70 and Feather River Boulevard.
The SOI adopted for the CSA in 2003 consisted of areas from the vicinity of 11th Avenue in the
north, to the old Western Pacific Railroad and SR 70 in the east, to Feather River Boulevard in the
west, and the Bear River in the south. The CSA SOI was amended in 2004 along with the River
Glen annexation to include the area west of Olivehurst Avenue and north of McGowan Parkway.562
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base includes property owners and residents. A total of 3,833 households
pay assessments to the CSA.563 Service demand in the CSA has increased in recent years.
555 LAFCO resolution 2004-0028.
556 LAFCO resolutions 2006-0001 and 2006-0002.
557 LAFCO resolutions 2006-0003 and 2006-0004.
558 LAFCO resolutions 2006-0020 and 2006-0021.
559 LAFCO resolutions 2006-0005 and 2006-0011.
560 LAFCO resolution 2007-0015.
561 ZOB B formed by BOS resolution 2005-106, ZOB C formed by BOS resolution 2005-04, ZOB D formed by BOS resolution
2005-94, and ZOB E formed by BOS resolution 2006-163. The Clerk of the BOS could not find the resolution that formed ZOB A.
562 LAFCO resolution 2004-0011.
563 Households figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
A-380 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
The estimated population in the CSA is 10,962.564 The CSA’s population density is 2,383 per
square mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
The District has experienced recent growth and urban development. Significant growth is
anticipated within the District in the next few years as planned developments begin and continue
construction within the Plumas Lake Specific Plan (PLSP) area, which is completely within the
CSA’s SOI, and the North Arboga Study Area (NASA), which is approximately half within the
CSA’s SOI. Planned and approved developments within the District’s bounds or SOI are shown in
Table A-23-1.
Major developments located within the District are the 577-acre Country Club Estates
development, the 535-acre Plumas Lake Cobblestone development, the 475-acre Rio Del Oro
development, and the 795-acre Wheeler Ranch development, all located within the PLSP area. The
total acreage of development area within the District bounds and SOI is over 4,500 (including 17
acres of non-residential), with over 13,950 planned dwelling units.
Major business activity in the CSA includes food processing, manufacturing and construction.
The top employers in the area are Shoei Foods, Yuba River Molding and Millwork (200 employees),
and Fast Fabricators (55 employees).
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility to implement growth strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 66.
The CSA received $803,912 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream,
constituting almost 99 percent of revenues. The amount assessed per property is dependent upon
which zone of benefit the property is located, as shown in Table A-42-6.565 A zone of benefit E was
recently created; property owners in the River Oaks East subdivision will be charged $532.71
annually beginning in FY 08-09. All assessments increase annually with inflation. The CSA also
receives a minimal amount of interest income. The CSA does not receive property taxes, although it
does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax bill.
564 The estimated population is the product of the number of household paying assessments and average household size. The average
Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
565 Zone A encompasses a majority of the area within the District’s bounds. Zone B is the Village Green subdivision. Zone C is
located in the northeastern portion of the Plumas Lake Cobblestone development. Zone D includes the Hawes Ranch development.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-381
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-42-6: CSA 66 Assessments by Zone of Benefit
Total OPUD OPUD
Zone Area Assessment LFPD Parks Fire RD 784
A A majority of the CSA's boundaries $395.35 $80.00 $126.67 $25.34
B Village Green subdivision $298.59 $25.00 $88.52 $25.34
C Northeastern area of the Plumas $482.22 $80.00 $126.67 $25.34
Lake Cobblestone subdivision
D Hawes Ranch subdivision $312.12 $126.67 $25.34
The CSA’s primary activity in FY 05-06 was related to reimbursements for service, with 96
percent of expenditures made to OPUD, Linda FPD and RD 784. Three percent of expenditures
go towards other CSA charges and reimbursement to Public Works for staff and engineer time.
One percent of expenditures go to PG&E for street lighting.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $353,236 at the end of FY 05-06.
This amounted to 78 percent of the CSA’s annual expenses. The CSA maintained approximately
nine months of working capital.
CSA 66 STREET AND LIGHTING SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides street sweeping, street lighting, and road and drainage system maintenance.
The County provides road and drainage maintenance through a combination of direct service and
private contractors, which is then reimbursed by the CSA. PG&E owns and maintains all street
lights within the District. Street sweeping services are provided by private contractors on an as
needed basis, and compensated by the County with CSA funds. Major roads are swept regularly by
developers until construction is complete.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Key infrastructure in the CSA includes 45.5 total miles of public roads, including 37 miles within
zone of benefit A, three miles within zone of benefit B, four miles within zone of benefit C, and 1.5
miles within zone of benefit D. Other infrastructure within the CSA includes 850 street lights,
drainage ditches and inlets and approximately four acres of landscaped land.
A-382 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
Table A-42-7: CSA 66 Street Service Profile
Street Light Service Profile
Service Configuration
Street Lighting PG&E Number of Street Lights 850
Street Lights Maintained by PG&E All Street Lights Maintained by County 0
Service Demand
Service Requests in 2006 10
Service Adequacy
% of Street Light Calls Resolved1 100% CSA Costs per Street Light NP
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 0.0 Public Road Miles 45.5
Circulation Description
Arboga Rd., Feather River Blvd., River Oaks Blvd., and SR 70 provide the primary north-south
circulation within the CSA. Olivehurst Ave. provides north-south circulation in the north of the CSA,
and Algodon Rd. provides circulation from the southwest to the northeast, in the central portion of
the CSA. East-west circulation is provided by McGowan Pkwy., Ella Ave., Plumas Arboga Rd., and
Broadway Rd.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified.
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile2 $114 Average Response Time3 3-4 Weeks
No major improvements or repairs were made in FY 2005-06 on street, drainage or landscaping
infrastructure.
General Financing Approach
Property owners are assessed $395.35 in Zone A, $298.59 in Zone B, $482.22 in Zone C, and $312.12
in Zone D. A zone of benefit E was recently created; property owners will be charged $532.71
annually beginning in FY 08-09.
Note:
(1) Number of street light service requests completed by PG&E divided by the total number of streetlight service requests.
(2) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(3) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-383
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
CSA 69 OVERVIEW
CSA 69 provides street, streetlight, drainage, landscape and park maintenance, as well as
extended structural fire protection.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 69 was formed on November 12, 2004 as a dependent special district of the County, to
provide street, streetlight, drainage, landscape and park maintenance, as well as extended structural
fire protection.566 Landscaping is provided by private contract. Park maintenance and fire
protection is provided by assessments paid to OPUD.
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 69 is located south of McGowan
Parkway, between Dan Avenue and Rose Avenue, in the southeast Olivehurst area, as shown on
Map B-44. The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 16.7 acres, or 0.03 square miles.
The CSA SOI is coterminous with its bounds.
There have been no annexations to the district since formation, and no amendments to the
sphere since SOI adoption.
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base includes property owners and residents. A total of 83 households pay
assessments to the CSA.567 Service demand in the CSA has increased in recent years.
The estimated population in the CSA is 237.568 The CSA’s population density is 7,913 per square
mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 69.
The CSA received $17,285 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream,
constituting 99 percent of revenues. Property owners were assessed $225.46 per parcel in FY 05-06,
which increases annually with inflation. Of each assessment, OPUD receives $30 for park
566 LAFCO resolution 2004-0033.
567 Households figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
568 The estimated population is the product of the number of household paying assessments and average household size. The average
Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
A-384 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
maintenance and $39 for extended fire protection. The CSA also receives interest income. The
CSA does not receive property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on
the property tax bill.
As the County has not yet accepted the infrastructure from the developer, and has limited
administration, engineering and maintenance responsibilities, the CSA’s primary activity in FY 05-06
was related to reimbursement of services with 51 percent of expenditures made to the PG&E and
49 percent to Olivehurst Public Utility District for park maintenance and fire enhancement.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $11,881 at the end of FY 05-06.
This amounted to 220 percent of the CSA’s annual expenses. The CSA maintained approximately
26 months of working capital.
CSA 69 STREET AND LIGHTING SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides street, streetlight and drainage services. PG&E is reimbursed by the CSA to
provide power and maintenance for all CSA street lights. Road maintenance services are provided
by the County Public Works Department, which is then reimbursed for equipment, materials and
personnel time by the CSA. No road maintenance activities were performed in FY 05-06 as the
roads were not accepted by the County until 2008.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Key infrastructure in the CSA includes approximately one mile or public roadway. Other
infrastructure includes 13 streetlights and various drainage ditches.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-385
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-42-8: CSA 69 Service Profile
Street Light Service Profile
Service Configuration
Street Lighting PG&E Number of Street Lights 13
Street Lights Maintained by PG&E All Street Lights Maintained by County 0
Service Demand
Service Requests in 2006 2
Service Adequacy
% of Street Light Calls Resolved1 100% CSA Costs per Street Light $199
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 0.0 Public Road Miles 1.0
Circulation Description
Circulation is provided by residential streets. August Wy. and Summerfield Ln. provide east-west
circulation, and June Wy., Avery St., and Rose Ave. provide north-south circulation.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified.
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile2 $332 Average Response Time3 3-4 Weeks
No street maintenance was performed in FY 05-06 in the CSA.
General Financing Approach
Proptery owners are assessed $234.58.
Note:
(1) Number of street light service requests was not reported, therefore the percentage resolved cannot be determined.
(2) CSA costs in FY 05-06 were for Public Works engineering expenses only. Roads were not accepted by the County until 2008.
(3) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
CSA 70 OVERVIEW
CSA 70 provides funding for extended law enforcement services in the unincorporated areas of
Yuba County.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 70 was formed on October 27, 2004 as a dependent special district of the County, to
provide extended law enforcement services to the unincorporated areas of Yuba County.569
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The CSA boundary includes all the
unincorporated area of Yuba County, with a temporary exception of the primary sphere of influence
of the City of Marysville, as shown on Map B-45. Once the City of Marysville reaches a revenue
sharing agreement with the County of Yuba, this area will also be included within CSA 70.
569 LAFCO resolution 2004-0035.
A-386 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 411,856 acres, or 644 square miles.
The CSA’s SOI is coterminous with its bounds.
Boundary History
A countywide extended law enforcement CSA was first adopted by LAFCO as CSA 911.570 The
approval of CSA 911 was rendered invalid due to procedural errors preceding the adoption, and
errors contained within the resolution. CSA 70 was subsequently adopted by LAFCO to provide
countywide extended law enforcement services. There have been no annexations to the CSA since
formation, and no amendments to the SOI since adoption. There have been annexations to the City
of Wheatland, however, which will necessitate a detachment of area from CSA bounds, and a
reduction of the SOI.
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base includes property owners and residents. A total of 1,208 households
pay assessments to the CSA.571 Only residences that have been built subsequent to formation of the
CSA in 2004 are assessed. Developments that were assessed in FY 06-07 consist of the Dantoni
Ranch Estates, Sierra Vista, Palma D’Or, Eagle Meadows, Orchard, and Montrose at Edgewater
subdivisions and the eastern portion of the Edgewater development in East Linda, and Ross Ranch
in Plumas Lake. Service demand in the CSA has increased in recent years due to steady population
growth, primarily in the southwest portion of the County.
The estimated population of the households assessed in the CSA is 3,455.572 The CSA’s
population density in the areas being assessed is approximately 3,004 per square mile, compared with
the countywide density of 114.
Significant employers in the County include Beale Air Force Base (5,700 military and civilian
jobs), Naumes Inc. (1,200 seasonal jobs), Sleep Train Amphitheatre (650 seasonal jobs), Baldwin
Contracting Co. (300 jobs), KBI Norcal Truss (200 jobs), Bishop’s Pumpkin Farm (200 seasonal
jobs), Yuba River Moulding & Millwork (200 jobs), the Appeal-Democrat (120 jobs), and Shoei
Foods (100 jobs). There are a number of farming and ranching operations within the County; major
crops produced include rice, walnuts, kiwis, prunes, peaches, olives, grapes, pears, almonds, row
crops, irrigated and non-irrigated field crops, and timber.
Significant growth is anticipated within the County in the coming years as planned developments
begin and continue construction in the vicinity of the City of Wheatland, and within the East Linda
Specific Plan (ELSP), Plumas Lake Specific Plan (PLSP) and North Arboga Study Areas (NASA).
Planned and approved developments within the County are shown in Table A-60-1.
570 LAFCO resolution 2004-17.
571 Households figure provided by the Yuba County Public Works Department.
572 The estimated population is the product of the number of household paying assessments and average household size. The average
Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-387
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
Property assessments paid to CSA 70 are transferred from the County Community
Development and Services Agency to a trust account administered by the County Administrator’s
Office. Funds are then transferred to the County’s public safety general fund to be used for sheriff,
juvenile and district attorney services.
The trust account received the first assessment payment in January 2007. The CSA received a
total of $67,398 in FY 06-07. Assessments are the primary revenue stream, constituting almost 100
percent of revenues. The CSA also receives interest income, which was limited in the first year of
operation. Property owners of land developed subsequent to the formation of the CSA, throughout
the unincorporated areas of the County, are assessed $143.80 per parcel. The assessment increases
annually with inflation. Properties that were assessed in FY 06-07consist of the Dantoni Ranch
Estates, Sierra Vista, Palma D’Or, Eagle Meadows, Orchard, and Montrose at Edgewater
subdivisions in East Linda, and Ross Ranch in Plumas Lake. Property owners in zone of benefit A
(the eastern portion of the Edgewater development) pay $83.23. The CSA does not receive property
taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax bill.
In FY 06-07, a total of $66,000 was transferred from the trust account to the public safety
general fund. The funds were used entirely to supplement the salary of a patrol officer in the new
subdivisions in the southwest portion of the county.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 06-07.
There are no planned capital expenditures for FY 07-08 or FY 08-09. The Sheriff’s Department
reported that funds would be used only for salary supplements of additional personnel for the next
few years as the revenue from the assessments grows.
By way of financial reserves, the trust account had a fund balance of $1,397.77 at the end of FY
06-07. This amounted to two percent of the CSA’s annual expenses. The CSA maintained less than
one month of working capital.
CSA 70 LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides funding for extended law enforcement services. The funds can only be used
for law enforcement purposes by the Sheriff’s Department, District Attorney’s Office and the
Probation Department. In FY 06-07, the funds were used entirely to supplement the salary of a
patrol officer in the new subdivisions in the southwest portion of the county.
A-388 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
Location
CSA funds are provided to the County for law enforcement uses within the CSA boundary and
not outside its boundary. Due to proximity, the Sheriff’s Department may provide support to
neighboring counties and law enforcement jurisdictions through mutual aid agreements.
Infrastructure
The CSA does not own or maintain any facilities or infrastructure.
MINOR CSAS
CSA 2 OVERVIEW
CSA 2 provides road construction and maintenance services.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 2 was formed on October 3, 1973 as a dependent special district of the County, to provide
road construction and maintenance, domestic water, wastewater disposal and fire protection services
in the Oregon House area.573 The only service provided by the CSA is local road construction and
maintenance, as of 2008.
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The CSA is located southwest of Rices
Crossing Road in the community of Oregon House, as shown on Map B-46. The CSA has a
boundary area of approximately 1,401 acres, or 2.2 square miles.
CSA 2 has an annexable SOI that extends beyond the boundaries of the CSA in the north, east
and west.574 The SOI area for CSA 2 includes the boundary area of CSA 53 and one of the CSA 5
boundary areas (both adjacent to Rices Crossing Road).
Boundary History
At formation, CSA 2 consisted of an approximately 880-acre area surrounding Regent Way and
other local roads in the community of Oregon House. In 1974, the Amoruso and Canson
annexation added 320 acres to the northwest of the CSA.575 In 1977, the Josselyn annexation added
168 acres to the north of the CSA and the Filbin-Cavanna annexation added 30 acres to the east of
the CSA.576 In 1997, the Sorensen annexation added a five acre parcel to the easternmost portion of
573 LAFCO resolution 1973-4.
574 LAFCO resolution 1986-2.
575 LAFCO resolution 1974-4.
576 LAFCO resolutions 1977-3 and 1977-5.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-389
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
the CSA.577 There have been no annexations to the CSA since 1997, and no amendments to the SOI
since its adoption
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base is 121 assessed parcels.578 Service demand in the CSA has been low in
recent years, as no major maintenance activities have occurred. The Public Works Department
projects that service demand is likely to stay the same in future years.
The estimated population in the CSA is 272.579 The CSA’s population density is 124 per square
mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 2 has not experienced significant growth
in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 2.
The CSA received $26,708 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream,
constituting 97 percent of revenues. The CSA also received interest income. The CSA does not
receive property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax
bill.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the Street Service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $25,861 at the end of FY 05-06.
This amounted to 137 percent of the CSA’s annual expenses. The CSA maintained 16 months of
working capital.
577 LAFCO resolution 1997-3.
578 Assessed parcel figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
579 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments and average household size. The
average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
A-390 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
CSA 2 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides road construction and maintenance services. Maintenance activities
performed in FY 05-06 include grading and patching of roads.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure located within the CSA consists of 12 miles of local roads. Local roads within the
CSA include Regent Way, Winding Way, Westwood Trail, Wild Acres Way, and Amoruso Lane.
Table A-42-9: CSA 2 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 12 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
Local roads within the CSA include Regent Wy., Winding Wy., Westwood Trl., Wild Acres Wy., and
Amoruso Ln.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
Every CSA road needs to be paved.
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile1 $461 Average Response Time2 3-4 Weeks
Services completed in FY 05-06 include grading and patching of roads.
General Financing Approach
NP
Note:
(1) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-391
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
CSA 4 OVERVIEW
CSA 4 provides local road construction and road and drainage maintenance. The County
reports that the CSA also provides fire protection services.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 4 was formed on September 21, 1976 as a dependent special district of the County, to
provide local road construction and maintenance services, drainage facilities and fire protection
services.580
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 4 is located at the intersection of New
York House Road and Indiana-New York Road, in the community of Brownsville, as shown on
Map B-47. There is a hole of approximately one acre near the center of the CSA along New York
House Road.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 178 acres, or 0.3 square miles.
The SOI for CSA 4 was adopted in 1986 to be generally consistent with the boundaries of the
CSA and include the one-acre hole in the center of the CSA.581
Boundary History
Two annexations to the CSA were approved by LAFCO in October of 1993, but were denied by
the Board of Supervisors in November of 1993.582 There have been no official annexations to the
CSA since formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its adoption.
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base is 21 assessed parcels.583 Service demand in the CSA has been low in
recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The Public
Works Department projects that service demand is likely to stay the same in future years.
The estimated population in the CSA is 54.584 The CSA’s population density is 195 per square
mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 4 has not experienced significant growth
in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity.
580 LAFCO resolution 1976-3.
581 LAFCO resolution 1986-4.
582 LAFCO resolutions 1993-11 and 1993-12.
583 Assessed parcel figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
584 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments and average household size. The
average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
A-392 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 4.
The CSA received $3,960 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream,
constituting 78 percent of revenues. The CSA also received interest income. The CSA does not
receive property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax
bill.
The County reported that the CSA provides fire protection services; however, no funds were
distributed for fire protection services in FY 05-06.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the Street Service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $30,409 at the end of FY 05-06.
CSA 4 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides local road construction and road and drainage maintenance. No maintenance
activities were performed within the CSA in FY 05-06.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure located within the CSA consists of approximately one mile of local roads. Local
roads within the CSA include Glen Oaks Lane, Sills Lane and Helen Way.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-393
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-42-10: CSA 4 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 1 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
Local roads within CSA 4 include Glen Oaks Ln., Sills Ln., Helen Wy., and Abies Ln.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
All CSA roads need to be paved.
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile1 $64 Average Response Time2 3-4 Weeks
No road maintenance was performed in FY 05-06.
General Financing Approach
NP
Note:
(1) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
CSA 5 OVERVIEW
CSA 5 provides local road construction and maintenance services.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 5 was formed on June 14, 1977 as a dependent special district of the County, to provide
local road construction and maintenance services.585
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 5 is located in the northern portion of
Yuba County and consists of 13 separate areas scattered in the valley and foothill regions, as shown
on Map B-48. Six of the areas are located in the vicinity of Loma Rica, three are located near the
Collins Lake and Oregon House areas, two are located just north of Dobbins, one is located
southwest of Brownsville, and one in the Browns Valley area. The CSA has a total boundary area of
approximately 3,475 acres, or 5.4 square miles.
The CSA 5 SOI was adopted to be generally consistent with the various boundary areas of the
CSA; however, there are two locations where this is not the case.586 The area adjacent to Rices
Crossing Road in the vicinity of Oregon House does not have an adopted SOI because the
boundary area is located within the SOI of CSA 2. In the Loma Rica area, south of Marysville Road,
one of the boundary areas does not have a coterminous SOI because the 2006 Casey annexation was
processed without a corresponding SOI amendment.587
585 LAFCO resolution 1977-2.
586 LAFCO resolution 1986-5.
587 LAFCO resolution 2006-0010.
A-394 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
Boundary History
At formation, CSA 5 was a single area, located approximately four miles southwest of
Brownsville, consisting of approximately 370 acres. From 1979 to 1983, 12 noncontiguous areas
were annexed to CSA 5, increasing the boundary area by 3,025 acres. All of these areas were
previously distinct CSAs that were consolidated into CSA 5 by LAFCO, as shown on Table A-42-
11.
Table A-42-11: CSA 5 Annexations, 1979-83
In 1994, the Martinez Annexation added Previous
40 acres to CSA 5 in the Loma Rica area.588 In CSA
2006, LAFCO approved the 80-acre Casey Number Previous CSA Name Resolution
annexation, but half of this area had already 18 Willow Glen #2 1979-16
been annexed to the CSA by the Martinez 21 Geddis and Driscoll 1979-22
annexation. 20 Clark Hill Estates 1979-18
13 Quail Ranch 1979-19
24 YACU Investments 1980-12
Service Demand and Growth
25 Jeanie V. Hamilton 1980-15
The CSA customer base is 336 assessed 26 Tremoureux 1980-14
parcels.589 Service demand in the CSA has 28 Renaissance Vineyard & 1981-21
been high in recent years, due in large part to Winery, Inc.
the size of the CSA. Significant maintenance 29 Hill Road 1982-2
activities were performed in three portions of 32 Pochert 1982-5
the CSA in FY 05-06. Maintenance activities 33 Jacobs 1982-7
performed included the patching and slurry 31 McIntyre 1983-1
sealing of a paved road, and the grading and graveling of two roads. The Public Works Department
projects that service demand is likely to remain at a relatively high level in future years due to the
large size of the CSA.
The estimated population in the CSA is 383.590 The CSA’s population density is 71 per square
mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
CSA 5 has not experienced significant growth in recent years. There are no planned or
proposed developments located within the CSA. Land use within the CSA is entirely residential.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
588 LAFCO resolution 1994-03.
589 Assessed parcel figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
590 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments and average household size. The
average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-395
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 5.
The CSA received $82,014 in FY 05-06, including $23,856 in assessments. The CSA also
received interest income of $4,458, in-lieu fees of $16,800 and a deposit for road maintenance of
$36,900. The CSA does not receive property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are
collected on the property tax bill.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the Street Service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $135,604 at the end of FY 05-06.
This amounted to 124 percent of the CSA’s annual expenses. The CSA maintained approximately
15 months of working capital. There is no adopted policy on CSA financial reserves.
CSA 5 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides maintenance on drainage and private local road facilities. Maintenance
activities performed in FY 05-06 included the patching and slurry sealing of a paved road, and the
grading and graveling of two roads.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure located within the CSA consists of 18.6 miles of private local roads. Local roads
within the various CSA boundaries include Golden Arrow Lane, Manna Lane, Neptune Lane, Clark
Ranch Way, Therese Trail, Steffen Trail, Fargo Way, Sandy Way, Cambridge Lane, Oak Ridge Trail,
Maple Springs Trail, Pochert Way, and Free Flight Way.
A-396 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
Table A-42-12: CSA 5 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 18.6 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
Local roads within the various CSA boundaries include Golden Arrow Ln., Manna Ln., Neptune
Ln., Clark Ranch Wy., Therese Trl., Steffen Trl., Fargo Wy., Sandy Wy., Cambridge Ln., Oak Ridge
Trl., Maple Springs Trl., Pochert Wy., and Free Flight Wy.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile1 $5,844 Average Response Time2 3-4 Weeks
Maintenance performed in FY 05-06 consisted of patching and slurry sealing of a paved road, and
grading and graveling of two roads.
General Financing Approach
NP
Note:
(1) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
CSA 8 OVERVIEW
CSA 8 provides local road construction and maintenance services.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 8 was formed on December 8, 1977 as a dependent special district of the County, to
provide local road construction and maintenance services.591
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 8 is located in the vicinity of the
intersection of Willow Glen Road and Begonia Way, in the Oregon House area, as shown on Map
B-49. The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 583 acres, or 0.9 square miles.
The CSA 8 SOI is coterminous with the boundaries of the CSA.592 There have been no
annexations to the CSA following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its
adoption.
591 LAFCO resolution 1977-26.
592 LAFCO resolution 1986-6.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-397
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base is 28 assessed parcels.593 Service demand in the CSA has been low in
recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The Public
Works Department projects that service demand is likely to stay the same in future years.
The estimated population in the CSA is 40.594 The CSA’s population density is 44 per square
mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 8 has not experienced significant growth
in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 8.
The CSA received $4,333 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream,
constituting 78 percent of revenues. The CSA also received interest income. The CSA does not
receive property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax
bill.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the Street Service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $32,525 at the end of FY 05-06.
CSA 8 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides local road construction and maintenance services. No maintenance activities
were performed within the CSA in FY 05-06.
593 Assessed parcel figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
594 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments and average household size. The
average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
A-398 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure located within the CSA consists of 2.1 miles of local roads. Local roads within
CSA 8 include Sunnyside Lane, Hemlock Lane, Wildflower Way, Leafwood Way, and a portion of
Begonia Way.
Table A-42-13: CSA 8 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 2.1 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
Local roads within CSA 8 include Sunnyside Ln., Hemlock Ln., Wildflower Wy., Leafwood Wy., and
a portion of Begonia Wy.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile1 $878 Average Response Time2 3-4 Weeks
No road maintenance was performed in FY 05-06.
General Financing Approach
NP
Note:
(1) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
CSA 9 OVERVIEW
CSA 9 provides local road construction and maintenance services.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 9 was formed on November 22, 1977 as a dependent special district of the County, to
provide local road construction and maintenance services.595
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 9 is located in the community of
Brownsville, between La Porte Road and Willow Glen Road, as shown on Map B-50.
595 LAFCO resolution 1977-24.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-399
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 126 acres, or 0.2 square miles. There is a hole in
the boundary area of approximately one acre in the northwest of the CSA.
The CSA 9 SOI is coterminous with its bounds.596 There have been no annexations to the CSA
following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its adoption.
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base is 31 assessed parcels.597 Service demand in the CSA has been low in
recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The Public
Works Department projects that service demand is likely to stay the same in future years.
The estimated population in the CSA is 66.598 The CSA’s population density is 331 per square
mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 9 has not experienced significant growth
in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 9.
The CSA received $2,460 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream,
constituting 86 percent of revenues. The CSA also received interest income. The CSA does not
receive property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax
bill.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the Street Service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
Given the small size of this CSA, it typically takes several years to accumulate enough reserves to
fund repair work.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $8,806 at the end of FY 05-06.
596 LAFCO resolution 1986-7.
597 Assessed parcel figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
598 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments and average household size. The
average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
A-400 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
CSA 9 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides local road construction and maintenance services. No maintenance activities
were performed within the CSA in FY 05-06.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure located within the CSA consists of 1.1 miles of private local roads. Local roads
within CSA 9 include Daken Circle and Aero Way.
Table A-42-14: CSA 9 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 1.1 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
Local roads within CSA 9 include Daken Cir. and Aero Wy.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile1 $174 Average Response Time2 3-4 Weeks
No road maintenance was performed in FY 05-06.
General Financing Approach
NP
Note:
(1) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
CSA 10 OVERVIEW
CSA 10 provides local road construction and maintenance services.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 10 was formed on November 1, 1977 as a dependent special district of the County, to
provide local road construction and maintenance services.599
599 LAFCO resolution 1977-25.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-401
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 10 is located approximately two and a
half miles south of the community of Challenge, east of Indiana Ranch Road, as shown on Map B-
51.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 154 acres, or 0.2 square miles.
The CSA 10 SOI is coterminous with its bounds.600 There have been no annexations to the CSA
following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its adoption.
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base is six assessed parcels.601 Service demand in the CSA has been low in
recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The Public
Works Department projects that service demand is likely to stay the same in future years.
The estimated population in the CSA is zero, as there are no improved parcels paying
assessments.602
Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 10 has not experienced significant growth
in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 10.
The CSA received $1,913 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream,
constituting 51 percent of revenues. The CSA also received interest income. The CSA does not
receive property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax
bill.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the Street Service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $31,148 at the end of FY 05-06.
600 LAFCO resolution 1986-8.
601 Assessed parcel figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
602 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments and average household size. The
average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
A-402 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
CSA 10 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides local road construction and maintenance services. No maintenance activities
were performed within the CSA in FY 05-06.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure located within the CSA consists of 0.6 miles of private local roads. Local roads
within CSA 10 include Eagle Trail and North Slope Trail.
Table A-42-15: CSA 10 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 0.6 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
Local roads within CSA 10 include Eagle Trl. and North Slope Trl.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile1 $117 Average Response Time2 3-4 Weeks
No road maintenance was performed in FY 05-06.
General Financing Approach
NP
Note:
(1) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-403
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
CSA 11 OVERVIEW
CSA 11 provides local road construction and maintenance services.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 11 was formed on March 13, 1978 as a dependent special district of the County, to provide
local road construction and maintenance services.603
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 11 is located east of the community of
Oregon House, south of Marysville Road, as shown on Map B-52.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 374 acres, or 0.6 square miles.
The CSA 11 SOI is coterminous with its bounds.604 There have been no annexations to the CSA
following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its adoption.
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base is 35 assessed parcels.605 Service demand in the CSA has been high in
recent years, as major road maintenance was performed in FY 05-06. The Public Works
Department projects that service demand is likely to decrease in future years, to remain comparable
to other CSAs in the vicinity.
The estimated population in the CSA is 89.606 The CSA’s population density is 152 per square
mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 11 has not experienced significant growth
in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 11.
603 LAFCO resolution 1977-27.
604 LAFCO resolution 1986-9.
605 Assessed parcel figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
606 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments and average household size. The
average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
A-404 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
The CSA received $3,470 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream,
constituting 87 percent of revenues. The CSA also received interest income. The CSA does not
receive property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax
bill. The CSA performed $17,000 in road maintenance in FY 05-06.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the Street Service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $3,042 at the end of FY 05-06. This
amounted to 17 percent of the CSA’s annual expenses. The CSA maintained approximately two
months of working capital. There is no adopted policy on CSA financial reserves.
CSA 11 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides local road construction and maintenance services.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure located within the CSA consists of 1.3 miles of private local roads. Local roads
within the CSA include Yuba Ranch Way and Licha Lane.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-405
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-42-16: CSA 11 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 1.3 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
Local roads within CSA 11 include Yuba Ranch Wy. and Licha Ln.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile1 $13,832 Average Response Time2 3-4 Weeks
Road maintenance performed in FY 05-06 was not provided.
General Financing Approach
NP
Note:
(1) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
CSA 12 OVERVIEW
CSA 12 provides road maintenance services.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 12 was formed on April 5, 1978 as a dependent special district of the County, to provide
road maintenance services.607
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 12 is located in the community of
Browns Valley, south of Bald Mountain Road, as shown on Map B-53.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 108 acres, or 0.2 square miles.
The CSA 12 SOI is coterminous with its bounds.608 There have been no annexations to the CSA
following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its adoption.
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base is 13 assessed parcels.609 Service demand in the CSA has been low in
recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The Public
Works Department projects that service demand is likely to stay the same in future years.
607 LAFCO resolution 1978-1.
608 LAFCO resolution 1986-10.
609 Assessed parcel figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
A-406 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
The estimated population in the CSA is 31.610 The CSA’s population density is 186 per square
mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 12 has not experienced significant growth
in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 12.
The CSA received $1,157in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream, constituting
79 percent of revenues. The CSA also received interest income. The CSA does not receive property
taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax bill.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the Street Service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
Given the small size of this CSA, it typically takes several years to accumulate enough reserves to
fund repair work.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $8,460 at the end of FY 05-06.
CSA 12 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides road maintenance services. No maintenance activities were performed within
the CSA in FY 05-06.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
610 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments and average household size. The
average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-407
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Infrastructure located within the CSA consists of 0.5 miles of private local roads. Local roads
within the CSA include Country Trail and Larkspur Way.
Table A-42-17: CSA 12 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 0.5 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
Local roads within CSA 12 include Country Trl. and Larkspur Wy. The Area is adjacent to
Marrysville Rd. and Bald Mountain Rd.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile1 $284 Average Response Time2 3-4 Weeks
No road maintenance was performed in FY 05-06.
General Financing Approach
NP
Note:
(1) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
CSA 14 OVERVIEW
CSA 14 provides private road and drainage maintenance services.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 14 was formed on April 30, 1979 as a dependent special district. It was formed to provide
local road construction and maintenance services to the Camp Far West area.611
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The CSA 14 boundary includes two
noncontiguous areas, as shown on Map B-54. The first boundary area includes 2,545 acres in Camp
Far West. The second boundary area is located nearly five miles north of Camp Far West, and
encompasses a 783-acre area in southwest Smartville. The Smartville boundary area is called “CSA
19” by County staff because at one time it had been proposed to be a separate CSA.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 3,374 acres, or 5.2 square miles.
The CSA SOI is coterminous with its bounds.
611 LAFCO resolution 1979-3.
A-408 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
Boundary History
When formed, the boundary encompassed a 745-acre tract of land located in the Camp Far West
area.612 There have been four annexations to the CSA since its formation:
• In 1979, LAFCO annexed a 430-acre area in southwest Smartville that is not contiguous to
the Camp Far West portion of the bounds. The developer of this area, Robinson & Sons,
had proposed formation of a separate CSA (tentatively called CSA 19 at that time) to
provide road construction and maintenance, but LAFCO determined that CSA 19 formation
“would not be in the best interest of the residents of the proposed area, and therefore,
annexation of the area to County Service Area No. 14 is approved.” 613
• In 1981, the 1,800-acre Schwafel annexation substantially expanded the bounds of the CSA
to include lands in the western Camp Far West area, south of Beale Air Force Base.614
• In 1992, a 21-lot planned subdivision adjacent to the Smartville portion of the boundary area
was annexed, adding 80 acres to the CSA.615
• In 1996, a 273-acre single-family rural residential development (termed the Poole
annexation) adjacent to the Smartville portion of the boundary was annexed.616
LAFCO adopted the SOI for CSA 14 on February 12, 1986, to be coterminous with the bounds
of the CSA.617 The SOI was amended in 1992 to include the 80-acre annexation area.618 The SOI
was amended most recently in 1996 to include the 273-acre Poole annexation area. 619 The current
SOI is coterminous with the boundaries of the CSA.
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base includes property owners and residents of the two communities. A
total of 166 households pay assessments to the CSA.620 Service demand in the CSA has remained
relatively stable in recent years, although service requests will likely grow in future years due to a
backlog of service requests and increased resources due to a recent assessment increase.
612 LAFCO resolution 1979-3.
613 LAFCO resolution 1979-17.
614 LAFCO resolution 1981-19.
615 LAFCO resolution 1992-17.
616 LAFCO resolution 1996-5.
617 LAFCO resolution 1986-11.
618 LAFCO resolution 1992-16.
619 LAFCO resolution 1996-4.
620 Households figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-409
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The estimated population in the CSA is 475.621 The CSA’s population density is 91 per square
mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
The Camp Far West community has not experienced significant growth in recent years. The
Smartville portion of the boundary area has experienced some growth as a result of property owners
splitting their parcels. Business activity in the CSA is minimal, and includes some home-based
businesses engaged in training horses.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 14.
The CSA received $35,427 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream,
constituting 97 percent of revenues. The CSA also receives interest income. The CSA does not
receive property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax
bill.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the street service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $50,001 at the end of FY 05-06.
This amounted to 128 percent of the CSA’s annual expenses. The CSA maintained approximately
15 months of working capital.
CSA 14 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides road and drainage maintenance services.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
621 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments and average household size. The
average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
A-410 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
Infrastructure
There are approximately 11 miles of roads within the CSA boundary that are maintained through
the CSA. The roads maintained through the CSA are private roads that have not been accepted as
part of the County road system and are maintained through CSA funds. The roads consist of paved
asphalt, chipseal and gravel road segments.
Drainage infrastructure maintained by the CSA consists of roadside ditches that are directed to
natural drainage channels.
Infrastructure needs identified by County Public Works include the following:
• Hokan Lane segments are in poor condition. This chipseal road was built over clay soils, is
soft, and becomes degraded after rain events.
• Kapaka Lane gravel road segments need repair.
Infrastructure needs identified by community members additionally include:
• Walsh Lane chipseal segments are in poor condition
• Clyde Way gravel road is in poor condition; the road base consists of sharp rocks that are
exposed and cause tire damage. The community wants the road paved with asphalt.
• Creek Way chipseal segment of the road has disintegrated and is now effectively a gravel
road. The community wants the road paved with asphalt.
No drainage related infrastructure needs were identified.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-411
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-42-18: CSA 14 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests 5 Service Calls per Street Mile 0.45
System Overview
Private Road Miles 11.0 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
The street system within the CSA includes 11 miles of private local roads in the Camp Far West
and southwest Smarville areas. Local roads within the CSA include Hokan Ln., Kapaka Ln. and
Intanko Ln. in the southern portion, and Walsh Ln. and Creek Wy. in the northern portion.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
• Maintenance of chipseal on Hokan Ln., Walsh Ln. and Creek Wy.
• Maintenance of gravel on Kapaka Ln. and Clyde Wy.
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile1 $3,544 Average Response Time2 3-4 Weeks
Services completed in 2006 consisted of pothole patching and road maintenance on gravel
portions of Kapaka Ln. and Hokan Ln.
General Financing Approach
Assessments of $100 on unimproved property and $200 on improved property.
Note:
(1) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
CSA 15 OVERVIEW
CSA 15 provides local road construction and maintenance services.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 15 was formed on June 18, 1979 as a dependent special district of the County, to provide
local road construction and maintenance services.622
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 15 is located three miles east of the
community of Loma Rica, southeast of Marysville Road, as shown on Map B-55.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 1,081 acres, or 1.7 square miles.
622 LAFCO resolution 1979-7.
A-412 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
The SOI for CSA 15 was adopted to be coterminous with its bounds.623 The 1994 Voyles
Annexation is the only change to the CSA boundary that has occurred since formation.624 A
corresponding SOI amendment was approved in 1994 to maintain a coterminous sphere.625
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base is 107 assessed parcels.626 Service demand in the CSA has been low in
recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The Public
Works Department projects that service demand is likely to stay the same in future years.
The estimated population in the CSA is 146.627 The CSA’s population density is 86 per square
mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 15 has not experienced significant growth
in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 15.
The CSA received $14,238 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream,
constituting 87 percent of revenues. The CSA also received interest income. The CSA does not
receive property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax
bill.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the Street Service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $68,817 at the end of FY 05-06.
623 LAFCO resolution 1986-12.
624 LAFCO resolution 1994-10.
625 LAFCO resolution 1994-09.
626 Assessed parcel figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
627 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments and average household size. The
average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-413
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
CSA 15 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides local road construction and maintenance services. No maintenance activities
were performed within the CSA in FY 05-06.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure located within the CSA consists of 5.6 miles of private local roads. Local roads
within the CSA include Redhill Way, White Oak Lane and Mourning Dove Lane. Infrastructure
improvements performed in FY 06-07 consisted of grading and graveling of roads.
Table A-42-19: CSA 15 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 5.6 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
Local roads within CSA 15 include Redhill Rd., White Oak Ln., Mourning Dove, Harlander Wy., and
Arechar Ct.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile1 $12 Average Response Time2 3-4 Weeks
No road maintenance was performed in FY 05-06.
General Financing Approach
NP
Note:
(1) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
A-414 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
CSA 16 OVERVIEW
CSA 16 provides local road construction and maintenance services.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 16 was formed on June 4, 1979 as a dependent special district of the County, to provide
local road construction and maintenance services.628
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 16 is located approximately two miles
east of the community of Loma Rica, east of Marysville Road at Big Oak Lane, as shown on Map B-
56.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 155 acres, or 0.2 square miles.
The CSA 16 SOI is coterminous with its bounds.629 There have been no annexations to the CSA
following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its adoption.
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base is 17 assessed parcels.630 Service demand in the CSA has been low in
recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The Public
Works Department projects that service demand is likely to stay the same in future years.
The estimated population in the CSA is 31.631 The CSA’s population density is 130 per square
mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 16 has not experienced significant growth
in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 16.
628 LAFCO resolution 1979-8.
629 LAFCO resolution 1986-13.
630 Assessed parcel figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
631 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments and average household size. The
average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-415
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The CSA received $1,384 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream,
constituting 75 percent of revenues. The CSA also received interest income. The CSA does not
receive property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax
bill.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the Street Service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
Given the small size of this CSA, it typically takes several years to accumulate enough reserves to
fund repair work.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $12,208 at the end of FY 05-06.
CSA 16 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides local road construction and maintenance services. No maintenance activities
were performed within the CSA in FY 05-06.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure located within the CSA consists of 0.6 miles of private local roads. The only local
road within the CSA is Big Oak Lane.
A-416 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
Table A-42-20: CSA 16 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 0.6 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
Big Oak Ln. is the only road within the CSA. The CSA boundary area is adjacent to Marysville Rd.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile1 $113 Average Response Time2 3-4 Weeks
No road maintenance was performed in FY 05-06.
General Financing Approach
NP
Note:
(1) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
CSA 17 OVERVIEW
CSA 17 provides local road construction and maintenance services. Road services are
performed by the Nevada County Public Works Department and are reimbursed through the CSA
17 fund by Yuba County. Nevada County provides service to the CSA because all access roads to
the area in Nevada County.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 17 was formed on September 24, 1979 as a dependent special district of the County, to
provide local road construction and maintenance services.632
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 17 is adjacent to the Yuba-Nevada
County line, north of the Camp Far West Reservoir and south of Long Ravine Road, in the eastern
Camp Far West area. While located in Yuba County, access to the CSA 17 area is provided by roads
in Nevada County.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 84 acres, or 0.13 square miles.
The CSA 17 SOI is coterminous with its bounds, as shown on Map B-57.633 There have been no
annexations to the CSA following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its
adoption.
632 LAFCO resolution 1979-14.
633 LAFCO resolution 1986-14.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-417
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base is five assessed parcels.634 Service demand in the CSA has been low in
recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. Service
requests are not likely to grow much in the short-term as the CSA encompasses only a single road.
The estimated population in the CSA is 6.635 The CSA’s population density is 46 per square mile,
compared with the countywide density of 114.
Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 17 has not experienced significant growth
in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 17.
The CSA received $1,280 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream,
constituting 82 percent of revenues. The CSA also received interest income. The CSA does not
receive property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax
bill.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the Street Service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
Given the small size of this CSA, it typically takes several years to accumulate enough reserves to
fund repair work.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $8,437 at the end of FY 05-06.
CSA 17 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides local road construction and maintenance services; however, expenditures
show that only administration and limited engineering services have been provided since July 2003.
Records for prior fiscal years were not available. Yuba County reports that services are provided by
634 Parcel figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
635 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments (two) and average household size.
The average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
A-418 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
the Nevada County Public Works Department and are reimbursed by Yuba County through the
CSA 17 fund.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by Yuba County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County. Maintenance activities are performed by the
Nevada County Public Works Department due to accessibility.
Infrastructure
The County could not confirm what local road, if any, is located within the CSA. The closest
road to the CSA is Mathew Road. No infrastructure needs have been identified within the CSA.
Table A-42-21: CSA 17 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests 0 Service Calls per Street Mile NA
System Overview
Private Road Miles NP Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
The closest road to the CSA is Mathew Rd. The County could not confirm if Mathew Rd. is
within the CSA.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Service Adequacy
CSA Expenditures FY 05-06 $64 Average Response Time1 3-4 Weeks
No maintenance was performed in FY 05-06 in the CSA.
General Financing Approach
Assessments of $182 on unimproved property and $250 on improved property.
Note:
(1) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
CSA 22 OVERVIEW
CSA 22 provides street lighting services.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 22 was formed on March 6, 1980 as a dependent special district of Yuba County, to
provide for the installation and maintenance of a street lighting system to an industrial area just
north of the Yuba County Airport. 636
636 LAFCO resolution 1979-26.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-419
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 22 is located northeast of the Yuba
County Airport, south of Furneaux Road and west of Arboga Road, as shown on Map B-58. The
CSA has a boundary area of approximately 91 acres, or 0.14 square miles.
The SOI for CSA 22 was adopted in 1986 to include an annexable sphere that includes the
entirety of the Yuba County Airport, the area north of the CSA bounds along Furneaux Road, and
an area of proposed residential development east of Arboga Road, north of McGowan Parkway, and
south of 11th Avenue.637 The development, Pheasant Pointe, is a 29-acre project site to be
subdivided into 119 single family residential lots, with lot sizes ranging from 6,000 to over 16,300
square feet, within the North Arboga Study Area.
There have been no annexations to the district since formation, and no amendments to the
sphere since SOI adoption.
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base includes property owners. A total of nine parcels pay assessments to
the CSA.638 Service demand in the CSA has remained relatively stable in recent years.
The CSA area is industrial, and there are no residents in the CSA. Several industrial and
wholesale businesses are located within the CSA bounds, including a soft drink bottling company, a
supplier of agricultural and mining equipment, and manufacturers of fiberglass pools, cedar wood
products, and garage and overhead doors. There is remaining development potential on three
vacant and partly vacant parcels within CSA bounds.
The Yuba County Airport is located within the SOI. The Yuba County Airport is a County-
owned general aviation airport featuring a 6,006-foot primary runway and a 3,280-foot crosswind
runway. The airport accommodates jet air carriers, freight carriers, general aviation business jets and
private aircraft. The 903-acre airport includes 265 acres located in eight industrial parks. There is
remaining development potential in the industrial parks, much of which are presently vacant. The
County anticipates future growth surrounding the airport facility. Recent improvements include the
complete overlay of the primary runway, overlays and sealing of the entire taxiway system, new
fueling facilities, and a rehabilitation of the apron, including removal of all underground fueling
tanks.
Also located within the SOI is the 29.4-acre planned housing development Pheasant Point, as
previously discussed. Developers Tejinder and Maninder Maan plan to subdivide the area into 119
single family residential lots, with lot sizes ranging from 6,000 to over 16,300 square feet.
There are no residents in the CSA. The CSA’s population density is zero per square mile,
compared with the countywide density of 114.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
637 LAFCO resolution 1986-18.
638 Property owners figure provided by Chris Starkey of Yuba County Public Works Department.
A-420 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
strategies. The County aims to attract industrial development to the airport vicinity. A new 20-year
master plan outlining growth strategies is underway, and was scheduled to be completed by July
2007, but had not been released as of the drafting of this report.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 22.
The CSA received $5,772 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream,
constituting 76 percent of revenues. Each parcel within the agency’s bounds is assessed $220
annually. The CSA also receives interest income. The CSA does not receive property taxes,
although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax bill.
The CSA’s primary activity in FY 05-06 was related to street light maintenance, with 78 percent
of expenditures made to PG&E and the remainder to reimburse the Department of Public Works’
engineer time.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the street lighting service profile below.
The CSA finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund
balance.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $44,516 at the end of FY 05-06.
This amounted to 961 percent of the CSA’s annual expenses. The CSA maintained approximately
115 months of working capital.
CSA 22 STREET LIGHTING
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides street lighting services to an industrial area by reimbursing PG&E for
electrical and maintenance costs—the direct service provider.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure located within the CSA consists of 21 streetlights.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-421
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-42-22: CSA 22 Service Profile
Street Light Service Profile
Service Configuration
Street Lighting PG&E Number of Street Lights 21
Street Lights Maintained by PG&E All Street Lights Maintained by County 0
Service Demand
Service Requests in 2006 0
Service Adequacy
% of Street Light Calls Resolved1 NA CSA Costs per Street Light $221
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified.
General Financing Approach
CSA services are financed primarily through special assessments of $220 per parcel.
Notes:
(1) No requests for service were made in 2006.
CSA 30 OVERVIEW
CSA 30 provides road maintenance services.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 30 was formed on August 13, 1984 as a dependent special district of the County, to provide
road maintenance services.639
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 30 is a 417-acre tract of land located
south of the Yuba River, southwest of SR 20 and West of Timbuctoo. Hammonton Road West
runs just north of the CSA, with Wild Turkey Trail running through it.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 419 acres, or 0.65 square miles.
The CSA 30 SOI is coterminous with its bounds, as shown on Map B-59.640 There have been no
annexations to the CSA following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its
adoption.
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base is 10 assessed parcels.641 Service demand in the CSA has been low in
recent years, as few complaints have been received and little road maintenance has occurred.
639 LAFCO resolution 1984-9.
640 LAFCO resolution 1986-15.
641 Parcel figure provided by the Yuba County Public Works Department.
A-422 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
The estimated population in the CSA is 6.642 The CSA’s population density is 9 per square mile,
compared with the countywide density of 114.
The CSA 30 area has not experienced significant growth in recent years, and there are no
planned or proposed developments located within the CSA. No business activity in the CSA was
identified.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 30.
The CSA received $1,274 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream,
constituting 61 percent of revenues. The CSA also received interest income. The CSA does not
receive property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax
bill.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. The CSA finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and
the available fund balance. Due to its small size, this CSA typically accumulates reserves for several
years in order to finance road repair work.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $16,692 at the end of FY 05-06.
CSA 30 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides road maintenance services.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
642 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments (two) and average household size.
The average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-423
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Infrastructure
There are approximately 2 miles of private roads within the CSA boundary that are maintained
through the CSA. The roads maintained through the CSA are private gravel roads that have not
been accepted as part of the County road system and are maintained through CSA funds.
No infrastructure needs have been identified on Wild Turkey Trail or Miles Way.
Table A-42-23: CSA 30 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests 0 Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 2.0 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
Local roads within the CSA consist of Wild Turkey Trl. and Miles Wy.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile1 $32 Average Response Time2 3-4 Weeks
No maintenance was performed in fiscal year 2005-06 in the CSA.
General Financing Approach
Assessments of $60 on unimproved property and $240 on improved property.
Note:
(1) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
CSA 34 OVERVIEW
CSA 34 provides road maintenance services.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 34 was formed on October 10, 1984 as a dependent special district of the County, to
provide road maintenance services.643
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 34 is located two miles east of the
community of Browns Valley, east of Peoria Road at SR 20, as shown on Map B-60.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 256 acres, or 0.4 square miles.
The CSA 34 SOI is coterminous with its bounds.644 There have been no annexations to the CSA
following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its adoption.
643 LAFCO resolution 1984-13.
644 LAFCO resolution 1986-16.
A-424 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base is 18 assessed parcels.645 Service demand in the CSA has been low in
recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The Public
Works Department projects that service demand is likely to stay the same in future years.
The estimated population in the CSA is 23.646 The CSA’s population density is 57 per square
mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 34 has not experienced significant growth
in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 34.
The CSA received $1,168 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream,
constituting 73 percent of revenues. The CSA also received interest income. The CSA does not
receive property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax
bill.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the Street Service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
Given the small size of this CSA, it typically takes several years to accumulate enough reserves to
fund repair work.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $10,743 at the end of FY 05-06.
CSA 34 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides road maintenance services. No maintenance activities were performed within
the CSA in FY 05-06.
645 Assessed parcel figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
646 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments and average household size. The
average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-425
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure located within the CSA consists of 0.7 miles of private local roads. Local roads
located within the CSA include Potts Trail and Palomino Trail. Major road maintenance performed
in FY 06-07 consisted of grading and graveling of both local roads.
Table A-42-24: CSA 34 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 0.7 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
Local roads within CSA 34 include Potts Trl. and Palomino Trl.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile1 $150 Average Response Time2 3-4 Weeks
No road maintenance was performed in FY 05-06.
General Financing Approach
NP
Note:
(1) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
CSA 36 OVERVIEW
CSA 36 provides maintenance for road and drainage facilities.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 36 was formed on March 6, 1986 as a dependent special district of the County, to provide
maintenance for road and drainage facilities.647
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 36 is located two miles east of the
community of Browns Valley, west of Peoria Road at SR 20, as shown on Map B-61.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 104 acres, or 0.2 square miles.
647 LAFCO resolution 1985-7.
A-426 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
The CSA 36 SOI is coterminous with its bounds.648 There have been no annexations to the CSA
following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its adoption.
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base is 18 assessed parcels.649 Service demand in the CSA has been low in
recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The Public
Works Department projects that service demand is likely to stay the same in future years.
The estimated population in the CSA is zero, as there are no improved parcels paying
assessments.650
Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 36 has not experienced significant growth
in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 36.
The CSA received $1,358 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream,
constituting 63 percent of revenues. The CSA also received interest income. The CSA does not
receive property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax
bill.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the Street Service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
Given the small size of this CSA, it typically takes several years to accumulate enough reserves to
fund repair work.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $15,519 at the end of FY 05-06.
648 LAFCO resolution 1986-17.
649 Assessed parcel figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
650 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments and average household size. The
average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-427
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
CSA 36 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides maintenance for road and drainage facilities. No maintenance activities were
performed within the CSA in FY 05-06.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure located within the CSA consists of 0.6 miles of private local roads. Local roads
within the CSA include O’Henry Drive and Sidney Lane.
Table A-42-25: CSA 36 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 0.6 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
Local roads within CSA 36 include O'Henry Dr. and Sidney Ln.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile1 $98 Average Response Time2 3-4 Weeks
No road maintenance was performed in FY 05-06.
General Financing Approach
NP
Note:
(1) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
CSA 37 OVERVIEW
CSA 37 provides road and roadside drainage maintenance services.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 37 was formed on July 28, 1986 as a dependent special district of the County, to provide
road and roadside drainage maintenance services.651
651 LAFCO resolution 1986-30.
A-428 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 37 is located approximately three and a
half miles east of Browns Valley, southeast of Scott Forbes Road, as shown on Map B-62.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 308 acres, or 0.5 square miles.
The CSA 37 SOI is coterminous with its bounds.652 There have been no annexations to the CSA
following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its adoption.
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base is 18 assessed parcels.653 Service demand in the CSA has been low in
recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The Public
Works Department projects that service demand is likely to stay the same in future years.
The estimated population in the CSA is 37.654 The CSA’s population density is 77 per square
mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 37 has not experienced significant growth
in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 37.
The CSA received $2,372 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream,
constituting 86 percent of revenues. The CSA also received interest income. The CSA does not
receive property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax
bill.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the Street Service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
Given the small size of this CSA, it typically takes several years to accumulate enough reserves to
fund repair work.
652 LAFCO resolution 1986-47.
653 Assessed parcel figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
654 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments and average household size. The
average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-429
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $12,140 at the end of FY 05-06.
CSA 37 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides road and roadside drainage maintenance services. No maintenance activities
were performed within the CSA in FY 05-06.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure located within the CSA consists of 1.5 miles of private local roads. Local roads
within CSA 37 include Lanza Lane, Gary Drive, Coburn Court, and a portion of Sicard Flat Road.
Table A-42-26: CSA 37 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 1.5 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
Local roads within CSA 37 include Lanza Ln., Gary Dr., Coburn Ct., and a portion of Sicard Flat Rd.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile1 $31 Average Response Time2 3-4 Weeks
No road maintenance was performed in FY 05-06.
General Financing Approach
NP
Note:
(1) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
A-430 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
CSA 38 OVERVIEW
CSA 38 provides road and roadside drainage maintenance services.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 38 was formed on September 3, 1986 as a dependent special district of the County, to
provide road and roadside drainage maintenance services.655
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 38 is located approximately five miles
east of Browns Valley, at the intersection of SR 20 with Sicard Flat Road, as shown on Map B-63.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 427 acres, or 0.7 square miles.
The CSA 38 SOI is coterminous with its bounds.656 There have been no annexations to the CSA
following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its adoption.
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base is 43 assessed parcels.657 Service demand in the CSA has been low in
recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The Public
Works Department projects that service demand is likely to stay the same in future years.
The estimated population in the CSA is 83.658 The CSA’s population density is 124 per square
mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 38 has not experienced significant growth
in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 38.
The CSA received $12,344 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream,
constituting 79 percent of revenues. The CSA also received interest income. The CSA does not
655 LAFCO resolution 1986-38.
656 LAFCO resolution 1986-48.
657 Assessed parcel figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
658 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments and average household size. The
average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-431
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
receive property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax
bill.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the Street Service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
Given the small size of this CSA, it typically takes several years to accumulate enough reserves to
fund repair work.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $90,503 at the end of FY 05-06.
CSA 38 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides road and roadside drainage maintenance services. No maintenance activities
were performed within the CSA in FY 05-06.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure located within the CSA consists of 1.7 miles of private local roads. Local roads
within CSA 38 include Stacy Anne Drive, Byron Way, Escheman Lane, Heleen Bart Court, and
Pheasant Valley Lane.
A-432 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
Table A-42-27: CSA 38 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 1.7 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
Local roads within CSA 38 include Stacy Anne Dr., Byron Wy., and Escheman Ln.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile1 $33 Average Response Time2 3-4 Weeks
No road maintenance was performed in FY 05-06.
General Financing Approach
NP
Note:
(1) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
CSA 39 OVERVIEW
CSA 39 provides maintenance of road and drainage facilities.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 39 was formed on September 11, 1987 as a dependent special district of the County, to
provide maintenance of road and drainage facilities.659
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 39 is located approximately two miles
east of the community of Loma Rica, at the intersection of Dry Creek Lane and Marysville Road, as
shown on Map B-64.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 210 acres, or 0.3 square miles.
The CSA 39 SOI is coterminous with its bounds.660 There have been no annexations to the CSA
following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its adoption.
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base is 38 assessed parcels.661 Service demand in the CSA has been low in
recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The Public
659 LAFCO resolution 1987-3.
660 LAFCO resolution 1987-2.
661 Assessed parcel figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-433
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Works Department projects that service demand is likely stay the same in future years. The
estimated population in the CSA is 66.662 The CSA’s population density is 201 per square mile,
compared with the countywide density of 114.
Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 39 has not experienced significant growth
in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 39.
The CSA received $2,788 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream,
constituting 96 percent of revenues. The CSA also received interest income. The CSA does not
receive property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax
bill.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the Street Service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
Given the small size of this CSA, it typically takes several years to accumulate enough reserves to
fund repair work.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $6,052 at the end of FY 05-06.
CSA 39 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides maintenance of road and drainage facilities. No maintenance activities were
performed within the CSA in FY 05-06.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
662 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments and average household size. The
average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
A-434 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
Infrastructure located within the CSA consists of 1.6 miles of private local roads. Local roads
within the CSA include Dry Creek Lane, Clair Drive and Alita Court.
Table A-42-28: CSA 39 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 1.6 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
Local roads within CSA 39 include Dry Creek Ln., Clair Dr. and Alita Ct.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile1 $35 Average Response Time2 3-4 Weeks
No road maintenance was performed in FY 05-06.
General Financing Approach
NP
Note:
(1) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
CSA 40 OVERVIEW
CSA 40 provides maintenance for road and drainage facilities.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 40 was formed on June 15, 1988 as a dependent special district of the County, to provide
maintenance for road and drainage facilities.663
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 40 is approximately two miles
southeast of the community of Loma Rica, at the intersection of Loma Rica Road and Oak Creek
Drive, as shown on Map B-65.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 547 acres, or 0.9 square miles.
The CSA 40 SOI is coterminous with its bounds.664 There have been no annexations to the CSA
following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its adoption.
663 LAFCO resolution 1988-7.
664 LAFCO resolution 1988-6.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-435
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base is 32 assessed parcels.665 Service demand in the CSA has been low in
recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The Public
Works Department projects that service demand is likely to stay the same in future years.
The estimated population in the CSA is 77.666 The CSA’s population density is 90 per square
mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 40 has not experienced significant growth
in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 40.
The CSA received $5,550 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream,
constituting 66 percent of revenues. The CSA also received interest income. The CSA does not
receive property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax
bill.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the Street Service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
Given the small size of this CSA, it typically takes several years to accumulate enough reserves to
fund repair work.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $63,358 at the end of FY 05-06.
CSA 40 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides maintenance for road and drainage facilities. No maintenance activities were
performed within the CSA in FY 05-06.
665 Assessed parcel figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
666 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments and average household size. The
average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
A-436 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure located within the CSA consists of 3.3 miles of private local roads. Local roads
within the CSA include Oak Creek Drive, Oakes Way, Westview Drive, and Ahart Court.
Table A-42-29: CSA 40 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 3.3 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
Local roads within CSA 40 include Oak Creek Dr., Oakes Wy., Westview Dr., and Ahart Ct.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile1 $20 Average Response Time2 3-4 Weeks
No road maintenance was performed in FY 05-06.
General Financing Approach
NP
Note:
(1) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-437
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
CSA 42 OVERVIEW
CSA 42 provides local road construction and maintenance services.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 42 was formed on September 26, 1989 as a dependent special district of the County, to
provide local road construction and maintenance services.667
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 42 is located approximately 2.5 miles
southwest of the community of Browns Valley, at the intersection of SR 20 and Daguerre Point
Drive, as shown on Map B-66.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 159 acres, or 0.2 square miles.
The CSA 42 SOI is coterminous with its bounds.668 There have been no annexations to the CSA
following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its adoption.
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base is 15 assessed parcels.669 Service demand in the CSA has been low in
recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The Public
Works Department projects that service demand is likely to stay the same in future years.
The estimated population in the CSA is 40.670 The CSA’s population density is 161 per square
mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 42 has not experienced significant growth
in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 42.
667 LAFCO resolution 1989-9.
668 LAFCO resolution 1989-8.
669 Assessed parcel figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
670 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments and average household size. The
average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
A-438 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
The CSA received $1,969 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream,
constituting 74 percent of revenues. The CSA also received interest income. The CSA does not
receive property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax
bill.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the Street Service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
Given the small size of this CSA, it typically takes several years to accumulate enough reserves to
fund repair work.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $17,468 at the end of FY 05-06.
CSA 42 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides local road construction and maintenance services. No maintenance activities
were performed within the CSA in FY 05-06.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure located within the CSA consists of 0.8 miles of private local roads. Local roads
within the CSA include Daguerre Point Drive and Jamestown Court. Major road maintenance
performed in FY 06-07 consisted of road repair and chip seal.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-439
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-42-30: CSA 42 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 0.8 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
Local roads within CSA 42 include Daguerra Point Dr. and Jamestown Ct.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile1 $687 Average Response Time2 3-4 Weeks
No road maintenance was performed in FY 05-06.
General Financing Approach
NP
Note:
(1) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
CSA 43 OVERVIEW
CSA 43 provides maintenance for road and road drainage facilities.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 43 was formed on February 6, 1990 as a dependent special district of the County, to
provide maintenance for road and road drainage facilities.671
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 43 is located in the community of
Brownsville, in the vicinity of the Pine Meadow Road and La Porte Road intersection, as shown on
Map B-67.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 10 acres, or 0.02 square miles.
The CSA 43 SOI is coterminous with its bounds.672 There have been no annexations to the CSA
following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its adoption.
671 LAFCO resolution 1989-13.
672 LAFCO resolution 1989-12.
A-440 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base is nine assessed parcels.673 Service demand in the CSA has been low in
recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The Public
Works Department projects that service demand is likely to stay the same in future years.
The estimated population in the CSA is 17.674 The CSA’s population density is 1,079 per square
mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 43 has not experienced significant growth
in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 43.
The CSA received $362 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream, constituting
74 percent of revenues. The CSA also received interest income. The CSA does not receive property
taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax bill.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the Street Service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
Given the small size of this CSA, it typically takes several years to accumulate enough reserves to
fund repair work.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $3,224 at the end of FY 05-06.
CSA 43 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides maintenance for road and road drainage facilities. No maintenance activities
were performed within the CSA in FY 05-06.
673 Assessed parcel figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
674 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments and average household size. The
average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-441
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure located within the CSA consists of 0.2 miles of private local roads. Local roads
within the CSA are Cottontail Lane and Deer Creek Road.
Table A-42-31: CSA 43 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 0.2 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
Local roads within CSA 43 include Cottontail Ln. and Deer Creek Rd.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile1 $242 Average Response Time2 3-4 Weeks
No road maintenance was performed in FY 05-06.
General Financing Approach
NP
Note:
(1) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
CSA 44 OVERVIEW
CSA 44 provides maintenance for road and drainage facilities.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 44 was formed on February 9, 1990 as a dependent special district of the County, to
provide maintenance for road and drainage facilities.675
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 44 is located in the community of
Dobbins, in the vicinity of the intersection of Marysville Road and Merriam Road, as shown on Map
B-68.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 51 acres, or 0.1 square miles.
675 LAFCO resolution 1989-15.
A-442 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
The CSA 44 SOI is coterminous with its bounds.676 There have been no annexations to the CSA
following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its adoption.
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base is nine assessed parcels.677 Service demand in the CSA has been low in
recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The Public
Works Department projects that service demand is likely to stay the same in future years.
The estimated population in the CSA is 14.678 The CSA’s population density is 178 per square
mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 44 has not experienced significant growth
in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 44.
The CSA received $1,876 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream,
constituting 70 percent of revenues. The CSA also received interest income. The CSA does not
receive property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax
bill.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the Street Service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
Given the small size of this CSA, it typically takes several years to accumulate enough reserves to
fund repair work.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $19,095 at the end of FY 05-06.
676 LAFCO resolution 1989-14.
677 Assessed parcel figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
678 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments and average household size. The
average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-443
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
CSA 44 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides maintenance for road and drainage facilities. No maintenance activities were
performed within the CSA in FY 05-06.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure located within the CSA consists of one mile of private local roads. Local roads
within the CSA include Pine Crest Drive and Brookside Drive. Drainage maintenance performed in
FY 06-07 consisted of culvert replacement.
Table A-42-32: CSA 44 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 1.0 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
Local roads within the CSA include Pine Crest Dr. and Brookside Dr.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile1 $57 Average Response Time2 3-4 Weeks
No road maintenance was performed in FY 05-06.
General Financing Approach
NP
Note:
(1) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
A-444 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
CSA 45 OVERVIEW
CSA 45 provides maintenance for road and drainage facilities.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 45 was formed on November 6, 1990 as a dependent special district of the County, to
provide maintenance for road and drainage facilities.679
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 45 is located approximately one mile
northeast of the community of Oregon House, at the intersection of Frenchtown Road and Quail
Meadow Lane, as shown on Map B-69.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 75 acres, or 0.1 square miles.
The CSA 45 SOI is coterminous with its bounds.680 There have been no annexations to the CSA
following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its adoption.
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base is 14 assessed parcels.681 Service demand in the CSA has been low in
recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The Public
Works Department projects that service demand is likely to stay the same in future years.
The estimated population in the CSA is 14.682 The CSA’s population density is 121 per square
mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 45 has not experienced significant growth
in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 45.
679 LAFCO resolution 1990-6.
680 LAFCO resolution 1990-5.
681 Assessed parcel figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
682 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments and average household size. The
average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-445
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The CSA received $1,205 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream,
constituting 84 percent of revenues. The CSA also received interest income. The CSA does not
receive property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax
bill.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the Street Service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
Given the small size of this CSA, it typically takes several years to accumulate enough reserves to
fund repair work.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $6,079 at the end of FY 05-06.
CSA 45 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides maintenance for road and drainage facilities. No maintenance activities were
performed within the CSA in FY 05-06.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure located within the CSA consists of 0.5 miles of private local roads. The only road
located within the CSA is Quail Meadow Lane.
A-446 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
Table A-42-33: CSA 45 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 0.5 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
The CSA includes a portion of Quail Meadow Ln.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile1 $107 Average Response Time2 3-4 Weeks
No road maintenance was performed in FY 05-06.
General Financing Approach
NP
Note:
(1) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
CSA 46 OVERVIEW
CSA 46 provides maintenance for road and drainage facilities.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 46 was formed on June 22, 1992 as a dependent special district of the County, to provide
maintenance for road and drainage facilities.683
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 46 is located approximately one mile
northwest of the community of Smartville, at the intersection of SR 20 and Riverview Terrace, as
shown on Map B-70.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 77 acres, or 0.1 square miles.
The CSA 46 SOI is coterminous with its bounds.684 There have been no annexations to the CSA
following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its adoption.
683 LAFCO resolution 1991-7.
684 LAFCO resolution 1991-6.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-447
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base is 15 assessed parcels.685 Service demand in the CSA has been low in
recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The Public
Works Department projects that service demand is likely to stay the same in future years.
The estimated population in the CSA is 26.686 The CSA’s population density is 214 per square
mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 46 has not experienced significant growth
in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 46.
The CSA received $1,835 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream,
constituting 73 percent of revenues. The CSA also received interest income. The CSA does not
receive property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax
bill.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the Street Service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
Given the small size of this CSA, it typically takes several years to accumulate enough reserves to
fund repair work.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $16,890 at the end of FY 05-06.
685 Assessed parcel figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
686 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments and average household size. The
average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
A-448 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
CSA 46 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides maintenance for road and drainage facilities. No maintenance activities were
performed within the CSA in FY 05-06.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure located within the CSA consists of approximately 0.4 miles of private local
roadway. The only local road within the CSA is Riverview Terrace.
Table A-42-34: CSA 46 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 0.4 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
The only local road within the CSA is Riverview Ter.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile1 $139 Average Response Time2 3-4 Weeks
No road maintenance was performed in FY 05-06.
General Financing Approach
NP
Note:
(1) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-449
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
CSA 48 OVERVIEW
CSA 48 provides maintenance for roads and drainage facilities, and street lighting.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 48 was formed on December 31, 1991 as a dependent special district of the County, to
provide maintenance services to roads, drainage facilities and a 15-acre detention pond.687
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 48 is located south of McGowan
Parkway, in the community of Olivehurst, as shown on Map B-71. The CSA has a boundary area of
approximately 69 acres, or 0.11 square miles.
The CSA SOI is coterminous with its bounds.688
There have been no annexations to the district since formation, and no amendments to the
sphere since SOI adoption.
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base includes property owners and residents. A total of 212 households pay
assessments to the CSA.689 Service demand in the CSA has remained relatively stable in recent years.
The estimated population in the CSA is 606.690 The CSA’s population density is 5,509 per square
mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
There is no business activity located within the CSA bounds. The area within CSA bounds is a
built-out residential community. There is minimal growth potential within CSA bounds. Adjacent
to the CSA’s southern boundary is undeveloped land. Any future growth in the CSA would involve
annexation of adjacent territory.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 48.
687 LAFCO resolution 1991-10.
688 LAFCO resolution 1991-9.
689 Households figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
690 The estimated population is the product of the number of household paying assessments and average household size. The average
Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
A-450 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
The CSA received $13,178 in revenues in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue
stream, constituting 91 percent of revenues. Each landowner is assessed $60 per parcel to recoup
cost of services provided. The CSA also receives interest income. The CSA does not receive
property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax bill.
Although the CSA was formed to provide maintenance of roads and drainage facilities, its
primary activity in FY 05-06 was related to street lighting, with 97 percent of expenditures made to
PG&E.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $43,362 at the end of FY 05-06.
This amounted to 899 percent of the CSA’s expenses in FY 05-06. The CSA maintained
approximately nine years of working capital.
CSA 48 STREET AND LIGHTING SERVICE
Nature and Extent
CSA 48 provides road maintenance, street lighting and maintenance of drainage facilities and a
15-acre detention pond to a residential community in southern Olivehurst. These services are
provided through the County Public Works Department, which is then reimbursed for equipment,
materials and personnel time. PG&E is reimbursed by the CSA to provide power and maintenance
for all street lights within CSA boundaries.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
The CSA’s key infrastructure includes 1.6 centerline miles of streets, 30 streetlights, and a 15-
acre detention pond. All street lights are owned and maintained by PG&E. The Department of
Public Works was unable to provide an estimate of the number and length of drainage ditches
maintained.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-451
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-42-35: CSA 48 Service Profile
Street Light Service Profile
Service Configuration
Street Lighting PG&E Number of Street Lights 30
Street Lights Maintained by PG&E 30 Street Lights Maintained by County 0
Service Demand
Service Requests in 2006 0
Service Adequacy
% of Street Light Calls Resolved1 NA CSA Costs per Street Light $156
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 1.6 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
The street system within the CSA includes 7 local roads (private) south of McGowan Parkway and east
of the Western Pacific railroad.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile2 $96 Average Response Time3 3-4 Weeks
No road maintenance was performed in FY 2005-06.
General Financing Approach
Assessments of $60 per parcel.
Note:
(1) No requests for street light service were made in FY 05-06.
(2) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(3) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
CSA 53 OVERVIEW
CSA 53 provides maintenance services for road and drainage facilities and recreation and open
space facilities.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 53 was formed on January 25, 1993 as a dependent special district of the County, to
provide maintenance services for road and drainage facilities and for a recreation and open space
area.691
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 53 is located in the community of
Oregon House, at the intersection of Rices Crossing Road and Artemis Court, as shown on Map B-
72.
691 LAFCO resolution 1992-20.
A-452 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 5 acres, or .008 square miles.
The CSA 53 SOI is coterminous with its bounds.692 There have been no annexations to the CSA
following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its adoption.
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base is five assessed parcels.693 Service demand in the CSA has been low in
recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The Public
Works Department projects that service demand is likely to stay the same in future years.
The estimated population in the CSA is 11.694 The CSA’s population density is 1,493 per square
mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 53 has not experienced significant growth
in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 53.
The CSA received $1,107 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream,
constituting 81 percent of revenues. The CSA also received interest income. The CSA does not
receive property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax
bill.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the Street Service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
Given the small size of this CSA, it typically takes several years to accumulate enough reserves to
fund repair work.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $7,455 at the end of FY 05-06.
692 LAFCO resolution 1992-19.
693 Assessed parcel figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
694 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments and the average household size.
The average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-453
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
CSA 53 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides maintenance services for road and drainage facilities. No maintenance
activities were performed within the CSA in FY 05-06.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure located within the CSA consists of 0.04 miles private local roads. The only road
located within the CSA is Artemis Court.
Table A-42-36: CSA 53 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 0.04 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
The CSA provides maintenance to Artemis Ct.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile1 $1,359 Average Response Time2 3-4 Weeks
No road maintenance was performed in FY 05-06.
General Financing Approach
NP
Note:
(1) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
A-454 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
CSA 54 OVERVIEW
CSA 54 provides maintenance of road and drainage facilities and maintenance of a fire hydrant
system.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 54 was formed on March 23, 1993 as a dependent special district of the County, to provide
maintenance of road and drainage facilities and a fire hydrant system.695
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 54 is located in the community of
Oregon House, at the intersection of Frenchtown Road and Bluebird Way, as shown on Map B-73.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 41 acres, or 0.1 square miles.
The CSA 54 SOI is coterminous with its bounds.696 There have been no annexations to the CSA
following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its adoption.
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base is eight assessed parcels.697 Service demand in the CSA has been low in
recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The Public
Works Department projects that service demand is likely to stay the same in future years.
The estimated population in the CSA is 14.698 The CSA’s population density is 226 per square
mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 54 has not experienced significant growth
in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 54.
695 LAFCO resolution 1993-02.
696 LAFCO resolution 1993-01.
697 Assessed parcel figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
698 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments and average household size. The
average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-455
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The CSA received $1,641 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream,
constituting 79 percent of revenues. The CSA also received interest income. The CSA does not
receive property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax
bill.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the Street Service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
Given the small size of this CSA, it typically takes several years to accumulate enough reserves to
fund repair work.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $12,023 at the end of FY 05-06.
CSA 54 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides maintenance of road and drainage facilities. No maintenance activities were
performed within the CSA in FY 05-06.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure located within the CSA consists of 0.2 miles of private local roadway. The only
road within the CSA is Bluebird Way.
A-456 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
Table A-42-37: CSA 54 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 0.2 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
Roadway maintained by the CSA is Bluebird Wy.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile1 $1,058 Average Response Time2 3-4 Weeks
No road maintenance was performed in FY 05-06.
General Financing Approach
NP
Note:
(1) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
CSA 55 OVERVIEW
CSA 55 provides maintenance of road and drainage facilities and a fire suppression water
system.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 55 was formed on October 19, 1993 as a dependent special district of the County, to
provide maintenance of road and drainage facilities and of a fire suppression water storage system.699
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 55 is located in the community of
Browns Valley, at the intersection of Marysville Road and Kenmir Ranch Road, as shown on Map
B-74.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 38 acres, or 0.1 square miles.
The CSA 55 SOI is coterminous with its bounds.700 There have been no annexations to the CSA
following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its adoption.
699 LAFCO resolution 1993-08.
700 LAFCO resolution 1993-07.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-457
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base is seven assessed parcels.701 Service demand in the CSA has been low in
recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The Public
Works Department projects that service demand is likely to stay the same in future years.
The estimated population in the CSA is 6.702 The CSA’s population density is 97 per square mile,
compared with the countywide density of 114.
Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 55 has not experienced significant growth
in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 55.
The CSA received $276 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream, constituting
84 percent of revenues. The CSA also received interest income. The CSA does not receive property
taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax bill.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the Street Service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
Given the small size of this CSA, it typically takes several years to accumulate enough reserves to
fund repair work.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $1,567 at the end of FY 05-06.
CSA 55 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides maintenance of road and drainage facilities. No maintenance activities were
performed within the CSA in FY 05-06.
701 Assessed parcel figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
702 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments and average household size. The
average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
A-458 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure located within the CSA consists of 0.2 miles of private local roads. The only road
within the CSA is Kenmir Ranch Road.
Table A-42-38: CSA 55 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 0.2 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
Roadway maintained by the CSA is Kenmir Ranch Rd.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile1 $348 Average Response Time2 3-4 Weeks
No road maintenance was performed in FY 05-06.
General Financing Approach
NP
Note:
(1) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
CSA 59 OVERVIEW
CSA 59 provides maintenance of road and drainage facilities, maintenance of a pond for fire
suppression, and street lighting.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 59 was formed on March 28, 1995 as a dependent special district of the County, to provide
maintenance of road and drainage facilities and the maintenance of a pond for fire suppression.703
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 59 is located in the community of
Oregon House, at the intersection of Willow Glen Road and Skyview Court, as shown on Map B-75.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 320 acres, or 0.5 square miles.
703 LAFCO resolution 1995-02.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-459
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The CSA 59 SOI is coterminous with its bounds.704 There have been no annexations to the CSA
following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its adoption.
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base is 14 assessed parcels.705 Service demand in the CSA has been low in
recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The Public
Works Department projects that service demand is likely to increase/stay the same in future years.
The estimated population in the CSA is 20.706 The CSA’s population density is 43 per square
mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 59 has not experienced significant growth
in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 59.
The CSA received $1,945 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream,
constituting 98 percent of revenues. The CSA also received interest income. The CSA does not
receive property taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax
bill.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the Street Service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
Given the small size of this CSA, it typically takes several years to accumulate enough reserves to
fund repair work.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $2,554 at the end of FY 05-06.
704 LAFCO resolution 1995-01.
705 Assessed parcel figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
706 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments and average household size. The
average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
A-460 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
CSA 59 STREET AND LIGHTING SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides maintenance of road and drainage facilities. No maintenance activities were
performed within the CSA in FY 05-06; however, PG&E was reimbursed for the cost of providing
street lighting.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure located within the CSA consists of 1.8 miles of private local roads. Local roads
within the CSA consist of Skyview Court and Skyglen Drive. The number of street lights within the
CSA was not provided. PG&E owns and maintains all street lights within the CSA.
Table A-42-39: CSA 59 Service Profile
Street Light Service Profile
Service Configuration
Street Lighting PG&E Number of Street Lights NP
Street Lights Maintained by PG&E All Street Lights Maintained by County 0
Service Demand
Service Requests in FY 05-06 NP
Service Adequacy
% of Street Light Calls Resolved1 NP CSA Costs per Street Light NP
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 1.8 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
Local roads within the CSA include Skyview Ct. and Skyglen Dr.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile2 $88 Average Response Time3 3-4 Weeks
No road maintenance was performed in FY 05-06.
General Financing Approach
NP
Note:
(1) Number of street light service requests completed by PG&E divided by the total number of streetlight service requests.
(2) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(3) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-461
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
CSA 60 OVERVIEW
CSA 60 provides maintenance to road and drainage, fire suppression, and irrigation facilities.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 60 was formed on July 29, 1996 as a dependent special district of the County, to provide
maintenance services of road and drainage, fire suppression and irrigation facilities.707
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 60 is located in the community of
Browns Valley, at the intersection of SR 20 and Amber Lane, as shown on Map B-76.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 60 acres, or 0.1 square miles.
The CSA 60 SOI is coterminous with its bounds.708 There have been no annexations to the CSA
following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its adoption.
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base is nine assessed parcels.709 Service demand in the CSA has been low in
recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The Public
Works Department projects that service demand is likely to stay the same in future years.
The estimated population in the CSA is zero, as there are no improved parcels paying
assessments.710
Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 60 has not experienced significant growth
in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 60.
707 LAFCO resolution 1996-07.
708 LAFCO resolution 1996-06.
709 Assessed parcel figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
710 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments and average household size. The
average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
A-462 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
The CSA received $548 in FY 05-06. Assessments are the primary revenue stream, constituting
82 percent of revenues. The CSA also received interest income. The CSA does not receive property
taxes, although it does receive assessments which are collected on the property tax bill.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the Street Service profile below. The CSA
finances capital improvements with assessments, interest income and the available fund balance.
Given the small size of this CSA, it typically takes several years to accumulate enough reserves to
fund repair work.
By way of financial reserves, the CSA had a fund balance of $3,472 at the end of FY 05-06.
CSA 60 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides maintenance services of road and drainage facilities. No maintenance
activities were performed within the CSA in FY 05-06.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure located within the CSA consists of 0.3 miles of private local roads. The only road
located within the CSA is Amber Lane.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-463
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-42-40: CSA 60 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 0.3 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
The only roadway within the CSA is Amber Ln.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile1 $526 Average Response Time2 3-4 Weeks
No road maintenance was performed in FY 05-06.
General Financing Approach
NP
Note:
(1) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
CSA 61 OVERVIEW
CSA 61 provides maintenance to road and drainage facilities.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 61 was formed on November 23, 2005 as a dependent special district of the County, to
provide maintenance on road, drainage and fire suppression facilities.711 The Public Works
Department did not report whether the CSA has initiated maintenance services to fire suppression
facilities as of 2008.
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 61 is located in the community of
Browns Valley, at the intersection of Scott Forbes Road and Deer Ridge Court, as shown on Map B-
77.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 381 acres, or 0.6 square miles.
The CSA 61 SOI is coterminous with its bounds.712 There have been no annexations to the CSA
following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its adoption.
711 LAFCO resolution 2005-0016.
712 LAFCO resolution 2005-0015.
A-464 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base is 22 assessed parcels.713 Service demand in the CSA has been low in
recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The Public
Works Department projects that service demand is likely to stay the same in future years.
The estimated population in the CSA is three.714 The CSA’s population density is five per square
mile, compared with the countywide density of 114.
Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 61 has not experienced significant growth
in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA. The Public Works Department did not provide financial information for CSA 61.
CSA 61 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides maintenance on road and drainage facilities. No maintenance activities were
performed within the CSA in FY 05-06.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure located within the CSA consists of 1.2 miles of private local roads. Local roads
located within the CSA include Wilson Way, Deer Ridge Court and McGough Court.
713 Assessed parcel figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
714 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments and average household size. The
average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-465
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-42-41: CSA 61 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 1.2 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
Local roads within the CSA include Wilson Wy., Deer Ridge Ct. and McGough Ct.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile1 NP Average Response Time2 3-4 Weeks
Services completed in FY 05-06 were not provided
General Financing Approach
NP
Note:
(1) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
CSA 63 OVERVIEW
CSA 63 provides maintenance services for drainage and road maintenance.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 63 was formed on November 12, 2004 as a dependent special district of the County, to
provide maintenance services for drainage and road maintenance and water for fire suppression.715
The Public Works Department did not report whether the CSA has initiated maintenance of a water
system for fire suppression as of 2008.
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 63 is located in the community of
Browns Valley, at the intersection of Peoria Road and Township Road, as shown on Map B-78.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 438 acres, or 0.7 square miles.
The CSA 63 SOI is coterminous with its bounds.716 There have been no annexations to the CSA
following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its adoption.
715 LAFCO resolution 2004-0024.
716 LAFCO resolution 2004-0024A.
A-466 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
Service Demand and Growth
The CSA customer base is 64 assessed parcels.717 Service demand in the CSA has been low in
recent years, as few complaints have been received and little maintenance has occurred. The Public
Works Department projects that service demand is likely to stay the same in future years.
The estimated population in the CSA is zero, as there are no improved parcels paying
assessments.718
Due to its small size and relatively remote nature, CSA 63 has not experienced significant growth
in recent years and does not have significant permit, development, or business activity.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA. The Public Works Department did not provide financial information for CSA 63.
CSA 63 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA provides maintenance services for drainage and road facilities. No maintenance
activities were performed within the CSA in FY 05-06.
Location
CSA services are provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its boundary. The CSA is
staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible for providing services
throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure located within the CSA consists of 5.2 miles of private local roads. Local roads
within the CSA include Quail Run Avenue, Key Court, Deer Hollow Trail, and Turkey Hollow Trail.
717 Assessed parcel figure provided by Yuba County Public Works Department.
718 The estimated population is the product of the number of improved parcels paying assessments and average household size. The
average Yuba County household contained 2.86 persons in 2006, according to California Department of Finance data.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-467
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-42-42: CSA 63 Service Profile
Street Service Profile
Service Demand
Service Requests NP Service Calls per Street Mile NP
System Overview
Private Road Miles 5.2 Public Road Miles 0.0
Circulation Description
Local roads within the CSA include Quail Run Ave., Key Ct., Deer Hollow Trl., and Turkey Hollow
Trl. Portions of Peoria Rd. and Township Rd. are within the CSA.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified
Service Adequacy
CSA Costs per Street Mile1 NP Average Response Time2 3-4 Weeks
Services completed in FY 05-06 were not provided.
General Financing Approach
NP
Note:
(1) CSA expenditures on road maintenance in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
CSA 67 OVERVIEW
As of the drafting of this report, CSA 67 has not yet become active. It was formed to provide
maintenance for roads, street lighting, drainage, and landscaping services to a subdivision that has
not yet been completed.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 67 was formed on November 5, 2004 as a dependent special district.719 It was formed to
provide maintenance for roads, street lighting, drainage, and landscaping services to the proposed
Rothwell Estates development—now called the College Park subdivision. As of the drafting of this
report, the development had not begun construction and the CSA was not levying assessments or
providing services.
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 67 is located southwest of Linda
Avenue at the intersection with Dunning Avenue, in the community of Linda. The CSA has a
boundary area of approximately 9.2 acres, or 0.01 square miles.
The CSA SOI, adopted in 2004, is coterminous with its bounds.720
There have been no annexations to the CSA since formation, and no amendments to the sphere
since SOI adoption.
719 LAFCO resolution 2004-0020.
720 LAFCO resolution 2004-0019.
A-468 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
Service Demand and Growth
As of July 2007, the area within the CSA’s boundaries was undeveloped and there were no
residents or business activity. Consequently, no households pay assessments to the CSA.
There are no residents in the CSA, and therefore the population density is zero per square mile,
compared with the countywide density of 114.
Development is anticipated in the next few years as the approved College Park subdivision
begins construction. The 9.2-acre subdivision is coterminous with the CSA boundaries and is
located in the East Linda Specific Plan area. The developer proposes to subdivide the area into a 71
single family residential lots, as part of a private gated community.
The CSA is a dependent special district of the County, and is not a land use authority. The
County is the land use authority, and holds primary responsibility for implementing growth
strategies.
Financing
The County practices fund accounting, with separate funds established for each legally separate
CSA, including CSA 67.
The CSA received no revenues and made no expenditures in FY 05-06.
The CSA had no long-term debt at the end of FY 05-06.
The CSA’s planned capital expenditures were not provided; the CSA does not prepare a capital
improvement plan. Infrastructure needs are discussed in the service profile below.
CSA 67 STREET SERVICE
Nature and Extent
The CSA does not yet provide any services, but was formed to provide maintenance on private
roads and road drainage facilities.
Location
It is anticipated that CSA services will be provided within the CSA boundary and not outside its
boundary. The CSA will be staffed and served by County Public Works staff who are responsible
for providing services throughout the unincorporated areas of the County.
Infrastructure
No roads or drainage infrastructure had been constructed in the CSA, as of the drafting of this
report.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-469
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
INACTIVE CSAS
There are six inactive CSAs in Yuba County that have not yet been dissolved by LAFCO, as
shown by Table A-42-43. All six CSAs were originally formed for the purpose of providing road-
related services, with three of the six providing additional services such as maintenance of fire
suppression facilities and landscaping.
Table A-42-43: Inactive CSAs
LAFCO Formation
CSA 47 OVERVIEW CSA Resolution Date1
47 1991-4 3/13/1991
CSA 47 is an inactive district that was formed to
49 1992-2 8/4/1992
provide maintenance for road and drainage facilities.
51 1992-14 Not filed
56 1991-14 1/4/1994
Formation and Boundary 57 1993-16 1/4/1994
58 1994-06 11/3/1994
CSA 47 was formed on March 13, 1991 as a
Note:
dependent special district of the County, to provide
(1) Board of Equalization official date.
maintenance for road and drainage facilities.721 CSA 47
is an inactive district that has not been dissolved by LAFCO. The Public Works Department
reports that no recent maintenance activities have been performed in the CSA.
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The CSA 47 area is located in the
community of Oregon House, at the intersection of Marysville Road and Concord Trail, as shown
on Map B-79.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 66 acres, or 0.1 square miles.
The CSA 47 SOI was adopted to be coterminous with its bounds.722 There were no annexations
to the CSA following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its adoption.
CSA 49 OVERVIEW
CSA 49 in an inactive district that was formed to provide maintenance for road and drainage
facilities to a proposed development in Browns Valley.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 49 was formed on August 4, 1992 as a dependent special district of the County, to provide
maintenance for road and drainage facilities.723 In 1993, the 43-acre Seastrand Annexation to the
721 LAFCO resolution 1991-4.
722 LAFCO resolution 1991-3.
723 LAFCO resolution 1992-2.
A-470 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
CSA was approved by LAFCO, with maintenance of a water delivery system for fire suppression as
an added service of the CSA.724
CSA 49 is an inactive district that has not been dissolved by LAFCO. The Public Works
Department reports that no maintenance activities have been performed in the area since formation.
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The CSA 49 area is located in the
community of Browns Valley, along Township Road, as shown on Map B-80.
The CSA 49 SOI was adopted to be coterminous with its bounds.725 In 1993, the SOI for the
CSA was amended to be coterminous with the bounds following the 43-acre Seastrand
Annexation.726
CSA 51 OVERVIEW
CSA 51 in an inactive district that was formed to provide road and drainage service to a
proposed development south of Smartville.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 51 was formed in 1992 to provide funding for road maintenance and drainage for a
proposed 13-lot subdivision with the potential to be subdivided into over 100 lots.727 The proposed
development was not built and the CSA never became active. LAFCO has a certificate of
completion for the formation of the CSA; however there is no BOE record for this agency.
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 51 is a 525-acre tract of land located
approximately three miles south of the community of Smartville, along the Yuba-Nevada County
line, south of Daugherty Road. Boulder Way passes through the CSA. The CSA 51 SOI is
coterminous with its bounds, as shown on Map B-81.728 There have been no annexations to the
CSA following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its adoption. Although
inactive, the CSA has not been formally dissolved.
CSA 56 OVERVIEW
CSA 56 is an inactive district that was formed to provide street and drainage maintenance, and
landscaping and lighting services.
724 LAFCO resolution 1993-04.
725 LAFCO resolution 1992-1.
726 LAFCO resolution 1993-03.
727 LAFCO resolution 1992-14.
728 LAFCO resolution 1992-13.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-471
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Formation and Boundary
CSA 56 was formed on January 4, 1994 as a dependent special district of the County, to provide
street and drainage maintenance, and landscaping and lighting services. 729
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. CSA 56 is located east of Riverside Drive,
southwest of Alicia Avenue and northwest of Feather River Boulevard in the community of West
Linda, as shown on Map B-82. The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 7.15 acres, or 0.01
square miles.
The CSA SOI, adopted in 1993, is coterminous with its bounds.730
There have been no annexations to the district since formation, and no amendments to the
sphere since SOI adoption.
Although inactive, the CSA has not been formally dissolved.
CSA 57 OVERVIEW
CSA 57 is an inactive district that was formed to provide maintenance of road and drainage
facilities, and of a water delivery system for fire suppression purposes.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 57 was formed on January 4, 1994 as a dependent special district of the County, to provide
maintenance of road and drainage facilities, and of a water delivery system for fire suppression
purposes.731 CSA 57 is an inactive district that has not been dissolved by LAFCO. The Public
Works Department reports that no maintenance activities have been performed in the area since
formation.
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The CSA 57 area is located in the
community of Challenge, at the intersection of La Porte Road and Whispering Pines Way, as shown
on Map B-83.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 124 acres, or 0.2 square miles.
The CSA 57 SOI was adopted to be coterminous with its bounds.732 There have been no
annexations to the CSA following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its
adoption.
729 LAFCO resolution 1993-14.
730 LAFCO resolution 1993-13.
731 LAFCO resolution 1993-16.
732 LAFCO resolution 1993-15.
A-472 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
COUNTY SERVICE AREAS
CSA 58 OVERVIEW
CSA 58 is an inactive district that was formed to provide maintenance of road and drainage
facilities and a fire suppression water distribution system.
Formation and Boundary
CSA 58 was formed on November 3, 1994 as a dependent special district of the County, to
provide maintenance of road and drainage facilities and a fire suppression water distribution
system.733 CSA 58 is an inactive district that has not been dissolved by LAFCO. The Public Works
Department reports that no maintenance activities have been performed in the area since formation.
The CSA boundary is entirely within Yuba County. The CSA 58 area is located approximately
three miles east of the community of Browns Valley, in the vicinity of the intersection of Peoria
Road and Township Road, as shown on Map B-84.
The CSA has a boundary area of approximately 338 acres, or 0.5 square miles.
The CSA 58 SOI was adopted to be coterminous with its bounds.734 There have been no
annexations to the CSA following its formation, and no amendments to the SOI following its
adoption.
733 LAFCO resolution 1994-06.
734 LAFCO resolution 1994-05.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-473
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
43. N O N - L A F C O AG E N C I E S
This chapter profiles municipal service providers that are not subject to LAFCO regulation of
boundaries and governance. Although LAFCO does not adopt SOIs for such agencies, they play
significant roles in service delivery and potentially affect the SOI and government structure options
for local agencies that are subject to LAFCO regulation.
BEALE AIR FORCE BASE
The U.S. Air Force (USAF) is responsible for land use planning and a wide array of municipal
services provided on Beale Air Force Base. USAF provides comprehensive municipal services,
including water, wastewater, electricity distribution, flood control, law enforcement, fire suppression,
emergency medical, hospital, mosquito control, street maintenance, parks, recreation, and library
services. For medical transport and solid waste collection, USAF contracts with private providers
for service.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
The USAF’s Beale Air Force Base (AFB) provides high-altitude reconnaissance and radar
services for national defense and security purposes. Beale AFB houses the nation’s entire fleet of U-
2 and unmanned Global Hawk aircraft,735 and is responsible for providing reconnaissance data to
national and theater command authorities. The primary long-distance radar facility on the West
Coast is located on the AFB. The PAVE Phased Array Warning System (PAWS) serves as an early
warning system against submarine-launched and intercontinental ballistic missiles, and detects and
tracks Earth-orbiting satellites.736 Other such facilities within the U.S. are located at Cape Cod Air
Force Base in Massachusetts and Clear Air Force Base in Alaska.737
The base occupies approximately 36 square miles (22,944 acres) of land in the southeastern
portion of the County.738 The base employed 5,700 personnel, including 3,500 active duty military,
as well as reserves, trainees and civilians, in FY 03-04. Approximately 3,300 people, including
employees and their dependents, resided on the base in FY 07-08,739 with the remainder residing off
base. Those residing off base mostly settle in the five counties. A number of AFB retirees reside in
the Wheatland vicinity.
735 Beale Air Force Base, Air Force Mission, 2007.
736 PAVE is a USAF program name. The acronym’s meaning is unknown.
737 Beale Air Force Base, 2005.
738 Airport Land Use Commission, 1992, p. 7.
739 Interview with Deputy for Installation Support, Harl Sanderson, Beale AFB, March 29, 2008.
A-474 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
History
The area’s first known occupants were Native Americans—Nisenan, also known as the Southern
Maidu—who dwelled in the area in 6,000 BC or earlier and whose mortar bowls carved into bedrock
can still be found in various sites on the base. After contact with European fur traders in the 1830s,
most Nisenan died of infectious diseases. The remainder of Nisenan scattered to the foothills and
other areas during the Gold Rush. Gold miners were attracted to the area by the mid-nineteenth
century; mine shafts are still found on the base. The federal government purchased 86,000 acres of
land, including the land where the AFB is now located, to establish a military training camp, Camp
Beale, in 1942. During World War II, Camp Beale was home to more than 60,000 soldiers, a
prisoner-of-war encampment and a 1,000-bed hospital. After the War, the Camp transferred to
USAF for bombardier and navigator training use. After initial USAF use of the land for bombing
ranges, much of the land was declared surplus, potentially explosive munitions were cleared, and
60,805 acres were transferred to civilian use between 1959 and 1965. Just east of the current base,
11,000 acres were transferred to the State where Spenceville Wildlife and Recreation Area is now
located.
Federal defense and budget priorities and aircraft technological changes affect the base. U-2
planes were originally developed in 1955 for high-altitude reconnaissance, and have been based at
Beale AFB since 1975. New unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, the RQ-4 Global Hawk, can range
over 13,000 miles, at altitudes up to 65,000 feet, travel at 400 miles per hour, and transmit imagery to
battlefield commanders in close to real time.740 The first Global Hawk arrived at the AFB in 2004,
with the fleet expected to continue to grow. In 2006, USAF and the Pentagon recommended plans
to retire all thirty-three existing U-2 aircraft by 2011 and to rely on the RQ-4 Global Hawk instead.741
Due to concerns that the first-generation Global Hawk cannot perform broad area synoptic
coverage as the U-2 can, U.S. Congress prohibited the retirement of any U-2s until an effective
substitute is developed.742 USAF indicates it has placed U-2 retirement on hold until the Global
Hawk is enhanced. USAF has indicated that the unmanned Global Hawk is being upgraded to serve
as an effective U-2 substitute. The U-2 fleet may be capable of flying until 2050, due to engine and
cockpit upgrades in recent years.743 Clearly, technological progress in reconnaissance aircraft will
affect the AFB mission and staffing in the future.
740 U.S. Air Force, Global Hawk Factsheet, 2007.
741 Air Force Program Budget Decision 720 was recommended by the U.S. Department of Defense in its February 2006 Quadrennial
Defense Review.
742 Broad area synoptic coverage is a static photograph taken of an enormous area, the dimensions of which are classified. Such
imagery is used both for treaty verification and also in preparation for battles; a single shot can show how an entire enemy force is
arrayed on the battlefield, according to a United Press International April 19, 2006 article.
743 Best and Bolkcom, 2000, p. 4.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-475
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
PLANNING AND GROWTH
The population living on base has declined in recent years. The base’s tanker mission is being
relocated to other bases. Other than a planned increase in Global Hawk aircraft, no other missions
are currently planned to come to Beale AFB. The military housing area, which is located on the
southeastern side of the base, is being revitalized through a 50-year public-private venture. The
units were constructed between 1958 and 2002. Due to age, drainage and other issues, some of the
units are deteriorated and some have mold damage. Due to base downsizing and the age of the
housing stock, plans call for 755 of the 1,155 housing units to be demolished.744
USAF solicited proposals in 2008 for enhanced use lease of 334 acres, including a 218-acre rail-
accessible site, 97-acre light industrial site, and the wastewater treatment plant. The lease term
would be no longer than 50 years.
USAF is responsible for land use planning for Beale AFB. The Beale AFB General Plan was last
updated in 2006, but is not a public document. Certain planning documents—Integrated Natural
Resources Management Plan (1999) and Community Housing Plan (date unknown)—are publicly
available.
Most of the land on the base is open space. Only 2,039 acres are improved areas where land
uses include office, housing, retail, airport and radar facilities, training facilities, and other
institutional uses.745 The three primary functional areas on the AFB are the flightline area (airport
facilities), cantonment area (support and administration), and family housing area. Approximately
12,000 acres are used for cattle grazing under USAF leases to cattle ranchers.
The Beale AFB Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) defines compatible future land use in
the vicinity of the base. The primary types of land use constraints in the AFB vicinity resulting from
flight operations are noise generated by aircraft flight and engine run-up, potential accident zones in
the areas beyond the ends of runways and along the approach and departure flight paths, and height
limits for buildings near the runway.
Since the CLUP was last amended in 1992, USAF reduced noise contours to be less restrictive to
reflect changes in flight operations. It is expected that SACOG will revise or update the CLUP.
USAF participates in regional planning through preparation of a Joint Land Use Study (JLUS)
sponsored by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR). The JLUS considers land use
compatibility in the AFB vicinity and develops strategies to minimize impacts of military and
community activities on each other. The draft JLUS recommends several growth strategies,
including establishment of military influence areas adjacent to the base to minimize incompatible
adjacent uses, acquisition of conservation easements, controlling bird and wildlife attractions near
the base, capital improvement planning and traffic mitigation fees to ensure adequate highway
capacity, and increased coordination between the base and local land use authorities in the planning
process.
744 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Draft Beale Joint Land Use Study, February 2008, p. 3-19.
745 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1999, p. 41.
A-476 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
Noise Contours
Existing policy restricts development within an area where AFB noise levels reach 65 decibels
(dB) or more, which is approximately the noise level in a business office.746 The restricted area under
existing policy covers substantial territory north and south of the AFB. Existing noise restriction
land use policy is based on a 1982 study, the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ), by
Beale AFB. Future policy is expected to be less restrictive due to updated noise contours.
The AFB released a 2005 AICUZ that reflects removal of certain aircraft (SR-71 and B-52),
changes in flight tracks and the Global Hawk. The 2005 AICUZ has two sets of noise contours, the
first reflects existing uses based on the current AFB mission and the second reflects a hypothetical
scenario of the AFB mission being changed to include a full wing of B-52 aircraft—the largest
aircraft that the AFB can accommodate.747 The existing mission noise contour would restrict only a
2-mile strip of land north of the base (north of the runway) where agricultural and mining activities
are located, and a pocket of vacant land west of the base (where N. Beale Road. changes direction).
More territory in the base vicinity would be restricted under the hypothetical mission noise contour,
although it is substantially less restrictive than existing policy.
USAF discourages residential uses in areas with 66-70 dB noise levels and strongly discourages
such uses where noise levels are 71-75 dB; however, a land use authority may allow residential uses
(other than mobile homes) in such areas with noise-related building code requirements.748 USAF
describes the noise contours as having affected very little developed land, as the majority of off-base
land within the contours is undeveloped and expected to remain open, agricultural or low density in
the foreseeable future.
The AFB mission is subject to change depending on national security and budget priorities. The
AFB does not currently have a B-52 mission, but included in the AICUZ the hypothetical scenario
out of concern that allowing development up to the 65 dB contour for the existing mission would
limit AFB’s ability to accommodate future mission realignments. Preliminary discussions among
JLUS participants indicate concurrence among affected agencies’ staff that the hypothetical 65 dB
contour is appropriate.
Policy and technology developments will affect future noise contours. Future noise-related land
use restrictions may be eased if Congress approves phase-out of the U-2. U.S. Congress indicated in
2006 that it may approve future phase-out of the U-2 aircraft, which affect noise-related land use
restrictions, if an effective substitute is available. USAF has indicated that the unmanned Global
Hawk is being upgraded to serve as an effective U-2 substitute.
746 Aircraft noise levels surrounding the base are estimated by using the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) standard to
create noise contours. The CNEL system, which is the standard in California, gives a higher weighting to evening noise events (7:00
p.m.-10:00 p.m.) and nighttime noise events (10:00 p.m.-7:00 a.m.) than to daytime noise events. Exposure to noise levels above 85
dB (e.g., electric razor) for eight hours is the federal threshold for hearing protection. Levels above 90 dB (e.g., passing motorcycle,
screaming child) can cause permanent hearing loss with relatively short exposure.
747 The B-52 is the primary USAF bomber with a nuclear role, and can also deliver conventional ordnance. It has a mission radius of
4,480 miles with a weapons load of 10,000 pounds, but range varies depending on payload and is greatly increased by in-flight
refueling. Most of the B-52 fleet was destroyed to comply with the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty signed by the U.S. and
Russia. The remaining fleet of 94 B-52s is currently based in Louisiana and North Dakota.
748 Beale Air Force Base, 2005, pp. 19-22.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-477
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
The AFB makes efforts to mitigate noise generated from aircraft in flight and on the ground by
restrictions on night flying activities and engine run-up (10 p.m. – 6 a.m.), and the routing of flight
tracks to avoid surrounding communities and populated areas, with the exception of mission-
essential requirements.
The AICUZ is based on aircraft noise but there are other noise considerations pertaining to the
base. There is an M60 machine gun range in the northwest region of the base, and a bomb building
school that works with live munitions. While these do not expose civilians off-base to danger, they
do contribute to the noise level in the surrounding areas.
Accident Zones
There are potential accident zones located north and south of the AFB runway where
development is restricted for safety reasons. USAF identifies and classifies these areas based on the
likelihood of aircraft accident into three types of zones:
• The clear zone, which is the most hazardous, is the area closest to the runway. Beale AFB
clear zone lands are all located on base, and do not affect development off base.
• Accident potential zone I (APZ I), which has significant potential for accidents, is just
beyond the clear zone on either end of the runway. To the north, a portion of the APZ I
extends off base over the Yuba Goldfields, which are currently used for mining. USAF
recommends that land use authorities prohibit development of residential, retail, office, and
schools, but allow industrial, transportation, utilities, wholesale, open space, recreation and
agriculture uses in APZ I.
• Accident potential zone II (APZ II), which has less but still significant accident potential,
extends beyond APZ I. To the north, APZ II extends off base over the Yuba Goldfields,
which are currently used for mining. Residential, schools, public assembly and flammable
industrial operations and development are restricted.
Height Limits
Structure height restrictions are necessary in the vicinity of airports to ensure that flight safety is
not impaired. In the Beale AFB vicinity, height restrictions are 200-500 feet depending on distance
from the runway. These are the same as those imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration in
areas surrounding any municipal airport.749
Radar Impacts
Development located in the vicinity of the PAVE PAWS radar facility may be affected by the
facility’s radiofrequency. The facility, which is located east of the AFB runway, emits radar in a 240-
degree fan in all directions except east and northeast.
After community members located near the sister facility in Cape Cod expressed concerns about
human health effects, USAF spent about $4.5 million on research that calculated the radar exposure
749 Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, Subpart C.
A-478 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
to the community and possible links to diseases such as cancer, and another $1 million on a study of
existing radiation. No evidence of human health effects was found in the various studies conducted
by the National Research Council, American Epidemiological Institute and National Academies of
Sciences (NAS). The NAS study indicated that continuing or long-term exposure to PAVE PAWS
radiation has not resulted in an increased incidence of cancer in the Cape Cod area, and that the
waveform of the radar itself is not unlike various other “dish” radars to which the public is
continuously exposed.750 Cape Cod health officials concluded in 2006 that there was no further need
for large-scale health impact studies, according to Associated Press.751
One issue that may impact development adjacent to Beale AFB is the impact of PAVE PAWS
radiation on cell phone reception, television signals, and other consumer electronics.
MUNICIPAL SERVICES
Beale AFB operates under exclusive federal jurisdiction, and manages all services provided on
the base with the exception of ambulances and medical transport, refuse collection, disposal and
recycling, and cemeteries. Ambulance and medical transport is provided by Bi-County Ambulance
Service, and refuse collection, disposal and recycling is contracted to Yuba Sutter Disposal.
Water Services
The AFB provides water extraction, treatment and distribution services.
The domestic and industrial water supply for the base is provided entirely by groundwater. The
base obtains water from nine wells.752 The depth to groundwater is 10-80 feet bgs. The
groundwater basin is not adjudicated, and safe annual yield is unknown. The base has the capacity
to extract 11 mgd at existing wells,753 although its treatment capacity is presently 5 mgd. AFB
groundwater levels rose 25 feet in the last 15 years due to a shift from groundwater to surface water
use in the agricultural area west of the AFB.754
The base supplied a total of 551 million gallons of water in 2006. The current average daily
demand is approximately 1.5 mgd. There were 2,193 connections in the base’s water system
Domestic water is treated at a groundwater treatment plant located near the intersection of J
Street and Doolittle Drive.755 The plant was built in 2003 to address high levels of iron and
manganese in the water.756 Its capacity is 5 mgd, with potential for expansion to 10 mgd if needed to
750 The National Academies Press, 2005.
751 Associated Press, “Health Officials: No Need for Large Studies at Cape Radar Station,” June 18, 2006.
752 Central Valley RWQCB, Order No. 2006-0074, p. 3.
753 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1999, p. 32.
754 Central Valley RWQCB, Order No. R5-2007-0025, p. 2.
755 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2007.
756 The 2001 water supply permit from DPH required the AFB to construct a treatment plant for removal of manganese and iron.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-479
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
service future growth. The treatment process removes iron, manganese, hydrogen sulfide, carbon
dioxide, and methane from the source water using forced draft aeration. The water is oxidized using
chlorine that is generated onsite, and then flows through a pressure filter that removes iron and
manganese. The new plant also has a tank for holding spent backwash water, backwash reclamation
pumps, chemical feed systems for chlorine and fluoride, booster pumps, instrumentation and
controls, and a new building to house the operations.
The water distribution system was installed in the 1950s and 1960s in the AFB housing area,
with a new system in the Brookview neighborhood. Water mains are in fair condition, and are
generally comprised of asbestos concrete pipe.757 Corrosion of piping in the distribution system may
be increasing copper levels in drinking water (and wastewater). Two above-ground storage tanks in
the AFB family housing area have a total capacity of 1.5 million gallons. Total storage capacity of
the entire base is five mg with a minimum of 3.9 mg always maintained. Water pressure is adequate
for fire protection and residential use in the housing area.758
The base has not had a safe drinking water violation since 1997, according to the EPA Safe
Drinking Water Information System. Although contaminants were not detected at the active well
sites, DPH has classified the wells as at high risk for military installation contaminants.759
Groundwater contamination has occurred elsewhere on the AFB, although the water is not used
for drinking purposes. There are hazardous waste sites and other sites with groundwater
contamination. The AFB actively remediates solvent (TCE, PCE) contamination in groundwater in
several areas, including 1) an area in the vicinity of a closed landfill (TCE contamination), 2) a
flightline area in the vicinity of maintenance buildings (TCE contamination). The AFB plans to
remediate gasoline recently detected in groundwater in the family housing area. The AFB monitors
groundwater in the flightline area at 80 well sites.
The AFB also relies on recycled water. Recycled water is produced at the AFB wastewater
treatment plant where it is treated at secondary standards and then pumped up to storage ponds for
irrigation use on the golf course. The AFB discharges all treated wastewater for irrigation purposes.
By implication, it uses approximately 0.76 mgd in recycled water.760 An RWQCB order requires the
AFB to ensure that use of recycled water does not degrade groundwater, among other related
precautions. Groundwater generally migrates in a southwest or west direction.
Wastewater Services
Beale AFB provides wastewater collection, treatment and disposal services.
The average daily flow is 0.76 mgd.761 The peak daily flow was 5.18 mgd in January 1997.
757 U.S. Air Force, Solicitation No. AFCEE-07-0002, 2007, p. 18.
758 Beale AFB Housing Community Plan, p. 2.5-1
759 California Department of Health Services, drinking water source assessments, April 2001.
760 Recycled water use is assumed to be the same as the average daily flow to the wastewater treatment plant.
761 Central Valley RWQCB, Order No. 2004-0045, pp. 1-2.
A-480 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
The wastewater collection system is constructed of asbestos cement or reinforced concrete (54
percent) and vitrified clay pipe. The wastewater collection system is aged, with much of the system
built in the 1950s and 1960s.762 As of 2002, $3.1 million in infrastructure needs were identified. The
AFB has significant inflow problems, which are caused by damaged manholes, sewer lines damaged
by root intrusion, cracked pipes, and cross-connections to drainage channels.763 During heavy
rainfall, inflow into the collection system often inundates the system and can cause overflows.764 In
the event of extended rains, wastewater flows could exceed WWTP capacity and require that the
WWTP release untreated flows to Hutchinson Creek. The wastewater collection system is subject to
sewer backup problems in the family housing area of the AFB, particularly in the Gold Country
neighborhood. The AFB has attributed this to poor lateral design in that area.765 There is likely a
corrosion problem in the system as well. The base reported that it is in the process of rehabilitating
the wastewater collection system.
The wastewater system relies primarily on gravity to convey flows. Facilities to convey
wastewater from low-lying areas to the treatment plant include a pumping station and five ejector
stations.766
The Beale AFB wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is located off of J Street, northeast of the
Wheatland Gate, and provides treatment at secondary levels. The WWTP, which was built in 1942,
has a design capacity of 5.0 mgd. The domestic wastewater treatment system consists of a
headworks, a primary clarifier, two trickling filters, a secondary clarifier, and a
chlorination/dechlorination unit. Sludge removed by the plant is processed in two anaerobic
digesters, dried in sludge drying beds, and disposed off-site. An additional influent flow to the plant
is from a groundwater remediation system for TCE contaminants. Numerous infrastructure needs
have been identified at the WWTP, which require upgrades and/or replacement.767 No significant
capital improvements have been made to the plant in the past five years; however, the base reported
that it was working on plans for repairs to the plant.
Although permitted to discharge to Hutchinson Creek, the AFB has not done so in the past five
years.768 The WWTP has discharged to land since February 2002.769 All wastewater has been routed
to storage ponds and discharged to a 40-acre irrigation field or to the golf course (primarily in the
summer months). An unlined storage pond (Pond #4) with 100 million gallons of capacity is
762 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1999, p. 77.
763 URS Group, Inc., 2002, pp. 3-2, 3-4.
764 URS Group, Inc., 2002, p. 1-2.
765 Beale AFB Housing Community Plan, p. 2.5-1.
766 URS Group, 2002, p. 2-1.
767 URS Group, 2002, pp. 3-6 through 3-10.
768 Beale AFB operates under two separate waste discharge requirements: 1) one for discharges to Hutchinson Creek and the golf
course, and 2) another for discharges to the irrigation field. Hutchinson Creek, which enters the Western Pacific Interceptor Drainage
Canal, is a tributary to the Bear and Feather Rivers.
769 Central Valley RWQCB, Order No. 2004-0045.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-481
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
located adjacent to the irrigation field. The ponds were recently upgraded to provide additional
storage capacity. The AFB stores wastewater effluent in the pond during wet periods and discharges
to the irrigation field during dry weather conditions; the AFB is permitted to discharge to the field
during dry weather conditions as long as it does not degrade groundwater. The AFB did not report
groundwater monitoring activities.
The AFB faces regulatory requirements to upgrade its treatment processes. Beale is required to
upgrade its WWTP to tertiary treatment levels by April 2009 to ensure public health and safe use for
downstream recreation and food crop irrigation.770 The issue is complicated by the need to treat
byproducts from remediation of groundwater contamination, limits on wet weather discharges to
the irrigation field and relatively high peak wet weather flows. A constructed wetland approach may
also be considered to provide broad-based treatment flexibility as regulatory requirements become
stricter.771 Beale AFB is currently subject to a cease and desist order issued by the Central Valley
RWQCB in April 2004. The compliance action addresses WWTP discharges in violation of the
effluent limitations for methylene blue active substances, iron, oil and grease, total petroleum
hydrocarbons, aluminum, nitrate, and nitrite contained in the NPDES permit.772 The AFB
submitted a pollution prevention plan, as required. By April 2009, it must achieve full compliance.
An AFB consultant estimated the cost of upgrading the WWTP at $18 million. Beale AFB has
expanded its land-based discharge application and no longer needs an NPDES permit for discharge
into Hutchinson Creek for its operations. The AFB solicited proposals in 2008 for enhanced use
lease of the WWTP and adjacent sites for a term of up to 50 years. If leased, the party leasing the
site would be responsible for compensating the base for the WWTP asset and obtaining an NPDES
permit.773
Fire & EMS Services
The Beale AFB Fire Department provides fire suppression, prevention and emergency medical
services within the base boundaries; ambulance transport services are provided by Bi-County
Ambulance Co. The base has two fire stations—one located in the airfield area and another in the
housing area. The main fire station serves both the main base and operation areas. It houses crash
and structural vehicles in a 20-bay complex. A smaller two-stall fire station serves the housing area
for structural and wildland fires.
Personnel are trained in fire suppression for structures, air craft, hazardous materials, vehicles,
and vegetation. All personnel receive Red Cross certification in standard first aid and CPR.774
770 Central Valley RWQCB, Order No. 2004-0046, pp. 18, 25, 36.
771 URS Group, 2002, p. 3-12.
772 Central Valley RWQCB, Order No. 2004-0046.
773 U.S. Air Force, Enhanced Use Leasing Beale Air Force Base, RFQ No. AFRPA-08-0009, 2008.
774 U.S. Air Force, “Enlisted Careers-Fire Protection Apprentice,” 2007.
A-482 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
The fire department has expertise in aircraft fire suppression. This technical expertise would be
beneficial to other districts in the county should an aircraft incident occur outside of the base’s
bounds.
The base has mutual aid agreements with Linda Fire Protection District (FPD), Olivehurst
Public Utility District, Plumas Brophy FPD, Smartville FPD, and California Department of
Forestry. The base responds to off-base emergencies, and local fire departments respond to AFB
emergencies when needed. In 2005, the fire department responded to seven off-base emergencies.
The base maintains explosives ordinance specialists that are available to assist local agencies.
Law Enforcement Services
Beale AFB directly provides police protection and traffic enforcement on the base. Like other
air force facilities, police protection is provided by the Air Force Security Forces. The 9th Security
Forces Squadron maintains base security by providing weapons system security, air base defense,
and antiterrorism defense. The squadron also provides professional police services for base
residents and traffic control services for 17,000 registered vehicles.775 Military working dog teams are
trained and certified to detect illicit drugs and explosives.
Common security incidents involve hikers and bicyclists who wander onto the base, which is a
closed and secure facility, from the west (Spenceville Wildlife Area).
The AFB has unique hazardous materials expertise. Its explosive ordinance disposal team
neutralizes weapons, such as homemade bombs and World War II era hand grenades, for counties
and cities without such expertise. The team responds to 12 incidents in an average year, and has
responded not only in the Sacramento area, but as far away as Oregon and Nevada.
The security squadron does not provide police protection services outside of the base
boundaries.
Transportation Services
Beale AFB is responsible for maintenance of roads located on the base, and the County is
responsible for maintaining roads leading to the base. The AFB is responsible for maintaining an
unknown number of street miles, and operates five security gates.
The AFB has indicated that traffic to and from the base is an issue, and that roads connecting
the base to SR 20 are in need of repairs. A funding source for repair of these roads is through the
Public Lands Highways Program, a discretionary program that funds projects to improve access to
and within federal lands. The Yuba County Transportation Master Plan 2006-2010 states that the
county has received $3 million through this program to improve access roads to Beale over the past
four years, and anticipates additional funds in the coming years.
775 Beale Air Force Base, 9th Security Forces Squadron Factsheet, 2007.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-483
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Drainage & Runoff Services
The base is entirely within the Bear River watershed, and three tributaries to the Bear River
(Reeds, Hutchinson, and Dry Creeks) run through the base. Runoff is surface drained to inlets,
concrete-lined ditches and open grass-lined swales and ditches. Drainage from the base runs into
Reeds Creek, Hutchinson Creek, Best Slough, and Dry Creek, and eventually flows into the Bear and
Feather Rivers. Receiving waters are used for municipal and domestic supply, irrigation, recreation,
and wildlife habitats.776 The southeast portion of the base lies within a 100-year floodplain.
In the housing area, stormwater drains to Dry Creek. There is presently no stormwater
collection system in the housing area, and many housing units have water infiltration problems.
Approximately 20 percent of housing units have significant drainage problems. Drainage swales and
inlets have been constructed around many units to attempt to mitigate effects on foundations, but
these are of limited effectiveness. Beale AFB plans to replace or renovate most of its housing units
by 2012. Otherwise, no major storm drainage problems have been reported on base.777
USAF policy (AFI 32-7064) directs the AFB to minimize stormwater pollution draining into
water bodies, and to implement best management practices (BMPs) during construction, land
management and ground maintenance activities. BMPs implemented by the AFB include street
sweeping, pretreatment of runoff and sewer discharges (oil/water separators), and public education
relating to pollutant disposal.778 The AFB is subject to water quality regulation related to industrial
and construction runoff. Beale AFB is not subject to reporting and discharge requirements under
the SWRCB NPDES (MS4) permit for small municipal stormwater dischargers, although SWRCB
has listed the AFB as a nontraditional system that may be designated in the future to comply with
those requirements.779
Solid Waste Services
The AFB contracts with Yuba Sutter Disposal, Inc. for refuse collection, disposal and recycling
services. The AFB formerly operated three solid waste disposal facilities, although these landfills
have been closed. The AFB monitors the closed landfills under CIWMB and RWQCB
requirements. Due to trichloroethene (TCE) contamination found in a groundwater monitoring
well near one of the closed landfills, the RWQCB requires the AFB to conduct groundwater
monitoring and erosion control efforts.780
776 U.S. Air Force, Enhanced Use Leasing Beale Air Force Base, RFQ No. AFRPA-08-0009, 2008, p 2.
777 Beale AFB Housing Community Plan, p. 2.5-1.
778 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1999, p. 76.
779 State Water Resources Control Board, Water Quality Order No. 2003-0005-DWQ.
780 Central Valley RWQCB, Order No. R5-2006-0074.
A-484 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
Parks and Recreation Services
The AFB offers parks as well as outdoor recreation opportunities to active-duty military and
military dependents. The AFB allows access to retired military personnel, civilian employees and
guests on a controlled basis.
There are four acres of improved parkland on the base, including the Ryden and Candycane
parks.781 In addition, there is an 18-hole golf course and a 35-acre off-road vehicle area. There are
fishing opportunities on twelve lakes, some of which are stocked with sport fish. There is a 1.5-mile
nature trail, in addition to many miles of unimproved hiking trails. Hunting is allowed in certain
areas. An outdoor adventure center offers camping facilities, rents sporting equipment and
organizes a variety of recreational activities and trips. Indoor recreation on base includes a fitness
center and bowling. There are two swimming pools.
Infrastructure needs include sports fields, expanded picnic facilities, directional signage to
recreation areas.
Other Services
Beale AFB owns and maintains its electric distribution system; power is purchased from PG&E
and WAPA. The AFB operates a large medical clinic, but relies on local hospital facilities and Travis
AFB for hospital services. Other municipal services include library and transit services.
BI-COUNTY AMBULANCE
AGENCY OVERVIEW
Bi-County Ambulance, Inc. provides ambulance services to Yuba and Sutter Counties. It is
overseen and regulated by the Sierra-Sacramento Valley Emergency Medical Services Agency
(EMSA). Bi-County Ambulance Service, a private company, operates out of Yuba City.
Bi-County Ambulance is a member of the Emergency Medical Control Committee that meets
the third Wednesday of every month. The committee is composed of representatives from the
following agencies: Bi-County Ambulance Service, Health Departments of Yuba and Sutter
Counties, Boards of Supervisors of Yuba and Sutter Counties, Sutter North Medical Foundation,
Yuba and Sutter County Offices of Emergency Services, Yuba and Sutter Counties fire and sheriffs’
departments, the CHP, Olivehurst Fire Department, and the Public Health Officer from Beale Air
Force Base. The purpose of their meetings is to discuss coordination and protocols in the medical
and emergency response area.782
The Sierra Sacramento Valley EMSA, which also attends these meetings, provides oversight and
audit services to ensure that Bi-County Ambulance performs appropriately and complies with local
and state regulations. Since its founding in 1975, the EMSA has been a governmental agency
781 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1999, p. 89.
782 Sutter County Audit Committee, 2006.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-485
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
responsible for qualification, accreditation and authorization of all prehospital care personnel,
emergency system design, and inspection of service vehicles and equipment.783
Bi-County Ambulance Service has been providing exclusive emergency transportation services
to the people of Sutter and Yuba Counties for over 25 years.784
NATURE AND EXTENT
Bi-County Ambulance provides basic and advanced life support transportation services for
patients who require intubations. In 1995 it was working on developing Critical Care Transport
protocols to be able to transport heart care patients.785
Table A-43-1: Ambulance Response Times. 2006
Table A-43-1 provides data Area Response Time
for response times in 2006. Beale AFB 15 minutes 90% of the time
Response time is defined as
Camptonville 38 minutes 90% of the time
“the time measured from
Dobbins-Oregon House 29 minutes 90% of the time
dispatch time of 911 call, or a
Foothill 35 minutes 90% of the time
seven-digit access call
Linda 9 minutes 90 % of the time
dispatched code 3, until the
Loma Rica 11 minutes 90% of the time
unit arrives on scene.”786 In
Marysville 6 minutes 90% of the time
2006, Bi-County Ambulance
Olivehurst 8 minutes 90% of the time
did not meet the response time
standards imposed by the Smartville 17 minutes 90% of the time
Sierra-Sacramento Valley Wheatland 15 minutes 90% of the time
EMSA program policy at Beale Source: Sierra-Sacramento Valley EMS Agency
AFB. According to the standards, the response times must be under eight minutes 90 percent of the
time. In 2006, the actual response time was 15 minutes 90 percent of the time. The response time
standard for rural areas, including the City of Wheatland, the Wheatland vicinity, Hallwood, and
Plumas Lake, is 20 minutes 90 percent of the time, which Bi-County Ambulance achieved in all rural
communities in 2006. The response time standard for wilderness areas, including all areas to the
north and east of the Beale AFB, such as Camptonville, Smartville, and Loma Rica, is as soon as
possible.
LOCATION
Bi-County Ambulance Inc. provides emergency transportation services under contract within
Yuba and Sutter Counties. Bi-County Ambulance staff reported that approximately 76 percent of all
calls begin or end at Rideout Memorial Hospital in the City of Marysville. The Company also
783 Sierra-Sacramento Valley EMSA, 2007.
784 Sierra-Sacramento Valley EMSA, 2005.
785 Sutter County Audit Committee, 2006.
786 Sierra-Sacramento Valley EMSA, 2005, Reference No. 415.
A-486 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
provides service to Enloe Hospital in Chico, Oroville Sierra Hospital, and other hospitals in
Roseville and Sacramento.787
INFRASTRUCTURE
It is required by the contract that no less than five ambulances be on duty in Sutter and Yuba
Counties at any given time.788
As of 2005, Bi-County Ambulance Inc. planned to equip its fleet with Global Positioning
Systems to aid computer modeling of its posting plans. This will position the ambulances
strategically to minimize response time.789
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
The Department of Fish and Game maintains animal and plant species and natural communities
in California to ensure their survival and preservation. The department is responsible for diversified
recreational, commercial, scientific, and educational use of fish and wildlife.790
AGENCY OVERVIEW
California Department of Fish and Game owns and operates the Spenceville Wildlife
Management and Recreation Area (WMRA). Two-thirds of the area is located in Yuba County. The
remainder is situated in Nevada County.791
NATURE AND EXTENT
California Department of Fish and Game provides maintenance and operations for the
Spenceville Wildlife Area.
Spenceville is divided into two portions covering about 12,000 acres. The larger of the two areas
borders the eastern boundary of Beale Air Force Base. The eastern portion of the WMRA is a
smaller area which is covered by woodland oaks. The Spenceville WMRA is the home for rare flora
and fauna, as well as a destination for tourists and campers.792
787 Ibid.
788 Sutter County Audit Committee, 2005.
789 Ibid.
790 California Department of Fish and Game, 2007.
791 Ibid.
792 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1999, p. 26.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-487
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
LOCATION
The Spenceville WMRA is located approximately 15 miles east of Marysville and about 45 miles
north of Sacramento. The area extends 10 miles from north to south and 4.5 miles from east to
west. The WMRA is bordered by Beale Air Force Base and numerous private landowners and
extends into Nevada County.793
INFRASTRUCTURE
The Spenceville WMRA is open to the public. There are many opportunities for hunting and
numerous trails for hiking and horseback riding. Various camping and fishing sites are also available
for public use. Some ranch owners that graze cattle at Beale Air Force Base also lease rangelands at
the Spenceville WMRA.794
A new project to construct Waldo Lake Dam and reservoir on Dry Creek is currently being
evaluated by local agencies. If built, the reservoir would inundate a large portion of the Spenceville
WMRA.795 Some residents have expressed concerns that the Waldo project presents significant
negative impacts for the Spenceville Wildlife Area and surrounding communities.796
793 California Department of Fish and Game, 2007.
794 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1999, p. 26.
795 US Army Corps of Engineers, 1999, p. 26
796 Friends of Spenceville, 2007.
A-488 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND
FIRE PROTECTION
AGENCY OVERVIEW
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) provides fire prevention,
suppression, and fire related law enforcement for timberlands, wildlands and urban forests.
CALFIRE also responds to other types of emergencies, including structure fires, vehicle accidents,
medical aids, swift water rescues, search and rescues, hazardous material spills, train wrecks, and
natural disasters. Other services outside of the scope of the MSR project are provided by
CALFIRE, such as the Resource Management Program, which promotes the protection of
California’s natural resources through enforcement of timber harvesting regulations, forest
conservation education programs, and pest management.
NATURE AND EXTENT
CALFIRE services are provided in the State Responsibility Area (SRA) of Yuba County. The
SRA portions of the County are served by two CALFIRE battalions. Battalion 14 serves the SRA in
the communities of Smartville and Camp Far West. Battalion 16 serves the SRA in the communities
of Loma Rica and Dobbins. Under contract CALFIRE also provides fire suppression, fire
prevention and emergency medical response to Loma Rica-Browns Valley CSD and the City of
Marysville, dispatching services for the foothill fire protection districts (Camptonville CSD, Foothill
FPD, Dobbins-Oregon House FPD, Smartville FPD, and Loma Rica-Browns Valley CSD), and
personnel for the County Fire Protection Planner position.
Fire prevention efforts in the County include fuel reduction projects in high and very high fuel
hazard areas. Pre-fire management programs provide use of a wood chipper for area residents to
clear material around structures, and a road side clearing program in conjunction with Yuba County
Department of Public Works.797 The Battalion anticipated over 1,400 hours of staff time for
prevention activities in 2006—200 hours inspecting development plans, 200 hours for burn permit
administration, 640 hours enforcing defensible space regulations, 50 hours inspecting power lines,
100 hours on public education programs, and 200 hours on other projects.798
In 2006, the two battalions answered a total of 671 calls for service. A majority of the calls were
EMS related.
Dispatching
The Department provides contract dispatching services to the foothill fire protection districts,
including SFPD, FFPD, LRBVCSD, DOHFPD, and CCSD. Yuba County 911 calls are answered
by the Yuba County Sheriff’s dispatch center. All related calls for the State Responsibility Areas or a
797 CALFIRE, 2006, pp. 80-82.
798 Ibid, pp. 97-98.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-489
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
contracting district are relayed to the CALFIRE Emergency Command Center in Grass Valley.
CALFIRE then dispatches the appropriate first-response unit.
Phone calls to 911 from cellular phones in Yuba County go through the Chico California
Highway Patrol office. These calls are transferred to the Yuba County Sheriff’s dispatch center and
are transferred to CALFIRE if fire related.
LOCATION
CALFIRE provides services throughout the County in the SRA and in contracting Local
Responsibility Areas. The SRA includes the eastern half of the County from the western boundary
of Beale AFB (excluding the AFB) to the Yuba-Nevada county line and north to the national
forests. The SRA overlaps the Smartville FPD, Camptonville FPD, Foothill FPD, DOHFPD, and
LRBVCSD boundaries and the eastern territory of the Plumas Brophy FPD service area. Battalion
14 also provides service to the Columbia Hill area in Nevada County.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Key CALFIRE infrastructure in the County includes three forest fire stations in Smartville,
Dobbins and Loma Rica and a Communication and Lookout Site.
The Department is in the process of improving the Smartville Forest Fire Station. Crew
quarters were constructed in 2001 and are in excellent condition. The Department reported that the
apparatus bay and office are in fair condition and are expected to be replaced by the end of FY 08-
09. The adjacent 10,000-gallon water tank is in good condition. The driveways are in fair condition
and are in need of replacement, according to the Department. A timeline for replacement has not
been determined.
The Dobbins Forest Fire Station was built in 1964. The Department identified the building as
being in good condition; however the driveways are in need of repaving.
The Loma Rica Forest Fire Station was built in 2000 and is in excellent condition. No
infrastructure needs were identified.
The communications tower and vault at the Communication and Lookout Site were built in
2001 and are in excellent condition. The lookout was built in 1935. It was inspected by a structural
engineer in 2007 who deemed it to be in good condition. The lookout residence and garage are in
fair condition. The Department did not identify specific infrastructure needs.
A-490 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
Table A-43-2: CALFIRE Service Profile
Fire Service
Service Configuration Service Demand
Fire Suppression Direct Statistical Base Year 2006
EMS Direct Total Service Calls 671
Ambulance Transport Bi-County % EMS 42.5%
Hazardous Materials Direct % Fire 29.1%
Air Rescue & Ambulance Helicopter Direct % Mutual Aid NP
Fire Suppression Helicopter Direct % Vehicle Accident 20.4%
Public Safety Answering Point Yuba County Sheriff % Other 6.3%
Fire/EMS Dispatch Direct Calls per 1,000 people1 72
Service Adequacy Resources
ISO Rating NA Fire Stations in District 3
Median Response Time2 NP Fire Stations Serving District 3
90th Percentile Response Time NP Sq. Miles per Station 112
Response Time Base Year 2006 Total Staff 11 to 43
Training Total Full-time Sworn Staff3 11 to 43
All CDF firefighters must complete training through the CDF academy. Total On-call Sworn Staff4 0
Requirements depend upon level of certification. Sworn Staff per Station5 14
Sworn Staff per 1,0006 5
Full-time Sworn Staff per 1,000 5
Service Challenges Staffing Base Year 2007
None identified. Fire Flow Water Reserves 20,000 g
Fire Flow Pressure7 150 psi
Notes:
(1) Service call ratio based on 2000 Census population.
(2) The District reported response times are from the time of leaving the station to response at the scene, and do not include the time
from dispatch of volunteers to exiting the station.
(3) The number of full-time staff is seasonal based on fire season.
(4) While there are no on-call firefighters, the District relies on 45 volunteers to staff the lookout site.
(5) Based on ratio of sworn staff to the number of stations during fire season.
(6) Sworn staff ratio during fire season based on 2000 Census population.
(7) The agency relies on water tenders for most fire service calls.
Continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-491
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Facilities
Station Location Condition Staff per Shift Apparatus
Smartville Forest 8839 SR 20, Fair to 1 fire captain 2 type III fire engines
Fire Station Smartville Excellent 1 fire apparatus 1 utility vehicle
engineer
4-6 firefighters
Dobbins Forest 9946 Marysville Good 1 fire captain 2 type III fire engines
Fire Station Rd., Dobbins 1 fire apparatus 1 type II bulldozer
engineer 1 utility vehicle
4-6 firefighters
Loma Rica Forest 1185 Loma Rica Excellent 1 fire captain 1 type II fire engine
Fire Station Rd., Loma Rica 2-4 firefighters
Communication Oregon Peak Rd., Fair to 1-3 volunteers None
and Lookout Site Dobbins Excellent
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
At the Smartville FFS, the apparatus bay and office are in fair condition and are expected to be replaced by the end of FY
2008-09. The driveways were identified by the Department as being in fair condition as well, and in need of replacement.
The driveway at Dobbins FFS also needs to be repaved.
Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration Mutual/Automatic Aid Providers
LRBVCSD shares Station 61 with CALFIRE. The District paid for the office Dobbins-Oregon House FPD, Foothill
and two engine bays and CALFIRE paid for two additional engine bays. FPD, Loma Rica-Browns Valley CSD,
CALFIRE did not identify plans or opportunities for facility-sharing in the Smartville FPD, Camptonville CSD,
future. The Department is a member of the Rural Foothills Joint Powers Wheatland Fire Authority,
Agency, the Yuba Watershed Protection and Fire Safe Council, and the Yuba Linda County FPD
County Pre-Disaster Multi Hazard Mitigation Plan committee.
A-492 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
AGENCY OVERVIEW
California Highway Patrol (CHP) provides traffic control, investigation, and law enforcement
related to vehicles on state highways, freeways and unincorporated roads. The CHP has primary
jurisdiction on roads used for hazardous material transport.
NATURE AND EXTENT
The following programs are provided by the Yuba City Area Office in the MSR area: Vehicle
Theft Training and Awareness Program, Farm Labor Vehicle Program, Impaired Driving
Enforcement Program, Drug Recognition Evaluator Program, and Abandoned Vehicle Abatement.
Other CHP programs are offered through the Valley Division office.
CHP officers patrol eight beats throughout Yuba County. CHP did not provide the total
number of staff or sworn officers used to provide police services.
Dispatch
All 911 calls made from land lines in Yuba County are automatically routed to the Yuba County
Sheriff’s communications unit (the Public Safety Answering Point). Once the County Sheriff
dispatcher determines a call requires CHP response on a highway or unincorporated road, it relays
the call to the CHP dispatch office which directly dispatches officers. Calls from cellular phones are
initially routed to the CHP and CHP personnel are dispatched if needed.
Demand
Figure A-43-3: CHP Property Crimes
The CHP service area experienced
500
a general increase in the occurrence of
450
property crimes between 1996 and
400
2003 and a subsequent decline until
350
2005, as shown in Figure A-43-3.
During the same time period, there 300
have been only three violent crimes 250
reported in the CHP service area in 200
Yuba County.
150
100
CHP reported a rise in the
50
incidence of driving under the
0
influence in the County.
1996 1997199819992000 2001 2002200320042005 2006
BY BURR CONSULTING A-493
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Figure A-43-4: CHP Felony and Misdemeanor Arrests
By comparison, arrests
600
in the same area have
shown no relationship with 500
the incidence of crimes.
400
The number of arrests
generally declined until
300
2000, peaked in 2003 and
remained constant in 2004 200
and 2005.
100
The CHP did not
0
provide information on the
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
number or type of service
calls received.
Felonies Misdemeanors
Complaints
Complaints against a CHP officer can be registered with the Office of Internal Affairs via the
online form or mail. Once a complaint is received, the officer’s Commander oversees the
investigation. After the investigation has been completed to the Commander’s satisfaction, the
report undergoes review by the Commander’s superiors. Once the report is approved, the citizen
receives a written response indicating the outcome of the complaint.
LOCATION
The Yuba-Sutter CHP Area Office provides services throughout Yuba and Sutter counties on
state highways, freeways and unincorporated roads.
INFRASTRUCTURE
CHP officers patrol both Yuba and Sutter counties from the area office in Yuba City. Four
patrol cars are used to patrol Yuba County during each shift. CHP did not provide information on
the type and condition of patrol cars and other equipment.
A-494 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
Table A-43-5: CHP Service Profile
Police Service Configuration
Service Configuration
Patrol Direct Temporary Holding Yuba County Sheriff
Dispatch Direct Bomb Squad Direct - Sacramento
Search and Rescue Direct - Division Canine Services Direct - Other CHP Offices
Crime Lab DOJ Academy Training Direct
SWAT Direct - Division POST Certified? Yes
Service Demand
Arrests 2005 364
Citations NP
Violent Crimes 2005 1
Property Crimes 2005 280
Resources
Marked Police Vehicles Per Shift 4
Service Adequacy
Complaints NP
Priority One Response Time NP
Violent Crime Clearance Rate 20051 0%
Property Crime Clearance Rate 2005 1%
Service Challenges
None identified.
Facilities
Station Location Condition Other Purpose Built
Station 285 1619 Poole Rd., NP Yuba-Sutter Division NP
Yuba City 95993 Headquarters
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
None identified.
Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration
CHP is a member of the Net-5 joint narcotics task force with Marysville PD, Yuba City PD, Sutter County SD,
Yuba County SD, and the State Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement.
The CHP is also a member of the Yuba-Sutter Area Gang Enforcement Team (YSAGE) and the Yuba-Sutter
Vehicle Theft Suppression Enforcement Team (VSET). The agency has participated in the following regional
plans: the Yuba County Water Agency Emergency Action plan, the Yuba County Flood Plan, and the Sleep
Train Amphitheatre Traffic Management Plan. Through an informal agreement with Linda FPD, CHP has a
substation at LFPD Station 1. No future facility-sharing opportunities were reported.
Notes:
1) In 2005 there was only one violent crime reported in the CHP service area.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-495
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY
California Water Service Company (Cal Water) is the water service provider to the entire City of
Marysville.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
Cal Water is an investor-owned public utility that was formed in 1926. Cal Water serves 50
communities from its 25 water systems spread throughout California. The company is a subsidiary
of the California Water Service Group, which also provides services in Washington, New Mexico
and Hawaii. The California Public Utilities Commission regulates this and other investor-owned
utilities.
Cal Water has been providing retail water services to the City of Marysville since 1930. The
Company estimated that it provided service to 12,290 residents in 2004.799 The Company anticipates
limited growth in demand for service, according to UWMP projections, as the City is built-out and
further development would be directed to north of the city limits. The Company reports that
“development is possible to the north of town, but because of the major flood potential, costly
levees would have to be constructed prior to development.”800
In regards to customer outreach and service, the Company has website where customers may
access rate information, other updates and contact information. Complaints are generally regarding
water quality and pressure. The Company creates a separate report for each complaint and
consolidates the information in monthly summary sheets. The manager reviews all complaints and
directs personnel to correct the problem. In 2005, the Company received 11 complaints. A majority
of the complaints related to low or high pressure.
NATURE AND EXTENT
Cal Water provides water retail, groundwater pumping, treatment, distribution, and conservation
services. Cal Water does not provide recycled water services, and does not anticipate recycled water
use in its service area within the forecast period through 2030. The City of Marysville does recycle
water at its wastewater treatment facility, but the water is used to irrigate territory outside of the
Company’s service area.
LOCATION
Cal Water provides services within the City of Marysville levee system. The City limits extend
beyond the levees; however, development has not been approved outside of the levees.801
799 California Water Service Company, 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, Marysville District, Nov. 10, 2005, p. 16.
800 Ibid., p. 12.
801 Ibid., p. 12.
A-496 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
INFRASTRUCTURE
Key infrastructure owned and maintained by Cal Water to provide water services include eight
active wells, two water storage tanks, and 55 miles of pipelines.
The Marysville District of Cal Water is entirely dependent on groundwater from the North Yuba
Groundwater Subbasin.
The eight active wells have a total pumping capacity of 6,400 gpm. There are water quality
concerns at wells 8 and 10 due to existence of Methyl tertiary Butyl ether (MTBE), a component
commonly found in fuel. Well 10 is not being used as the pumping causes the MTBE to move
towards the well.802 MTBE was not detected in any of the active wells in 2006.803 All wells have
well-head hypo-chlorination treatment systems. The Company was within MCL standards for all
contaminants in 2006, according to the Company’s water quality report.
The Marysville water system utilizes three types of treatment. All active sources are disinfected
continuously using either sodium hypochlorite or calcium hypochlorite. Two of the wells are
equipped with manganese removal systems.
In 2001, DPH identified significant well contamination vulnerabilities (those with a vulnerability
score of 15 or greater) as gas stations, chemical storage, dry cleaners, injection wells, known
contaminant plumes, underground storage tanks, septic systems, agricultural drainage, illegal
dumping, metal plating activities, NPDES permitted discharges, sewer collection systems, and
recreational surface water.
The two storage tanks (one elevated and one ground level) have a combined capacity of 0.8 mg.
The elevated storage tank is in satisfactory condition according to the DPH annual inspection in
2007.804 The exterior of the tank is anticipated to be recoated sometime in 2008. The ground-level
storage tank was constructed in 2006 and is in excellent condition.
The distribution system is comprised of 55 miles of steel (four percent), cast iron (40 percent),
asbestos cement (54 percent), and PVC (two percent). The distribution system was identified as
being generally in good condition by DPH.805
Of the 3,827 service connections, approximately 70 percent are not metered. According to
California law, all connections must be metered by 2025. The Company plans to install meters at
200 connections annually to meet the State deadline.
802 Ibid., p. 28.
803 CAL Water, 2006 Water Quality Report, 2007, p. 2.
804 California DPH, Cal Water Service Marysville – Annual Inspection Report, April 23, 2007, p. 4.
805 Ibid, p. 5.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-497
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-43-6: Cal Water Service Profile
Water Service Configuration & Infrastructure
Water Service Provider(s) Water Service Provider(s)
Retail Water Direct Groundwater Recharge None
Wholesale Water None Groundwater Extraction Direct
Water Treatment Direct Recycled Water None
Service Area Description
Retail Water Within the Marysville city limits, excluding the territory outside of the levees.
Wholesale Water None
Recycled Water None
System Overview
Average Daily Demand 3.2 mgd Peak Day Demand 5.3 mg
Supply 9.2 mgd (pumping capacity of delivery system in 2005)
Major Facilities
Facility Name Type Capacity Condition Yr Built
Water Treatment Plant Treatment 1.5 mgd Excellent 2006
Other Infrastructure
Reservoirs 0 Storage Capacity (mg) 0.8 mg
Pump Stations 3 Pressure Zones 1
Production Wells 8 Pipe Miles 55 miles
Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies
The 2007 DHS annual inspection report found no deficiencies.
Facility-Sharing and Regional Collaboration
Current Practices: None.
Opportunities: None identified.
Notes:
(1) NA means Not Applicable, NP means Not Provided, mg means millions of gallons, af means acre-feet.
Continued
A-498 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
Water Demand and Supply
Service Connections Total Inside Bounds Outside Bounds
Total 3,744 3,744 0
Irrigation/Landscape 0 0 0
Domestic 3,141 3,141 0
Commercial/Industrial/Institutional 603 603 0
Recycled 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0
Average Annual Demand Information (Acre-Feet per Year)1
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Total NP 3,141 3,287 3,329 3,384 3,430 3,490
Residential NP 2,056 2,151 2,179 2,215 2,245 2,285
Commercial/Industrial NP 834 873 884 898 911 927
Irrigation/Landscape 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wholesale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Water Sources Supply (Acre-Feet/Year)
Source Type Average Maximum2 Safe/Firm
North Yuba Groundwater Subbasin groundwater 3,305 10,330 Unknown
Supply Information (Acre-feet per Year)
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Total NP 3,414 3,573 3,619 3,678 3,728 3,794
Imported 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Groundwater NP 3,414 3,573 3,619 3,678 3,728 3,794
Surface 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Recycled 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Conjunctive Use
Cal Water does not practice conjunctive use in the Marysville District.
Supply Constraints
Precipitation and irrigation water percolate into the groundwater basin with average annual recharge of the entire
North Yuba Basin estimated at 11,000 af annually.
Drought Supply and Plans
Drought Supply (af) Year 1: 2 ,927 Year 2: 2,927 Year 3: 2,927
Significant Droughts 1976, 1977 and 1987 through 1991, 1993
Storage Practices Storage is for short-term emergencies only.
Drought Plan During a five to 10 percent shortage there will be an ongoing public information
campaign on conservation and educational programs in schools. During a moderate
shortage of 10 to 20 percent, CAL Water would continue aggressive public education,
and impose voluntary or mandatory 10 to 20 percent reductions in water consumption.
A shortage of 20 to 35 percent would require limited landscape irrigation, other water
use restrictions such as filling of pools or fountains, monitoring of compliance, and
installation of flow restrictors on service lines of non-compliant customers. During a
critical shortage of 35 to 50 percent, all previous steps would be taken in addition to
more restrictive conditions for landscape irrigation and potential discontinuance of
service to consistently non-compliant customers.
Water Conservation Practices
CUWCC Signatory Yes
Metering 30%
Conservation Pricing Yes, on metered connections.
Other Practices None
Notes:
(1) Demand by connection type calculated by applying percentages of metered connections to total demand.
(2) Maximum supply is based on a maximum pumping capacity of all wells of 6,400 gpm.
BY B URR CONSULTING A-499
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Water Rates and Financing
Domestic Water Rates-Ongoing Charges FY 06-071
Avg. Monthly
Rate Description Charges Consumption2
Residential Metered Metered 12 ccf/month
Flat Monthly: $10.42 $20.50
Water Use: $.84 per ccf Unmetered
Unmetered $33.45
Flat Monthly: $33.45 for residential
unit and premises less than 6,000 sq. ft.
Non-Residential
Retail Flat Monthly: $26.05 $57.97 38 ccf/month
Water Use: $.84 per ccf
Industrial Flat Monthly: $156.28 $341.18 215 ccf/month
Water Use: $.86 per ccf
Special Rates
Rates are the same throughout the Cal Water Marysville District service area.
Rate-Setting Procedures
Policy Description The California Public Utilities Commission reviews and sets water rates
when an increase is proposed by the Company.
Most Recent Rate Change 2008 Frequency of Rate Changes As needed and approved
Water Development Fees and Requirements
Connection Fee Approach The Company does not charge a connection fee if there is a main
extended to the property line. The developer pays for the actual cost of
infrastructure to meet additional needs of the new development.
Connection Fee Timing None
Connection Fee Amount None
Land Dedication Requirements None
Development Impact Fee None
Water Enterprise Revenues, FY 05-06 Expenditures, FY 05-06
Source Amount % Amount
Total NP NP Total NP
Rates & charges NP NP Administration NP
Property tax and assessments NP NP O & M NP
Grants NP NP Capital Depreciation NP
Interest NP NP Debt NP
Connection Fees NP NP Purchased Water NP
Notes:
(1) Rates include water-related service charges and usage charges.
(2) Water use assumptions by customer type were used to calculate average monthly bills. Assumed use levels are
consistent countywide for comparison purposes. For further details, refer to Chapter TK.
Continued
A-500 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
Water Service Adequacy, Efficiency & Planning Indicators
Water Planning Description Planning Horizon
Water Master Plan None
UWMP 2005 2011
Capital Improvement Plan 2008 2012
Plan Item/Element Description
Emergency Response Plan 2006 NA
Other Plans
The Company also has a Bio-Terrorism Act Vulenrability Assessment from 2004.
Service Challenges
Cal Water identified meeting water quality requirements as a challenge, due to the volume of samples for requlatory
compliance.
Service Adequacy Indicators
Connections/FTE 624 O&M Cost Ratio1 NP
MGD Delivered/FTE 0.53 Distribution Loss Rate 8%
Distribution Breaks & Leaks2 63 Distribution Break Rate3 115
Response Time Policy ASAP Response Time Actual 4-12 hours
Water Pressure 60 to 75 psi, occasionally below 50 psi during peak demand in the summer
Drinking Water Quality Regulatory Information4
# Description
Health Violations 0
Monitoring Violations 0
DW Compliance Rate5 100%
Employee Indicators
Total Employees (FTEs) 6 Certified? Yes Yes
Notes:
(1) Operations and maintenance costs (exc. purchased water, debt, depreciation) per volume (mgd) delivered.
(2) The Company had 62 service connection leaks and one main leak in 2005.
(3) Distribution break rate is the number of leaks and pipeline breaks per 100 miles of distribution piping.
(4) Violations since 1995, as reported by the U.S. EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System.
(5) Drinking water compliance is percent of time in compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations in 2006.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-501
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
COUNTY OF YUBA
Yuba County provides law enforcement, animal control, street maintenance, drainage, park,
library, and land use planning services to the unincorporated areas of Yuba County. For solid waste
collection, the County has entered into a joint powers agreement with Sutter County, which
franchises a sole private provider—Yuba-Sutter Disposal Inc. The County also provides
countywide services, such as welfare and judicial functions, which are outside the scope of this
study.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
Yuba County was formed on February 18, 1850 and is one of the original 27 counties of
California.
Local Accountability and Governance
Board members are elected by supervisorial district and serve staggered four-year terms. Current
board members are Dan Logue, John Nicoletti, Mary Jane Griego, Donald Schrader, and Harold
Stocker. Refer to Table A-43-7 for the representatives and contested election turnout.
Table A-43-7: Supervisorial Election Turnout
District Countywide Countywide
District Representative Last Contested Voter Voter Comparison
Election Turnout Turnout Election
1 Daniel Russell Logue Nov-06 32% 38% Sheriff-coroner
2 John Nicoletti Nov-04 59% 57% Measure D
3 Mary Jane Griego Mar-04 40% 40% Measure A
4 Don Schrader Mar-00 45% - None
5 Hal Stocker Jun-06 51.28% 40.55% Sheriff-coroner
The Board meets weekly on Tuesdays. Meetings are held at 9:30 a.m., except on the first
Tuesday of the month when held at 6:00 p.m. Board meeting agendas are posted at the Yuba
County Government Center, the County Library and on the County’s website. Board meeting
minutes are available at the Yuba County Government Center and on the County’s website. The
County makes available its budget, general and specific plans, transportation master plan, and other
documents on its website.
The County demonstrated accountability in its disclosure of information and cooperation with
LAFCO. The County responded to LAFCO’s written questionnaires and cooperated with LAFCO
map inquiries and document requests.
With regard to customer service, complaints may be submitted through the website, phone calls,
email, letters, and in-person to the Board of Supervisors. Specific complaints may be directed to
departmental heads. Citizen complaints regarding the Sheriff’s department can be submitted via
telephone, letter, the Department’s website, or in-person. In 2006, the Sheriff’s department received
13 complaints—five for unprofessional conduct of an officer, five for mishandled service calls, one
for use of excessive force, and two for vehicle towing. All complaints are directed to the
A-502 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
Undersheriff, who decides if the complaint should be handled administratively or if an in-depth
Internal Affairs investigation is warranted.
The County updates constituents through regular calendar updates and announcements on the
website.
Service Demand and Growth
Population in the unincorporated areas of Yuba County was approximately 45,679, as of the
2000 Census, and grew to 55,700 by January 2008. The population density in the unincorporated
areas throughout the county is approximately 114 residents per square mile.
Figure A-43-8: Yuba County Population, 2000-8
The County has experienced
significant recent growth and urban 75,000
development as shown in Figure A-
43-8. (The population shown is from
the Department of Finance.) Much 50,000
of this growth is attributable to the
major housing developments that
have begun construction in the 25,000
southwest of the County (i.e., in the
Plumas Lake and East Linda Specific
Plan areas). 0
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
The 2005 jobs-housing balance
was 0.8 in the unincorporated areas
Unincorporated Countywide
of the County; by comparison, there
were 1.4 jobs per housing unit on
average in Sacramento area cities, 1.6 jobs per housing unit in the City of Marysville, and 0.6 jobs per
housing unit in the City of Wheatland.
Significant employers in the County include Beale Air Force Base (5,700 military and civilian
jobs), Naumes Inc. (1,200 seasonal jobs), Sleep Train Amphitheatre (650 seasonal jobs), Baldwin
Contracting Co. (300 jobs), KBI Norcal Truss (200 jobs), Bishop’s Pumpkin Farm (200 seasonal
jobs), Yuba River Moulding & Millwork (200 jobs), the Appeal-Democrat (120 jobs), and Shoei
Foods (100 jobs). There are a number of farming and ranching operations within the County; major
crops produced include rice, walnuts, kiwis, prunes, peaches, olives, grapes, pears, almonds, row
crops, irrigated and non-irrigated field crops, and timber.
Significant residential and commercial growth is anticipated within the County in the coming
years as planned developments begin and continue construction in the vicinity of the City of
Wheatland, and within the East Linda Specific Plan (ELSP), Plumas Lake Specific Plan (PLSP) and
North Arboga Study Areas (NASA).
There are as many as 85 proposed and planned developments within the County, covering in
excess of 23,000 acres, including 1,040 acres of non-residential development, with over 62,470
potential new dwelling units. Proposed and planned residential development projects would add
BY BURR CONSULTING A-503
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
approximately 183,738 new residents countywide if future households are the same size as existing
households.806 For a list of all development projects in Yuba County, see Table A-44-1.
In the unincorporated areas outside the cities’ existing SOIs, there are approximately 45,637
potential new dwelling units at currently proposed and planned developments.807 They would add
approximately 134,379 new residents to the unincorporated areas if and when these are developed.
The countywide population would reach 254,483 if and when proposed and planned
developments come to fruition;808 this does not include any additional development projects that
might be proposed in the future. By comparison, official growth projections for Yuba County are
substantially lower than proposed and planned development would indicate. SACOG draft
projections released in January 2007 predict a total of 139,484 residents within Yuba County by
2035. The Department of Finance projects 168,040 by 2040.
Substantial economic growth is anticipated as well. The County aims to attract non-residential
developments in the unincorporated areas outside the cities’ existing SOIs to several economic
development sites:
• The Yuba County Airport Industrial Park, zoned for industrial use, is 265 acres of land
adjacent to the Yuba County Airport and the Union Pacific Railroad Road line. As of the
drafting of this report, approximately 210 acres were occupied.
• The Sports/Entertainment Zone is a 1,000-acre planning area located adjacent to SR 65 in
the northeast and Forty Mile Road in the west. The Sleep Train Amphitheatre occupies 90
acres in the southernmost portion of the zone. The County aims to attract sports,
entertainment and commercial uses to the remaining 343 available acres. A casino has been
proposed on a portion of the site.
• The Rancho Road Area, zoned for industrial and commercial use, is 500 acres of land
adjacent to the Sports/Entertainment Zone and SR 65. The area offers freeway frontage.
Infrastructure has not yet been developed.
• The 2,492-acre Research and Development Park, located east of SR 65 and southwest of
Beale AFB. The County aims to attract corporate campuses, office complexes, and other
commercial or light industrial ventures to this location.
There are growth constraints and challenges that may delay or limit actual future growth. The
housing market slump will certainly delay many of the development plans, although the market will
undoubtedly recover in the future. Infrastructure needs and the financing of those needs presents
another challenge; additional wastewater, flood control and transportation infrastructure would be
806 The average household size in Yuba County was 2.9 in 2008, according to the Department of Finance.
807 Specifically, this calculation excludes developments in the existing City of Wheatland SOI and in the existing primary City of
Marysville SOI.
808 Projected population derived from the 2007 County population reported by DOF plus the planned and proposed dwelling units
multiplied by the average household size in Yuba County in 2007.
A-504 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
needed to accommodate proposed and planned development. Finally, growth strategies are in flux
and may limit future development. The County is presently updating its General Plan, and
developing its growth strategies and land use plans.
Growth Strategies
The primary guiding goals for land use and development in the General Plan include creating
and maintaining convenient and centrally located commercial areas and employment centers,
economic expansion and diversification, retention of the most productive agricultural lands, and
preservation of open space. The 2008 General Plan Update Background Report reiterates these
goals, and establishes that any new growth should primarily focus on existing developed areas, such
as the communities of Linda, Olivehurst and Plumas Lake. Community input during the General
Plan Update Town Hall Forums emphasized the need for more commercial and industrial
businesses in Yuba County to provide shopping and employment opportunities that do not require
long-distance travel.809
The Economic Development Strategic Plan identifies several strategies to provide programs and
incentives to retain and expand business activities in the County.810 Strategies include marketing to
promote Yuba County as a preferred place to live, attraction of new business and investment
through incentives, retention of existing enterprises, development of commercial and community
facilities, education and training programs to provide skilled employees, communication through
community outreach, promotion of tourism to bring in out-of-area dollars, and research to maintain
a public information database.
Commercial and industrial development in the County will be directed to the industrial parks
adjacent to the Yuba County Airport, the Research and Development Park, as well as planned
commercial zones in the Plumas Lake Specific Plan, East Linda Specific Plan, North Arboga Study
Area and the Olivehurst Avenue Specific Plan. Infrastructure needs necessary for development of
the Research and Development Park are yet to be identified.
Current planning and zoning indicates that the commercial areas prioritized by the County are
within the Yuba-Sutter Enterprise Zone. The Enterprise Zone includes the communities of Linda
and Olivehurst—generally between McGowan Parkway and Simpson Dantoni Road and from
Feather River Boulevard east to Mercury Way. The zone was designated by the State in 1986, and
renewed in 2006 for 15 years. Incentives include below-market (15 percent) land prices and low-
interest financing for new and local businesses.
Management
The County Administrator provides administrative support to the Board and oversees the
operations of all departments and agencies under Board control. The Administrator regularly
evaluates the administrative procedures of the County and makes recommendations to improve
operations, prepares and tracks the budget, and reviews departmental budget requests. He is
responsible for management of County staff. There were 1,044 employee positions in FY 06-07.
809 Yuba County, General Plan Update Background Report: Land Use, 2008.
810 Yuba County, Economic Development Strategic Plan & Resource Guide, 2007.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-505
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
County management conducts employee performance evaluations annually for all employees,
and more frequently for probationary employees. The County conducts productivity and workload
monitoring by tracking hundreds of workload indicators, including building permits, crime, 911 calls,
response times, code enforcement activities, road miles repaired, animal permits, park acreage
maintained, and library visits. Productivity and workload are considered in County budgeting
practices. The County practices benchmarking of development-related fees and regularly compares
them with surrounding counties.
The Yuba County Sheriff’s Department (YCSD) reports that it performs regular overall
operation evaluations, including maintaining a strategic plan and evaluating progress at least once per
month. Other evaluation measures include the review of crime statistics and other performance
measures, which are tracked through quarterly reports. YCSD also maintains inspection matrices for
each division to ensure that their process, equipment, facilities, and training are inspected regularly.
Table A-43-9: County Planning Documents
To guide its efforts, the Plan Date Planning Horizon
County adopted a General Development Impact Fee Nexus Report 2004 2020
Plan in 1996 that identifies Economic Development Plan 2007 2010
goals for services and General Plan 1996 2014
planning through 2015 and General Plan Update Background Report 2008 NA
policies to realize those Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan 2007 NA
goals. The County is in the Parks Master Plan 2008 2030
process of updating the Stormwater Management Plan 2004 NA
General Plan, and projects Transportation Master Plan 2007 2011
it will be completed by spring 2009. In addition, the County has adopted master plans for
transportation (2007), stormwater management (2004), a draft plan for parks (2008), and an
economic development plan (2007). The County also has adopted a Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
(2007), which was produced by the Office of Emergency Services through a grant from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. The County has not prepared a capital improvement plan,
although capital improvement needs are addressed in many of the master plan documents, in the
development impact fee study and on an annual basis in the County budget.
Financial planning efforts include an adopted annual budget and annual financial audits. The
most recently completed audit is for FY 06-07. The County most recently updated all of its
development impact fees in 2004; the development impact fee nexus study identifies long-term
capital improvements. The County updated road and park development impact fees for East Linda
and Plumas Lake in 2005.
Yuba County received several awards and honors for its accomplishments between 2002 and
2007. The Yuba County Community Connections Parolee Program received an honorable mention
Challenge Award in 2006 from the California State Association of Counties; the program provides
resource fairs to assist parolees in re-entering society and is now being used as a model by other
counties throughout California. In 2004, the California Counties Information Services Directors
Association awarded Yuba and neighboring counties for the best IT collaboration among
organizations for its Sutter-Yuba Intergovernmental Fiber Network; through this project, a wide
variety of computer resources are being shared between five jurisdictions (two counties and three
cities) in highly innovative ways. In 2005, Senator Sam Aanestad (R-Grass Valley) honored
achievements of local law enforcement officers. In 2006, the County completed a comprehensive
workforce planning study to analyze and address current and future workforce needs.
A-506 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
Financing
The County’s financial ability to provide services is constrained by available revenues and legal
limitations on revenue increases. The County has managed to provide adequate service levels within
these resource constraints with some exceptions. The County has imposed assessments to fund
park maintenance in new growth areas; maintenance at existing parks is relatively minimal, but the
County is considering assessments to fund service levels. Additional capital financing is needed for
street improvements to alleviate highway traffic and associated congestion within unincorporated
urban areas. Current financing sources do not appear to be adequate to address needs for internal
drainage facilities, particularly in low-lying portions of the Olivehurst area; the County and RD 784
are both considering financing options to improve drainage in such areas. With respect to levee
improvements funded through TRLIA, financing sources are adequate to complete levee
improvements that are expected to allow the urban area to achieve protection from a 200-year flood
event.
The County segregates its financial reporting by various funds. County funds relevant to
municipal services include the general fund and road fund. Related internal services funds include
fleet management and risk management.
Table A-43-10: County General Fund Revenues, FY 06-07
The County’s general fund received $48.2 Amount %
million in revenue in FY 06-07. Property Property taxes $15,003,146 31%
taxes, including property taxes in lieu of Sales tax 2,450,263 5%
vehicle license fees, made up 31 percent of Transfer tax 624,919 1%
revenue. Property tax in lieu of sales tax Fines & forfeitures 1,007,836 2%
related to the “triple flip” composes 16 Construction permits 1,995,866 4%
percent, and other sales tax makes up six Franchise fees 1,036,433 2%
percent of revenue. Construction permits, Triple flip 7,814,457 16%
vehicle fines, grants, and landfill tipping fees Grants & governmental 5,140,363 11%
are other significant general fund revenue Landfill tipping fees 1,098,433 2%
sources. Engineering fees 1,433,044 3%
Capital improvement fees 2,500,000 5%
Approximately one-third of the general Other service charges 3,571,870 7%
fund is spent on general government Transfers in 126,300 0%
activities, including elections, surveyor, TOTAL 48,284,915
information technology and the County Source: Yuba County Budget FY 2007-08, Schedule 5
Assessor. Approximately one-third is spent on public safety activities, which include not only
municipal services, such as law enforcement, code enforcement, library, animal control and building
inspection, but also countywide services such as coroner, probation, public defender, and
agricultural commissioner. Internal services, such as fleet management and insurance, make up
approximately one-sixth of general fund expenditures. Other general fund uses include debt service
and other transfers.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-507
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-43-11: County Road Fund Revenues, FY 06-07
The County’s road fund received $12.5 million in Revenue item Amount %
revenue in FY 05-06. The primary funding sources Transportation sales tax $698,920 6%
were local fees for construction, State aid for Permits 197,792 2%
construction and gas tax subventions. The road fund Fines 40,000 0%
finances street maintenance and construction Interest 83,566 1%
projects. Gas tax 1,753,053 14%
Traffic Congestion Relief 985,383 8%
The County had approximately $9.8 million in Aid for construction 2,395,513 19%
long-term debt related to its governmental activities at Local fees 4,845,906 39%
the end of FY 06-07. Long-term debt was composed Other 1,472,705 12%
primarily of compensated absences payable to County TOTAL 12,472,838
employees. There was $1 million outstanding in Source: Yuba County Budget FY 2007-08, Schedule 5
notes payable for road and drainage improvements in
the Olivehurst Ave. redevelopment project, and a $1 million outstanding balance on a 1998 lease
revenue bond that financed the 14th Street South Annex and County Library facilities. The
County’s underlying credit rating is A-, according to Standard and Poor’s.811
By way of financial reserves, the County general fund had an undesignated fund balance at the
end of FY 06-07 of $11.2 million and a $1 million balance designated for economic downturn; this
amounted to 33 percent of general fund expenditures, or four months of operating reserves. The
County’s unrestricted road fund balance could not be identified from the financial statements;
however, the fund had an overall balance of $0.8 million at the end of FY 06-07, which amounted to
6 percent of annual road fund expenditures. The County has no formally adopted policy on target
financial reserves for its general and road funds.
The County engages in joint financing arrangements related to pensions, insurance and
investments. The County provides retirement-related benefits to its employees through the
California Public Employees Retirement System, a multiple-employer defined benefit plan for public
employees. The County participates in the State’s Local Agency Investment Fund to pool certain
investments of fund balances with other public agencies. The County is a member of the California
State Association of Counties Excess Insurance Authority, a risk-sharing pool for excess workers’
compensation, liability, property, and medical malpractice insurance coverage.
LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
Service Configuration
The Yuba County Sheriff’s Department (YCSD) provides police protection services, including
law enforcement (traffic enforcement, criminal investigations, marine enforcement, narcotics
enforcement), search and rescue, crisis negotiation, emergency dispatch, temporary and long-term
holding, and animal care services. In addition, the Department provides more specialized services
including a canine unit and various volunteer programs. Countywide services provided by the
811 Standard and Poor’s, Yuba County Assigned A- Issuer Credit Rating on Property Value Growth, February 10, 2006.
A-508 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
Sheriff, but not included in the scope of the MSR project, include corrections, civil (i.e., subpoenas
and evictions), court bailiff and coroner duties.
Law enforcement services are provided by deputy sheriffs who patrol four beats around the
County on an ongoing basis. Approximately 52 deputies are assigned to the four beats, with seven
deputies on-duty at any given time. Reserve officers provide additional on-call support to patrol
units and other operations, and are compensated at minimum wage.
YCSD provides regular training classes to all sworn officers on topics including firearms,
CLETS and chemical agents, as well as others. All sworn officers are required to have completed
POST-certified courses. New deputies are assigned to the Field Training Program for 16 weeks of
training in addition to the 644 hours received at an academy. YCSD has also provided training to
Wheatland PD, in the past, in firearms, tasers, defensive tactics, batons and CLETS at no expense to
the City.812
The Marine Enforcement Detail patrols lakes and rivers and enforces boating regulations. There
are two full-time staff year-round and three during the summer months. A majority of the unit’s
patrol time is spent at Camp Far West Lake, Bullards Bar Reservoir, Collins Lake, Englebright Lake,
and the Yuba and Feather rivers.
The Technical Search and Rescue Team coordinates land and water search and rescue missions.
The team is trained in swift-water and underwater rescue and recovery as well as search techniques
and strategies. When additional search and rescue support is needed, the Department can call upon
the Sheriff’s Posse—a group of citizen volunteers. In 2006, the team performed two successful
swift-water rescues on the Yuba and Feather rivers.
Through a regional collaborative effort, the Sheriff’s department provides narcotics law
enforcement. The Department is a member of the Net-5 joint narcotics task force with Marysville
PD, Yuba City PD, Sutter County SD, CHP, and the State Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement. The
task force targets illegal drug use, possession, manufacturing and sales in Yuba and Sutter counties.
YCSD is the main provider of temporary and long-term holding facilities for police providers in
Yuba County. YCSD holding facilities are also utilized by Marysville PD and Wheatland PD free of
charge, unless the agencies’ three-year average of non-felony bookings is exceeded, in which case the
County can charge a jail access fee for each booking.813 In 2006, there were on average 374 inmates.
The Department also provides contract holding services to the U.S. Department of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE). The Department reported that there are 160 ICE detainees on
average per day.
The Animal Care Services Unit provides capture, rescue, complaint and abuse investigation,
licensing, quarantine, impound, and adoption services with a staff of four positions. In addition, the
Unit administers a rabies control program and a spay/neuter education program for pet owners. On
April 1, 2007, the shelter was occupied by 85 cats, dogs and other animals on hand. Throughout the
month, 258 animals entered the shelter. Some animal control services are provided by YCSD within
812 The City reported that it was collaborating with Marysville PD on training events, as of the drafting of this report.
813 Government Code §29551.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-509
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
the City of Wheatland, including animal capture and animal shelter services. These services are
provided according to an agreement entered into in 2000 between the two parties. YCSD retains all
animal licensing fees collected within the City as reimbursement for services.814
All 911 calls made from land lines in Yuba County are automatically routed to the Yuba County
Sheriff’s communications unit (the Public Safety Answering Point). Once the County Sheriff
dispatcher determines a call requires police response in the unincorporated portions of the county, it
directly dispatches Sheriff personnel. Radio dispatch services are provided by the communications
unit for the Department, Wheatland PD, Yuba County College, Bi-County Ambulance, Linda FPD,
Olivehurst FD, and Wheatland Fire Authority. The fire departments and Yuba County College do
not pay for dispatch services. Wheatland PD pays a minimal monthly fee of $500. Calls from
cellular phones are initially routed to the California Highway Patrol (CHP); CHP then relays calls to
the Yuba County Sheriff.
Demand
Figure A-43-12: Crime Rate, Unincorporated Yuba County
Similar to the State, there has been a
350
decrease in the number of serious crimes in
300
the unincorporated portions of Yuba
250
County where the Sheriff has jurisdiction.
200
The crime rate, illustrated in Figure A-43-12,
150
shows the occurrence of violent crimes and
100
property crimes (excluding larcenies under
50
$400) per 10,000 people. Crime generally
0
declined in the unincorporated areas
between 1996 and 2006; serious crimes
decreased from 262 to 187 reported
instances for every 10,000 people.
California State as a whole saw a decrease in
the serious crime rate in the same time period—from 332 per 10,000 in 1996 to 282 in 2006.
Complaints
Citizen complaints can be submitted via telephone, in-person, letter, or the Department’s
website. In 2006, the department received 13 complaints—five for unprofessional conduct of an
officer, five for mishandled service calls, one for use of excessive force, and two for vehicle towing.
All complaints are directed to the Undersheriff, who decides if the complaint should be handled
administratively or if an in-depth Internal Affairs investigation is warranted.
Accomplishments
In 2006, the accomplishments of YCSD include the rescue of seven people on the Feather and
Yuba rivers and a heart attack victim, and recognition for assistance in a residential fire in Marysville.
Nine members of the YCSD jail and medical staff were awarded “Law Enforcement Hero” and
“Medical Hero” awards from the American Red Cross for assistance in the fire.
814 Interview with Dan Boon, Police Chief, City of Wheatland, December 3, 2007.
A-510 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
stnediser
000,01
rep
semirC
6991 7991 8991 9991 0002 1002 2002 3002 4002 5002 6002
Violent Property
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
Location
YCSD provides police protection services to all unincorporated areas within the County,
excluding Beale AFB. In addition, YCSD provides back-up services to the federal enforcement
officers in Plumas and Tahoe National Forests in the northeastern portion of the County.
California Highway Patrol provides traffic enforcement services on unincorporated roadways
within the County, with primary emphasis on SR 20, 65 and 70. Yuba College Police Department
provides law enforcement services on the college campus.
Due to proximity, YCSD will provide back-up to calls within the cities of Wheatland and
Marysville. In 2006, YCSD responded within the Wheatland city limits on 102 occasions. The City
of Marysville was unable to provide comparable data.
This courtesy is reciprocated by the city police departments for some unincorporated areas
neighboring the cities. Wheatland PD provided support on 33 occasions outside of the City. The
City of Marysville was unable to provide the number of occasions that the City responded in the
unincorporated areas.
Infrastructure
Sheriff facilities used to provide police services include the Yuba County Courthouse Sheriff’s
Office (which houses the Department headquarters, administration offices, dispatch, jail, and
coroner office), four substations and the animal care services office. All personnel work out of the
headquarters. Community substations are used by staff to take breaks and write reports and
promote accessibility of the Sheriff’s Office. Some substations are used for equipment storage.
The holding facilities are located next to the courthouse and Sheriff headquarters. The jail was
originally built in 1962 and then renovated in 1993. The facility holds a maximum of 428 inmates.
A new animal care services office was completed in 2005 in west Linda which replaced a 50-year
old building. The new facilities offer 12 quarantine kennels and 24 general population kennels for
dogs, four horse corrals that may also be used for other livestock, and 67 cages for cats and small
dogs.
Vehicles used to provide police services, include 78 patrol cars, three patrol boats, four quad
runners, and the Yuba County Command Post. The command post is a mobile command post for
large emergency events. It is shared by the Sheriff, Wheatland PD, Marysville PD, OES, all county
fire districts, and the Office of Health Services.
Patrol cars were recently equipped with Mobile Data Browsers (MDBs), which allows officers to
send criminal reports electronically and access the County network, California Law Enforcement
Telecommunication System (CLETS) information and mapping software. In addition, the patrol
vehicles have been outfitted with GPS locators, which allow dispatchers and other in-field deputies
to know where vehicles are located.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-511
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Infrastructure needs identified by the Sheriff’s Office include a new station headquarters. In
2004, the Department recognized that the current facility would not meet the County’s long-term
growth trends projected by Community Development and started reviewing expansion options.
The Department is evaluating the feasibility of building a new facility but has not yet brought
forward any proposal for Board consideration.
Table A-43-13: Sheriff Service Profile
Police Service
Service Configuration Service Demand
Patrol Direct Statistical Base Year 2006
Dispatch Direct Total Service Calls1 32,202
Search and Rescue Direct 911 Calls 11,491
Crime Lab DOJ Non-Emergency Calls 20,711
SWAT Direct % 911 Calls 36%
Temporary Holding Direct 911 Calls per 1,000 people 219
Bomb Squad Beale AFB2 Arrests 2005 3,172
Canine Services Direct Citations NP
Academy Training Yuba College Violent Crime Rate per 10,0003 4 0
POST Certified? Yes Property Crime Rate per 10,000 146
Service Adequacy Resources
Complaints in 2006 13 Total Staff 185
Priority One Response Time 8:59 Full-time Sworn Staff 72
Response Time Base Year 2006 Reserves4 20
Response Time Note None Sworn Staff per 1,0005 1.8
Property Clearance Rate6 7% Staffing Base Year 2007
Violent Clearance Rate 27% Marked Police Vehicles 78
Service Challenges
In the northeastern portion of the County, YCSD identified two areas that are difficult to serve. The area northeast of
Clippermills in the community of Strawberrry Valley can only be accessed by a single road. The area north and northeast
of Bullards Bar Dam, in the community of Camptonville, requires four-wheel drive for dirt roads and when there is snow.
Occasionally, the patrol cars will need chains to access particularly snowy areas.
Notes:
(1) Calls do not include any officer initiated activity.
(2) Yuba County Sheriff reported that Beale AFB provides ordinance disposal but may not render civilian ordinances safe unless it poses an imminent
threat. Sacramento County Sheriff provided bomb disposal service for the most recent incident in the County. Placer and Butte County Sheriff
Departments also have bomb disposal units that may be used for service.
(3) Crime rates are based on crimes reported in 2005.
(4) There are 10 Level 1 reserves that can patrol individually and 10 Level 2 reserves that must be accompanied by another officer.
(5) Sworn staff includes full-time sworn staff and reserves.
(6) Clearance rates are aggregated for the period between 2000 and 2006.
Continued
A-512 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
Facilities
Station Location Condition Other Purpose Built
Yuba County 215 5th St., Marysville Good Headquarters, jail, coroner 1964
Courthouse Sheriff's
Department
West Linda Substation Feather River Blvd. Good Community substation, boat NP
patrol storage, STARS
Olivehurst Substation Olivehurst Ave. Poor Community substation NP
Plumas Lake Substation 1765 River Oaks Blvd. Excellent Community substation, Linda 2007
FD, Command Post storage
Brownsville Substation 16796 Willow Glen Rd. Good Community substation, 1988
Brownsville FD
District 10 Substation Woodruff Ln. Good Patrol substation NP
Animal Care Services 5245 Feather River Blvd. Excellent Animal care administration and 2005
Office shelter
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
The Department is currently in the planning stage of building a new station headquarters. The current facility was
updated in 1993, but does not have enough capacity for anticipated growth.
Regional Collaboration
The Department is a member of the Net-5 joint narcotics task force with Marysville PD, Yuba City PD, Sutter County
SD, CHP, and the State Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement.
The Sheriff is also a member of the Yuba-Sutter Area Gang Enforcement Team (YSAGE) and the Yuba-Sutter Vehicle
Theft Suppression Enforcement Team (VSET). The Department recently received a grant to assemble a sexual assault
task force and is in the planning stages with the Butte, Sutter and Colusa Sheriff's departments.
Facility Sharing
Current Practices: Three substations are located at shared facilities with LFPD, FFPD and CHP. In addition, YCSD
shares the Yuba County Command Post with Wheatland PD, Marysville PD, OES, all county fire districts, and the Office
of Health Services.
Opportunities: The Dobbins-Oregon House community is in the process of building a community center and hopes to
provide space for a sheriff substation.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-513
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
STREET SERVICES
Nature and Extent
The County provides routine road maintenance activities—including patching, ditch grading,
drainage improvements, and tree trimming—in addition to major road resurfacing treatments, such
as overlays, chip seals and micropaving. Slurry sealing of roads is performed by a private contractor.
The County currently provides street sweeping on a bi-weekly basis by contract; although it has
indicated a desire to purchase the equipment in order to provide the service directly. Maintenance
and repair of County traffic signals are performed by a private contractor. Highways are maintained
by Caltrans.
Location
Street services are provided within the unincorporated areas of the County on roads accepted
into the County road system. The County does not provide any street services outside its bounds.
Infrastructure
Key infrastructure includes 48 centerline miles of arterial roads, 203 centerline miles of collector
roads, 392 miles of local roads, 92 bridges, seven signalized intersections, and 130 street lights.
There are no major street structures maintained by the County other than bridges.
Major projects completed in 2006 were the overlaying and chip sealing of various roads, road
widening and drainage improvements along Powerline Road, shoulder paving along North Beale
Road, cold foam reconstruction of Hammonton Smartville Road, and the installation of a traffic
signal at the intersection of SR 70 and Feather River Boulevard.
Between 2007 and 2011, the County plans to conduct street capital improvement projects
spanning 85 miles of roadway, at an estimated cost of nearly $86 million. Major projects include the
construction of new interchanges at SR 70 and Feather River Boulevard ($19 million) and Plumas
Lake Boulevard at River Oaks Boulevard ($15 million), construction of a two lane road from Plumas
Arboga Road to Algodon Road ($4 million), the construction of two lanes of the Yuba River
Parkway from the Orchard boundary to Hammonton Smartville Road ($4 million), and the
alignment, widening and reconstruction of Smartville Road south of SR 20 ($1.2 million).815 Over
this time frame, nearly 60 miles of secondary roads countywide will need some form of maintenance
resurfacing, at an estimated cost of $2.6 million. The Plumas Lake Boulevard Interchange is
scheduled for completion in Fall 2008.
The Yuba County General Plan establishes LOS “C” as the minimum standard for traffic flow in
the County during peak hours. The 2007 General Plan Update Background Report finds that all
County roads operate at LOS “C” or better, with the exception of the Simpson Lane Bridge across
the Yuba River, which operates at LOS “D.” The County indicated that it does not anticipate any
major corridors or intersections to be at LOS “E” or “F” at build-out, as developers are required to
pay development impact fees and provide mitigation to maintain LOS “C” or higher. Planned
815 Yuba County Department of Public Works, Transportation Master Plan 2007-2011, 2007.
A-514 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
infrastructure improvements aimed at increasing LOS include the Yuba River Parkway project (aka
the Marysville bypass) to connect SR 20 with SR 65/70 east of Marysville, and the SR 65 Wheatland
bypass.816
The 2007 General Plan Update Background Report also identifies various intersections
operating below their established LOS threshold, including SR 70 at McGowan Parkway and Erle
Road (LOS “E” and “F”), SR 65 at McGowan Parkway and South Beale Road (LOS “D”), SR 20 at
Woodruff Lane (LOS “F”), Erle Road at Lindhurst Avenue (LOS “D”), and Olivehurst Avenue at
Chestnut Road (“LOS “F”). Planned infrastructure improvements aimed at increasing LOS at
intersections include the signalization of McGowan Parkway at SR 65 and 70, and the signalization
of River Oaks Boulevard at Plumas Lake Boulevard and Feather River Boulevard.817
Non-County roads that operate below their established LOS threshold during peak conditions
include SR 70 from the Yuba-Sutter County line to Feather River Boulevard (LOS “D”), SR 70 from
1st Street to 10th Street in downtown Marysville (LOS “F”), and the 5th Street Bridge across the
Feather River in Marysville (LOS “F”). Segments of SR 20 and 70 through Marysville and SR 65
through Wheatland operate at LOS “D,” however, that is considered acceptable for the segments of
those facilities.
There are eight bridges in the County that have been identified for rehabilitation or replacement
from 2007-11, at a total cost of $9 million.818 These include two bridges at Honcut Creek (on
Honcut Road and Los Verjeles Road), two at Deep Ravine (on Timbuctoo Road and Spring Valley
Road), and bridges at New York Creek (on La Porte Road), Browns Valley Ditch (on Spring Valley
Road), and Dry Creek (on New York House Road). The covered wood bridge on Alleghany Road
has also been identified as needing repairs. The County also reports that it is considering the
rehabilitation or replacement of the 5th Street Bridge in Marysville, in coordination with local
jurisdictions.
816 General Plan Update Background Report, Transportation and Circulation, 2007.
817 Yuba County Department of Public Works, Transportation Master Plan 2007-2011, 2007.
818 Ibid.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-515
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-43-14: County Street Service Profile
Street Service Configuration, Demand & Infrastructure
Service Configuration
Street Maintenance Direct and Contracted Street Lighting PG&E and Direct
Street Sweeping Contracted Signal Maintenance Contracted
Sweeping Frequency Bi-weekly on truck routes only
Service Demand
Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel, 20061 793,940 Service Requests 2006 550
DVMT per street mile, 20062 1,233 Service Calls per Street Mile 0.85
Circulation Description
State Routes 20, 49, 65, and 70 serve as the major thoroughfares in the County. SRs 65 and 70 provide north-south
circulation in the southern and western portions of the County, providing service to residents of Marysville,
Wheatland and the unincorporated areas of Linda, Olivehurst and Plumas Lake, in addition to regional commuters
from neighboring counties. SR 20 provides east-west circulation through the central portion of the County, from
the Yuba-Sutter County line in Marysville to the Yuba-Nevada County line in Smartville. SR 49 provides north-
south circulation in the northern portion of the County, from the Yuba-Nevada County line to the Yuba-Sierra
County line, through the community of Camptonville.
Yuba County is also served by various arterial, collector and local roads. Some of the major arterial and collector
roads include North Beale Rd., Erle Rd., McGowan Pkwy., Feather River Blvd., Forty Mile Rd., and Hammonton-
Smartville Rd. in the southern portion of the County, and Marysville Rd., Loma Rica Rd. and Willow Glen Rd. in
the northern portion of the County.
Infrastructure
Street Centerline Miles3 6 44 Signalized Intersections 7
Urban minor arterial 13 County-Maintained Bridges 92
Urban collector 24 Street Lights 925
Urban local 100 County Maintained 130
Rural arterial 35 PG&E Maintained 795
Rural collector 180
Rural local 293
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
Overlays are needed on various roads throughout the County, including Algodon Rd., Feather River Blvd., Forty
Mile Rd., Ostrom Rd., Spring Valley Rd. and Ramirez Rd. Camp Far West Rd. and Plumas Arboga Rd. need
rehabilitation and reconstruction. Other maintenance surfacing needs include slurry sealing and micropaving in
various locations in Linda and Olivehurst.
Note:
(1) Daily vehicle miles of travel (DVMT) in 2006, according to Caltrans.
(2) 2006 DVMT divided by total mileage of County-maintained public road system in 2006.
(3) Information provided by Yuba County Public Works, 2007.
Continued
A-516 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
Street Service Adequacy
Pavement Condition
Pavement Management System Yes1 Miles Needing Rehabilitation 320
PMS latest update 2001 % Needing Rehabilitation 49.70%
Pavement Condition Index, 2006 45 Miles Rehabilitated FY 05-06 4.4
Average Street Repair Response Time2 Not tracked % Rehabilitated FY 05-06 0.68%
Response Time Policy No policy Maintenance Cost per Street Mile3 $5,617
Level of Service (LOS)
Current: All County roads operate at LOS "C" or better, with the exception of the Simpson Lane Bridge.
Policy: LOS "C" is minimum standard for traffic flow during peak hours.
Build-Out: LOS "C" or better.
Planning Year Planning Horizon
Transportation Master Plan 2007 5 years
Yuba County General Plan 1996 20 years
Yuba County General Plan Update Background Report 2007 NA
Regional Collaboration and Facility Sharing
Collaboration:
The County participates in regional planning as a member of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments.
Existing Facility Sharing:
None identified. In the past the County has shared chip coating equpiment with Nevada County.
Facility Sharing Opportunities:
The County reported that it wishes to collaborate with Butte County to share striping equipment.
Service Challenges
Lack of funding for necessary maintenance and improvements.
Note:
(1) The PMS only tracks primary (major) roads. The County has indicated that it is working towards a more comprehensive PMS that will
include all County roads.
(2) Average response time is the time elapsed between receipt of call and the completion of repairs.
(3) County road maintenance expenditures in FY 05-06 divided by centerline miles of street.
Continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-517
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Street Service Financing
General Financing Approach
Gas tax subventions, Traffic Congestion Relief (Prop. 42) and transportation sales tax fund maintenance.
Construction of new streets and other major growth-related construction is funded by traffic impact fees. There
are additional impact fees if the development is located in a specific plan area, ranging from approximately $5,000 to
$11,000 per dwelling unit.
Development Fees and Requirements
Residential (per unit) Single Family: $2,756 Multi-Family: $1,929
Non-residential (per 1,000 sq. ft.) Commercial: $11,023 Industrial: $4,133
Development Requirements New developments are required to construct all internal street system
improvements associated with their projects.
Streets and Roads Financial Information, FY 05-061
Revenues Expenditures
Total $11,289,508 Total6 $11,674,217
Gas Tax $1,698,715 Maintenance $2,631,422
VLF In-Lieu2 $0 Street $820,320
Traffic Congestion Relief $528,454 Lights & Signals $108,755
Other State Revenues $2,722,642 Other $1,702,347
Federal Revenues $97,792 Capital $8,029,881
Local Revenues3 $0 New Construction7 $5,346,329
County Revenues $6,241,905 Reconstruction $2,665,490
Interest $36,543 Signals & Lights $0
Bond proceeds $0 Other $18,062
General Fund $10,000 Undistributed Costs8 $431,240
Assessments4 $0 Plant & Equipment $363,268
Other5 $6,195,362 Other Public Agencies $0
Note:
(1) Financial information as reported in the Annual Street Report to the State Controller.
(2) Includes motor vehicle license fees used for street purposes and/or being accounted for in a street-purpose fund.
(3) Includes other funds distributed by the local agencies other than the County and the cities.
(4) Includes benefit assessments (also called special assessments) collected to finance street improvements and street lighting
under the Landscape and Lighting Assessment Act of 1972, the Improvement Act of 1913 and the Street Lighting Act of 1931.
(5) Includes traffic safety funds, development impact fees, redevelopment agency funds, and miscellaneous local sources.
Excludes payments from other governmental agencies for contract services.
(6) Total before adjustments for reporting changes since prior years.
(7) Includes new construction and betterment of streets, bridges, lighting facilities, and storm drains, as well as right-of-way
acquisitions.
(8) Engineering costs that are not allocated to other expenditure categories or projects because the work is not specific or such
allocation is impractical. Administration cost is an equitable pro rata share of expenditures for the supervision and management
of street-purpose activities.
A-518 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
DRAINAGE SERVICES
Nature and Extent
The County owns, operates and maintains most public drainage facilities in the unincorporated
areas, with the exception of some facilities within RD 784 boundaries. Underground drainage
facilities, gutters and road side swales within residential subdivisions are maintained by the County.
RD 784 maintains major drainage channels, most detention basins, and pumping stations. Water
drains from the county-owned infrastructure in subdivisions into district-owned channels and
detention basins, and is finally pumped over the levees into the Feather and Bear rivers and the
Western Pacific Interceptor Canal.
A majority of drainage improvements are performed by the responsible party (the County or RD
784). The County engages in some drainage improvements jointly with RD 784 through TRLIA,
primarily within the RD’s boundaries. TRLIA is a joint powers authority formed in 2004 between
RD 784 and the County to provide for flood control improvements, including improvements to the
levee system and related drainage improvements in the County. TRLIA constructs the new drainage
infrastructure and then transfers ownership to the RD or the County. For example the Olivehurst
Detention Basin was constructed by TRLIA and transferred to the County for maintenance.
The County has begun preliminary discussions with RD 784 to evaluate how drainage
responsibilities to the County can be expedited in a cost-effective manner.
The County, in conjunction with the City of Marysville, is regulated by the general Phase II
NPDES permit for small municipalities. RWQCB has issued a general permit to smaller cities that
either a) meet the EPA definition of urbanized areas, or b) are designated as regulated areas by
RWQCB in light of high population growth, population density, growth potential, and/or discharge
levels.
The County, in collaboration with Marysville, has initiated a stormwater management plan to
fulfill the requirements of the NPDES permit. According to the permit, the County and Marysville
must implement best management practices to achieve the six minimum control measures—to
improve 1) public education, 2) public participation, 3) illicit discharge detection, 4) construction site
stormwater runoff control, 5) post construction stormwater management, and 6) pollution
prevention for municipal operations. The County anticipates that all measures will be implemented
by July 2008. Of the six measures, the County reported that none had been fully implemented, as of
March 2008.
Location
The County provides drainage services throughout the unincorporated areas of the County, with
the exception of some facilities in RD 784 and drainage channels along private roads and driveways.
Infrastructure
County drainage is directed by three watersheds, which flow into the Bear, Yuba and Feather
rivers. The rivers all originate in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and flow generally toward the
southwest into the valley and eventually join the Sacramento River. Beneficial uses of the three
BY BURR CONSULTING A-519
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
rivers are municipal and domestic supply, irrigation, stock watering, power, recreation, freshwater
habitat, migration and spawning.819
Areas in the southwest portion of the County around Ostrom and north of Linda are within the
100-year flood plain. In addition, areas surrounding Marysville, in the community of Hallwood and
just south of Browns Valley are all in a 100-year flood plain. Designations in the southwest are
expected to change, as FEMA has begun revisions of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. In 2006,
FEMA released Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps; FEMA has subsequently made
modifications to the Linda and Olivehurst maps. As levee and drainage improvements (by TRLIA
and RD 784) are completed in the southwest and certified by the Army Corps, FEMA is expected to
amend the preliminary map designations.
The County drainage system consists of roads with drainage systems, catch basins, water basins,
detention basins, constructed wetland, artificial channels, aqueducts, curbs, gutters, ditches, sumps,
pumping stations, storm drain inlets, and storm drains.820 The County was unable to provide the
specific quantity and location of the various drainage facilities; however, as part of the measure
implementation for the NPDES permit, the County has begun a program to log and map the
location of all facilities, which is expected to be completed by July 2008.
During severe storm events, the southwest portion of the County experiences drainage overflow
as water backs up into the Feather River, Bear River and finally the WPIC leaving no where for
stormwater runoff to flow.821 The extent of backups varies by year, depending on the severity of the
storm events. The Olivehurst detention basin, constructed by TRLIA, has alleviated some pressure
on the system by storing up to 250 af of runoff until after peak flow has subsided. The detention
basin will be transferred to the County for maintenance. No further improvements are necessary to
resolve this issue, according to the County.
In Olivehurst, runoff collects in yards where the home pads are too low and water ponds when
it rains. In order to eliminate the ponding, pad grading, street improvements and culvert upgrades
will be necessary.822 In addition, drainage ditches become clogged due to debris build up. The
County identified a need to establish a master underground drainage system in Linda and Olivehurst
to replace the open road-side swales, which are prone to clogging by debris and eliminate ponding.
A plan was prepared for a main backbone drainage system, but there are plans in the immediate
future to implement the plan. All improvements to drainage infrastructure are developer driven and
funded.
No drainage needs were reported by the County for areas outside of the southwest portion of
the County. There are problems with occasional illegal dumping into the stormwater system;
however, the County reported that it was not significant. The County would like to expand
educational outreach efforts on the stormwater system, but is constrained by financing limitations.
819 CVRWQCB, 2002, p. II-6.00.
820 County of Yuba, Stormwater Management, 2008.
821 Interview with Van Boeck, Engineer, County of Yuba, March 12, 2008.
822 Interview with Paul Brunner, Executive Director, TRLIA, October 29, 2007.
A-520 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES
Nature and Extent
County-owned public parks are maintained and operated by County public works staff. The
County does not provide recreation services. The County is considering a regional agency to
provide recreation services, according to the Parks Master Plan.
Location
Park services are provided at eight sites countywide. All parks and sport facilities are available for
use by residents and non-residents without fees. Non-county owned parks, located in
unincorporated areas of the County, include nine parks (totaling 18.4 acres) that are owned and
maintained by Olivehurst Public Utility District.
Infrastructure
The County’s park infrastructure includes seven local parks and one regional park facility
(Hammon Grove Park). There are no golf courses or community centers owned by the County.
Each County-owned park provides various recreation facilities. Sports facilities such as
basketball, baseball and tennis courts are available at Friendship Park, Ponderosa Park and POW-
MIA Park. Fernwood Park has a children’s playground and picnic tables, and Hammon Grove Park
has fishing, hiking, horseshoe pits, barbeques, and stage facilities. Purple Heart Park provides
walking trails, and Shad Pad and Star Bend Boat Launch have river access.
The County identified a need for additional park equipment in existing county parks, including
tables, benches, water fountains, and other equipment. There is also a need for improved security to
prevent ongoing vandalism. The Yuba County Parks Master Plan identifies various infrastructure
needs including the development of a new regional park and numerous local parks and
improvements to existing facilities.
The County is currently planning three new parks in the East Linda Specific Plan area, including
a five-acre school site with a park. In the Spring Valley Specific Plan area, the County is planning a
town center park, an equestrian center, and two additional community parks. Yuba County
government will take on the operations and maintenance of the parks developed under specific
plans.
The County’s Park Master Plan identifies at need for a large regional park (50 or more acres) in
the southern portion of the County. In addition, the Plan recommends an extensive regional trail
network across the County. All recommended County and regional efforts in the Plan were
estimated to cost between $23.8 and $29.8 million.823
823 Yuba County, Parks Master Plan, 2008, pp. 65-66.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-521
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Community input during the General Plan Update Town Hall Forums emphasized the need for
more parks and publicly accessible open spaces, especially those with access to rivers and lakes.824
The County reports it is considering forming a regional park and recreation authority focused on
regional-scale park and recreation projects within Yuba County. Control of existing regional parks
would be turned over to the regional authority for continued maintenance and management of these
facilities. The development of new facilities would be handled through the authority.
824 Yuba County General Plan Update Background Report, Land Use, 2008.
A-522 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
Table A-43-15: County Park Service Profile
Park and Recreation Service Configuration
Service Configuration
Park Maintenance Direct Local Parks 7
Recreation None Regional Parks 1
Senior Centers None Golf Courses None
Service Demand
Park Frequent Visitor Population1 Park Visitors per Year Not tracked
Children 14,160 Annual Recreation Participant Hours 0
Seniors 4,842
Service Adequacy
Developed Park Acres per Thousand2 2.9 Recreation Center Hours per Week 0
Park Maintenance FTE3 1 Recreation FTE per 1,000 Residents 0
Recreation FTE 0 Maintenance Cost per Acre FY 05-06 $339
Service Challenges
Lack of funding for necessary maintenance activities.
Park Planning Year Planning Horizon
Park Master Plan 2008 2030
General Plan 1996 2016
General Financing Approach
Maintenance is provided through general fund revenues. New facilities are financed through development impact
fees.
Developer Fees and Requirements
Development Impact Fee Approach Development impact fees are levied by the County for residential and non-
residential construction. The distribution to the park fund is equal to
2.84% of the total facility impact fee for the given classification. There
may be additional impact fees if the development is located within a
specific plan area.
Fee - Residential (per unit) Single-Family $74.21 Multi-Family $69.26
Fee - Non-residential (per acre) Retail4 $49.36 Office5 $116.00
Industrial6 $49.36
Land Dedication Requirement 5 acres per 1,000 people.
In-Lieu Fees The fee is based on an average of .005 acres of parkland per resident
multiplied by the average occupancy of a dwelling unit, the fair market
value per dwelling unit, and the number of dwelling units, plus 20 percent.
Notes:
(1) From 2000 Census, children are age 18 and under, senior residents are age 65 and over.
(2) Developed acres of County-owned parks per 1,000 residents based on 2000 census. For the purpose of this calculation, four acres of
developed parkland were used for both Friendship Park and Fernwood Park, and two acres were used for Purple Heart Park.
(3) County road maintenance workers dedicate 10 to 20 hours per week to mowing the lawns. A seasonal employee works 10 to 20 hours a week.
(4) Based on the County impact fee park fund distribution for the "commercial strip retail" classification.
(5) Based on the County impact fee park fund distribution for the "commercial office" classification.
(6) Based on the County impact fee park fund distribution for the "light industry" classification.
Continued
BY BURR CONSULTING A-523
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Park and Recreation Facilities
Park Acreage
Total 150.9 Developed Parks 124
Local Parks 107.3 Regional Parks 43.6
Recreation Facilities and Parks1
Name Location Condition Year Built Acres
Fernwood Park (East Linda Park) 5871 Grove Ave. Fair NP 7.7
Friendship Park (West Linda Park) 5660 Alicia Ave. Fair NP 22.2
Ponderosa Park 17103 Ponderosa Way, Brownsville Good NP 37.6
POW-MIA Park Edgewater Circle at Oakwood Dr. Excellent 2007 7.8
Purple Heart Park West Side of Rupert Ave. Good 2007 6.8
Shad Pad Shad Road Fair NP 16.0
Star Bend Boat Launch 2034 Feather River Blvd. Fair NP 9.2
Hammon Grove Park (Regional) 5560 Hwy 20 Excellent NP 43.6
Facility Needs/Deficiencies
The County identified a need for additional park equipment including tables, benches, water fountains, and
other equipment. There is also a need for improved security to prevent vandalism, an additional regional park,
and various local parks.
Facility Sharing
The County is not currently sharing facilities with other agencies but has considered forming a regional park
authority specifically focused on the park and recreation needs of Yuba County residents and visitors.
Note:
(1) Park facilities and acreages are based on the 2008 Draft Parks Master Plan.
A-524 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
LIBRARY SERVICES
Nature and Extent
The County provides library services from its main facility located in Marysville; there are no
branch libraries. Services provided by the library include public access to books and other print,
video and audio materials as well as various electronic resources and databases, inter-library loans,
children’s programs, literacy programs, and research assistance. The library also offers 28 computers
for public use.
Yuba County operates a bookmobile Monday through Thursday. It has a rotating schedule to
serve Wheatland, Olivehurst, Linda, and the rural foothill communities, such as Browns Valley and
Loma Rica, providing three hours of service weekly in each area. The bookmobile also provides one
wireless computer used to help patrons, but is not for patron use. Wireless access is possible
everywhere except Oregon House/Dobbins and Challenge bookmobile stops.
Location
The Yuba County Library’s service area includes all of Yuba County. The County does not
directly provide library service outside its bounds, although all California residents and people
serving in the Armed Forces stationed within Yuba County are allowed to use library services and
apply for library cards free of charge.
Infrastructure
The County’s infrastructure includes one library facility and one bookmobile. The library facility
is a single-story 23,990 square-foot masonry building, with an adjacent parking facility. The location
covers nearly an entire city block in downtown Marysville.
The Yuba County Library has been awarded a $130,000 grant from the State, funded federally
through the Library Services and Technology Act Grant Program, to beta test an automatic library
machine. The machine, to be located in the Wheatland Community Center, is a fully-functional
stand-alone library branch, with a storage capacity of up to 500 books. Patrons use their standard
library card to check out and return books, with the transactions automatically registered in the
central library computer system. The machine is scheduled to be installed and functioning by
summer 2008.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-525
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Table A-43-16: County Library Service Profile
Library Service Configuration, Demand, and Adequacy
Service Configuration
Library Operations Provider Direct Number of Libraries 1
Library Facilities Provider Direct Number of Bookmobiles 1
Facilities Name Location Condition Year Built
John Packard Library 303 2nd St., Marysville, CA 95901 Fair 1977
Bookmobile Schedule Varies Good 2001
Service Demand Materials
Borrowers 22,661 Book Volumes 128,000
Total Annual Circulation 128,999 Audio 3,000
Circulation/1,000 residents 1,843 Video 4,000
Attendance/1,000 residents 1,714 Periodicals 115
Service Adequacy, FY 06-07
Average Weekly Hours/Branch 40 Population per Librarian FTE 35,000
Book Volumes Per Capita 2.04 Circulation per FTE 12,899
Expenditures per Capita $10.02
Planning Year Planning Horizon
General Plan 1996 2016
Library Master Plan None NA
Capital Improvement Plan None NA
Service Challenges
The service provider faces challenges in providing an adequate service level in outlying areas due to financing
constraints and lack of facilities. Limited operational and capital financing resources are available. Countywide
service is currently provided by a single branch and one bookmobile; the bookmobile provides three hours of
service weekly in each outlying area.
Infrastructure Needs/Deficiencies
1) Library facilities and a greater service level are needed throughout the County, including in Plumas Lake
Wheatland and the foothill communities. Various options for enhancing service levels in these areas, including
new branches, enhanced bookmobile service, or new technology will depend on patterns of urbanization.
2) Infrastructure needs include new carpet, paint, landscaping, repair or replacement of irrigation systems, and
parking lot controls to prevent cars from driving onto the landscaped area. The main library facility needs
electrical improvements to accommodate additional computer resources for library patrons.
3) The bookmobile is a 2001 vehicle, and its repair needs are expected to increase in the future.
Facility Sharing
The library uses a database application in conjunction with Yuba College to track and maintain library resource
inventory. The Yuba County Library is a member of the Mountain-Valley Library System that provides inter-
library sharing. There are facility sharing opportunities related to development of new facilities jointly with
school districts. For example, there may be an opportunity to develop a joint use facility in the Plumas Lake area
with Marysville USD.
A-526 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
DRY CREEK MUTUAL WATER CO.
AGENCY OVERVIEW
Dry Creek Mutual Water Company (DCMWC) provides retail water for agricultural irrigation
purposes to 8.2 square miles to the southwest of SR 65 and the City of Wheatland.
The area was originally part of the Wheatland Water District, but landowners detached from the
District and formed DCMWC in 1991 as a member unit of the Yuba County Water Agency
(YCWA). In 1996, the Company signed a water service agreement with YCWA to receive a base
supply of 13,682 af of surface water annually from the Yuba River.825 YCWA conveys the water to
the Company through The South Yuba Canal, also called the Main Canal, to just north of the
Company’s service area.
NATURE AND EXTENT
The Company provides surface water to irrigation customers in the service area. Irrigation water
is used primarily for walnut orchards south of Dry Creek and pasture and rice crops north of Dry
Creek.
The Company’s annual water supply through its contract with YCWA is 16,743 af, of which
13,682 af is the base amount and the remainder is supplemental supply. DCMWC estimates that it
uses up to 14,000 af of water annually, and occasionally sells the unused portion. The Company
reports that groundwater is used for domestic purposes within its service area.
Water rates are determined based on acres cultivated, crop and facility type used. Water demand
per acre depends upon the crop being cultivated. Walnut orchards use on average three acre-feet
per acre per year, while rice requires approximately five acre-feet per acre, according to the
Company.
DCMWC participates in various regional plans, including the Yuba County Integrated Water
Management Plan, the Lower Yuba River Accord and the Yuba Groundwater Management Plan.
The Company has signed a conjunctive use agreement with YCWA as part of the Lower Yuba River
Accord.
LOCATION
The Company’s service area generally encompasses the area west from the Wheatland City
boundaries, Oakley Lane and SR 65 to Forty Mile Road and Dry Creek and from Morrison Road in
the north to the Bear River in the south, including a small area of Sutter County between the Yuba-
Sutter county line and the Bear River. The Company does not provide services outside of this area.
825 The base annual contractual supply of surface water is 13,682 af, with a supplemental supply of 3,061 af. The supplemental supply
is subject to availability after YCWA considers water needs for storage, environmental purposes, regulatory requirements, and prudent
operation.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-527
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Approximately 3,379 of the 5,223 acres in the boundary area purchased surface water, as of early
2008.826
INFRASTRUCTURE
Key infrastructure maintained by the Company includes a distribution system that was
constructed between 1996 and 1998. The system consists of one pumping plant on Sorreno Lane
and pipeline and earthen irrigation ditches. As the system was constructed within the last ten years,
it is in good condition. The system was completed and became fully operational in FY 02-03.
YCWA funded the water distribution system; half of the capital costs related to the YCWA South
Yuba Canal were granted by YCWA and the remainder loaned. The Company’s debt with YCWA
was $1.9 million at the end of FY 05-06.
HALLWOOD IRRIGATION COMPANY
Hallwood Irrigation Company (HIC) delivers irrigation water to approximately 115 agricultural
users in the community of Hallwood northeast of the City of Marysville.
NATURE AND EXTENT
The Company diverts Yuba River surface water, and delivers it to farmers in the area for
irrigation and rice decomposition. The Company’s service area covers approximately 12,000 acres
with rice and pasture in the northern portion of the territory, alfalfa and wheat in the south, and
orchards (walnuts, peaches, prunes, kiwis, almonds, cherries, and pluots) along the Yuba River.827
In 2005, 50,466 af of surface water from the Yuba River was diverted for use by the Company.
Operations are seasonal with most usage occurring between May and September. Significant
changes in water demand are not anticipated in the coming years.
HIC participates in various regional plans, including the Yuba County Integrated Water
Management Plan, the Lower Yuba River Accord and the Yuba Groundwater Management Plan.
The Company has signed a conjunctive use agreement with YCWA as part of the Lower Yuba River
Accord.
LOCATION
HIC delivers irrigation water to agricultural users in the community of Hallwood. The
Company’s service area generally encompasses the area east of the Western Pacific Railroad, from
the Marysville city limits north to approximately Woodruff Lane. HIC provides water outside of its
service area to approximately 70 acres adjacent to the Company’s service area but within Cordua
826 Areas not presently purchasing surface water include 1,294 acres scattered throughout the boundary area, as depicted in the
Company’s contract with YCWA, Exhibit A. In addition, there are 550 acres presently using groundwater, as reported by Jack Gilbert
of DCMWC on May 19, 2008.
827 YCWA, Draft IRWMP, 2008, p. 2-9.
A-528 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
Irrigation District’s (CID) boundaries. The Company reported that due to infrastructure
configuration and water flow it is easier for HIC to provide water to the area than for CID to
provide service there.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Key infrastructure includes approximately 30 to 40 miles of gravity flow earthen distribution
canals and ditches.
HIC diverts water from the Yuba River through the Hallwood-Cordua Canal (North Canal),
located on the north abutment of Daguerre Point Dam. The canal flows through the HIC service
area into the Cordua Irrigation District bounds and terminates within the Ramirez Water District
bounds.
The Company holds pre-1914 appropriative water rights to divert 150 cfs from the Yuba River
and a post-1914 appropriative water right to divert 100 cfs. In a 1971 settlement agreement with
YCWA, HIC agreed to receive a base water allocation of 78,000 af a year from the Yuba River
through the diversion point at Daguerre Point Dam.828 The District is limited to diversions from
April through October and may divert up to 275 cfs.
The Company jointly maintains a fish screen at the Yuba River diversion point with Cordua
Irrigation District. The fish screen was replaced in 2001 at a cost of $360,000. HIC contributes
approximately 45 percent of maintenance costs annually depending on water usage during the year.
The Company identified challenges maintaining the fish screen up to Department of Fish and Game
standards.
PLUMAS MUTUAL WATER COMPANY
Plumas Mutual Water Company delivers irrigation water to four agricultural users in the central
portion of the Plumas Lake specific plan area. The boundary area extends south to the Bear River,
east to Algodon Slough, north to the vicinity of Plumas Arboga Road, and west to the Feather
River.829
NATURE AND EXTENT
The Company diverts Feather River surface water, and delivers it to irrigation users in the area.
In 2004, 7,355 af of surface water were delivered to the Company.830 Usage was historically about
10,000 af. A rice farm was subdivided in 2003, with water demand declining to approximately 7,500
af, as of early 2008. The developer installed a groundwater well to serve 3-4 of the Company’s
828 YCWA, Draft IRWMP, 2008, p. 2-9.
829 Agreement between California Department of Water Resources and Plumas Mutual Water Company, May 28, 1971, Exhibit A.
830 California Department of Water Resources, Management of the California State Water Project: Bulletin 132-05, December 2006, Table 9-
4.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-529
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
customers in that area. Operations are seasonal with most usage occurring between May and
September. There are four ranches served, all are orchards. The Company does not anticipate
subdivision of the orchards or significant changes in water demand in the coming years.
LOCATION
Plumas Mutual Water Company delivers irrigation water to agricultural users in the Plumas Lake
area. The Company reported that about 2,500 acres were receiving surface water, as of early 2008.
The Company’s service area in Yuba County overlaps the OPUD service area, where OPUD
delivers municipal water.
The Company does not presently transfer water to other users.831 Its 1971 contract with the
State precludes water transfers outside its service area without State consent.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Key infrastructure includes a pump station and irrigation piping. Plumas Mutual Water
Company diverts water from the Feather River downstream of the confluence of the Yuba and
Feather rivers.832 The Company pumps into a canal that feeds into Clark Slough, and from there
pumps to the four ranches.833
The Company holds post-1914 appropriative water rights to 14,000 af of Feather River surface
water, which is transported through State Water Project facilities.834 The water rights may be used
between April and October for irrigation purposes. DWR has contractual obligations to serve
Feather River water to the Company, along with other water districts, as a result of settlement
agreements stemming from the construction of Oroville facilities.835
Some of the company’s piping infrastructure is being relocated as part of the levee improvement
project conducted by Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority in 2007 and 2008. Phase 4 of the
levee project includes removing and reconstructing Plumas Mutual Water Company water pipelines,
including removal of abandoned pipelines of the company along Segment 1 of the project.
831 Interview with PWMC representative Dick Onyett, May 19, 2008.
832 Proposed Lower Yuba River Accord Draft EIR/EIS, June 2007, p. 5-5.
833 Interview with Dick Onyett, Plumas Mutual Water Company, November 2007
834 Agreement between California Department of Water Resources and Plumas Mutual Water Company, May 28, 1971.
835 DWR, Draft Environmental Impact Report: Oroville Facilities Relicensing-FERC Project No. 2100, May 2007, p. 3.2-8.
A-530 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
The Regional Waste Management Authority (RWMA) was formed to jointly address the
provision of waste management services in the Counties of Yuba and Sutter. The Authority is an
agreement between Yuba City, Live Oak, Marysville, and Wheatland along with Yuba and Sutter
Counties. In 1994, the City of Gridley, located in Butte County, also joined the Regional Waste
Management Authority, but opted out in 2001 to join a different waste management system.836
The RWMA is governed by a six-member Board of Directors. Directors are appointed from the
two counties’ boards of supervisors and the city councils in Live Oak, Marysville, Wheatland and
Yuba City.
Solid waste management in Yuba and Sutter Counties is conducted under Federal and State
regulations enforced and implemented by the California Integrated Waste Management Board
(CIWMB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).837
NATURE AND EXTENT
The RWMA jointly addresses the provision of waste management services for all six jurisdictions
in the Counties of Yuba and Sutter. 838 Each of the six jurisdictions individually contracts with Yuba-
Sutter Disposal, Inc. for residential, commercial and debris box collection, recycling and disposal
services. The RWMA is the owner and operator of the Yuba-Sutter Household Hazardous Waste
Facility in Yuba City which serves all of the RWMA member jurisdictions. Yuba-Sutter Disposal,
Inc. is the contract operator of this facility.
In 2004, waste generation in the Counties of Yuba and Sutter was comprised of 43 percent
residential and 57 percent non-residential.839
LOCATION
The RWMA serves all of the cities and unincorporated areas in Yuba and Sutter Counties.
INFRASTRUCTURE
There are a total of five active, public-accessible solid waste facilities in the RWMA: two are
transfer and processing facilities, one is a disposal facilities (a landfill), and two are composting
836 Sutter County General Plan, 1993.
837 Ibid.
838 Ibid.
839 CIWMB, “Jurisdiction Profile for Yuba-Sutter Regional Waste Management Authority,” 2007.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-531
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
facilities. There are no existing permitted solid waste facilities in the cities of Live Oak, Wheatland,
Yuba City, or throughout the unincorporated area of Sutter County.840
The Ostrom Road Landfill, located in the City of Wheatland, opened in 1995. The current
owner/operator is Norcal Waste Systems Ostrom Road LF, Inc. Its maximum permitted throughput
is 3,000 tons per day, and its disposal acreage is 225 acres. Ostrom Road landfill’s estimated closure
date is December 31, 2066.841 The landfill provides disposal services to municipal and commercial
customers in Yuba (including Beale Air Force Base), Sutter, Butte, Nevada, and Colusa Counties. It
is allowed to accept the following types of waste: municipal solid waste, waste water treatment
sludge, construction and demolition debris, green waste and food waste, contaminated soils, non-
friable asbestos and other designated wastes approved by specified acceptance criteria.842
U.S. FOREST SERVICE
The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) provides fire prevention, fire suppression, public open space,
and recreation programming within national forest land in Yuba County.
NATURE AND EXTENT
USFS manages public lands in national forests and grasslands across the Country. It was
established in 1905 as an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The USFS’ mission is “to
sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the
needs of present and future generations.”
The Tahoe and Plumas National Forests reach into Yuba County, together covering over 56,000
acres in the County.843 Plumas National Forest covers 1.1 million acres, including land within Butte,
Lassen, Sierra, Yuba, and Plumas counties. Lassen and Tahoe National Forests border Plumas
National Forest on the north and south, respectively. The forest is open year-round. Activities in
the forest include hiking, fishing, hunting, camping, boating and white-water rafting. Fee
campgrounds are open from April through October; there are 46 developed campgrounds in the
forest. Those at higher elevations open in mid- to late-May. Winter activities include snowmobiling
and skiing.
Tahoe National Forest is just south of Plumas National Forest. This forest covers 832,511 acres
across multiple counties. Activities include camping, hiking, snowmobiling, biking, canoeing,
hunting, and fishing. There are about 67 developed campgrounds in this forest.
USFS provides water and sewer services to select campground areas.
840 Sutter County General Plan, 1993.
841 Ibid.
842 Norcal Waste Systems Ostrom Road Landfill, Inc., 2007.
843 Yuba County General Plan Public Services and Utilities Element, 1994, p. 13-19.
A-532 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
LOCATION
Both national forests extend into the northeast portion of the County.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Plumas National Forest is divided into three ranger districts: Mt Hough, Feather River, and
Beckwourth. Ranger stations are located in the cities of Blairsden, Oroville and Quincy,
respectively. The Plumas Forest Headquarters is located in the City of Quincy.
Tahoe National Forest is divided into four ranger districts, which are located in Truckee,
Foresthill, Sierraville, and Camptonville. The headquarters is located in Nevada City.
YUBA-SUTTER DISPOSAL INC.
Yuba-Sutter Disposal, Inc. (YSDI) provides long-term waste management services in Yuba and
Sutter Counties.844
NATURE AND EXTENT
YSDI provides recycling, yard waste and garbage collection in the counties of Yuba and Sutter.
Recycling and collection programs are tailored to the needs of the community.845
YSDI serves over 30,000 residential customers and 5,000 commercial customers, and collects
more than 100,000 tons of materials a year, according to the company.
LOCATION
YSDI provides recycling, yard waste and garbage collection services to the cities of Live Oak,
Marysville, Wheatland, Knights Landing, and Yuba City, Beale Air Force Base, and Yuba and Sutter
Counties.846
INFRASTRUCTURE
YSDI operates a material recovery facility (MRF) that extracts recyclables from the waste stream,
a transfer station, a household hazardous waste collection facility, a buy-back center, and a
composting facility.847 The MRF is a large-volume transfer/processing facility in the City of
Marysville. The permitted waste types at the MRF are: construction/demolition, mixed municipal,
844 Yuba-Sutter Disposal Inc., 2007.
845 Ibid.
846 Ibid.
847 Ibid.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-533
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
tires, green materials, and wood waste. The maximum permitted throughput is 1,080 tons per day.848
The MRF and transfer station are part of the same facility, located on seven acres of land.
YSDI owns and operates an additional transfer station, the Ponderosa Transfer Station. This
second facility is a medium-volume transfer/processing facility located in Brownsville. It is open to
the public three days per week. Its maximum permitted through-put is 60 tons per day. It covers
one acre
The Yuba-Sutter Household Hazardous Waste collection facility, located in Yuba City, is
available only for Yuba and Sutter County residents. It accepts such waste types as cleaning
products, batteries, medicines, oils, and other flammable, poisonous, and toxic materials.849
Electronic waste can be dropped off at the YSDI Transfer Station in Marysville, and at the
Household Hazardous Waste collection facility in Yuba City.850 Conditionally Exempt Small
Quantity Generators of hazardous waste (non-households) are also served at the Household
Hazardous Waste Facility by appointment.
YSDI Greenwaste Composting is a green waste composting facility located in the City of
Marysville. It accepts green materials, and has a maximum permitted throughput of 400 tons per
day. The facility occupies 15 acres of land.851
YUBA-SUTTER TRANSIT
Yuba-Sutter Transit (YST) is a Joint Powers Authority that provides public transit services. It
was formed by Yuba and Sutter Counties and the City of Marysville and Yuba City in 1975. The
Authority is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of two elected representatives from each
of the four member entities (Yuba City, Marysville, Linda, and Olivehurst).852
NATURE AND EXTENT
YST provides bus transportation services. In FY 07, 56 percent of the operation was expected to
be provided as urban fixed route service and 28 percent as urban Dial-A-Ride service.853
In FY 07, the Transit Authority expected to operate for approximately 6,250 hours each month,
which would be a 10 percent increase from FY 02. Ridership has increased 27 percent over the same
time period.854
848 CIWMB, “SWIS Database,” 2007.
849 Ibid.
850 Yuba-Sutter Disposal Inc., 2007.
851 CIWMB, “SWIS Database,” 2007.
852 Yuba-Sutter Transit, Annual Board Report, FY 07, 2007.
853 Ibid.
A-534 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
NON-LAFCO AGENCIES
LOCATION
Operations in Yuba County include four local routes, two regional routes and two rural routes.
Local routes consist of a Yuba City to Yuba College route, an Olivehurst to Yuba College route, a
Marysville loop, and a Linda shuttle. The regional routes include service to Sacramento as part of a
commuter and midday express service from Marysville and Linda. Rural routes serve the foothill
communities of Challenge, Brownsville and Dobbins providing roundtrip service from Marysville on
Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, and the City of Wheatland to Linda and Marysville on
Tuesdays and Thursdays. Five scheduled stops are made in the City of Wheatland as part of the
rural service; other stops, or service to the foothill communities, are provided by advance
reservation.855
INFRASTRUCTURE
Currently Yuba-Sutter Transit has a fleet of 40 buses that range in capacity from 14 to 45
passengers.856
SERVICE FINANCING
The operating budget for Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority in FY 07 was $3,993,100 with 27
percent of the budget coming from the Federal Transit Administration, 49 percent from state and
regional agencies under the Transportation Development Act, 21 percent from fares, and three
percent miscellaneous income from leases, special grants, interest, advertising, and contract service
payments. Funding for major expenditures such as facilities and buses are received on a matching
basis from federal (80 percent) and local sources (20 percent).857
854 Ibid.
855 Yuba-Sutter Transit, Agency Website, 2007.
856 Yuba-Sutter Transit, Annual Board Report, FY 07, 2007.
857 Yuba-Sutter Transit, “Annual Board Report, FY 07,” 2007.
BY BURR CONSULTING A-535
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
44. D E V E L O P M E N T B Y AG E N C Y
Table A-44-1 provides a listing of development projects that were actively proposed or planned
during the course of the MSR study (i.e., in 2007 or 2008). This list illustrates the approximate
extent and location of possible future growth in the coming years, and should not be interpreted as
definitive. During the course of the MSR study, there was a significant slowdown in the housing
market; as a result, some of the potential developments were in a state of dormancy by the time the
MSR was published. Many of the potential developments have not been approved by the
respective land use authority.
Table A-44-1: Yuba County Development Projects
Total Non-
Dwelling Residential
Development Developer Agency1 Acres Units Acres2
15 E 12th Street Larjer Inc. City of Marysville 0.5 12 0.0
325 A Street Jack Munds City of Marysville 0.2 6 0.0
Almond Estates K. Hovnanian Homes City of Wheatland 42.9 169 0.0
Reclamation District 2103
Wheatland Cemetery District
Alpha Group Alpha Group Olivehurst Public Utilities District 4.0 19 NR
Alvarado Estates KOA Ventures Olivehurst Public Utilities District 2.8 11 NR
Beale Estates Kelly Bumpus CSA 52 14.8 59 NR
Linda County Water District
Linda Fire Protection District
Bear River Gerry N. Kamilos Linda Fire Protection District 549.9 2,123 31.1
Reclamation District 784
Bishop Ranch Concept Studios CSA 66 80.0 255 0.0
Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Reclamation District 784
Blue Gravel Blue Mountain Land CSA 66 8.7 35 NR
Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Blue Mountain Land Blue Mountain Land CSA 66 10.0 44 NR
Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Butte View Townhouses William & Toni Vance Olivehurst Public Utilities District 2.2 20 NR
Chippewa RAH Development Brophy Water District 368.0 1,398 0.0
Plumas Brophy FPD
Wheatland Cemetery District
Cobblestone KB Homes CSA 66 535.0 1,973 NR
Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Reclamation District 784
College View NP CSA 67 9.2 71 NR
Linda County Water District
Linda Fire Protection District
Country Club Estates JTS Communities CSA 66 577.1 1,681 2.4
Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Reclamation District 784
Country Club Townhomes DRC Builders Linda County Water District 1.7 42 NR
Linda Fire Protection District
Creekside Village Cresleigh Homes CSA 66 44.9 159 NR
Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Reclamation District 784
A-536 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
DEVELOPMENT BY AGENCY
Total Non-
Dwelling Residential
Development Developer Agency1 Acres Units Acres2
Dantoni Ranch Estates Reynen & Bardis CSA 52 44.4 183 NR
Linda County Water District
Linda Fire Protection District
Draper Ranch Draper Ranch Development CSA 66 63.6 565 NR
Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Reclamation District 784
Draper Ranch South Draper Ranch Development CSA 66 150.1 444 0.0
Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Reclamation District 784
Eagle Meadows I Eagle Meadows Development City of Wheatland SOI 130.3 737 0.0
Plumas Brophy FPD
Reclamation District 2103
Wheatland Cemetery District
Eagle Meadows II & III Eagle Meadows Development City of Wheatland SOI 299.2 1,632 10.0
Plumas Brophy FPD
Reclamation District 2103
Wheatland Cemetery District
Eagle Meadows at The Orchard Eagle Meadows Development CSA 52 17.5 79 NR
Linda County Water District
Linda Fire Protection District
Eastside Ranch Estates David W. Lanza CSA 52 61.4 184 NR
Linda County Water District
Linda Fire Protection District
Edgewater Reynen & Bardis CSA 52 389.7 1,358 NR
Linda County Water District
Linda Fire Protection District
Reclamation District 784
Enterprise Rancheria Casino Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe Plumas Brophy FPD 40.0 NA 40.0
South Yuba Water District
Wheatland Cemetery District
Excelsior Klein Robinson Smartville Cemetery District 880.0 70 11.0
Smartville Fire Protection District
Fairway North Aldora Enterprises CSA 66 58.0 236 0.0
Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Reclamation District 784
Fairway West Aldora Enterprises CSA 66 22.4 44 NR
Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Reclamation District 784
Farrell Way Townhomes Dustin Jinks Linda County Water District 1.4 23 NR
Linda Fire Protection District
Feather Creek Sage Communities Plumas Brophy FPD 701.0 2,945 2.0
South Yuba Water District
Wheatland Cemetery District
Feather Glen Crossroad Homes CSA 66 36.0 141 NR
Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Reclamation District 784
Feather Glen 2 Ward Farms CSA 66 91.8 383 NR
Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Reclamation District 784
Feather River Estates NP CSA 66 75.0 365 0.0
Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Reclamation District 784
Franks James & Esther Franks CSA 66 10.8 38 NR
Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Reclamation District 784
Griffith Avenue Griffith Development CSA 52 7.3 22 NR
Linda County Water District
Linda Fire Protection District
BY BURR CONSULTING A-537
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Total Non-
Dwelling Residential
Development Developer Agency1 Acres Units Acres2
Hansen Ranch Estates Larry Ellis CSA 66 13.0 66 NR
Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Hawes Ranch KB Home North Bay CSA 66 37.7 183 NR
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Heritage Oaks Estates-East Premier Homes City of Wheatland 176.1 604 19.1
Reclamation District 2103
Wheatland Cemetery District
Heritage Oaks Estates-West Devalentine Family Partnership City of Wheatland 59.7 174 NP
Reclamation District 2103
Wheatland Cemetery District
Jensen Ranch Perfect Solution CSA 66 10.3 44 NR
Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Jim Raney Jim Raney City of Wheatland SOI 74.0 444 NP
Plumas Brophy FPD
Reclamation District 817
Wheatland Cemetery District
Jim Raney Jim Raney City of Wheatland SOI 16.9 85 NP
Plumas Brophy FPD
Reclamation District 2103
Wheatland Cemetery District
Johnson Rancho AKT/RiverWest Camp Far West Irrigation District 3,371.0 9,200 300.0
City of Wheatland SOI
Plumas Brophy FPD
Reclamation District 2103
Wheatland Cemetery District
Wheatland Water District
Jones Ranch Lakemont Communities City of Wheatland 190.8 552 2.5
Reclamation District 817
Reclamation District 2103
Wheatland Cemetery District
Koehler Wilmar J. Koehler, Jr. Linda County Water District 1.2 12 NR
Linda Fire Protection District
Kumar Alka & Lucy Kumar Linda County Water District 2.4 11 NR
Linda Fire Protection District
Landmark-Dale Landmark Development City of Wheatland SOI 57.7 390 NP
Plumas Brophy FPD
Reclamation District 2103
Wheatland Cemetery District
Magnolia Ranch Montna Farms Plumas Brophy FPD 1,028.0 5,001 219.8
Wheatland Cemetery District
Wheatland Water District
Maple Estates Townhouses Byron Maples Olivehurst Public Utilities District 2.0 27 NR
Marysville Hotel Feather River Plaza LLC City of Marysville 0.4 70 0.0
Meadows Gilbert Retail Holdings LLC CSA 66 124.6 383 NR
Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Reclamation District 784
Montrose Woodside Homes CSA 52 108.1 209 NR
Linda County Water District
Linda Fire Protection District
Nichols Grove Designer Properties City of Wheatland SOI 485.0 1,609 11.4
Plumas Brophy FPD
Reclamation District 2103
Wheatland Cemetery District
Wheatland Water District
A-538 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO
DEVELOPMENT BY AGENCY
Total Non-
Dwelling Residential
Development Developer Agency1 Acres Units Acres2
North Point Lennar Communities CSA 66 67.0 184 NR
Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Reclamation District 784
Palma D'Or Omar M. Khairi CSA 52 4.9 20 NR
Linda County Water District
Linda Fire Protection District
Pheasant Point Tejinder & Maninder Maan CSA 22 29.4 119 NR
CSA 66
Linda Fire Protection District
Reclamation District 784
Quail Valley Estates Foster Development Group North Yuba Water District 1,500.0 300 0.0
Loma Rica Browns Valley CSD
Peoria Cemetery District
Rideout Memorial Hospital Fremont-Rideout Health Group City of Marysville 5.0 NA 5.0
Rio Del Oro Beazer/US Home CSA 66 474.5 1,581 NR
Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Reclamation District 784
Rio Del Oro Phase 2 Gerry N. Kamilos CSA 66 143.7 317 NR
Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Reclamation District 784
River Glen KB Homes CSA 66 67.1 274 NR
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
River Oaks East Lennar Renaissance CSA 66 122.3 290 NR
Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Reclamation District 784
River Oaks North Lennar Renaissance CSA 66 42.1 107 NR
Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Reclamation District 784
River Oaks South Nelson Properties CSA 66 66.0 259 2.7
Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Reclamation District 784
Riverside Meadows California Homes Linda Fire Protection District 206.2 599 NR
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
CSA 66
Reclamation District 784
Roddan Ranch Weststar Land Holdings, LLC City of Wheatland SOI 98.7 377 0.0
Plumas Brophy FPD
Reclamation District 2103
Wheatland Cemetery District
Ross Ranch Armada LLC CSA 66 254.5 617 0.0
Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Reclamation District 784
Sawyer's Landing Robert B. DeValentine CSA 66 53.8 215 0.0
Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Reclamation District 784
Sierra Vista Nor-Cal Investments CSA 52 28.5 108 NR
Linda County Water District
Linda Fire Protection District
BY BURR CONSULTING A-539
YUBA COUNTY MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
Total Non-
Dwelling Residential
Development Developer Agency1 Acres Units Acres2
Spring Valley Axel Karlshoej Browns Valley Cemetery District 2,450.0 3,500 27.5
Browns Valley Irrigation District
Loma Rica Browns Valley CSD
Peoria Cemetery District
Staas NP CSA 52 19.3 76 NR
Linda County Water District
Linda Fire Protection District
Terra Linda Danna Investment Co. and Scott Linda Fire Protection District 450.0 1,787 24.5
Family Trust, et al. Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Reclamation District 784
The Greens (Plumas Lake Estates) Yuba Investors and Plumas Lake CSA 66 30.5 60 0.0
Joint Ventures Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Reclamation District 784
The Orchard JMC Homes CSA 52 129.7 527 17.5
Linda County Water District
Linda Fire Protection District
Thoroughbred Acres David W. Lanza CSA 66 110.6 445 0.0
Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Reclamation District 784
University Estates Tejinder & Maninder Maan CSA 52 10.9 49 NR
Linda County Water District
Linda Fire Protection District
Wheatland Hop Farm Premier Homes Camp Far West Irrigation District 132.0 700 NP
City of Wheatland SOI
Plumas Brophy FPD
Reclamation District 2103
Wheatland Cemetery District
Wheeler Ranch DR Horton, Forecast Homes and CSA 66 795.3 1,142 12.6
K. Hovnanian Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Reclamation District 784
Wheeler Ranch North Foothill Partners CSA 66 19.1 101 NR
Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Reclamation District 784
White Cedar Bellecci & Associates Linda County Water District 15.6 100 NR
Linda Fire Protection District
Reclamation District 784
Woodbury Reynen & Bardis Brophy Water District 1,633.0 6,321 217.6
Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Plumas Brophy FPD
Woodside Village Cresleigh Homes CSA 66 159.7 603 NR
Linda Fire Protection District
Olivehurst Public Utilities District
Reclamation District 784
Yuba County Office of Education City of Marysville 0.3 2 0.0
Yuba Highlands3 Gary Gallelli Smartville Fire Protection District 2,900.0 5,100 84.0
Notes:
(1) Developments with no city listed are located outside of city SOI areas. Agencies that span a majority of the County (YCWA, RCD, CSA 70, etc.) are not included.
(2) Non-residential acres exclude parks and open space.
(3) The Yuba Higlands development plan was voted down by Yuba County voters on 2/5/08. The developer has indicated that he intends to revise the development plan and continue to pursue
developing the area.
A-540 PREPARED FOR YUBA LAFCO