Nevada County Recreation and Parks Services Municipal Services Review

NEVADA COUNTY RECREATION AND PARKS SERVICES MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW

Prepared for:

NEVADA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION 950 Maidu Avenue Nevada City, CA 95959

Prepared by:

PACIFIC MUNICIPAL CONSULTANTS 10461 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110 Sacramento, CA 95827 Phone: 916.361.8384 Fax: 916.361.1574

April 2006

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LAFCo Resolution 06-04

Executive Summary ...... ES-1 Regional Determinations ...... ES-1 Selected Agency Determinations...... ES-4

I. Introduction...... 1-1 A) Purpose ...... I-1 B) Local Agency Formation Commission Responsibilities...... I-1 C) Nevada County LAFCo Policies and Procedures for Spheres of Influence...... I-2 D) Municipal Service Review Guidelines ...... I-2 E) Methodology ...... I-2 F) Service Providers, Resources, and Service Area Setting...... I-5 Figures Figure 1: Nevada County Boundaries Figure 2: Grass Valley and Nevada City Limits and Spheres of Influence Figure 3A: Recreation Resources, Southwestern Nevada County Figure 3B: Recreation Resources, Mid Nevada County Figure 3C: Recreation Resources, Eastern Nevada County Figure 4: Nevada County Benefit Zones and Recreation and Park Districts Figure 5: Nevada County Land Trust Projects Figure 6: Grass Valley Existing and Proposed Parks and Trails Figure 7: Nevada Irrigation District Boundaries

II. Bear River Recreation and Park District A) Existing and Future Needs...... II-1 Determinations – Existing and Future Needs/Infrastructure...... II-7 B) Financing and Rate Restructuring...... II-8 Determinations – Financing and Rate Restructuring...... II-13 C) Management and Governance ...... II-14 Determinations – Management and Governance ...... II-15

III. Western Gateway Recreation and Park District A) Existing and Future Needs...... III-1 Determinations – Existing and Future Needs/Infrastructure...... III-3 B) Financing and Rate Restructuring...... III-4 Determinations – Financing and Rate Restructuring...... III-7 C) Management and Governance ...... III-7 Determinations – Management and Governance ...... III-8

IV. Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District A) Existing and Future Needs...... IV-1 Determinations – Existing and Future Needs/Infrastructure...... IV-6 B) Financing and Rate Restructuring...... IV-7 Determinations – Financing and Rate Restructuring...... IV-10

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review i Table of Contents

C) Management and Governance ...... IV-11 Determinations – Management and Governance ...... IV-12

V. Nevada Irrigation District A) Existing and Future Needs...... V-1 Determinations – Existing and Future Needs/Infrastructure...... V-3 B) Financing and Rate Restructuring...... V-3 Determinations – Financing and Rate Restructuring...... V-5 C) Management and Governance ...... V-6 Determinations – Management and Governance...... V-9

VI. City of Nevada City A) Existing and Future Needs...... VI-1 Determinations – Existing and Future Needs/Infrastructure...... VI-4 B) Financing and Rate Restructuring...... VI-5 Determinations – Financing and Rate Restructuring...... VI-8 C) Management and Governance ...... VI-8 Determinations – Management and Governance ...... VI-9

VII. City of Grass Valley A) Existing and Future Needs...... VII-1 Determinations – Existing and Future Needs/Infrastructure...... VII-9 B) Financing and Rate Restructuring...... VII-10 Determinations – Financing and Rate Restructuring...... VII-16 C) Management and Governance ...... VII-18 Determinations – Management and Governance ...... VII-22

VIII. Tahoe National Forest and California State Parks

IX. Nevada County Land Trust

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of a Municipal Service Review is to assist the Local Agency Formation Commission in the determination of a logical, efficient, and effective sphere of influence for each local governmental agency within its jurisdiction. The sphere of influence represents the probable future boundaries and service areas for the agency in question. Service reviews are also intended to define options and perhaps lead to future studies which will promote more efficient service patterns, identify areas where service improvement is needed, and assess the adequacy of service provision in relation to spheres of influence. Service reviews are not intended to directly change how services are provided; they are a tool for comprehensive review of major services, the delivery of those services, any problems affecting their efficient provision, and potential actions LAFCo might take to address any issues. This Municipal Service Review evaluates the provision of recreation and park services in Nevada County by the following six service providers: 1. Bear River Recreation and Park District (BRRPD) 2. Western Gateway Recreation and Park District (WGRPD) 3. Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District (TDRPD) 4. Nevada Irrigation District (which permits limited recreational uses at District reservoirs) 5. City of Nevada City 6. City of Grass Valley Information is also provided regarding the park and recreation opportunities offered by the Nevada County Land Trust and Tahoe National Forest. Regional Determinations The determinations listed below concerning existing and future needs/infrastructure, financing, rate restructuring, management and governance apply chiefly on a regional basis. Since only Nevada County government functions on that scale and it has the ability to initiate the formation of local agencies that provide parks and recreation services, a substantial number of these determinations address issues and opportunities suitable for County action. Determinations – Existing and Future Needs/Infrastructure Service Area and Future Growth • Populations in less-developed areas of the County may not be receiving adequate recreational services and opportunities because of their distance from recreational facilities. The Twin Ridges Benefit Zone is currently served only by Nevada County. However, since Nevada County does not operate park facilities or provide parks and recreation services, the residents in this area are underserved. NOTE: Benefit zones are geographical areas within which development-related impact fees collected by Nevada County are distributed to support park and recreation services. The benefit zones are depicted in Figure 4. See the Introduction to this report for a more complete explanation of the County’s role in funding for parks and recreation services. • There are a number of Special Development Areas in the City of Grass Valley’s Planning Area which are proposed to be annexed to the City. As the City’s boundaries are extended to incorporate surrounding areas, the Grass Valley Park and Recreation Division’s service area will necessarily expand to serve the new developments.

• The population of western Nevada County will continue to grow, causing an increasing demand for parks and recreational facilities. (The relationship between projected growth and service area boundaries is discussed individually in each of the MSR sections.)

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review ES-1 Executive Summary

• Many of the residents of western Nevada County reside in areas that are not within a city or a recreation district. This population utilizes the recreational services and facilities of the two cities and of the Bear River and the Western Gateway recreation Districts. In recognition of this fact, the County distributes the Quimby fees collected in the unincorporated area to each city and district to fund capital improvement projects (which are listed on the County’s Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan). The cities and the County should continue to collaborate in this regard, and the plan should routinely be updated to include city and district projects.

Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies • The County of Nevada does not operate any recreation facilities and does not manage any recreation lands. (Although it holds title to the Western Gateway Park site in Penn Valley, that park is leased to and maintained by the Western Gateway Park District. Infrastructure needs for this facility are addressed in Section IV of this MSR.) • The County does not, as a matter of policy, own or operate any other parks or recreation facilities nor does it plan to do so in the future. Its role in the provision of such facilities and services is limited to - Collection and distribution of Quimby Act fees on new subdivision lots within unincorporated portions of the County. (Those fees are distributed to the cities, to existing park and recreation districts, to specific community recreation facilities, and to school districts within the County boundaries for enhanced recreational opportunities.) - Participation in the formation of new recreation and park districts under Government Code Sections 56000 et seq. • The Nevada County General Plan establishes minimal standards for parkland, and does not identify standards for specific improved recreation facilities (community centers, gymnasiums, assorted recreation facilities, or developed parkland vs. open space). Recreation planning for western Nevada County as a whole has not been undertaken to date, so very limited needs have been identified. It is recommended that a Master Recreation Plan be prepared for Western Nevada County that establishes specific standards for passive parkland/open space, developed parkland, and recreational facilities. The Master Recreation Plan should address future population projections; identify needs for parkland acreage, facilities, and staffing; evaluate revenues and expenses; provide a cost avoidance analysis; and determine whether projected revenues are adequate to fund planned improvements. The Master Recreation Plan should identify appropriate service providers (parks and recreation districts, cities, and the County) responsible for the identified needs. • Cumulatively, there are adequate parkland and recreational resources in the western County to meet the existing need of 276 acres and projected future need of 412 acres of developed parkland. • Tobiassen Field, a single baseball field, is located on County property adjacent to the Madelyn Helling Library in Nevada City. Maintenance of Tobiassen Field is shared. A local service group maintains the park and picnic area and persons on work release and under County supervision maintain the ball field. Determinations – Financing and Rate Restructuring Facilities Sharing • Schools throughout the western County provide facilities which are available for public use through Joint Powers Agreements with the County. Private recreational facilities

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 ES-2 Executive Summary

within the gated communities of Lake of the Pines and Lake Wildwood provide varied park and recreation uses for community residents and their guests. • Facilities sharing is discussed for each special district and city in their sections of this MSR. Financing Constraints and Opportunities • Fees are not currently collected for multi-family developments. The County should consider adjusting the development fee program to collect fees from such uses, even if at a lower level, as it is reasonable to suppose that occupants of both single-family and multi-family residences would use regional recreation resources. • While Bear River Recreation and Parks District and the City of Grass Valley both have planned improvements and park acreage needs that exceed their currently available funds, Nevada County has unexpended recreation funds. The County should allocate the funds in a manner that complies with the Ten-Year Capital Expenditure Plan and that addresses needs within the various districts and cities. The County should also coordinate with the cities and districts to update the Plan on an annual basis. Cost Avoidance Opportunities • Currently, the County collects Quimby Fees in the unincorporated area and passes them to the implementing districts and cities. This practice should be continued to provide services to all areas served by the County as it addresses the issue of demand for facilities resulting from population growth in the unincorporated County. • Nevada County maintains a very low debt ratio and repays its obligations in a timely fashion. Standard & Poors shows only one series of bonds issued with Nevada County as obligor. These bonds have a AAA/Stable, A-/Stable rating. Opportunities for Rate Restructuring • The recreation development impact fee was last updated in 1997. The County should revise the fee program to include an annual inflation factor; to include a component for developing plans and policies to implement the fee program; and to address park acreage and facility needs as identified by the individual districts and cities (see above regarding BRRPD and Grass Valley improvement and parkland needs), as well as needs identified by the County for the unincorporated areas. The fee update should also take into account improving and managing park and recreation lands that have been donated to the County. • The County fee program should be updated, once the Master Recreation Plan has been completed, to ensure that the fees collected are adequate to fund the identified needs, and to ensure distribution of the funds to the appropriate agency that will implement the identified needs. Determinations – Management and Governance Evaluation of Management Efficiencies • Currently, Nevada County’s planning for parks and recreation issues has been allocated to two staff planners; one oversees distribution of Quimby funds, while the other oversees Proposition 40 grant fund distribution. The staffing level appears to be appropriate for the level of service the County currently provides. If new recreation projects are assigned (e.g., if the County decides to initiate a new District formation proposal), it would be most efficient to carry them out using consultant services. An expanded level of recreation services would require designating or hiring a minimum of one staff person with parks and recreation planning experience to be responsible for implementing services on either a full-time or part-time basis, as needed.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review ES-3 Executive Summary

Local Accountability and Governance The statement of determination on local accountability and governance refers to public agency decision-making and operational and management processes. • Generally speaking, Nevada County local agencies hold their public meetings in accordance with the Brown Act and all laws governing public meetings; appropriately notify the public of their meetings; make plans, reports, and other documents available to the public; and discuss and act upon rate and fee increases in a public forum. • The agencies covered by this study did not comment regarding levels of public participation, accessibility of information or participation of service users in elections. Local agency accountability and governance is discussed individually in each of the MSR sections. Government Structure Options • Formation of a Joint Powers Authority or regional recreation service organization should be pursued to implement the Master Plan and to assist the individual cities and recreation and parks districts in coordinating provision of services. • As described in the Introduction to this MSR, on October 21, 2003, the Board of Super- visors directed that the Nisenan and San Juan Ridge Recreation and Park District proposals be submitted to the voters with a "special tax" provision concurrent with the General Election in November 2004. Both proposals failed. The voters rejected Measure J: Nisenan Recreation and Park District formation and Measure K: Nisenan Recreation and Park District Special Tax. Although voters did approve Measure N: San Juan Ridge Recreation and Park District Formation, they failed to approve the funding measure by the required 2/3 majority. Since the formation of the district was contingent upon approval of the special tax, the district was not formed. Nonetheless, formation of new recreation districts is consistent with the County’s General Plan and with the County’s philosophy. It is recommended that the County make a renewed attempt to work with committed members of each community to determine appropriate boundaries and a conceptual plan for providing services as well as identifying appropriate funding levels and sources before proceeding to LAFCo with a new formation proposal. Selected Agency Determinations Specific determinations for each of the service providers dealt with in this MSR are provided in the sections that pertain to them. However, a selection of agency determinations on particular issues is included below to emphasize their significance. BEAR RIVER RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT Determinations - Existing and Future Needs/Infrastructure Service Area and Future Growth • Any proposal for extension of BRRPD’s future boundaries should consider proximity to recreation facilities in the region, as remote areas (such as the McCourtney Road/Perimeter Road area and the Dog Bar Road area) may be more logically served by other agencies. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies • BRRPD currently has a deficit of 68 acres of parkland and projects a shortage of 113 acres by 2020.

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 ES-4 Executive Summary

• Planned facility improvements in the BRRPD Master Plan appear adequate to address future facility needs of the District’s service area. • Funding deficiencies, however, suggest that BRRPD should consider alternatives to acquisition or development of land and facilities, such as cooperative arrangements with other agencies, that would provide its service population access to expanded recreational opportunities. Determinations - Financing and Rate Restructuring Financing Constraints and Opportunities • BRRPD receives only $14,000 in General Fund revenues at present and relies heavily on grants, which cannot be viewed as a reliable long-term funding source. • The District’s capital improvement funding needs, based on its Master Plan, appear likely to significantly exceed its resources unless vigorous efforts to develop additional sources are undertaken. • The District failed to garner enough support for an assessment proposed in 2004. Careful analysis of the factors that resulted in failure of the assessment should occur before the District determines how to address its funding deficiencies. Cost Avoidance Opportunities • The District should take every opportunity to implement practices identified in its Master Plan for reducing costs, such as encouraging use of volunteer labor, soliciting material donations, and pursuing cooperative arrangements with other entities. Opportunities for Rate Restructuring • BRRPD has the lowest recreation impact fee of the five benefit zones in Nevada County and one of the highest anticipated growth rates. Its Quimby Fee clearly needs to be reexamined with a view to achieving a better match between needs and funding. • Further, lack of a meaningful and reliable source of revenues for non-capital expenditures is a serious constraint upon the District’s ability to provide the needed level of services, both now and in the future. The restriction on application of Quimby Fee revenue to capital expenditures, however, dictates that BRRPD should also initiate a ballot measure for an annual assessment that would provide funding of other critical expenses. • The County should update the Quimby Fee collected for the Bear River Benefit Zone based on BRRPD’s needs for parkland and improvements in order to fund future recreational demands of the growing population. WESTERN GATEWAY RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT Determinations According to WGRPD staff contacted during development of this MSR, WGRPD does not have a Master Plan, Strategic Plan, or budget available. Thus, lack of information limited the quality of analysis that could be performed for this MSR but provides the basis for the major determinations regarding the District. • A comprehensive Master Plan and Strategic Plan should be developed, including (but not necessarily limited to) future population projections; standards for parkland acreage and facilities; identification of needs for parkland acreage, facilities, and staffing; assessment of revenues and expenses; a cost avoidance analysis; and evaluation whether projected revenues are adequate to fund planned improvements. (Section III

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review ES-5 Executive Summary

of this MSR presents detailed determinations regarding Western Gateway Recreation and Park District.) • Changes to the District’s boundaries or sphere of influence should be deferred until the recommended planning documents are available. • Based on the information available, it appears that WGRPD has adequate parkland, funding, and staff for current needs and those of the near future.

TRUCKEE DONNER RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT Determinations - Existing and Future Need Service Area and Future Growth • The District maintains records of attendance for all programs and facilities; these records support the need for additional community indoor space, which is more highly utilized because of the area’s severe winter weather. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies • The outdoor parks and recreation resources within the TDRPD service area are adequate to meet existing needs; these resources also appear sufficient to accommodate projected growth in the area. Indoor meeting and community facilities are currently over-utilized and considered inadequate to meet current and future needs. • TDRPD has not developed a comprehensive Master Plan. This is a deficiency that should be addressed as soon as possible. A comprehensive Master Plan should include future population projections, standards for parkland acreage and facilities, identification of needs for recreational facilities and future staffing, and an assessment of revenues and expenses.

Determinations - Financing and Rate Restructuring

Financing Constraints and Opportunities • TDRPD will need to secure additional funding to provide for approximately $40,00,000 in capital improvements needed over the next ten years for the new Community Center. TDRPD has secured funding for construction of the first phase at $8,000,000 Cost Avoidance Opportunities • The TDRPD constructs many of its facilities and operates programs jointly with other districts and private and public agencies, which produces cost savings through reduction in operating costs and shared maintenance. Opportunities for Rate Restructuring • TDRPD collects impact fee revenues from Nevada County, but not Placer County. However, Placer County residents use TDRPD facilities. Placer County collects both Quimby and AB 1600 fees and TDRPD has the ability to apply for these fees, but no fees have actually been received by the District. The District has been in negotiations with Placer County for the last four years to pursue this potential funding source. This effort should be pursued vigorously. Determinations - Management and Governance Evaluation of Management Efficiencies • The physical boundaries of the TDRPD appear reasonable given the services offered. The TDRPD is intended to serve the residents of the greater Truckee area, and current

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 ES-6 Executive Summary

boundaries reflect this intent. There are no boundary modifications necessary to improve the provision of parks and recreation service to this area.

NEVADA IRRIGATION DISTRICT Determinations – Existing and Future Need Service Area and Future Growth • Nevada Irrigation District provides recreation facilities in three counties (Nevada, Sierra, and Placer); however, recreation is incidental to the District’s primary purpose of providing water service. Consequently, NID does not base the scope of its recreational facilities on population or any measured standard. • Population growth of adjacent counties should be taken account of in determining the demand for NID’s recreational facilities. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies • In its 2004-2005 Strategic Plan, NID recommended studying the feasibility of establishing public access to Lake Combie, and in 2005 constructed an access road along public rights-of-way, thus opening the reservoir to public use. In January 2006, the District prepared a Combie Reservoir Shoreline Management Plan. The plan will be presented to the Board of Directors for adoption as a guideline to recreational activities on the reservoir. Determinations – Financing and Rate Restructuring Cost Avoidance Opportunities • Revenues from recreation activities are not adequate for existing facilities and the upkeep and improvements to these facilities. Operation and maintenance costs are supported by other District revenues or through grant funding. • Additional recreational facilities would need additional funding sources to offset the costs of development. NID should coordinate with parks and recreation service providers where its facilities are located to determine future facility needs and identify funding sources.

Opportunities for Rate Restructuring • The District has many sources of revenue to support recreation costs, such as hydroelectric revenue, general purpose tax revenue, user fees, grants, etc. Revenue from water rate payers is not used for recreational services. • NID should consider adjusting fees collected for recreational uses to match the cost of the specific services being provided. For example, campground fees should reflect the cost to maintain and improve campgrounds, while entry fees for reservoirs should cover costs of staffing, maintaining, and improving the recreational facilities of the reservoir. Determinations – Management and Governance Evaluation of Management Efficiencies • NID does have a recreation Strategic Plan; however, this plan only offers guidance and does not include specific costs, analysis of current and future needs, steps for implementation of the strategic goals, or any other information that may be useful for future planning. A Master Plan with these additional elements should be developed. NID has undertaken recreational reorganization studies. NID regularly participates in recreation planning efforts with other agencies such as the U.S. Forestry Service, California Department of Fish and Game, Nevada County Sheriff’s Office, Cities of Grass

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review ES-7 Executive Summary

Valley and Nevada City, and anticipates being involved in future efforts. Such planning efforts are recommended so that NID’s facilities and plans complement recognized needs identified by other agencies. • NID has a limited recreation capital improvement program. This program only forecasts improvement needs to 2007. A recreation capital improvement program for future improvements that considers future demand to 2025 should be developed. Government Structure Options • Although the possibility of joint management or recreational facility sharing with other service providers or public agencies in the area (such as Western Gateway and Bear River Recreation and Park Districts) does exist, NID’s recreational facilities are functioning well under NID’s sole direction. NID has participated in past recreation planning efforts with other agencies and anticipates being involved in similar future efforts. CITY OF NEVADA CITY Determinations - Existing and Future Need/Infrastructure Service Area and Future Growth • The City’s parks and recreation service area is coterminous with the city boundaries. This is a logical service area for the City. The City should develop a Master Plan for parks and recreation services that takes into account future growth and locations where the service area may need to be expanded. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies • Information was not provided as to current or future needs for parkland, the condition of recreational facilities within City boundaries, or capability of the infrastructure to accommodate future development. Prior to future annexations, the City should adopt a standard for parks and recreation facilities and also identify existing facilities in need of improvement or maintenance, based on a study of the City’s existing facilities and projected needs. Determinations - Financing and Rate Restructuring Cost Avoidance Opportunities • Nevada City currently receives adequate fees to cover its limited parks and recreation expenditures, but it does not have a Parks and Recreation Master Plan or similar plan that identifies potential sources of funding and cost reduction not yet being used by the City. It is recommended that the City undertake a Master Plan for parks and recreation services that addresses expenditures and areas where costs may be avoided. Opportunities for Rate Restructuring • The Parks and Recreation Impact Fee charged by the City for new development is currently being reviewed. It is recommended that the Fee Ordinance include an annual inflation adjustment and requirement that the fee be reviewed every five years to account for potentially changing parkland and recreation needs and conditions in the City. Determinations - Management and Governance Evaluation of Management Efficiencies • It is recommended that the City maintain the Parks and Recreation Manager as a full- time position.

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 ES-8 Executive Summary

Government Structure Options • A number of different public and private entities provide recreational facilities within or adjacent to the Nevada City service area. Every opportunity to coordinate services and facilities among these agencies should be pursued. CITY OF GRASS VALLEY Determinations - Existing and Future Needs/Infrastructure Service Area and Future Growth • Maintenance and repair needs of current facilities exceed what the City has been able to budget on an on-going basis. The City does not have a capital replacement plan to ensure continuation of facility upkeep. • Future parkland demand has been established in the Grass Valley Parks and Recreation Master Plan. According to the Master Plan, the City will need approximately 6 to 12 acres of pocket parks, 24-48 acres of neighborhood parks, and 120-192 acres of community parks by 2020. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies • GVPRD has planned for facilities to accommodate its population growth. These facilities are anticipated to be adequate to meet GVPRD’s needs. • Grass Valley also has a number of local non-profit organizations that provide organized activities for the community (e.g., Grass Valley Scouts, Grass Valley Little League, Western Nevada County Recreation Services [a California non-profit public benefit corporation incorporated in 1996, which organizes softball teams and tournaments], the Gold County Soccer League), filling an important recreation need. The non-profit organizations operate under formal Facility-Use Agreements which came into effect around August 2002. The City of Grass Valley should continue to coordinate provision of such programs. Determinations - Financing and Rate Restructuring Facilities Sharing • GVPRD currently shares school facilities. It is recommended that GVPRD increase sharing of school facilities, particularly for after-hour programs. This will result in fewer new facilities needed for GVPRD and consolidate improvement and maintenance costs. • Several entities both public and private provide recreational opportunities and services within GVPRD’s service area, (e.g., Grass Valley Scouts, Grass Valley Little League, Western Nevada County Recreation Services, Gold County Soccer League, etc.). GVPRD should continue to coordinate these services and investigate if additional recreational resources exist in the area. For example, instructional programs currently offered through the City might be taught through Adult Education or Sierra College. Financing Constraints and Opportunities • GVPRD anticipates a maximum of $2,248,000 in capital improvements will be needed over the coming years; however, the timing and funding of these improvements has not been established. The City’s Quimby fees and the County’s recreation benefit fees are inadequate to meet this need. Cost Avoidance Opportunities • It is recommended that GVPRD pursue the potential sources of additional funding identified in its Master Plan, in addition to developing and implementing specific cost reduction measures, so as to increase funds available for planned capital improvements.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review ES-9 Executive Summary

• An effort to form a regional recreation provider JPA (a possibility the City is currently exploring) should be pursued; such a cooperative arrangement would allow resources to be pooled and expenses to be shared on a regional basis. Opportunities for Rate Restructuring • The recreation impact fee collected by Nevada County for the Grass Valley/Nevada City Benefit Zone is set by the County; as recommended elsewhere, it should be examined with a view to revision and adoption of an inflation factor. • The Parks and Recreation Impact Fee charged by the City for new development in the City is reviewed annually and, if necessary, the fee is increased at that time. The fee is currently under review, and it is recommended that the fee be increased. • GVPRD should review its fees and rental rates annually to ensure that they are adequate to cover cost increases or maintenance that may be needed. Determinations - Management and Governance Evaluation of Management Efficiencies • The City’s organizational structure allows for efficient service delivery. Personnel in various divisions are cross-trained to provide continuous service. • GVPRD will need additional staff as its park system and services grow. It will likely become more efficient to assign personnel specifically to park maintenance. GVPRD should continue to use volunteers to assist in park and recreational facility upkeep and should pursue hiring a grant writer. Government Structure Options • A regional provider JPA, as noted above, or functional consolidation involving entities such as Nevada County, Nevada City, NU Adult Education, Sierra College, Senior Center, Community Center Association, and Western Nevada County Recreation Services could bring about more efficient use of resources and more equitable distribution of expenses.

TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST AND CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS NEVADA COUNTY LAND TRUST This MSR includes information on the Tahoe National Forest, California State Parks, and the Nevada County Land Trust to provide the broadest illustration of the recreational opportunities available in Nevada County. No determinations are provided, as Nevada County LAFCo does not have jurisdiction over these agencies.

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 ES-10 I. INTRODUCTION

A) Purpose The purpose of this Municipal Service Review (MSR) is to assist the Nevada County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) in determining logical, efficient, and effective spheres of influence (SOI) for local governmental agencies within Nevada County that provide recreation services. There are eight agencies providing recreation opportunities in the County. This MSR, however, only evaluates the provision of recreation services by the agencies under LAFCo jurisdiction: the City of Grass Valley, the City of Nevada City, Bear River Recreation and Park District, Western Gateway Recreation and Park District, Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District and Nevada Irrigation District.

B) Local Agency Formation Commission Responsibilities On September 26, 2000, California Governor Grey Davis signed into law AB 2838 (Chapter 761, Statutes of 2000). This legislation, titled the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH Act), defines the role and responsibility of Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCos) in all of California’s 58 counties. The CKH Act provides the following guidance regarding a LAFCo’s role: 1. To encourage orderly growth and development which are essential to the social, fiscal, and economic well being of the state; 2. To promote orderly development by encouraging the logical formation and determination of boundaries and working to provide housing for families of all incomes; 3. To discourage urban sprawl; 4. To preserve open-space and prime agricultural lands by guiding development in a manner that minimizes resource loss; 5. To exercise its authority to ensure that affected populations receive efficient governmental services; 6. To promote logical formation and boundary modifications that direct the burdens and benefits of additional growth to those logical agencies that are best suited to provide necessary services and housing; 7. To make studies and obtain and furnish information which will contribute to the logical and reasonable development of local agencies and to shape their development so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of each county and its communities; 8. To establish priorities by assessing and balancing total community services needs with financial resources available to secure and provide community services and to encourage government structures that reflect local circumstances, conditions, and financial resources; and 9. To determine whether new of existing agencies can feasibly provide needed services in a more efficient or accountable manner and, where deemed necessary, consider reorganization with other single purpose agencies that provide related services.

The basic role of a LAFCo, then, is to implement the CKH Act and provide for the logical, efficient, and most appropriate formation and development of local agencies such as cities and special districts. One of the tools available to LAFCos to carry out their duties is the Municipal Service Review (MSR), which must be undertaken prior to the adoption and/or update

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review I-1 Introduction of an agency’s sphere of influence (SOI). All municipal service providers which have a service area defined by LAFCo through a SOI are subject to these reviews.

C) Nevada County LAFCo Policies and Procedures for Spheres of Influence Nevada County LAFCo has a number of policies concerning SOIs that closely mirror the requirements of the CKH Act. These include the requirement that all LAFCo actions are to be consistent with adopted SOIs. LAFCo has numerous other policies and procedures related to SOIs. These are available on the Commission’s web site at nclafco.com. In order to establish an appropriate SOI, Nevada County LAFCo must have adequate information on the service capabilities of the subject agency. This information is to be provided in the Master Service Element. Each SOI amendment must include a current Master Service Element that demonstrates the agency can provide adequate, reliable and efficient services to the areas included within the agency’s sphere. This MSR is a tool to assist in the determination of adequate and appropriate SOIs.

D) Municipal Service Review Guidelines In August 2003, the State of California’s Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) disseminated guidelines for MSRs. These guidelines recommended a new process for LAFCo to review municipal services on a regular basis; they define nine areas of review including: 1. Infrastructure needs or deficiencies; 2. Growth and population projections for the affected area; 3. Financing constraints and opportunities; 4. Cost avoidance opportunities; 5. Opportunities for rate restructuring; 6. Opportunities for shared facilities; 7. Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of consolidation or reorganization of service providers; 8. Evaluation of management efficiencies; and 9. Local accountability and governance. MSRs enable LAFCo and service providers, whether public or private, to more effectively accomplish shared public service objectives. MSRs are to be used as planning tools giving LAFCo a basis for evaluating the SOI of a particular agency. The nine statements of determination address specific issues of concern to LAFCo in its role as a planning agency. One of LAFCo’s primary responsibilities is to determine whether existing agencies can feasibly provide needed services in a more efficient or accountable manner and, where deemed necessary, consider reorganization with other single-purpose agencies that provide related services.

E) Methodology This report evaluates the provision of parks and recreation services in Nevada County. A questionnaire formulated specifically for this MSR was sent to the agencies. It included topics on contact information, governance information, staffing information, service provided, level of service, service area, future planning, financial information, government structure, cost avoidance and opportunities for cost savings. See Appendix A for a copy of the questionnaire. Six of the eight agencies completed and returned the questionnaire, which also requested a number of documents, such as a Master Plan and annual budget, that would facilitate analysis of the agency’s ability to provide services. Some of the agencies included this additional

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 I-2 Introduction

information in the returned survey, while others did not have access to the information or were unwilling to provide it. Numerous attempts, over several months, were made to acquire information, such as a Master Plan and annual budget, that could be helpful. The quality and completeness of responses varied greatly. Although it did not respond to the survey, Nevada City provided a copy of its General Plan and Capital Improvement Plan and also provided some specific information concerning parks and recreation services and facilities. Responses to the questionnaires, existing documents and information obtained through various third party sources were used to gain a limited understanding of future recreational demands and planning for Nevada County. The Grass Valley General Plan, Nevada City General Plan, Nevada County General Plan, U.S. Forest Service website, State Department of Parks and Recreation website and Nevada County LAFCo population and housing unit projections all provided information used to estimate the future population of the area and possible needs for park and recreation agency service expansion. The nine determinations for each parks and recreation agency resulting from this analysis are organized under three broad headings: Existing and Future Needs/Infrastructure, Financing and Rate Restructuring, and Management and Governance. The various characteristics of parks and recreation service provision taken into consideration for making these determinations are discussed below. Note that the level of analysis in the MSR for each agency varies according to the depth of information provided by that agency.

Determinations - Existing And Future Needs/Infrastructure Efficient provision of public services is linked to an agency’s ability to plan for future needs. Such plans must take account of future demand, based on accurate growth projections, and availability of resources, based on an adequate examination of the resource. Service Area and Future Growth An agency’s service territory should be based on a determination of where the agency can logically provide efficient current and future service. Including within a service area territory which cannot be logically served by the agency, or excluding from a service area territory which can be logically served, aggravates inefficiencies and may indicate that the boundary is inappropriate. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The adequacy of infrastructure to meet current and future needs was examined in the light of known indications of future development and general population growth projections. Determinations - Financing and Rate Restructuring As a part of the MSR process, financing constraints and opportunities which may have an impact on service delivery were identified to enable LAFCo, local agencies, and the public to assess whether the agency is capitalizing on financing opportunities. LAFCo must weigh a community’s public service needs against the resources available to fund the service. Facilities Sharing Facilities sharing can assist in reducing the cost of providing services. For example, facilities that go unused for periods of time could be used by another public agency, reducing its cost for constructing or renting facilities elsewhere. Cost Avoidance Opportunities The MSR explored cost avoidance opportunities including: 1) eliminating duplicative services; 2) reducing high administration to operation cost ratios; 3) replacing outdated or deteriorating infrastructure and equipment; 4) reducing inventories of under-utilized equipment, buildings, or facilities; 5) redrawing overlapping or inefficient service boundaries; 6) replacing inefficient

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review I-3 Introduction purchasing or budgeting practices; 7) implementing economies of scale; and 8) increasing beneficial outsourcing. Opportunities for Rate Restructuring The MSR examined rates and fees to determine the possible effects of rate restructuring. The agency rates were scrutinized for: 1) rate setting methodologies; 2) conditions that could impact future rates; and 3) variations and inequalities among rates and fees.

Determinations - Management and Governance The determinations on local accountability and governance reflect public agency decision- making and operational and management processes that include: · An accessible staff; · Public participation; · Publicly disclosed budgets, programs, and plans; · Public participation in rate setting and infrastructure plans; and · Measured outcomes of plans and programs disclosed to the public. Evaluation of Management Efficiencies Management efficiency refers to the effectiveness of an agency’s internal organization to provide efficient, quality public services. Efficiently managed agencies consistently develop and implement plans to improve service delivery, reduce waste, eliminate duplications of effort, contain costs, recruit and retain qualified employees, build and maintain adequate contingency reserves, and encourage and maintain open dialogues with the public and other agencies. The MSR reviewed and evaluated management efficiency by analyzing agency functions, operations, and practices, as well as the agency’s ability to meet current and future demands. Establishing logical service boundaries for special districts and cities is an important responsibility of LAFCo. These boundaries should be based on the capability of the district or city to provide services to the affected territory. The CKH Act states that a single multipurpose governmental agency is accountable for community service needs and financial resources, and therefore may be the best mechanism for establishing community service priorities, especially in rural communities. The CKH Act also states that whether governmental services are proposed to be provided by a single-purpose agency, several agencies, or a multipurpose agency, responsibility should be given to the agency or agencies that can best provide government services. Local Accountability and Governance Local accountability and governance denotes public agency decision-making and operational and management processes that: 1) assure an accessible and accountable elected or appointed decision-making body and agency staff; 2) encourage and value public participation; 3) disclose budgets, programs, and plans; 4) solicit public input when considering rate changes and works and infrastructure plans; and 5) evaluate outcomes of plans, programs, and operations and disclose the results to the public. Government Structure Options As a comprehensive study of existing and future public service conditions, this MSR is designed to facilitate evaluation of organizational options for accommodating growth, preventing urban sprawl and ensuring that critical services are efficiently and affordably provided. It should be used by LAFCo to determine if more efficient service could be provided through: 1) functional reorganizations within existing agencies; 2) amending or updating spheres of influence; 3) annexations to or detachments from cities or special districts; 4) formation of new special districts; 5) special district dissolutions; 6) mergers of special districts with cities; 7) establishment of subsidiary districts; 8) any additional reorganization options found in Govt. Code § 56000 et. seq.

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 I-4 Introduction

F) Service Providers, Resources, and Service Area Setting Location This Municipal Service Review evaluates parks and recreation service providers within Nevada County, which encompasses an area of approximately 978 square miles (1996 Nevada County General Plan). The County includes the cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City and the Town of Truckee, as well as several smaller unincorporated communities (e.g., North San Juan, Lake of the Pines, Rough and Ready, Lake Wildwood, Penn Valley and Washington). See Figure 1 for the Nevada County region as a whole. Nevada City, Grass Valley and their respective spheres of influence are shown in Figure 2. Figures 3A, 3B, and 3C depict the locations of recreation resources in Nevada County, and Figure 4 provides the boundaries of the parks and recreation districts serving the County. Nevada County Population and Housing Growth Table I-1 shows population and housing unit projections for Nevada County as established by Nevada County LAFCo. To allow for a reasonable range of possibilities, these projections were developed by applying two different projected population growth rates (starting from the US Census estimates for 2000): an expected rate of 1.7 percent per year and a high rate of 2.0 percent per year. The projections take account of possible variations in development patterns by modeling two different scenarios, designated “General Plan” and “Infill.” The first assumes development will occur consistent with the applicable General Plan, while the latter variation assumes high density developments will be concentrated in the Grass Valley SOI and the County Special Development Areas. An average household size of 2.44, taken from the 2000 Census, was applied to the projected growth in housing units to derive population figures in the unincorporated areas, and the appropriate municipality's average household size was used to project population figures in the incorporated areas. TABLE I-1 NEVADA LAFCO POPULATION AND HOUSING UNIT GROWTH – NEVADA COUNTY Growth Scenario 2010 2015 2020 2025 Infill Housing Units 43,632 47,529 51,917 56,751 — Expected Growth Population 106,461 115,971 126,678 138,473 Infill Housing Units 44,377 49,129 54,297 60,160 – High Growth Population 108,281 119,874 132,485 146,791 General Plan Housing units 43,762 47,818 52,183 56,998 – Expected Growth Population 106,779 116,677 127,325 139,075 General Plan Housing Units 44,428 49,249 54,556 60,400 – High Growth Population 108,405 120,168 133,116 147,375 Source: Nevada LAFCo; 2000 Census

Countywide Parkland Need Ability to provide parks and recreation facilities is a function of many factors, including how much land an agency owns, acquires, maintains or is able to develop. In addition, it is important to distinguish between parkland that has been developed or improved, land that is preserved as a natural area, and land that has neither been improved nor designated for natural area preservation. Each of these provides varying levels of recreation opportunity for County residents.

Regional standards, as reflected in the General Plans and policies of Nevada and nearby counties (e.g., Sacramento, Placer and El Dorado), typically suggest that communities should

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review I-5 Introduction have between 3 and 5 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 people to meet the need for active recreation facilities. The goal of the County, expressed in the form of a Directive Policy from the General Plan, is as follows:

Policy 5.5 The County shall base park and recreation facility planning on the following level of service standard for County park land to provide regional parks serving both Community Regions and Rural Regions: • 3.0 acres of park land for each increase of 1,000 persons in county-wide population.

In order to meet this goal for the 2010 population, there should be approximately 320 acres of developed parkland countywide. (See Table I-2.)

TABLE I-2 TOTAL PARK ACREAGE NEEDED BY POPULATION PROJECTION

Year Population Park Acreage Needed 2005 97,826 297 2010 106,779 320 2015 116,677 350 2020 127,325 382 2025 139,075 417 By 2025, approximately 417 acres of parkland will be needed in Nevada County to meet the projected demand. However, the Nevada County General Plan goal does not take into account the need for specific types of parkland (neighborhood parks or passive versus active parkland). Countywide Recreational Facilities Need As a matter of policy, Nevada County does not operate or maintain recreational facilities. Therefore, projections of park facility needs are addressed individually in each of the agency sections of this MSR. The County has not adopted standards for specific recreational facilities (basketball courts, gymnasiums, developed parkland), community centers, or other facilities that can be used to provide recreational services.

Nevada County Park and Recreation Revenue Sources Funds collected by the County are distributed to local recreation and park districts, to the cities of Nevada City and Grass Valley, to school districts, and to non-profit community organizations providing recreational opportunities.

There is not a great body of information available regarding the provision of recreation facilities and services in Nevada County, or about financing methods and mechanisms. The County undertook a Park and Recreation Capital Improvement Impact Fee Study in November of 1997 which provided the following information concerning then-current fees.

The actual expenditures for fiscal year 2001/2002 through 2003/2004 and the budgets for fiscal year 2004/2005 for these funds is shown in Table I-3 below.

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 I-6 Introduction

TABLE I-3 NEVADA COUNTY PARK AND RECREATION EXPENDITURES FOR YEARS 2001-2005

Type of Actual Actual Actual Budget Jurisdiction Expenditure 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 Revenues $59,658 $63,541 $58,870 $63,670 Nevada City Quimby Expenses $50,000 $0 $0 $63,670 Revenues $50,408 $103,344 $46,256 $72,148 Grass Valley Quimby Expenses $125,000 $71,000 $0 $72,148 Revenues $10,433 $12,409 $14,724 $16,950 Twin Ridges Quimby Expenses $0 $20,000 $0 $16,950 Allocation of approximately $200,000 in Quimby Revenues $232,411 revenues has been coordinated by a Senior Nevada County Planner or the Director and has required Planning Depart- Expenses $261,191 approximately 115 staff hours per year. ment/Recreation One Senior Planner was budgeted here for January 2002. In February 2003, the position was absorbed into the Planning budget and eliminated in March 2004. Source: Nevada County, 2004

Nevada County General Fund The County General Fund funds the staff time and materials the Planning Department uses for collection and distribution of Quimby funds, and the specific General Fund cost to administer the program has been identified by the County as approximately $13,000 in 2004-2005. The County had a dedicated Recreation Planner for a short time prior to 2003. However, the duties and functions of that position have since been redistributed within the Planning Department. Nevada County Recreation Impact Fees Nevada County adopted ordinances implementing the Quimby Act in l982. The Board of Super- visors then voted to collect $400 for each new lot in the western County and $750 for each new lot within the boundaries of the Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District. The fee was based on projected need for recreational land. In the early years of implementation, the County was collecting about $20,000 per year in fees from subdividers of new lots, but subdivision activity has slowed in recent years. The County does not currently collect fees for the recreation impacts of new apartment buildings or mobile home parks since the current fees only apply to new subdivision lots. At the time of adoption of the Quimby fee program, the County elected not to require subdividers to dedicate land but only to pay fees. Assembly Bill 2936 amended Section 66014 of the California Government Code to allow Quimby funds to be used for the planning of new parks and for community master planning purposes. Adopted in September 2002, the bill provides that fees charged by a local agency “pursuant to subdivision (a) may include the costs reasonably necessary to prepare and revise the plans and policies that a local agency is required to adopt before it can make any necessary findings and determinations.” The County ordinance adopting the Quimby Fee program could be updated to include the costs necessary to provide recreation planning and policy development as part of the Quimby fee. Prior to 1997, the County diverted 20 percent ($80) of recreation fees collected in the western County to a Regional Recreation Fee Account (County Account number 625, the Parks and Recreation Regional Quimby Fund) with the dollars to be disbursed by the Board of Supervisors only for recreational improvements which will benefit the western County community. This Regional Account was liquidated and eliminated in August of 1999. In 1997, prior to its liquida- tion, $25,000 was disbursed from this fund to assist in the development of an all-weather track on

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review I-7 Introduction the property owned by the Nevada Joint Union High School District (Nevada County Board of Supervisors Resolution 97-171). The balance of the account, which totaled $20,812.74, was distributed to the appropriate benefit zone using the same percent distribution as the original collection. (Benefit zones are geographical areas within which development-related impact fees collected by Nevada County are distributed to support park and recreation services. The benefit zones are depicted in Figure 4. See below for more detailed information.) The Bear River Quimby Fund received $12,279.51, the Grass Valley Quimby Fund received $5,827.57, the Nevada City Quimby Fund received $1,873.15 and the Twin Ridges Quimby Fund received $832.51 (Nevada County Board of Supervisors Resolution 99-391). In order to ensure that projected population growth would not cause recreation service levels to decline, and that new growth would pay for the recreation lands and facilities it will require, the 1997 Nevada County Park and Recreation Capital Improvement Impact Fee Study established development impact fees for recreation in the amounts shown in Table I-4 below. It is intended that the County will continue to collect Quimby fees on new residential lots. However, as a result, no AB1600 impact fees will be collected during the building permit process. TABLE I-4 RECREATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES BY BENEFIT ZONE

Benefit Zone Recreation Impact Fee Bear River1 $487 Grass Valley and Nevada City $721 Twin Ridges $747 Western Gateway1 $917 1 Impact fees for development within both Lake of the Pines and Lake Wildwood are set as percentages of the fees for the appropriate benefit zone. In Lake of the Pines, the impact fee is 71 percent ($345), whereas in Lake Wildwood, the impact fee is 38 percent ($348), of the stated amount of their respective benefit zones. Source: Nevada County, 2004

Although the Benefit Zones encompass the three incorporated municipalities, Quimby fees are collected by the County only for projects located within the unincorporated areas outside those jurisdictions. Recognizing that impacts upon existing recreation facilities are not limited by the jurisdictional boundaries between the cities and the special districts, the County has, however, distributed Quimby Act funds collected within the zones in which Grass Valley and Nevada City are located to those cities for projects within their boundaries. Quimby fees collected within the Western Gateway Recreation and Parks District and within the Bear River Recreation and Parks District are distributed directly to the Districts and accounting for use of the funds is not provided to the County. See Section II: Bear River Recreation and Park District and Section III: Western Gateway Recreation and Park District of this MSR. Funds have been used solely for development of facilities on existing school properties or other recreational properties. The County Planning Department oversees the requests and distributions of the Quimby funds for the three areas that are not encompassed by the two parks and recreation districts (Western Gateway and Bear River). Other Sources Nevada County indicates additional park and recreation revenue sources for the County include Proposition 12 and Proposition 40 funds, as well as a bequest from a private citizen (Dryden Wilson Trust).

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 I-8 Introduction

Nevada County Current and Future Parks and Recreation Expenses Operations Nevada County Planning has identified the General Fund cost of administering the Quimby fee program, as well as allocation of Proposition 12, Proposition 40 and the Dryden Wilson Trust funds, as $13,000 annually for Fiscal Year 2004-2005. Park Acreage A discussion of planned Quimby Fee expenses by benefit zone is provided below.

GRASS VALLEY/NEVADA CITY BENEFIT ZONE Allowed expenditures and estimated expenses for the Grass Valley/Nevada City Benefit Zone for the life of the Expenditure Plan are shown in Table I-5 below.

TABLE I-5 TEN YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT EXPENDITURE PLAN ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES AND EXPENSES FOR THE GRASS VALLEY/NEVADA CITY BENEFIT ZONE

Estimated Year Allowable Expenditure Expense Children’s Playground $22,600 Multi-Purpose Fields $25,000 Years 1 through 5 Tennis Courts $50,000 Other Optional Recreational Improvements $211,000 Total for years 1 through 5 $308,600 Acquisition of Additional Recreational Acreage $250,000 Associated Land Improvements, Existing or Additional (access, paving, utilities, septic $28,000 installations, water systems, etc.) Children’s Playground $75,000 Years 6 through 10 Picnic Units $20,000 Multi-Purpose Fields $50,000 Tennis Courts $40,000 Other Optional Recreation Improvements $134,759 Community Building $200,000 Two Baseball/Softball Fields with Lights $200,000 Total for years 6 through 10 $997,759 Total for ten-year period $1,306,359 Note: Allowable expenditures from the five year period may be redesignated to another period by amendment of the Ten Year Capital Improvement Expenditure Plan. Source: Nevada County Resolution No. 04-408, 2004

BEAR RIVER BENEFIT ZONE Allowed expenditures and estimated expenses for the Bear River Benefit Zone for the life of the Expenditure Plan are shown in Table I-6 below.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review I-9 Introduction

TABLE I-6 TEN YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT EXPENDITURE PLAN ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES AND EXPENSES FOR THE BEAR RIVER BENEFIT ZONE

Year Allowable Expenditure Estimated Expense Years 1 through 5 Acquisition of Additional Recreational Acreage $90,000 Phase One Associated Land Improvements $132,257 (access, septic installations, water systems, etc.) Multiple Purpose Field $60,000 Children’s Playground $50,000 Ten Picnic Units $20,000 Baseball Field $150,000 Other Optional Recreational Improvements $10,000 Total for years 1 through 5 $512,257 Years 6 through 10 Multi-Purpose Field $60,000 Two Tennis Courts $60,000 Baseball Field with Lights $226,500 Other Optional Recreational Improvements $89,443 Total for years 6 through 10 $435,943 Total for ten-year period $948,200 Note: Allowable expenditures from the five year period may be redesignated to another period by amendment of the Ten Year Capital Improvement Expenditure Plan. Source: Nevada County Park and Recreation Capital Improvement Impact Fee Study, 1997

TWIN RIDGES BENEFIT ZONE Allowed expenditures and estimated expenses for the Twin Ridges Benefit Zone for the life of the Expenditure Plan are shown in Table I-7 below.

TABLE I-7 TEN YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT EXPENDITURE PLAN ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES AND EXPENSES FOR THE TWIN RIDGES BENEFIT ZONE

Year Allowable Expenditure Estimated Expense Years 1 through 5 Acquisition of Additional Recreational Acreage $27,924 Phase One Associated Land Improvements $25,000

(access, septic installations, water systems, etc.) Five Picnic Units $10,000 Other Optional Recreational Improvements $25,000 Total for years 1 through 5 $87,924 Years 6 through 10 Multi-Purpose Field (partial) $43,676 Other Optional Recreational Improvements $34,500 Total for years 6 through 10 $78,176 Total for ten-year period $166,100 Note: Allowable expenditures from the five year period may be redesignated to another period by amendment of the Ten Year Capital Improvement Expenditure Plan. Source: Nevada County Park and Recreation Capital Improvement Impact Fee Study, 1997

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 I-10 Introduction

WESTERN GATEWAY BENEFIT ZONE Allowed expenditures and estimated expenses for the Western Gateway Benefit Zone for the life of the Expenditure Plan are shown in Table I-8 below.

TABLE I-8 TEN YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT EXPENDITURE PLAN ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES AND EXPENSES FOR THE WESTERN GATEWAY BENEFIT ZONE

Year Allowable Expenditure Estimated Expense Years 1 through 5 Acquisition of Additional Recreational Acreage $110,000 Phase One Associated Land Improvements (access, $186,070

septic installations, water systems, etc.) Band Shelter $95,000 Three Multiple Purpose Fields $60,000 One Children’s Playground $50,000 Other Optional Recreational Improvements $100,000 Total for years 1 through 5 $601,070 Years 6 through One Multi-Purpose Field $120,000 10 Twenty Picnic Units $40,000 Other Optional Recreational Facilities $117,330 Two Tennis Courts $60,000 One Baseball/Softball Field with Lights $226,500 Total for years 6 through 10 $563,830 Total for ten-year period $1,164,900 Note: Allowable expenditures from the five year period may be redesignated to another period by amendment of the Ten Year Capital Improvement Expenditure Plan. Source: Nevada County Park and Recreation Capital Improvement Impact Fee Study, 1997

Park Facilities Nevada County does not collect or distribute funds that can be used for facility improvements or management. Paying for Future Operations and Infrastructure With the exception of Western Gateway Park, which is maintained by the Western Gateway Recreation and Park District on property leased from the County, Nevada County does not own any park or recreation areas. The County does not intend to acquire, enhance or maintain any park or recreational areas in the foreseeable future, but will continue to fund future facilities by passing on the Quimby fees to the cities and special districts providing the services. Nevada County Management and Governance Principal Act of Authorization Authorization for local government was established by the State of California. The California system of local government has created counties, cities, and special districts. The California Constitution contains provisions for counties and cities. Public Input Regular meetings of the Nevada County Board of Supervisors are scheduled for the second and fourth Tuesdays at 9:00 a.m. in the Board Chambers. The Nevada County Planning Commission meets semi-monthly in the Board Chambers. Meetings are open to the public.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review I-11 Introduction

Organizational Structure The Board structure is prescribed by Government Code Section 25000 et seq., as Nevada is a General Law County. The Board of Supervisors is the legislative and executive body of county government and also serves as the governing body of Nevada County Sanitation District No. 1, the Nevada County Housing Authority, and the Nevada County Water Agency. In addition, members of the Board represent the County on numerous intergovernmental bodies. The five members of the Board are elected on a non-partisan basis to serve four-year terms. Each is elected from one of the five supervisorial districts of the County. District boundaries are adjusted after every federal census to equalize district population as nearly as possible. In its legislative role the Board adopts ordinances, resolutions and rules within the limits prescribed by State law and is responsible for seeing that all Federal- and State-mandated functions are properly dis- charged. Legislative and executive activities of the Board are performed at public meetings. Certain personnel and legal matters are discussed in closed sessions. The County Executive Officer handles work under the direction of the Board of Supervisors. Most of the functions of the County Executive Office are internal. That is, the County Executive Office manages the operations of the many departments within County government so they can properly provide services to the County’s citizens. The County government is organized into a number of units directed by appointed officials, including the Community Development Agency (CDA), which includes the County Planning Department. Nevada County does not currently have a Parks and Recreation Department. Parks and recreation services have been absorbed into the Planning Department and are divided among three planners. CDA is open to the public Monday through Friday (excluding County Holidays), from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, including the lunch hour. The County website provides general information for citizens and staff about the 2004-05 budget development process. For the fourth consecutive year, Nevada County has opened its annual budget process to the community. Goals Nevada County General Plan Goal 5.1 regarding parks and recreation services is to “Provide a variety of active and passive recreational opportunities.” Directive Policies in support of this goal include Policy 5.2: “… encourage the formation of local park districts to provide neighborhood community and district parks within Community Regions and Rural Regions, which are responsive to the diverse recreational needs in the different regions.” Employees/Future Staff Need The Planning Department consists of six current planners, one advanced planner and the Plan- ning Director. Nevada County currently has a vacancy for one principal planner and is considered hiring one additional associate planner. The County has not previously had a recreation department, nor does it currently have any planners dedicated to parks and recreation planning. Description of Park and Recreation Resources There are a number of recreational resources of various types located in western Nevada County. The current population for all of Nevada County, including the cities of Nevada City and Grass Valley and the Town of Truckee, is estimated to be 97,826. Recreational resources available to this population include state parks, national forest lands, local and regional parks, golf courses, school district recreational facilities and open space. Parks and recreation service providers in Nevada County include the cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City, each of which has a parks and recreation department/division. These cities and their spheres of influence are shown on Figure 2. Three independent special districts have been formed to provide parks and recreation services in the County: Western Gateway, Bear River, and Truckee Donner Recrea- tion and Parks Districts (see Figures 3A, 3B and 3C). Additionally, Nevada Irrigation District, an

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 I-12 Introduction

irrigation district, provides recreational facilities at its reservoirs. Park and recreation resources managed by each service provider are discussed in the relevant section of this MSR. While school districts do provide recreational opportunities, schools are primarily educational institutions and their services and boundaries do not fall under the jurisdiction of LAFCo. The purpose of this MSR is to address the appropriate boundaries of service providers and evaluate whether these service providers are adequately planning for growth. School programs and facilities are identified and discussed in this MSR where a recreational service provider and school have a joint-use agreement, memorandum of understanding, or other arrangement that makes the school facilities and/or programs available to the general public. The recreational function of a school is secondary to its educational function. Schools do not serve the adult general public and do not generally provide programs available to all persons. This MSR is a broad-spectrum document which does not address the needs of specific populations, but rather the parks and recreation needs of the Nevada County population as a whole. Description of Parks and Recreation Agencies There are a total of eight public agencies offering recreation facilities in Nevada County, including the Bear River Recreation and Park District (BRRPD), Western Gateway Recreation and Park District (WGRPD), Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District (TDRPD), Nevada Irrigation District (NID), the cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City, the U.S. Forest Service—Tahoe National Forest (USFS), and California State Parks and Recreation Department. These agencies offer a wide variety of recreational opportunities in Nevada County, including backpacking, camping, horseback riding, hiking, swimming, boating and many more. See Figures 2, 4, 6 and 7 for service areas. Bear River Recreation and Park District BRRPD provides parks and recreation services to southwestern Nevada County. Overall, the District boundary encompasses 109 square miles and includes the unincorporated communities of Alta Sierra and Lake of the Pines as well as nearby unincorporated areas of Nevada County from Grass Valley to the Placer County line and from the Western Gateway Recreation and Park District to the Bear River. BRRPD owns 32 acres of unimproved land at the Kimler Ranch Park site and holds approximately 6 miles of unimproved trail easements along the Emigrant Trail alignment. BRRPD shares use of the Magnolia Sports Complex with the Pleasant Ridge School District. The complex is owned by Pleasant Ridge School District, and BRRPD owns none of the facilities located at there. Western Gateway Recreation and Park District Western Gateway Recreation and Park District (WGRPD) is devoted to maintenance and enhancement of the 80-acre Western Gateway Park. WGRPD has no other park or recreation facilities, but Western Gateway Park is heavily used by residents inside and outside WGRPD’s boundaries. Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District The Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District (TDRPD) is located in the eastern portion of Placer and Nevada counties. In general, TDRPD’s service area is that portion of Placer and Nevada Counties lying east of the Sierra Nevada crest and extending to the Nevada state line. The entire district is approximately 220 square miles, less than one tenth of which has experienced significant development. TDPRD owns 91.4 acres of park and recreation facilities. City of Grass Valley Overall, the City of Grass Valley Parks and Recreation Division (GVPRD) is responsible for a 15.4 square mile area (9,864 acres) based on the City of Grass Valley Planning Area. Additionally, GVPRD serves residents of the City’s entire sphere of influence. The City provides approximately 108 acres of recreational opportunities for city residents through eight park/recreation facilities. The City of Grass Valley maintains Mulcahy Community Park, Condon Park, Memorial Park,

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review I-13 Introduction

Elizabeth Daniels Park, Dow Alexander Park, Glenn Jones Park, Minnie Park, and the Morgan Ranch site. Existing park and recreation facilities in the entire planning area, including state parks, school facilities and private facilities, total 1,124 acres. Nevada Irrigation District Located on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada, NID encompasses 287,000 acres, mainly in Nevada and Placer Counties. The Bear River Recreation and Park District and a majority of the Western Gateway Recreation and Park District are included within the NID boundary. NID owns a number of reservoirs offering recreation opportunities, including boating facilities, camping facilities, swimming and trails. They include Rollins, Scotts Flat, Jackson Meadows, Milton, French, Faucherie, Sawmill, and Bowman Reservoirs, and Lake Combie. Private managers or operators under contract with NID operate parks, campgrounds and beaches at the reservoirs. In the high country, NID has campgrounds at Faucherie and Jackson Meadows reservoirs, which are operated for the district by the U.S. Forest Service. City of Nevada City The City’s facilities consist of Pioneer Park, Kalcher Park, the Railroad Museum and interpretive park, Hirshman’s Pond and Park, Washington Street Park and Penzance Park. Pioneer Park, located on Nimrod Street, is the only developed park within the City. Pioneer Park offers a variety of recreation opportunities, including a band shell, baseball field, horseshoe pitch, picnic areas with barbecues, playground, sand volleyball and tennis courts, and a seasonal swimming pool. A request for the total acreage of City-owned and/or operated recreational facilities was submitted to Nevada City, but to date it has not provided this information. In 1986, Nevada City provided approximately 15 acres of public parks and three school playgrounds for a town of approximately 2,500 people. This translates into over six acres of park and recreation facilities per 1,000 residents. At present, the City provides approximately 17 acres of recreation lands and facilities to a population of 3001. County of Nevada Nevada County does not currently function as an owner-operator of park or recreation facilities. The County’s focus is currently on planning for and facilitating provision of park and recreation services (facilities and programs) throughout the County. The County owns Tobiassen Park (adjacent to the Madelyn Helling Library in Nevada City). Nevada County collects impact fees from developers for recreation facilities and, in the western part of the County, passes those funds to recreation service providers, including BRRPD, WGRPD, and the cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City. The County also collects Quimby Act fees on new subdivision lots within unincorporated portions of the County and distributes those fees to the cities, to existing park and recreation districts, to specific community recreation facilities, and to school districts within the County boundaries for enhanced recreational opportunities. In compliance with the requirements of the Quimby Act, the County has established benefit zones so that, as new subdivision lots are recorded and fees are collected, the fees can be deposited in an account dedicated to recreation lands and facilities within the geographic area in which the subdivision is located (see Figure 4). The County is divided into six Benefit Zones. Zone 1 is the Bear River Zone, generally consistent with the boundaries of the Bear River Recreation and Park District, covering the southerly portion of the County. Zone 2 includes the City of Grass Valley and surrounding unincorporated territory. Zone 3 encompasses Nevada City and surrounding unincorporated territory. Zone 4 is the Twin Ridges zone, which includes North San Juan and the Ridge community. Zone 5 follows the boundaries of the Western Gateway Recreation and Park District, and Zone 6 covers the Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District.

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 I-14 Introduction

Other Recreational Opportunities State agencies offering recreational opportunities in western Nevada County include the Department of Parks and Recreation—Gold Mines Sector, which operates the Donner Memorial, South Yuba River, Malakoff Diggins, and Empire Mine state parks and the Department of Fish and Game, which manages the Spenceville Wildlife Area. The Spenceville Wildlife and Recrea- tion Area contains 11,000 acres or 17 square miles, with half the tract in Nevada County and the other half in Yuba County. Federal agencies offering recreational resources in Nevada County are the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The Bureau of Land Management has some 11,000 acres of land in Nevada County. The Tahoe National Forest covers approximately 169,000 acres or 264 square miles of land in Nevada County. The Toiyabe National Forest covers 2,600 acres in the eastern County. USACE manages boat-in campsites, Joe Miller Recreation Area, Narrows Recreation Area and Rice’s Crossing, all at Englebright Lake. In addition to the public lands, Nevada County enjoys a variety of private and commercial recreational facilities. Commercial recreation facilities within the County include ski areas and resorts, golf courses and campgrounds. One private company, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), allows public access to some of its facilities for recreation. As part of PG&E’s bankruptcy settlement agreement, the Pacific Forest and Watershed Lands Stewardship Council was established to ensure PG&E’s compliance with the agreement terms regarding protection of approximately 140,000 acres of watershed lands associated with its hydroelectric system, plus its 655-acre Carizzo Plains territory in San Luis Obispo County. These lands will be conserved for a broad range of public benefits, including protection of the natural habitat of fish, wildlife and plants; preservation of open space; outdoor recreation by the general public; sustainable forestry; agricultural uses; and historic values. Nevada County is represented on the Stewardship Council by a Board of Supervisors member. The Stewardship Council is charged with developing and implementing a land conservation plan. Its duties include surveying the existing values of PG&E’s watershed lands, developing management objectives, planning the desired future of the lands, recommending whether PG&E donate a conservation easement or fee title to best achieve conservation efforts in particular cases, and engaging in land exchange where appropriate. The Stewardship Council plans to complete the land conservation planning process in 2007. In Nevada County, PG&E’s facilities consist of the Interstate 80-Donner Summit Recreation Areas (which contain campgrounds, fishing access and picnic areas), the Drum-Spaulding project, Lake Spaulding, and the Yuba-Bear River project. Lake Spaulding, with a surface area of 698 acres, is located approximately 30 miles west of Truckee at an elevation of 5,015 feet and is surrounded by granite rocks and conifer-forested hillsides. The lake has one campground that is suitable for tents or RVs and one undeveloped boat-in camping area. All boating activities are allowed, including water-skiing and jet-ski use; however, lake levels drop dramatically in the summer months, making launching difficult. The lake offers rainbow and brown trout with excellent quality fish usually among the limits. The Drum-Spaulding project is a 190 MW project composed of 12 dams and powerhouses with a total of 16 generating units located on the Bear, South Yuba, and North Fork American Rivers in Placer and Nevada Counties. The Yuba-Bear River Project is an 85 MW facility composed of four powerhouses scattered among 17 dams along the Bear River which were originally built for irrigation. The powerhouses were installed in the mid-1960’s by Nevada Irrigation District. There are also two land trusts in Nevada County: the Nevada County Land Trust, which operates in the western county, and the Truckee Donner Land Trust, which operates in the eastern county.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review I-15 Introduction

Nevada County Land Trust holds thirteen conservation easements and maintains one park site and one future park site, six trails and four agricultural easements. See Figure 5. Additional recreation facilities and programs are offered by a variety of public and private entities, including various schools, community service organizations, and private non-profit public benefit corporations such as Gold Country Community Council, which conducts programs at the Cultural Arts Center on the Nevada County Fairgrounds. New Park And Recreation District Formation The Board of Supervisors, when adopting the County's 2002-03 Budget, approved use of $111,000 from the Dryden J. Wilson Bequest to fund recreation and park district formation and/or financing. During the 2002-2003 Budget process, the Board of Supervisors also noted the need to provide funding in 2003-2004, in the amount of $50,000, for costs to conduct the required elections in late 2003-spring 2004. In February 2003, the Board of Supervisors authorized a survey to confirm the extent of public support for district formation and financing. The survey indicated sufficient voter support to move forward with the formation of two proposed districts, the Nisenan and San Juan Ridge Recreation and Park Districts, as well as a revenue measure for the existing Western Gateway Recreation and Park District. On August 26, 2003, the Board initiated the formation of the two new Districts by adopting Resolutions of Application to LAFCo. At the same time, the Board initiated assessment ballot proceedings for the proposed Districts. Such proceedings are conducted by mailing ballots to property owners. If successful, this proceeding would have led to district formation elections in March 2004, concurrent with the Primary Elections. The Board ultimately terminated the assessment process, however, because of errors in the assessment ballot proceedings, and elected to finance each district with a special tax. On October 21, 2003, the Board directed that the proposed Nisenan and San Juan Ridge Recreation and Park District proposals be submitted to the voters for approval of "special tax" financing when the General Election was held in November 2004. Measure J: Nisenan Recreation and Park District formation, Measure K: Nisenan Recreation and Park District Special Tax, and Measure L: Nisenan Recreation and Park District Appropriations Limit did not pass in the General Election. Consequently, this District will not be formed at this time. Although the voters approved Measure N authorizing formation of the San Juan Ridge Recrea- tion and Park District, Measure O: San Juan Ridge Recreation and Park District Special Tax and Measure P: San Juan Ridge Recreation and Park District Appropriations Limit did not pass in the November 2004 vote. Since the formation of the district was contingent upon approval of the special tax, the District was not formed.

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 I-16 k e e r C k y ee lle r k a C e V ButteCounty e C g e r n t C o Lo a n l r l yo d e S n St iv a ream R C SierraCounty er SierraCounty outh Fork Feath S er H Riv ay uba pre h Y ss Lake Oroville ort Cr N eek Reno

Jackson Maw Reservoir M i dd le Stampede Reservoir YubaCounty C Y a ub er Bowmann Lake a uba Riv yo le Y n R idd C i Independence Lake New Bullards Bar Reservoir M re v ek e r NevadaCounty Boca Reservoir ek re ry C Fordyce Lake D Prosser Creek Reservoir r Malakoff Diggings St Hist Park ve 49 er Ri th Yuba Riv Truckee Merle Collins Reservoir ou Truckee a S Lake Spaulding b r Cree 80 u Dee k Y ork F 20 th or Nevada City N Scotts Flat Reservoir Englebright Lake k r Deer Cree e iv uba er R Y Riv LakeLake WildwoodWildwood ar Be 20 Grass Valley California Nevada

American River T k ru r c o kee R F iver e l d d Rollins Reservoir i M Dry Creek PlacerCounty Bealeeale AFBAFB r e French Meadows Reservoir

r a Lake Tahoe e Hell Hole Reservoir 49 B

ver Camp Far West ReservoirRi er er r v iv k ea i n R ee R B Lake of the Pines R ica r u Lake of the Pines mer g C b n rk A n ic ca le Fo o o Lake Combie ri dd L n re e i R n C e m M i oo k A v C e rk r o Loon Lake F th r r o e N iv n R ico Sacramento AuburnAuburn StateState RecreationRecreation AreaArea Rub South Lake Tahoe LincolnLincoln Auburn Ravine 80 Fallen Leaf Lake El DoradoCounty Union Valley Reservoir Lake Aloha Source: ESRI StreetMap USA Nevada County Limits - 08/05/05 Nevada County 0510 FIGURE 1 N SCALE IN MILES NEVADA COUNTY LIMITS

NevadaNevada CityCity

GrassGrass ValleyValley

Legend

Spheres of Influence Rivers Highway/Freeway Lakes Arterials Grass Valley Collectors Parcel Boundaries Onramps Nevada City General Plan Map Index County Boundary

Source: Nevada County, 2004 Nevada City and Grass Valley Limits Spheres of Influence - 05/12/05

0.51 FIGURE 2 N SCALE IN MILES NEVADA CITY AND GRASS VALLEY CITY LIMITS AND SPHERES OF INFLUENCE

No Recreation and Park District

Bear River Recreation Benefit Zone Western Grass Valley Recreation Benefit Zone Gateway Nevada City Recreation Benefit Zone Twin Ridges Recreation Benefit Zone Western Gateway Recreation Benefit Zone Bear River Recreation and Park Districts (labeled in Red)

0 2.5 5 7.5 10 Miles

Source: Nevada County, 2004 Western Nevada County Benefit Zones and Recreation & Park Districts - 05/10/05 Benefit Zones and Recreation & Park Western Nevada County

FIGURE 3 WESTERN NEVADA COUNTY BENEFIT ZONES AND RECREATION & PARK DISTRICTS

02.557.510 Miles N

Source: Nevada County, 2004 Western Nevada County Recreation Resources - 05/10/05 Western Nevada County

FIGURE 3A WESTERN NEVADA COUNTY RECREATION RESOURCES

02.557.510 Miles N

Source: Nevada County, 2004 Western Nevada County Recreation Resources - 05/10/05 Western Nevada County

FIGURE 3B WESTERN NEVADA COUNTY RECREATION RESOURCES

Floriston

Hirschdale

Truckee Kingvale Soda Springs

Source: Nevada County, 2004 Eastern Nevada County Recreation Resources - 08/08/05 Eastern Nevada County

024 FIGURE 3C N SCALE IN MILES EASTERN NEVADA COUNTY RECREATION RESOURCES

R6E R7E R8E R9E R10E R11E R12E R13E R14E R15E R16E R17E

T19N

T18N Truckee Donner No Recreation and Park District

T17N

T16N

Bear River Recreation Benefit Zone Grass Valley Recreation Benefit Zone Nevada City Recreation Benefit Zone T15N Western Truckee Donner Recreation Benefit Zone Gateway Twin Ridges Recreation Benefit Zone Western Gateway Recreation Benefit Zone Bear River Recreation and Park Districts (labeled in Red) T14N

Source: Nevada County, 2004 Western Nevada County Benefit Zones and Recreation & Park Districts - 08/08/05 Benefit Zones and Recreation & Park Western Nevada County

0 2.5 5 FIGURE 4 N SCALE IN MILES WESTERN NEVADA COUNTY BENEFIT ZONES AND RECREATION & PARK DISTRICTS

Source: Nevada County Land Trust, 2005 Nevada County Land Trust Projects - 05/12/05 Land Trust Projects Nevada County

FIGURE 5 NO SCALE N NEVADA COUNTY LAND TRUST PROJECTS

Source: Moore Iacofano Golstman, Inc., 2001 City of Grass Valley Existnig and Proposed Parks and Trails - 05/12/05 City of Grass Valley Existnig

0.51 FIGURE 6 N SCALE IN MILES CITY OF GRASS VALLEY EXISTING AND PROPOSED PARKS AND TRAILS

N.I.D. BOUNDARY 49

89 RENO NEVADA CITY MARYSVILLE 20 20 80 YUBA CITY 65 GGRASSRASS VVALLEYALLEY TRUCKEE 89 70 80 90 LAKE TAHOE LLINCOLNINCOLN AUBURN

ROSEVILLEROSEVILLE 49 SACRAMENTO 50 50 PLACERVILLE

Source: Nevada Irrigation District, 2005 Nevada Irrigation District Boundary - 05/17/05 District Boundary Nevada Irrigation

NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 7 N NEVADA IRRIGATION DISTRICT BOUNDARY

II. Bear River Recreation and Park District

Information in this section was provided by the Bear River Recreation and Park District (BRRPD) and retrieved from the Bear River Recreation and Park District Master Plan 2003- 2018 and Nevada LAFCo’s 1994 Bear River Recreation and Park District Formation Staff Report and Resolution.

A) EXISTING AND FUTURE NEEDS

Service Area Formed in 1995, the BRRPD is located in the southwestern portion of Nevada County, as seen in Figures 3 and 4. Overall, the BRRPD’s boundary encompasses about 109 square miles and includes the unincorporated communities of Alta Sierra and Lake of the Pines, as well as nearby unincorporated areas of Nevada County from Grass Valley to the Placer County line and from the Western Gateway Recreation District to the Bear River. BRRPD is primarily rural in character, with main concentrations of development in the Lake of the Pines and Alta Sierra areas. The BRRPD General Manager has suggested that the McCourtney Road/Perimeter Road area and the Dog Bar Road area might be better served by another agency because of the distance to existing BRRPD facilities and services. Recreation and Park Resources Park and recreation facilities and services offered within BRRPD’s service boundaries are described below. District Improved Facilities Currently, BRRPD does not own or maintain any improved parkland or recreation facilities. District Unimproved Facilities BRRPD owns 32 acres of unimproved land at the Kimler Ranch Park site and holds approximately 6 miles of unimproved trail easements along the Emigrant Trail alignment. Neither of these resources has yet been developed for public use. District Services Services currently provided by BRRPD include sports leagues and camps, after-school enrichment and adult education programs. Other Facilities and Services within Service Area There are a number of other recreational facilities located within the BRRPD area which are not owned by BRRPD. These facilities must also be considered when assessing the need for additional recreational resources within BRRPD boundaries as they help to meet the demand. Most notable are the various facilities and neighborhood parks in the Lake of the Pines community, the Alta Sierra and Dark Horse golf courses and the sports fields and multipurpose rooms at the local schools. BRRPD shares the 6.5 acre Magnolia Sports Complex under a joint-use agreement with the Pleasant Ridge Unified School District (PRUSD), which owns the complex. The District also includes Lake Combie, which is located along the Nevada/Placer County line and managed by Nevada Irrigation District (NID). Lake Combie is not currently available for public use. (See Section V: Nevada Irrigation District of this MSR for additional information.) A list of organized recreational facilities located within the BRRPD service area is provided in Table II-1 below.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review II-1 Bear River Recreation and Park District

TABLE II-1 BEAR RIVER RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT PARK INVENTORY

Facility Baseball (T-ball) field Basketball Court Basketball ½ Court Children’s Play Equip. Tot-Lot Equip. Community Mtg Rm Creek, Lake, Pond Football Field Garden/Nature Area Golf Course Gymnasium Hist./Cult. Site Horseshoe Pit Marina Multi-Purpose Filed Picnic Table Restroom Building Soccer Field Swimming Pool Swimming Beach Tennis Court Trail Track Volleyball Court Improved Acres Unimproved Acres /Open Space Barbeques Baseball Diamond BRRPD Kimler Ranch - 32.0 1 1 1 Park Emigrant Trail Alignment (6 - - 1 mi.) BRRPD/PLEASANT RIDGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT JOINT-USE Magnolia Sports 6.5 - 1 Complex Lake of the Pines Sun Terrace Park 0.6 - 1 3 1 Hazel Park 1.6 - 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 Shadow Cove 0.8 - 1 2 1 1 Park Shady Point Park 0.7 - 1 1 3 1 1 Southshore Boat 4.8 - 2 1 1 6 1 Launch Green Valley 0.8 - 1 2 1 1 Park Lake of the Pines 1 1 1 1 1 4 Community Alta Sierra 1 1 Community Dark Horse 1 1 Community

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review II-2 Bear River Recreation and Park District

Facility Improved Acres Unimproved Acres /Open Space Barbeques Baseball Diamond Baseball (T-ball) field Basketball Court Basketball ½ Court Children’s Play Equip. Tot-Lot Equip. Community Mtg Rm Creek, Lake, Pond Football Field Garden/Nature Area Golf Course Gymnasium Hist./Cult. Site Horseshoe Pit Marina Multi-Purpose Filed Picnic Table Restroom Building Soccer Field Swimming Pool Swimming Beach Tennis Court Trail Track Volleyball Court SCHOOLS Cottage Hill 1 2 1 1 1 1 Elementary Magnolia Junior 1 1 8 1 2 High Bear River High 4 8 3 1 2 1 P 6 1 School Pleasant Ridge Elementary 1 2 1 1 1 1 School Alta Sierra Elementary 1 2 1 1 1 School Forest Lake 2 1 1 Christian School

Total 15.8 32.0 7 10 2 22 1 5 2 10 3 1 1 3 5 1 1 2 2 19 5 2 1 4 10 1 2 1 Note: Each of the private communities within the BRRPD service area (Lake of the Pines, Alta Sierra Community and Dark Horse Community) offer community meeting rooms and golf courses. Note: Each of the six schools within the BRRPD service area (Cottage Hill Elementary, Magnolia Junior High, Bear River High School, Pleasant Ridge Elementary, Alta Sierra Elementary and Forest Lake Christian) offer recreation opportunities. Source: Foothill Associates, 2003

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review II-3 Bear River Recreation and Park District

Community event facilities in the BRRPD service area include school facilities, Sierra Pines Methodist Church, Combie Bible Church, Lions Club and Wolf Creek Camp/Conference Center. Natural features include the Bear River, Wolf Creek, Lake Combie and Mathis Pond. Various other recreational resources include a paintball course (Combie Road), private stables, informal trail network and the planned County trail.

Population and Housing Growth Park and recreation districts base projections of their future needs on anticipated growth within their district boundaries. According to the Bear River Recreation and Park District 2003-2018 Master Plan, population of the communities within BRRPD will have an annual growth between 1.2 percent to 2.9 percent, as illustrated in Table II-2 below. If the projections are accurate, District population will increase by 9,659 persons by 2020.

TABLE II-2 POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR BRRPD 2000-2020 Year Population Change Percent Change Annual Percent 2000 22,343 2005 25,538 3,195 14.3% 2.9% 2010 28,181 2,643 10.4% 2.1% 2015 30,176 1,995 7.1% 1.4% 2020 32,006 1,826 6.1% 1.2%

On the other hand, Nevada LAFCo’s population and development model applies the average household size of 2.44 and the general unincorporated Nevada County growth rates of 1.7 percent per year (expected) and 2.0 percent per year (high). The LAFCo model produces a projected 2020 population between 25,274 and 25,928. Clearly, the differences between these projections require further analysis to evaluate their validity.

Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The BRRPD’s ability to provide parks and recreation facilities is a function of factors such as how much land the District owns, maintains or has access to develop. In addition, it is important to distinguish between parkland that has been developed or improved, land that is preserved as a natural area, and land that has neither been improved nor designated for natural area preservation. Each of these provides varying levels of recreation opportunity for service area residents. Existing Deficiencies Regional standards, as reflected in the General Plans and policies of Nevada and nearby counties (e.g., Sacramento, Placer and El Dorado), typically suggest that communities should have between 3 and 5 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 people to meet the need for active recreation facilities. The goal of the Bear River Recreation and Park District is to provide 5 acres of accessible developed parkland for every 1,000 residents. In order to meet this goal for the current population, BRRPD should have about 106 acres of developed parkland (Table II-3). The Bear River Recreation and Park District currently has limited access to only about 4 acres of developed or improved parkland at the Magnolia Sports Complex. At present, a 2-acre expansion at the Magnolia Sports Com- plex is planned. This land is owned by the Pleasant Ridge Unified School District, with which the BRRPD has a joint use agreement. BRRPD owns the 32-acre Kimler Ranch park site, which is currently undeveloped but is planned for some level of facility development in the next few years. If these acreages are classified as community park resources, then subtracting these acreages from the target leaves a current deficit of 28 acres for neighborhood parks and 40 acres for community parks, or a total of 68 acres. Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review II-4 Bear River Recreation and Park District

TABLE II-3 PARK ACREAGE NEEDED Year Population Total Neighborhood Community Parks Parks1 2003 22,343 106 28 78 2005 25,538 120 31 89 2010 28,181 134 35 99 2015 30,176 143 37 106 2020 32,002 151 39 112 1Population for neighborhood park acreage does not include Lake of the Pines since it is expected that most of the residents will use the 9.3 acres of private neighborhood parks within that community. Note: Park acreage: Total = 5 acres per 1,000 persons, neighborhood parks = 1.5 acres per 1,000 persons, and community parks = 3.5 acres per 1,000 persons. Source: Foothill Associates, 2003

Projected Park Acreage Need As shown in Table II-3 above, if population growth occurs as anticipated and no new land or joint-use agreements are secured, by the year 2020 the deficit grows to 39 acres for neighborhood parks and 74 acres for community parks, for a total of 113 acres. (Note that Table II-3 does not reflect the LAFCo population model, which yields a substantially smaller population and therefore lower park acreage need than the BRRPD Master Plan.)

Projected Park Facilities Need The 2003-2018 Master Plan includes a number of proposed facility development projects at existing and future sites within the BRRPD service area. Table II-4 lists the facility developments at existing sites anticipated to serve future growth in BRRPD’s service area. It was recommended in the 2003-2018 Master Plan that BRRPD should immediately pursue development of additional sports facilities at the Magnolia Sports Complex to help relieve some of the overuse and scheduling difficulties associated with existing fields. The Bear River Little League and Gold Country Soccer League organizations have volunteered to donate labor to build the snack shack and restrooms and the PRUSD is also supportive. Recommended features for the site include a multiuse field, parking, landscaping, a concession stand, restrooms, and a skateboard park. By installing such a facility in this location, BRRPD will be able to leverage the existing infrastructure to reduce costs and will be advancing the partnership with the School District and Little League. The plan for site improvements will need to be approved by Nevada County to insure that the design adequately addresses the flow of traffic into and out of the site. The Nevada County Department of Transportation and Sanitation specifically includes the Emigrant Trail through BRRPD as one component of Element D of the Non-Motorized Rural Recreational Trails Master Plan. However, Element D of the plan, Rural Recreational Trail Facilities, is only discussed in general terms in the document. Specific trail locations within the corridors, cost estimates, and lead agency designation for plan implementation are not included in the Non-motorized Transportation Master Plan. Element D of the plan targets several corridors within Bear River Recreation and Park District in addition to the Emigrant Trail corridor. The Kimler Ranch Park site is the only property that BRRPD currently owns. It is approximately 32 acres, with a number of significant natural features, wetlands, an historic cemetery, and an old farm house and out buildings. While the site is large and relatively flat, its potential for development as an active park site with organized sports fields is somewhat constrained. In addition to the sensitive environmental resources on the site, such as the wetlands and oak trees, the site has significant historical value, and there is

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review II-5 Bear River Recreation and Park District

not an adequately sized or maintained road providing access to the site. The only access at this time is from East Lime Kiln Road which is not maintained by the County and not engineered to safely conduct large numbers of visitors into and out of the site. It is possible that access from Karen Drive could be secured in the future through acquisition of an easement or a single parcel. Portions of the site are situated in a low lying area prone to flooding in the winter and the proximity to private residences could create noise, traffic, and night lighting issues.

TABLE II-4 FUTURE FACILITY DEVELOPMENT –EXISTING SITES Short Term Long Term Facility (0-3 years) (4-15 years) Magnolia Sports Complex Multi-use Building (1,200 sq ft) X Multi-purpose Field X Parking Lot Upgrade and Expansion X Skate Park (10,000 sq ft) X Emigrant Trail Implementation Resource Assessment X Section 106 (Cultural/Hist.) Assessment X Trail Master Plan X Trail Head Acquisition X CEQA/NEPA Environmental Review X Construction Documents X Implementation (Phased) X Interpretive Signage X Kimler Ranch Park Explore Acquisition of Buck Mnt (+/- 10 X ac.) Resource Assessment X Section 106 (Cultural/Hist) Assessment X Finalize Master Plan X CEQA/NEPA Environmental Review X Construction Documents X Phase 1 Implementation (Trail, signage, X parking, etc.) Phase 2 Implementation TBD X Source: Foothill Associates, 2003

Table II-5 lists anticipated new facility needs for future growth. The 2003- 2018 Master Plan indicates that there are a variety of additional facilities that BRRPD needs to develop to meet anticipated demand for recreation resources over the next fifteen years. The priorities include gymnasiums with indoor basketball and volleyball courts, lighted baseball fields, soccer fields, a community center, group picnic areas, playgrounds, and a skateboard park. Development of most of these facilities will need to take place at new park sites to be acquired in the future or through new joint-use agreements. It is important for BRRPD to look for additional joint-use opportunities in order to make the most efficient use of its limited funds, especially for operations and maintenance.

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 II-6 Bear River Recreation and Park District

TABLE II-5 FUTURE FACILITY DEVELOPMENT – NEW SITES Short Term Long Term Facility (0-3 years) (4-15 years) Need Need Basketball Court (indoor) 2 2 Volleyball Court 2 2 Baseball Fields (unlighted) 3 Baseball Fields (lighted) 1 2 Soccer Field 4 1 Community Center 1 1 Skateboard Park 1 Playgrounds 5 3 Group Picnic Area 5 1 Equestrian Arena 1 Gymnasium 1 1 Source: Foothill Associates, 2003

Determinations - Existing and Future Needs/Infrastructure

Service Area and Future Growth • Portions of the BRRPD service area may not be receiving adequate recreational opportunities because of their distance from recreational facilities.

• Any extension of BRRPD’s future boundaries should consider proximity to recreation facilities in the region, as remote areas (such as the McCourtney Road/ Perimeter Road area and the Dog Bar Road area) may be more logically served by other agencies.

• Though the City of Grass Valley is considering four annexation proposals for large developments, the City’s Sphere of Influence is completely outside BRRPD’s service boundaries, so it is not anticipated that the District’s recreation services would be impacted by the City’s proposed annexations

Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies • The population of western Nevada County will grow by a substantial amount, increasing demand for parks and recreational facilities.

• BRRPD’s population and housing unit projections vary greatly from Nevada LAFCo projections. For example, BRRPD’s 2018 population projection is 32,002 while Nevada LAFCo projects a 2025 population of 22,975 in the General Plan - High Growth scenario.

• BRRPD identifies a current (2002) deficit of 28 acres of neighborhood parks and 40 acres of community parks, or a total of 68 acres of parkland.

• BRRPD is lacking in public parkland; however, the private recreational opportunities within the Alta Sierra, Dark Horse and Lake of the Pines communities in part address the recreation needs generated by those developments.

• BRRPD projects a total park acreage need by 2020 of 151 acres based on standards established in its Master Plan; under existing conditions, a shortage of 113 acres of parkland by 2020 can be anticipated.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review II-7 Bear River Recreation and Park District

• The BRRPD Master Plan identifies a number of facility developments needed at existing and future sites to accommodate future demands. These improvements appear to be adequate to address the future recreational facility needs of BRRPD’s service area.

• BRRPD should consider alternatives to acquisition, such as long term joint-use agreements, that would provide access to other undeveloped lands (for example, the Nevada Irrigation District 600-acre parcel or the Nevada County Sanitation District treatment facility).

B) FINANCING AND RATE RESTRUCTURING

All units of government—counties, cities and special districts—are financially independent, within the limits of state law, and each local government has the ability to craft a unique variety of policies and practices. Each agency is equally empowered to make independent fiscal decisions. They are not equally empowered, however, to generate revenues to support their decisions.

BRRPD is a limited purpose agency. As an independent special district, it may impose only the types of taxes, assessments, and fees that have been authorized through legislation. Revenue Sources and Expenses Current and Future Revenues The Bear River Recreation and Park District currently receives revenues from a limited number of sources (see Table II-7).

General Fund BRRPD receives a small portion of the property tax; in 2004-05 the amount was approximately $14,000.

Recreation Impact Fees The Quimby Act, Section 66477 of the California Government Code, allows jurisdictions to require developers to dedicate land or pay fees in lieu of providing land for new park acquisition and development to mitigate the recreation impacts of increased population. Currently, the County assesses a $487 fee per new residential unit created through the subdivision process as mitigation for recreation impacts on the Bear River Recrea- tion and Park District. The County allows developers to provide improved park facilities in lieu of up to 75% of the impact fee. Assuming a rate of 2.5 people per unit, the fee equates to about $194,800 for every additional 1,000 new residents. With an acreage standard of 3 acres/1,000 people, BRRPD would have about $65,000/acre to spend on both acquiring and developing new park facilities to serve the new residents. Development costs alone for typical park improvements are estimated at between $130,000 to $170,000 per acre depending on the size of the park and the type of amenities. With the additional funding that would be needed for land acquisition, it is clear that the current assessment level will not be adequate to meet future recreation needs. Given the anticipated growth within the BRRPD service area over the next ten years, the in-lieu fees are likely to continue at a relatively steady pace. However, as

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 II-8 Bear River Recreation and Park District

population growth heightens demand for recreation services, program costs can also be expected to increase similarly.

Other Sources Property taxes provide a relatively consistent funding stream that is anticipated to gradually increase over the next ten years as the tax base grows. The District’s ten- year budget assumes a three percent increase annually. However, BRRPD currently receives only about $14,000 annually from property taxes. The most significant sources of revenue for BRRPD are development fees collected in lieu of land donation, grants, and program fees. While these sources potentially could provide large sums of revenue, grants and development fees are not always predictable and generally cannot be spent on park operation, maintenance, or staff salaries. BRRPD did not garner adequate support for an assessment in 2004 that would have provided additional parks and recreation funding.

TABLE II-6 BEAR RIVER RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT 10-YEAR REVENUE PROJECTION Income 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 Fund Balance $38,119 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Current Secured Taxes $13,338 $13,738 $14,150 $14,575 $15,012 $15,462 $15,926 $16,404 $16,896 $17,403 Current Unsecured $410 $422 $435 $448 $461 $475 $490 $504 $519 $535 Taxes Prior Unsecured $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 Suppl. Secured Taxes $684 $705 $726 $747 $770 $793 $817 $841 $866 $892 Suppl. Unsecured $16 $16 $17 $17 $18 $19 $19 $20 $20 $21 Suppl. Prior Unsecured $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $4 $4 $4 $4 Interest $588 $606 $624 $642 $662 $682 $702 $723 $745 $767 ST - Homeowner Prop $270 $278 $286 $295 $304 $313 $322 $332 $342 $352 Tax State Grants $123,461 $230,795 $220,000 $0 $0 $100,000 $103,000 $106,090 $109,273 $112,551 Federal Grants $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $50,000 $51,500 $53,045 $54,636 $56,275 In Lieu Revenues $135,000 $139,050 $143,222 $147,518 $151,944 $156,502 $161,197 $166,033 $171,014 $176,144 County Loan $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Repays $64,948 $68,195 $71,605 $75,185 $78,945 $82,892 $87,037 $91,388 $95,958 $100,756 Other (fees, don, misc.) $96,356 $101,174 $106,232 $111,544 $117,121 $122,977 $129,126 $135,583 $142,362 $149,480 Total $503,194 $554,983 $657,301 $350,975 $365,241 $530,119 $550,141 $570,968 $592,636 $615,181 Source: Foothill Associates, 2003

As stated previously, BRRPD shares use of the Magnolia Sports Complex, which is owned by the Pleasant Ridge School District. Therefore, revenue from the Complex is not provided to BRRPD, although BRRPD does share in some of the concession revenues.

Current and Future Expenses Estimated expenses for the BRRPD over the next ten years are illustrated in Table II-7.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review II-9 Bear River Recreation and Park District

TABLE II-7 BEAR RIVER RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT 10-YEAR EXPENSE Expense 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Regular Salaries $20,640 $21,672 $22,756 $23,893 $25,088 $26,342 $27,660 $29,043 $30,495 $31,019 P/T Seasonal $12,060 $12,663 $13,296 $13,961 $14,659 $15,392 $16,162 $16,970 $17,818 $18,709 Salaries Payroll Taxes $4,428 $4,649 $4,882 $5,126 $5,382 $5,651 $5,934 $6,231 $6,542 $6,869 Workmens Comp $4,000 $4,200 $4,410 $4,631 $4,862 $5,105 $5,360 $5,628 $5,910 $6,205 Tax Exempt $16,700 $17,535 $18,412 $19,332 $20,299 $21,314 $22,380 $23,499 $24,674 $25,907 (Enrich) Liability Insurance $4,500 $4,725 $4,961 $5,209 $5,470 $5,743 $6,030 $6,332 $6,649 $6,981 Maint & Janitorial $1,166 $1,224 $1,286 $1,350 $1,417 $1,488 $1,563 $1,641 $1,723 $1,809 Memberships $620 $651 $684 $718 $754 $791 $831 $872 $916 $962 Office Expense $1,500 $1,575 $1,654 $1,736 $1,823 $1,914 $2,010 $2,111 $2,216 $2,327 Professional $95,957 $100,755 $105,793 $111,082 $116,636 $122,468 $128,592 $135,021 $141,772 $148,861 Srvs/Fees Publications/ $1,000 $1,050 $1,103 $1,158 $1,216 $1,276 $1,340 $1,407 $1,477 $1,551 Advertising Rent $3,492 $3,667 $3,850 $4,042 $4,245 $4,457 $4,680 $4,914 $5,159 $5,417 Small Tools/Office $880 $924 $970 $1,019 $1,070 $1,123 $1,179 $1,238 $1,300 $1,365 Equip Recreation $950 $1,045 $1,150 $1,264 $1,391 $1,530 $1,683 $1,851 $2,036 $2,240 Services Travel Expenses $500 $525 $551 $579 $608 $638 $670 $704 $739 $776 Property Taxes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Utilities $600 $630 $662 $695 $729 $766 $804 $844 $886 $931 Telephone $2,400 $2,520 $2,646 $2,778 $2,917 $3,063 $3,216 $3,377 $3,546 $3,723 Recreation $4,500 $4,950 $5,445 $5,990 $6,588 $7,247 $7,972 $8,769 $9,646 $10,611 Supplies Structures & $242,061 $280,521 $368,816 $47,738 $46,478 $195,019 $197,846 $200,576 $203,194 $205,683 Improvements Contingency $85,240 $89,502 $93,977 $98,676 $103,610 $108,790 $114,230 $119,941 $125,938 $132,235 Total $503,194 $554,983 $657,304 $350,977 $365,242 $530,117 $550,142 $570,969 $592,636 $614,181 Source: Foothill Associates, 2003

Operations Less than ten percent of BRRPD’s annual budget is used for staff salary and benefits. Services and supplies, including utilities, liability insurance, and maintenance, are responsible for about another tenth of BRRPD’s annual expenses. The most significant expenses in the budget are those directly associated with providing programs and developing new facilities.

Park Acreage Currently, BRRPD is making $500 per month interest payments to purchase the Kimler Ranch Park site. A final payment of $60,000 is due in August 2005. BRRPD’s anticipated in-lieu revenues are shown in Table II-6 above.

Park Facilities BRRPD is in a position to fund capital improvements at this time due to its recent success in securing grants for key projects. BRRPD currently has about $575,000 in

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 II-10 Bear River Recreation and Park District

grant funds available for capital improvements. About one-third of this money is obligated for implementing the Overland Emigrant Trail and the expansion of the Magnolia Sports Complex. The remaining grants came to BRRPD from the California Department of Parks and Recreation through programs funded under Propositions 12 and 40. The specific use of these funds is still being determined by State Parks, but the expectation is that they are to be used on capital improvement projects only.

The 2003-2018 BRRPD Master Plan identifies the anticipated cost for future facilities within the BRRPD service area. Table II-9 illustrates the anticipated cost for future facilities within a 3-year time span and a 4- to 15-year time span. The total cost for the 3-year period is estimated to be $6,916,000 and $5,910,000 for the 4 to 15 year period.

The short-term projects are those needed to provide the services in greatest demand or to leverage the investments BRRPD has in existing resources. The most critical of the short-term projects are the Magnolia Sports Complex improvements, implementation of the Emigrant Trail, the initial phase of the Kimler Ranch Park improvements, two new baseball fields (one of which should be lighted), two new soccer fields, a play area, a group picnic area, and an equestrian arena. The total estimated cost for these highest priority projects is about $3.28 million.

Based on anticipated revenues discussed in above, BRRPD only has about $800,000 dollars available over the next three years for such capital improvements, leaving a shortfall of about $2.48 million.

Revenue projections through ten years assume that BRRPD will be able to secure grant monies at a rate of at least $150,000 per year beginning in 2008, with annual adjustments for inflation. Even with these grant funds, BRRPD will receive over the next ten years only about one-quarter of the revenues needed for implementation of the projects identified within the next three years. Another $5.9 million dollars will be needed to implement the long-term projects through 2018.

TABLE II-8 MASTER PLAN PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION COSTS Long Term (4-15 Short Term (3 years) Recommendation years) Total Cost Cost Magnolia Sports Complex Multi-use Building $125,000 $0 $125,000 Multi-purpose Field $130,000 $130,000 Parking Lot Upgrade and Expansion $45,000 $45,000 Skate Park $200,000 $200,000 Emigrant Trail Implementation Resource Assessment $6,000 $6,000 Section 106 Assessment $10,000 $10,000 Trail Master Plan $10,000 $10,000 Trail Head Acquisition $60,000 $60,000 CEQA/NEPA Environmental Review $10,000 $10,000 Construction Documents $18,000 $18,000 Implementation (Phased) $200,000 $200,000 Interpretive Signage $12,000 $12,000

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review II-11 Bear River Recreation and Park District

Long Term (4-15 Short Term (3 years) Recommendation years) Total Cost Cost Kimler Ranch Park Explore Acquisition Karen Dr. Access TBD TBD Resource Assessment $4,000 $4,000 Section 106 Assessment $8,000 $8,000 Finalize Master Plan $3,000 $3,000 CEQA/NEPA Environmental Review $10,000 $10,000 Construction Documents $40,000 $40,000 Phase 1 Implementation $150,000 $150,000 Phase 2 Implementation $500,000 $500,000 New Facilities Basketball Court (indoor) Incl. in gym cost Incl. in gym cost Volleyball Court Incl. in gym cost Incl. in gym cost Baseball Fields unlighted $300,000 $300,000 Baseball Fields lighted $160,000 $320,000 $480,000 Soccer Field $240,000 $60,000 $300,000 Community Center $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $6,000,000 Playgrounds $150,000 $90,000 $240,000 Group Picnic Area $750,000 $150,000 $900,000 Equestrian Arena $65,000 $65,000 Gymnasium $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $3,000,000 Total $6,916,000 $5,910,000 $12,826,000 Source: Foothill Associates, 2003

Paying for Future Operations and Infrastructure As previously stated, there is a substantial lack of funding to implement future projects in BRRPD. The 2003-2018 Master Plan has a number of recommendations to assist in the development of funding sources for future facilities and recreation programs. These include: • Grants and Donations Coordinator: There are significant opportunities for the Bear River Recreation and Park District to secure funding through public and private grants and donations. However, effective pursuit of such opportunities is time-consuming and requires professional grant-writing expertise, marketing skills, regular monitoring of funding organizations and grant cycles, and the ability to build strong collaborative relationships with potential grant partners. • Volunteer Labor and Donated Materials: Resources in the form of volunteer labor and donated materials could also play a very significant role in helping BRRPD meet its funding needs by reducing capital and/or maintenance costs. • Sponsorships and Endowments: BRRPD should consider developing a strategy to attract sponsorships and endowments from businesses and individuals to fund specific facilities or program operations. Contributions could be directed to single events, ongoing programs, or facility development ranging from memorial trees and benches to major buildings. Such a plan would provide businesses and individuals with the opportunity to contribute to the realization

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 II-12 Bear River Recreation and Park District

of a project or program that holds a particular personal interest and to associate that project or program with the business or person’s name in perpetuity.

Determinations - Financing and Rate Restructuring Facilities Sharing • BRRPD currently shares facilities at the Magnolia Sports Complex.

Financing Constraints and Opportunities • With general fund revenues of $14,000, the BRRPD is seriously under funded. • Current budget projections indicate that revenue and costs of service will be equal over the next few years. However, much of this revenue comes from state and federal grants, which may not be a reliable source of funding, as it is dependent on budgetary, as well as political, priorities of future administrations. • BRRPD anticipates approximately $6,916,000 in capital improvements will be needed over the next three years. Projects needed to provide the services in greatest demand or to leverage the investments BRRPD has in existing resources in the next three-year period will amount to approximately $3.28 million. Based on anticipated revenues over that period, BRRPD will have only about $800,000 available for capital improvements, leaving a shortfall of about $2.48 million. BRRPD will need to secure other funding sources to provide for these improvements. • BRRPD anticipates another $5,910,000 in capital improvements will be needed in a four- to fifteen-year time period. BRRPD must secure significant additional funding over the next fifteen years in order to implement all of the capital projects identified in the BRRPD Master Plan. • The BRRPD Master Plan made a number of suggestions for acquiring additional funding, of which a grants and donations coordinator position was one. Every effort should be made to staff this position, as much of the future funding for BRRPD’s recreational opportunities will be dependent on donations and grants. • BRRPD should develop a long-term acquisition plan that identifies preferred locations of additional parkland as specifically as possible. • Currently Nevada County collects fees and passes them on to the implementing district or city; this practice should be continued to provide services to all areas served by the County as it addresses the issue of demand for facilities resulting from new residents in the unincorporated County. • The District failed to garner enough support for an assessment proposed in 2004. Careful analysis of the factors that resulted in failure of the assessment should occur before the District determines how to address its funding deficiencies. Cost Avoidance Opportunities • The BRRPD Master Plan recommends a number of practices, ranging from use of volunteer labor and donated material to facilities sharing, to assist in the reduction of costs or maximization of cost-saving opportunities. Every opportunity should be taken to implement these practices. • There are a number of entities, both public and private, offering recreational opportunities and services within BRRPD’s service area. BRRPD should identify service providers and their offerings and determine how these services can complement BRRPD’s existing facilities and opportunities. Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review II-13 Bear River Recreation and Park District

• BRRPD has not reported whether any existing debts are being repaid on time.

Opportunities for Rate Restructuring • BRRPD has the lowest recreation impact fee of the five benefit zones in Nevada County and one of the highest anticipated growth rates. Its Quimby Fee clearly needs to be reexamined with a view to achieving a better match between needs and funding. • Further, lack of a meaningful and reliable source of revenues for non-capital expenditures is a serious constraint upon the District’s ability to provide the needed level of services, both now and in the future. The restriction on application of Quimby Fee revenue to capital expenditures, however, dictates that BRRPD should also initiate a ballot measure for an annual assessment that would provide funding of other critical expenses. • The County should update the Quimby Fee collected for the Bear River Benefit Zone based on BRRPD’s needs for parkland and improvements in order to fund future recreational demands of the growing population.

C) MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE

Authority of Governance and Scope of Local Agency Powers Principal Act of Authorization BRRPD is an independent special district, formed on January 1, 1995 to provide recreational services to its community. It operates under the authority of the Recreation and Park District Law, Public Resources Code, Sections 5780 et seq.

Public Input BRRPD holds regularly scheduled meetings on the third Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. The public is notified of the meeting by local postings, email and BRRPD website. Public comments are allowed at scheduled meetings and also can be provided in letters to BRRPD. Operating procedures and practices, including budgets, personnel policies, fees and rates, capital improvements plans, and other documents are available for public review at the BRRPD office. BRRPD activities go through public review procedures. There are sufficient mechanisms in place to ensure that actions and operating procedures of the district are open and accessible to the public. BRRPD maintains a website at http://www.brrpd.org where interested parties can obtain District information such as pending projects, minutes from Board meetings, and District news.

Organization and Scope The mission of the BRRPD “as the recreational leader of the community, is to provide a wide variety of year-round recreation programs, facilities, and park areas which respond to the needs and desires of all residents of the Bear River Recreation and Park District.” Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 II-14 Bear River Recreation and Park District

Goals This mission is attained by striving to achieve the following goals of the Bear River Recreation and Parks District: • Enhance the quality of life for all residents through the provision of public recreation programs and services; • Develop park areas and recreational facilities to meet the present and future demands of residents within BRRPD’s service area; • Ensure sufficient passive and active park land to meet the leisure needs of present and future populations; • Maintain park areas and facilities that are clean, safe, and aesthetically pleasing; • Effectively administer the revenues and expenditures of BRRPD's various budgets; • Effectively market BRRPD's services, and to contribute to the economic growth of Nevada County; and • Provision of a variety of passive and active recreation programs for all age groups in cooperation with schools and other community organizations.

Employees/Future Staff Need BRRPD is managed by a five-member Board of Directors, which oversees a part-time General Manager and one part-time administrative staff person. Currently BRRPD uses 25 persons on a seasonal basis and 20 contract staff persons. Recommendations for future staff position increases are established in the 2003-2018 Master Plan. According to the Master Plan, additional staff time is needed to enhance existing program coordination and facilitate implementation of the various recommendations outlined in the Master Plan. Increasing the General Manager position to full-time or adding additional part-time staff is recommended in the Master Plan. Also, when the Kimler Park site is completed, BRRPD will need to add maintenance staff; specific numbers of maintenance staff are not addressed in the Master Plan. The 2003-2018 Master Plan recommends that the District significantly increase permanent staffing in a phased manner over the next one to two years in order to effectively implement BRRPD’s objectives. Staffing recommendations include: • Increasing the General Manager position to full-time status, • Increasing the Administrative position to full-time status, • Creating a new full-time Program Coordinator position, and • Establishing a half-time Grants and Donations Coordinator position. Most of BRRPD’s administrative functions are carried out in leased office space in a small commercial development off Combie Road. This office does not include a conference room or adequate space for programs or community events. A larger and more permanent home for the BRRPD administrative office would provide greater pro- gramming and event opportunities and create a more visible presence for BRRPD in the community. The old farmhouse structure in Kimler Ranch Park has been identified in the 2003-2018 Master plan as a possible location of future administrative offices for BRRPD.

Determinations - Management and Governance Evaluation of Management Efficiencies BRRPD provides recreational opportunities in southwestern Nevada County. Also located in BRRPD’s service area are recreational facilities provided by the community of Lake of the Pines (which has five neighborhood parks and the Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review II-15 Bear River Recreation and Park District

south shore boat launch); two golf courses, Alta Sierra and Dark Horse; and the Magnolia Sports Complex (which is owned by Pleasant Ridge Union School District); and six schools which offer various facilities such as baseball fields, basketball courts and gymnasiums. Currently, BRRPD shares the Magnolia Sports Complex with Pleasant Ridge School District through a memorandum of understanding (MOU). No other sharing arrangements or cost avoidance strategies such as mutual aid, joint training or infrastructure sharing are established between BRRPD and any of the other recreation providers in its service area. BRRPD has not participated in any reorganization studies nor has this action been discussed at any Board meetings. BRRPD does not consider consolidation with other service providers a possibility nor has any realignment been discussed. • Currently, BRRPD only has two staff personnel. Both of these persons are working on a part-time basis. Increasing the General Manager position to full-time or adding additional part-time staff is recommended in the Master Plan. Also, when the Kimler Park site is completed, BRRPD will need to add maintenance staff for that site. • BRRPD does not have an organizational chart. However, because of the minimal staff BRRPD employs, an organizational chart is not considered necessary. • BRRPD Master Plan is very informative; it identifies future demand and defines projects to meet this demand. • The BRRPD budget recognizes the need to expand recreational opportunities to meet the needs of growth and development. The budget utilizes the Master Plan to prepare for the future. Local Accountability and Governance • BRRPD holds regular public meetings that are in compliance with the Brown Act and all laws governing public meetings. • All plans, reports and documents are available to the public. • All rate and fee increases are discussed and approved/disapproved in a public forum. • BRRPD has not provided information regarding level of public participation, participation of service users in elections or any audits. Government Structure Options • BRRPD has not participated in any reorganization studies with any other service providers in the past two years. BRRPD does not consider any restructuring needed. • The City of Grass Valley provides recreational facilities adjacent to and outside of the BRRPD service area. NID manages Lake Combie, which is located within BRRPD’s service area but is not currently available for public use. Every opportunity to coordinate service and facilities among these agencies should be pursued. • The possibility of BRRPD’s merging or consolidating with other recreational service providers or public agencies in the area (e.g., the City of Grass Valley) does exist. Given the City’s intention to grow to the limits of its Sphere of Influence, which is

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 II-16 Bear River Recreation and Park District

immediately north of the BRRPD boundary, it may be appropriate to expand the Grass Valley Benefit Zone south into the current BRRPD. Bibliography

Foothill Associates. 2003. Bear River Recreation and Park District Master Plan 2003-2018.

Potter, Jeff. General Manager for the Bear River Recreation and Park District. Response to Municipal Services Review Survey. 2004.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review II-17

III. Western Gateway Recreation and Park District

Information regarding the Western Gateway Recreation and Park District (WGRPD) was obtained though the recreation survey, Nevada County’s General Plan and Nevada County GIS information located on their website. According to WGRPD staff contacted during development of this MSR, WGRPD does not have a Master Plan, Strategic Plan, or budget available. The analysis for WGRPD is very limited because of these constraints. Very little information was available pertaining to the operations and resources of the District.

A) EXISTING AND FUTURE NEEDS

Service Area Formed in 1972 by voter approval, the WGRPD is located within the western portion of Nevada County, as seen in Figures 3 and 4. The District encompasses the unincorporated communities of Penn Valley, Lake Wildwood and Rough and Ready. The service area extends from the Yuba County line on the west and north to the Bear River Recreation and Park District on the south and includes areas near Grass Valley to the east.

No information was provided, through the recreation survey or otherwise, on the District’s opinion as to whether the service area is correct at this time, or if there are areas which may be served more efficiently by a different agency. It appears that the WGRPD service boundary includes a small portion of the City of Grass Valley Planning Area.

Description of Resources Information on the facility and services provided by WGRPD is provided below.

District Improved Facilities WGRPD maintains and operates the 80-acre Western Gateway Park.

District Unimproved Facilities WGRPD has no other park or recreation facilities, but Western Gateway Park is heavily used by residents inside and outside WGRPD’s boundaries.

District Services It does not appear that the District provides services other than maintenance and operation of the Western Gateway Park.

Other Facilities and Services within Service Area There are a number of other recreational facilities located within the WGRPD area which are not owned by WGRPD. These facilities must also be considered when assessing the need for additional recreational resources within WGRPD boundaries, as they help to meet the demand for recreation facilities. Most notable are the various facilities at South Yuba State Park, Englebright Lake and Lake Wildwood.

The South Yuba River State Park extends along the South Yuba River canyon from Englebright Reservoir below Bridgeport into the Tahoe National Forest. It is a 20-mile patchwork of lands under several jurisdictions. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) manages boat-in campsites and recreation areas at Englebright Lake.

Lake Wildwood is a gated community with 2,837 member lots and a population of more than 5,000. The development is owned by the homeowners and is administered by an elected board of directors, general manager and staff employees. It is presently 90 Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review III-1 Western Gateway Recreation and Park District percent built out with custom homes. Amenities include a 300-acre lake, 65 acres of parks and greenbelts including five developed parks, an 80-slip marina with a launching ramp and the marina clubhouse, a 42' x 75' swimming pool, six tennis courts (of which two are lighted), an 18-hole golf course with a driving range and a full service Pro Shop, as well as a Clubhouse with cocktail lounge, outdoor deck, and two indoor dining rooms.

Population and Housing Growth Park and recreation districts base much of their future need projections on anticipated growth within their district boundaries. WGRPD does not have a Master Plan nor have they developed any population projections for their service area.

Table III-1 shows population and housing unit projections for the WGRPD as established by Nevada County LAFCo. Nevada LAFCo’s population and development model applies the average household size of 2.44 taken from the 2000 census and the general unincorporated Nevada County growth rates of 1.7 percent per year (expected) and 2.0 percent per year (high).

TABLE III-1: NEVADA LAFCO POPULATION AND HOUSING UNIT GROWTH – WGRPD

Growth Scenario 2010 2015 2020 2025 Infill Housing Units 6,081 6,469 6,656 7,286 – Population Expected 14,839 15,784 16,240 17,778 Infill Housing Units 6,360 6,460 6,656 7,489 – Population High Growth 15,518 15,761 16,240 18,273 General Plan Housing Units 6,346 6,444 7,089 7,859 – Population Expected 15,484 15,724 17,296 19,175 General Plan Housing Units 6,342 6,438 7,117 8,105 – Population High Growth 15,475 15,709 17,365 19,775 Source: Nevada LAFCo; 2000 Census

Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies

Existing Deficiencies Regional standards, as reflected in the General Plans and policies of Nevada and nearby counties (e.g., Sacramento, Placer and El Dorado), typically suggest that communities should have between 3 and 5 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 people to adequately meet the need for active recreation facilities. No parkland standards have been established for WGRPD. Because WGRPD did not provide future parkland demand estimates, demand was calculated using Nevada County’s 3 acres per 1,000 persons ratio and Nevada County LAFCo’s infill high growth scenario population projections (because it has the largest population increase). Based on these calculations, WGRPD should currently provide a minimum of 26 acres of developed parkland (see Table III-2). WGRPD currently manages 80 acres of developed or improved parkland and, therefore, exceeds Nevada County’s parkland standards of 3 acres per 1,000 population. In addition, several other agencies own and/or manage recreational resources that are available for public use.

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 III-2 Western Gateway Recreation and Park District

TABLE III-2 PARK ACREAGE NEEDED

Year Population Total1 2010 15,484 25 2015 15,724 26 2020 17,296 31 2025 19,175 37 Source: PMC, 2005 and Nevada County LAFCo, 2005 1 Population for park acreage does not include Lake Wildwood (current population based on occupied lots and Nevada County average household size is 6,307 people; buildout population of 7,007 people is assumed for 2007) since it is expected that most of the residents will use the private neighborhood parks within that community. Note: Park acreage standard = 3 acres per 1,000 persons.

Projected Park Acreage Need If population growth occurs as anticipated and no new land or joint use agreements are secured, by the year 2027, WGRPD will need approximately 74 acres of parkland (see Table III-2). As stated above, WGRPD currently maintains 80 acres of parkland, which would satisfy the 2027 parkland need based on Nevada County’s parkland standard of 3 acres per 1,000 population.

Projected Park Facilities Need WGRPD did not identify any needed new park facilities in their response to the recreation survey. No other information was made available by WGRPD concerning projections of needed park or recreation facilities in a Master Plan, Strategic Plan or budget. Determination of the specific future recreation facilities needed is not within the scope of this MSR.

In 1997, Nevada County prepared a Capital Improvement Expenditure Plan for WGRPD. Years one through five of the Capital Improvement Expenditure Plan call for improvements such as acquisition of additional recreation acreage, construction of multi-purpose fields, a playground and other optional recreational improvements. Years six through ten of the plan call for picnic units, an additional multi-purpose field, tennis courts and other optional recreational facilities. It is anticipated that these programmed improvements will be adequate to accommodate projected growth.

Determinations - Existing And Future Need

Service Area and Future Growth • Failure of the WGRPD to respond makes it impossible to determine whether areas of the WGRPD’s services area are receiving adequate recreational opportunities.

• The adequacy of WGRPD’s existing boundaries is difficult to assess because of the lack of information regarding future services, service area, budget, and other details that would normally be included in a Master Plan. It is recommended that any future changes in service area be postponed until a comprehensive Master Plan can be developed.

Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies • The population of western Nevada County will grow by a substantial amount in future years, causing an increasing demand for parks and recreational facilities. However, the existing parks and recreation resources within the WGRPD service

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review III-3 Western Gateway Recreation and Park District

area are adequate to meet existing needs and appear sufficient to accommodate projected growth in the area.

• WGRPD has not developed a comprehensive Master Plan. This is a serious deficiency that should be addressed as soon as possible. A comprehensive Master Plan should include future population projections, standards for parkland acreage and facilities, identification of parkland acreage and needs for facilities and staffing, as well as an assessment of revenues and expenses.

B) FINANCING AND RATE RESTRUCTURING

All units of government – counties, cities and special districts – are financially independent within the limits of state law, and each local government has the ability to craft a unique variety of policies and practices. Each agency is equally empowered to make independent fiscal decisions; however, they are not equally empowered to generate revenues to support their decisions. WGRPD is a limited purpose agency. As an independent special district, WGRPD may impose only the types of taxes, assessments, and fees that have been authorized through legislation.

Revenue Sources and Expenses

Current and Future Revenues WGRPD receives revenues from a variety of sources as shown in Tables III-3 and III-4 below. WGRPD currently receives revenues primarily from Quimby Fees allocated by Nevada County and from an annual assessment on parcels within its service area. Detailed analysis of the revenue stream and costs cannot be made due to the lack of information provided by WGRPD.

Table III-3 Actual FY 2002-03 and 2003-04 Income

Revenue Source 2002-03 2003-04 Charges for service $33,911 $35,850 Special Assessments $204,318 $206,361 Grants and Contributions - $10,000 Other Government Revenues $9,751 $6,835 Total Revenues $247,980 $259,046

Program Expenses $233,694 $235,844

Net Revenue $14,286 $23,202 Source: Meyers, 2004

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 III-4 Western Gateway Recreation and Park District

Table III-4 Budget and Actual FY 2004-05 Income

Budgeted Income Actual Income Description Int. General Account $1,000 $1,000 Buttermakers $7,000 $7,660 Tennis $100 $0 Park $7,000 $8,500 Ballfields $14,000 $1,323 Amphitheater $400 $500 Golf $1,000 $900 Vehicle/Eqip. Sales $0 $0 Parcel Dep. $104,646 $104,645 Wood Sale $600 $0 Trash Dep. $100 $150 Total $135,845 $124,678

County Quimby Account Interest Earned $1,824 Mitigation Fees $16,175 Grant Monies Received to Date $130,314 Total Quimby Income $127,610

Total Actual Income $252,288 Source: Western Gateway Recreation and Park District, 2005

Recreation Impact Fees Currently, the County assesses a $917 fee per new residential unit created through the subdivision process as mitigation for recreation impacts on WGRPD. Impact fees for development within Lake Wildwood is a percentage of these fees. In Lake Wildwood, the impact fee is 38 percent ($348) of the stated amount of the benefit zone. The County allows developers to provide improved park facilities in lieu of up to 75 percent of the impact fee. Assuming the Nevada County average household size of 2.47 persons identified in the 2000 Census, the fee equates to approximately $366,800 for every additional 1,000 new residents. With an acreage standard of three acres per 1,000 people, WGRPD would have about $122,000 per acre to spend on both acquiring and developing new park facilities to serve the new residents. Development costs alone for typical park improvements are estimated to be between $130,000 to $170,000 per acre depending on the size of the park and the type of amenities. Annual Assessment In 1986, WGRPD voters approved an annual parcel charge of $7.95 to pay for improvements, operation and maintenance. In 1996, WGRPD voters approved another parcel charge increase, to the current $12.95. This fee is collected from all residential parcels within WGRPD’s boundaries. Based on the approximately 6,093 housing units in the service area, this assessment generates approximately $78,904 annually and will generate approximately $91,595 to $165,838 per year by 2027 based on growth projections.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review III-5 Western Gateway Recreation and Park District

Other Sources In l972 Boise Cascade deeded the land for the park to the County and provided some start-up funds for a limited amount of development. The County, however, provided no funding source for maintenance of the park. Current and Future Expenses Total expenditures for the 2002-03 and 2003-04 FY and budget expenditures for the 2004- 05 FY are shown in Table III-5 below. Table III-5 Actual and Budget Expenditures

Fiscal Year Actual Expenditure Budgeted Expenditure 2002-03 $233,694 2003-04 $235,844 - 2004-05 $177,588 - 2005-06 - $150,570 Source: Western Gateway Recreation and Park District, 2005 and Myers, 2004

Operations No future facility cost analysis was provided by WGRPD. Park Acreage No future facility cost analysis was provided by WGRPD. In 1997 Nevada County completed an impact fee study titled Park and Recreation Capital Improvement Impact Fee Study. This study listed a number of capital improvements for WGRPD. (See Table III-6.) Dated as this information may be, it does give some idea of the needed facility improvements and related costs for WGRPD. It is assumed that most of the improvements scheduled for years 1 through 5 are completed. However, no information is available to validate this assumption. Table III-6 WESTERN GATEWAY TEN YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT EXPENDITURE PLAN (1997-2007)

Neighborhood and Community Parkland Needs Estimated Expense Years 1 through 5 Acquisition of Additional Recreation Acreage $110,000 Phase One Associated Land Improvements $186,070 Band Shelter $95,000 Three Multiple Purpose Fields $60,000 One Children's Playground $50,000 Other Optional Recreational Improvements $ 100,000 Total $601,070 Years 6 through 10 One Multi-Purpose Field $120,000 Twenty Picnic Units $40,000 Other Optional Recreational Facilities $ 117,330 Two Tennis Courts $60,000 One Baseball/Softball Fields with Lights $ 226,500 Total $563,830 Source: Nevada County, 1997 Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 III-6 Western Gateway Recreation and Park District

It is assumed that most of the improvements addressed in Table III-6 were constructed during 1997 – 2005.

Park Facilities No future facility cost analysis was provided by WGRPD. See the discussion under Park Acreage above for a description of Nevada County’s Capital Improvement Expenditure Plan for the district.

Paying for Future Operations and Infrastructure WGRPD did not provide cost analysis regarding future operations and infrastructure.

Determinations - Financing and Rate Restructuring

Cost Avoidance Opportunities • The WGRPD’s revenue increased by $11,066 or 4.5 percent during the year ended June 30, 2004 (Myers, 2004).

• There are a number of entities, both public and private, providing recreational opportunities and services within WGRPD’s service area. WGRPD should work with service providers to determine how these services can complement WGRPD’s existing facilities and opportunities.

• A Strategic Plan and Master Plan should be developed. These documents should identify revenue sources and expenses, provide a cost avoidance analysis, and address whether projected revenues are adequate to fund planned improvements.

Opportunities for Rate Restructuring • Nevada County assesses a $917 Quimby fee on new lots within the Western Gateway Benefit Zone, except within Lake Wildwood, where the fee is $348. Assuming the recreation development impact fee is not increased prior to 2027, WGRPD can expect approximately $604,303 to be generated in recreation funds. Combined with the annual parcel assessment, this should continue to fund needed facility improvements.

• WGRPD has the highest recreation impact fee of the five areas receiving this fee in the County. As the WGRPD has adequate parkland, and its funding appears sufficient to maintain and improve its parkland, these fees should only be increased to keep pace with inflation.

C) MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE

Authority of Governance and Scope of Local Agency Powers Special districts are created and authorized through principal acts. These acts create the framework within which special districts operate by defining services that may be Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review III-7 Western Gateway Recreation and Park District provided, outlining the territory that may be served, stipulating characteristics of the governing board, specifying the basis of voter representation, and identifying the range and limits of authority for each district. A special district may only engage in those activities outlined in its principal act.

Principal Act of Authorization WGRPD is an independent special district, formed in 1972. It operates under the provisions of the Public Resources Code Section 5780, et seq.

Public Input WGRPD holds regularly scheduled meetings on the third Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. The public is notified of meetings by local newspaper postings and mailings to Board members. Public comments are allowed at scheduled meetings and also can be provided through written correspondence to WGRPD.

WGRPD and its activities go through public review procedures. There are sufficient mechanisms in place to ensure that actions of WGRPD are open and accessible to the public. It is unclear, however, where the District’s budgetary and other organizational or operational records are maintained, so information is not readily accessible to the public.

Organizational Structure WGRPD is managed by an elected, five-member Board of Directors who serve four-year terms. The Board oversees all WGRPD operations

Employees/Future Staff Need Currently, WGRPD has two full-time employees and one part-time employee. WGRPD uses two persons on a seasonal basis. Future staff needs were not identified by WGRPD.

Determinations - Management and Governance

Government Structure and Reorganization Possibilities

Evaluation of Management Efficiencies • Currently, WGRPD only has two full- and one part-time staff. Information regarding the adequacy of this staff was not provided by WGRPD. As WGRPD operates a single facility, limited staffing and management is appropriate to WGRPD’s apparent scope of services. • WGRPD does not have an organizational chart. However, because of the District’s minimal staff, an organizational chart is not considered necessary. • A comprehensive Master Plan including future staff needs should be completed by WGRPD, as described under the Service Area Determinations. • WGRPD provides recreational opportunities in western Nevada County. There are also a number of other recreational facilities located within the WGRPD area. Most notable are the various facilities at South Yuba River State Park, Englebright Lake and Lake Wildwood. WGRPD has not been involved in any reorganization studies nor has this been discussed at any Board meetings. WGRPD does not consider consolidation with other service providers a possibility nor has any realignment been discussed.

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 III-8 Western Gateway Recreation and Park District

Local Accountability and Governance • WGRPD holds regular public meetings that are in compliance with the Brown Act and all laws governing public meetings. • As noted above, the location of District records is not clear, so information about its operations is not readily accessible to the public. Prior to expanding its service area or scope of services, WGRPD should prepare a Master Plan and commit to preparing a brief annual report, including a budget, stating anticipated parkland, facility, and personnel needs, that is made available to the public. • All rate and fee increases (such as the 1996 parcel charge increase discussed previously) are discussed and approved or disapproved in a public forum. • WGRPD did not comment concerning level of public participation or the participation of service users in elections or audits. Government Structure Options • WGRPD has not been involved in any reorganization studies with any other service providers in the past two years nor does WGRPD consider any restructuring to be needed. • The California Department of Forestry (South Yuba State Park), and the cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City provide recreational facilities within or adjacent to WGRPD service area. Every opportunity to coordinate service and facilities among these agencies should be pursued. • The possibility to merge or consolidate WGRPD with other recreational service providers or public agencies in the area (e.g., the cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City) does exist.

Bibliography

Kerns, Jane. Secretary for the Western Gateway Recreation and Park District. Response to Survey. June 8, 2004.

Meyers, B.L. August 26, 2004. Western Gateway Recreation and Park District Financial Statements and Required Supplementary Information for the Year Ended June 30, 2004. Grass Valley, CA.

Nevada County. 1997. Final Recreation Impact Fee Study - November, 1997.

Western Gateway Recreation and Park District. 2004-05 Budget and Actual Expenditures. 2004 Income. 2003-04 Budget and Actual Expenditures.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review III-9

IV. Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District

This section is based on information provided by the Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District (TDRPD), the 1996 TDRPD Master Service Element (MSE), the 2004 Placer County LAFCo Municipal Services Review and the 2004 Nevada County General Plan.

A) EXISTING AND FUTURE NEEDS

Service Area The TDRPD is located in the eastern portion of Nevada and Placer counties, in the area generally east of the Sierra Nevada crest and extending to the Nevada State border. The TDRPD boundaries extend from the Sierra County line in the north to the Placer County line in the south, continuing into Placer County to include the communities at Donner Lake, Sierra Meadows, and Ponderosa Palisades. The east-west reach of the District is from the Nevada state line to a line west of Kingsvale, on the west side of the summit of the Sierra Nevada. (See Figure 4.) The entire district is approximately 220 square miles. Less than one tenth of this area has experienced significant development. This populated area of development is referred to as the “urban corridor” in this MSR. The urban corridor is surrounded by natural forested lands, with the United States Forest Service being the primary land owner and private owners holding the remainder. This surrounding open space, comprising of 90 percent of TDRPD, exhibits a mountain landscape character. The great majority of population within the TDRPD resides in the immediate vicinity of Truckee and a smaller residential area in Nevada County at Donner Summit. However, there are smaller satellite communities, such as Floriston and Glenshire, which are some distance from the commercial part of Truckee. The TDRPD currently has a coterminous sphere of influence, meaning that the sphere is the same as the District’s boundaries.

Description of Resources The TDRPD has various types of facilities, which are geographically dispersed throughout the district and provide for a variety of programs and events.

District Improved Facilities A complete listing of facilities owned or operated by TDRPD is found in Table IV-1 below. TDRPD’s land holdings comprise 94.1 acres. The largest facilities maintained by TDRPD, including the Truckee River Regional Park and the River View Sports Park, are located within one mile of the Placer County line and within two miles of the great majority of the residential areas within TDRPD’s jurisdiction (which also includes areas in Placer County). The nearest alternate public recreation and park facilities in either county that residents of the TDRPD could use are at the north shore of Lake Tahoe ten miles away. The majority of recreation and park facilities are farther away, many near Tahoe City. Based upon travel times, the similarity of facilities and heavy seasonal traffic associated with the Lake Tahoe area, it is unlikely that families from the Truckee and Martis Valley area would make the trip to Tahoe area recreation and park facilities. It is likely that residents of the TDRPD will utilize recreational facilities and programs in eastern Nevada County.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review IV-1 Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District

TABLE IV-1 TRUCKEE DONNER RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT FACILITIES

Park or Land Age/Size1 Amenities Location Facility (acres) Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District Holdings Auditorium, kitchen, meeting 10046 Community 26 years/10,000 rooms, Truckee Donner 1.0 Church Center sf Recreation and Park District Street offices, playground, lawn Teen activities, pool tables, ping Activity 11695 pong, computers, games, movies, Center/Multi- 6 years/3,000 sf 4.0 Donner Pass homework area, meeting rooms, Use Field Road multiple use field 10115 Ball fields, playground, picnic Meadow Park 24 years 6.1 Donner Trail area, open turf Road Small auditorium with stage, 36 years/6,000 10214 High Veteran’s Hall 1.0 meeting rooms, kitchen/dining sf Street area, youth group rental Tahoe Drive Small neighborhood park with Bill Rose Park 28 years 0.3 and Spring playground equipment Lane Recreation facilities including large and small ball fields, 4 picnic 63.6 areas with tables and BBQs, rodeo 28 years/63.6 (24.2 arena, nature trail, Legacy trail, acres, owned owned by tennis courts, volleyball and 10500 Truckee River variously by TDRPD, basketball courts, amphitheater, Brockway Regional Park TDRPD;, TDPUD; balance tot lot, 10,000 sf skateboard park, Road and TSD under long disc golf course, seasonal ice rink, term lease. and playground equipment, seasonal outdoor ice rink (4 years old) Small neighborhood park, Floriston Floriston Park 21 years 0.3 including playground and small (Nevada grass area. County) Day use, shaded picnic and BBQ sites, designated swim area, 15888 S. covered pavilion, basketball, West End Shore Drive 24 years 11.5 tennis, volleyball, playgrounds, Beach (Donner horseshoe pits, kayak and Lake) paddleboat rentals, snack bar, boat parking, fishing area Donner Lake 35 public piers along lake, season Public Piers, 24 years 4.0 boat launching, doublewide Donner Lake Boat Ramp dock, fishing Midway on All Access Pier designed to provide lake north shore Handicap 8 years 0.7 access for persons with any level of Donner Fishing Pier of physical disability Lake Midway on Bank fishing, picnic tables, and north shore Shoreline Park 26 years 1.6 hand launching of small craft and of Donner windsurfers Lake

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 IV-2 Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District

Park or Land Age/Size1 Amenities Location Facility (acres) Intersection New In design Location for new community of Hwys. 80, Community 13.21 acres phase center. 89N, and 267 Center Bypass. Non-District Holdings (Managed by Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District) 10990 One youth baseball/softball field, Glenshire Park 7 years 6 acres Dorchester open turf for soccer fields Drive 32 acres BMX track, 4 multi-purpose sports River View 12304 2 year leased fields, picnic shelter, playground, Sports Park Joerger Drive from TSD 3 bocce ball courts Truckee 6 lane, 25 yard indoor pool, one 11725 Community 27 years -- meter diving board, heated, Donner Pass Pool open year round Road Source: Placer County LAFCo Municipal Services Review, 2004 and Randall, 2005. 1 Facility ages have been adjusted for year 2005

District Unimproved Facilities The TDRPD is planning construction of a new Community Center on a 13.21-acre parcel. Planned improvements include a two-court gymnasium, an aquatic facility, community rooms and a theater. Groundwork for the facility is expected to commence in Spring 2006. The center will be constructed in phases. The first phase, consisting of the two- court gymnasium, is expected to begin in Spring 2007. Construction costs for the first phase are estimated at $8 million dollars. Subsequent phases will be built as funds become available. Construction of the entire center is expected to cost $40 million dollars and require ten years to complete. District Services The TDRPD provides many classes and programs, including preschool and after school programs; teen programs; adult and youth sports programs; summer camp programs, dance, exercise, and gymnastic classes; karate; aquatics programs; art and language classes; dog training; and several others. Special events administered by the TDRPD include an Easter egg hunt, haunted house, summer music series, ski swap, and Fourth of July celebration. TDRPD offers a wide range of programs for children 2-12 years of age. TDRPD’s Little Stars Preschool and Summer Superstar preschool programs provide enrichment and social exposure to young boys and girls. TDRPD’s Camp programs invite grades 1-5 to create, play, learn and make new friends. Teen programs and Club Radical are geared towards 6-10 graders, offering many different activities for teens. The Teen Center is open Monday through Friday from 2:15 - 6:00 PM. Club Radical offers enrichment courses for teens as well. TDRPD also holds special trips during the holidays and teen dances on Fridays. Recreation and Park Activity Guides are published twice yearly and mailed to TDRPD households. Classes, special events, and sports activities are advertised in the local newspaper and on the local public television station. The TDRPD also hosts and maintains a website. Other Facilities and Services within Service Area There are also a number of other recreational facilities located within the TDRPD area which are not owned by TDRPD. These facilities must also be considered when assessing the need for additional recreational resources within TDRPD boundaries, as they help to meet the demand for recreation facilities. As stated previously, 90 percent of the land within TDRPD is forested, and additional recreational opportunities are offered by the

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review IV-3 Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District

Tahoe and Toiyabe National Forests and state parkland, including Donner Memorial State Park at Donner Lake.

Population and Housing Growth Nevada County LAFCo Population Projections For the Town of Truckee, Nevada County LAFCo population projections yield two projection scenarios, based on an expected growth rate and a high growth rate spanning the 20-year period from 2005 to 2025. The expected growth scenario for the Town of Truckee uses an average 2.0 percent growth rate per year, while the high growth scenario uses a 3.0 percent annual growth rate. (These rates represent an average taken over the period in question and do not necessarily reflect the specific five-year spans illustrated in Table IV-2.) According to these projections, Truckee will have an expected permanent population of 15,884 in 2010; in the high growth scenario the corresponding figure is 16,604. By 2025, the permanent population is projected to be 20,213 for the expected growth scenario and 23,094 for the high growth scenario.

Table IV-2 also includes population projections for unincorporated eastern Nevada County as developed by Nevada County LAFCo. The model develops four different growth scenarios: two that assume an expected growth rate of 1.7 percent annually (with two development pattern variations, General Plan and Infill) and two that assume a high growth rate of 2.0 percent annually (using the same two development pattern variations).

Total population for the eastern Nevada County area is estimated to be between 19,411 and 20,995 in 2015 based on the expected and high growth scenarios. By 2025, the high growth population is expected to be approximately 26,297 people.

TABLE IV-2 NEVADA COUNTY LAFCO POPULATION PROJECTIONS – TOWN AND COUNTY PORTIONS OF TRUCKEE DONNER RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT

Growth Scenario 2010 2015 2020 2025 Infill Housing Units 6,389 6,955 7,583 8,222 – Population 21,146 Expected 17,826 19,411 22,908

Infill Housing Units 6,672 7,521 8,432 9,384 – Population High Growth 18,619 20,995 23,523 26,149 General Plan Housing Units 6,389 6,955 7,648 8,321 – Population Expected 17,826 19,411 21,304 23,149 General Plan Housing Units 6,672 7,521 8,500 9,445 – Population 20,995 26,297 High Growth 18,619 23,687 Source: Nevada County Census, 2000 1 The total population was calculated using the high growth scenario for the Town of Truckee and the high General Plan growth rate for the unincorporated eastern portion of Nevada County.

Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies TDRPD maintains an inventory of facilities and land, including information about the size and age of facilities. Planning for repairs and replacement of facilities is done on a yearly basis, as determined necessary by the TDRPD staff and the Board of Directors.

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 IV-4 Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District

The TDRPD manages 94.1 acres of improved and unimproved parkland, nearly twice the amount dictated by its parkland standard of 5 acres per 1,000 population. As noted, several other agencies own and/or manage recreational resources that are also available for public use (see Table IV-1). It is important to note that TDRPD has long-term land leases with developed facilities for approximately another 40 acres (see Table IV-1).

TABLE IV-3 PA RK ACREAGE NEEDED

Year Population Total1 2010 17,826 53 2015 19,411 58 2020 21,304 63 2025 23,149 69 Source: PMC, 2005 and Nevada County LAFCo Note: Park acreage standard = 5 acres per 1,000 persons. Projected Park Acreage Need If population growth occurs as anticipated and no new land or joint use agreements are secured, by the year 2027 TDRPD will need approximately 94 acres of parkland based on the District’s parkland standard of 5 acres per 1,000 population. As stated above, however, TDRPD currently maintains 94.1 acres of parkland and manages another 38 acres of parkland, satisfying the 2027 parkland need.

Projected Park Facilities Need The TDRPD Ten Year Master Plan covered the planning period 1990-2000. In 1996, the District prepared a Master Service Element which laid out projected facility and infrastructure needs for the period of 1996-2016, including generalized cost estimates and projected five-year timeframes for need of new facilities. These documents are used in an advisory fashion in considering desired new facilities. TDRPD does not maintain a formal Capital Improvements Program to monitor and plan for necessary improvements to infrastructure and facilities. Seven years ago the District’s board identified two major deficiencies. The first was a lack of field and turf space; the second was inadequate indoor community facilities. In 2002, the District built a 32 acre park (Riverview Sports Park) which addressed the first deficiency for the next 15 to 20 years. The District has recently acquired a 13.1-acre parcel and is presently in design phase for a 75,000 square foot Community Center, which will address the second deficiency. As the majority of TDRPD’s park sites are improved with park and recreational facilities, it is anticipated that the existing park facilities would satisfy the 2027 park facility needs, just as the existing acreage is adequate to satisfy parkland needs.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review IV-5 Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District

Determinations - Existing and Future Needs

Service Area and Future Growth • The service area under jurisdiction of the TDRPD does not overlap that of any other recreation and park service provider. As stated in the Placer County LAFCo MSR, the TDRPD does not maintain any excess capacity nor are any buildings or facilities being underutilized. The District maintains records of attendance for all programs and facilities; these records support the need for additional community indoor space, which is more heavily utilized because of the area’s severe winter weather. • Popular TDRPD facilities such as West End Beach and Shoreline Park appear to operate at “maximum” capacity or in overcrowded conditions during the summer season as a result of the seasonal influx of second homeowners in Truckee and the surrounding areas. • The Town of Truckee Draft 2004 General Plan Land Use Map shows two planned communities (referred to as PC-1 and PC-3 on the map) and two special study areas within the Town limits generally located south of Interstate 80 and near the southern town limit. These planned communities and study areas are located near existing TDRPD recreational facilities. • The Town of Truckee Draft 2004 General Plan Land Use Sphere of Influence Map shows three additional planned residential developments (referred to as PDR-1, PDR-2 and PDR-3 on the map) located outside the Town limits. PDR-1 is located immediately west of the current Town limits to the north and south of Interstate 80. PDR-2 is located immediately east of the Town limits and south of Interstate 80 and the Truckee River. PDR-3 is located generally south and east of the Town limits. Any future expansions of the Town or its Sphere of Influence is subject to review and approval by Nevada County LAFCo.

Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies • The population of the Town of Truckee, eastern Nevada County and the Placer County portion of the District will grow by a substantial amount in future years, causing an increasing demand for parks and recreational facilities. • Outdoor parks and facilities within the TDRPD service area are adequate to meet existing needs; further, these resources are sufficient to accommodate projected growth in the area. • Indoor meeting and community facilities are currently over-utilized and considered inadequate to meet current and future needs. • TDRPD prepared a Master Plan for the period from 1990 to 2000, as well as a Master Service Element in 1996. However, an updated comprehensive Master Plan has not been prepared nor have formal facilities standards been adopted. The District should update its Master Plan, including future population projections, standards for parkland acreage and facilities, identification of recreational facilities and future staffing needs, and an assessment of revenues and expenses. • To supplement its own facilities, the TDRPD relies upon the availability of school district facilities as locations for programs and activities. TDRPD’s use of school facilities is currently precluded by growth in programs administered by the school district. (Land owned by the school district on which TDRPD facilities are already located constitutes an exception.)

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 IV-6 Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District

B) FINANCING AND RATE RESTRUCTURING TDRPD is a limited purpose agency. As an independent special district, TDRPD may impose only the types of taxes, assessments, and fees that have been authorized through legislation. Revenue Sources and Expenses Current and Future Revenues TDRPD’s revenue derives mainly from property taxes assessed within Nevada County. The District does not receive property tax revenue from Placer County, though it includes territory in that county. TDRPD has not received Quimby or mitigation fees from Placer County, although Placer has recently indicated the District can apply for these fees (Randall, 2005). Other revenue sources include pool assessments, mitigation and Quimby fees, service charges, rent and concessions, interest, and donations. Table IV-4 sum- marizes TDRPD revenue sources and amounts from fiscal years 2000-2005. Recreation Impact Fees Within the Town of Truckee, an AB1600 mitigation fee is collected and allocated to TDRPD. Last updated in 2001, this fee is $0.40 per square foot of residential development only. It is not charged for parcels that paid the Quimby fee (Randall, 2005). The Quimby fee collected in the Town of Truckee is $2,623 and was last updated in 2001. TDRPD does not currently have plans to update the Quimby fee or AB1600 fee (Randall, 2005). Nevada County collects a Quimby fee of $1,009 in the Nevada County portion of the TDRPD service area outside the Town of Truckee and distributes the proceeds to the District. Within the Placer County portions of the TDRPD, the County collects Quimby fees for parks services in the amount of $1,450 per new parcel, but does not distribute the proceeds to TDRPD. Use of Quimby fee monies is restricted by State law to new construction and development of parks and recreational facilities or rehabilitation of existing parks and recreational facilities. Annual Assessment The TDRPD does not collect an annual assessment. Other Sources Historically, the TDRPD has been awarded grant monies that have supplemented other revenue; however, given the level of competition for grants, the TDRPD does not rely on grant funding as an annual source of revenue. The TDRPD’s funds are invested in the Nevada County Investment Pool, which consists of a pool of funds from various agencies that are invested by the Nevada County Treasurer. Interest income that is earned is allocated to the various participating entities based on month-end cash balances and is reported net of expenses associated with County investment activities. Investments into the pool made by the TDRPD are not categorized. TDRPD collects an $8 parcel fee for swimming pool operation (Randall, 2005). The TDRPD does not participate in any joint financing or funding opportunities related to the facilities they provide.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review IV-7 Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District

Table IV-4 Revenue Summary 2000-05 Fiscal Years

Projected Projected Received Received Received Account FY 04-05 FY 03-04 FY 02-03 FY 01-02 FY 00-01 Fund Balance 2,080,223 1,337,573 531,164 530,814 734,038 Taxes 2,325,000 2,250,000 2,120,973 1,893,783 1,732,207 Interest Apportionment 25,000 30,000 20,848 36,929 66,917 Swim Pool Assessment 134,000 133,000 132,706 131,091 126,633 Recreation and Park Fees 1,200,000 1,123,337 1,195,301 1,120,216 1,021,603 Bank Loan 0 0 362,306 1,637,694 0 Others ** 10,000 40,000 23,744 37,774 31,715 Sub Total 5,774,223 4,913,910 4,387,042 5,388,300 3,713,113 Grant Money 380,000 714,000 145,000 10,000 57,149 State Bond Act 2002 - $220,000: New Community Center State Park Bond Act 2002 (from Nevada County) - $65,000 : Legacy Trail California Energy Commission, U.S. Forest Service - $95,000: Biomass Building QUIMBY Fund Balance 605,961 187,335 181,399 205,044 147,027 QUIMBY Mitigation Fees 2,000,000 100,000 296,274 170,542 49,058 AB 1600 Fund Balance 338,093 65,029 305,242 747,827 398,705 AB 1600 Building Fees 250,000 250,000 254,305 297,577 346,752 Sub Total 3,194,054 602,364 1,037,221 1,420,990 941,542 New Community Center - $3,064,054 Swimming Pool Renovation Project - $130,000 Accounts Total 9,348,277 6,230,274 5,569,263 6,819,290 4,711,804

Recreation & Park Fees Summary Recreation Fees 920,000 853,337 921,229 892,883 809,637 West End Beach Fees 100,000 95,000 99,545 104,243 82,596 Swimming Pool Fees 60,000 55,000 63,133 57,013 56,204 Boat Ramp Fees 15,000 10,000 15,282 7,932 14,898 Ice Skating Rink 40,000 40,000 33,159 42,753 0 Other District Facilities ***** 65,000 70,000 62,953 58,145 58,268 Recreation & Park Fees Total 1,200,000 1,123,337 1,195,301 1,162,969 1,021,603

***** Community Center 15,000 15,000 8,838 12,095 10,835 Regional Park 25,000 25,000 23,570 24,912 20,780 Veteran's Hall 12,000 20,000 9,731 9,079 18,077 Activity Center 13,000 10,000 20,814 12,059 8,576 65,000 70,000 62,953 58,145 58,268

TOTAL REVENUES 10,548,277 7,353,611 6,764,564 7,982,259 5,733,407 Source: Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District, 2005

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 IV-8 Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District

Current and Future Expenses TDRPD expenditures include salaries, wages, employee benefits, administration, supplies, repairs, maintenance, utilities, insurance, and capital outlay. TDRPD’s expenditures for the FY 1999-2005 are shown in Table IV-5.

TABLE IV-5 EXPENDITURE SUMMARY FY 1999-2005

Projected Projected Expended Expended Expended Expended Category FY 04-05 FY 03-04 FY 02-03 FY 01-02 FY 00-01 FY 99-00 Employee Services 2,304,032 2,146,809 2,014,788 1,810,124 1,568,868 1,388,231 Communications 24,750 23,925 21,561 17,611 21,957 18,606 Food 31,795 33,895 29,518 28,385 26,733 21,277 Household 21,000 23,000 24,068 17,998 18,349 20,861 Insurance 50,000 50,000 38,291 35,820 15,564 85,415 Main. Of Equipment 110,350 22,350 80,195 67,492 11,918 69,463 Main. Of Vehicles 23,000 23,000 19,576 12,989 17,380 21,023 Memberships 13,100 13,570 7,253 5,685 6,630 6,175 Employee Incentives 2,550 2,600 1,811 0 0 0 Office Expenses 58,925 47,600 187,226 39,101 43,881 33,198 Prof. & Spec. Services 828,990 849,639 201,613 153,299 233,764 108,176 Publications 22,825 22,860 22,857 18,857 20,514 22,426 Rents & Leases-Equip. 45,825 43,000 14,925 19,658 16,187 13,014 Rents & Leases-Str/Grd 300 203 200 200 200 101 Small Tools & Supplies 273,600 275,641 186,276 215,667 212,030 156,503 Special Dist. Services 158,416 137,946 257,799 284,459 234,927 132,882 Trans. & Travel 73,925 68,175 59,902 41,568 38,808 34,165 Utilities 133,600 127,800 90,075 87,738 62,081 56,879 Taxes & Assessments 221,821 362,950 81,968 74,366 69,774 75,725 Land 3,800,000 1,089,285 0 326,288 38,000 Structures & Impvmts. 384,500 408,600 515,667 2,545,474 283,987 292,209 Equipment 63,500 44,500 50,644 80,813 26,350 43,909 Cap. Equip. Purchases 109,500 312,926 22,660 63,645 23,753 53,071 Allocated Reserves 488,800 100,000 0 0 0 0 Unallocated Reserves 103,173 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 9,348,277 6,230,274 3,928,872 5,620,950 3,279,943 2,691,309 Source: Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District, 2005

As shown in Tables IV-4 and IV-5, revenues collected by the TDRPD have exceeded, or are projected to exceed, expenditures in fiscal years 2000-2005.

Operations Approximately 25 percent of TDRPD’s FY 2004-05 budget was projected to be used for employee services. Other services and supplies, including utilities, liability insurance, office expenses, maintenance, and rents and leases of equipment are Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review IV-9 Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District

responsible for about another five percent of TDRPD’s annual expenses. The most significant expenses in the budget are those directly associated with developing new facilities (PMC, 2005). Park Acreage TDRPD’s FY 2004-05 budget shows that the TDRPD was projected to expend $4,889,285 for land acquisition between FY 2003 and 2005 (see Table IV-5). Park Facilities TDRPD is in a position to fund capital improvements at this time due to its recent success with securing grants for key projects. TDRPD received about $380,000 in grant funds for capital improvement in FY 2004-2005. Paying for Future Operations and Infrastructure Based on review of the TDRPD’s 2004-05 budget, the District appears to have adequate funding to implement future projects in its service area. Determinations - Financing and Rate Restructuring

Financing Constraints and Opportunities • The current budget projects revenue to exceed service costs. Some revenue (approximately four percent for FY 2004-05) is state and federal grant money, which may not be a reliable source of funding, as it is dependent on budgetary, as well as political, whims of future administrations.

• TDRPD anticipates approximately $40,000,000 in capital improvements will be needed over the next ten years to complete the new Community Center. TDRPD has secured funding for construction of the first phase, at $8,000,000. However, funding for the additional phases has not yet been identified. TDRPD will need to secure additional funding sources to provide for these improvements.

Cost Avoidance Opportunities • The TDRPD constructs many of its facilities and operates programs jointly with other districts and private and public agencies. The sharing of parks and facilities produces cost savings through reduction in operating costs and maintenance, which can be shared among the agencies involved. As an example, the TDRPD maintains a joint use agreement with the school district. The TDRPD also leases land from the Truckee Sanitary District and the Truckee Donner Public Utility District for several of the existing park facilities. • TDRPD uses a variety of revenue sources to provide recreation services.

Opportunities for Rate Restructuring • TDRPD’s Quimby and AB1600 fees (in Nevada County) were last updated in 2001 and appear to be adequate at this time. • TDRPD collects impact fee revenues from Nevada County, but not Placer County. However, Placer County residents use TDRPD facilities. Placer County collects both Quimby and AB1600 fees and, while TDRPD can apply for these fees, no fees have actually been received by the District. The District has been in negotiations with Placer County for the last four years to pursue this potential funding source. This effort should be pursued vigorously.

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 IV-10 Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District

C) MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE

Authority of Governance and Scope of Local Agency Powers Principal Act of Authorization The TDRPD was formed April 23, 1962 under Section 58133, Government Code, authorized by Section 5780.7 of the Public Resource Code.

Public Input The District is governed by an elected five-member Board of Directors . Regular meetings of the Board are held on the second Thursday of each month and are noticed to the public the Friday before. Public comment is encouraged and requested at all meetings. The administration office is open to the public from 8 AM to 5:30 PM, Monday through Thursday, and until 5 PM on Fridays. Annual progress and status reports are prepared by the TDRPD. A legal notice is published in the local newspaper announcing the availability of a preliminary budget for review. The notice also includes an invitation to all interested taxpayers to provide comment at the Board meetings, prior to the adoption of the final budget. The budget is understandable to the public. The TDRPD operates on a fiscal year which runs from October 1 to September 30; the District’s books were last audited in December 2004.

Organizational Structure The current organization of the TDRPD provides for an appointed General Manger, who reports directly to the District Board, and a Controller and Executive Secretary, who report to the General Manager and occasionally to the Board. Both the Recreation Superintendent and the Park Superintendent report to the General Manger as well. The Park Superintendent is charged with supervision of the maintenance staff, mechanics and park aides. The Recreation Superintendent is charged with supervision of a more substantial portion of the TDRPD staff, including the Senior Recreation Coordinator, Aquatics Coordinator, Youth Coordinator, and Assistant Recreation Coordinator, as well as teachers, leaders and other staff that run the recreation programs. Staffing levels are maintained as needed to conduct the programs. TDRPD holds weekly staff meetings among the various staff divisions of the District and also conducts quarterly meetings focused on safety to identify and authorize training needs among the staff. TDRPD participates in the insurance programs administered by the California Association for Park and Recreation Insurance, which provides both property and liability coverage. The Park and Recreation District Employee Compensation program provides the District workers’ compensation program. Both of these entities are risk-sharing pools consisting of member agencies throughout the State. Claim losses by a member district are paid by all member districts in the program, which makes each district interested in reduction of losses and in the safety and loss prevention efforts of all other districts. These entities are governed by joint power agreements. Projects that are projected to cost more than $5,000 to complete are put out to bid.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review IV-11 Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District

Goals The objective of the TDRPD is: “. . . to provide recreation and park opportunities for all citizens, with emphasis on family and youth oriented programs and facilities.”

Employees/Future Staff Need At this time, TDRDP has adequate staff to maintain the current level of facilities and programs to the community.

Determinations - Management and Governance

Evaluation of Management Efficiencies • The TDRPD maintains a variety of parks and recreation programs and facilities within its boundaries. All parks and programs offered and maintained by the TDRPD are located in Nevada County but also serve the portion of the TDRPD’s population residing in Placer County. • The physical boundaries of the TDRPD appear reasonable given the services offered. The TDRPD is intended to serve the residents of the greater Truckee area, and current boundaries reflect this intent. There are no boundary modifications necessary to improve the provision of parks and recreation service to this area.

Local Accountability and Governance • TDRPD holds regular public meetings that are in compliance with the Brown Act and all laws governing public meetings.

Government Structure Options • The Tahoe National Forest and Toiyabe National Forest and state parkland, including Donner Lake and Donner Memorial State Park, provide recreational facilities within the TDRPD service area. Every opportunity to coordinate service and facilities among these agencies should be pursued.

Bibliography

Cotton/Bridges/Associates. April 2004. Placer County Local Agency Formation Commis- sion Municipal Services Review, Area 3 Services. Sacramento, CA.

Harland Bartholomew & Associates, Inc. 2004. Nevada County General Plan. Sacramento, CA

Randall, Steve. General Manager for the Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District. Personal Communication, 2005.

Town of Truckee Draft 2004 General Plan Land Use Map and Land Use Sphere of Influence Map. Accessed on September 5, 2005from the Town of Truckee’s website at http://www.truckee2025.org/prelim2.htm.

Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District. April 1996. Master Service Element. Truckee, CA

Truckee Donner Recreation and Park District. FY 2004-05 Budget. Truckee, CA.

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 IV-12 V. Nevada Irrigation District

Information on the Nevada Irrigation District (NID) is provided in order to illustrate additional recreation facilities within Nevada County. Information presented in this section was provided by NID staff and the NID website.

A) EXISTING AND FUTURE NEEDS

Service Area NID was formed in 1921 as an independent special district to provide water service; its operations are governed by Division 11 of the State Water Code. While the District’s basic purpose is to supply water and hydroelectric power to its customers, it provides ancillary recreational resources such as lakes and campgrounds within its boundaries. Irrigation districts are permitted by their enabling statute to construct, maintain and operate recreational facilities in connection with any dams, reservoirs or other works owned or controlled by the district. Located on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada, NID encompasses 287,000 acres, mainly in Nevada and Placer Counties. The Bear River Recreation and Park District and a majority of the Western Gateway Recreation and Park District lie within NID’s boundaries. Elevations within the District range from approximately 3,900 feet on Banner Mountain, above Nevada City, down to about 200 feet near the town of Lincoln. Summers are generally dry with mild to hot temperatures. Winters are relatively wet, especially in the upper elevations around Nevada City and Grass Valley, with snow levels usually around 3,500 feet and occasionally as low as 1,000 feet. NID’s watershed reaches a maximum elevation of 8,373 feet on English Mountain, east of Bowman Reservoir. Figure 7 is a map showing NID’s general location and its boundary. (See Section I, Introduction, of this MSR.)

Recreation Resources NID owns a number of reservoirs in three counties (Nevada, Sierra, and Placer) at which recreation opportunities exist, including Rollins, Scotts Flat, Jackson Meadows, Milton, French, Faucherie, Sawmill, and Bowman Reservoirs, and Lake Combie. These areas offer boating facilities, camping facilities, swimming and trails. Private managers or operators under contract to NID operate parks, campgrounds and beaches at the reservoirs. In the high country, NID has campgrounds at Faucherie and Jackson Meadows reservoirs, which are operated for NID by the U.S. Forest Service.

Rollins Reservoir received funding through the Davis-Grunsky Act of 1960, which included requirements for public access. NID reported that contracts for projects funded by the Davis-Grunsky Act have expired and the facilities developed with the grant money are now operated with NID funds. The District is required to provide certain recreational activities for Rollins Reservoir and Scotts Flat Reservoir, as a condition of previous grants pursuant to the Davis-Grunsky Act; the District is under no obligation to continue providing these services after 2013. Other grant obligations require the District to provide some recreational activities until 2025.

Rollins Reservoir is part of the Yuba-Bear River project, which includes four powerhouses and 17 dams operated by NID. The Yuba-Bear River project is operated under License #2266 through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC); the FERC license requires reporting on recreation uses. NID has begun preparations for the FERC re- licensing process for this facility; the FERC license expires in 2013. NID has been

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review V-1 Nevada Irrigation District contacted for additional information regarding recreation requirements that pertain to the FERC license.

Combie Reservoir is located on the Bear River. In 2005, the District completed the construction of an access road and gate along public rights-of-way to access District property at the reservoir. With the exception of this access, the reservoir is surrounded on all sides by private property. The District’s property generally extends five to 100 feet beyond the high water level at the shoreline. In January 2006, the District prepared a Shoreline Management Plan as a guideline to recreational activities on the reservoir. This plan will be considered by the District Board of Directors in April 2006.

Population and Housing Growth NID does not have a recreation Master Plan nor does it use population projections or any measured standard for the recreational opportunities it offers. NID offers recreational opportunities beyond its service area as many of its reservoirs are outside the service area. Consequently, population projections for the NID service area would be inadequate to project the future use of these facilities. Moreover, NID’s primary focus is water service and, therefore, the agency does not seek to meet future recreation demand for an established recreation area. An indication of potential recreational demand, however, may be gained by considering potential growth for western Nevada County. Table V-1 shows population and housing unit projections for Nevada County as established by Nevada County LAFCo. To allow for a reasonable range of possibilities, these projections were developed by applying two different projected population growth rates (starting from the US Census estimates for 2000): an expected rate of 1.7 percent per year and a high rate of 2.0 percent per year. The projections take account of possible variations in development patterns by modelling two different scenarios, designated “General Plan” and “Infill.” The first assumes development will occur consistent with the applicable General Plan, while the latter variation assumes high density developments will be concentrated in the Grass Valley SOI and the County Special Development Areas. An average household size of 2.44, taken from the 2000 Census, was applied to the projected growth in housing units to derive population figures in the unincorporated areas, and the appropriate municipality's average household size was used to project population figures in the incorporated areas.

TABLE I-1

NEVADA LAFCO POPULATION AND HOUSING UNIT GROWTH – NEVADA COUNTY

Growth Scenario 2010 2015 2020 2025 Infill Housing Units 43,632 47,529 51,917 56,751 – Expected Growth Population 106,461 115,971 126,678 138,473 Infill Housing Units 44,377 49,129 54,297 60,160 – High Growth Population 108,281 119,874 132,485 146,791 General Plan Housing units 43,762 47,818 52,183 56,998 – Expected Growth Population 106,779 116,677 127,325 139,075 General Plan Housing Units 44,428 49,249 54,556 60,400 – High Growth Population 108,405 120,168 133,116 147,375 Source: Nevada LAFCo; 2000 Census

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 V-2 Nevada Irrigation District

Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies Acreage and facilities needs are not projected for NID as it was not formed to provide these services.

Determinations – Existing and Future Needs Service Area and Future Growth • Nevada Irrigation District provides recreation facilities in three counties (Nevada, Sierra, and Placer); however, recreation is incidental to the District’s primary purpose of providing water service. Consequently, NID does not base the scope of its recreational facilities based on population or any measured standard. • Population growth of adjacent counties should be taken into account in determining the demand for NID’s recreational facilities. • NID provides recreational opportunities outside of its service area. However, this is not a reason to expand its recreational facilities, as its purpose is not to serve as a parks and recreation service provider. • Population growth of adjacent counties should be included in estimating demand for NID’s recreational facilities.

Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies • Because of the type of recreational facilities NID provides (i.e., lakes providing boating, camping, and fishing) and the relatively limited amount of these types of facilities, NID’s recreational facilities will not be able increase at a rate to accommodate increasing population.

• A large population residing outside Nevada County also use NID’s recreational facilities. • In its 2004-2005 Strategic Plan, NID recommended studying the feasibility of establishing public access to Lake Combie, and in January 2006 the District completed the draft Combie Reservoir Shoreline Management Plan. The plan will be presented to the Board of Directors for adoption as a guideline to recreational activities on the reservoir. • The Western Gateway and Bear River Recreation and Park Districts are within NID’s service area. • NID should work with park and recreation service providers serving areas where its facilities are located to determine infrastructure needs. Parks, campgrounds and beaches at the Rollins and Scotts Flat Reservoirs, located in the Nevada City/ Grass Valley County Recreation Fee Benefit Zone and outside city limits, are operated by private managers or operators under contract with NID. The Faucherie and Jackson Meadows reservoirs are not located within any recreation or park district; campgrounds at these sites are operated for the District by the U.S. Forest Service. Combie Reservoir, located in the Bear River Recreation and Park District is currently not open to the public.

B) FINANCING AND RATE RESTRUCTURING

All units of government – counties, cities and special districts – are financially independent within the limits of state law, and each local government has the ability to

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review V-3 Nevada Irrigation District craft a unique variety of policies and practices. Each agency is equally empowered to make independent fiscal decisions; however, they are not equally empowered to generate revenues to support their decisions. Revenue Sources and Expenses Current and Future Revenues NID secures revenues from gate fees and concessions at the reservoirs. The revenue for the 2001-2004 time period and the projected revenue to 2007 are illustrated in Table V-2 below. TABLE V-2 NID RECREATION REVENUES Source 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Store $76,891 $85,243 $92,504 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 Marina $60,111 $57,441 $64,984 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 Gates $369,661 $378,651 $384,200 $390,000 $405,000 $430,000 $440,000 Cascade Shores $3,134 $3,562 $3,819 $4,195 $0 $0 $0 Miscellaneous $12,263 $131 $4,103 $6,889 $0 $0 $0 Total $522,060 $525,028 $549,610 $561,084 $565,000 $590,000 $600,000 Source: Nevada Irrigation District Draft Budget, 2005

User Fees User fees are set by the NID Board of Directors and must be approved by the State Departments of Water Resources and Fish & Game (see Table V-3). User fees at Rollins and Scotts Flat reservoirs were increased under the 2004 fee schedule.

TABLE V-3 USER FEES Fee 2003 2004 Scotts Flat Reservoir Day Use Vehicle Entry Fee $6.00 $6.00 Walk-in Fee $1.50 per person $1.50 per person Boat Launch Fee $5.75 $6.00 Overnight Camping Fee $19 to $23 $21 to $25 Rollins Reservoir Day Use Vehicle Entry Fee $6.25 $6.25 Walk-in Fee $1.50 per person $1.50 per person Boat Launch Fee $5.75 $5.75 Overnight Camping Fee $19 to $23 $21 to $25 Source: Nevada Irrigation District, 2005

Other Sources NID pursues grants in an attempt to make recreation self-supporting without financial burdens on water ratepayers. NID has campgrounds at Rollins, Scotts Flat, Jackson Meadows and Faucherie reservoirs. NID contracts with the U.S. Forest to maintain and operate the camping facilities at Jackson Meadows and Faucherie reservoirs. Recreation facilities at the NID-owned reservoirs are operated by concessionaires or private managers, who request fee adjustments from time to time to cover increasing expenses. Current and Future Expenses NID recreation is included in the operations and budget of NID’s Placer Office Administration. Expenditures allotted to recreation facilities provided by NID are identified in Table V-4. Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 V-4 Nevada Irrigation District

Table V-4 NID Recreation Expenditures 2001-2007 Source 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total Operations Expenses $505,801 $540,669 $597,780 $433,830 $432,505 $490,975 $501,895 Total Capital Costs $156,423 $9,780 $201,062 $45,000 $175,000 $71,000 $55,000 Total Expenditures $662,224 $550,449 $798,842 $478,830 $607,505 $561,975 $556,895 Total Recreation Revenues $522,060 $525,028 $549,410 $550,000 $590,000 $590,000 $600,000 Net Revenues -$140,164 -$25,421 -$249,432 $71,170 -$17,505 $28,025 $43,105 Source: Nevada Irrigation District Draft Budget, 2005

As shown in the above tables, NID’s expenditures for recreational facilities generally exceed the corresponding revenues on an annual basis. NID improvements to upgrade existing facilities over the next three years are listed in Table V-5 below. Most of the cost will be incurred at Scotts Flat, for campground improvements and for boat ramp and restroom replacement. Both these line items will be funded by a grant from the California Department of Boating and Waterways. All other improvements will be funded by user fees. NID has included the facility improvements listed below in the District’s recreational budget.

TABLE V-5 NID FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS 2005-2007 Improvement 2005 2006 2007 Rehabilitation & Maintenance at recreation $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 sites Repairs at the store at Greenhorn $19,250 - - Water Line Replacement-Campgrounds $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 C/S Ramp & Restroom Replacement-GRANT $748,000 Carryover Carryover MONEY* Scotts Flat Campground Improvement-GRANT $462,000 Carryover Carryover MONEY* Source: Nevada Irrigation District Draft Budget, 2005 Note: *Grant obtained by NID through the California Dept. of Boating and Waterways

Determinations – Financing and Rate Restructuring Cost Avoidance Opportunities • Budget and financial information provided by NID for this parks and recreation analysis was very limited; however, recreation is a very small portion of NID’s overall budget. • Revenues from recreation activities are not adequate for existing facilities and the upkeep and improvements to these facilities. Operation and maintenance costs are supported by other District revenues, or through grant funding. • Additional recreational facilities would need additional funding sources to offset the costs of development. NID should coordinate with parks and recreation service providers where its facilities are located to determine future facility needs and identify funding sources. Opportunities for Rate Restructuring • The District has many sources of revenue tosupport recreation costs, such as hydroelectric revenue, general purpose tax revenue, user fees, grants, etc. Revenue from water rate payers is not used for recreational services.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review V-5 Nevada Irrigation District

• NID does not receive any development impact fees for recreation. All improvements are funded by gate, camping, and boat use fees, and by grant money. • Current fee rates were established in 2004. When NID expenses exceed NID revenues, there are opportunities for rate adjustments. While NID regularly pursues grants in an attempt to make recreation self-supporting without financially burdening water ratepayers, the District should consider adjusting fees collected for recreational uses to mirror the cost of the specific services being provided. For example, campground fees should reflect the cost to maintain and improve campgrounds, while entry fees for reservoirs should cover costs of staffing, maintaining, and improving the recreational facilities of the reservoir. C) MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE

The public relies on local agencies to function in a manner that will produce efficient public services. The ability of local agencies to meet the public’s expectations depends, in part, on the capacity of agencies’ administrative, management and operational systems to meet the demands of the public. The internal organization of a local agency must be structured to produce optimum efficiency. Principal Act of Authorization NID is an independent special district, formed in 1921 under the State of California’s Public Utility District Act to provide water service to its community. NID operates under the rules and regulations of the California Water Code, the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC) and the Davis-Grunsky Act. The California Water Code sets forth regulations and standards for the operations of water districts throughout the state. FERC regulates hydroelectric power and oversees all ongoing hydroelectric project operations, including dam safety inspections and environmental monitoring. The Davis-Grunsky Act of 1960 set up a statewide program providing financial assistance to local public agencies for development, control, and conservation of water resources. Assistance consisted of grants and low-interest loans to eligible local agencies for items such as construction of initial water supplies and sanitary facilities related to recreation use. Public Input NID holds regularly scheduled meetings on the second and forth Wednesday of each month at 9:00 a.m. The public is notified of the meeting by local postings and NID’s website. Public comments are allowed at scheduled meetings and also can be provided as letters to the District. Operating procedures and practices, including budgets, personnel policies, fees and rates, capital improvements plans, and other documents are available for public review at the District office or on NID’s website. NID and its activities go through public review procedures. There are sufficient mechanisms in place to ensure that the actions and operating procedures of NID are open and accessible to the public. Nevada Irrigation District maintains a website at http://www.nid.dst.ca.us where interested parties can obtain parks and recreation information as well as water service information. NID requests customer complaints to be in writing. They are then brought before two members of the Board of Directors who sit on the Maintenance and Resource Com- mittee, where action would be taken to resolve the complaints. If the customer is not satisfied with the outcome, the customer can go before the Board of Directors at a regular Board of Directors meeting.

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 V-6 Nevada Irrigation District

Organizational Structure NID operates under the leadership of a five-member Board of Directors who are elected for four-year terms. The Board establishes policy and goals for the proper operation of NID and supervises the General Manager. The Board reviews performance of staff by receiving reports and comparing performance to goals. The recreation staff, which is located at NID’s Placer Office, is managed by the Placer Office Administrator. Goals The mission statement of NID is: “The District will provide a dependable, quality water supply, strive to be good stewards of the watersheds and conserve the available resources.” The Nevada Irrigation District 2004-2005 Strategic Plan includes recreation strategies. The goal for recreation in the Strategic Plan is to “Evaluate, improve and expand wide recreational opportunities while protecting water quality.” These goals are intended to be met during the 2004-2005 period and would be updated in the next Strategic Plan. The 2004-2005 recreation objectives are: 1) Partner with organizations in the community to enhance and expand new and existing areas of recreation. 2) Manage recreational facilities safely and efficiently. Strategies to complete these objectives include: • Continue to engage in the recreation planning that is taking place within the Counties, Forest Service, Parks and Recreation and other agencies involved. • Conduct a study of the feasibility of establishing public access to Combie Reservoir by 6/01/05. • Organize an internal meeting with different departments for input on what type of projects they may be working on with other agencies that might have an effect on recreation before 8/04. • Develop capacity and safety studies for Rollins and Combie Reservoirs by 12/31/05. • Develop a shoreline restoration program for both Rollins and Combie Reservoirs by 12/31/05. • Annual audits for the concessionaires. • Annual inspections for the campgrounds by the State and County and quarterly inspections done by NID. • Design an evaluation survey for campers and boaters response on campgrounds. • Consideration of minimum pools – boat ramps in water.

Employees/Future Staff Need As stated previously, the recreation staff consists of two employees who work part-time or full-time depending on workload. NID also employs additional maintenance staff as needed to make repairs and improvements to the recreational facilities. NID’s organizational chart for parks and recreation is shown in Exhibit V-1.

Workload for recreation activities is tracked on an annual basis by the Placer Office Administrator and reported as part of the annual budget process. Staff review of operations and procedures is performed on a continuing basis to address efficiency and effectiveness.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review V-7 Nevada Irrigation District

Exhibit V-1 Organizational Chart (only shows organization to recreation level)

Voters

Board of Directors

Treasurer

General Manager

Administration

Board Secretary Placer Office Asst. General Manager Human Resources Governmental Affairs Administration Manager Coordinator (Includes Recreation)

Maintenance Engineering Water Operations Finance Department Hydroelectric Department Department Department Department

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 V-8 Nevada Irrigation District

Determinations – Management and Governance The statement of determination on local accountability and governance refers to public agency decision-making and operational and management processes.

Evaluation of Management Efficiencies NID provides recreational opportunities to the residents of Nevada County and to visitors to the area. As stated previously, the NID service area covers a large portion of western Nevada County, encompassing the majority of Western Gateway Recreation and Park District and all of Bear River Recreation and Park District. NID recreational facilities complement the facilities owned and/or operated by the recreation and park districts. Additionally, some of NID’s recreation facilities, such as facilities provided at Jackson Meadows Reservoir and Faucherie Lake, are located outside of their defined service areas. Also located in the NID service area are recreational facilities provided by the 17th Agricultural District (Nevada County Fairgrounds), the State of California, Grass Valley Parks and Recreation, Nevada City Parks and Recreation and a variety of private recreation facilities and school district facilities.

Currently, NID contracts with the U.S. Forest Service for maintenance and operation of camping facilities at Jackson Meadows and Faucherie Reservoirs. NID utilizes Kalyn Management, a private management company, to run its facilities a Scotts Flat Reservoir.

• The Board of Directors for NID conducts an annual strategic plan workshop and identifies issues that will be attended to in the coming year.

• NID’s organizational structure, although complex, allows for efficient service delivery functions.

• NID does have a recreation Strategic Plan; however, this plan only offers guidance and does not include specific costs, analysis of current and future needs, steps for implementation of the strategic goals, or any other information that may be useful for future planning. A Master Plan with these additional elements should be developed.

• NID has undertaken recreational reorganization studies. NID regularly participates in recreation planning efforts with other agencies, such as the U.S. Forestry Service, California Department of Fish and Game, Nevada County Sheriff’s Office, Cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City, and anticipates being involved in future efforts. Such planning efforts are recommended so that NID’s facilities and plans complement recognized needs identified by other agencies.

• NID has only a limited recreation capital improvement program, which forecasts improvement needs to 2007. A recreation capital improvement program that considers future demand to 2025 should be developed.

Local Accountability and Governance • NID holds regular public meetings that are in compliance with the Brown Act and all laws governing public meetings. • All plans, reports and documents are available to the public.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review V-9 Nevada Irrigation District

• All rate and fee increases are discussed and approved/disapproved in a public forum. Government Structure Options • NID’s recreation area has not been involved in any reorganization studies with any other service providers in the past two years nor does NID consider any restructuring needed.

• NID contracts with outside agencies to operate and maintain its recreational facilities.

• NID offers recreational facilities within existing parks and recreation districts. Coordination with these districts as well as other recreation providers is a main objective of NID.

• Although the possibility of joint management or recreational facility sharing with other service providers or public agencies in the area (such as Western Gateway and Bear River Recreation and Park Districts), does exist, NID’s recreational facilities are functioning well under NID’s sole direction. As stated previously, NID has participated in past recreation planning efforts with outside agencies and anticipates being involved in future efforts.

Bibliography

Davidson, Peggy. Placer Office Administrator for Nevada Irrigation District. Response to Municipal Services Review Survey. August 10, 2004.

Nevada Irrigation District. 2004. Nevada Irrigation District Strategic Plan 2004-2005. Grass Valley, CA.

Nevada Irrigation District. 2004. Nevada Irrigation District 2005 Budget. Grass Valley, CA.

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 V-10 VI. City of Nevada City

A) EXISTING AND FUTURE NEEDS This analysis of Nevada City parks and recreation services is based on consultation with City staff and review of the City’s 1986 General Plan. The General Plan was adopted on March 24, 1986, and projects buildout in year 2000. The General Plan Housing Element was adopted on June 22, 1992. The City has not yet begun preparation of an updated General Plan. Service Area Nevada City is located in western Nevada County , approximately four miles northeast of the City of Grass Valley; it is bisected by State Highway 20/49. Nevada City administers parks and recreation services within the City limits. The present city limits are only slightly larger than the original square mile section incorporated as Nevada City. At the center is the historic core, largely composed of a mixture of general business and public uses. Clustered around the core are several residential neighborhoods. The outlying areas encompass rural residential uses. The 1986 General Plan states that the City’s intention is ultimately to include its entire sphere of influence within its boundary. Each proposal for annexation, however, will be judged individually on its physical, fiscal, and aesthetic compatibility with the goals and policies of the City of Nevada City. The unincorporated territory surrounding Nevada City is most easily understood as three general areas. To the east is predominantly rural-density residential development, with a few exceptions (the Nevada County HEW complex, the timber mill on Gracie Road, and a limited amount of “crossroads commercial”). The present attitude of residents and property owners in the area is generally in favor of preserving this rural quality. There are numerous constraints (e.g., narrow roads, steep terrain) on traffic and service capacity. For these reasons, there should be very little additional commercial or industrial development east of the City. The area is more appropriate for residential infill complementing the existing context (1986 Nevada City General Plan). To the northwest, Highway 49 is the main access route. Its previous alignment, now Old Downieville Highway, is a narrow road winding through extensive Erickson Lumber Company holdings and limited rural residential properties. The strategy for this area is to protect the view from Highway 49 by creating a strictly controlled scenic corridor, but to allow hidden pockets of development to occur behind screens of mature trees and vegetation. Toward the west are additional large Erickson Lumber Company holdings (1986 Nevada City General Plan). Southwest of the City are the freeway environs, which are served by the Gold Flat interchange. This area is under greater development pressure for than any other part of the City’s SOI. It also needs the most remedial action to improve the view from the road and other aspects of Nevada City’s essential image (1986 Nevada City General Plan). The service area of Nevada City’s parks department is coterminous with the City’s boundaries. This is an appropriate service area for the City. As the City annexes new areas, the service area would naturally expand. The City does not share a common boundary with any recreation and parks district. The eastern boundary of the Western Gateway Recreation and Park District is located approximately four miles west of the City, while the Bear River Recreation and Park District boundary is located approximately six miles south of Nevada City.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review

VI-1 City of Nevada City

Recreation and Park Resources The City maintains a variety of parks with play facilities as well as vacant land with trails. City Improved Facilities The City’s facilities consist of Pioneer Park, Calahan Park, the Railroad Museum and interpretive park, Washington Street Park and Penzance Park. Pioneer Park, located on Nimrod Street, is the only fully developed park within the City. It is a multi-use facility offering a variety of recreation opportunities, including two multi-use fields (for softball, tag football, soccer, etc.), a band shell; horseshoe pitch, and picnic areas with barbecues; playground; volleyball and tennis courts; and a seasonal swimming pool. A community meeting hall (Seaman’s Lodge) located within the Park provides space that can be rented by private parties and community organizations and is also used for recreation and enrichment classes. This facility is equipped with restrooms and a kitchen. The City also operates a Transportation Museum located at 5 Kidder Court. This project was completed in March 2002. It is comprised of a "car shop," museum with gift shop and a small picnic area, and "rail yard." It gets about 200-300 visitors a month; during the summer the facility has more visitors as a result of expanded hours. It was built with a combination of grant funding, Quimby funds, Historical Society donation, City General Fund money and land donations from three private companies (Northern Queen, TDK and Hooper & Weaver.) Nevada City reports the total area of City-owned and/or operated recreational facilities as approximately 56 acres, including the 39-acre Hirschman’s Pond site which was recently acquired. In 1986, Nevada City provided approximately 15 acres of public parks and three school playgrounds for a town of approximately 2,500 people. This translates into over six acres of park and recreation facilities per 1,000 residents (1986 Nevada City General Plan). At present, the City provides approximately 17 acres of recreation lands and facilities to a population of 3001. City Unimproved Facilities The City has recently acquired the 39-acre Hirshman’s Pond property and an adjacent parcel. The property is undeveloped, and the City will be preparing plans for development. These properties will eventually be developed as passive recreational lands. The City also envisions trails on these properties connecting to other City and County trails in the vicinity, creating a large quasi-regional trail system. Deer Creek Environs is a 40-acre site along Deer Creek in the western portion of the City which provides permanent open space in a natural environment. Nevada City also owns the Nevada City Airport site located off North Bloomfield Road. The future use of this site is not determined, although it currently is used for recreational purposes. City Services The City provides maintenance and operation services to the various park and recreational resources within the City limits. Other Facilities and Services within Service Area The Draft Nevada County Recreation Resources map shows several local or regional park and/or public lands as well as federal, state and local public lands within the City limits, the City’s sphere and the surrounding area. These facilities include Scott’s Flat Lake and campgrounds located northeast of Nevada City. Large tracts of federal, state or local public lands are located in the northeastern portion of the benefit zone.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review

VI-2 City of Nevada City

Population and Housing Growth Table VI-1 shows population and housing unit projections for the City of Nevada City as developed by Nevada LAFCo, using only one scenario: growth in accordance with the City’s General Plan at the expected rate of 1.0 percent per year. The average household size of 2.118 was taken from the 2000 Census. Alternate scenarios do not substantially change these projections, which show that the overall population growth for Nevada City between 2005 and 2025 will be relatively small and (as reference to Table VI-2 confirms) unlikely to significantly affect demand for the City’s recreational facilities.

TABLE VI-1 NEVADA LAFCO POPULATION AND HOUSING UNIT GROWTH - NEVADA CITY

Growth Scenario 2010 2015 2020 2025 General Plan Housing Units 1,347 1,418 1,500 1,575 – Population Expected 2,853 3,003 3,147 3,336 Source: Nevada LAFCo; 2000 Census

The 2000 census states that the population of Nevada City was then 3,001 people. Information on anticipated jurisdictional boundary and/or sphere of influence changes, if any, has not been provided.

Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies Existing Deficiencies The 1986 Nevada City General Plan outlines a policy direction and course of action for achieving the City’s goal of preserving its existing essential character by maintaining the sense of wooded enclosure, enhancing the historic core of the City, reinforcing existing commercial concentrations, and creating opportunities for employment and revenue generators. The open space and parks and recreation objectives identified in the 1986 General Plan are as follows: consideration of both resident and non-resident users in planning future park needs and funding sources and taking steps to ensure acquisition, dedication, or conservation of potential open space preserves, public park sites and trail easements. The Nevada City Basin is all of that developed, partially developed, or undeveloped land in close proximity in any direction to Nevada City’s present city limits. It includes land that is part of the natural Deer Creek drainage system or can be feasibly connected to the Nevada City sanitary sewer system or its future extensions (1986 Nevada City General Plan). The 2000 Census gives Nevada City’s incorporated area a population of 3,001 persons, a reflecting a growth of 970 persons or approximately 500 new households over the 1986 Nevada City General Plan figures. The total Sphere of Influence is estimated to contain approximately 3,474 people at present, an increase of approximately 400 persons and 187 households over estimates for the SOI in 1986. Projected Park Acreage Need Currently, Nevada City does not have an established level of service standard for provision of parks and recreation services. City staff notes that parks and other recreational facilities within the City are utilized by residents of both the City and the surrounding unincorporated area, as well as many tourists and visitors, especially during the summer months. For this reason, planning for future parks should be undertaken assuming a service area including the entire sphere of influence and a user population that swells considerably during the spring and summer. Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review

VI-3 City of Nevada City

Regional standards, as reflected in the General Plans and policies of Nevada and nearby counties (e.g., Sacramento, Placer and El Dorado), typically suggest that communities should have between 3 and 5 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 people to adequately meet the need for active recreation facilities. No parkland standards have been established for Nevada City. Because Nevada City did not provide a future parkland demand estimate, demand was estimated using Nevada County’s 3 acres per 1,000 persons ratio and Nevada LAFCo’s growth projections. Based on these calculations, Nevada City should currently provide a minimum of 9 acres of developed parkland (see Table IV-2). The City currently provides approximately 17 acres of recreation lands and facilities to a population of 3001, substantially exceeding Nevada County’s parkland standards of 3 acres per 1,000 population. In addition, several other agencies own and/or manage recreational resources in the vicinity of Nevada City that are available for public use.

TABLE IV-2 DEMAND FOR PARK ACREAGE

Nevada City

Year Population Total 2010 2,854 8.6 2015 3,003 9.0 2020 3,147 9.4 2025 3,336 10.0 Source: PMC, 2005 and Nevada LAFCo, 2000 Census Note: Park acreage: Total = 3 acres per 1,000 persons.

Projected Park Facilities Need The City has recently acquired Hirshman’s Pond and an adjoining parcel and is not actively pursuing acquisition of additional parklands at present. The City plans to develop Indian Trails/Hirschman’s Pond as open space with a trails system.

Determinations - Existing and Future Needs/Infrastructure Service Area and Future Growth • The City’s parks and recreation service area is coterminous with the City boundaries. This is a logical service area for the City. The City should develop a Master Plan for parks and recreation services that takes into account future growth and areas where the service area may need to be expanded. • Nevada City has not provided information on growth projections in or around their service area. • According to Nevada County LAFCo, the population of Nevada City is anticipated to increase by 861 people (for a total population of 3,911 persons) by 2027. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies • Nevada City has informally provided information on the City’s current and future needs for parkland. Based on a ratio of 3 acres per 1,000 population, the City currently meets and will continue to meet the parkland requirement for the foreseeable future.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review

VI-4 City of Nevada City

• Nevada City has informally provided information as to the condition of the recreational facilities within its boundaries and the capability of the infrastructure to accommodate future growth. Nevada City has discussed its plans for expanding existing facilities and for developing planned facilities to serve future growth. • Prior to future annexations, the City should adopt a standard for parks and recreation facilities and also identify existing facilities in need of improvement or maintenance, based on a study performed of the City’s existing facilities and projected needs.

B) FINANCING AND RATE RESTRUCTURING

All units of government—counties, cities and special districts—are financially independent, within the limits of state law, and each local government has the ability to craft a unique variety of policies and practices. Each agency is equally empowered to make independent fiscal decisions; however, they are not equally empowered to generate revenues to support their decisions. Nevada City uses funds from its General Fund, from impact fees, grants and user fees to provide Recreation Services.

Revenue Sources and Expenses Current and Future Revenues General Fund Eleven percent of funding for park and recreation services in Nevada City is provided by the City’s General Fund. Maintenance of the City’s park and recreation facilities is funded by the City’s General Fund. Maintenance operations are performed by City Public Works Department staff. As stated in City Resolution 2005-07, approved on February 14, 2005, the beginning and ending balances of the development fee funds for parks and recreation services for fiscal year 2003-2004 and the previous five years are shown in Table VI-2 below.

TABLE VI-2 ANNUAL REVIEW AND UPDATE OF DEVELOPMENT FEE PROGRAM FOR CITY OF NEVADA CITY PARKS AND RECREATION

Year Beginning Income Expenditures Interest Ending Balance Balance 1998-1999 $28,340.40 $11,919.16 $0.00 $1,796.62 $42,056.18 1999-2000 $42,056.18 $5.069.02 $0.00 $2,515.21 $49,640.41 2000-2001 $49,640.41 $2,482.06 $0.00 $3,987.45 $56,109.92 2001-2002 $56,109.92 $6,277.95 $58,310.46 $1,716.96 $5,794.37 2002-2003 $5,794.37 $2,149.22 $0.00 $185.45 $8,129.04 2003-2004 $8,129.04 $13,666.60 $0.00 $193.79 $21,989.43 Source: Nevada City, 2005

There are no further plans or information available at present to illuminate details of the funding for this service, and specific line items such as maintenance, administration, capital outlay and development have not been provided by Nevada City and are not made clear in the City’s budget or Resolution.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review

VI-5 City of Nevada City

Recreation Impact Fees Nevada County collects recreation fees throughout the unincorporated portion of the Grass Valley/Nevada City Benefit Zone. A portion of these funds is distributed to Nevada City for parks and recreation projects within the City limits. The Nevada County Grass Valley/Nevada City ten-year capital improvement expenditure plan (Expenditure Plan) was adopted by the Nevada County Board of Supervisors on September 7, 2004, as part of Nevada County Board of Supervisors Resolution 04-408. The Expenditure Plan identifies that Nevada City needs 11.76 acres of neighborhood and community parkland. Funding for the ten-year period is anticipated to be $1,306,359. Funding from the County may be used for park improvements, capital items and parkland acquisition. Allowed expenditures and estimated expenses for the life of the Expenditure Plan are shown in Table VI-3 below. Resolution 04-408 does not specify the commencement/completion years of the ten-year period or whether they are calendar or fiscal years. Approximately 89% of funding for park and recreation services in Nevada City is administered through Nevada County. In addition, the City collects a Quimby fee of $880 for each new residential parcel or unit. The Quimby fee was last updated in the early 1980s; the City is currently reviewing the appropriateness of the fee amount.

TABLE VI-3 TEN YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT EXPENDITURE PLAN ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES AND EXPENSES FOR THE GRASS VALLEY/NEVADA CITY BENEFIT ZONE

Year Allowable Expenditure Estimated Expense Years 1 through 5 Children’s Playground $22,600 Multi-Purpose Fields $25,000 Tennis Courts $50,000 Other Optional Recreation Improvements $211,000 Total for years 1 through 5 $308,600 Years 6 through 10 Acquisition of Additional Recreation Acreage $250,000 Associated Land Improvements, Existing or Additional $28,000 (access, paving, utilities, septic installations, water systems, etc.) Children’s Playground $75,000 Picnic Units $20,000 Multi-Purpose Fields $50,000 Tennis Courts $40,000 Other Optional Recreation Improvements $134,759 Community Building $200,000 Two Baseball/Softball Fields with Lights $200,000 Total for years 6 through 10 $997,759 Total for ten-year period $1,306,359 Source: Nevada County, 2004 Note: Allowable expenditures from the five year period may be redesignated to another period by amendment of the Ten Year Capital Improvement Expenditure Plan. List of allowable expenditures can also be expanded/deleted by amendment of the Ten Year Capital Improvement Expenditure Plan. Other Sources The City receives grant money, AB 1600 funds and Proposition 40 funds. Current and Future Expenses Operations Nevada City has not commented regarding operational expenditures associated with park and recreation services. Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review

VI-6 City of Nevada City

Park Acreage Nevada City has not commented regarding expenditures associated with parkland acquisition. Park Facilities Exhibit A of City Resolution 2005-07 identifies the purpose for which any unexpended fees are to be used. The unexpended fees will be spent for capital improvements related to the category from which they were collected, such as for parks and cultural improvements. The purposes for funds collected for park facilities and cultural improvements are shown in Table VI-4 below. Whether the years noted are calendar or fiscal is not clear in Resolution 2005-07. Note that the first six facilities listed in the table (that is, Nevada Theater through Seaman’s Lodge/Roof) are cultural facilities and not park facilities.

TABLE VI-4 APPLICATION OF UNEXPENDED FEES FOR PARKS FACILITIES AND CULTURAL IMPROVEMENTS1

Facility Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Nevada Theater2 $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 1,714,000 $2,064,000 Nevada Theater $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 $448,000 $748,000 Annex2 Miners Foundry2 $50,000 $100,000 $250,000 $500,000 $1,626,000 $2,526,000 Firehouse #24 $20,000 $50,000 $100,000 $50,000 $54,000 $274,000 Lighting and $20,000 $30,000 $10,000 $40,000 $40,000 $140,000 Improvements Seaman’s $15,000 $20,000 $15,000 $15,000 $35,000 $100,000 Lodge/Roof Penzance Park -- $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $30,000 Park Land and $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $1,500,000 Improvement/ Acquisition Sugar Loaf & Hirshman’s Pond3 Field/Playground $33,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $53,000 Sub-total $538,000 $662,500 $887,500 $1,117,500 $4,229,500 $7,435,000 Potential Available Revenues Quimby – State Historic Preservation/State Trail Program $5,826,0002 Unfinanced Total $1,609,000 Source: Nevada City, 2005 1 Most of these facilities will require more than five years to finance. Where incremental contributions cannot reach the target, all remaining costs are placed in year five with the expectation that city staff will revise this plan reflecting a longer time period in which to establish needed revenue sources. 2 These projects are reported here to reflect the total capital improvements projected for the City. However, finding sources are expected to be furnished by non-city revenues even though the City may be called upon to oversee construction and coordinate project development. 3 Includes 425 Nimrod Property, House 4 State Grant $29,000

Paying for Future Operations and Infrastructure No planning or maintenance documents appear to exist that define the extent of City activities related to parks and recreation services. The City does not appear to maintain an inventory or assessment of facilities, Strategic Plan or Master Plan for

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review

VI-7 City of Nevada City

infrastructure or facilities. The City General Plan is the only planning document that addresses park and recreation services. Determinations - Financing and Rate Restructuring As a part of the MSR process, financing constraints and opportunities which may have an impact on service delivery are identified to enable LAFCo, local agencies, and the public to assess whether the agency is capitalizing on financing opportunities. LAFCo must weigh a community’s public services needs against the resources available to fund the service. Cost Avoidance Opportunities • Nevada City does not currently have a Parks and Recreation Master Plan or similar plan that identifies potential funding sources and cost reduction techniques not yet being used by the City. It is recommended that the City undertake a Master Plan for parks and recreation services that addresses expenditures and areas where costs may be avoided. • Nevada City Parks and Recreation currently receives revenues through the City’s general fund, state grants, donations, Quimby fees imposed by the City and the Grass Valley and Nevada City Recreation Benefit Zone fee imposed by Nevada County. • The City’s planned expenditures of unexpended funds to be used for capital improvements are identified in Table 3 above. As shown in Table 2 above, the ending fiscal year 2004 balance was $21,989. • The City currently receives adequate fees to cover its limited parks and recreation expenditures. Opportunities for Rate Restructuring • Nevada City Parks and Recreation receives recreation impact fees collected by the County from the Grass Valley/Nevada City benefit zone. A discussion of the impact fees collected by Nevada County and distributed to the City is provided in the Nevada County portion of this MSR. The fee collected by the County cannot be used for maintenance or operation costs. • The Parks and Recreation Impact Fee charged by the City for new development in the City is currently being reviewed. It is recommended that the Fee Ordinance include an annual inflation adjustment and requirement that the fee be reviewed every five years to account for potentially changing parkland and recreation needs and conditions of the City.

C) MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review

VI-8 City of Nevada City

The California Constitution contains provisions for counties and cities. Special districts are created and authorized through principal acts. Principal Act of Authorization The City of Nevada City incorporated in the late 1900s. Principles of Governance Nevada City, like all public agencies, is part of a democratic system that values the body of voters as the most influential component of any public organization. The voting public guides the agency to provide the services and perform the mission it was intended to. Empowerment of the public in this way requires that the public agency accommodate the public’s need for access, information and participation. Without public interaction with local agencies, the pool of potential officials is diminished, policy decisions will not be driven by public input, and the legitimacy of public authority is suspect. Public Input The Nevada City Council meets on the second and fourth Monday at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. The Nevada City Planning Commission meets on the second and fourth Thursday at 7:00 p.m. also in the Council Chambers. Meeting agendas are posted at City Hall (the City does not currently host a website) and meetings are open to the public. Organizational Structure The City currently employs one three-quarters time staff position for parks services: the Parks and Recreation Manager. This position, created and staffed in early 2004, is within the Public Works Department. Goals The open space and parks and recreation objectives stated in the General Plan are to “Include consideration of both resident and non-resident users in planning future parks and funding sources” and to “Take steps to ensure acquisition, dedication, or conservation of potential open space preserves, public park sites and trails easements.” Employees/Future Staff Need As stated previously, Nevada City parks and recreation services are provided through the Public Works Department of the City of Nevada City. The Public Works Department provides maintenance and upkeep of the City’s parks. Parks and recreation services are coordinated by the Parks and Recreation Manager. The City did not provide any plans for expansion of their staffing levels for parks and recreation services. Determinations - Management and Governance Evaluation of Management Efficiencies • Parks and recreation services are provided through the City’s Public Works Department. • It is recommended that the City maintain the Parks and Recreation Manager as a full-time position. • The City’s parks and recreation budget recognizes the need to expand recreational opportunities to meet the needs of growth and development. Local Accountability and Governance • The City Council and Planning Commission hold regular public meetings that are in compliance with the Brown Act and all laws governing public meetings.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review

VI-9 City of Nevada City

• City documents are available to the public. • All rate and fee increases are discussed and approved/disapproved in a public forum. • Nevada City has not commented regarding the level of public participation or the participation of service users in elections. • No response was provided to the questionnaire concerning Nevada County local accountability. Government Structure Options • A number of different public and private entities provide recreational facilities within or adjacent to the Nevada City service area. Every opportunity for coordination of service and facilities among these agencies should be pursued.

Bibliography

Hall Goodhue Haisley and Barker Urban and Environmental Planners and Lord & Associates Consultants in Real Estate and Urban Economics. March 24, 1986. General Plan 1980-2000 Nevada City, California.

Nevada County. September 7, 2004. Resolution No. 04-408 of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Nevada. Nevada City, CA.

Nevada City. February 14, 2005. Resolution 2005-07: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Nevada City Annual and Five-Year Review and Update on Development Fee Program. Nevada City, CA.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review

VI-10 VII. City of Grass Valley

Information regarding the parks and recreation services provided by the City of Grass Valley was obtained through their response to the MSR survey, the Grass Valley Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Nevada County GIS data and conversations with City staff.

A) EXISTING AND FUTURE NEEDS

Service Area Formed in March 1893, the City of Grass Valley is located in west central Nevada County, as seen in Figure 1. Grass Valley Parks and Recreation is a division of the Public Works Department for the City. In January of 1999, the City of Grass Valley authorized the creation of a Parks and Recreation Commission in order to meet rising public expectations and expanding definitions of recreation.

The City of Grass Valley provides parks and recreation services within the City’s boundaries as well as in its Planning Area. The Grass Valley Parks and Recreation Division (GVPRD) planning area encompasses a 15.4-square mile area and aligns with the City of Grass Valley Planning Area. See Figure 2. GVPRD provides services to residents throughout the City’s sphere of influence and beyond, regardless of whether their residence is within their boundaries. This is due to the lack of services available in the adjacent unincorporated areas surrounding Grass Valley. GVPRD staff indicates that the expansion of its boundary to serve those areas surrounding the city would allow additional tax revenue to support the maintenance and operation of facilities currently being used by out-of-boundary area residents. New development areas within the City’s Sphere of Influence (i.e., Loma Rica Ranch, North Star, Kenny Ranch, and the Bear River Mill site) will expand the need for GVPRD service.

Recreation and Park Resources City Improved Facilities The City owns and maintains 104 acres of developed park sites. Two of these, Condon Park and Memorial Park, are classified as community parks. Facilities contained within the City parks include two baseball fields, one softball field, one soccer field, one skate park, one disc golf course, two outdoor basketball courts, four tennis courts, one volleyball court, four playgrounds, several picnic areas, a museum and a swimming pool. The City park facilities include three public meeting rooms of varying size. The City also services one facility located outside its service area--the Sierra College Rotary Fields, which consist of four acres of athletic fields. The City contracts with the Nevada County Historical Society (NCHS), a non-profit organization, for operation of the Pelton Wheel Museum. The City assists the NCHS by providing limited funds to help support maintenance and operations. An inventory of City owned/operated improved park and recreation facilities follows: • Memorial Park, 7.6 acres • Condon Park, 80 acres • Glenn Jones Park, 2 acres • Minnie Park, 2 acres • Elisabeth Daniels Park, 0.16 acres • Dow Alexander Park, 0.25 acres • Mautino Park, 12.9 acres

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review VII-1 City of Grass Valley

City Unimproved Facilities The City owns one 4-acre undeveloped park site (Morgan Ranch Park).

City Services GVPRD offers a number of recreation programs to the community, including aquatics, skateboarding, volleyball, tennis, wheelchair tennis, summer recreation, rookie rescue, and Over the Line Softball, as well as special events throughout the year. Grass Valley also has A number of local non-profit organizations also provide organized activities for the community, filling an important recreation need. These resources are a valuable component of Grass Valley’s parks and recreation system. The non-profit organizations operate under formal Facility Use Agreements which came into effect on or about August 2002. The following organized activities are provided through the City or through non-profit organizations at City-owned and maintained facilities:

• Swimming • Slow-pitch softball • Baseball • Fast Pitch Softball • Soccer • Tennis • Basketball • Bocce ball • Skateboard park • Scouts • Disk golf • Grass volleyball • Horseshoes

Other Facilities and Services within Service Area The following are additional park and recreational facilities within the City of Grass Valley, but owned by entities other than the City: • The Nevada County Country Club on East Main Street is a 58-acre, 9-hole public golf course owned and operated by a private company. It is the only public- access golf course located within the Planning Area. • The Sierra College Rotary Fields, developed in 1998-99, is a soccer and baseball facility of 7.95 acres, located on the Sierra College campus near Nevada Union High School. As part of the College campus, the facility is owned by the Sierra Community College District Board of Trustee but maintained by the City of Grass Valley under an agreement that is due to expire on November 30, 2005. ) • Local schools, 24 acres (school district owned and operated) The following six facilities with recreational resources are located outside the Grass Valley City limits, but within the Planning Area. • The Nevada County Fairgrounds is a 100-acre parcel owned and maintained by the State Fairgrounds Authority. The facility is classified as a regional park. The Fairgrounds houses several community facilities, including the Senior Citizens Building. The annual Nevada County Fair and other recreational activities take place at the Fairgrounds, which are used year-round. • Nevada Union High School, operated by the Nevada Joint Union High School District, includes substantial recreational and sports facilities on a 63-acre campus located on Ridge Road. The campus is adjacent to, though not currently within, the Grass Valley City limits. • Empire Mine State Park is part of the State of California Park system. Over 800 acres, it includes the old mine, historic and interpretive buildings and exhibits, and

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 VII-2 City of Grass Valley

over one square mile of forested open space with trails and natural areas. Empire Mine State Park maintains over ten miles of hiking trails open to the public. • Scotten and Lyman Gilmore School properties • Sierra College The total acreage of existing park and recreation facilities in the entire Planning Area (City limits plus unincorporated area) is 1,124. The Planning Area encompasses 9,894 acres. Thus, existing parks and recreation areas, as defined to include school grounds with public-access recreational areas, comprise 11.4 percent of the Planning Area. Parks and open space resources located within the GVPRD service area are described in Table VII-1 below.

TABLE VII-1 PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES LOCATED WITHIN THE GRASS VALLEY PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION SERVICE AREA

Parks Within the Grass Valley City Limits (City-owned and operated)

Parks/ Facility Open Space Existing Improvements Possible Improvements (Acres) Improve visual entry into park; provide more parking; provide Baseball fields, skate park, 2nd entry; provide additional bocce ball courts, trails, play field; connect to Minnie parking, bathrooms, picnic Park with trail and Condon Park 80 areas, disc golf course, fir landscaping; implement tree arboretum, pond, habitat management plan; reception hall formalize trail system linking park to school and surrounding neighborhood Pocket park including Upgrade play equipment, Dow 0.25 children’s play areas, picnic improve landscaping and Alexander Park areas, parking accessibility, add restroom Renovate site as urban plaza Elisabeth Bathrooms and picnic area, with benches, paving, art, 0.16 Daniels Park urban, GDVA office kiosk, food vendors, access through plaza, stage area Provide footpath along park Glenn Jones 2 Picnic tables, museum edge/creek-side; continue Park current use and image Additional improvements Soccer field, tennis courts, planned include basketball Mautino Park 12.9 restrooms, parking, trail, courts and playground, natural area additional trails, grass volleyball area Picnic areas, parking, pool, Upgrade/refurbish pool facility; tennis courts, ball field, improve parking and drop-off children’s pay area, area; refurbish Scout Lodge; Memorial Park 7.6 Memorial Club House and develop Memorial Trail; add Recreation Annex, picnic tennis court; install sidewalks area around perimeter

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review VII-3 City of Grass Valley

Close Butler Street; provide trail Children’s play area, picnic link to Condon; upgrade play Minnie Park 2 areas, pathways, lawn area, equipment; install sidewalk parking around perimeter; enlarge grassy area Develop as passive recreation 4 park with limited lawn, natural Morgan Ranch Picnic area, trails, (future areas and trails (keep majority Park woods/natural areas development) of trees); provide picnic tables, benches

Facilities Within the Grass Valley Grass Valley City Limits (City-owned; maintained by others)

Parks/Open Facility Space Existing Improvements Possible Improvements (Acres) None; Operated by the Nevada County Historical Pelton Wheel - Museum building Society (which owns the Museum majority, if not all, of the historical contents)

Facilities within the Grass Valley City Limits (maintenance only; not City-owned)

Parks/Open Facility Space Existing Improvements (Acres) An athletic field managed and maintained by the City of Grass Sierra College 7.95 Valley. The agreement between the College and the City if due Rotary Field to expire on November 30, 2005. Planned Recreational Facilities Within Unincorporated Areas of the City’s Sphere of Influence That Will be Annexed in the Near Future1 Parks/Open Facility Space Possible Improvements (Acres) 165 acres Loma Rica open space; A Community Center, Lake MacBoyle; Active Recreation; Trails; Ranch 50 acres Equestrian Trail; Music in the Mountains recreation 175 acres Community Center (3-5 acres); Julia Morgan House; Park Sites; North Star open space Schools (13+ acres) 95.4 acres open space; Kenny Ranch Trail; Wildflower preserve 8 acres recreation Glenbrook 4 acres Lake Olympia; Trails; Park To be Bear River Mill To be determined determined

Other Facilities Within the Grass Valley City Limits (not owned or maintained by the City)

Parks/ Facility Open Space Existing Improvements (Acres) Nevada Includes a 58-acre, 9-hole public golf course owned and County 58 operated by a private company. It is the only public-access golf Country Club course located within the Planning Area.

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 VII-4 City of Grass Valley

Recreation Facilities Outside the Grass Valley City Limits but Within the Service Area (not owned or maintain by GVPRD) Parks/ Facility Open Space Existing Improvements (Acres) The facility is classified as a regional park. The Fairgrounds house several community facilities, including a building leased to the Nevada Senior Foundation that currently houses Senior/Community County 100 Center Activities. The annual Nevada County Fair and other Fairgrounds recreational activities take place at the Fairgrounds, which are used year-round. Park Avenue Alternative Approxi- Education Site Includes one gym and one multipurpose field used for youth mately 10 (formerly baseball and softball acres Empire High School) 63+ (includes Nevada Union Includes substantial recreational and sports facilities on a 63- entire High School acre campus located on Ridge Road. campus) Includes the old mine, historic and interpretive buildings and Empire Mine exhibits, and over one square mile of forested open space with 884 State Park trails and natural areas. The Park maintains over ten miles of hiking trails open to the public. Misc. Possible City of Grass Valley Facility Parks/ Facility Open Space Existing Improvements Possible Improvements (Acres) Develop regional trail system linking key features: Wolf The 2.5-mile Litton Trail exists Creek, parks, schools, Nevada within the City limits. The County trail system. Develop Nevada County Land Trust is Historic Downtown Walk. Trails Partially Built currently building a trail to link Develop city trail system to link Memorial Park with the Empire Grass Valley with future Mine Historic State trail system. development-Loma Rica, North Star, Glenbrook, Kenny Ranch, Bear River Mill. Source: Grass Valley Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2001 and City of Grass Valley, 2005 1 The acreages listed reflect those proposed under the current Development Agreements. These figures may need to be revised as the developments proceed to ensure that the City meets the facility standards stated in this Master Plan.

Population and Housing Units Park and recreation districts base much of their future needs on anticipated growth within their district boundaries. According to the Grass Valley Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the 2001 population of the City of Grass Valley was approximately 10,000 people, with approximately 16,000 persons in the entire planning area. The Master Plan includes persons in the planning area, which includes the City of Grass Valley and adjacent areas of unincorporated Nevada County. These unincorporated areas are included in the planning area because they (1) are likely to be annexed in the future, (2) affect and are affected by the City, and (3) receive or might reasonably be expected to receive City services.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review VII-5 City of Grass Valley

The following important facts and trends are identified in the Master Plan and/or City of Grass Valley General Plan: • The population will increase within the Planning Area, growing by approximately 32 percent from 16,000 in 1998 to an estimated 23,395 in the year 2020 (2020 City of Grass Valley General Plan, Table 1-1). • Households will become smaller and more diverse. In addition to traditional nuclear families, the Recreation and Park Commission will need to recognize the varied needs of people living in nursing and foster care homes, single parent families, persons living alone, and people with disabilities. • As California becomes more diverse, Grass Valley will experience changes in the City’s cultural and ethnic composition over the next 20 years. • Nearly 60 percent of the Grass Valley residents currently rent their dwelling units. Significant amounts of high-density, rental housing can increases the need for park and recreational opportunities. • Grass Valley is a popular retirement community with a high proportion of senior residents. By 2020, residents 45 years and older will represent 50.8 percent of the City’s population. These residents have specific recreational needs such as low- impact sports, swimming, weight training, etc. Residents will also need community facilities to house senior programs and activities. • Almost 75 percent of Grass Valley’s population is composed of active adults (25 and older). Today’s changing attitudes towards maintaining healthy lifestyles will contribute to a high demand for a wide variety of recreational activities. • New jobs in technology have attracted younger families to Grass Valley, increasing demand for more active types of recreation and organized sports programs. Table VII-2 shows population and housing unit projections for the City of Grass Valley and its Sphere of Influence as established by Nevada County LAFCo. The scenarios were developed using two different projection factors: an expected growth rate at 1.5 percent per year and a high growth rate of 3.0 percent per year. The average household size of 2.103 was taken from the 2000 Census.

TABLE VII-2 NEVADA LAFCO POPULATION AND HOUSING UNIT GROWTH – GRASS VALLEY & SOI1 Growth Scenario 2010 2015 2020 2025 Infill Housing Units 8,026 10,415 13,909 14,698 – Expected Growth Population 16,879 21,904 29,251 30,910 Infill Housing Units 8,217 11,449 15,276 16,018 – High Growth Population 17,280 24,078 32,125 33,686 General Plan Housing Units 7,578 9,952 11,303 11,924 – Expected Growth Population 15,936 20,930 23,771 25,076 General Plan Housing Units 8,025 10,859 12,670 13,244 – High Growth Population 16,876 22,836 26,645 27,852

Source: Nevada LAFCo; 2000 Census 1 Note: this table includes Grass Valley and its Sphere of Influence; it assumes GV will annex all the lands in the sphere according to sphere’s timing horizons.

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 VII-6 City of Grass Valley

As stated in the 2020 Grass Valley General Plan, the 2020 projected population for the City of Grass Valley planning area is 23,395 persons. Using the ratio of 2.40 persons per single-family housing unit and 1.95 persons per multi-family housing unit used in the General Plan, the Grass Valley planning area is projected to include 10,203 housing units in the year 2020 (2020 City of Grass Valley General Plan, Table 1-1). Again, there is a discrepancy between the General Plan figures and those produced by the Nevada LAFCo model. The City’s General Plan, however, did not project growth in the four Special Development Areas at the densities now under consideration.

Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies Existing Deficiencies The availability of park and recreation facilities and their ability to meet the recreational needs of the community are usually measured by facility standards. These standards are expressed quantitatively as the number of facilities needed to serve a certain number of residents (e.g., a standard of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 population would result in 25 acres of parkland for every 5,000 persons). The Parks and Recreation Master Plan indicates that due to Grass Valley’s uniqueness, it is difficult to set facility standards. The Master Plan identifies park and facility standards for Grass Valley based on standards from jurisdictions considered to have excelled in planning and providing for park and recreational needs. The standards are identified in Table VII-3.

TABLE VII-3 PARK STANDARDS FOR GRASS VALLEY PARKS AND RECREATION

Facility Type Standard Parkland 0.25-0.5 acres per 1,000 Pocket parks population Neighborhood Parks 1-2 acres per 1,000 population Community Park 5-8 acres per 1,000 population 5-10 acres per 1,000 Regional Park population Trails 1 system per region Multi-use Bicycle/ 1 system per region Pedestrian Path Recreation Facilities Baseball Field 1 per 4,800 persons Softball Field 1 per 4,800 persons Soccer Field 1 per 4,100 persons Football Field 1 per 15,000 persons Outdoor Basketball Court 1 per 5,600 persons Tennis Court 1 per 2,400 persons Volleyball Court 1 per 7,900 persons Swimming Pool 1 per 21,100 persons Gym 1 per 31,100 persons Source: Grass Valley Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2001

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review VII-7 City of Grass Valley

Projected Park and Recreational Acreage Need The Master Plan identified the parks and facilities needed to meet the current demand (16,000 population) and 2020 demand (24,000 population). Table VII-4 lists new park acreage needs. According to the Master Plan, the City will need approximately 6 to 12 acres of pocket parks, 24 to 48 acres of neighborhood parks, and 120 to 192 acres of community parks by 2020.

TABLE VII-4 PARK NEEDS

Park Type Pocket Neighborhood Community Regional Trails Multi-Use Park Park Park Park Path Current Inventory (2001) Existing City Park 2.25 acres 6 acres 20.5 acres 80 acres1 None None Area Existing Other Park/Open - - - 884 acres 8 acres None Space Existing Total 2.25 acres 6 acres 20.5 acres 964 acres N/A N/A Area Current Demand (2001) Current Needed 80-128 4-8 acres 16-32 acres 0 1 system 1 system Area acres Additional Area Needed to Meet 1.75-5.75 59.5-107.5 Standard for 10-26 acres 0 1 system 1 system acres acres Current Demand (2001) Future Demand (2020) Total Area Needed to Meet 120-192 Standard for 6-12 acres 24-48 acres 0 1 system 1 system acres Projected Demand (2020) Existing Parks 2.25 acres 6 acres 20.5 acres 964 acres N/A N/A and Facilities Additional Area Needed to Meet 3.75- 9.75 99.5-171.5 Standard for 18-42 acres 0 1 system 1 system acres acres Future Demand (2020) 1 This acreage depicts Condon Park. Though Condon Park serves a regional needs, the park is technically a community park with City funding only to support the operations and maintenance. Source: Grass Valley Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2001 and City of Grass Valley, 2005.

Projected Park Facilities Need Table VII-5 lists the needs for recreational facilities.

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 VII-8 City of Grass Valley

TABLE VII-5 RECREATION FACILITIES NEEDS

Facility Pool Field Field Field Gym Field Court Court Court Tennis Center Softball Comm. Soccer Football Outdoor Outdoor Baseball Volleyball Swimming Basketball

Current Inventory (2005) Existing City Facilities 2 1 1 0 1 6 1 1 0 0 Other Facilities 3 4 4 1 2 0 0 1 3 0 Total Available 3.5 3 3 0.5 2 6 1 1.5 0.5 0 Facilities1 Current Demand (2005) Currently Needed 3 3 4 1 2 7 2 1 1 1 Facilities Additional Facilities Needed to Meet None None 1 1 None 1 1 None 0.5 1 Current Demand Future Demand (2020) Total Area Needed to Meet Standard for 5 5 6 1 4 9 3 1 1 1 Future Demand (2020) Additional Area Needed to Meet 2 2 3 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 Standard for Future Demand (2020) Source: Grass Valley Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2001 and City of Grass Valley, 2005. 1 This number is adjusted to reflect that school facilities are not always available for public use.

Determinations - Existing and Future Needs/Infrastructure Service Area and Future Growth An agency’s service territory should be based on a determination of where the agency can logically provide efficient current and future service. Including territory that cannot be logically served by the agency within a service area, or excluding territory which can be logically served from a service area, aggravates inefficiencies and may indicate that the boundary is inappropriate. • The population of Grass Valley will grow substantially in future years, causing an increasing demand for parks and recreational facilities. • GVPRD provides recreational opportunities to the citizens of Grass Valley and residents of the surrounding area. Also located in GVPRD’s planning area are recreational facilities provided by 17th Agricultural District (Nevada County Fairgrounds), the State of California (Empire Mine State Park), Nevada Union High School District, Sierra College (Sierra College Rotary Fields), the Nevada County Country Club (a 58-acre, 9-hole golf course), and the Scotten and Gilmore school properties. • GVPRD facilities and services are used by a large number of people who are not City residents, but who live in the area designated as the City’s Sphere of Influence, or beyond.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review VII-9 City of Grass Valley

• Maintenance and repair needs of current facilities exceed what the City has been able to budget on an on-going basis. The City does not have a capital replacement plan to ensure continuation of facility upkeep. • There are a number of proposed development areas in the City’s SOI that are anticipated to be annexed to the City. The City will require new development in these areas to provide for new parklands. As the City’s boundaries extend to include surrounding areas, GVPRD’s service area will expand to serve these areas, resulting in appropriate expansion of the City’s recreational service area. • Future parkland demand has been established in the Grass Valley Parks and Recreation Master Plan. According to the Master Plan, the City will need approximately 6 to 12 acres of pocket parks, 24-48 acres of neighborhood parks, and 120-192 acres of community parks by 2020.

Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies • The Master Plan also establishes future demand for recreation facilities as shown in Tables VII-4 and VII-5. • GVPRD has planned for facilities to accommodate its population growth. These facilities are anticipated to be adequate to meet GVPRD’s needs. • Grass Valley also has a number of local non-profit organizations that provide organized activities for the community, filling an important recreation need. The non-profit organizations operate under formal Facility-Use Agreements which came into effect on or about August 2002. The City of Grass Valley should continue to coordinate provision of such programs.

B) FINANCING AND RATE RESTRUCTURING

All units of government—counties, cities and special districts—are financially independent, within the limits of state law, and each local government has the ability to craft a unique variety of policies and practices. Each agency is equally empowered to make independent fiscal decisions; however, they are not equally empowered to generate revenues to support their decisions.

Revenue Sources and Expenses Current and Future Revenues GVPRD currently receives revenues through the City’s general fund, state grants, donations, the Parks, Recreation and Facilities fee, a development impact fee for recreation imposed by the City of Grass Valley, and the Grass Valley Recreation Benefit Zone fee imposed by Nevada County. General Fund City General Fund revenues for the 2004-05 fiscal year are anticipated to be $7,957,000. The City anticipates an ending fund balance in excess of $4,000,000 for the 2004-05 fiscal year, which is $999,673 less than the beginning balance. Table VII-6 identifies the general fund revenues relating to parks and recreation from 2000 to 2005. The anticipated revenues for park and recreation related for the 2004- 05 fiscal year is $71,150, almost $44,000 more than the actual revenues from the 2000- 01 fiscal year.

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 VII-10 City of Grass Valley

TABLE VII-6 CITY OF GRASS VALLEY GENERAL FUND REVENUES – PARKS AND RECREATION

2004-05 Source 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Adopted Budget Rec. Field Facility Rental $9,555 $14,803 $5,410 $9,500 $7,500 Building Rental $12,539 $10,970 $13,142 $12,000 $14,000 Pool Rental & User Fees $0 $9,871 $26,881 $26,000 $26,000 BBQ Rental $0 $0 $4,550 $4,000 $4,000 Misc. Space Rental $0 $0 $250 $0 $250 Baseball Lights $2,518 $25 $0 $0 $0 Tennis Court Light $1,760 $987 $1,083 $1,500 $1,200 Recreation Program Fees $0 $16,498 $13,908 $30,000 $15,000 Sierra College Mutual Aid $1,213 $4,168 $3,479 $4,000 $3,200

Total $27,585 $57,322 $68,703 $87,000 $71,150 Source: City of Grass Valley Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Adopted Budget, 2004

The City has appropriated $660,742 of the General Fund for the Parks and Recreation Division for fiscal year 2004-05, which is $42,178 less than what was requested by the Division. However, the amount funded is significantly more than funded in previous years. Table VII-7 illustrates General Fund appropriations for the 2000 to 2005 time period.

TABLE VII-7: CITY OF GRASS VALLEY GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS

2004-05 Source 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 Adopted Budget General Government $1,246,024 $1,873,775 $1,364,770 $1,493,681 $1,551,881 Public Safety $3,104,957 $3,564,101 $4,021,321 $4,695,922 $5,360,399 Community Development $403,056 $372,852 $440,524 $238,642 $279,993 Public Works $914,920 $1,006,755 $1,036,636 $1,116,806 $1,279,539 Parks and Recreation $362,335 $455,389 $488,830 $591,313 $660,742 Capital Outlay $671,810 $459,298 $637,097 $179,404 $135,519 Total $6,703,102 $7,732,170 $7,989,178 $8,315,768 $9,268,073 Source: City of Grass Valley Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Adopted Budget, 2004

The Parks and Recreation Division is allotted 7.13 percent of the expenditures for this fiscal year. The City General Fund expenditures anticipated for fiscal year 2004-2005 are identified in Exhibit VII-1.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review VII-11 City of Grass Valley

EXHIBIT VII-1 GENERAL FUND BUDGETED EXPENDITURES 2004-2005

Public Works 14% Community Development 3% Parks & Recreation 7%

Capital Outlay Public Safety 1% 58% General Government 17%

Source: City of Grass Valley Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Adopted Budget, 2004

Recreation Impact Fees Separate from Nevada County’s fee program, the City of Grass Valley collects Quimby fees from all new residential development, including subdivisions and apartment complexes, within the City limits. This Quimby fee is not a flat fee, but is based on the number of proposed lots and the assessed value of the property. Projects consisting of fewer than 50 residential units may satisfy this requirement by paying a fee. Projects consisting of more than 50 residential units must either dedicate land or pay the fee. The parkland standard applied to single-family developments is two acres of parkland for every hundred residential dwelling units created. The standard applied to duplexes and multifamily residential projects is two acres per 160 dwelling units and two acres per 200 dwelling units, respectively. Monies generated by this fee may be used to purchase and improve parkland. Nevada County currently collects a recreation development impact fee (Quimby Fee) in the amount of $721 for each new residential lot within the Grass Valley Benefit Zone, but outside the City limits. This fee amount was last updated in 1997. The fees within the Grass Valley Benefit Zone are allocated to the City of Grass Valley to use for parks and recreation needs generated by new development in the surrounding area, which increases the demand for City parks and recreation facilities. Based on the growth anticipated under the infill – high growth scenario, the additional 3,631 housing units anticipated by 2027 would result in $2,617,951 in Quimby Fees. The City also collects AB 1600 developer impact fees in the amount of $2,633.04 for each single-family dwelling unit; $2,110.46 for each single-family attached or duplex dwelling unit; and $2,166.08 for each multi-family dwelling unit. These newly adopted fee amounts became effective on March 25, 2006. The Grass Valley General Plan

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 VII-12 City of Grass Valley

states that approximately 55% of the additional 3,631 housings units anticipated between 1999 and 2020 will be single-family and approximately 45% will be multi- family. The anticipated impact fees to be collected are shown in Table VII-8.

Table VII-8 Anticipated Developer Fees Through 2027 Housing Designation Fee Amount Per Unit Number of Units Total Fees Single-Family $2,633.04 1997.05 $5,258,312.50 Multi-Family $2,166.08 1633.95 $3,539,266.40 TOTAL 3,361 $8,797,578.90 Source: www.cityofgrassvalley.com accessed April 5, 2006

Other Sources The City also funds parks and recreation facilities and services from a variety of other sources, including recreation program fees, rental fees, grants, and Landscape and Lighting Districts for residential and commercial zones. The City collects about $4,000 in revenue from the Sierra College Rotary Fields. One-third of these fees are diverted to a facility improvement fund. The City also receives grant funding. In the last four years, the City has been awarded over $1.2 million in grant funds. Annual revenues have ranged from $27,585 to $87,000 over the past five fiscal years (Table VII-6). The City receives approximately $1,500 per year from Rotary Field rental fees and also accepts donations.

Current and Future Expenses

Operations Past and the current GVPRD budget for the 2004-05 fiscal year are illustrated in Table VII-7. More than 75 percent of the 2004-05 annual budget is used for staff salary and benefits. Services and supplies, including building repairs and maintenance, operating materials, office supplies, telephone, liability insurance, and outside services, are responsible for the remainder of GVPRD’s 2004-05 expenses. Recreation programs are paid for through fees collected as shown in Table VII-6 above. GVPRD has no outstanding debts and has not defaulted on any bonds or other debt.

TABLE VII-9 GRASS VALLEY PARKS AND RECREATION BUDGET

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 Salaries and Benefits $223,073 $299,558 $334,532 $425,048 $496,312 Maintenance and $153,519 $151,233 $159,611 $157,884 $164,430 Operations Capital Outlay $79,915 $33,033 $42,270 $26,355 $0 Total $456,507 $483,824 $536,413 $609,287 $660,742 Source: City of Grass Valley Fiscal Year 2004-05 Adopted Budget, 2004

Park Acreage The City of Grass Valley budget does not identify funds expended or specifically allocated for parkland acquisition.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review VII-13 City of Grass Valley

Park Facilities The Master Plan identifies the anticipated cost for future facilities in GVPRD. These costs are shown in Table VII-10. The Master Plan does not identify specific timing for these improvements, but recommendations are made as to priority.

TABLE VII-10 MASTER PLAN ESTIMATED COSTS FOR SPECIFIC PARK IMPROVEMENTS

Timing Priority Improvement Cost Status L S H M L Condon Park Parking lot expansions (70 spaces) $150,000 x - Foot trails (soft surface, 2 miles) $200,000 x x x x - Paved bike/pedestrian paths (2000 l.f., 8' wide) $50,000 x x x - Landscape improvements for 3 acres $260,000 - Completed Picnic area cover $60,000 x 2003-04 Play field $145,000 x x - Budgeted Skateboard park $50,000 x x 2005-06 Improved entryway into the Park (wider, paved $20,000 x x - sidewalk, etc.) Total $875,000 Dow Alexander Completed Sidewalk improvements ($4/sq.ft) $3,000 x x 2001-02 Completed Playground improvements $30,000 x x 2001-02 Completed Landscape and picnic area $8,000 x x 2001-02 Portable toilet Restroom (cost depends $3,000 x x enclosure, masonry on restroom option - Prefab $10,000 x x selected) Custom $25,000 x x Deemed Relocated war canon to Memorial Park $2,000 x x Infeasible Total $5,000 to $27,000 Elisabeth Daniels Park Concrete plaza paving ($6/sq.ft.) $41,000 x x - Steps and ramps $34,000 x x - Complete Renovate restroom $15,000 X x 2004-05 Site furniture, seat walls $50,000 x x - Complete Limited landscaping and irrigation $10,000 x x 2004-05 Total $125,000 Glenn Jones / Pelton Wheel Improved trail within park $13,000 x x - Total $13,000

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 VII-14 City of Grass Valley

Mautino Park Completed Site preparation - 2003-04 Completed Utilities - 2003-04 Completed Alta street improvements - 2004-05 Budgeted Play area $100,000 2005-06 Completed Soccer fields ($2/sq.ft) - 2004-05 Concession/restroom/storage/maintenance Completed - building (2,000 sq. ft)-$100/sq. ft.) 2004-05 Paved trails (ADA compliant) $20,000 - Picnic area $5,000 - Passive recreation area ($1.75/sq. ft) $400,000 - Completed Roadway and parking ($5/sq. ft) - 2004-05 Total $525,000 Memorial Park Sidewalks on Colfax Ave. and Memorial Lane $20,000 x x - ($4/sq. ft.) Tennis Court ($5/sq.ft.) $25,000 x x - Soft surface foot trails $3,000 x x - Memorial Trail (paved foot path, 6' wide) $72,000 x x - Relocation of memorials $6,000 x x - Site furniture, bollards, fencing $30,000 x x - Renovated Ball field announcers box ($10/sq. ft.) $2,000 - Partially Pool complex renovations (new front entry, $200,000 x x complete equipment) 2003-04 New Parking Lot (7,000 sq. ft. @ $6) $42,000 x - Scout Lodge renovations $100,000 x - Paving treatment for Oak Street (inside the park) $50,000 x - Site preparations $100,000 - Total $650,000 Minnie Park Play ground renovations (equipment and Budgeted $100,000 x x surface material) 2005-06 Road work (AC removal, add cul-de-sac $15,000 x x - installation) Landscape renovation $13,000 x x - Sidewalks $16,000 x x - Picnic area $3,000 x x - Signs, gateways $3,000 x x - Total $150,000 Morgan Ranch Limited lawn, foot trails, replanting, survey, site $270,000 x x - preparations: $1.50/sq. ft.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review VII-15 City of Grass Valley

Wolf Creek Parkway Conceptual Master Plan $50,000 x x - CEQA $20,000 x x - Plans and Specifications $1,200,000 x x - $10,000,00 Construction x x - 0 Total $11,270,000 ALL IMPROVEMENTS TOTAL $13,905,000 Source: Grass Valley Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 2001 and City of Grass Valley, 2005 Timing: L-long term, S = short term. Priority: H = high, M = medium, L =low. Dollar amounts in table reflect costs in the year 2000, with the exception of costs associated with the Wolf Creek Parkway. Wolf Creek Parkway costs are in year 2005 dollars. Total Costs reflect costs for improvements not yet completed.

Paying for Future Operations and Infrastructure Current funding sources for future improvements identified in the Master Plan include recreation fees, development impact fees, and the City’s General Fund. The Master Plan also identifies potential sources of funding and cost reduction not yet being used by the City. Cost reduction measure include the joint-use/maintenance agreements with schools (Sierra College and Nevada Union High School) and Memoranda of Understanding with non-profit organizations (Union Hill Bear Cats and 4-H Summer Recreation). Expanding these sources, such as joint-use agreements with the school districts, will clearly define what each agency is providing in exchange for the use of school property for city-wide activities after school hours. By incorporating school athletic fields and courts into the facilities matrix, the City will avoid needing to build additional facilities. When the school and City facilities are maintained at the same level, there will be a seamless overlay of adequate facilities. Potential funding sources for park system improvements include: • Development impact fee based on park system improvement costs (Note: Developer impact fees were reviewed and updated effective March 25, 2006); • State and federal grants; • Bond issue for multi-generational community center/gym/sports fields; • Developer installations/development agreements; • Continued full use of Quimby Act exaction; • Continued reliance on service clubs, sports leagues, etc.; • Non-profit fund-raising or grants; • Use of State wide funds – i.e., AB 1740 in state budget; • User fees, with a potential increase in non-resident fees; • Landscape and lighting assessment districts for maintenance; and • County-wide recreation district - user fee/assessments.

Determinations - Financing and Rate Restructuring Facilities Sharing • GVPRD currently shares school facilities. It is recommended that GVPRD increase sharing of school facilities, particularly for after-hour programs. This will result in

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 VII-16 City of Grass Valley

fewer new facilities needed for GVPRD and consolidate improvement and maintenance costs. • There are a number of entities providing recreational opportunities and services within GVPRD’s service area, both public and private (e.g.,: Grass Valley Scouts, Grass Valley Little League, Western Nevada County Recreation Services (a California non-profit public benefit corporation incorporated in 1996, which organizes softball teams and tournaments), the Gold County Soccer League, etc.). GVPRD should continue to coordinate these services and investigate whether additional recreational resources exist in the area. For example, instructional programs currently offered through the City might be taught through Adult Education or Sierra College.

Financing Constraints and Opportunities • GVPRD currently receives revenues through the City’s general fund, the City’s Quimby fee, state grants, donations, the City’s various parks, recreation and facilities fees, AB 1600 developer Impact Fees, and the Grass Valley and Nevada City Recreation Benefit Zone fee imposed by Nevada County. City general fund revenues for the 2004-05 fiscal year are anticipated to be $7,957,000. The City anticipates an ending fund balance in excess of $4,000,000 for the 2004-05 fiscal year. The City has allocated $660,742 of the general fund to the Parks and Recreation Division for fiscal year 2004-05. The City’s revenues from the City Quimby fee for the 2003-04 fiscal year were $14,710. • GVPRD anticipates a maximum of $2,248,000 in capital improvements will be needed over the coming years; however, the timing and funding of these improvements have not been established. The City’s Quimby fees and the County’s recreation benefit fees are inadequate to meet this need.

Cost Avoidance Opportunities • GVPRD has used a number of cost savings opportunities to lower costs, such as cost-sharing incentives with non-profits to assist with large maintenance projects and using California Conservation Corp crews to clear brush. • The Grass Valley Parks and Recreation Master Plan identifies potential sources of funding (as identified under the heading “Paying for Future Operations and Infrastructure”) and cost reduction not yet being used by the City. Currently, GVPRD does not have specific plans aimed at reducing costs. It is recommended that GVPRD pursue the additional sources of funding and implement cost reduction measures in order to increase funds available for planned capital improvements. • The City is currently investigating the possibility of forming a cooperative or JPA approach to providing park and recreation facilities and services. Emphasis should be placed on formation of a JPA. Such a JPA would share the cost of maintenance and operations of a comprehensive park and recreation system. This investigation would not be a formal study, but an informal review of organizations providing services with the intent of identifying areas in which certain agencies specialize. This investigation should be completed prior to future annexations that increase demand for recreation and park services (e.g., developments that do not provide adequate parks and/or recreation facilities) • Efforts should focus on the formation of a regional recreation provider JPA to allow resources to be pooled and expenses to be shared on a regional basis.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review VII-17 City of Grass Valley

• Currently, Nevada County collects park development impact fees and passes a portion of these funds on to the City; this practice should be continued to provide services to all areas served by the City as it addresses the issue of demand for facilities resulting from population growth in the unincorporated County • The City has stated that they do not have any outstanding debt relating to parks and recreation expenditures; nor has the City defaulted on repayment of any bonds or other debt.

Opportunities for Rate Restructuring • GVPRD receives recreation impact fees collected by the County from the Grass Valley benefit area. These fees cannot be used for maintenance or operation costs, however, and GVPRD does not have the authority to change the fee amount, which is set by Nevada County. • The Parks and Recreation Impact Fee charged by the City for new development in the City is reviewed annually and, if necessary, the fee is increased at that time. The fee is currently under review and it is recommended that the fee be increased. • The current AB1600 developer impact fee has not been reviewed or revised in over 15 years, resulting in a fee that is inadequate to maintain the existing standard of park and recreation facilities. The fee was reviewed in 2004-05 and will be increased commencing with the 2005-06 budget year. • GVPRD should review its fees and rental rates annually to ensure that the fees and rates keep pace with cost increases and maintenance needs.

C) MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE

Authority of Governance and Scope of Local Agency Powers Authorization for local government was established by the State of California. The California system of local government has created counties, cities, and special districts. The California Constitution contains provisions for counties and cities. Special districts are created and authorized through principal acts.

Principal Act of Authorization The City was formed in March of 1893 under the State of California’s Government Code Section 34450, which allows for any city and county to enact, amend, or repeal a charter for its own government. In January 1999, the City authorized the creation of the Parks and Recreation Commission. The City defined a scope of duties for the Commission, which is used to guide future parks and recreation endeavors by the City. These duties are: • Emphasize recreation programs, organized activities and events. • Recognize the demand for non-traditional recreational facilities such as trails, cultural facilities, and natural open space.

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 VII-18 City of Grass Valley

• Address community demographic and development patterns. • Determine park and recreation needs, standards, and levels of service. • Assess the opportunities offered by private recreation providers in designing programs that best meet the needs of the community, complementing rather than competing with private providers.

Public Input The Grass Valley City Council holds regularly scheduled meetings on the second and forth Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. The public is notified of meetings by local postings and the City’s website. Public comments are allowed at scheduled meetings and also can be provided in writing to the City. Operating procedures and practices, including budgets, personnel policies, fees and rates, capital improvement plans, and other documents are available for public review at the department office or on the City’s website. The City and its actions are subject to public review procedures. There are sufficient mechanisms in place to ensure that actions and operating procedures of GVPRD are open and accessible to the public. GVPRD provides public information through the City’s website at http://cityofgrassvalley.com, where interested parties can obtain information on matters such as pending parks and recreation projects, the Parks and Recreation Commission, a available resources, information of and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Parks and Recreation Commission meetings are held at 3:00 p.m. on the third Monday of the month in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Customer complaints can be expressed by using the suggestion/complaint form provided at the City offices, commenting during a Park and Recreation Commission meeting or City Council meeting or contacting a Parks and Recreation staff member directly. Within the last year, the City has received complaints concerning facility accessibility (1), nuisance (3), new facilities/programs (4), vehicle damage (7) and facility upkeep (2).

Organizational Structure Goals The mission statement of the GVPRD is: “To serve the community by providing a wide variety of affordable and accessible recreational opportunities that contribute to a greater quality of life.” GVPRD, a division of the Public Works Department, is governed by the Grass Valley City Council. The City Council also has established a Parks and Recreation Commission to provide direction for future park and recreational development City. (See Figure 6.) The Commission is comprised of five regular members and one youth member. Members are appointed by the City Council and report directly to the City Council. Terms are four years, except the youth position has a fixed two-year term. The youth member must be between the ages of fourteen (14) and twenty-one (21) years. However, young adults may apply for and be appointed to regular positions. Commission duties include formulating and proposing programs, activities, resources, plans and development designed to provide for the future growth and improvement of the community parks and recreation system. The Commission may also make recommendations regarding activities and expenditures relating to parks and recreation.

The GVPRD uses the goals and objectives in the Recreation Element of the 2020 General Plan for the City of Grass Valley as the general basis for providing and broadening

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review VII-19 City of Grass Valley

recreational opportunities for the residents of Grass Valley. These goals and objectives call for expanded and diverse recreational programs, areas, and opportunities, and for providing additional cultural opportunities for the community. Table VII-11 highlights the policies presented in the General Plan.

TABLE VII-11 CITY OF GRASS VALLEY GENERAL PLAN POLICIES

Number Policy Provide parks and open spaces of different sizes and types to respond to the needs of a 1-RP diverse population, including trails for pedestrian and equestrian use, bicycle pathways, linear parkways and park-like natural areas. 2-RP Increase the standard of park acreage to population. 3-RP Distinguish neighborhood park needs from community and regional park needs. Establish a City-sponsored open space district to operate and manage existing and future 4-RP open space resources. 5-RP Formalize and enhance walking trails in existing City parks. 6-RP Provide non-motorized linkages between parks and open spaces. 7-RP Include a map in the General Plan designating a trails network for the Planning Area. 8-RP Cooperate with other jurisdictions to address regional park and recreation needs. 9-RP Develop performing arts in various venues, including a performing arts center. 10-RP Expand the existing library as a cultural venue. 11-RP Create a public plaza in downtown for community events and activities. 12-RP Support efforts to establish a community center for mixed ages and a variety of uses. Establish active program of land/development rights acquisitions in order to protect 2-COSP sensitive environmental areas and features. Encourage clustering, density averaging and other techniques to preserve open space 3-COSP and natural systems. Establish standards for inclusion and management of permanent open space in new 4-COSP developments. 7-COSP Recognize and reinforce Grass Valley's public park system. Establish a City trail network program for friendly acquisitions, development and 10-COSP administration of a natural trails system. Return to open space those areas within which flooding poses a clear danger to life and 11-COSP property. Develop agreements with Nevada County on a strategy for conservation and open 18-COSP space protection within the Grass Valley Planning area and sphere of influence. Enlist appropriate efforts and interest of state and federal agencies and private 19-COSP foundations regarding conservation and open space protection. Employees/Future Staff Need As stated previously, Grass Valley Parks and Recreation is a division of the Public Works Department of the City of Grass Valley. The City’s Public Works Park Maintenance Division provides maintenance and upkeep of the City’s parks. The Recreation and Facilities staff provide and facilitate programs and oversee park, pool and museum operations. The Division consists of seven full-time employees, five part-time employees, approximately 15 seasonal employees, and five contract employees (see Exhibit VII-2).

Workload is tracked on an annual basis by the division manager and submitted as part of the annual budget process. Staff review of operations and procedures is performed a constant basis to address efficiency and effectiveness. Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 VII-20 City of Grass Valley

EXHIBIT VII-2 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

Citizens of the City of Grass Valley

City Council

Parks and Recreation

Public Works Director

Recreation and Public Works and Facilities Manager Parks

Parks and Recreation Commission Street/Sidewalks Support, Park Ranger Program, Fleet Maintenance Facility Management, Recreation Parking Lots Programs, Swimming Pool, Pelton Storm Drains Wheel Museum Park Maintenance Facilities Maintenance

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review VII-21 City of Grass Valley

Determinations - Management and Governance

Evaluation of Management Efficiencies

• As a division within the City’s Public Works Department, GVPRD is comprised of two units: Parks Maintenance and Recreation and Facilities. Future growth may suggest a need to combine these divisions to create a department separate from Public Works. • The Public Works Department provides care and maintenance for the Sierra College Rotary Fields under a mutual aid agreement. GVPRD shares facilities with Nevada Union High School and participates in a lease agreement with the Nevada County Historical Society. GVPRD participates in joint training with the Grass Valley Fire Department for its employees. GVPRD has a memorandum of understanding with the Union Hill Bear Cats and the 4-H Summer Recreation program. • The City’s organizational structure is sufficient to allow for efficient service delivery functions. Personnel in various divisions are cross-trained to provide continuous service. • GVPRD will need additional staff as its park system and services grow. It will likely become more efficient to assign personnel specifically to park maintenance. GVPRD should continue to use volunteers to assist in park and recreational facility upkeep and should pursue hiring a grant writer. • The Grass Valley Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update identifies future demand and projects to meet it. • Funding is yet to be established to achieve the maintenance standards which are prescribed in the City of Grass Valley Parks and Recreation Master Plan. • The City’s parks and recreation budget recognizes the need to expand recreational opportunities to meet the needs of growth and development. The budget utilizes the Master Plan to prepare for the future. • GVPRD is currently investigating the possibility of forming a cooperative or Joint Powers Authority (JPA) for providing park and recreational facilities and services. This investigation is an informal review of the services offered by various entities providing recreation programs and services in the area. Further information on the outcome of the investigation is not available at this time. • The Parks and Recreation Commission have considered the formation of a park and recreation special district to serve the Grass Valley area. Nevada County, Nevada City, Superintendent of Schools, Nevada Union Adult Education, Sierra College, the Senior Center, Community Center Association, and Western Nevada County Recreation Services are agencies with which GVPRD might consider a functional consolidation. However, GVPRD feels that some agencies may be reluctant to participate in reorganization without an equitable accounting of existing resources (Jacobson, 2004).

Local Accountability and Governance • The City and Parks and Recreation Committee holds regular public meetings that are in compliance with the Brown Act and all laws governing public meetings. • All plans, reports and documents are available to the public.

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 VII-22 City of Grass Valley

• All rate and fee increases are discussed and approved/disapproved in a public forum. • The City has not provided information regarding level of public participation or participation of service users in elections. • The GVPRD serves residents of surrounding unincorporated areas of the County as well as the City’s service area . However, Nevada County does little to support the operation and maintenance of the park facilities and recreation programs.

Government Structure Options • The City is currently investigating the possibility of forming a cooperative or joint powers authority (JPA) for providing parks and recreation facilities and services. • A number of different public and private entities provide recreational facilities within or adjacent to GVPRD’s service area. Every opportunity to coordinate service and facilities among these entities should be pursued. • GVPRD has identified a number of entities that it would consider a functional consolidation, including Nevada County, Nevada City, NU Adult Education, Sierra College, Senior Center, Community Center Association, and Western Nevada County Recreation Services (a California Non Profit Public Benefit Corporation incorporated in 1996 which organizes softball teams and tournaments).

Bibliography

Jacobson, Sandy. Recreation and Facility Manager for the City of Grass Valley. Response to Municipal Services Review Survey. August 2004.

Jacobson, Sandy. Recreation and Facility Manager for the City of Grass Valley. Personal Correspondence. July 27, 2005.

Moore Iacorano Goltsman, Inc. Grass Valley Parks and Recreation Master Plan. February 2001. Davis, CA.

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review VII-23

VIII. Tahoe National Forest and California State Parks

Information on Tahoe National Forest and the California State Parks is provided in order to illustrate additional recreation facilities within Nevada County. However, the service area, infrastructure, financial condition and other aspects of Tahoe National Forest, the U.S. Forest Service, and the State Parks were not analyzed nor are determinations provided, as Nevada County LAFCo does not have jurisdiction over these agencies.

Background and Location The Tahoe National Forest straddles the crest of the Sierra Nevada. Formed in 1909 through the efforts of Presidents Roosevelt and Taft, the Forest encompasses a substantial territory that spans five different counties. Elevations of the Tahoe National Forest range from 1,500 feet in the American River Canyon to over 9,400 feet at the summit of Mt. Lola. Overall, the Forest boundary encompasses 1,320 square miles, 277 of which (21 percent) are located within Nevada County. The Forest is bordered to the north by the Plumas National Forest, to the south by the Eldorado National Forest, and to the east by the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forests and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit.

Recreation and Park Resources The Tahoe National Forest boasts many recreational opportunities, including hiking, fishing, boating, mountain biking, horseback riding, and skiing. In addition, the Forest maintains 76 family campgrounds, 12 group campgrounds, 23 picnic grounds and 15 boating sites. The California State Parks operates four parks in Nevada County – Empire Mine State Park, Malakoff Diggins State Park, and the South Yuba River State Park in western Nevada County, and the Donner Memorial State Park in the eastern portion. Campgrounds The campgrounds of the Tahoe National Forest allow for access by persons of every desire and skill level. From rugged, outhouse and dirt road locations to full-service, highly developed paved sites, the Forest maintains services for campers of all abilities. Additionally, there are campsites throughout the forest with capacities for groups of up to 100 people.

State Parks provides camping facilities at Malakoff Diggins, South Yuba River, and at Donner Memorial State Parks.

Skiing Six downhill ski sites are located either wholly or partially within forest boundaries, making the area one of the most renowned ski venues in California. Downhill ski and snowboard areas include Alpine Meadows, Boreal, Donner Ski Ranch, Squaw Valley and Sugar Bowl.

Crosscountry ski trails are available at Donner Memorial State Park.

Rafting and Swimming The rivers of the Tahoe, including the North and Middle forks of the American, the North, Middle and South Yuba and the Truckee, are popular rafting rivers for enthusiasts of all

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review VIII-1 Tahoe National Forest skill levels. Donner Lake and its beaches are heavily utilized for recreational purposes, including boating and swimming.

Hiking Trails Over 500 miles of trails can be found within the Forest, including a 97-mile stretch of the 2,600-mile Pacific Crest Trail. Some of the trails, such as a portion of the Sugar Pine Trail in the Foresthill District, are wheelchair accessible.

State Parks maintains trails at all four of its facilities in Nevada County, including Donner Memorial, Malakoff Diggins, Empire Mine, and South Yuba State Parks.

Fishing As a fishing destination, the Tahoe National Forest entertains more anglers yearly than any other National Forest in California. It offers extensive reservoir fishing, as well as stream fishing. The North Fork of the American has been designated by the State as a wild trout stream.

Off-Highway Vehicles There are also several areas that have been specifically designed for off-highway vehicle use, such as motorcycles and ATVs. The most popular of these is the Foresthill Off- Highway Vehicle system, which is made up of 85 miles of trails exclusively designated for this use.

Exhibits and Programs State Parks provides museums, exhibits, and programs at the all four of its Nevada County parks.

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 VIII-2 IX. Nevada County Land Trust

Information on the Nevada County Land Trust (NCLT) is provided in order to illustrate additional recreation facilities within Nevada County. However, the service area, infrastructure, financial condition and other aspects of the Land Trust were not analyzed, as Nevada County LAFCo does not have jurisdiction over this agency.

Background and Location Western Nevada County is located sixty miles northwest of Sacramento in the Sierra Foothills at an average elevation of about 2,500 feet. NCLT is a local, non-profit corporation organized to preserve land for natural, recreational, scenic, agricultural, historical, cultural, educational and scientific purposes within western Nevada County. NCLT acquires land, conservation easements, and development rights by donation, purchase and other means through voluntary, private action. It manages land held in trust for limited periods or forever.

Recreation and Park Resources NCLT administers three special projects, holds thirteen conservation easements, maintains one park site and one future park site, six trails and four agricultural easements. The NCLT Executive Director has stated their interest in partnering with other recreation service providers in the area and/or in creation of a parks district in order to enhance service provision. Descriptions of NCLT’s special projects, conservation easement, and park and trail resources that are currently open to the public or may become available if funding is secured, are given in Table IX-1 below.

TABLE IX-1 NEVADA COUNTY LAND TRUST RECREATION AND PARK RESOURCES

Resource Name Description of Resource Acreage Location Status of or Trail Public Length Access Special Projects Dryden Wilson Dryden Wilson left $1.8 million to N/A N/A N/A Projects be evenly divided between Placer and Nevada counties. Both counties chose to honor Wilson's legacy by using the money for parks and open space. Placer established an open space fund for their Placer Legacy program. Nevada County identified the North Star House, the Loma Rica Ranch and Western Gateway Park as their priorities. North Star The new owner of the North 14 acres The North Star Limited Historic District Star property south of Grass property south of (tours given Valley has agreed to give 14 Grass Valley 1st and 3rd acres of land to the Nevada Saturdays) County Land Trust to promote the restoration of the North Star House, the Hague House, the

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review IX-1 Nevada County Land Trust

Resource Name Description of Resource Acreage Location Status of or Trail Public Length Access Assay Office and the Gardener’s Cottage or old mine office. Round The Bureau of Land -- South side of the N/A Mountain/Rock Management (BLM) holds South Yuba River Creek BLM several thousand acres of just outside Public Lands prime forested land on the Nevada City south side of the South Yuba River just outside Nevada City. Neighbors in the area have long been concerned about the future use of the land. A neighborhood group was formed to open a dialog with BLM. NCLT was a partner and interested party in the process from the beginning because it holds an easement on 160 acres adjacent to the BLM holdings. For the last several years, the planning group has been wrestling with community concerns relating to fire, recreation and habitat issues. At a public meeting November 19, 2001, the group voted to accept the draft and forward it to BLM. Conservation Easement Woodpecker The parcel has mixed conifer 28 On Banner Accessible Wildlife Preserve woodlands as well as wetland Mountain in through areas on the lower section that Nevada City trails (no combine to make this prime roadway wildlife habitat and a portion of access) NID’s D.S. Canal runs through a lower section of the property. The Land Trust will conduct a biological inventory and mapping of sensitive areas within the next 18-24 months. Volunteers from Sierra College, Grass Valley Campus, have already begun preliminary work. Once completed, the information will be used to develop the management plan. Until all work is completed, public access will be limited to the existing trail easement along the ditch. Parks Burton The owner of this property gave 38 Two miles Not Homestead the Land Trust a gift deed of her northwest of available (future park) parcel with a reserved life Nevada City estate. This means that the Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 IX-2 Nevada County Land Trust

Resource Name Description of Resource Acreage Location Status of or Trail Public Length Access owner will live out her life on the property, after which the property will convert to fee title ownership by the Land Trust.

The Land Trust plans to maintain existing trails and roads for future access and will establish a neighborhood park and children’s education center and trails where leashed dogs can be walked. Future plans include establishing a museum and science center featuring native flora and fauna in one of the property's existing structures. Mathis Pond The property's primary feature is 1.75 Along Dog Bar Open a large, spring-fed pond that Road near its acts as a home and way intersection with station for waterfowl. An Alta Sierra Drive informational kiosk and graveled trail mark the publicly accessible neighborhood "pocket park." The Land Trust has agreed to take over responsibility for protecting Mathis Pond as open space in perpetuity. The Land Trust uses Mathis Pond as an educational site for pond and birding studies. Local Audubon Society members have installed and monitor wood duck and blue bird nesting boxes on the site. Trails Alan Thiesen Trail The Adam Ryan preserve is a Perimeter Southwest Open 41-acre parcel. The Land Trust Around 40 intersection of acquired a trail easement Acres Dog Bar and around the perimeter of this Alta Sierra roads property. Bailey Trail Alongside a section of the -- Grass Valley Open Allison Ranch Nevada Irrigation Canal, it is a short trail. It provides a vital shortcut for local students traveling to Lyman Gilmore and Scotten Schools in Grass Valley. Banner- The Land Trust is working with -- Along the Open Cascade Ditch landowners along the Banner- Banner-Cascade Trail Cascade Ditch between Ditch between Gracie Road and Red Dog Gracie Road Road to secure trail easements and Red Dog to keep the trail open along the Road Nevada Irrigation District's (NID) Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review IX-3 Nevada County Land Trust

Resource Name Description of Resource Acreage Location Status of or Trail Public Length Access Cascade Ditch. Litton Trail The trail is graded and paved 3/5 Mile Between Sierra Open with benches for resting along College Drive the way, making it easily and Hughes accessible to people of all ages Road in Grass and abilities. Valley Litton Trail The extension adds another 1 Mile Extension of the Open Extension mile of trail around the wooded existing Litton and meadowed edges of the Trail to loop campus, returning to Sierra around the College Drive. Given its college campus location, the new trail provides an important pedestrian link to Nevada Union High School and Ridge Road. Future links through the Eskaton Project and Glenwood Road developments are being explored. Narrow Gauge The Land Trust is working on a -- Along the Open Trail long-term project to develop a historic Narrow trail or series of trails along the Gauge railroad historic Narrow Gauge railroad right-of-way right-of-way linking Nevada linking Nevada City, Grass Valley, Peardale, City, Grass Chicago Park and Colfax. The Valley, Peardale, inspiration for the trail is the Chicago Park historic Nevada County Narrow and Colfax Gauge Railroad. Wherever practical, the trail will follow the old railroad alignment. When it can't, the trail will follow existing roadways. Historical and other interpretive markers will be placed along the route, which will be accessible to people of all ages and abilities. The Land Trust has secured 3 trail easements so far along the former Narrow Gauge Railroad line. Source: Nevada County Land Trust, 2005

In addition to the park and recreation resources identified in Table IX-1, NCLT holds a number of conservation and agricultural easements which are not open to the public. These easements are listed below for reference.

Conservation Easements: o Adam Ryan Wildlife Preserve o Bennett Street Grasslands o Chaparral Hill o Feld Family

Parks and Recreation Nevada County LAFCo Municipal Services Review April 2006 IX-4 Nevada County Land Trust

o Hannan Wildlife Preserve o Jonathan Whitworth Butts Forest Management Area o Peradale Bird Sanctuary o Phillips Easement o Pitcher Plan Bog o Red Dog Road Easement o Round Mountain o Wild Rock Ranch Agricultural Easements: o Linden Lea Ranch o Pioneer Dawson Nichols Ranch o Quail Agricultural Easement o Willow Tree Ranch

References

Belcher, Cheryl, Executive Director of Nevada County Land Trust. Personal Communication. May 10, 2005

Nevada County Land Trust website accessed on May 8, 2005. http://www.nevadacountylandtrust.org/htmls/index_projects.htm

Nevada County LAFCo Parks and Recreation April 2006 Municipal Services Review IX-5