Solano Local Agency Formation Commission 675 Texas St

Solano Local Agency Formation Commission 675 Texas St. Ste. 6700  Fairfield, California 94533 (707) 439-3897  FAX: (707) 438-1788

Solano County Government Center - Board of Supervisors Chambers 675 Texas Street Fairfield, CA 94533 February 27, 2017 – 1:30 PM

Public parking is available on the second floor of the parking garage adjacent to the Solano County Government Center. Vehicular entrance to the parking garage is on Delaware St.

Materials related to an item on this agenda are available for public inspection at the LAFCO staff office at 675 Texas St. Ste. 6700 Fairfield, CA during normal business hours and on the LAFCO’s website at www.solanolafco.com.

If you or your agent has made a contribution of $250 or more to any Commissioner or Alternate during the 12 months preceding the decision, you and the Commissioner are obligated to disclose the contribution and that Commissioner or Alternate must disqualify himself or herself from the decision. However, disqualification is not required if the Commissioner or Alternate returns the campaign contribution within thirty (30) days of learning both about the contribution and the fact that you are a participant in the proceedings.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a disabled person and you need a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact the LAFCO staff, at (707) 439-3898, by e-mail to [email protected]. Requests must be made as early as possible, and at least two business days before the start of the meeting.

If you wish to speak on an agenda item, green speaker cards are provided near the back wall of the Chambers. The cards must be completed and returned to the Commission’s Clerk. The Commission limits speaker comments to three (3) minutes. The Commission may extend the time as necessary.

Commissioners Pete Sanchez  John Vasquez  Harry Price  Jim Spering Alternate Commissioners Nancy Shopay  Skip Thomson  Len Augustine Staff Roseanne Chamberlain, Interim Executive Officer  Michelle McIntyre, Analyst  P. Scott Browne, Legal Counsel

A G E N D A

1. CALL TO ORDER AND SALUTE TO THE FLAG

2. ROLL CALL

3. CHANGES AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA (ACTION)

4. PUBLIC COMMENTS

Opportunity for the public to speak to the Commission on any subject matter within the Commission’s jurisdiction but not an item on today’s agenda.

5. CEREMONIAL ITEMS

A. Recognize Dr. John Saunderson for 20 years of LAFCO service (LAFCO RES # 17-01) (ACTION) B. Welcome new LAFCO Alternate Commissioner Len Augustine

6. CONSENT ITEMS (ACTION)

A. Approval of minutes - December 12, 2016 and February 3, 2017 meeting B. Approval of the Financial Reports for October 2016 – January 2017 C. Receive Legislative Report D. Receive Project Status Report

7. OTHER BUSINESS

A. LAFCO Audit Fiscal Years Ending June 30, 2015 and June 30, 2016 Receive the audit for fiscal year 2014-2015 and 2015-2016.

B. Municipal Service Review for Solano County Sanitation Districts (RES. #17-02) (ACTION) Approve the final municipal service review study for the Fairfield Suisun Sewer District and the Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District. CEQA EXEMPT: Public Resources Code Section 21102 and 21150, planning study.

C. Municipal Service Review City of Benicia (RESOLUTION #17-03) (ACTION) Approve the final municipal service review study for the City of Benicia. CEQA EXEMPT: Public Resources Code Section 21102 and 21150, planning study.

D. Mid-Year Report (RESOLUTION #17-04) (ACTION) Receive the mid-year budget status report and authorize re-appropriation of funds, including from professional services to salaries and benefits.

E. Policy Amendment: Reserves (ACTION) F. Review and Consider Amendment to the Executive Officer Salary Schedule (ACTION) G. Amendment to By Laws, Rotation of Officers (ACTION) H. Amendment to By Laws, Change of Ending Date of Terms of Office (ACTION) I. Amendment to By Laws, Authority to Sign (ACTION) J. Amendment to Commission Meeting Times (ACTION) K. Review and Update Conflict of Interest Code (ACTION) L. Executive Officer’s Report M. Status of Executive Officer Recruitment Receive oral report from members of the Personnel Committee

8. CORRESPONDENCE

A. Request May 8th 10AM Special Meeting (ACTION) B. Executive Officer’s Letter to County Auditor-Controller C. Executive Officer’s Letter to Marc Fox

9. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

10. ADJOURNMENT

Agenda Item 5A Staff Draft RESOLUTION 17-01 THE SOLANO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION HONORING COMMISSIONER & CHAIRMAN JOHN SAUNDERSON

WHEREAS, Commissioner Saunderson was appointed to the Solano Local Agency Formation Commission as the Public Member in 1996 and served diligently through 2016; and,

WHEREAS, Commissioner Saunderson presided as Chairman of Solano Local Agency Formation Commission from May 3, 1999 to 2016 and was the longest serving LAFCo Chairman on record; and,

WHEREAS, Commissioner Saunderson’s leadership was instrumental in moving Solano Local Agency Formation Commission to independent status, separating from Solano County staffing on January 1, 2001; and,

WHEREAS, Commissioner Saunderson presided over numerous complex and challenging projects heard before the Commission including: consolidation of the Ryer Island Fire Protection District with the Montezuma Fire Protection District in 2006, consolidation of the Rockville Cemetery District with Suisun-Fairfield Cemetery District in 2007, reorganization of four County Service Areas into a single County Service Area in 2003, formation of 10 special districts, more than 60 annexations, over 35 detachments, and 24 out of area service agreements; and

WHEREAS, Commissioner Saunderson led Solano LAFCo through the changes and challenges of AB 2838 (Hertzberg, 2000) with patience and equanimity, and encouraged staff and local agencies in the subsequent preparation of Municipal Service Reviews and Spheres of Influence studies for the seven cities and 42 independent special districts under LAFCo’s jurisdiction; and,

WHEREAS, Commissioner Saunderson represented Solano LAFCO with distinction, considering the interest of all of Solano County’s citizens and affected agencies, while serving on LAFCo committees and at numerous local, regional, and State meetings; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Local Agency Formation Commission of Solano County that Commissioner John Saunderson is recognized and commended for his twenty years of service to this Agency and,

FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Commission and its staff extend our best wishes to him in all his future endeavors.

February 27, 2017 ______Nancy Shopay, Chair Solano Local Agency Formation Commission

ATTEST:

______Roseanne Chamberlain, Interim LAFCO Executive Officer Agenda Item 6A Staff Draft

Staff Report

DATE: February 27, 2017

TO: Local Agency Formation Commission

FROM: Michelle McIntyre, Analyst

SUBJECT: Minutes December 12, 2016

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the Commission approve the minutes from its December 12, 2016 meeting.

MINUTES OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF SOLANO COUNTY DECEMBER 12, 2016 1:30 P.M. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ CHAMBERS 675 TEXAS STREET, FAIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 1:30 pm by Vice-Chair Batchelor with a salute to the flag.

2. ROLL CALL

Present: Commissioners: Jack Batchelor, Harry Price, Jim Spering, and John Vasquez. Alternate Commissioners: Pete Sanchez and Nancy Shopay (arrived at 1:31, voting member)

Not Present: Alternate Commissioner Skip Thomson

Staff Present: Elliot Mulberg – Executive Officer, Scott Browne – Legal Counsel, and Michelle McIntyre – Analyst

3. CHANGES AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA (Approved)

1 Agenda Item 6A Staff Draft

Commissioner Vasquez moved to approve the agenda, second Commissioner Price. The motion was approved with the following votes:

AYES: Batchelor, Price, Shopay, Spering, and Vasquez NOES: none ABSENT: none ABSTAIN: none

4. PUBLIC COMMENTS

The Vice-Chair opened the item for public comments. There were no public comments.

5. CONSENT ITEMS (Approved)

A. Minutes of the October 17 regular meeting and November 21, 2016 special meeting. B. Status of the work plan for fiscal year 2016-2017. C. Financial Reports for October 2016. D. Executive Officer’s Report.

Commissioner Price moved to approve the consent items, second Commissioner Vasquez. The motion was approved with the following votes:

AYES: Batchelor, Price, Shopay, Spering, and Vasquez NOES: none ABSENT: none ABSTAIN: none

6. PUBLIC HEARING

2015-12 McGary Road Reorganization (Approved Res 16-09, 16-10) Item was continued from the Commissions October 17, 2016 meeting to consider proposal of 73 acres located on McGary Road and Interstate 80 and consider related actions pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The Executive Officer presented the staff report. Commissioner Batchelor opened the item for public comment.

Matt Tuggle, Engineering Manager - Solano County Resource Management Public Works spoke to the Commission regarding the present condition of McGary Road.

2 Agenda Item 6A Staff Draft There were no further public comments. Commissioner Batchelor closed the item for public comments.

Commissioner Spering moved staff’s recommendations, second Commissioner Price. The motion was approved with the following votes:

AYES: Batchelor, Price, Shopay, Spering, and Vasquez NOES: none ABSENT: none ABSTAIN: none

7. OTHER BUSINESS

A. 2016-01 Pitcavage Property – Annexation to the Rural North Vacaville Water District. (Approved Res. 16-11) Consider change of organization proposal of 7.55 acres located on 4096 Mountain View Road, Solano County and consider related actions pursuant to CEQA.

The Analyst presented the staff report and recommended approval. Commissioner Batchelor opened the item for public comments, there were no public comments. Commissioner Batchelor closed the item for public comments.

Commissioner Price moved staff’s recommendation, second Commissioner Spering. The motion was approved with the following votes:

AYES: Batchelor, Price, Shopay, Spering, and Vasquez NOES: none ABSENT: none ABSTAIN: none

B. City of Benicia Draft Municipal Service Review (No Action)

The Commission received a presentation on the draft municipal service review study for the City of Benicia.

C. Draft Municipal Service Review for Solano County Sanitation Districts (No Action) The Commission received a presentation on the draft municipal service review study for the Fairfield Suisun Sewer District and the Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District.

3 Agenda Item 6A Staff Draft D. 2016-03 2543 Cordelia Road Out of Area Service Agreement (Approved) Consider an out of service area request for 2543 Cordelia Road, APN 0044-25-0080, and consider related actions pursuant to CEQA.

The Executive Officer presented the staff report and recommended approval. Commissioner Batchelor opened the item for public comment.

Duane Kromm member of the Orderly Growth Committee addressed the Commission. Mr. Kromm stated the Committee is not opposed or in favor of the application, but rather they wanted Measure L honored and recognized.

Commissioner Batchelor closed the item for public comments. Commissioner Batchelor strongly encouraged the applicant work with CALTRANS to utilize the shortest and most direct route.

Commissioner Price moved for approval of the out of service area agreement with Commissioner Batchelor’s recommendation and subject to Fairfield City Council approval, second Commissioner Spering. The motion was approved with the following votes:

AYES: Batchelor, Price, Shopay, Spering, and Vasquez NOES: none ABSENT: none ABSTAIN: none

E. Re-appointment of Alternate Public Member (Approved)

The Executive Officer presented the staff report. Commissioner Spering moved to re- appoint Nancy Shopay as the Solano LAFCO Alternate Public Member for the term expiring on May 2020, second Commissioner Price. The motion was approved by roll call vote:

AYES: Batchelor, Price, Shopay, Spering, and Vasquez NOES: none ABSENT: none ABSTAIN: none

4 Agenda Item 6A Staff Draft F. Select a chair and vice chair for the remainder of FY16/17 (Approved)

The Executive Officer presented the staff report. Commissioner Spering moved to nominate Alternate Commissioner Shopay as the Chair and Commissioner Price as Vice- Chair until selection of a new Public Member, second Commissioner Vasquez. The motion was approved by roll call vote:

AYES: Batchelor, Price, Shopay, Spering, and Vasquez NOES: none ABSENT: none ABSTAIN: none

G. Update on Recruitment for Public Member (Approved)

The Executive Officer presented the staff report. Commissioner Vasquez moved to appoint Commissioners Spering and Price on the Public Recruitment Committee, second Commissioner Price. The motion was approved by roll call vote:

AYES: Batchelor, Price, Shopay, Spering, and Vasquez NOES: none ABSENT: none ABSTAIN: none

8. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

There were no Commissioner Comments.

9. CORRESPONDENCE

The Commission received the CSDA Nov-Dec 2016 publication.

10. CLOSED SESSION

Appointment –Title: Executive Officer

The Commission went into closed session at 2:59 pm. Commissioner Batchelor re-opened the public hearing at 3:30 and made the following announcement: The Chair is authorized with recruitment of an Interim Executive Officer until a new permanent Executive Officer is recruited.

11. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 3:30.

5 Agenda Item 6A Staff Draft

Staff Report

DATE: February 27, 2017

TO: Local Agency Formation Commission

FROM: Michelle McIntyre, Analyst

SUBJECT: Minutes February 3, 2017

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the Commission approve the minutes from its February 3, 2017 meeting.

MINUTES OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF SOLANO COUNTY February 3, 2017 8:30 A.M. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ CHAMBERS 675 TEXAS STREET, FAIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 8:30 AM by Chair Shopay with a salute to the flag.

2. ROLL CALL

Present: Commissioners: Harry Price, Pete Sanchez, Jim Spering, and John Vasquez. Alternate Commissioners: Len Augustine and Nancy Shopay (voting member)

Not Present: Alternate Commissioner Skip Thomson

Staff Present: Roseanne Chamberlain – Executive Officer, Scott Browne – Legal Counsel, and Michelle McIntyre – Analyst

1 Agenda Item 6A Staff Draft 3. CHANGES AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA (Approved)

Commissioner Spering moved to approve the agenda, second Commissioner Sanchez. The motion was approved with the following votes:

AYES: Price, Sanchez, Shopay, Spering, and Vasquez NOES: none ABSENT: none ABSTAIN: none

4. PUBLIC COMMENTS

The Chair opened the item for public comments. There were no public comments.

5. CLOSED SESSION

Consideration of candidates for appointment to the position of Executive Officer (California Government Code Section 54957(b))

The Commission entered into closed session at 8:34 am.

6. REPORT OF CLOSED SESSION

The Chair re-opened the meeting at 11:07 and announced that the Commission met in closed session and no decision was reached.

7. ADJOURNMENT

The Chair adjourned the meeting at 11:08.

2 ** Solano County** 02/16/17 [G e n e r a 1 L e d g e r A c t i v i t y] 01/01/17-01/31/17 Page 1 THU, FEB 16, 2017, 10:57 AM --req: MMCINTYR--leg: GL CP--loc: EXTERNAL--job:3575118 J081-----prog: GL565 <1.6 >--report id: GLLATR01

SORT ORDER: KEY within SUBOBJ within ACCTTYPE within FUND

SELECT ACCOUNT KEY: 0345

Fund# Description 58% of Fiscal Year

345 LAFCO

KEY SUBOBJ Trans Desc. Date Reference Beg Balance Dr Cr End Balance ======010 CASH IN TREASURY

0345 0000010 CASH IN TREASUR 428,818.46

AutoiD: JE03190 01/01/17 127507 - JE 124.19 AutoiD: IA172Q2 01/01/17 127505 - JE 979.70 AutoiD:Total Jo 01/04/17 TTLBK - BK 300.00 AutoiD:Total Jo 01/05/17 TTLBK - BK 300.00 AutoiD:Total Jo 01/05/17 TTLBK - BK 100.00 AutoiD: JE00572 01/06/17 PSDATA - JE 4,356.79 AutoiD: JEOOSSO 01/06/17 126921 - JE 36.19 AutoiD:Total Jo 01/19/17 TTLBK - BK 1,133.52 AutoiD: JE01970 01/20/17 PSDATA - JE 4,344.04 AutoiD:Total Jo 01/25/17 TTLBK - BK 11,000.00 AutoiD:Total Jo 01/26/17 TTLBK - BK 6,306.00 AutoiD: JV00626 01/30/17 127450 - JE 117.00 AutoiD: JE03270 01/31/17 WA-Z00011 - JE 708.23

0345 0000010 CASH IN TREASUR *Total* 428,818.46 979.70* 28,825.96* 400,972.20*

010 ** Total CASH IN TREASURY 428,818.46 979.70** 28,825.96** 400,972.20**

090 INTRA FUND CLEARING Subsystem Totals JE 10,816.66 1,096.70 DH 21,799.92 1,133.52

090 ** Total INTRA FUND CLEARING -183,833.40 32,616.58** 2,230.22** -153,447.04**

100 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE SYS. GEN.

0345 0000105 ACCOUNTS RECEIV 0.00

0345 0000105 ACCOUNTS RECEIV *Total* 0.00 0.00* 0.00* 0.00*

100 ** Total ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE SYS. GEN. 0.00 0.00** 0.00** 0.00**

110 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE

0345 0000110 ACCOUNTS RECEIV -6.93

0345 0000110 ACCOUNTS RECEIV *Total* -6.93 0.00* 0.00* -6.93*

110 ** Total ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE -6.93 0.00** 0.00** -6.93** ** Solano County** 02/16/17 [G e n e r a 1 L e d g e r A c t i v i t y] 01/01/17-01/31/17 Page 2 THU, FEB 16, 2017, 10:57 AM --req: MMCINTYR--leg: GL CP--loc: EXTERNAL--job:3575118 J081-----prog: GL565 <1.6 >--report id: GLLATR01

SORT ORDER: KEY within SUBOBJ within ACCTTYPE within FUND

SELECT ACCOUNT KEY: 0345

Fund# Description 58% of Fiscal Year

345 LAFCO

KEY SUBOBJ Trans Desc. Date Reference Beg Balance Dr Cr End Balance

120 DUE FROM OTHER FUNDS

0345 0000120 DUE FROM OTHER 0.00

0345 0000120 DUE FROM OTHER *Total* 0.00 0.00* 0.00* 0.00*

120 ** Total DUE FROM OTHER FUNDS 0.00 0.00** 0.00** 0.00**

140 DUE FROM OTHER AGENCIES

0345 0000140 DUE FROM OTHER 0.00

0345 0000140 DUE FROM OTHER *Total* 0.00 0.00* 0.00* 0.00*

140 ** Total DUE FROM OTHER AGENCIES 0.00 0.00** 0.00** 0.00**

160 DEPOSITS WITH OTHERS

0345 0000160 DEPOSITS WITH 0 2,300.00

0345 0000160 DEPOSITS WITH 0 *Total* 2,300.00 0.00* 0.00* 2,300.00*

160 ** Total DEPOSITS WITH OTHERS 2,300.00 0.00** 0.00** 2,300.00**

180 ADVANCES TO PROGRAM AGENTS

0345 0000180 ADVANCES TO PRO 0.00

0345 0000180 ADVANCES TO PRO *Total* 0.00 0.00* 0.00* 0.00*

180 ** Total ADVANCES TO PROGRAM AGENTS 0.00 0.00** 0.00** 0.00**

420 PREPAID EXPENSE

0345 0000420 PREPAID EXPENSE 0.00

0345 0000420 PREPAID EXPENSE *Total* 0.00 0.00* 0.00* 0.00*

420 ** Total PREPAID EXPENSE 0.00 0.00** 0.00** 0.00**

500 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APS GENERATED ** Solano County** 02/16/17 [G e n e r a 1 L e d g e r A c t i v i t y] 01/01/17-01/31/17 Page 3 THU, FEB 16, 2017, 10:57 AM --req: MMCINTYR--leg: GL CP--loc: EXTERNAL--job:3575118 J081-----prog: GL565 <1.6 >--report id: GLLATR01

SORT ORDER: KEY within SUBOBJ within ACCTTYPE within FUND

SELECT ACCOUNT KEY: 0345

Fund# Description 58% of Fiscal Year

345 LAFCO

KEY SUBOBJ Trans Desc. Date Reference Beg Balance Dr Cr End Balance

0345 0000500 ACCOUNTS PAYABL 0.00

SPECIAL DISTRIC 01/10/17 657475 OH 105.49 CALPERS STATEME 01/10/17 657460 OH 1,028.03 CALPERS STATEME 01/10/17 657460 - OH 1,028.03 SPECIAL DISTRIC 01/10/17 657475 OH 105.49 E MULBERG & ASS 01/18/17 658365 - OH 11,000.00 P SCOTT BROWNE 01/18/17 658366 OH 1,750.00 SWALE INC INV 2 01/18/17 658367 - OH 6,306.00 E MULBERG & ASS 01/19/17 658365 OH 11,000.00 P SCOTT BROWNE 01/19/17 658366 - OH 1,750.00 SWALE INC INV 2 01/19/17 658367 OH 6,306.00 COMCAST ACCT 81 01/24/17 659068 - OH 183.85 COMCAST ACCT 81 01/24/17 659068 OH 200.65 GREAT AMERICA F 01/24/17 659070 - OH 364.54 GREAT AMERICA F 01/24/17 659070 OH 423.86 STEVEN PARKER J 01/24/17 659076 OH 437.50 COMCAST ACCT 81 01/24/17 659068 OH 183.85 COMCAST ACCT 81 01/24/17 659068 OH 200.65 GREAT AMERICA F 01/24/17 659070 OH 364.54 GREAT AMERICA F 01/24/17 659070 OH 423.86 STEVEN PARKER J 01/24/17 659076 OH 437.50

0345 0000500 ACCOUNTS PAYABL *Total* 0.00 21,799.92* 21,799.92* 0.00*

500 ** Total ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APS GENERATED 0.00 21,799.92** 21,799.92** 0.00**

505 OUTSTANDING WARRANTS / EBT

0345 0000699 OUTSTANDING WAR -700.00

AutoiD:Total Jo 01/04/17 TTLBK BK 300.00 AutoiD:Total Jo 01/05/17 TTLBK BK 300.00 AutoiD:Total Jo 01/05/17 TTLBK BK 100.00 CALPERS STATEME 01/10/17 657460 OH 1,028.03 SPECIAL DISTRIC 01/10/17 657475 OH 105.49 E MULBERG & ASS 01/19/17 658365 OH 11,000.00 P SCOTT BROWNE 01/19/17 658366 OH 1,750.00 SWALE INC INV 2 01/19/17 658367 OH 6,306.00 AutoiD:Total Jo 01/19/17 TTLBK - BK 1,133.52 COMCAST ACCT 81 01/24/17 659068 OH 183.85 COMCAST ACCT 81 01/24/17 659068 - OH 200.65 GREAT AMERICA F 01/24/17 659070 OH 364.54 GREAT AMERICA F 01/24/17 659070 - OH 423.86 STEVEN PARKER J 01/24/17 659076 OH 437.50 AutoiD:Total Jo 01/25/17 TTLBK - BK 11,000.00 ** Solano County** 02/16/17 [G e n e r a 1 L e d g e r A c t i v i t y] 01/01/17-01/31/17 Page 4 THU, FEB 16, 2017, 10:57 AM --req: MMCINTYR--leg: GL CP--loc: EXTERNAL--job:3575118 J081-----prog: GL565 <1.6 >--report id: GLLATR01

SORT ORDER: KEY within SUBOBJ within ACCTTYPE within FUND

SELECT ACCOUNT KEY: 0345

Fund# Description 58% of Fiscal Year

345 LAFCO

KEY SUBOBJ Trans Desc. Date Reference Beg Balance Dr Cr End Balance

AutoiD:Total Jo 01/26/17 TTLBK - BK 6,306.00

0345 0000699 OUTSTANDING WAR *Total* -700.00 19,139.52* 21,799.92* -3,360.40*

505 ** Total OUTSTANDING WARRANTS / EBT -700.00 19,139.52** 21,799.92** -3,360.40**

510 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE

0345 0000510 ACCOUNTS PAYABL 0.00

0345 0000510 ACCOUNTS PAYABL *Total* 0.00 0.00* 0.00* 0.00*

510 ** Total ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 0.00 0.00** 0.00** 0.00**

520 DUE TO OTHER FUNDS

0345 0000520 DUE TO OTHER FU 0.00

0345 0000520 DUE TO OTHER FU *Total* 0.00 0.00* 0.00* 0.00*

520 ** Total DUE TO OTHER FUNDS 0.00 0.00** 0.00** 0.00**

540 DUE TO OTHER AGENCIES

0345 0000540 DUE TO OTHER AG -7,473.58

PeopleSoft Payr 01/06/17 PSDATA- JE 512.43 CALPERS STATEME 01/10/17 657460 OH 1,028.03 PeopleSoft Payr 01/20/17 PSDATA- JE 512.43

0345 0000540 DUE TO OTHER AG *Total* -7,473.58 1,028.03* 1,024.86* -7,470.41*

0345 3450501 LAFCO-SDRMA -196.21

PeopleSoft Payr 01/06/17 PSDATA JE 52.68 SPECIAL DISTRIC 01/10/17 657475 OH 105.49 PeopleSoft Payr 01/20/17 PSDATA JE 52.68

0345 3450501 LAFCO-SDRMA *Total* -196.21 105.49* 105.36* -196.08*

0345 3450502 LAFCO-RELIANCE -510.80

0345 3450502 LAFCO-RELIANCE *Total* -510.80 0.00* 0.00* -510.80* ** Solano County** 02/16/17 [G e n e r a 1 L e d g e r A c t i v i t y] 01/01/17-01/31/17 Page 5 THU, FEB 16, 2017, 10:57 AM --req: MMCINTYR--leg: GL CP--loc: EXTERNAL--job:3575118 J081-----prog: GL565 <1.6 >--report id: GLLATR01

SORT ORDER: KEY within SUBOBJ within ACCTTYPE within FUND

SELECT ACCOUNT KEY: 0345

Fund# Description 58% of Fiscal Year

345 LAFCO

KEY SUBOBJ Trans Desc. Date Reference Beg Balance Dr Cr End Balance

540 ** Total DUE TO OTHER AGENCIES -8,180.59 1,133.52** 1,130.22** -8,177.29**

575 UNAVAILABLE REVENUE

0345 0000575 DEFERRED REVENU -53,486.76

MAPPING FEE 01/30/17 127450 - JE 117.00

0345 0000575 DEFERRED REVENU *Total* -53,486.76 117.00* 0.00* -53,369.76*

575 ** Total UNAVAILABLE REVENUE -53,486.76 117.00** 0.00** -53,369.76**

579 UNCLAIMED DEPOSITS

0345 0000579 UNCLAIMED DEPOS 0.00

0345 0000579 UNCLAIMED DEPOS *Total* 0.00 0.00* 0.00* 0.00*

579 ** Total UNCLAIMED DEPOSITS 0.00 0.00** 0.00** 0.00**

700 RESERVE FOR LONG TERM ASSETS

0345 0000700 RESERVE FOR LON 0.00

0345 0000700 RESERVE FOR LON *Total* 0.00 0.00* 0.00* 0.00*

700 ** Total RESERVE FOR LONG TERM ASSETS 0.00 0.00** 0.00** 0.00**

710 RESERVE FOR ENCUMBRANCES

0345 0000710 RESERVE FOR ENC -36,862.89

0345 0000710 RESERVE FOR ENC *Total* -36,862.89 0.00* 0.00* -36,862.89*

710 ** Total RESERVE FOR ENCUMBRANCES -36,862.89 0.00** 0.00** -36,862.89**

730 RESERVE - OTHER

0345 0000730 RESERVE OTHER -83,102.00

0345 0000730 RESERVE OTHER *Total* -83,102.00 0.00* 0.00* -83,102.00* ** Solano County** 02/16/17 [G e n e r a 1 L e d g e r A c t i v i t y] 01/01/17-01/31/17 Page 6 THU, FEB 16, 2017, 10:57 AM --req: MMCINTYR--leg: GL CP--loc: EXTERNAL--job:3575118 J081-----prog: GL565 <1.6 >--report id: GLLATR01

SORT ORDER: KEY within SUBOBJ within ACCTTYPE within FUND

SELECT ACCOUNT KEY: 0345

Fund# Description 58% of Fiscal Year

345 LAFCO

KEY SUBOBJ Trans Desc. Date Reference Beg Balance Dr Cr End Balance

730 ** Total RESERVE - OTHER -83,102.00 0.00** 0.00** -83,102.00**

740 FUND BALANCE AVAILABLE

0345 0000740 FUND BALANCE AV -11,976.50

0345 0000740 FUND BALANCE AV *Total* -11,976.50 0.00* 0.00* -11,976.50*

740 ** Total FUND BALANCE AVAILABLE -11,976.50 0.00** 0.00** -11,976.50**

810 REVENUES

810 ** Total REVENUES 0.00 0.00** 0.00** 0.00**

820 EXPENDITURES

820 ** Total EXPENDITURES 0.00 0.00** 0.00** 0.00**

910 BUDGETED REVENUE

0345 0000910 BUDGETED REVENU 369,464.00

0345 0000910 BUDGETED REVENU *Total* 369,464.00 0.00* 0.00* 369,464.00*

910 ** Total BUDGETED REVENUE 369,464.00 0.00** 0.00** 369,464.00**

930 APPROPRIATIONS

0345 0000930 APPROPRIATIONS -415,309.96

0345 0000930 APPROPRIATIONS *Total* -415,309.96 0.00* 0.00* -415,309.96*

930 ** Total APPROPRIATIONS -415,309.96 0.00** 0.00** -415,309.96**

345 *** Fund Total *** 7,123.43 75,786.24** 75,786.24** 7,123.43** ** Solano County** 02/16/17 [G e n e r a 1 L e d g e r A c t i v i t y] 01/01/17-01/31/17 Page 7 THU, FEB 16, 2017, 10:57 AM --req: MMCINTYR--leg: GL CP--loc: EXTERNAL--job:3575118 J081-----prog: GL565 <1.6 >--report id: GLLATR01

SORT ORDER: KEY within SUBOBJ within ACCTTYPE within FUND

SELECT ACCOUNT KEY: 0345

KEY SUBOBJ Trans Desc. Date Reference Beg Balance Dr Cr End Balance

GRAND T 0 T A L 75,786.24 75,786.24 7,123.43 ** Solano County** 01/31/17 [M 0 NTH L Y SUMMARY] 58% of Fiscal Year Page 1 THU, FEB 16, 2017, 10:50 AM --req: MMCINTYR--leg: GL CP--loc: EXTERNAL--job:3575076 J080-----prog: GL570 <1.8 >--report id: GLMSUM01

SORT ORDER: CATEGORY within Object Type within DEPTMNT within FUND

SELECT ACCOUNT KEY: 3450

Fund Fund Description Dept. Department Description

345 LAFCO 3450 LAFCO

Object Description Budget Adustments Mo. Actual YTD Actual Encumbrance Balance Pet.

9200 LICENSES, PERMITS & FRANC 10,000.00 0.00 0.00 3,400.00 0.00 6,600.00 34% 9400 REVENUE FROM USE OF MONEY 1,000.00 0.00 855.51 1,591.50 0.00 -591.50 159\ 9500 INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE 358,464.00 0.00 0.00 358,464.00 0.00 0.00 100%

Total Revenue 369,464.00 0.00 855.51 363,455.50 0.00 6,008.50 98%

1000 SALARIES AND EMPLOYEE BEN 129,745.02 0.00 9,831.05 73,923.19 0.00 55,821.83 57% 2000 SERVICES AND SUPPLIES 285,564.92 0.00 21,410.82 128,961.84 58,539.39 98,063.69 66%

Total Expense 415,309.94 0.00 31,241.87 202,885.03 58,539.39 153,885.52 63%

Total Revenue 363,455.50 Total Expense 202,885.03

160,570.47

Fund Total - Revenue 369,464.00 0.00 855.51 363,455.50 0.00 6,008.50 98\ Fund Total - Expense 415,309.94 0.00 31,241.87 202,885.03 58,539.39 153,885.52 63%

160,570.47 ** Solano County** 01/31/17 [M 0 NTH L Y SUMMARY] 58% of Fiscal Year Page 2 THU, FEB 16, 2017, 10:50 AM --req: MMCINTYR--leg: GL CP--loc: EXTERNAL--job:3575076 J080-----prog: GL570 <1.8 >--report id: GLMSUM01

SORT ORDER: CATEGORY within Object Type within DEPTMNT within FUND

SELECT ACCOUNT KEY: 3450

Object Description Budget Adustments Mo. Actual YTD Actual Encumbrance Balance Pet.

Grand Total Revenue 369,464.00 0.00 855.51 363,455.50 0.00 6,008.50 98\ Grand Total Expense 415,309.94 0.00 31,241.87 202,885.03 58,539.39 153,885.52 63%

160,570.47 Detailed Trial Balance Fiscal Year: 2017 10/01/16 thru 01/31/17 Q[g Kav Descrjptjon 3450 LAFCO

Q!!i!!!Ol Ducriotion P!!!i~ing Di!~!! Rgf. Tmn!ii!!Oli!!n Du!

User ID: MMCINTYR 1 Current Date: 0211612017 Report ID: DETAIL_ TRIAL_BALA Detailed Trial Balance Currant Time: 10:38:02 Detailed Trial Balance Fiscal Year: 2017 10/01/16 thru 01/31/17 Q[g Kav Descrjptjon 3450 LAFCO

Q!!i!!!Ol Ducriotion P!!!i~ing Di!~!! Rgf. Tmn!ii!!Oli!!n Du!

User ID: MMCINTYR 2 Current Date: 02/1612017 Report ID: DETAIL_ TRIAL_BALA Detailed Trial Balance Currant Time: 10:38:02 Detailed Trial Balance Fiscal Year: 2017 10/01/16 thru 01/31/17 Q[g Kav Descrjptjon 3450 LAFCO

Q!!i!!!Ol Ducriotion P!!!i~ing Di!~!! Rgf. Tmn!ii!!Oli!!n Du!

Q!!i!!!Ol D!!li!

Q!!i!!!Ol Ducriotion P!!!i~ing Di!~!! Rgf. Tmn!ii!!Oli!!n Du!

User ID: MMCINTYR 5 Current Date: 0211612017 Report ID: DETAIL_TRIAL_BALA Detailed Trial Balance Currant Time: 10:38:02 Detailed Trial Balance Fiscal Year: 2017 10/01/16 thru 01/31/17 Q[g Kav Descrjptjon 3450 LAFCO

Obiect Descriotion Postina Date Ref. Tmn!ii!!Olign DuJOrigiign ~ Credits Bi!li!n!Ol! Total for: 0002335 1,628.85 0.00 1,628.85 0002355 PERSONAL MILEAGE 10/25/2016 648729 MCINTYRE, MICHE SEP 2016 51.44 0.00 51.44 0002355 PERSONAL MILEAGE 11/03/2016 649992 PETE SANCHEZ OCT 2016 TRAVEL 54.32 0.00 105.76 0002355 PERSONAL MILEAGE 11/08/2016 650532 MCINTYRE, MICHE OCT 2016 385.56 0.00 491.32 Total for: 0002355 491.32 0.00 491.32 0009229 LICENSES & PERMITS-OTHER 10/05/2016 124830 TRANSFER DEF REV TO GEN REV 0.00 2,900.00 2,900.00 0009229 LICENSES & PERMITS-OTHER 11/16/2016 125723 LAFCO CORDELIA SITE WATER 0.00 500.00 3,400.00 Total for: 0009229 0.00 3,400.00 3,400.00 0009401 INTEREST INCOME 10/01/2016 125106 Jui-Sept 01 1617 Treas Fees 109.24 0.00 -109.24 0009401 INTEREST INCOME 10/01/2016 125189 Jui-Sept 2016 lnt Apprtnmt 0.00 845.23 735.99 0009401 INTEREST INCOME 01/01/2017 127505 Oct-Dec 2016 lnt Apprtnmt 0.00 979.70 1,715.69 0009401 INTEREST INCOME 01/01/2017 127507 Oct-Dec 02 1617 Treas Fees 124.19 0.00 1,591.50 Totalfor:0009401 233.43 1,824.93 1,591.50 Toiil for: 3450 104,721.09 5,367.38 -99,353.71 Grand Total: 104,721.09 5,367.38 -99,353.71

User ID: MMCINTYR 6 Current Date: 0211612017 Report ID: DETAIL_TRIAL_BALA Detailed Trial Balance Currant Time: 10:38:02

Solano Local Agency Formation Commission 675 Texas St. Ste. 6700  Fairfield, California 94533 (707) 439-3897  FAX: (707) 438-1788

Legislative Committee Members: Commissioner Price and Alternate Commissioner Thomson

Location Solano County Government Center 675 Texas Street Ste. 6700 Fairfield, CA 94533 February 15, 2017 2:30 PM

Public parking is available on the second floor of the parking garage adjacent to the Solano County Government Center. Vehicular entrance to the parking garage is on Delaware St.

If you wish to speak on an agenda item, green speaker cards are provided. The cards must be completed and returned to the Commission’s Clerk. The Commission limits speaker comments to three (3) minutes. The Commission may extend the time as necessary.

Commissioners Harry Price, Vice-Chair Pete Sanchez  Jim Spering  John Vasquez Alternate Commissioners Len Augustine  Nancy Shopay, Chair  Skip Thomson Staff Roseanne Chamberlain, Interim Executive Officer  Michelle McIntyre, Analyst P. Scott Browne, Legal Counsel

A G E N D A

1. Call To Order

2. Roll Call

3. Public Comments

Opportunity for the public to speak to the Commission on any subject matter within the Commission’s jurisdiction but not appearing on today’s agenda.

4. Legislative Update

Receive an update on CALAFCO sponsored legislation. a. Annexations – GCS 56653 b. CSDA – Special District seating on LAFCOs

5. Regional Park and Open Space District

Discuss proposed special legislation to establish a regional park and open space district in Solano County.

6. Adjournment

Legislative Committee Meeting 27 January 2017

Agenda Item 5 CALAFCO Sponsored Legislation

DESCRIPTION 56653 Legislation

At the request of Butte LAFCo and after meeting with Assembly member Gallagher and his staff, he has agreed to author this bill, and Assembly Leader Chad Mayes has agreed to be a principal co- author. We continue to look for a Democratic co-author. We are waiting for the bill language to come out of Leg Counsel for introduction.

In the interim, the Assembly member’s staff as well as Assembly Local Government (ALGC) staff have requested additional back-up data from us in support of the need for this change. A request for this information was sent to all Executive Officers by Steve Lucas and the results will be collated and provided as requested.

As a way to remind the Committee of what was approved, the proposed change is included as attachment 5a.

Streamline seating of Special Districts on LAFCo

CSDA is still trying to secure an author for this bill. Senator McGuire declined as his plate was already full, so they are reaching out to several other Legislators on whom we have agreed would make a good author. They have also submitted unbacked (no author) spot bill language to Leg Counsel, as January 17 was the last day to submit language. CALAFCO and CSDA will work together on crafting draft language to be vetted by this Committee (and CSDA’s leg team), hopefully for the February meeting.

ATTACHMENT

5a – Proposed language for changes to 56653 5b – CSDA/CALAFCO Fact Sheet for streamlining seating of special districts on LAFCo

This page intentionally left blank.

20 Background Summary

The 5th District Court of Appeal issued a decision in the case of City of Patterson v. Turlock Irrigation District June 26, 2014 Cite as 14 C.D.O.S. 7193. In that case the City of Patterson (the City) applied to Stanislaus LAFCo to require annexation of territory into Turlock Irrigation District (TID) already receiving electrical service but at a higher rate because they were outside the district boundaries. TID adopted a resolution to terminate the proceedings as authorized by 56857 and the City sued TID to invalidate the resolution terminating proceedings. The Court of Appeal ruled against the City, but never addressed the invalidity of the TID resolution. Rather the Court of Appeal decided that the City’s annexation application was invalid and therefore it did not reach the issue of TID’s resolution. The Court of Appeal appears to take the position that no annexation application can be made to annex territory into a district unless there is a plan for services. That is fine as far as it goes but the Court also goes on to say that an annexation application must propose to “extend services” and that therefore an application to annex territory already served is prohibited under the express language of 56653.

The Court states:

“Therefore, we conclude that an application for the annexation of territory must include a plan for providing services to the affected territory, and that plan must describe the services to be extended to the affected territory. If the application does not propose to extend services to the affected area, then it is unable to satisfy the mandatory terms of section 56653 and, therefore, cannot be considered a valid and complete application. (See § 56658, subds. (c) & (g) [incomplete applications].)

Because the City's application, in the form presented, does not comply with the statute, and it appears that the City will not be able to cure the noncompliance by providing the required plan, nothing useful could be accomplished by this court issuing a writ of mandate directing TID to set aside its resolution requesting termination. Such a writ could not lead to Stanislaus LAFCo validly approving the City's application proposing an annexation of territory by TID because the application fails to comply with the Reorganization Act. (Wilson v. Blake, supra, 169 Cal. at p. 454.)”

This is disturbing in that LAFCo’s regularly annex areas into districts that are already being served by the district under contract. The Appellate Court’s decision suggests LAFCos cannot do so. We believe the Court of Appeal has misconstrued the meaning of “extension of services”. Our proposal corrects what the Court believes is an omission in the statute.

21 Bill Text

56653. (a) If a proposal for a change of organization or reorganization is submitted pursuant to this part, the applicant shall submit a plan for providing services within the affected territory. (b) The plan for providing services shall include all of the following information and any additional information required by the commission or the executive officer: (1) An enumeration and description of the services, currently provided or to be extended to the affected territory. (2) The level and range of those services. (3) An indication of when those services can feasibly be extended to the affected territory, if new services are proposed. (4) An indication of any improvement or upgrading of structures, roads, sewer or water facilities, or other conditions the local agency would impose or require within the affected territory if the change of organization or reorganization is completed. (5) Information with respect to how those services will be financed. (c) (1) In the case of a change of organization or reorganization initiated by a local agency that includes a disadvantaged, unincorporated community as defined in Section 56033.5, a local agency may include in its resolution of application for change of organization or reorganization an annexation development plan adopted pursuant to Section 99.3 of the Revenue and Taxation Code to improve or upgrade structures, roads, sewer or water facilities, or other infrastructure to serve the disadvantaged, unincorporated community through the formation of a special district or reorganization of one or more existing special districts with the consent of each special district’s governing body. (2) The annexation development plan submitted pursuant to this subdivision shall include information that demonstrates that the formation or reorganization of the special district will provide all of the following: (A) The necessary financial resources to improve or upgrade structures, roads, sewer, or water facilities or other infrastructure. The annexation development plan shall also clarify the local entity that shall be responsible for the delivery and maintenance of the services identified in the application. (B) An estimated timeframe for constructing and delivering the services identified in the application. (C) The governance, oversight, and long-term maintenance of the services identified in the application after the initial costs are recouped and the tax increment financing terminates. (3) If a local agency includes an annexation development plan pursuant to this subdivision, a local agency formation commission may approve the proposal for a change of organization or reorganization to include the formation of a special district or reorganization of a special district with the special district’s consent, including, but not limited to, a community services district, municipal water district, or sanitary district, to provide financing to improve or upgrade structures, roads, sewer or water facilities, or other infrastructure to serve the disadvantaged, unincorporated community, in conformity with the requirements of the principal act of the district proposed to be formed and all required formation proceedings. (4) Pursuant to Section 56881, the commission shall include in its resolution making determinations a description of the annexation development plan, including, but not limited to, an explanation of the proposed financing mechanism adopted pursuant to Section 99.3 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, including, but not limited to, any planned debt issuance associated with that annexation development plan. (d) This section shall not preclude a local agency formation commission from considering any other options or exercising its powers under Section 56375. (e) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2025, and as of that date is repealed.

EFFICIENT, EFFECTIVE, AND FLEXIBLE LAFCO REPRESENTATION

Purpose: Under current law, to acquire representation on a local agency formation commission (LAFCO), a majority of all special districts in a county must pass a board resolution supporting such action within a one-year period. This proposal would amend this bureaucratic process by mirroring the existing election process for appointment of LAFCO commissioners through the county’s independent special districts selection committee. The change would allow special district representation on LAFCO to be achieved through a more streamlined process while still allowing for each district to “vote” on the matter.

Simplifying the LAFCO representation process would empower special districts to more effectively consider their participation on LAFCO, as well as their associated role in the governance and boundaries of special districts and other local agencies. Moreover, LAFCOs would be better equipped to efficiently facilitate the process for garnering special district participation. In cases where special districts choose to participate, special district representation on LAFCO may provide a more diverse and stable decision- making and budgetary foundation to the LAFCO. Special districts are often instrumental in solving communities’ service deficiencies and their input in these processes is of great value.

By mirroring the existing independent special district selection committee process for LAFCO commissioner elections, this proposal would uphold the principle of local flexibility. Every independent special district would have the opportunity to participate in the election process, either in-person or by mail, whereby each district may cast one vote for or against the question. A quorum of all independent special districts in the county would be required, and a majority of those present and voting would prevail.

Background: This proposal, co-sponsored by CSDA and CALAFCO, offers a reasonable, proactive step local agencies can take to better facilitate participation and representation on LAFCOs.

Special districts have obtained LAFCO representation in 30 of the 58 counties in California, since the process to do so was created by the State Legislature in 1972. This proposal would maintain the local flexibility for special districts to determine the best course of action for their constituents and their community, while recognizing the need to modernize the process and reduce costly red-tape. Seating on LAFCO does establish a funding commitment proportionally shared by the local agencies within the affected county. However, it is important to note current law allows for each LAFCO to negotiate the budgetary formula for local agency apportionments, thus making it possible for special districts to seek alternative formulas that make such representation less of a fiscal strain.

Improving the LAFCO representation process also benefits the upcoming redevelopment agency (RDA) oversight board nomination process. On July 1, 2018, the 37 counties with multiple RDA oversight boards must each consolidate its boards into a countywide RDA oversight board. As part of this process, the LAFCOs must facilitate the appointment of an independent special district representative to the new countywide RDA oversight board via the independent special district selection committee. In 11 counties slated to form such a board, the respective LAFCO does not currently have special district representation and will need to convene an independent special district selection committee for the first time.

This proposal would allow LAFCOs to combine the questions of countywide RDA oversight board appointment, special district representation on LAFCO, and LAFCO commissioner elections on the same ballot. Therefore, it presents a unique opportunity to maximize the time and resources of all stakeholders by addressing multiple important matters by way of a single, local process. Enactment of this legislation, effective January 1, 2018, will allow for more informed and effective decisions through a proven and more efficient approach than the existing mechanisms.

23 Agenda Item 6C Staff Draft

Staff Report

DATE: February 27, 2017

TO: Local Agency Formation Commission

FROM: Michelle McIntyre and LAFCO Legislative Committee (Commissioner Price and Alt Commissioner Thomson)

SUBJECT: Legislative Update

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the legislative update.

BACKGROUND:

On February 15 the LAFCO Legislative Committee met to discuss the following items:

1. CALAFCO has agreed to sponsor one standalone bill this year to make corrections to Government Code Section 56653 as proposed by Solano LAFCO’s legal counsel. Assembly member Gallagher has agreed to author the bill and Assembly Leader Chad Mayes has agreed to be a principal co-author.

The Solano Legislative Committee recommends the Commission take a support position. Staff will draft a letter for the Commission’s consideration at a future meeting. The proposed change is included as attachment A.

2. CSDA and CALAFCO have agreed to co-sponsor legislation to streamline seating of special districts on LAFCO. As of the writing of this report, CSDA is attempting to secure an author and have submitted an unbacked spot bill to Leg Counsel. The Solano Legislative Committee recommends the Commission take a support position. Staff will draft a letter for the Commission’s consideration at a future meeting. Background information is included as Attachment B.

Commissioners Harry Price, Vice-Chair • Pete Sanchez • Jim Spering • John Vasquez Alternate Commissioners Len Augustine • Nancy Shopay, Chair • Skip Thomson Staff Roseanne Chamberlain, Interim Executive Officer • Michelle McIntyre, Analyst • P. Scott Browne, Legal Counsel

Agenda Item 6C Staff Draft

3. The Committee discussed Solano County’s proposed formation of a regional park and open space district via special legislation authored by Senator Dodd. Bill Emlen, Solano County Director of Resource Management, attended the meeting to answer questions the Committee may have. The Committee requested additional information from Mr. Emlen who agreed to provide additional information to the Commission. The Solano LAFCO Legislative Committee recommends no position at this time.

Attachments: A - Proposed change to GCS 56653 B – Background sheet Special District seating on LAFCOs

Solano LAFCO Project Status Summary Date: February, 2017 Project Project Name Subject Agency Location Acreage Status and Notes Number

Pending Projects

2016-02 Seecon Property Reclamation Chadbourne Rd. 830 acres Application & fees submitted, incomplete Detachment RD 2034 District 2034 application, pending response to Standards & Plan of Service 2015-09 MSR City of Benicia entire city Final on Commission's Feb. 27 agenda

2016-04 MSR Fairfield Suisun entire district Final on Commission's Feb. 27 agenda Sewer 2016-04 MSR Vallejo Sanitation entire district Final on Commission's Feb. 27 agenda and Flood Control

Approved Projects

2015-12 McGary Road City of Fairfield McGary 75 acres Approved by LAFCO 12/12/16. Recorded Cert of Reorganization Road/Interstate- Completion (COC) on 02/10/2017, pending BOE 80 Acknowledgement 2016-01 Pitcavage Annexation Rural North Mountain View 7 acres Approved by LAFCO 12/12/16. Recorded COC on Vacaville Water Rd. Vacaville 01/27/2017, pending BOE Acknowledgement 2016-03 Out of Area Service City of Fairfield 2543 Cordelia County Approved by LAFCO 12/12/16.Coordinating with Co Agreement - Cordelia Rd. Owned staff, Pending City of Fairfield's authorization to Rd extend service.

Inactive Projects

Pre-App MSR Update City of Vacaville City staff to submit admin draft by March 31, Public Review likley April meeting Pre-App SOI Update City of Vacaville City staff plan to submit application by April 7

Pre-App Roberts Ranch City of Vacaville Leisure Town 250 acres Rd. Pre-App Eldridge Property City of Vacaville Fruitvale/N. 27 acres Orchard Agenda Item 7B Staff Draft

Staff Report DATE: February 27, 2017

TO: Local Agency Formation Commission

FROM: Michelle McIntyre, Analyst

SUBJECT: Municipal Service Review Solano County Sanitation Districts

RECOMMENDATION:

Find the Municipal Service Review (MSR) for the Fairfield Suisun Sewer District and the Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District adequate and complete pursuant to the requirement of Government Code Section 56430.

BACKGROUND:

The Commission received the draft MSR for the Solano County Sanitation Districts on December 12, 2016 and circulated the draft for public review. Staff received comments from District staff which were incorporated and addressed within the final MSR document.

Staff recommends the Commission find the MSR for the Fairfield Suisun Sewer District and the Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District adequate and complete pursuant to the requirements of GCS 56430 and find the study to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21102 and 21150.

Attachments: A – LAFCO Staff Proposed Resolution B – Notice of Exemption pursuant to CEQA C - Final MSR

RESOLUTION NO. 17-02

RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF SOLANO ADOPTING THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR THE SOLANO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS ______

WHEREAS, , pursuant to the Cortese/Knox/Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act, commencing with §56000, et seq. of the Government Code, specifically in accordance with §56430, requiring a review of municipal services of each local government agency whose jurisdictions are within Solano County; and

WHEREAS, Solano Local Agency Formation Commission initiated and conducted a service review of Solano County Sanitation Districts in 2007 and has prepared a comprehensive update and review of the municipal services of Solano County Sanitation Districts, including the Fairfield Suisun Sewer District and the Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District as of February 2017; and

WHEREAS, the Commission received the draft Municipal Service Review for the Solano County sanitation districts on December 12, 2016, circulated the draft for public review, and held a public meeting to consider the final Municipal Service Review for the Solano County Sanitation Districts, on February 27, 2017; and

WHEREAS, at its meeting of February 27, 2017, the Solano Local Agency Formation Commission received and considered all written and oral testimony and comments related to the Municipal Service Review for the City of Solano County Sanitation Districts, its findings and determinations, including the environmental determination; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED as follows:

1. The Municipal Services Review for the Solano County Sanitation Districts is found to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21102 and 21150 in that it is a descriptive and planning study for possible future action for which funding has not been committed.

2. The Municipal Services Review for the City of Solano County Sanitation Districts is found to be adequate and complete pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 56430 and determinations regarding municipal services are approved as set forth and described in the attached “Exhibit A” and by this reference incorporated herein.

3. The Executive Officer is hereby directed to file a Notice of Exemption in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and local ordinances implementing the same.

UPON MOTION of Commissioner ______seconded by Commissioner ______, the foregoing resolution is adopted this 27th day of February 2017 by the following vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:

______Nancy Shopay, Chair Local Agency Formation Commission County of Solano, State of California

ATTEST:

______Michelle MacIntyre, Clerk to the Commission

Solano LAFCO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION

Notice of Exemption

TO: ____ Office of Planning and Research FROM: Public Agency: 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Solano LAFCO Sacramento, CA 95814 675 Texas St. Ste. 6700 X County Clerk Contact: (707) 439-3897 County of Amador [email protected]

Project Title: ___ Municipal Services Review: County Sanitation Districts and Municipal Service Review: City of Benicia; Pursuant to Government Code 56430

Project Location - Specific: Comprehensive studies of services provided: City of Benicia, Fairfield- Suisun Sewer District, Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District,

Project Location – City: Areas include Benicia, Vallejo, Fairfield & Suisun City Project Location - County: Solano County

Description of Project: Review of local government service providers

Name of Public Agency Approving Project: _Solano LAFCO

Name of Person or Agency Carrying out Project: Solano LAFCO

Exempt Status: (check one) Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1);15268); Declared Emergency (Sec.21080(b)(3);15269(a); Categorical Exemption. State type and selection number: X Statutory Exemptions. State code number: 21102, 21150

Reasons why project is exempt: Descriptive and Planning Study for Possible Future Action for which Funding has not been approved

Signature: ______Date: 2/27/17 Title: Executive Officer__

X Signed by Lead Agency Date received for filing at OPR: ______Signed by Applicant

POSTED ON:

Final Wastewater Services Municipal Service Review Prepared for Solano LAFCO

February 27, 2017

Final Municipal Service Review

Wastewater Services

Prepared for: Solano LAFCO

675 Texas Street, Suite 6700 Fairfield, California 94533 www.solanolafco.com

Prepared by:

February 27, 2017 MSR Table of Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... i 1: Introduction 1-1: Role and Responsibility of LAFCO ...... 1-1 1-2: Purpose of the Municipal Service Review ...... 1-2 1-3: Methodology for this MSR ...... 1-3 1-4: Sphere of Influence ...... 1-4 1-5: Public Participation ...... 1-4

2: Executive Summary 2-1

3: Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3.1: District Profile...... 3-1 3.2: Growth and Population ...... 3-11 3.3: Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ...... 3-18 3.4: Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities ...... 3-31 3.5: Financial Ability to Provide Services ...... 3-44 3.6: Status and Opportunities for Shared Facilities ...... 3-57 3.7: Government Structure and Accountability ...... 3-60 3.8: LAFCO Policies Affecting Service Delivery ...... 3-66 3.9: Summary of Determinations ...... 3-67 3.10: Issues with Recommendations ...... 3-71 3.11: References ...... 3-73

4: Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District 4.1: District Profile ...... 4-1 4.2: Growth and Population ...... 4-5 4.3: Present and Planned Land Use...... 4-8 4.4: Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ...... 4-15 4.5: Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities ...... 4-23 4.6: Financial Ability to Provide Services ...... 4-32 4.7: Status and Opportunities for Shared Facilities ...... 4-51 4.8: Government Structure and Accountability ...... 4-54 4.9: LAFCO Policies Affecting Service Delivery ...... 4-60 4.10: Summary of Determinations ...... 4-60 4.11: Issues with Recommendations ...... 4-64 4.12: References ...... 4-66

5. Comments Received 5-1 6. Glossary 6-1 7. Acknowledgements 7-1 Appendices Regulations A-1 FSSD District Brochure A-2 VSFCD Timeline A-3 Solano County Economic Forecast by Caltrans A-4 Drainage Maintenance Agreement A-5

List of Tables

2.1: Summary of 2 Wastewater Districts 2.2: FSSD Board of Directors 2.3: VSFCD Board of Trustees 3.1: FSSD Geographic Summary 3.2: Historic and Existing Population, City of Fairfield 3.3: Historic and Existing Population, Suisun City 3.4: Projected Population Growth in Cities (2010–2040) 3.5: FSSD Projected Population Growth (2010–2040) 3.6: Potential Future Development Areas in Acres 3.7: Unincorporated Islands in the Fairfield Suisun Area 3.8: Parcel Size in Woolner Hamilton Area 3.9: Median Household Income in Unincorporated Islands 3.10: Pump Station Flows 3.11: Summary of FSSD WWTP Capacity 3.12: Summary of FSSD Permits from State Water Board 3.13: SSO Rates 3.14: Financial Performance Indicators 3.15: FSSD’s Schedule 2 Condensed Statements of Revenues 3.16: FSSD’s Schedule 2 Condensed Statements of Expenses 3.17: FSSD Reserve Funds 3.18: FSSD Investment Summary 3.19: Monthly Service Charges 3.20: Sewer Capacity Charges 3.21: Performance Indicators for FSSD Board 3.22: MSR KPIs for Meeting Management 3.23: Issues with Recommendations 4.1: VSFCD Geographic Summary 4.2 Summary of Boundary Related LAFCo Actions 4.3: Historic and Existing Population 4.4 Population Projections for Vallejo 4.5: Vallejo / Benicia Area Island Summary 4.6: 11 Unincorporated Islands with Census Data 4.7: Summary of Sewer Connections in District 4.8: Financial Performance Indicators 4.9: Condensed Statements of Revenues 4.10: Condensed Statements of Expenses and Changes in Net Position 4.11: Changes in Net Position 4.12: Changes in Net Position (continued) 4.13: Cash & Investments 4.14: Long-term debt 4.15: Comparison of Wastewater Rates

List of Figures

3.1: Map of FSSD boundary and sphere of influence 3.2: Map of Extended Service Area for Old Cordelia 3.3: Map of Extended Service Area Suisun Valley 3.4: Rockville Hills Area 3.5: ABAG Priority Areas 3.6: Unincorporated Island Territories from LAFCO 3.7: DWR DACs 3.8: ABAG Communities of Concern 3.9: Census Block Groups 3.10: Census Block Groups 3.11: Flow Schematic 3.12: Discharge Locations 3.13: Average Annual Dry Weather Flow 3.14: FSSD Revenue, 2015 3.15: FSSD Expenses 2015 3.16: FSSD Revenues and Expenses 3.17: Nearby Districts 3.18: FSSD Organizational Chart 4.1: VSFCD Boundaries 4.2: Housing Opportunity Sites 4.3: Map of Unincorporated Islands near Vallejo 4.4: DWR DACs 4.5: ACS Median Household Income Map 4.6: Historic Map 4.7: Flood Zones in Vallejo 4.8: Vallejo Area Watersheds 4.9: Revenues FY 14/15 4.10: VSFCD Expenses FY 14/15 4.11: Total Net Position 4.12: VSFCD Operating Revenues and Expenses 4.13 VSFCD Organizational Chart

ACRONYMS

ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACS American Community Survey ADWF Average Dry Weather Flow AF Acre-Feet AFB Air Force Base AMP Asset Management Plan BMP Best Management Practices BRAC Base Realignment and Closure CAFR Comprehensive Annual Financial Report CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIP Capital Improvement Plan CKH Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Reorganization Act of 2000 CCTV Closed Circuit Television DAC Disadvantaged Community DUC Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community DWR Department of Water Resources EDU Equivalent Dwelling Unit FSSD Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District FY Fiscal Year FTE Full-Time Equivalent GAAP Generally Accepted Accounting Principles GASB Government Accounting Standards Board GIS Geographic Information System GPM Gallons per Minute I/I Infiltration and Inflow LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission MGD Million Gallons per Day MHI Median Household Income MSR Municipal Services Review NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OM&R Operation, Maintenance, and Repair PDWF Peak dry-weather flow includes daily sanitary (wastewater) flow PWWF Peak wet-weather flow includes infiltration and inflow RDI/I Rainfall-dependent infiltration and inflow RTP Regional Transportation Plan RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition; a software application SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy SFR Single Family Residence SIMMS Sewer Information Maintenance and Management System. A computer program. SIU Significant Industrial User SOI Sphere of Influence SSMP Sewer System Management (Master) Plan SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board UWMP Urban Water Management VSFCD Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District WDR Waste Discharge Requirement WMP Water Master Plan WRF Water Recycling Facility WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant Final Wastewater Services MSR

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1: ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY OF LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCO’s) are independent agencies that were established by state legislation in 1963 in each county in California to oversee changes in local agency boundaries and organizational structures. It is LAFCO’s responsibility to: oversee the logical, efficient, and most appropriate formation of local cities and special districts, provide for the logical progression of agency boundaries and efficient expansion of municipal services, assure the efficient provision of municipal services, and discourage the premature conversion of agricultural and open space lands (Government Code [GC] §§ 56100, 56301, 56425, 56430, 56378).

The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg (CKH) Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH Act) requires each LAFCO to prepare a MSR for its cities and special districts. MSRs are required prior to or in conjunction with the update of a Sphere of Influence (SOI). This review is intended to provide Solano LAFCO with the necessary and relevant information related to two wastewater service providers within the County, specifically regarding the appropriateness of each service provider’s existing and proposed boundaries and SOI.

ABOUT SOLANO LAFCO Although each LAFCO works to implement the CKH Act, there is flexibility in how these state regulations are implemented so as to allow adaptation to local needs. As a result, Solano LAFCO has adopted policies, procedures and principles that guide its operations (adopted on March 1, 1999 and last updated on April 8, 2013). The policies and procedures can be found on Solano LAFCO’s website (http://www.solanolafco.com/).

This MSR is an information tool that can be used to inform the public, facilitate cooperation among agency managers and LAFCO to achieve the efficient delivery of services. Describing existing efficiencies in service deliveries and suggesting new opportunities to improve efficiencies is a key objective of this MSR, consistent with LAFCO’s purposes. Since this MSR will be published on LAFCO’s website, it also contributes to LAFCO’s principle relating to transparency of process and information. A public hearing will be conducted by LAFCO on this MSR, thereby contributing to LAFCO’s aim of encouraging an open and engaged process.

Introduction 1-1 Final Wastewater Services MSR

This MSR was written under the auspices of the Solano LAFCO. Solano LAFCO is a public agency with five regular Commissioners and three alternate Commissioners as follows:

Staff / Administrative Roseanne Chamberlain, Interim Executive Officer Michelle McIntyre, Analyst

Additional Information Additional reference documents, such as previous MSR’s or sphere studies are available from LAFCO’s office and website and contact information is shown below:

Solano LAFCO Attn: Roseanne Chamberlain, Interim Officer 675 Texas Street, Suite 6700 Fairfield, California 94533 Phone: (707) 439-3897 http://www.solanolafco.com/

1.2: PURPOSE OF THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW MSRs are intended to provide LAFCO with a comprehensive analysis of services provided by each of the special districts and other service providers identified within this MSR and that fall under the legislative authority of the LAFCO. This review will provide Solano LAFCO with the information and analysis necessary to evaluate existing boundaries and consider spheres of influence for these service providers. The MSR makes determinations in each of seven mandated areas of evaluation, providing the basis for LAFCO to review proposed changes to a service provider’s boundaries or SOI. An SOI is defined in GC § 56425 as “a plan for the probable physical boundary and service area of a local agency or municipality as determined by the Commission.” LAFCO is required to adopt an SOI for each city and each agency in its jurisdiction.

Ideally, an MSR will support not only LAFCO but will also provide the following benefits to the subject agencies: Provide a broad overview of agency operations including type and extent of services provided Serve as a prerequisite for a sphere of influence update (included herein) Evaluate governance options and financial information

Introduction 1-2 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Demonstrate accountability and transparency to LAFCO and to the public Allow agencies to compare their operations and services with other similar agencies

This MSR is designed to provide technical and administrative information on each of the two wastewater service providers to Solano LAFCO, so that LAFCO can make informed decisions based on the best available data for each service provider and area. Written determinations, as required by law, are presented in Sections 3.10 and 4.10 MSR Determinations of this MSR for LAFCO’s consideration. LAFCO is ultimately the decision maker on approval or disapproval of any determinations, policies, boundaries, and discretionary items.

1.3 METHODOLOGY FOR THIS MSR In accordance with GC § 56430, LAFCO must prepare municipal service reviews prior to or in conjunction with review of SOIs for the agencies within its jurisdiction. The CKH Act indicates that LAFCO should review and update a sphere of influence every five years, as necessary, consistent with GC § 56425(g) and § 56106. This MSR evaluates the structure and operation of each of the two wastewater service providers and discusses possible areas for streamlining, improvement, and coordination. Key references and information sources for this study were gathered for each agency considered. The references utilized in this study include published reports; review of agency files and databases (agendas, minutes, budgets, contracts, audits, etc.); master plans; capital improvement plans; engineering reports; EIRs; finance studies; general plans; and state and regional agency information (permits, reviews, communications, regulatory requirements, etc.). Additionally, the consulting team, in coordination with the LAFCO Executive Officer, sent each District a Request for Information, and the Districts’ responses to these requests were a key information source. Members of the consultant team also conducted site visits and personal interviews with each District.

This MSR forms the basis for specific judgments, known as determinations, about each agency that LAFCO is required to make (GC § 5425, 56430). These determinations are described in the MSR Guidelines from the Office of Planning & Research (OPR) as set forth in the CKH Act, and they fall into seven categories, as listed below: 1. Growth and population projections for the affected area 2. Location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence 3. Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services including infrastructure needs or deficiencies 4. Financial ability of agency to provide services 5. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities

Introduction 1-3 Final Wastewater Services MSR

6. Accountability for community service needs, including government structure and operational efficiencies 7. Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy An MSR must include an analysis of the issues and written determination(s) for each of the above determination categories.

1.4: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires that LAFCO adopt and periodically update a Sphere of Influence (SOI or Sphere) for each city and special district within the county. A SOI is "a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service areas of a local agency" (GC §56076). In determining the Sphere of Influence for an agency, LAFCO must consider and prepare written determinations with respect to five factors [Government Code §56425(e)]. These factors relate to the present and planned land uses including agricultural and open-space lands, the present and probable need for public facilities and services, the present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, the existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area, and the present and probable need for public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere.

This document considers two wastewater districts, the Fairfield Suisun Sewer District and the Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District. LAFCO’s files indicate that neither of these two districts have a current SOI.

1.5: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Solano LAFCO received a presentation for discussion of the Draft MSR on December 12, 2016. Comments from the public were solicited for a 30-day comment period. No comments from the public were received. The public hearing on the Final MSR is scheduled for February 27, 2017.

After this MSR is finalized, it will be published on the Commission’s website (http://www.solanolafco.com/), thereby making the information contained herein available to anyone with access to an internet connection. A copy of this MSR may also be viewed during posted office hours at LAFCO’s office located at 675 Texas St. Suite 6700, Fairfield CA 94533. In addition to this MSR, LAFCO’s office maintains files for each service provider and copies of many of the planning documents and studies that were utilized in the development of this MSR. These materials are also available to the public for review.

Introduction 1-4 Final Wastewater Services MSR

California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is contained in Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. Under this law public agencies are required to evaluate the potential environmental effects of their actions. Specifically, LAFCO is required to comply with CEQA (Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263). This MSR is exempt from CEQA under a Class 6 categorical exemption. CEQA Guidelines § 15306 states that “Class 6 consists of basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities that do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.” Although MSRs are not subject to CEQA, it is noted that if LAFCO acts to establish or update a SOI for the district, CEQA requirements must be satisfied. The lead agency for future CEQA documents would most likely be LAFCO.

Introduction 1-5 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Chapter 2: Executive Summary

This Municipal Service Review (MSR) addresses major issues of service delivery and efficiency and includes an analysis and a written statement of conclusions, known as determinations, for each of the following factors: . Growth and population projections for the affected area . Disadvantaged unincorporated communities . Present and planned capacity of public facilities . Financial ability of the agency to provide services . Opportunities for shared facilities . Accountability for government service needs . Any other matter relative to service delivery as required by Commission Policy The specific determinations and the key facts that support each determination for each service provided are discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. The areas of description and analysis contain the essential operational and management aspects for the two service providers and together constitute a review of the ability of the providers to meet the service demands of the residents

Executive Summary 2-1 Final Wastewater Services MSR

within their boundaries. The services considered in this MSR are wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal along with water recycling, storm drainage management, and flood control. These services are primarily provided to residents and visitors by the two special districts, in cooperation with nearby cities. The Districts are typically operated under the provisions of their “principal acts,” and they govern the provision of one or more public services. Boundaries and spheres of influence are determined by their Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). This MSR addresses the two wastewater service providers in Solano County: the Fairfield Suisun Sewer District (Chapter 2) and the Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District (Chapter 3).

2.1: SUMMARY OF DISTRICTS The Fairfield Suisun Sewer District and the Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District were last reviewed by LAFCO in a MSR in 2006. A concise summary of FSSD is provided in Appendix A- 2 (District Brochure). A timeline summarizing VSFCD’s 60 years of service is provided in Appendix A-3. The following table summarizes key features of the two Districts evaluated in this MSR.

Table 2.1. Summary of 2 Wastewater Districts Fairfield Suisun Sewer Vallejo Sanitation & Flood

District Control District Population (per 2010 US 140,400 124,134 Census)* Size (sq. mi.) 44.7 36 Sewage collection, treatment, Wastewater collection, and disposal, water Services treatment, and disposal and recycling, storm drainage Flood Control Services management 54,000 separate sewer # of sewer connections connections that ultimately 37,804 serve 140,400 residents Gross Revenue (2015) $28,049,378 $30,790,632 Monthly rate for a SFR $36.35 $43.35

Executive Summary 2-2 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Profile of Fairfield Suisun Sewer District Name of District: Fairfield Suisun Sewer District Type of District: Sanitation District Enabling Legislation: Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District Act Chapter 303, Statues of 1951

Functions/Services: Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal, water recycling, storm drainage management

Main Office: 1010 Chadbourne Rd., Fairfield, Ca 94534 Mailing Address: Same

Phone No.: (707) 429-8930 Fax No.: N/A Web Site: http://www.fssd.com/ Email Address: gbaatrup @ fssd.com

Contact Person: Gregory G. Baatrup, General Manager Phone: (707) 429-8930

Governing Body: Table 2.2: FSSD Board of Directors Director Title Representing Term Expiration Chuck Timm President City of Fairfield November 2018 Mike Segala Vice President Suisun City November 2020 Pam Bertani Director City of Fairfield November 2020 Jane Day Director Suisun City November 2018 Mike Hudson Director Suisun City November 2018 Catherine Moy Director City of Fairfield November 2018 Harry Price Director City of Fairfield November 2018 Pete Sanchez Director Suisun City November 2018 Rick Vaccaro Director City of Fairfield November 2020 Lori Wilson Director Suisun City November 2020

Meeting Schedule: Fourth Monday of each month at 6 p.m. in the. Meeting Location: Board Room at 1010 Chadbourne Road, Fairfield, California

Date of Formation: May 5, 1951, *per California Code Chapter 303, 1951 Principal County: Solano County

Executive Summary 2-3 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Profile of Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District

Name of District: Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District Type of District: Sanitation and Flood Control District Enabling Legislation: State of California, Act 8934 Functions/Services: Wastewater and Flood Control Services Main Office: 450 Ryder Street, Vallejo, CA 94590 Mailing Address: same as above

Phone No.: (707) 644-8949 Fax No.: N/A Web Site: https://www.vsfcd.com Email: [email protected]

Contact Person: Melissa Morton, District Manager Phone: (707)644-8949 Alternate Contact: Holly Charlety, District Clerk Phone: (707)644-8949

Governing Body: Board of Trustees (Staggered Four-year Terms)

Table 2.3: VSFCD Board of Trustees Director Title Term Expiration Jess Malgapo Trustee, Vice-President January 2019 Bob Sampavan Trustee January 2021 Pippin Dew-Costa Trustee January 2019 Erin Hannigan Trustee January 2018 Robert McConnell Trustee January 2021 Katy Miessner Trustee January 2019 Hermie Sunga Trustee January 2021 Rozzana Verder-Aliga Trustee January 2021

Meeting Schedule: Second Tuesday of every month at 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Vallejo City Hall, 555 Santa Clara Street in Vallejo Date of Formation: April 19, 1952 Principal County: Solano County

Executive Summary 2-4 Final Wastewater Services MSR

2.2: SUMMARY OF FACTORS Chapters 3 and 4 provide more detailed information on issues and challenges faced by the two Districts. For the purposes of this Executive Summary, however, the most crucial wastewater problems facing the Districts now or in the recent past are encapsulated below.

Growth and Population Projections Solano County has experienced substantial growth over the past few decades, especially in urban areas located near Interstate 80. The cities of Fairfield and Suisun City are clustered together in the central part of the County, while Vallejo is located in the southern portion of the County adjacent to the Delta. In the future, Solano County is projected to have approximately four percent of the Bay Area’s future growth in households and jobs. The population of Solano County is expected to exceed a half million by the year 2040, which represents an addition of 100,000 people above today’s population (ABAG, 2013). These new future residents represent potential customers of the wastewater treatment service providers described in this MSR. Future population levels are used to predict future service demands. An economic forecast of Solano County is provided in Appendix A-4.

A population of 140,400 resides within FSSD’s boundaries. A population of 124,134 resides within VSFCD’s boundaries. Details about population and future growth for the cities of Fairfield and Suisun City are provided in Chapter 3 and for Vallejo are provided in Chapter 4.

Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Senate Bill (SB) 244, which became effective in January 2012, requires LAFCo to consider the presence of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) when preparing a MSR that addresses agencies that provide water, wastewater or structural fire protection services. A DUC is a geographic area characterized as having a median household income of 80 percent or less of the statewide median household income. Chapter 3 describes several areas that could potentially qualify as DUCs within and adjacent to the FSSD service area. Chapter 4 describes two potential DUCs within the VSFCD boundaries, the Starr Subdivision and Homeacres neighborhood. Overall the Vallejo community has a MHI of $58,472 which is less than the statewide MHI but higher than the disadvantaged threshold.

Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities Both FSSD and VSFCD have sufficient capacity to serve existing customers. For the most part, FSSD’s 2008 Master Plan facilitates FFSD’s accommodation of future growth. However, in some circumstances it is possible that planned developments exceed the population density

Executive Summary 2-5 Final Wastewater Services MSR

envisioned in the 2008 Master Plan and therefore any needed capacity improvements should be assessed on a project-by-project basis.

VSFCD provides wastewater and flood control services to customers within their boundary. The District’s major facilities include 415 miles of sewer pipes, 250 miles of storm drain pipes, 10,000 catch basins, 28 sewer pump stations, 5 stormwater pump stations, and the wastewater treatment plant (VSFCD, 2016). VSFCD’s wastewater treatment plant is able to meet the wastewater needs of the service area through its current projected buildout.

Financial Ability of the District to Provide Services Biennial budgets and annual financial statements are prepared by both Fairfield Suisun Sewer District and the Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District. These reports provide data which indicate that each has the financial ability to continue providing public services. Key performance indicators and other information are provided in Chapters 3 and 4.

Opportunities for Shared Facilities Both Districts operate separately and do not jointly own or share capital facilities or services with other agencies. There are no other agencies in geographic proximity that provides wastewater and flood control services, making it difficult to share facilities. Although no opportunities have been identified for the two Districts to share facilities with other public agencies, each District does collaborate with other agencies and organizations in many other ways as described in Chapters 3 and 4. Additionally, it is recommended that the Districts continue to participate in regional planning efforts.

Accountability for Government Service Needs In a municipal service review, LAFCO is required to make a determination about a district’s government structure and accountability. In California, there are three types of special districts: Dependent districts: Function as subdivisions of another multi-purpose local government such as a county board of supervisors or a city council. Independent districts: Have their own governing board and are usually elected directly by voters.

Both Fairfield Suisun Sewer District and the Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District are dependent districts as detailed in Chapters 2 and 3. Both FSSD and VSFCD representatives appear to comply with the requirements of the Brown Act, the Political Reform Act, and similar laws. Each District maintains a website that functions as a communication tool for meeting

Executive Summary 2-6 Final Wastewater Services MSR

agendas, minutes, and adopted resolutions, and provides information about the District’s services and programs.

Any Other Matter Relative to Service Delivery as Required by Commission Policy Cortese-Knox Hertzberg allows LAFCOs to establish policies to implement the law and process applications. Solano LAFCO has implemented eleven standards, six mandatory standards which mirror the requirements of CKH, and five discretionary standards. Application of discretionary standards lies with the Commission. There are no other aspects of wastewater and storm drainage service required to be addressed in this report by LAFCO policies that would affect delivery of services.

Executive Summary 2-7 Final Wastewater Services MSR

CHAPTER 3: FAIRFIELD-SUISUN SEWER DISTRICT

3.1 DISTRICT PROFILE INCLUDING BOUNDARY MAP

Services And Location

Type and Extent of Services The Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District (FSSD) provides wastewater, water recycling, and storm water management services to citizens, business, and government facilities located within the Cities of Fairfield and Suisun. The FSSD currently serves an area of approximately 44 square miles and approximately 140,400 residents. The geography of the service area includes the City of Fairfield, Suisun City, Travis Air Force Base, the unincorporated area of Cordelia, and parts of Suisun Valley. Travis Air Force Base is the region’s largest employer with over 14,000 military personnel and civilian employees. Infrastructure, maintenance, and personnel needs necessary to fulfill these services are reviewed and updated periodically in publicly available master plans and capital improvement plans.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-1 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Location and Size Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District is located in Solano County and the District’s boundaries encompass two cities: the City of Fairfield and the City of Suisun City. Fairfield serves as the County seat and is located halfway between the cities of San Francisco and Sacramento along the Interstate-80 corridor. Notable employers include Travis Air Force Base and Jelly Belly. Suisun City is located southeast of Fairfield and it straddles Highway 12. The City of Suisun City is known for its charming marina and historic architecture. Suisun Marsh, located south of Suisun City, is an important part of the San Francisco Bay along with its inland Delta complex, the largest remaining estuary on the west coast of North America.

The City of Fairfield is approximately 40.1 square miles (26,167 acres) in size, which includes the Travis Air Force Base (10 sq. mi.). Suisun City is approximately 4.1 square miles (2,624 acres), in size. Summing the geographic extent of both cities yields the size of FSSD at approximately 44.7 square miles (29,242 acres).

Table 3.1: FSSD Geographic Summary Jurisdictional Boundary City of Fairfield 40.6 square miles (26,610 acres), Suisun City 4.1 square miles (2,624 acres) Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District 44.7 square miles (29,234 acres)

Sphere of Influence None 0 Data Source: Solano County GIS NAD_1983_StatePlane_California_II_FIPS_0402_Feet and Solano LAFCO

A map of the District’s boundary is provided as Figure 3.1, below.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-2

d P

R Meridian Rd e

b n McCrory Rd o

o y d

L y

R d Dickson Hill Rd Rd Rd Gate N rn o n Mankas e t Hill Rd lb FSSD m i e H C Legend Co Burgan Blvd rne Dover Ave Peabody Rd Napa City Limits r FSSD 2016 Alaska Ave Air Base Pkwy Air Base Pkwy Travis AFB

A R

Co. d St Texas N e

b v

e Waterman Blvd

r A E Tabor Ave

Oliver Rd a

a d i

t n R h

Travis Blvd a y Union Ave Railroad Ave

y v

Green e l l R

Walters Rd l ville 2nd St y a d Valley ck s o R Union Ave

R V n

d Texas St n

SunsetAve n G Rockville Rd e u Lawler Ranch Pkwy r P e s SR-12 e i }·12 u | n SR-12 SR-12 S V 80 Main St a ¨¦§ ll e Courage Dr y R lia Rd Chadbourne Rd |}·12 SR-12 d rde C o Central Way Pittman Rd

d |}·12 R SR-12

p o Red Top Rd L

¨¦§680

0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles

Department of Information Technology, GIS Services Solano County GIS Services Disclaimer: Department of Information Technology This map was made using Solano County GIS files with varying degrees of Fairfield Suisun Sewer District (FSSD) Boundaries 675 Texas Street, Suite 3700 scale, accuracy, precision, currentness, and alignment and therefore cannot Fairfield, CA 94533 be used for situations requiring survey grade measurement or legal Phone: 707-784-6340 boundary determination. Solano County disclaims liability for any Email: [email protected] loss that may result from the use of this map. User acknowledges Solano County PRJ_1459 data limitations and accepts responsibility for map based judgments. 5 Date: 02/10/2017

Document Path: Z:\P1401-1500\PRJ_1459_LafcoSewerDist2016\MXD\LafcoFFSSSDFeb2017.mxd Final Wastewater Services MSR

Formation And Boundary Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District was formed via the Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District Act Chapter 303, Statues of 1951 as amended in 1997 and 2001, and as approved by the California Legislature. The District was formed on May 5, 1951. FSSD is classified as a dependent special district formed by statute which performs wastewater collection and treatment activities and water recycling services for all properties within the boundaries of Fairfield, Suisun City, and Travis Air Force Base. The District also operates a drainage maintenance operation that performs specified storm water management services in conjunction with the cities it serves.

Upon annexation of new territory to the cities, the property automatically annexes into the District boundaries. (Article 1, Section 1). The District’s boundaries cannot otherwise expand without an action of the State Legislature. However, the District boundaries and its service area are not equivalent. FSSD’s enabling legislation (Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District Act -Chapter 303 of the Statutes of 1951) as amended by AB 776 (Thomson, 2001) defines its boundaries and its service area. Please see “Extra-Territorial Services” on page 3-5.

Boundary History Consistent with the Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District Act, the District consists “of the territory in Solano County now contained within the Cities of Fairfield and Suisun City. Any territory hereafter annexed to either city shall be a part of the district upon annexation.” Therefore, FSSD’s boundaries encompass the City of Fairfield (including Travis Air Force Base) and Suisun City. The boundary history of the City of Fairfield is described in the “City of Fairfield 2012 Municipal Service Review Update” available on LAFCO’s website. During years 1980 to 2007 there were 50 annexations to the City of Fairfield totaling approximately 6,644 acres. Additionally, in 2012 LAFCO approved the Canon Station annexation to the City, covering 1,244 acres.

The boundary history for Suisun City is described in the “City of Suisun City 2016 Municipal Service Review Update” available on LAFCO’s website. Suisun City encompasses approximately 2,624 acres. Since 1986 there have been eight annexations and two detachments from the City. The total area annexed since 1986 is 665.27 acres in size.

Sphere of Influence The Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District1 does not yet have a sphere of influence. LAFCO has not established a SOI for this District. The 1951 enabling legislation did not address the District’s

1 The District’s enabling legislation does not address a sphere of influence for the District.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-4 Final Wastewater Services MSR

SOI, as it was enacted prior to LAFCo Law. However, Article 1, Section 1 requires that property annexed to the District be within the City of Fairfield or the City of Suisun City. The 2001 amendment (AB 776) allows the District to contract for disposal of sewage emanating from buildings outside the District if certain determinations are made (Section 48c).

City SOI’s The sphere of influence for the cities of Fairfield and Suisun City provides some indication about where public services will be needed in the future. The District’s sphere is functionally indicated by the cities’ spheres of influence. Therefore, discussion of the City’s SOI is included herein for analytical purposes. In Fairfield approximately 2,400 acres of land have been annexed to the City from 1987 to 2007 while the last revision to the City’s SOI occurred in 2004 (Fairfield MSR, 2012).

LAFCO has made three amendments to Suisun City's Sphere of FSSD’S PURPOSE Influence since 1976 as described in LAFCO’s “City of Suisun City 2016 Municipal Service Review Update” available on Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District LAFCO’s website. Also, the Peterson Road SOI amendment for Suisun City was submitted by the landowner in August 2014, protects public health and the but it was later withdrawn. environment for the It is anticipated that the SOI area for each city will be annexed communities we serve in an into the city within the long-term. The cities have preliminary land-use plans for the SOI area; although final land-use efficient, responsible and authority remains with Solano County until the lands are annexed to the cities. In the meantime, Fairfield’s preliminary sustainable manner. land use plan for the SOI calls for mixed use, very low density residential, and park and recreation. Suisun City’s SOI is located east and west of Suisun City and each SOI area has development constraints. Suisun City’s General Plan designates these areas as Ag‐Open Space Reserve.

Extra-territorial Services Although FSSD’s enabling legislation (Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District Act -Chapter 303 of the Statutes of 1951) did not originally allow FSSD to provide service outside its formal boundary, a 2001 amendment by AB 776 (Thomson) (Appendix A-6) allows the following:

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-5 Final Wastewater Services MSR

• (b) The district may accept and contract for the disposal of sewage emanating from buildings outside the district if those buildings are connected to the district's sewage treatment system on March 1, 2002. • (c) Pursuant to Section 56133 of the Government Code, the district may contract with Solano County or another public entity for the disposal of sewage emanating from buildings outside the district if the board of the district determines that the contract furthers the protection of public health and safety and is in the best interests of the district.

In November 2004, LAFCO approved an out-of-boundary service agreement allowing FSSD to provide sewer service to two areas located outside the District’s jurisdictional boundary. The two areas are commonly referred to as “Old Cordelia” and “Suisun Valley Road / Rockville Road Intersection“ as shown in Figures 3.2 and 3.3.

FSSD also provides service to customers outside of their jurisdictional boundaries by interagency agreements including, Solano Community College, Truck Scale for the California Highway Patrol, specified parcels in Solano County, and other misc. public buildings (Baatrup, et. al., RFI meeting, 2016). Special districts are required to request and receive written approval from LAFCO before providing new or extended services by contract or agreement outside their jurisdictions but within their spheres, consistent with Government Code Section 56133 and LAFCO policies. Solano LAFCO has several policies related to the provision of service outside of a District’s boundaries. Additionally, Solano LAFCO defines an “Existing Extended Service Area of Solano County” as a fixed geographic area to which an agency has extended service, prior to January 1, 2002, as detailed on a LAFCO map. Parcels which are adjacent to existing distribution and/or collection lines, but have yet to connect to that service are included in the Existing Extended Service Area and may make connection per existing legal parcel as of January 5, 2004.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-6 Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District Existing Extended Service Area Central Way Old Cordelia

Green Valley Rd

Pittman Rd

City of Fairfield

¨¦§80 Lopes Lopes Rd

Cordelia Rd

Legend Major Roads 680 Highways ¨¦§ Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District Collection Line Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District Parcels Currently Served Parcels Eligible For Service City Limit Solano County Parcels

Solano Local Agency Formation Commission 744 Empire St., Suite 216 This map is to be used for general information purposes only. ± Fairfield, CA 94533 Where precise accuracy is required reference should be 0 0.125 0.25 made to certified maps, surveys, documents and/or by other (707) 438-1785 official means. Miles [email protected] March 6, 2009 Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District Existing Extended Service Area Suisun Valley

Rockville Rd

Legend MajorRoads Highways Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District

Suisun Valley Rd Collection Line Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District Parcels Currently Served Parcels Eligible For Service City Limit Solano County Parcels

City of Fairfield

Solano Local Agency Formation Commission 744 Empire St., Suite 216 This map is to be used for general information purposes only. ± Fairfield, CA 94533 Where precise accuracy is required reference should be 0 0.125 0.25 made to certified maps, surveys, documents and/or by other (707) 438-1785 official means. Miles [email protected] March 6, 2009 Final Wastewater Services MSR Areas of Interest and/or Future Study Areas for Potential Annexation

Two areas of interest have been identified: • “Woodcreek 66”, and • “Middle Green Valley Specific Plan Area”. Each of these areas is located outside the District boundary. If the District were to consider the provision of service to these areas, LAFCO regulations and policies would need to be reviewed to ensure compliance and the Out-of-Boundary Service Agreement between the District and the County would need to be amended.

Solano County published the Final Environmental Impact Report2 in July 2015 for the Woodcreek 66 project. In February 2016, the County approved the Woodcreek 66 project, situated on a 33-acre site and allowing 60 single family homes and a commercial vineyard to be built. The project is located in unincorporated Solano County, northeast of the City of Fairfield in the Rockville area and approximately 1 mile north of Solano Community College. The triangular-shaped project site is bordered by Oakwood Drive to the west, Suisun Valley Road to the east, and Rockville Road to the north. The CEQA analysis anticipated the District providing service to the area and recognized that wastewater infrastructure would need to be constructed in order to service the area (Solano County, 2014).

Solano County’s Draft Middle Green Valley Specific Plan covers an area of 1,905-acres located along Green Valley Road, in Green Valley. Specifically, the Specific Plan area is located north of Interstate 80, Jameson Canyon; south of the Green Valley Country Club; and west of the Rockville Hills. The Draft Specific Plan area consists of a valley floor containing Green Valley Creek and Hennessey Creek. The valley is surrounded by oak woodlands and some steep slopes. Existing land use within the Plan Area includes grazing cultivated agriculture including vineyards, several rural buildings and infrastructure elements. The Draft Specific Plan suggests a land use and circulation layout that would facilitate development of 400 new residences, agricultural tourism, local neighborhood retail and community facility uses (Solano County, 2016). Additionally, over 1,400 acres of agriculture and open space would be protected through the use of conservation tools such as developmenti cluster ng, a TDR program, and conservation easements. The Draft

2 The EIR for the Wood Creek 66 project is available on Solano County’s website at: http://www.co.solano.ca.us/depts/rm/documents/eir/woodcreek_66.asp.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-9 Final Wastewater Services MSR EIR for this project was published in June 2016. In October 2016, Solano County published the Responses to Comments on and Revisions to the Second Revised Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report. The Specific Plan outlines two options for the provision of wastewater services to the Area. The Plan’s Option #A suggests that FSSD could potentially provide wastewater service to the area (Solano County 2010). Currently, the specific plan area is not included within the FSSD boundary.

There are options the project proponents, FSSD, and LAFCO could consider to secure FSSD sewer service to these two areas of interest:

1. SOI option: Currently, LAFCO has not adopted a sphere of influence for FSSD. However, in the future, should LAFCO wish to establish a SOI for the District, then the Woodcreek 66 or Middle Green Valley Specific Plan Area projects could potentially be studied for inclusion within that SOI. Preliminary analysis indicates the two areas of interest could only be included in the District SOI if within one of the City’s SOI. However, LAFCO’s consideration of this issue would likely need to include additional legal analysis on this topic.

2. Annexation option: The Woodcreek 66 or Middle Green Valley Specific Plan Area projects could potentially be studied for inclusion within the City of Fairfield boundaries. They would therefore be included in the FSSD boundaries consistent with the District’s enabling legislation.

3. Study whether it would be possible to amend the Out-of-Boundary Service Agreement between the District and Solano County. Analysis of consistency with LAFCO policies and regulations would also be required. Each of these options would require LAFCO approval.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-10 Final Wastewater Services MSR 3.2 GROWTH AND POPULATION Existing Population

This section provides information on the existing population and future growth projections for the Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District. Since census data is readily available for the City of Fairfield and the City of Suisun City, these cities are utilized as a proxy for FSSD in this section. Today, FSSD’s boundaries contain a population estimated to be 140,400 persons.

City of Fairfield As of January 1, 2016, the population in the City of Fairfield was estimated by the California Department of Finance at 112,637 persons. Between census years 2000 to 2010, the City of Fairfield’s population grew by 9,143 people, which equates to a 0.95 annual growth rate (US Census, 2010). This represents an increase to the annual growth rate by 46 percent between the 2010 U.S. Census and the estimated 2015 population. The average population concentration is roughly 2,700 persons per square mile. The 40.886 square mile area, which includes the Travis Airforce Base, is located in Census Tract 23182 in Solano County (US Census, Geographic Boundary).

Table 3.2: Historic and Existing Population, City of Fairfield Total population Land area (sq. miles) Population per sq. mile

2010 105,321 37.39 2,817

2015 112,637 40.886 2,755

Data Source: U.S. Census, Fairfield, 2010; California Department of Finance, 2016; US Census Geographic Boundary Change, Fairfield, 2015

Though the population and land area for the City of Fairfield has slightly increased from 2010 to 2015, the population per square mile has decreased. This suggests that the City has enough land to accommodate the population growth in 2015 over what was available in 2010.

Suisun City

As of January 1, 2016, the population in Suisun City is estimated by the California Department of Finance at 29,091 persons. Between census years 2000 to 2010, the Suisun City population grew by 1,993 people, which equates to a 0.76 annual growth rate (US Census, 2010). The average population concentration is about 7,000 persons per square mile. The 4.105 sq. mile area as of 2015,

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-11 Final Wastewater Services MSR which includes expansion into areas south of the City boundary as of 2000, is located in Census Tract 75630 in Solano County (US Census, Geographic Boundary).

Table 3.3: Historic and Existing Population, Suisun City Total population Land area (sq. miles) Population per sq. mile

2010 28,111 4.011 7,008

2015 29,091 4.105 7,087

U.S. Census, Suisun, 2010; California Department of Finance, 2016; US Census Geographic Boundary Change, Suisun, 2015

The slight increase in population and land area from 2010 to 2015 has slightly increased the population per square mile within Suisun City. The increase in land area shown in Table 3.3 is less than 1/10 of a square mile.

Projected Growth and Development

City of Fairfield To some extent, population growth in the City is dependent upon land use, general plan designations, and zoning on properties. The General Plan for the City of Fairfield was adopted in June of 1992. In 2002, the City adopted a substantial revision to the General Plan for build out to the year 2020. A new Housing Element was adopted in January 2007, with a draft update currently in review. The City’s General Plan is based upon the concept of a “Livable City,” envisioning development in a manner that promotes compact and efficient land use patterns, with less emphasis on development that requires the use of the automobile. Thus, the City’s Land Use Element incorporates five strategies, which include: • Strong commitment toward protection of agricultural areas outside of the urban limit line and separation from other urban areas in the County • Future development to occur within existing City Limits with limited development proposed outside of the City Limits to achieve certain related objectives that would be difficult to achieve within the existing City Limits • Incentives such as modifications to development regulations and city fees to concentrate development of infill areas within existing City boundaries • Greater emphasis on pedestrian-oriented development (POD) and transit-oriented development (TOD)

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-12 Final Wastewater Services MSR • Provide high quality services and infrastructure in accordance with adopted standards. (City of Fairfield General Plan, Land Use Element, 2004).

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) prepares population projections at the County and jurisdictional level. According to ABAG’s projections, overall Solano County population will increase by 23.8 percent, with Fairfield having the greatest projected growth in the County at 39.1 percent from 2015 to 2040 as shown in Table 3.4, below. The growth rate for Fairfield is 39.1 percent calculated as the total change from year 2010 to 2040 and this yields an average annual growth rate of about 1.3 percent based on population change from 2015 to 2040.

Table 3.4: Projected Population Growth in Cities (2010–2040)

*Percent 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Increase

Benicia 26,997 27,600 28,300 29,000 29,700 30,500 31,400 16.3%

Dixon 18,351 18,700 19,000 19,400 19,800 20,200 20,700 12.8%

Fairfield 105,321 111,500 117,900 124,400 131,400 138,800 146,500 39.1%

Rio Vista 7,360 7,500 7,900 8,300 8,400 8,600 8,800 19.6%

Suisun City 28,111 28,900 29,800 30,700 31,600 32,600 33,700 19.9%

Vacaville 92,428 95,300 98,200 101,700 105,500 109,700 114,000 23.3%

Vallejo 115,942 118,100 121,000 124,200 126,200 128,600 131,800 13.7%

Unincorporat 18,834 21.500 22,600 23,700 24,700 31.1% 19,700 20,600 ed

Solano 413,344 459,200 475,200 492,700 511,600 23.8% 427,300 442,700 County *Percentage increase from (2010 to 2040). Data Source: ABAG 2013, Population Projections

Population growth in the unincorporated areas of the County is at 31.1 percent, and the City of Vacaville population growth is 23.3 percent.

Suisun City As with the City of Fairfield, population growth in Suisun City is dependent upon land use, general plan designations, and zoning laws. The 2035 General Plan for the City was adopted in May of 2015. The City adopted a new Housing Element in January of 2015. The 2035 General Plan is based upon ten strategic goals, some of which include:

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-13 Final Wastewater Services MSR • Encourage the development of uses and protection of resources that attract visitors, enhancing the community as a tourist destination • Develop the downtown as a vibrant, pedestrian-scaled commercial and entertainment center that reflects our community’s unique waterfront character • Provide quality community services and sound infrastructure • Ensure that neighborhoods maintain their character and vitality • Practice economically, fiscally, and environmentally responsible municipal decision- making to avoid shifting today’s costs to future generations (Source: Suisun City 2035 General Plan)

Although ABAG has projected the population for the City of Suisun City, projecting future population growth for a small city is problematic due to factors associated with a variable annexation rate. The projected growth rate as a percentage of the total from year 2010 to 2040 is 19.9 percent and this yields an average annual growth rate for Suisun City of 0.76 percent as shown in Table 3.4, above.

Since Suisun City is mostly built-out, its future growth rate is projected to be relatively low at rates consistent with the ABAG projection shown in Table 3.4. The City’s 2035 General Plan was created to accommodate a total population of about 32,400 with 11,300 dwelling units and 5.8 million sq. feet of non-residential development at build out. The City’s 2035 General Plan indicates that, by 2035 the City should have adequate housing and non-residential development potential to meet population projections.

FSSD Combining the projected population for the City of Fairfield with that in Suisun City yields the projected growth rate in the study area of the Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District as shown in Table 3.5, below.

Table 3.5: FSSD Projected Population Growth (2010–2040) Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 FSSD 133,432 140,400 147,700 155,100 163,000 171,400 180,200

Between the years 2010 to 2040, an additional 46,768 persons will reside within FSSD’s boundaries. This represents an overall 35 percent increase in projected future population at an average annual (compound) growth rate of 1 percent.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-14 Final Wastewater Services MSR Existing and planned land use The land-uses that are present today are the result of decades of decisions by the cities and activities by private builders. Since FSSD does not have the legal authority to make land use decisions, this section summarizes existing land-use within Fairfield and Suisun City.

City of Fairfield Three distinct communities characterize the City of Fairfield: Cordelia, Central Fairfield, and Travis Air Force Base/Northeast area. Land-use in Fairfield includes residential, highway-serving commercial areas, and regional commercial uses. The overall land use pattern is suburban and auto-oriented. The federally owned military base includes the Travis Air Force Base and the Travis Reserve areas. Land-uses on the Air Force Base include the Jimmy Doolittle Air & Space Museum, the David Grant USAF Medical Center, three runways (3L/21R, 3R/21L, 32/212), the C-17 Assault Landing Zone, offices, hangars, and housing (SCALUC, 2002). The former Strategic Air Command Alert Facility is now used by the U.S. Navy to place aircraft including Navy E-6B Mercury TACAMO aircraft. The western portion of Fairfield, near Cordelia, is comprised primarily of residential and business park land uses.

Suisun City As of January 2016, the City of Suisun City was approximately 4.1 square miles (2,632 acres) including 1,910 acres of land, 675 acres of streets/highways, and 47 acres of water. Approximately 665.27 acres of land have been annexed to the City from 1986 to 2006 for purposes of the development of medium residential, mixed-use, commercial services, and light manufacturing uses (Suisun City MSR, 2016). The City’s Zoning Map shows a vast majority of the City’s acreage has been developed for low density residential. This is due to the rapid growth during the 1960s and 70s that occurred as the San Francisco Bay Area’s suburban ring expanded into Solano County. The location of Suisun City, adjacent to the largest contiguous brackish water marsh remaining on the west coast of North America, has created a community rich in water-oriented natural and recreational resources. In addition, the City has placed great value in existing historic architecture and heritage resources. The City’s proximity to Fairfield has provided residents with access to employment and business opportunities of the Fairfield labor and consumer markets, thus few employed residents of Suisun City work in the City (City of Suisun City 2035 General Plan).

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-15 Final Wastewater Services MSR Solano County Solano County adopted the Suisun Valley Strategic Plan3 in February, 2010 and codified it via Ordinance Number 2011-1717. The Strategic Plan describes a strategy for the long‐term agricultural viability of the Valley. The Plan recommends either septic or packaged wastewater systems within the Specific Plan Area. These can be developed at any time by the owner or occupant and therefore, no action by FSSD was suggested.

Future Development

Potential 5 FSSD does not have the legal authority to make land use decisions. Rather, FSSD aims to provide service to the result of land use and planning decisions that are made by the City of Fairfield and Suisun City.

As part of the Plan Bay Area 2040, ABAG and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) have identified priority development areas as shown in Figure 3.5, below. A priority development area serves as the foundation for sustainable regional growth places and is ready for investment, new homes, and job growth.

3 The Suisun Valley Strategic Plan is available on Solano County‘s website at: http://www.co.solano.ca.us/depts/rm/planning/suisun_valley_strategic_plan.asp

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-16 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Figure 3.5: ABAG Priority Areas 1

Each of the two cities does have future development potential as described in their respective general plans and zoning ordinances and as listed in Table 3.6 below.

Table 3.6: Potential Future Development Areas in Acres

Project Developable Acres Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan 513 acres Fairfield Train Station Specific Plan 2,972 acres Canon Station Area in Fairfield 1,244 acres ABAG PDA areas for Fairfield 420 acres Suisun City Opportunity Areas Waterfront District Specific Plan in Suisun City 30 acres ABAG PDA for the City of Suisun City - Downtown & Waterfront 291 acres PDA Total 5,470+ acres Fairfield General Plan, 2002; ABAG, Plan Bay Area, Priority Development Area Showcase

The potential for new growth and development on Travis Air Force Base has not been assessed recently. This is a federal military facility and its redevelopment is based on the need of the Air Force to operate securely and it currently employs approximately 14,000 military and civilian personnel. Although the City has no jurisdiction over TAFB, new development there could potentially increase the demand for services from FSSD.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-17 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Findings & Determinations: Growth and Population

1. The Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District (FSSD) provides wastewater, water recycling, and storm water management services to approximately 140,400 residents, plus business and government facilities in central Solano County. 2. FSSD’s enabling legislation defines its service area. The District’s boundaries can expand through city annexation and District boundaries cannot otherwise expand without an action of the State Legislature. FSSD’s 44 square mile service area includes the City of Fairfield, Suisun City, Travis Air Force Base, the unincorporated area of Cordelia, and parts of Suisun Valley. 3. Between the years 2010 to 2040, an additional 46,768 persons are expected to reside within FSSD’s boundaries. This represents an overall 35 percent increase in projected future population at an average annual (compound) growth rate of 1 percent. 4. Though the population and land area for the City of Fairfield has slightly increased from 2010 to 2015, the population per square mile has decreased. This suggests that the City has enough land to accommodate the population growth in 2015 over what was available in 2010.

3.3 DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES

Senate Bill (SB) 244 (Wolk), which became effective in January 2012, requires LAFCO to consider the presence of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) when preparing a MSR that addresses agencies that provide water, wastewater or structural fire protection services. The Wolk Bill created several definitions related to DUCs, in both LAFCO and planning law, including4:

1. “Community” is an inhabited area within a city or county that is comprised of no less than 10 dwellings adjacent to or in close proximity to one another; 2. “Unincorporated fringe community” is any inhabited and unincorporated territory that is within a city’s SOI; 3. “Unincorporated island community” is any inhabited and unincorporated territory that is surrounded or substantially surrounded by one or more cities or by one or more cities and a county boundary or the Pacific Ocean; 4. “Unincorporated legacy community” as a geographically isolated community that is inhabited and has existed for at least 50 years; and

4 State of California, Senate Bill 244 (Wolk Bill) (October 7, 2011).

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-18 Final Wastewater Services MSR 5. “Disadvantaged unincorporated community” is inhabited territory of 12 or more registered voters that constitutes all or a portion of a community with an annual MHI that is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual MHI.

This state legislation is intended to ensure that the needs of these unincorporated communities are met when considering service extensions and/or annexations, in particular, water, wastewater, drainage, and structural fire protection services. Additionally, Solano LAFCO’s policy requires written determinations with respect to the location and characteristics of any DUCs within or contiguous to the Sphere of Influence5. In 2014, the statewide annual median household income (MHI) was $61,933. This yields a DUC threshold MHI of less than $49,546 (80 percent of the statewide MHI). Relevant data were reviewed for the Fairfield Suisun area. To understand the geographic distribution of disadvantaged communities within FSSD’s boundaries, five sources of data were considered: LAFCO data California Department of Water Resources, on-line mapping tool U.S. Census Solano County Housing Assessment and other County data ABAG and MTC Equity Analysis

Disadvantaged Areas within Cities

LAFCO is required to consider the provision of public services to disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs). However, incorporated areas (within the city limits) can sometimes meet the disadvantaged income threshold. Although LAFCO is not required to study the status of disadvantaged neighborhoods that are located within incorporated cities that provide water, wastewater, drainage and structural fire protection services. However, SB 244 required cities to update their land use and housing elements to include an analysis of the water, wastewater, storm water, and structural fire protection services in the area along with financing options to help encourage investment in disadvantaged areas, should it be needed.

Unincorporated Islands Unincorporated Islands are areas that are completely surrounded or substantially surrounded by a City and yet remain under the jurisdiction of Solano County. Partially surrounded islands are those that are surrounded on two or more sides by the City. Suisun does contain one unincorporated island (Tolenas), within its larger, outer boundary. The FSSD is legislatively

5 FSSD does not have a sphere of influence.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-19 Final Wastewater Services MSR limited to which areas they can serve and therefore may not be able to provide services to the unincorporated islands.

Threshold According to the U.S. Census, the median household income (MHI) for the State was $61,933 in 2014 (US Census, ACS, 2010-2014). This yields a DUC threshold MHI of less than $49,546 (80 percent of the statewide MHI) (US Census, 2014; Disadvantaged Communities Mapping Tool). The median household income and relevant data were reviewed for the City of Fairfield area. As of 2014 the median household income (MHI) in the City of Fairfield was estimated to be $81,011 (U.S. Census, 2010-2014). This is significantly higher than the DUC threshold MHI.

The median household income and relevant data were also reviewed for the City of Suisun City. As of 2014 the median household income (MHI) in the City of Suisun city was estimated to be $71,306 (U.S. Census, 2010-2014). This is significantly higher than the DUC threshold MHI.

Because this data reflects values for whole cities, it is possible that there may be unincorporated islands with an MHI that does meet the financial threshold. Therefore additional data sources were explored as described in the following paragraphs.

LAFCO Data LAFCO’s August 8, 2016 staff report identified eight islands in the Fairfield Suisun area as shown in Figure 3.6, below. The eight island areas total approximately 1,411 acres. Five of the island areas are surrounded and three are substantially surrounded. With the exception of Area 2 and Area 7 most areas are less than 150 acres. Area 5 is developed. The two thin areas at the bottom of Area 5 are apparent mapping errors which were omitted when the area was annexed.

Tolenas: Tolenas is Area #2 identified in Figure 3.6, below. It is an unincorporated community located between the City of Fairfield and Suisun City. It is considered an “island” because it is bounded at on the south and west by Suisun City and on the east by Travis Air Force Base (City of Fairfield) and north by the City of Fairfield. Tolenas is 510.52 acres in size and has a population of 488 people living in 163 housing units-(Solano County, 2015 and LAFCO, 2016).

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-20 Final Wastewater Services MSR Figure 3.6: Unincorporated Island Territories from LAFCO

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-21 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Table 3.7: Unincorporated Islands in the Fairfield Suisun Area City Name of APN Current Use – Map Area Acre Unincorporated According to Assessor Fire Sewer Water

Surrounded

1 7.1 FF Divincenzo/Miller 0174-040-040 and 050 Vacant/Light Industrial Vacaville FPD none none Over 200 parcels. Data available from GIS 1 2 510.52 SU Tolenas upon request Rural Residential Suisun FPD none SID Cross/Fairfield Vicinity Vacant Streams and 0037-060-480 and 490 Residential/Manufacturi 3 7.65 FF Covey/Woodruff 0037-160-060 and 040 ng Suisun FPD none SID 0152-031-110 4 2.76 FF 0152-032-010 Gov’t and Miscellaneous Suisun FPD none none 0028-191-010, 020, 040 and 0028-182-020 and Single Family 5 1.43 FF Woolner/Hamilton 150 Residential Suisun FPD none SCWA* Not shown on One 3-bedroom house Figure 3.6 0.24 FF Lopes L Road Island 0180-110-120 built in 1955 Suisun FPD ? SCWA* Partially Surrounded (75%)

003-2010-390 0032-010-250 003-2020-140 6 139.92 FF Data not available 0032-020-040 Agriculture Suisun FPD none none

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-22 Final Wastewater Services MSR

0174110030 0174110050 0174110060 0174110070 0174110110 0174110120 0174120080 0174160250 Range/Watershed/ Misc. 7 668.74 FF Data not available 0174160260 Industrial Suisun FPD none none

8 72.8 FF Old Cordelia 0180090040 Range Cordelia FPD none none

Note: *Area 5 is within the TRA of the Solano County Water Agency. It is not clear whether physical infrastructure has been installed to serve this area. Data Source: Solano LAFCO, August 8, 2016 Staff Report and LAFCO’s 2012 MSR for the City of Fairfield

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-23 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Average lot size in this neighborhood is approximately 15 acres. No indication has been made that the residents wish to annex to a city. The Solano County’s Housing Needs Assessment (2015) identified the Tolenas area as being in need of programs to improve housing conditions. The data for census tracts 2526.10, 2526.11 and 2527.07, presented in Table 3.7, below indicate that the MHI for the community of Tolenas is higher than the DUC income threshold. The community does receive water from the Solano Irrigation District and fire protection from the Suisun Fire Protection District. The residents of Tolenas rely upon septic systems and therefore do not receive service from FSSD.

Woolner/Hamilton: The Woolner/Hamilton is Area #5 as described in Tables 3.7 and 3.8. This area has a MHI of $24,858 and it qualifies as a DUC. The five properties in the Hamilton area are unincorporated and do not receive sewer service from FSSD. Septic tanks are used to store wastewater for future pumping. The small6 parcels sizes may be less than optimal to support the leach fields as listed in Table 3.8. However, since they are existing lots there is no minimum parcel size required by County Environmental Health.

Table 3.8: Parcel Size in Woolner Hamilton Area APN Acres 0028191040 0.40 0028191020 0.19 0028182020 0.18 0028191010 0.19 0028182150 0.44

In the recent past, LAFCO approved an annexation on Hamilton Road. However, the annexation was subsequently not completed by the landowner and therefore did not become effective. In the event of a future septic failure, the property owners might wish to request annexation into the City. If annexation to the City were to occur at some future date, then this area would be added to the FSSD boundary. This neighborhood does not meet the disadvantaged status criteria because there are not 12 or more registered voters.

6 Installation and/or use of septic tanks on residential parcels is regulated by Codes from Solano County and overseen by the Solano County Environmental Health Department. There is no minimum parcel size for use of septic tanks on existing legal lots. However, on existing lots, the septic system must meet setback requirements for streams, creeks, and property wells. On new lots (those newly created by parcel maps or subdivisions) the minimum parcel size is 5 acres for those lots with both a well and a septic system. For those lots using a public water supply and a private septic system, the minimum parcel size is 2.5 acre (personal conversation, Anthony Endo, Solano Co. Env Health on 28Nov2016).

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-24 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Sunset Area: The Sunset area has 2 parcels that are unincorporated (FSSD, 2016c). This neighborhood does not meet the disadvantaged status criteria because there are not 12 or more registered voters.

Four of the unincorporated islands (#1, 3, 5, and not shown Lopes-L Road) do not meet the disadvantaged status criteria because there are not 12 or more registered voters residing in each island. Detailed financial data about average household income is not available at the highly detailed resolution needed for these small areas.

Adjacent to Fairfield The Solano County’s Housing Needs Assessment (2015) identified four unincorporated areas located outside of, but near the City of Fairfield that are in need of programs to improve housing conditions. Although each of four areas are not classified as DUC’s due to their higher MHI, they were carefully evaluated as potential DUCs as part of this MSR. Details are described in the following paragraphs.

Old Cordelia: Old Cordelia is an unincorporated community located west of Fairfield, east of I-680 and south of I- 80. It is shown on Figure 3.6 as Area #8. The townsite of Old Cordelia was established in the late 1800s. The Old Cordelia townsite includes 80 acres located within the City of Fairfield’s urban growth line. Old Cordelia has a population of 220 residents in 64 housing units (2000 U.S. Census). Approximately 28 percent of Old Cordelia residents are under 18 years of age. Additionally 12 percent of households are headed by a female in Old Cordelia compared to 5 percent in the greater Unincorporated Area (Solano County, 2015). Information provided in Solano County’s Housing Needs Assessment indicated this neighborhood could potentially meet disadvantaged criteria. See also Census Tract 2522.02. The Cordelia Fire Protection District provides fire protection services to this community. Domestic water is provided by the Vallejo Lakes System, a public7 water system with its own treatment plant and distribution system. This community has a MHI of $$92,450 which is higher than the DUC threshold criteria.

Green Valley: Green Valley is an unincorporated community located northwest of Fairfield along Green Valley and Rockville roads. It is approximately 850 acres in size. Green Valley contains approximately 1,859 people residing in 759 housing units. About 21 percent of the

7 The Vallejo Lakes System (Lakes System) is a separate public water system with its own treatment plant and distribution system that delivers drinking water to customers residing in the Green Valley, Old Cordelia, Jameson Canyon, Suisun Valley, Willotta Oaks and Gordon Valley areas.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-25 Final Wastewater Services MSR persons are under 18 years of age and seven percent of households are headed by a female8 (Solano County, 2015). Information provided in Solano County’s Housing Needs Assessment indicated this neighborhood could potentially meet disadvantaged criteria; however the US Census reports the MHI ($70,000) is above the DUC financial criteria. See also Census Tract 2522.01.

Rockville: Rockville is an unincorporated community located directly southeast of Green Valley and north of the Fairfield City limits. Specifically it is north of Interstate 80 along Suisun Valley and Rockville Road. Rockville includes a 375 acres area. The community of Rockville is also located outside the urban limit line. The population of Rockville is 243 people residing in 110 housing units. 25 percent of Rockville’s total population is aged 65 years and older. 74 percent of Rockville households own their own home (Solano County, 2015). Information provided in Solano County’s Housing Needs Assessment indicates this neighborhood could potentially meet disadvantaged criteria. However Census Tracts 2522.01 and 2523.05 are reported to have a MHI of $70,000 and $76,192 respectively, which is above the DUC financial criteria. In July 2015, Solano County released a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Woodcreek 66 project9. The Woodcreek project was approved by the Board of Supervisors, but it has not yet been constructed and it has been subject to litigation.

Willotta Oaks: Another unincorporated community is Willotta Oaks consisting of 70 custom ranch homes situated on large lots along on a horseshoe-shaped road. Willotta Oaks is surrounded by the rural farms of the Suisun Valley. The community of Willotta Oaks is also located outside the urban limit line This neighborhood has not been identified as a disadvantaged community.

Data from California Department of Water Resources According the California Department of Water Resources on-line mapping tool10, much of the Fairfield and Suisun area can be considered disadvantaged as shown in Figure 3.7, below.

8 These types of data points are commonly used by housing experts to determine the socio-economic situation of a neighborhood. 9 Woodcreek 66 FEIR at: https://www.solanocounty.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=20799 10 DWR mapping tool is available at: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/dacs/

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-26 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Figure 3.7: DWR DACs 1

The map (right) depicts Disadvantaged Communities Block Groups. This layer is derived from data of the US Census ACS 2010-2014 showing census block groups identified as disadvantaged communities (less than 80% of the State's median household income) or severely disadvantaged communities (less than 60% of the State's median household income). However, U.S. Census Community Block Group data is low resolution and does not provide information on specific neighborhoods. Therefore, more detailed information on socio-economic conditions in relation to the City of Fairfield and the City of Suisun City are provided herein.

Data from ABAG and MTC Equity Analysis ABAG and MTC have prepared a Draft Equity Report as part of the Plan Bay Area 2040. The Draft Equity Report includes a map of a “Community of Concern” in Solano County as shown in Figure 3.8. The “community of concern” represents a diverse cross-section of populations and communities that could be considered disadvantaged or vulnerable due to current conditions and potential impacts of future growth. The communities of concern map shows census tracts that have a concentration of both minority and low-income households at specified thresholds of significance, or that have a concentration of three or more of six additional factors such as people with disability, seniors 75 years and over, and cost-burdened renters.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-27 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Census Data Data from the U.S. Census was utilized to determine whether areas met the criteria to be classified as disadvantaged. According to the U.S. Census, the median household income (MHI) for the State was $61,933 in 2014 (US Census, ACS, 2010-2014). This yields a DUC threshold MHI of less than $49,546 (80 percent of the statewide MHI) (US Census, 2014; Disadvantaged Communities Mapping Tool). A more detailed query of census data was made based upon census tracts and census block groups within and near FSSD’s boundaries. Nine disadvantaged areas have been identified within the City of Fairfield and the City of Suisun City, their SOI, or adjacent areas, as listed in Table 3.9 below.

Table 3.9: Median Household Income in Unincorporated Islands

Median Household Disadvantaged Census Block Income in Block Margin of within Margin of Map Area Census Tract Group Group Error Error

Surrounded 1 2523.17 2 $94,313 29049 No 2 2527.07 3 $76,100 22385 No 3 2526.11 2 $62,632 16174 No 4 2523.06 1 $116,944 26349 No 5 2524.02 5 $24,858 9864 Yes Not shown on Figure 3.7 2522.02 2 $92,450 20919 No

Partially Surrounded (75%) 6 2524.02 2 $69,167 17086 No 7 2527.06 1 $90,667 7082 No 8 2522.02 2 $92,450 20919 No Data Source: US Census, ASC 5-Year Estimates, 2014

Only one block group, associated with Area #5, meets the financial criteria to be classified as disadvantaged and it has a MHI of $24,858. Area 5 in census tract 2524.02 is shown in the map below. Census tracts are shown in Figures 3.9 and 3.10 (next page).

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-28 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Figure 3.9 1

Figure 3.10

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-29 Final Wastewater Services MSR

DUC Summary

Nine unincorporated islands have been identified within the FSSD boundary area. Although, four unincorporated areas located outside of, but near the City of Fairfield, were identified by the Solano County Housing Needs Assessment, these four areas have MHI’s that exceed the threshold criteria and are therefore are not classified as DUCs. Only one (Area #5, Woolner/Hamilton) meets the financial threshold to be classified as disadvantaged.

Although the Woolner/Hamilton is categorized as disadvantaged, it does receive public services from a range of agencies. Specifically, the area receives adequate water, wastewater, and fire protection services. No public health and safety issues have been identified. The geographic extent that FSSD can serve is limited by legislation. Therefore, absent city annexation or other allowed service agreement, FSSD might not be able to serve many of the nine unincorporated islands identified, as shown in Table 3.7.

Findings & Determinations for Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities

5. The According to the U.S. Census, the median household income (MHI) for the State was $61,933 in 2014 (US Census, ACS, 2010-2014). This yields a DUC threshold MHI of less than $49,546 (80 percent of the statewide MHI). As of 2014 the median household income (MHI) in the City of Fairfield was estimated to be $81,011. This is significantly higher than the DUC threshold MHI. The median household income (MHI) in the City of Suisun city was estimated to be $71,306. This is significantly higher than the DUC threshold MHI. 6. Nine unincorporated islands have been identified within the FSSD boundary area as listed in Table 3.7. The MHI for each unincorporated island is listed in Table 3.9 and it shows that Area #5 known as Woolner-Hamilton has a MHI of $24,858, which meets the financial threshold to be classified as a DUC. The Woolner Hamilton area does, however, receive adequate water, wastewater (small septic systems), and fire protection services, as listed in Table 3-7. No public health and safety issues have been identified. 7. The FSSD is legislatively limited to which areas they can serve and therefore may not be able to provide services to the unincorporated islands.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-30 Final Wastewater Services MSR

3.4: PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES

Service Overview The District provides the following public services: Wastewater collection and treatment, and disposal water recycling, and storm drainage

Wastewater Service FSSD provides wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal to the 140,400 residents and workers located within its boundary and contractual service areas. The collection system works in conjunction with three “satellite collection systems” that consist of the City of Fairfield, Travis Air Force Base, and the City of Suisun City. In general, local collection pipes (gravity sewers) less than 12-inches in diameter are owned and managed by the individual satellite collection system agencies. Sewers 12-inches in diameter and larger are owned and managed by the District. Wastewater treatment is managed at the District owned and operated wastewater treatment plant that serves Fairfield, Suisun City, and Travis Air Force Base. Wastewater undergoes a multi-step treatment process at the central facility and is then discharged into Boynton Slough, or recycled for irrigation. The District is located within the Suisun Hydrologic Basin and surface water discharge is directed towards Suisun Marsh. Further detail about the collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater is provided in the Facilities (next) section of this MSR. The District approved a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) in 2013 that guides the proper management, operation, and maintenance of all parts of the FSSD sanitary sewer system under its control. The SSMP aims to reduce and prevent sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and mitigate SSOs if they occur. The 2013 SSMP is available in the District office (FSSD, 2013).

Wastewater Service Facilities Collection System Infrastructure FSSD’s collection system consists of 70 miles of sewer pipes sized between 12 to 48 inches in diameter and 13 pump stations. The collection system connects the wastewater sources to the District’s Wastewater Treatment Plant. FSSD actively manages its District-wide collection system and its system functions in conjunction with three “satellite collection systems” that consist of the City of Fairfield, Travis Air Force Base, and the City of Suisun City. The satellite collection systems collect the wastewater and forward it to FSSD for treatment and disposal. In general, pipelines (gravity sewers) less than 12-inch in size are owned and managed by the

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-31 Final Wastewater Services MSR individual satellite collection system. The collection systems in the cities are described in LAFCO’s Municipal Service Review for Suisun City (2016) and for the City of Fairfield (2012).

FSSD collects wastewater from 54,000 separate sewer connections that ultimately serve 140,400 residents in Fairfield and Suisun City. One FSSD connection can potentially serve many individual customers. For example, Travis AFB is “one” connection. FSSD works closely with its sister agencies that also provide “collection” service including the City of Fairfield and Suisun City. Most residential customers connect to the sewer via their City sewage collection system, rather than FSSD. The largest institutional/business users of the system include the Travis Air Force Base and industrial scale food and beverage companies such as Anheuser- Busch InBev, and Sunnyside Farms.

FSSD has thirteen pump stations, as listed below, that all contribute to the operation of the collection system. The District’s pump stations, forcemains, and related equipment are operated and maintained by the District’s Collection System Crew. The Collections Crew is responsible for preventive, corrective, and predictive maintenance of pump stations and associated forcemains. The Inlet Pump Station is located on the treatment plant site and is considered part of the treatment plant; this station is maintained by the treatment plant mechanics.

Pump Stations The pumping capacity of each of the thirteen pump station is listed in Table 3.10, below.

Table 3.10: Pump Station Flows Pumping Pump Station Location Capacity Name (MGD) Central South of Illinois Street, east of Pennsylvania Avenue, Fairfield 32.9 Cordelia Cordelia Road near Pittman Road, Fairfield 11.8 CBC Cordelia Road near Beck Street, Suisun City 5.8 Crystal Crystal Street, Suisun City 0.5 Grobric Grobric Court, Fairfield 0.1 Inlet WWTP Site 18.5 Kaiser Kaiser Drive, Fairfield 0.6 Lawler Ranch 1 Anderson Drive, Suisun City 0.4 Lawler Ranch 2 Lawler Ranch Parkway, Suisun City 1.1 Lopes Road Lopes Road, Fairfield 3.0 Rancho Solano #3 Pebble Beach Circle, Fairfield 0.4 Rancho Solano #5 Pebble Beach Circle, Fairfield 0.1 Suisun South End of Civic Center Dr, Suisun City 26.4 Source: Provided by Kevin Cullen, FSSD, October 2015 to LAFCO

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-32 Final Wastewater Services MSR

A significant amount of flow that routes through Suisun Pump Station originates in Fairfield. The Suisun Pump has a lower elevation and the flow moves downhill.

Treatment System Facilities Wastewater is collected in the FSSD collection system and then pumped from four major pump stations, to the Fairfield-Suisun Subregional Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), located on 150 acres at 1010 Chadbourne Road in Fairfield. The WWTP provides advanced secondary treatment. The WWTP was originally built in 1974 and it underwent major renovations and expansions in 1982, 1987, and 1989. Additional improvements were completed in the summer of 2010 with an expansion project to increase the plant’s capacity from 17.5 to 23.7 mgd average dry weather flow (ADWF) (Fairfield, 2010; LAFCO, 2016; and FSSD comments on Admin Draft MSR Dec2016).

The plant provides advanced secondary treatment which is described in detail in the District’s brochure provided in Appendix A-2. The treatment process begins with influent screening and grit removal, and primary clarification as shown in Figure 3.11 (next page). The next steps in the treatment process include optional fixed film roughing filters and intermediate clarification, biological activated sludge, and secondary clarification. The last steps in the treatment process include dual-media filtration and ultraviolet light (UV) disinfection. During wet weather, the plant uses additional facilities including a 111 MG equalization storage basin with optional comminution. FSSD’s WWTP provides advanced secondary treatment of wastewater flows up to the 20-year design storm event (SFRWQCB, 2015).

Permitting The State Water Resources Control Board has jurisdiction throughout California. Created by the State Legislature in 1967, the Board protects water quality by setting statewide policy, coordinating and supporting the Regional Water Board efforts, and reviewing petitions that contest Regional Board actions. There are nine regional water quality control boards that exercise rulemaking and regulatory activities by basins. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB) regulates water quality, including issuance of discharge permits for the Fairfield Suisun Sewer District.

Municipal wastewater treatment plants are classified as major point-source discharges. The SFRWQCB also issues and monitors enforcement actions when water quality standards are violated. Records indicate that overall FSSD has effectively secured needed permits for the WWTP and disposal and has completed its monitoring requirement. The RWQCB has taken informal enforcement actions with the FSSD only a few times. The most recently, in 2007, the

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-33 Final Wastewater Services MSR

RWQCB issued a fine/citation for chlorine, coliform, and pH violations occurring since 2003. (FSSD, 2016c).

The treatment plant currently operates under Wastewater Discharge Permit Order No. R2-2015- 0013 (NPDES No. CA0038024), allowing discharge of treated effluent. At the WWTP, a variety of water quality constituents are sampled and monitored consistent with permits from the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB). The constituents monitored include biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and total suspended solids (TSS), oil and grease, pH, ammonia (as total nitrogen), turbidity, copper, cyanide, and dioxin-TEQ (SFRWQCB, 2015).

Table 3.12: Summary of FSSD Permits from State Water Board Permit # Description ORDER No. R2-2015-0013 Current valid permit NPDES Permit No. Current permit pursuant to National Pollutant CA0038024. Discharge Elimination System NPDES Permit Nos. Valid permits. Establish requirements on mercury CA0038849 and CA0038873 and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and nutrients from wastewater discharges to San Francisco Bay. Order No. R2-2015-0013 does not affect those permits.

In September 2013, FSSD experienced an exceedance of its copper average monthly effluent limitation (AMEL) of 7.9 µg/L with a monthly average concentration of 8.4 µg/L. This incident represents a minor violation (based on a single sample collected on September 4, 2013) of water quality regulations. The Regional Water Board required FSSD to submit additional information and addressed the issue using informal processes (SFRWQCB, 2015). The SFRWQCB also notes that FSSD neglected to properly monitor pH on two occasions, from April 2 through April 3, 2011, and on April 8, 2011, due to operator error. FSSD took proactive steps to correct the problem and formal enforcement was not pursued (SFRWQCB, 2015).

Table 3.13 below lists sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) rates (total SSOs per 100 miles of collection system for each of the past four years) that FSSD has experienced. FSSD had no SSOs in 2011, 2012, and 2014, and two SSOs in 2013, neither of which reached surface waters. FSSD has fewer SSOs as compared to similar sewer districts in the San Francisco Bay region. This demonstrates FSSD’s successful and on-going attention to the prevention of blockages, inflows, and malfunctions and this results in safeguarding human and environmental health.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-34 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Table 3.13: SSO Rates (total SSOs/100 miles of sewer) (based on CIWQS data analysis completed in February 2015) Length Average Age 2011 2012 2013 2014 Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 83 miles 35 years 0 0 2.4 0

Solano County median of 2 medium 84 miles 33 years 0.7 1.3 2.5 0.6 systems (10 to 99 miles)

San Francisco Bay median of 49 medium 38 miles 42 years 5.9 9.3 12 6.3 systems (10 to 99 miles)

San Francisco Bay Region median of all 132 41 miles 45 years 4.0 4.6 4.5 2.7 systems Data Source: SFRWQCB, 2015 (Order No. R2-2015-0013)

Proposed Improvements to WWTP FSSD’s 2008 Master Plan and Master Plan EIR describes proposed improvements to the collection system and treatment plant needed to accommodate planned development within the FSSD service area through 2020. Improvements relate to expanding the WWTP and associated infrastructure to increase the rated capacity, including construction of a new 15 inch sewer in the central portion of the Train Station Specific Plan Area along Vanden Road; a new 15-inch pipeline down Peabody Road; and a 21-inch sewer pipeline along Huntington Drive. Additionally, a new pipe along East Tabor Road is Figure 3.11 also proposed. (FSSD 2005, Fairfield, 2010).

New Development The Train Station Specific Plan within the City of Fairfield would result in the development of new uses that would require wastewater collection and treatment. Wastewater flows from the Train Station Specific Plan Area are estimated to range from approximately 3.65 mgd for average dry weather flows to as high as approximately 5.3 mgd for peak wet weather design

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-35 Final Wastewater Services MSR

flow, as calculated using FSSD design standards (Fairfield, 2010). The Train Station Specific Plan Area will be larger than anticipated in FSSD’s 2008 Master Plan. The Train Station Specific Plan recognized that implementation of the Specific Plan could result in additional wastewater flows to the WWTP that were not previously accounted for and additional improvements to District owned facilities may be needed (Fairfield, 201011). The developer will work with FSSD to address this issue.

Summary There are several measures of integrity for a wastewater collection system, including peaking factors, efforts to address infiltration and inflow (I/I), and inspection practices. FSSD’s capital improvement plan considers these factors. Wastewater flow from connections can be estimated based on use of treated municipal (potable) water supplied to various land-uses as measured with water meters. Water conservation programs can effectively reduce the amount of flow into the FSSD collection system during dry weather.

11 Data source: DEIR on Fairfield Train Station Specific Plan page 4.15-21 to 4.15-23. Available on-line at: http://www.fairfield.ca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=6527

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-36 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Table 3.11: Summary of FSSD WWTP Capacity Facility Permitted Flow 23.7 MGD average dry weather flow Facility Design Flow 23.7 MGD – average daily dry weather effluent design flow Actual Average Daily Flow: 12.2 MGD Source: SFRWQCB, 2015 and Appendix A-2, (http://www.fssd.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/District- Brochure-_Publisher_ed.5.pdf ) **Note: Numbers in this table are preliminary and subject to change.

Disposal System Infrastructure

After treatment at the WWTP, the disinfected effluent is either recycled or discharged to Boynton Slough, with intermittent discharges to two duck ponds and Ledgewood Creek. 90% of the effluent is discharged to the Suisun Marsh12. The remaining 10% of effluent is recycled (FSSD, 2016c).

Biosolids Residuals are produced as a result of sewage treatment. The residuals are concentrated and anaerobically digested. After digestion, these residual, also referred to as ‘biosolids’ are dewatered either via mechanical means or via an open-air solar drying bed/lagoon. In the past (i.e. prior to October 2016) the resulting biosolids were transported to Potrero Hills Landfill for use as alternative daily cover (SFRWQCB, 2015). Recently, FSSD entered into an agreement with Lytsek International whereby Lystek processes the resulting biosolids into a biofertilizer called LysteGro and provides it for application to agriculture lands. Lystek leases a small site from the Fairfield Suisun Sewer District in a public-private partnership for the Organic Material Recovery Center. The Lystek hydrolysis process diverts biosolids from the landfill. The technology can be used to produce biogas for use as green energy by the FSSD. This system presents sustainable, year-round organics management for the Bay Area.

Wastewater Supply/Demand

Supply and demand for water and sewer districts are typically influenced by population numbers and land-use. Additionally, new development occurring within the District could result in an increase in the demand for these services and the need for additional infrastructure.

12 In 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the SFRWQCB recommended two best management practices (BMP) regarding the discharge of FSSD wastewater in to Suisun Marsh. These BMP’s are guidelines prepared as part of development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study (EPA and SFRWQCB, 2013) FSSD works with the Solano Resource Conservation District to coordinate effluent releases to the managed wetlands.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-37 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Prolonged drought and associated water conservation measures can also result in reduced inflow into the FSSD collection and treatment systems.

Factors that can influence the District’s ability to provide wastewater service to customers include treatment plant capacity and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations. The District upgraded its WWTP and construction was completed in 2010. FSSD’s infrastructure has been designed to accommodate growth within the two cities. As Fairfield and Suisun City update their General Plan, FSSD utilizes this data to predict future growth rates etc. (FSSD, 2016). FSSD estimates that the population served will grow over the next five years at an average of 1 percent. This is generally consistent with the project growth rate from ABAG shown in Table 3.4 as 1.02 percent.

Figure 3.13, below shows the historic and recent capacity of the WWTP as measured by average annual dry weather flow.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-38 Final Wastewater Services MSR

In 2008 FSSD prepared a Sewer System Master Plan that described improvements to the District’s collection, treatment, and disposal system through the year 2020. Since wastewater flows have not changed substantially since 2008 due to the drought and the recession, the Master Plan has not been updated. A limited update to the 2008 Master Plan is expected in 2017 (FSSD, 2016).

Although FSSD’s collection, treatment, and disposal infrastructure is generally sized to accommodate the anticipated growth for the next five to ten years, incremental planning on a project-by-project basis remains necessary. This also requires close coordination between FSSD and the cities. For example, when a new residential neighborhood is constructed within a city, the private developer typically builds the sewer pipeline collection system, sized only to serve the specific new neighborhood. Management and maintenance of these pipelines is typically specified in the project conditions of approval and could include: 1) maintenance by private HOA, 2) transfer of ownership/maintenance to the City or 3) transfer of ownership/maintenance to the FSSD (FSSD, 2016c). For example, within the City of Fairfield, the Fairfield Train Station Specific Plan has noted that both the Suisun and Central Basins pump stations do not currently have the physical capacity to accommodate planned growth east of Peabody Road, which includes most of the Specific Plan Area. However, the Master Plans and the District budget include projects that provide additional capacity to accommodate the planned growth. For all new annexations in the area, the City of Fairfield requires developers to prepare sewer master plans to indicate how growth will be accommodated (Fairfield, 2010).

Water Recycling

Operating under approval from the state of California, the District recycles treated water derived from its Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The WWTP produces disinfected advanced secondary treated effluent. The resulting

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-39 Final Wastewater Services MSR effluent is either discharged to surface waters or discharged to land as recycled water. The District has produced and managed the use of recycled water consistent with its permit (General Order No. 96-011) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board since 1978. The FSSD Water Recycling Program produced approximately 430 million gallons of recycled water in 2015 (FSSD, 2016a).

Currently, recycled water produced at the FSSD WWTP is delivered to farms adjacent to the WWTP for crop irrigation, and also to a tank near the WWTP entrance. Recycled water is trucked from this tank to the Potrero Hills landfill in Suisun City, where it is used for dust control (FSSD, 2016a).

Approximately 5 to10 percent of the plant’s treated effluent is recycled for agricultural and landscape irrigation. Water recycling is regulated for water quality purposes by Regional Water Board Order No. 96-011. Monitoring of water quality is performed by FSSD. No recycled water violations were noted in 2015 (FSSD, 2016a). Based on studies it has conducted, FSSD believes that all existing and currently projected recycled water demands can be met under the existing capacity of the WWTP (FSSD, 2016a).

It should be noted that CA Government Code Section 56133 indicates that a district “may provide new or extended services by contract or agreement outside its jurisdictional boundary only if it first requests and receives written approval from the commission.” The Government Code allows exemptions to the requirement to obtain LAFCO approval for situations involving: • (2) The transfer of nonpotable or nontreated water. • (3) The provision of surplus water to agricultural lands and facilities

FSSD treats and recycles the water resulting from its wastewater treatment process and delivers this recycled water to customers located outside FSSD boundaries. This service meets the above Government Code Section 56133(e) (2) exemption because the recycled water is “nonpotable” and is “surplus water” used on “agricultural lands”.

Water Recycling Facilities Ten percent of the effluent resulting from the WWTP is utilized as recycled water. If recycled water distribution is to increase in the future, then construction of additional facilities may be necessary. FSSD’s annual planning can address future infrastructure needs for their water recycling program.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-40 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Storm Drainage

Floods have occurred in the Fairfield Suisun area in 1973, 1978, and 1982. The January 1982 flood was particularly large, bringing storm water up to six feet in depth to the area. Creeks prone to flooding include Ledgewood Creek, Pennsylvania Avenue Creek, Union Avenue Creek, Laurel Creek, and McCoy Creek (USACOE, 2005). To protect their community from future flooding, the Cities of Fairfield and Suisun City partnered with the US Army Corps of Engineers and the California Reclamation Board on a comprehensive flood control plan known as the “Fairfield Vicinity Streams Project” which included construction of new bridges, recreational facilities, channel revegetation, improvements to two detention basins, and creation of diversion channels and drop structures. Through the Fairfield Vicinity Streams Project, the City of Fairfield actively acquired the right-of-way needed for creek improvements. Then, Fairfield collaborated with the Army Corps and the Reclamation Board to execute the Local Cooperation Agreement on June 3, 1986. After the project was completed by USACOE, it was transferred to its local sponsors for operation and maintenance (USACOE, 2005) and the result is the March 1, 1988 "Drainage Maintenance Agreement" among the Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District, the City of Fairfield, and the City of Suisun City. This agreement provided a mechanism for funding the maintenance of the "Fairfield Streams" federal flood control project which serves both cities. Although the District does not own any storm drainage facilities, it is authorized by statute to provide storm drainage services. The District created a storm drainage maintenance enterprise fund and established fees for users of the system which are collected on the county tax roll each year. Revenues are shared by the cities and the District for flood control activities. Currently, the District assists the cities by overseeing the Urban Runoff Management Program, and operating and maintaining city-owned stormwater pumping stations. Annual rates remained unchanged at $20.23 per residence. Total annual revenues collected for Drainage Maintenance Fund is approximately $1.5 million each year.

Although the District’s enabling legislation allows FSSD to provide storm water services and storm water collection, outfall and disposal system (Article 4, Section 42), its role is contractual

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-41 Final Wastewater Services MSR

between the District, the City of Fairfield, and Suisun City. The District has a staff position dedicated to coordinating storm water management with the two cities. FSSD’s technical staff provides advice and expertise related to storm water regulatory compliance and permits (FSSD, 2016c). The storm water system is not connected to FSSD’s wastewater system; the systems are separate. Each of the two collaborating cities have their own policies and plans. The two cities also own the storm water infrastructure (FSSD, 2016c).

The 150 acre WWTP site also generates its own storm water. Storm water originating on the plant’s grounds is directed offsite and regulated under the statewide Industrial Storm Water Permit (NPDES General Permit No. CAS000001).

Adequacy and Challenges in Provision of Service and Infrastructure

The biggest challenges identified regarding FSSD’s provision public of services including sewage collection, treatment, disposal, water recycling, storm drainage management are as follows: Addressing anticipated future regulations dealing with nutrient loads of water discharged into the San Francisco Bay, and Supporting the restoration of Suisun Marsh and participation in the implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) best management practices (EPA and SFRWQCB, 2013).

In order to continue the adequate provision of public service and infrastructure, FSSD utilizes several best management practices. Best management practices are defined as methods or techniques found to be the most effective and practical means in achieving an objective (such as minimizing pollution) while making optimal use of the District’s resources. Some of the FSSD’s best management practices are incorporated into its 2008 Master Plan. Additionally, FSSD stays updated on innovations in the wastewater industry. For example, FSSD was recognized by a consortium of national water and wastewater associations, including National

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-42 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) as a “Utility of the Future”. One specific best practice is that FSSD stays updated regarding the status of City of Fairfield and Suisun City General Plans (FSSD, 2016c).

FSSD’s innovative use of renewable energy associated with wastewater treatment demonstrates that it has already implemented several of the management practices which highlights ongoing good work at the local level to save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The challenges faced by FSSD and described above are indicative of an agency that functions in a multi-jurisdictional environment and this contributes to the complexity of situations that FSSD faces. The agencies that FSSD works productively with are numerous. Key players include the City of Fairfield, City of Suisun City, Solano County, Solano LAFCO, the SFRWQCB, and stakeholders in Suisun Marsh. FSSD, like other wastewater providers in the San Francisco Bay Area, faces several challenges and is actively working to address those challenges.

Findings & Determinations: Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities 8. FSSD collects wastewater from approximately 54,000 sewer connections that serve 140,400 residents in Fairfield and Suisun City. One FSSD connection can potentially serve many individual customers. For example, Travis AFB is “one” connection. Most residential customers connect to the City-owned collection lines for sewer, not FSSD. 9. The facilities and infrastructure on which FSSD depends have variable ages. FSSD replaces and repairs infrastructure on a regular basis. FSSD has implemented collection system BMPs and addresses preventative maintenance and scheduled replacement of aging infrastructure. 10. FSSD owns and operates its wastewater collection system which connects to its WWTP. The FSSD system functions with the satellite collection systems owned and operated by the Cities of Fairfield and Suisun City and Travis Air Force Base. Each entity has adopted a Sewer System Management Plan. 11. FSSD’s recent capacity upgrades (such as the Suisun Pump Station upgrades) demonstrate its continued investment in the system. 12. Actual flow is significantly less than design capacity, hence the WWTP has adequate capacity to accommodate existing customers. 13. FSSD has fewer sanitary sewer overflows as compared to similar sewer districts in the San Francisco Bay region as shown in Table 3.13. This demonstrates FSSD’s successful

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-43 Final Wastewater Services MSR

and on-going attention to the prevention of blockages, inflows, and malfunctions and this results in safeguarding human and environmental health. 14. FSSD has contracted with private company (Lystek) to develop innovative methods and beneficial uses for biosolids that result from the WWTP. 15. Generally, new development occurring within the District could result in an increase in the demand for sewer services and the need for additional infrastructure. For example, the implementation of the City of Fairfield Train Station Specific Plan could result in additional wastewater flows to the WWTP that were not previously accounted for and additional improvements to District owned facilities may be needed. 16. Similar to other sanitation districts, FSSD faces challenges regarding the provision public of services including sewage collection, treatment, disposal, water recycling, and storm drainage management. Challenges include addressing anticipated future regulations dealing with nutrient discharges, and supporting the restoration of Suisun Marsh with the implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL). The challenges faced by FSSD are indicative of an agency that functions in a multi-jurisdictional environment and this contributes to the complexity of situations that FSSD faces. 17. FSSD’s innovative use of renewable energy to offset the electricity cost associated with wastewater treatment demonstrates that it has already implemented several management practices which highlights the ongoing work at the local level to save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

3.5: FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES

Financing

In California, special districts are classified as enterprise or non-enterprise districts, based on their source of revenue: Enterprise districts: Finance of district operations is via fees for public service. Under this model, the customers that consume goods or services such as drinking or irrigation water, waste disposal, or electricity, pay a fee. Rates are set by a governing board and there is a nexus between the costs of providing services and the rates customers pay. Sometimes enterprise district may also receive property taxes which comprise a portion of their budget. ( FSSD does not receive property tax revenue.) Non-enterprise districts: Districts which receive property taxes are typically classified as non-enterprise districts. Services that indirectly benefit the entire community, such as flood or fire protection, community centers, and cemetery districts are often funded through property taxes.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-44 Final Wastewater Services MSR

FSSD is an enterprise district, since most of the revenue come from the rates charged for service. Budgets are adopted in public meetings on a biennial basis. The District prepares and approves a biennial budget, along with a ten-year financial plan. Budget status updates are is presented to the Board of Directors in non-budget years. The District’s finances are managed as enterprise funds. The fiscal year begins on July 1 and ends on June 30. Budgets for recent years are available to the public via the District’s website13. Copies of financial audits are available upon request from District staff. FSSD has one budget policy which it describes in its annual budget as the 2005 policy on Major Maintenance/Replacement Reserve, where an average 1% of plant replacement cost over a 10-year period is reserved. These contributions help the District accumulate sufficient reserves for infrastructure maintenance and replacement (FSSD Budget, 2015). FSSD does not appear to have an adopted management and budget policy which addresses budget preparation, fixed asset accounting, investment of funds, and expense authorization. It is recommended that prior to preparation of the next MSR, FSSD should adopt a policy which addresses budget preparation, fixed asset accounting, investment of funds, and expense authorization and share this policy with LAFCO.

FSSD's financial statements are prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is responsible for establishing GAAP for state and local governments through its statements and interpretations. The District uses the accrual basis of accounting (FSSD, CAFR, 2015). The most recent independent auditor’s report was prepared for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014/2015 and dated September 29, 2015, and was attached to the District’s Financial Statements. The audit found that there were no issues of noncompliance on financial matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards (Chavan & Associates, 2015). Table 3.14: Financial Performance Indicators

MSR Key Performance Indicators Notes

Summary financial information presented in a standard format and Yes, in budget and CAFR simple language. Reserve funds and their purpose Described in biennual budget

District policy on the accumulation and use of reserves

Plans for the future, including anticipated revenues, expenditures, Described in biennial budget reserves, and trends in user rates Rates Adopted via Ordinance

13 FSSD budget is available at: http://www.fssd.com/budget-and-financial-plan/

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-45 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Revenues

FSSD has two basic types of revenue:

Operating revenues consist primarily of charges for services. Non-operating revenues and expenses are related to financing and investing type activities

The District primarily receives revenue as fees for service. Sources of revenue include: wastewater service charges, drainage fees, and capacity fees. The District receives no property tax revenues. FSSD also receives interest income which is a non-operating source of revenue.

California’s drought and water conservation efforts during years 2010 to 2015 resulted in reduced flows to the wastewater treatment plant. The reduced wastewater flow resulted in reduced sewer service revenue (FSSD CAFR, 2015). Revenues received from commercial and industrial customers comprise 23% of the total sewer service charges (FSSD CAFR, 2015). The District charges a new connection fee when new homes are built that need to connect to the system. On commercial properties, a change of use may trigger a new connection fee if additional sewer use is needed. [Connection fee revenue is trending upward, which is a sign of increased real estate development activities. For example, a restaurant at a shopping center that is leased or sold may be required pay connection fees for the additional sewer use (FSSD CAFR, 2015). Total operating revenues increased by 8% and capacity fees increased by 19% in FY 14/15. In FY 14/15, charges for wastewater service represented 93% of FSSD’s revenue as shown in Figure 3.14 and Table 3.15, below. Drainage fees represented 6 percent and other misc. revenue was one percent. The amount of interest income is so small (less than one percent) it is not visible on Figure 3.14.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-46 Final Wastewater Services MSR Table 3.15: FSSD’s Schedule 2 Condensed Statements of Revenues Last Ten Fiscal Years ($000)

Fiscal Year Ended June 30,

2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 Revenues: Service charges $ 23,067 $ 20,881 $ 19,445 $ 19,115 $ 18,895 $ 18,014 $ 16,960 $ 16,998 $ 16,368 $ 15,960 Drainage fees 1,545 1,501 1,491 1,486 1,455 1,468 1,462 1,470 1,410 1,375 Interest income 61 50 50 52 72 157 589 1,848 2,930 2,110 Other (1) 219 596 178 248 97 316 39 250 877 9 Capacity fees 3,157 2,647 2,472 1,405 1,223 990 979 943 3,767 5,383

Total revenues 28,049 25,675 23,636 22,306 21,742 20,945 20,029 21,509 25,352 24,837

Source: District Audited Financial Statements, 2015

Figure 3.14: FSSD Revenue, 2015 Service charges Drainage fees Interest income Other (1) 0% 1%

93%

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-47 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Expenses

In FY 14/15, total expenses (including depreciation, interest expense, and net of pension expense adjustment) were almost $24 million which represents a 0.4 percent decrease from FY 13/14 as shown in Table 3.16. Expenses associated with business operations were the largest category, representing 53% of total expenses as shown in Figure 3.15. Overall expenses for FY 14/15 remained relatively unchanged from the previous year. The increase in business operations, general and administrative, and billing and collection, were offset by the decrease in depreciation and interest expense. Interest expense continues to decline as debt obligation nears maturity and the 2010 Sewer Revenue Refunding matures in 2016. Table 3.16, below, lists operating expenses include the cost of providing and delivering services, administrative expenses, and depreciation on capital assets. All other expenses are classified as non-operating expenses.

Source: FSSD CAFR, 2015

Figure 3.15: FSSD Expenses 2015

Interest expense 2%

Depreciation 23% Billing and collection Business 2% operations 53% General and administrative 8% Sewer line maintenance 12%

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-48 Final Wastewater Services MSR Table 3.16: FSSD’s Schedule 2 Condensed Statements of Expenses, and Changes in Net Position Last Ten Fiscal Years ($000)

Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

Expenses: Business operations 12,677 12,354 11,500 12,685 12,068 12,351 11,603 11,999 11,413 12,835 Sewer line maintenance 2,836 2,890 2,797 2,780 2,663 2,384 2,503 2,362 2,088 1,983 General and administrative 1,904 1,872 2,038 2,592 1,711 1,821 1,985 3,073 3,065 2,989 Billing and collection 528 511 493 474 459 446 476 427 406 388 Interest expense 489 526 606 655 403 767 833 1,183 1,129 1,275 Depreciation 5,370 5,736 5,807 6,892 6,644 5,799 4,600 3,948 3,703 3,657

Total expenses 23,804 23,889 23,241 26,078 23,948 23,568 22,000 22,992 21,804 23,127

Change in net position 4,245 1,786 395 (3,772) (2,206) (2,623) (1,971) (1,483) 3,548 1,710

Net position, beginning of period 83,899 82,113 81,718 85,490 87,696 90,319 92,290 93,773 90,225 88,515 Prior period adjustment, GASB 68 (4,343) ------

Net position, as restated 79,556 82,113 81,718 85,490 87,696 90,319 92,290 93,773 90,225 88,515

Net position, end of period $ 83,801 $ 83,899 $ 82,113 $ 81,718 $ 85,490 $ 87,696 $ 90,319 $ 92,290 $ 93,773 $ 90,225

(1) Includes net increase (decrease) in fair value of investments

Source: District Audited Financial Statements, 2015

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-49 Final Wastewater Services MSR

A comparison of annual total revenue to total expenses, as provided in Figure 3.16 below, shows that annual expenses exceeded revenues in half of the ten year study period (i.e. 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, and 2008). The expenses were used to fund capital improvement projects. Revenues hit a low point during the years 2008 to 2011. This indicates that having sufficient reserve funds is important to FSSD to help it weather the economically lean years. Please also see the discussion of rates presented on page 3-59 of this MSR.

Figure 3.16: FSSD Revenues and Expenses 30,000,000

25,000,000

20,000,000

15,000,000 U.S. $ 10,000,000 Revenues Expenses 5,000,000

0 15 14 13 12 11 10 O9 O8 O7 O6

Fiscal Year Data Source: FSSD, CAFR Schedule 2, 2015

Capital Improvement Plan

The District lists upcoming capital improvement projects as line items in the budget’s Schedule 4 Projects. Anticipated capital improvement projects include: Blower Project funded via SRF Loan Cordelia Pump Station Northeast Fairfield P.S. Peabody Walters S-245A Aeration System Rehab Suisun Force main Alignment (Data Source: FSSD, 2015)

These improvement projects are expected to be completed within the next ten years (through year 2025). New construction projects over $45,000 are individually approved by the Board. Additionally, Schedule 4 lists several studies that will be completed in upcoming years including capacity analyses, new development review/inspection, connection fee study, safety, information systems, project planning, sewer service rate study, community outreach upgrade,

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-50 Final Wastewater Services MSR

and a compensation survey. These studies are expected to be completed within the next ten years (through year 2025).

Reserves

In California, many independent special districts have accumulated reserves. There are no standards guiding the size and use of reserve funds. Reserve and investment policies and practices could be improved through the establishment of guidelines and enhanced scrutiny.

FSSD’s long-term financial plan is used is in conjunction with the District’s Master Plan to facilitate build-up of reserve funds for use on major expansion projects without accumulating a high debt load. FSSD’s 2005 policy on Major Maintenance/Replacement Reserve allows an average 1% of plant replacement cost over a 10-year period is reserved. These contributions help the District accumulate sufficient reserves for infrastructure maintenance and replacement (FSSD Budget, 2015). FSSD has over $17 million in reserves/investments as detailed in Tables 3.17 and 3.18, below.

Table 3.17: FSSD Reserve Funds

Name of Reserve Fund Designated Use of Reserve $ Amount in Fund Fund

Major Maintenance Sewer collection, treatment, Approximately $4,121,000 as Reserve Fund disposal infrastructure. described in FY 15/16 and 16/17 Maintenance and biennial budgets. Likely held in replacement. Future plant investments as detailed below. upgrades

Capital Reserve Making cash contributions to Approximately $275,000 as capital projects and making described in FY 15/16 and 16/17 debt service payments biennial budgets. Likely held in investments as detailed below.

Operating Reserve $3,325,000 as described in FY 15/16 and 16/17 biennial budgets. Likely held in investments as detailed below.

Drainage Major Reserve for unanticipated $373,000 as described in FY 15/16 Maintenance Reserve cost increases in maintenance and 16/17 biennial budgets. projects Likely held in investments as detailed below.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-51 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Drainage Capital Reserve accumulated for $80,000 as described in FY 15/16 Reserve capital projects to the extent and 16/17 biennial budgets. there is available revenue. Likely held in investments as detailed below.

Drainage Desilting $216,000 as described in FY 15/16 Reserve and 16/17 biennial budgets. Likely held in investments as detailed below.

Drainage Operations Reserve accumulated for $150,000 as described in FY 15/16 Reserve unexpected operations and 16/17 biennial budgets. expense. Likely held in investments as detailed below.

Debt Service Reserve Funds

State Revolving Fund Funds held by the bond $737,038 per FSSD CAFR 2015 reserve for debt service trustee for debt service reserve

2010 Refunding Funds held by the bond $1.3 million per FSSD CAFR Revenue Bonds debt trustee for debt service 2015 service reserve reserve

Data Source: (FSSD CAFR, 2015 and FSSD Budget FY 15/16 and 16/17).

Major Maintenance Reserve: This reserve funds major maintenance and repairs, upgrades, and eventual replacement of the treatment plant and sewer system. A 2005 Board adopted policy on contributions to the Major Maintenance and Replacement Reserve calls for a minimum of 1.0% of plant replacement cost to be contributed to the reserve each year that net income allows.

Capital Reserve: This reserve accumulates annual net revenues for two purposes: making cash contributions to capital projects and making debt service payments if capacity fee shortages are experienced. Balances are periodically built up, then, subsequently drawn down to pay for sewer and treatment plant expansion projects.

Debt Service Reserve: Funds are held in debt service reserve by the bond trustee for debt service purposes. The bond reserve of $1.4 million will become available to the District in 2016 when the bond matures, and will be used for final payment. FSSD established the debt service reserve account in November 2011, in compliance with the State Revolving Fund loan

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-52 Final Wastewater Services MSR

agreement. The Major Maintenance Fund is used to fund this reserve and it is not available to the District until the loan is paid in full in 2031.

Reserve funds are allowed to be invested as authorized by the California Government Code and the District’s Investment Policy. FSSD maintains the following investments: U.S. Treasury Obligations U.S. Agency Securities State of California Obligations Bankers Acceptances Commercial Paper Medium Term Corporate Notes Mortgage Pass-Through Securities Repurchase Agreements Reverse Repurchase Agreements Negotiable Certificates of Deposit California Local Agency Investment Fund Mutual Funds Money Market Mutual Funds As shown in Table 3.17, below, FSSD has over $16 million in several investment types including U.S. Treasuries, CA Local Agency Investment Fund, and investments held by Trustees. (There are also other funds as previously described in Table 3.17 above).

Table 3.18: FSSD Investment Summary June 30, 2015 Fair Value Weighted Ave Years to Maturity U.S. Treasuries/Money Market $14,902,964 0.01 CA Local Agency Investment Fund 5,056 0.64

Held by Trustees U.S. Government Agencies 1,284,090 0.07 Money Market 2 0.00 Total Investments $16,192,112 Data Source for above table: (FSSD CAFR, 2015).

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-53 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-54 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Comparing the size of a district’s reserve/investment fund to their annual gross revenue is a common financial metric. Table 3.18, above indicates that total investments are $16,192,112. In FY 14/15, gross revenue was $28,049,378. The comparative calculation shows that total investments are equivalent to 0.58 of annual gross revenue.

Rates

FSSD charges fees for both wastewater and storm drainage service. Fees for wastewater treatment services are established via FSSD’s Sewer Capacity and Service Charge Ordinance (Ordinance No. 05-01 and Ordinance No. 77-3, as amended). The District has two types of sewer fees: monthly service charges and capacity fees. Monthly service charges are included on city utility bills at the rates shown in Table 3.19, below.

Table 3.19: Monthly Service Charges

FY FY 2016/17 Customer Class 2014/15 Increase Rate Increase A. Residential Rate $34.56 5.2% $36.35 3.1% B. Commercial, Regular Strength $2.73 6.2% $2.90 3.8% C. Commercial, Special Strength $4.70 3.8% $4.88 4.9% D. Industrial, Regular Strength $2.73 6.2% $2.90 -2.4% E. Travis Airforce Base $2.09 3.6% $2.17 3.9% F. Industrial, Case-by-Case F.1 Flow charge per million gallon $2,299.07 7.4% $2,469.06 -2.5% F.2 Plus BOD charge per thousand lbs. of $340.41 3.1% $351.05 31.7%

F.3 Plus SS charge per Thousand lbs. of SS $177.76 3.2% $183.48 9.8% G. Anheuser Busch G.1 Flow charge per million gallon $2,400.04 9.4% $2,624.84 -8.3% G.2 Plus BOD charge per thousand lbs. of $339.70 3.3% $351.05 31.7% G.3 Plus S S charge per Thousand lbs. of SS $177.38 3.4% $183.48 9.8%

Sewer capacity fees are collected for the District by the Cities of Fairfield and Suisun City. Sewer capacity charges must be paid before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. The rates are shown in Figure 3.18, below.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-55 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Table 3.20: Sewer Capacity Charges (2016)

Residential Class

Single Family Dwelling $5,943

Multi-Family Dwelling

$5,943 $3,566 First unit in each building Each additional unit in the same building

Hotel, Auto Court, Motel, Rooming House, Trailer Court

$5,943 $2,971 First unit in each building Each additional unit or trailer space

Commercial and Industrial Class Commercial and Industrial Enterprise $5,943 Data Source: Staff memorandum to the FSSD Board on November 17, 2016 with Subject: 2016 Sewer Service Charge and Capacity Fee Study Update and available on line at: http://www.fssd.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/01/112816_Agenda-and-Minutes.pdf

In municipal service reviews, LAFCO often assess whether rates are sufficient to cover operating expenses, debt service, and planned capital improvements. FSSD’s biennial budget contains a Long-Term Financial Plan as shown in Schedules 4, 5, 6, and 7. Schedule 6 shows that revenues are expected to exceed expenses through the year 2025. Reserves will be maintained with positive balances through the year 2025. Additionally, in January 2016, the FSSD Board authorized a Consulting Services Agreement with Bartle Wells Associates to conduct an update to the 2005 Cost of Service and Rate Study. Based on this 2016 rate study, FSSD expects to circulate a Prop 218 notice in early 2017 and to prepare a Rate Ordinance for Board consideration in March 2017.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-56 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Findings & Determinations: Financial Ability of District to Provide Services 18. FSSD is an enterprise district. 19. FSSD has one budget policy which it describes in its annual budget as the 2005 policy on Major Maintenance/Replacement Reserve, where an average 1% of plant replacement cost over a 10-year period is reserved. These contributions help the District accumulate sufficient reserves for infrastructure maintenance and replacement (FSSD Budget, 2015). FSSD does not appear to have an adopted management and budget policy which addresses budget preparation, fixed asset accounting, investment of funds, and expense authorization. It is recommended that prior to preparation of the next MSR, FSSD should adopt a policy which addresses budget preparation, fixed asset accounting, investment of funds, and expense authorization and share this policy with LAFCO. 20. The Budget and Long Term Financial Plan are adopted in public meetings on a biennial basis. 21. FSSD receives an audited financial statement on an annual basis. 22. In FY 14/15, total annual revenue was $28 million and total annual expense was almost $24 million. FSSD’s biennial budget contains a Long-Term Financial Plan and Schedule 6 shows that revenues are expected to exceed expenses through the year 2025. Reserves will be maintained with positive balances through the year 2025. This data suggests that FSSD has the financial ability to continue to provide public services into the future. 23. FSSD’s long-term financial plan is used is in conjunction with the District’s Master Plan to facilitate build-up of reserve funds for use on major expansion projects without accumulating a high debt load.

3.6: OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES & COST AVOIDANCE

3.6.1. Shared Facilities and Regional Cooperation

LAFCOs describe shared facilities and regional cooperation in municipal service reviews because it is thought that a local government agency’s ability to partner with another entity, public or private, in order to accomplish the same level of public service, while splitting the costs to deliver the service will provide an efficiency of service. Ideally, a sharing or cooperative arrangement would yield the same public service at less cost, and with less resources required from a community to pay for those results. Another aim of LAFCO is to avoid the duplication of service.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-57 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Due to the geographic location of the District, it would be difficult for it to share wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal facilities with neighboring sanitation districts. However, FSSD has a long history of collaboration with its neighboring government agencies and FSSD performs the following collaborative activities: Cooperates with the Cities of Fairfield and Suisun by using the City billing department, such that the Cities bill for sewer on the city water bill. Provides technical staff to Cities on storm drain issues. Operates and maintains stormwater pump stations (1988 MOU for storm pump). Collects and remits storm drain fees for both of the Cities. Performs T.V. inspections of city sewer lines. Avoids duplication of storm drain service. For example, FSSD provides storm drainage expertise to Suisun City, who benefits from this service efficiency. Contributes funds towards the household hazardous waste facility, which is open several days per week and located near the garbage dump.

Additionally, Solano County performs collaborative activities which benefit FSSD and other local governments. For example, Solano County does some billing for sewer service in unincorporated areas that have less than 50 customers. This shared billing service is outsourced to the County (FSSD, 2016c). Another example is that County staff assists with routine inspections of pollution sources. Solano County already performs inspections of local businesses, and FSSD gives the County additional items to inspect for pollution control purposes. This allows the inspections for hazardous materials, storm drains, and wastewater pollution prevention to be conducted concurrently by County staff.

Participation in local watershed associations and integrated regional water management groups may provide additional opportunities for regional cooperation. Additionally, it is recommended that FSSD continue to be open to new opportunities to provide service in a collaborative manner. FSSD can assess new collaborative ideas as they arise.

3.6.2. Cost Avoidance

This section highlights cost avoidance practices given necessary service requirements and expectations. Ideally, proposed methods to reduce costs would not adversely affect service levels. In general, wastewater and storm drainage systems have a fixed cost associated with operations and maintenance and have a variable cost dependent upon water flow. Given these constraints, FSSD pursues an array of cost avoidance techniques that each contributes incrementally towards keeping costs at a reasonable level. Specifically, during the last five

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-58 Final Wastewater Services MSR

years FSSD has taken the following actions to save money, lower expenses, and improve services: • Participation in a joint insurance pool with the California Sanitation Risk Management Authority (http://www.csrma.org/). Insurance includes worker’s compensation, property damage, and liability. • Conducts competitive bidding • Shares its operational staff with the cities by offering technical expertise on storm water permitting issues. • Conducts energy management to lower energy costs by using solar and windmills (small) to generate electricity. Energy generated powers the FSSD WWTP. • Participates in state programs such as the Calif Dept. of General Services government rate purchasing program. FSSD staff reviews these rates and compares them to the general marketplace and selects the lowest cost alternative (example, vehicle purchasing). • Purchases natural gas through a bundled state program. • Slowed the rate of vehicle purchases. Specifically, most vehicles in the FSSD fleet are older than 5 years. (Source, FSSD, 2016c)

Avoidance of litigation is another method FSSD uses to reduce costs. During the past ten years, FSSD has not been subject to legal actions (FSSD, 2016c).

3.6.3 Facilities in Nearby Sanitation Districts

FSSD is geographically isolated from other sanitation districts as shown in Figure 3.19, below. The nearest sanitation district is the Vallejo Sanitation District located to the west and it is separated from FSSD by open space. This geographic separation makes it physically difficult to connect the two systems.

FSSD staff feels that no jurisdictional reorganizations are needed at this time. The current boundary arrangements work to benefit recipients of FSSD’s services. FSSD does not currently have an SOI.

Findings & Determinations: Opportunities for Shared Facilities & Cost Avoidance 24. Due to the geographic location of the District, it is difficult for it to share wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal facilities with neighboring sanitation districts. It does

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-59 Final Wastewater Services MSR

however align its sewage collection infrastructure with the cities of Fairfield and Suisun City. 25. FSSD has a solid track record of working cooperatively with its neighboring government agencies including the Cities of Fairfield and Suisun City, among others. 26. Participation in local watershed associations and integrated regional water management groups may provide additional opportunities for regional cooperation. 27. It is recommended that FSSD continue to be open to new opportunities to provide service in a collaborative manner.

3.7: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND ACCOUNTABILITY In a municipal service review, LAFCO is required to make a determination about a district’s government structure and accountability. In California, there are two types of special districts as defined in GC 56032.5 and 56044:

Dependent districts: Function as subdivisions of another multipurpose local government. Board members may be ex-officio member of other governing boards such as city councils or the board of supervisors. Independent districts: Have their own governing board and are usually elected directly by voters or are appointed to fixed terms.

The Fairfield Suisun Sewer District is a dependent district formed by special statutes. The City Councils for Fairfield and Suisun City appoint their five members (each) to serve on the FSSD Board of Directors; yet the FSSD Board of Directors function and meet independently from the city councils. Regardless of their governance structure, special districts have many of the same Figure 3.19: Nearby Districts governance powers as other local government agencies as defined by their enabling legislation and LAFCo. The districts can assume debt, enter into contracts, and levy taxes and

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-60 Final Wastewater Services MSR

assessments. However, special districts do not have land use authority. The FSSD Board of Directors holds public meetings on a regular basis, scheduled for the fourth Monday of each month at 6 p.m. in the Board Room at 1010 Chadbourne Road, Fairfield, California.

Key performance indicators for the FSSD Board of Directors are listed in Table 3.21, below

Table 3.21: Performance Indicators for FSSD Board

MSR Key Performance Status Notes Indicators

Contact information, including Available upon request from Should be listed on the email, is available for all board FSSD staff. Is not available on “About Us” or “Contact” members FSSD website. web page. Terms of office and next election Available upon request from Is available on City date are disclosed. FSSD staff. Is not available on websites at: FSSD website. https://www.fairfield. ca.gov/gov/city_ council/city_ councilmembers/default.as p and http://www.suisun. com/government/city-council/ Committee appointments are online. Information not currently The FSSD website should available on-line be updated to show committee appointments. Compensation and benefits are Employee compensation clearly noted data is on-line at: http://transparentcalifornia.co m/agencies/salaries/ Compliance with CA Government Training is conducted by the Code §53235 (two hours of training cities in ethics at least once every two years and written policy on reimbursements). Compliance with The CA Political Compliance is managed by the Reform Act (Government Code cities §81000, et seq.) (conflict of interest codes). Compliance with Government Code Information about Statements §87203 (disclose their investments, of Economic Interests is interests in real property and available on City websites incomes by filing appropriate forms with the Fair Political Practices Commission each year).

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-61 Final Wastewater Services MSR

FSSD Board members are compensated at a rate of $143.59 per day of service (as of January 2016). Additionally, minor reimbursements for travel to sanitation related conferences are also provided, consistent with the Board Travel Policy.

Key performance indicators for meeting management are listed below in Table 3.22. Table 3.22: MSR KPIs for Meeting Management

Performance Indicator Status Notes

Agency posts regular meeting Yes. Available on website at: Link is also provided from agendas 72 hours in advance and http://www.fssd.com/board- homepage at: special meeting agendas 24 hours meetings-agenda/ http://www.fssd.com/ in advance on agency website Meeting minutes and agendas for Yes. Available on website at: Link is also provided from the current year. http://www.fssd.com/board- homepage at: meetings-agenda/ http://www.fssd.com/ Archives of meeting minutes and Available on request directly to Agendas/minutes only for the agendas for three years. FSSD staff. past year are available on website. A meeting calendar that discloses Yes, available on website at: Link is also provided from the time and location of public http://www.fssd.com/public- homepage at: meetings meetings/ http://www.fssd.com/ Compliance with the Brown Act Yes Based on information presented (CA Government Code 54950 et in this MSR, FSSD does comply sec) with the Brown Act.

All meetings are open to the public, in accordance with the Brown Act (Government Code §§ 54950-54926). Additionally, the agenda for each Board meeting includes a public comment period. Agendas are distributed via the Agency’s website, fax, email, and postal mail. The media is notified via e-mail. The Daily Republic, a local newspaper, also publishes meeting notices. The District’s website (http://www.fssd.com/) is a communication vehicle for District meeting agendas, meeting minutes, and information on the District’s services and programs. The District’ legal counsel is present at Board meetings to ensure compliance with the Brown Act and other applicable laws. The Cities of Fairfield and Suisun City monitor the adherence of their council members to the requirements of the Brown Act, the Political Reform Act, and similar laws.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-62 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Customer Service: FSSD has a formal complaint process that allows customers to share their comments or complaints regarding the FSSD’s wastewater services via a Customer Service Request Form (a web form) on the FSSD website’s contact page at: http://www.fssd.com/contact/. Additionally, customers can telephone district staff directly at (707) 429-8930. FSSD does receive the typical type of complaints associated with sanitation districts, such as sewer backups, odors, etc and staff investigates each one. FSSD’s investigations have determined the complainant issues are not caused by FSSD or associated with FSSD facilities. They are usually caused by the local city sewer line.

3.7.1. Management Efficiencies The District’s General Manager reports to the Board of Directors. (Solano LAFCO, 2006). The General Manager represents the District locally, regionally, and at the state and federal levels and ensures the best interests of the Agency are met. The General Manager also: Serves as the chief executive officer of the district Represents the board’s policies and programs Prepares and administer the budget Responsible for organizing staffing at all levels CONTACT INFORMATION: within the adopted budget and as such is Gregory G. Baatrup, responsible for plant operation and maintenance; General Manager finance and planning; engineering; construction design and management; and regulatory 1010 Chadbourne Rd., compliance Fairfield, Ca 94534

There are 60 employees (FTE) of the District. An gbaatrup @ fssd.com additional 4.5 positions remain vacant. Figure 3.20, Organization Chart, below.

Strategic Plans & Management Plans

The District has an overall planning strategy including vision, mission, purpose, and core values as outlined on its website at: https://www.fssd.com/district-purpose-vision-mission-core- values/. FSSD’s vision is to be “a recognized leader in our industry”. Its mission is “We achieve our purpose by excelling individually and organizationally.” The District describes is purpose to: “protect public health and the environment for the communities we serve in an efficient, responsible and sustainable manner.” Ideally, all Districts in Solano County would have an updated strategic plan or master plan that links together goals, objectives, actions, and best management practices.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-63 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Figure 3.20: FSSD Organizational Chart

Board of Directors (10)

District Clerk General Manager District Counsel

Finance and Operation and Engineering and Regulatory (4.5) Safety (1) Administration (5) Maintenance (40.5) Construction (1)

Data Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, For the Year Ended June 30, 2015

District Counsel serves via contract.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-64 Final Wastewater Services MSR

A quality assurance or adaptive management plan that shows how activities and actions undertaken contribute to learning and progress which then leads to an adjustment in objectives and best management plans would also be helpful. FSSD has taken positive steps in this direction through its provision of vision, mission, and purpose on its website. It is recommended that FSSD use its website to provide a link to an actual strategic plan, which shows the date approved by the District Board.

FSSD has a Fairfield-Suisun Urban Runoff Management Program with an Integrated Monitoring Report that was prepared in March 2014. Additionally FSSD has a 2013 Sewer System Management Plan. Sewer System Management Plans were completed in 1986, 1994, and 2002, 2008, and most recently in 2013. The Sewer System Management Plan is sometimes referred to as a “Master” Plan. .The District’s collection system Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is based on the Sewer System Management Plan.

Awards

FSSD is nationally recognized for its leadership and innovation. FSSD has received many awards from the following organizations:

California Association of Sanitation Agencies: California Water Environment Association: National Association of Clean Water Agencies: California Water Environment Association (CWEA)—Sacramento Area Section: California Water Environment Association (CWEA)—Redwood Empire Section: California Sanitation Risk Management Authority (CSRMA): Special recognition of Excellence in Financial Reporting, from GFOA, for eighteen consecutive fiscal years—June 1998 through June 2015

Recently, FSSD received a notable award called the “Utility of Future Award”. The National Association of Clean Water Agencies, the Water Environment Federation, the Water Environment Research Foundation and WateReuse, with support from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, established a Utility of the Future program in 2016. FSSD received this award during the 2016 annual Water Environment Federation conference.

Details about the awards and recognition the District has received are available on the FSSD website at: https://www.fssd.com/awards-achievements/.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-65 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Findings & Determinations: Accountability for Community Service Needs 28. The governance structure of FSSD is that of a dependent district such that the City Councils for Fairfield and Suisun City appoint their five members (each) to serve on the FSSD Board of Directors. Yet the FSSD Board of Directors does function and meet independently from the city councils. 29. The FSSD Board of Directors holds public meetings on a regular basis, scheduled for the fourth Monday of each month at 6 p.m. in the Board Room at 1010 Chadbourne Road, Fairfield, California. 30. FSSD Board meetings are noticed according to the Brown Act and the meetings provide an opportunity for public comment. 31. A key performance indicator suggests that archives of meeting minutes and agendas for three years should be available on a district’s website. However, agendas/minutes only for the past year are available on the FSSD website. The archives for the two prior years are available upon request directly to FSSD staff. FSSD recently updated its website and is in the process of posting an archive of past meeting minutes and agendas.

32. The FSSD Board of Directors and staff have demonstrated that they understand the needs of their customers and they aim to improve the efficiency of the public services they offer. The core competencies of staff are aligned with customer needs. 33. Ideally, all Districts in Solano County would have an updated strategic plan or master plan that links together goals, objectives, actions, and best management practices. A quality assurance or adaptive management plan that shows how activities and actions undertaken contribute to learning and progress which then leads to an adjustment in objectives and best management plans would also be helpful. FSSD has taken positive steps in this direction through its provision of vision, mission, and purpose on its website. It is recommended that FSSD use its website to provide a link to an actual strategic plan, which shows the date approved by the District Board.

3.8: LAFCO POLICIES AFFECTING SERVICE DELIVERY Cortese-Knox Hertzberg allows LAFCOs to establish policies to implement the law and process applications. Solano LAFCO has implemented eleven standards, six mandatory standards which mirror the requirements of CKH, and five discretionary standards. Application of discretionary standards lies with the Commission. There are no other aspects of wastewater and storm drainage service required to be addressed in this report by LAFCO policies that would affect delivery of services.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-66 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Determination: Any Other Matters Related to Service Delivery as Required by LAFCO Policy

34. There are no other aspects of wastewater or storm drainage service required to be addressed in this report by LAFCO policies that would affect delivery of services.

3.9: SUMMARY OF MSR FINDINGS & DETERMINATIONS

Based on the information included in this report, the following written determinations make statements involving the service factors the Commission must consider as part of a municipal service review14. The Commission’s final MSR determinations will be part of a Resolution which the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting.

Growth and Population Projections

14 The service factors addressed in this report reflect the requirements of California Government Code §56430(a)

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-67 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities

Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities 8. FSSD collects wastewater from approximately 54,000 sewer connections that serve 140,400 residents in Fairfield and Suisun City. One FSSD connection can potentially serve many individual customers. For example, Travis AFB is “one” connection. Most residential customers connect to the City-owned collection lines for sewer, not FSSD. 9. The facilities and infrastructure on which FSSD depends have variable ages. FSSD replaces and repairs infrastructure on a regular basis. FSSD has implemented collection system BMPs and addresses preventative maintenance and scheduled replacement of aging infrastructure. 10. FSSD owns and operates its wastewater collection system which connects to its WWTP. The FSSD system functions with the satellite collection systems owned and operated by the Cities of Fairfield and Suisun City and Travis Air Force Base. Each entity has adopted a Sewer System Management Plan. 11. FSSD’s recent capacity upgrades (such as the Suisun Pump Station upgrades) demonstrate its continued investment in the system. 12. Actual flow is significantly less than design capacity, hence the WWTP has adequate capacity to accommodate existing customers. 13. FSSD has fewer sanitary sewer overflows as compared to similar sewer districts in the San Francisco Bay region as shown in Table 3.13. This demonstrates FSSD’s successful

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-68 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services 18. FSSD is an enterprise district. 19. FSSD has one budget policy which it describes in its annual budget as the 2005 policy on Major Maintenance/Replacement Reserve, where an average 1% of plant replacement cost over a 10-year period is reserved. These contributions help the District accumulate sufficient reserves for infrastructure maintenance and replacement (FSSD Budget, 2015). FSSD does not appear to have an adopted management and budget policy which addresses budget preparation, fixed asset accounting, investment of funds, and expense authorization. It is recommended that prior to preparation of the next MSR, FSSD should adopt a policy which addresses budget preparation, fixed asset accounting, investment of funds, and expense authorization and share this policy with LAFCO. 20. The Budget and Long Term Financial Plan are adopted in public meetings on a biennial basis. 21. FSSD receives an audited financial statement on an annual basis. 22. In FY 14/15, total annual revenue was $28 million and total annual expense was almost $24 million. FSSD’s biennial budget contains a Long-Term Financial Plan and Schedule

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-69 Final Wastewater Services MSR

6 shows that revenues are expected to exceed expenses through the year 2025. Reserves will be maintained with positive balances through the year 2025. This data suggests that FSSD has the financial ability to continue to provide public services into the future. 23. FSSD’s long-term financial plan is used is in conjunction with the District’s Master Plan to facilitate build-up of reserve funds for use on major expansion projects without accumulating a high debt load.

Opportunities for Shared Facilities 24. Due to the geographic location of the District, it is difficult for it to share wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal facilities with neighboring sanitation districts. It does however align its sewage collection infrastructure with the cities of Fairfield and Suisun City. 25. FSSD has a solid track record of working cooperatively with its neighboring government agencies including the Cities of Fairfield and Suisun City, among others. 26. Participation in local watershed associations and integrated regional water management groups may provide additional opportunities for regional cooperation. 27. It is recommended that FSSD continue to be open to new opportunities to provide service in a collaborative manner.

Accountability for Community Service Needs 28. The governance structure of FSSD is that of a dependent district such that the City Councils for Fairfield and Suisun City appoint their five members (each) to serve on the FSSD Board of Directors. Yet the FSSD Board of Directors does function and meet independently from the city councils. 29. The FSSD Board of Directors holds public meetings on a regular basis, scheduled for the fourth Monday of each month at 6 p.m. in the Board Room at 1010 Chadbourne Road, Fairfield, California. 30. FSSD Board meetings are noticed according to the Brown Act and the meetings provide an opportunity for public comment. 31. A key performance indicator suggests that archives of meeting minutes and agendas for three years should be available on a district’s website. However, agendas/minutes only for the past year are available on the FSSD website. The archives for the two prior years are available upon request directly to FSSD staff. FSSD recently updated its website and is in the process of posting an archive of past meeting minutes and agendas.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-70 Final Wastewater Services MSR

33. Ideally, all Districts in Solano County would have an updated strategic plan or master plan that links together goals, objectives, actions, and best management practices. A quality assurance or adaptive management plan that shows how activities and actions undertaken contribute to learning and progress which then leads to an adjustment in objectives and best management plans would also be helpful. FSSD has taken positive steps in this direction through its provision of vision, mission, and purpose on its website. It is recommended that FSSD use its website to provide a link to an actual strategic plan, which shows the date approved by the District Board.

Any Other Matters Related to Service Delivery as Required by LAFCO Policy

34. There are no other aspects of wastewater or storm drainage service required to be addressed in this report by LAFCO policies that would affect delivery of services.

3.10: ISSUES WITH RECOMMENDATIONS This MSR describes the provision of wastewater and storm drainage services by FSSD to its constituents. No red flags were found during this analysis. However, several areas for continual improvement were noted and listed in the above determinations with a * (asterisk) symbol. They are also repeated below in Table 3.23.

Table 3.23: Issues with Recommendations

Determination Issue Recommendation #

17 FSSD innovative use of renewable It is recommended that FSSD continue to energy to offset the electricity cost implement best management practices aligned associated with wastewater with sustainability aims. treatment demonstrates that it has already implemented several of the management practices which highlights the ongoing work at the local level to save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 19 FSSD does not appear to have It is recommended that prior to preparation an adopted management and of the next MSR, FSSD should adopt a policy

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-71 Final Wastewater Services MSR

budget policy which addresses which addresses budget preparation, fixed budget preparation, fixed asset asset accounting, investment of funds, and accounting, investment of expense authorization and share this policy funds, and expense with LAFCO. authorization. 26 Due to the geographic isolation, it Participation in local watershed associations and is difficult for FSSD to share integrated regional water management groups infrastructure with neighboring may provide additional opportunities for sanitation districts. regional cooperation. 27 FSSD has a solid track record of *It is recommended that FSSD continue to be working cooperatively with its open to new opportunities to provide service in a neighboring government collaborative manner. agencies. 33 FSSD’s Master Plan was last Ideally, all Districts in Solano County would updated in 2008. have an updated strategic plan or master plan that links together goals, objectives, actions, and best management practices. A quality assurance or adaptive management plan that shows how activities and actions undertaken contribute to learning and progress which then leads to an adjustment in objectives and best management plans would also be helpful. FSSD has taken positive steps in this direction through its provision of vision, mission, and purpose on its website. It is recommended that FSSD use its website to provide a link to an actual strategic plan, which shows the date approved by the District Board.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-72 Final Wastewater Services MSR

3.11: REFERENCES

Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). Plan Bay Area 2040. San Francisco, Ca. Retrieved from: . Accessed on July 27, 2016.

Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). Appendix A Detailed Methodology. Draft Plan Bay Area Equity Analysis. Part of Plan Bay Area 2040. 64-pages. San Francisco, Ca. Retrieved from: . Accessed on August 1, 2016.

Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). Plan Bay Area. Priority Development Area Showcase. San Francisco, Ca. Retrieved from: . Accessed July 28, 2016.

Baatrup, Gregory; Herston, Meg; Sortor, Taylon. (Baatrup, et. al.) June 20, 2016, Kick-off meeting with Harrison and McIntyre. Fairfield, Ca.

California Department of Finance. New State Population Report, 2015. Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from: . Accessed on July 26, 2016.

California Department of Water Resources. Disadvantaged Communities Mapping Tool. Retrieved from: . Accessed July 28, 2016.

California Research Bureau (CRB). California State Library. August 2007. Biosolids, Options for Biosolids Management. 101 pages. Sacramento, Ca. Available on-line at: http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/07/07-007.pdf

Chavan & Associates, LLP. Certified Public Accountants. Independent Auditor’s Report and the Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance With Government Auditing Standards. September 29, 2015. San Jose, California. 48-pages.

City of Fairfield. December 2010. Draft Environmental Impact Report. Fairfield Train Station Specific Plan. State Clearinghouse # 2010042093. Available on-line: . Accessed on July 26, 2016.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-74 Final Wastewater Services MSR

City of Fairfield, CA. 2002 City of Fairfield General Plan Update. Retrieved from: . Accessed on July 26, 2016.

City of Fairfield, California. Heart of Fairfield Plan, Profile Report. 2015. Retrieved from: . Accessed on July 29, 2016.

City of Fairfield, California. Fairfield Train Station Specific Plan, 2011. Retrieved from: . Accessed July 28, 2016. City of Fairfield, December 2010. Fairfield Train Station Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. . State Clearinghouse # 2010042093. Prepared by AECOM. Retrieved from . Accessed Aug 14, 2016.

City of Fairfield Department of Community Development. City of Fairfield 2012 Municipal Service Review Update. Approved 15 October 2012. Retrieved from: . Accessed July 25, 2016.

City of Suisun City, California. 2015-2023 Housing Element. PMC, Rancho Cordova. Retrieved from . Accessed on July 29, 2016.

City of Suisun City, Community Development Department. City of Suisun City 2035 General Plan. Retrieved from: . Accessed on July 29, 2016.

Eberling, Barry. 26October2012. “Large Annexation Gives Fairfield New Growth Frontier.” Daily Republic. Retrieved from: . Accessed July 28, 2016.

Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District (FSSD). March 14, 2016-a. Recycled Water Program Annual Report. January 1, 2015 – December 31, 2015. 19 pages. Fairfield, Ca.

Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District (FSSD). 2016-b. Response to LAFCO’s Request for Information.

Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District (FSSD). June 20, 2016-c. Personal communication Gregory Baatrup, Meg Herston, Taylon Sortor.

Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District (FSSD). September 29, 2015. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, For the Year Ended June 30, 2015. 92-pages. Fairfield, Ca.

Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District (FSSD). March 23, 2015. Budget and Long-Term Financial Plan, Fiscal Years 15/16 and 16/17. 29 pages. Fairfield, Ca.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-75 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District (FSSD). 2013. Sewer System Management Plan. 158 pages.

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB). March 11, 2015. Order No. R2-2015-0013. NPDES No. CA0038024. 144-pages. Oakland, CA.

Solano County Airport Land Use Commission (SCALUC). June 13, 2002.Travis Air Force Base Land Use Compatibility Plan. Prepared by Shutt Moen Associates in Association with Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc. Available on-line at: . Accessed August 14, 2016.

Solano County Resource Management Department. December 1, 2010. Middle Valley Specific Plan. Prepared in conjunction with the Hart Howerton Consulting Team. 293 pages. Available on-line at: . Accessed 3February 2017.

Solano County Resource Management Department. June 2016. Middle Green Valley Specific Plan Second Revised Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report. 90-pages plus Appendices A, B, and C. Available on-line at: . Accessed 3February 2017.

Solano County Resource Management Department. October 2016. Middle Green Valley Specific Plan Responses to Comments on and Revisions to the Second Revised Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report. 78 pages. Available on-line at: . Accessed 3February 2017.

Solano County Department of Resource Management. December 2014. Draft Environmental Impact Report Woodcreek 66. Authored by AECOM Consultants. 382 pages. Available on-line at: . Accessed 3February 2017.

Solano Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). November 2006. Sewer Municipal Service Review. Prepared by PMC. 49 pages. Retrieved from: . Accessed July 28, 2016.

Solano Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). October 15, 2012. Municipal Service Review Update, City of Fairfield. Prepared by: City of Fairfield Department of Community Development. 57 pages. Retrieved from: . Accessed July 28, 2016.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-76 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Solano Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). June 13, 2016. City of Suisun City 2016 Municipal Service Review Update. 74-pages. Available on-line at: < http://www.solanolafco.com/Studies/ MSR/Cities/Suisun%20City%20Final%20MSR.pdf>. Accessed on July 26, 2016.

Travis Air Force Base (TAFB). December 2008. Travis Air Force Base Facilities Excellence Guide. Prepared by Tran Systems Consultants. 41-pages. Available on-line at: . Accessed August 14, 2016.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2005. Sacramento District History (1929-2004). Written by Dr. Willie Collins along with Assay, Davy, Doyle, Fanselau, Farris, Fast, Gonzalez, Hagwood, Hays, Layton, Nevins, Stalker, Stevenson, Taylor, VanDam, Weddell, Whitney and Whitney. 262 pages. Retrieved from: . Accessed Aug 14, 2016.

US Census Bureau, Median Income in the past 12 Months (In 2014 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) by Census Tract: California, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from: . Accessed July 28, 2016.

U.S. Census Bureau Geographic Boundary Change, Fairfield City, CA, 2015. Retrieved from: . Accessed July 28, 2016.

U.S. Census Bureau Geographic Boundary Change, Suisun City, CA, 2015. Retrieved from: . Accessed July 26, 2016.

U.S. Census Bureau 2010 Census Reference Map: Solano County, CA. Retrieved from: . Accessed July 25, 2016.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.” American Factfinder. U.S. Department of Commerce. Available on-line at: . Accessed July 28, 2016.

US. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 (EPA) and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB). January 25, 2013. Best Management Practice Recommendations Suisun Marsh TMDL Development. Prepared by Dan Gillenwater, Stuart Siegel, Jeff Schlueter, Phil Bachand, Karen Summers, and Sujoy Roy. San Francisco, CA. 44-pages. Retrieved from:

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-77 Final Wastewater Services MSR

issues/programs/TMDLs/suisunmarsh/Suisun%20Marsh%20TMDL%20BMP%20 Recommendations.pdf>. Accessed on August 1, 2016.

Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 3-78 Final Wastewater Services MSR

CHAPTER 4: VALLEJO SANITATION & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT

4.1 DISTRICT PROFILE INCLUDING BOUNDARY MAP Services and Location

Type and Extent of Services Since its formation in 1952, the Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District (VSFCD) has been responsible for collecting and treating the wastewater generated by the residents and businesses of the City of Vallejo and the surrounding areas and providing storm water drainage to protect the Vallejo community from flooding (Solano LAFCo, 2006).

Location and Size VSFCD is located in the southern-most portion of Solano County along the northeast interior of the San Pablo Bay. The City of American Canyon and unincorporated Napa County lie north of the District. The City of Benicia lies to the southeast and the City of Fairfield lies to the northeast. The Vallejo community is centrally located near several significant regional destinations including: Napa Valley (15 miles), San Francisco (30 miles), and Sacramento (60 miles). Vallejo is home to the Six Flags Discovery Kingdom, Touro University, California Maritime Academy, and various festivals at the Vallejo Waterfront.

The District serves an area slightly larger than the City of Vallejo, including all the area within the City limits. It is important to note that although the City contains islands of unincorporated areas within its boundaries, VSFCD’s jurisdictional boundaries include those areas. VSFCD’s net overall service area covers thirty-eight and one-half square miles or 24,637 acres (VSFCD Finance Department, 2016). The District’s boundary is coterminous with its sphere of influence.

Table 4.1: VSFCD Geographic Summary District Boundary 24,637 38.5 sq. mi. District Sphere 24,637acres 38.5 sq. mi.

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-1

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Formation and Boundary The Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District was established April 19, 1952 as a special district created by the State of California (Act 8934) to provide wastewater and flood control services to the City of Vallejo and the surrounding community (Solano LAFCo, 2006).

Boundary History The District’s charter and enabling legislation indicate the appropriateness of matching its boundaries with the City. The District filed a formation map and a tax area code change with the California Board of Equalization in March 1953. A summary of boundary related LAFCO actions for this District is listed in Table 4.2, below.

Table 4.2 Summary of Boundary Related LAFCo Actions Year Action LAFCo Resolution Number 1967 Allowed annexation of 34.7 acres for St. 1-6-67 Patrick’s High School 1973 Allowed annexation of 84.9 acres for 2-5-73 Carlsberg Mobile Home Properties 1979 Allowed annexation of 127.9 acres for 1811 and see also 1819 Morrison Homes Glen Cove Unit #3 1983 Allowed annexation of 593.6 acres for Glen 3079 Cove Unit #4 1987 Allowed annexation of 11.2 acres for 87-4128 Meadowood Subdivision by the Housing Group 1987 Allowed annexation of 8 acres for the 88-4170 and see also 88-24 California Highway Patrol Property 1988 Allowed annexation of 2,320.94 acres for Sky 88-4 (also referred to as 88- Valley Company 4141) and 88-5 1988 Added 12 acres to the SOI for the Sky Valley Not available Company 2003 Allowed annexation of 2,239.87 acres for the 2003-4845 Mare Island Naval Shipyard Data Source: LAFCO files provided by Michelle McIntyre, Oct 2016

Currently, the boundaries of the District generally follow the City’s boundaries; however the boundaries of the two agencies are not coterminous. The District serves an area slightly larger than the City limits, encompassing some surrounding unincorporated areas of Solano County (Figure 4-1) (Solano LAFCO, 2006). Additionally, the City contains a number of unincorporated

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-2

Final Wastewater Services MSR

islands within its boundaries that are served by and located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the District.

All annexations into the City of Vallejo require concurrent annexation into the Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District. LAFCO approved the annexation of Mare Island to the District on September 8, 2003 per Resolution No. 03-09.

The District’s boundary and SOI includes 4,666 acres of water or submerged lands that are part of the San Francisco Estuary/San Pablo Bay, as shown in Figure 4.1. This parcel (APN 0067-010- 010) was included the District’s original 1952 boundary and was identified in the District’s original 1953 submittal to the CA Board of Equalization. The District does not provide service to this parcel. Therefore, it is recommended that LAFCO consider detaching the parcel from the District boundary and SOI.

Other than the submerged parcel, the District noted its satisfaction with the existing boundary and SOI arrangement and does not anticipate any foreseeable expansion of the District (Morton, 2016).

Sphere of Influence The District’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) is coterminous with its boundaries (Solano LAFCo, 2006). It is recommended that LAFCO consider detaching APN 0067-010-010 from the District’s boundary and SOI.

Extra-territorial Services The District does not provide any extra-territorial services and does not have any pending will- serve agreements (Morton, 2016).

Areas of Interest There are no un-served or underserved areas of urban density in the surrounding area which the District could feasibly include as part of its service provision (Solano LAFCo, 2006). There are a few unincorporated areas located outside the City of Vallejo boundaries that may have a Vallejo mailing address and may share certain services with the city residents.

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-3

FSSD Napa Co.

Legend Vallejo City Limits Sewer Districts 2016 r D e s Av Se ru M Dr n ars e i i a Po ev n in r in S i M o t R Dr rc d o B C or ges Elliott Dr Ln Sears Point Rd

F Jack London Dr a W i r h r Meadows Dr itn gr D ey Ave i n o Donner Pass Rd Tobin Dr i un M Broadway St Broadway d s Marine World Pkwy D r Griffin Dr

Fairgrounds Dr d

B Columbus Pkwy

a Columbus Broadway St Pkw

m y

o y

n Ln

han w o g la k S l a P C t l o a c r i s A m kwy d Turner P SR-37 A SerenoT Dr B u

o r o l u a m d A w n Sonoma Blvd s S a e c y o SR-37 a S t c S y r t P a t Red Re k w m wo d k odS w y w e t ood kw P n P y

t B s

o A r u

S o d b

t a Redwood Pkwy m m d

u i

l W w

i r

l o a

s a

l o C n y C e

A S v

a A

v t l d

e l a

o g areIsl o M a d h Lake Herman Rd a w n o Nebraska St d lr a i k R a n a Wilson Ave R a il nd ro M la L O a a Is d r re n

e Ma

Id s

Mare Island Railroada l ao Tuolumne St

nl i Tennessee St

d Mare Island Cswy

a T Tennessee St R ennessee St

Mariposa St Humboldt St M a M Springs Rd re L a Sacramento St Florida St r a Is k l r e a D n e H

d Tuolumne St M Oakwood Ave er I d R Marin St 80 ar s ¨¦§ m a e i l o Islan o lr a Miller Ave M a d ilr a o o d Santa Clara St Ra Is n Solano Ave n are l a an d a M d w Rd d p W g

R Georgia St l e a n

a i il r l

y A o l a Georgia St

Maine St Alameda St d o

Sonoma v e Co. Mare Island Way R Curtola Pkwy Solano Ave Steffan St Curtola Pkwy

M ar Ma Solano Ave r e e Is Isl l Railroad a a Columbus Pkwy n n d d Benicia Rd San R Pablo a i lr t Bay o

a S d M Rose Dr a Lemon St l Reis Ave re I e s r la n u d South Vallejo R a ail L roa d 5th St Ma ine t M re z S ar Is a la g e n S a d Is o M l R a a n n i d l o ro R a m a d a ilr o B ad lv d ¨¦§780 r s D Sonoma Blvd g tin M s are a Is H land Railroad

Southam pt on Marin R Co. d Southampton Rd Military W t W K St S h t 7

Contra W Military W 0120.5 Costa Co. Military West Hwy

Miles Figure 4-1 Military W

Department of Information Technology, GIS Services Solano County GIS Services Disclaimer: Department of Information Technology This map was made using Solano County GIS files with varying degrees of Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District 675 Texas Street, Suite 3700 scale, accuracy, precision, currentness, and alignment and therefore cannot Fairfield, CA 94533 be used for situations requiring survey grade measurement or legal Phone: 707-784-6340 boundary determination. Solano County disclaims liability for any and City of Vallejo Boundaries 2016 Email: [email protected] loss that may result from the use of this map. User acknowledges PRJ_1459, 08/02/2016 data limitations and accepts responsibility for map based judgments. 5 Solano County Document Name: LafcoGVSFCD2016 Final Wastewater Services MSR

The District purchased Tubbs Island in Sonoma County in 1983 and it continues to own and operate the site to spread biosolids (sludge) for agricultural use. The District does not provide services in Sonoma County. Issues related to jurisdictional boundaries on Tubbs Island are overseen by Sonoma LAFCO and a related resolution and map of Tubbs Island are available in LAFCO files. The District has not identified any other areas of interest that require District services within the foreseeable future.

4.2 GROWTH AND POPULATION Existing Population

This section provides information on the existing population and future growth projections for the VSFCD. Since census data is readily available for the City of Vallejo, it is used as the foundation for VSFCD in this section. As of January 1, 2016, the population in City of Vallejo is estimated by the California Department of Finance at 117,322 persons. Between census years 2000 to 2010, the City’s population decreased by 682 people, which equates to a negative annual growth rate of -0.58% per the City’s Housing Element. However, the population has increased in recent years, and now represents an increase of 1.01% percent between the 2010 U.S. Census and today. VSFCD currently has a land area of 38.5 square miles, which includes the Mare Island Naval Complex, located in Census Tract 2508 in Solano County. The average population concentration is 3,047 persons per square mile (Table 4.3) and the population density has declined over the past ten years. Vallejo has the largest population of any of the cities in Solano County. Please note that the City of Vallejo’s population does not exactly correspond to the population of VSFCD and the current population within the District is estimated to be 124,134 (Morton, 2016).

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-5

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Table 4.3: Historic and Existing Population Year Total Vallejo Population District Land area (sq. Population per sq. miles) mile 2006 115,298 28 4117.8 2010 115,942 36 3221 2016 117,322 38.5 3047.3 Data Source: California Department of Finance (2016)

According to the 2010 census, Vallejo has 40,559 total households with an average of 2.89 persons per household and an average family size of 3.36 persons per family. The median age is 37.9 as of the 2010 U.S. Census. The population is ethnically and culturally diverse with a population composed of 32.8% white, 24.9% African American, 28.3% Asian, 13.1% Hispanic, 2.1% American Indian, and 2.1% Pacific Islander (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). The residents are well educated, with an estimated 24% having college or graduate degrees, and another 36% having attended college or receiving associate degrees. An economic forecast for Solano County is provided in Appendix A-4.

The population of VSFCD (124,134) is estimated to be slightly higher than that of the City because VSFCD serves unincorporated islands, making its service area slightly larger than that of the City.

Projected Growth and Development

To some extent, population growth in the City is dependent upon land use, general plan designations, and zoning on properties. According to the City’s 2005 Municipal Service Review, the 2020 build out population is 143,650. The City projects that within the next five years the population could grow by another 1.2%. This build out includes the development of the recently annexed Mare Island, the former Navy Shipyard facility, and other undeveloped parcels within the City and Sphere of Influence.

The General Plan for the City of Vallejo was adopted in July 1999. A new Housing Element was recently adopted May 25, 2015. The City’s General Plan is based upon nine goals and objectives: Land Use, Circulation and Transportation, Housing, Educational Facilities, Public Facilities and Other Services, Safety, Noise, Air Quality, and Natural Resources (City of Vallejo, 1999). Currently, a three-year effort (commenced January 2014) to comprehensively update the City’s

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-6

Final Wastewater Services MSR

General Plan, the Citywide Zoning Code, and create a Sonoma Boulevard Specific Plan is underway. The project is titled “Propel Vallejo - General Plan Update”, and describes four guiding principles of the project as: Community and People; Nature and the Built Environment; Economy, Education and Training; and Mobility, Transportation, and Connectivity (City of Vallejo, 2014).

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) publishes population, household, job, labor force, and income projections for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Region. ABAG’s Projections 2013 includes a range of growth-related estimates for Vallejo through 2040. ABAG projections for Vallejo relating to population, and jobs are listed in Table 4.4 below. Please note that projecting future population growth for a small City is problematic due to a variety of unknown factors associated with the annexation rate.

Table 4.4 Population Projections for Vallejo

As shown in Table 4.4, ABAG predictions suggest that future growth in Vallejo may not keep pace with the rest of Solano County. For the growth period from 2015-2040 ABAG predicts 13,700 new residents in Vallejo, which is only an 11.6 percent increase against a 23 percent expected growth in the remaining Solano County. Even though Vallejo is home to about 28 percent of Solano County’s population, ABAG projects only 16 percent of the County’s new residential growth will be from the City of Vallejo. Since the City of Fairfield has agreed to be responsible for a significant portion of the RHNA allocation, most of the growth in Solano County is projected to occur in Fairfield.

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-7

Final Wastewater Services MSR

For further considerations on the projected growth and development for the City of Vallejo, the 2015 -2023 Housing Element Update, adopted May 2015, provides a detailed description of the socio-economic factors with the City, including age distribution, racial distribution, employment, and economic development. The 2015 – 2023 Housing Element is available on-line at the City’s website, http://www.cityofvallejo.net/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=3309812.

4.3: PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES

General Plan, Zoning, and Policies The District boundary primarily covers land located within the City limits of Vallejo and therefore is mostly under the land use authority of the City of Vallejo. A small portion of the District boundary also encompasses unincorporated areas which are under the land use authority of Solano County. The City of Vallejo’s 1999 General Plan establishes land use policies for the physical development of the City which is supported by the 1980 Zoning Ordinance.

Vallejo is working across many fronts to revitalize and improve the City, including concurrent efforts focusing on policies, regulations, and procedures. The Propel Vallejo Project is a revitalization initiative that includes efforts which are currently underway to update the Guiding Principles for Vallejo, the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and create a Specific Plan for Sonoma Boulevard (City of Vallejo, 2015).

The City’s current General Plan prescribes fourteen land use designations as follows:

Rural Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential General Commercial Highway Commercial Waterfront Commercial Medical Commercial Employment Open Space – Agricultural Conservation Open Space – Urban Reserve Open Space – Wetlands Open Space – Community Parks

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-8

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Mineral Resource Area (City of Vallejo, 1999)

The existing land use structure can be viewed through the City of Vallejo’s “Vallejo Prospector” GIS mapping website, http://gis.zoomprospector.com/client/Vallejo/. This website provides the zoning types layered on a map of Vallejo where each of the zoning areas can be viewed.

The City of Vallejo Zoning Ordinance implements the General Plan and provides the procedures, standards, and regulations for land use decisions. The Zoning Ordinance is within the Vallejo California Municipal Code, Title 16, and can be visited at: https://www.municode.com/library/ca/vallejo/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT16ZO. The City’s current Zoning Ordinance has the following fifteen basic zoning districts organized into three general use categories:

Four districts for residential areas: Rural, Low Density, Medium Density, and High Density. Nine districts for commercial areas: Freeway-Oriented Shopping, Waterfront Shopping and Service, Professional Office, Limited Office, Pedestrian Shopping, Linear Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, Public and Quasi Public Facilities, and Medical. Two districts for commercial, industrial and industrially compatible areas: Intensive Use and Intensive Use-Limited. (City of Vallejo, 2015)

The City is in the process of updating its Zoning Ordinance to more accurately reflect current conditions and trends. It is anticipated that the update of the Zoning Ordinance will allow certain portions of the City where “walkable urbanism” exists or is desired to utilize form-based zoning. Other portions where “auto-oriented suburbanism” exists or is desired may continue to be covered by use-based or conventional zoning. Accordingly, the General Plan land use vision may create a distinction between areas that are within the walkable urban, transect zones, and those that may be regulated by more auto-oriented suburban policies and regulations. This is very different from the way the existing General Plan applies land use designations in a broad and homogenous way (City of Vallejo, 2015).

Mare Island is within the District boundaries and receives services. Mare Island is a former naval shipyard that was decommissioned and approved for redevelopment in the late 1990s. The Mare Island Reuse Plan for the 5,000-acre island includes 1,400 residential homes, roughly 7

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-9

Final Wastewater Services MSR

million square feet of commercial and industrial space, and numerous recreational amenities. An electric car manufacturing facility is currently proposed for the Island; however it is not in the near-term planning horizon of this document.

Land use on unincorporated parcels, such as the four unincorporated islands or areas within Vallejo’s SOI, is regulated by the Solano County General Plan, adopted on August 5, 2008.

Regional Transportation Plans & Sustainable Community Strategies All regions in California must complete a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), consistent with the requirements of state law, Senate Bill (SB) 375. Senate Bill 375 requires California’s 18 metropolitan areas to integrate transportation, land-use, and housing as part of an SCS to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light-duty trucks. In the San Francisco Bay Area, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) work together, along with local governments, to develop a SCS that meets greenhouse gas reduction targets adopted by the California Air Resources Board. The RTP and SCS for the Bay Area is called “Plan Bay Area: Strategy for A Sustainable Region” and was adopted on July 18, 2013 (ABAG et al, 2014).

Senate Bill 215 (Wiggins) was approved by California legislature in 2009 and chaptered in 2010 as part of Government Code Section 56668, relating to local government. This bill requires LAFCOs to consider regional transportation plans and sustainable community strategies developed pursuant to SB 375 before making boundary decisions.

The City of Vallejo is the local agency primarily responsible for planning regional growth patterns within the District through adoption and implementation of a General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District was established to provide wastewater and flood control services and does not have the legal authority to make land use policy decisions that would significantly impact growth in the City of Vallejo. The activities of the District that are indirectly connected with regional growth are limited to determining which areas they will provide with wastewater and flood control services.

Future Development Potential In recent years, growth within the District has been limited to infill and redevelopment projects within the City of Vallejo and the portion of Solano County within the District boundaries. There have not been any new major development projects built since the 2006 MSR. However, the location of VSFCD and the City of Vallejo within the context of the greater Bay Area presents opportunities for future growth and development. According to the Propel Vallejo

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-10

Final Wastewater Services MSR

General Plan Economic and Market Trends report (2015), Vallejo’s development projects will be linked to overall demands in the form of housing, industrial and warehouse, retail and restaurants, and hotels. Further, major catalytic opportunities in the Downtown/Waterfront, Mare Island Complex, and the Solano 360 projects will be considerable development projects.

Based on growth forecasts, Vallejo will have a market demand from roughly 5,000 to 6,000 housing units over the next 25 years (Propel Vallejo, 2015). Industrial and warehouse developments are limited in Vallejo, but continued investments on Mare Island and the proposed reuse of the former General Mills site by Vallejo Marine Terminal will bring about small development outcomes in the sector. Demand for retail and restaurant development is likely to occur within the Solano 360 project and future projections for the downtown/waterfront will also bring targeted development activities. Vallejo is also likely to attract one or more hotels in the mid-scale to higher price range over the 25-year period (Propel Vallejo, 2015).

Downtown/Waterfront: The Vallejo Downtown Specific Plan (2005) describes downtown development as the enhancement of approximately 97.2 acres in the downtown area. The Waterfront Project consists of 110 acres of improvements and developments of a continuous promenade along Vallejo’s waterfront from Solano Avenue on the south to the Mare Island Causeway on the North (City of Vallejo, 2005). Although the Downtown and Waterfront projects are separated as two individual projects, they are complementary. Both plans have been implemented.

Mare Island: After the 1992 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Report recommending the closure of Mare Island Naval Shipyard, the City of Vallejo undertook an extensive community- based planning process for reuse, culminating in the Mare Island Final Reuse Plan (1994), and leading to the subsequent Mare Island Specific Plan (1999). The Specific Plan was later amended in 2004 and once again in 2007. The Specific Plan established a vision for Mare Island as a civilian employment center and focused on the replacement of jobs and economic activity once provided by the military use of the island (Mare Island Specific Plan, 2007). The Specific Plan maintains the goals to create jobs, sustain and improve economic conditions in Vallejo, create a self-sustaining and multi-use community, preserve and enhance the history of Mare Island, and to ensure those impacted from by closure are provided career opportunities and human services needed (Mare Island Specific Plan, 2007). For example, in Fall 2016, new home construction on Mare Island started through Lennar Homes Company. Lennar reactivated the Coral Sea Village

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-11

Final Wastewater Services MSR

8D residential subdivision, previously approved in 2006 but never constructed due to the downturn in the economy. City planners have coordinated with Lennar Homes to update their approved building plans and exterior designs and recently approved the model home complex and construction staging area. This new neighborhood will include 38 new single-family homes. City planners are also processing a subdivision map amendment for the nearby Coral Sea Village 8C area. This area is west of the 8D subdivision and will include 68 new single family homes and seven four-plex townhomes.

Although new development on Mare Island has been slow to come to fruition, the Propel Vallejo Economic and Market Trends Report (2015) notes that “Mare Island has been gaining ground as a unique industrial and manufacturing hub in the Bay Area.” The report indicates that strategies to continue and further enhance this momentum are critical development opportunities. There is a proposed plan for developing an electric car manufacturing plant on Mare Island; however, this proposal will not be completed in the near-term and would likely be implemented in phases starting with a show room and test track (Morton, 2016).

Solano 360: The Solano 360 project aims to revitalize the Solano County Fairgrounds with private mixed-use development. The Solano 360 Final Specific Plan (2011) was developed as a joint effort by the County of Solano, City of Vallejo, and the Solano County Fair Association, “to develop a flexible, long-term framework for redevelopment of the Solano County Fairgrounds, a 149-acre County-owned property located at the crossroads of State Route 37 and Interstate 80 within the City of Vallejo.” The Specific Plan states the redevelopment goals as such:

. Generate revenues for Solano County and the City of Vallejo, create jobs and ensure long-term economic sustainability. . Establish a unique place with an unmistakable identity that serves as a destination for visitors as well as a pedestrian-friendly, community-gathering place. . Explore a mix of complementary land uses, including retail, commercial, hospitality, recreational, residential, family and youth oriented, educational and civic uses that seamlessly integrate with the “Fair of the Future”. . Explore increased physical connectivity and synergy with Six Flags Discovery Kingdom, downtown Vallejo, the waterfront and other existing commercial operations. . Provide pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular, and transit facilities that foster access to, from and within the site. . Incorporate sustainable and green principles in all aspects of the development.

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-12

Final Wastewater Services MSR

The Solano 360 Final Specific Plan (2011) is intended to guide land use and infrastructure improvements, coordinate public investments, facilitate private investments, and support successful long-term, phased revitalization over the next 25 years, ensuring consistency with the City of Vallejo General Plan and the ability to respond to market conditions and development opportunities.

Properties with the potential to host new housing development is shown in yellow on Figure 4.2. It is important that the City ensure that public services for these potential future units are identified and discussed. LAFCO’s most recent municipal service review for the City of Vallejo was approved in 2005. It is recommended that LAFCO consider updating the City’s MSR to reflect the future development potential described herein.

Findings & Determinations for Growth and Population Projections

1. The current (year 2016) population of VSFCD is 124,134 permanent residents.

2. Although the population within the City of Vallejo declined during years 2000 to 2010, it recently has experienced an increase of 1.01% percent.

3. The area within the District’s boundaries does have potential for future growth especially the City of Vallejo’s specific plan areas. However, in the recent past, the pace of new growth has been relatively slow. Between the years 2015 to 2040, the population within the City of Vallejo (and within the District) is expected to grow by 13,700 persons (11.6 percent) as listed in Table 4.4.

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-13

CITY OF VALLEJO - Housing Element Update 2015-2023

|ÿ29

NAPA COUNTY

CITY OF AMERICAN %&'(80 CANYON

M in i D N A P A R IV E R r

Meadows Dr

La ke

Broadway St Broadway Chabot

F a Colum i bu r s g P ark r w o ay NAPA/ u

SONOMA s

Whi te D MARSHES Slough r Sereno Dr A

T s u c

o o

l t u P m kw n y

S e

dwood t Pk e S R

R ed o od wy t w 37 |ÿ W il so n A v SOLANO Nebraska St COUNTY

nd Cswy Bl Sonoma sla Tennessee St re I St a

G M St Sacramento Springs Rd Railroad Av Florida St Columbus Pkwy

Rollingwood Dr Rollingwood Azuar Dr %&'(80 Georgia St Solano Av Georgia St Walnut Av M A R E SI L A N D S T R A TI Curtola Pkwy

Benic ia Rd 29 |ÿ La ke Dalwig k Lemon St

St gaz e a i n M

G l e CITY OF BENICIA Mare n C o Swanzy ve Island P k S A N P A B L O Reservoir w y BAY

%&'(780

CARQUINEZ STRAIT

Housing Opportunity Sites Vallejo City Limit CONTRA COSTA County Limit COUNTY Highways

Railroad 0 0.5 1 Miles

Source: City of Vallejo, 2014; Solano County, 2014; USGS, 2014; Lisa Wise Consulting, 2015; PlaceWorks, 2015.

Appendix A -Vacant Land Inventory Housing Opportunity Sites Final Wastewater Services MSR

4.4: DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES Senate Bill (SB) 244, which became effective in January 2012, requires LAFCO to consider the presence of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) when preparing a MSR that addresses agencies that provide water, wastewater or structural fire protection services. A DUC is an unincorporated geographic area with 12 or more registered voters with a median household income of 80 percent or less of the statewide median household income (MHI). This state legislation is intended to ensure that the needs of these unincorporated communities are met when considering service extensions and/or annexations, in particular, water, wastewater, drainage, and structural fire protection services.

To understand the geographic distribution of disadvantaged communities within VSFCD’s boundaries, five sources of data were considered: District data LAFCO data Solano County Housing Assessment and other County data California Department of Water Resources, on-line mapping tool U.S. Census ABAG and MTC Equity Analysis Threshold

According to the U.S. Census, the median household income (MHI) for the State was $61,933 in 2014 (US Census, ACS, 2010-2014). This yields a DUC threshold MHI of less than $49,546 (80 percent of the statewide MHI) (US Census, 2014; Disadvantaged Communities Mapping Tool). The median household income and relevant data were reviewed for the City of Vallejo area. As of 2014 the median household income (MHI) in the City of Vallejo was estimated to be $58,472 (U.S. Census, 2010-2014). This is higher than the DUC threshold MHI.

Disadvantaged Areas within Cities LAFCO is required to consider the provision of public services to disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs). However, incorporated areas (within the city limits) can sometimes meet the disadvantaged income threshold. LAFCO is not required to study the status of disadvantaged neighborhoods that are located within incorporated cities that provide water, wastewater, drainage and structural fire protection services. However, SB 244 required cities to update their land use and housing elements to include an analysis of the water,

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-15

Final Wastewater Services MSR

wastewater, storm water, and structural fire protection services in the area along with financing options to help encourage investment in disadvantaged areas, should it be needed. As part of this effort, the bill required cities to identify and address any disadvantaged communities within their sphere of influence (SOI). Disadvantaged communities are defined as a “fringe communities” or areas within the cities’ SOI that meets the state defined income for DUCs, which is a MHI of 80 percent or less than the statewide median. The cities base their analysis on income levels from the U.S. Census, American Community Survey (ACS), or other supplemental sources. For example, since Vallejo is an incorporated city, by definition it does not contain any unincorporated areas within its jurisdictional boundaries. The U.S. Census 2010 found the median household income (MHI) in the City was $58,472. This is higher than the DUC threshold MHI and therefore, there are no sizeable disadvantaged communities within the City of Vallejo’s jurisdictional boundaries.

However, Vallejo does contain several unincorporated islands, within its larger, outer boundary. Unincorporated Islands are areas that are substantially or completely surrounded by the City of Vallejo and yet remain outside of the legal boundary of the city and under the jurisdiction of Solano County. Partially surrounded islands are those that are surrounded on two or more sides by the City.

LAFCO Data LAFCO’s August 8, 2016 staff report identified eleven unincorporated islands in the Vallejo area as shown in Figure 4.3 and Table 4.5 below. Table 4.5: Vallejo / Benicia Area Island Summary Area Acreage Current Use – According to Assessor Fire Sewer Water Surrounded 1 5.29 Manufactured Home Park East Vallejo FPD VSFCD City 2 9.38 Vacant Commercial Industrial/Rural Res East Vallejo FPD VSFCD uncertain 3 270.85 Single Family Residential/ Mixed Cordelia FPD none City and wells 4 11.86 Single Family Residential East Vallejo FPD VSFCD City 5 70.74 Single Family /Multi Family Residential East Vallejo FPD VSFCD City and wells Substantially Surrounded (75%) 6 222.13 Marsh/Gov't Misc East Vallejo FPD VSFCD none 7 44.77 Marsh East Vallejo FPD VSFCD none 8 297.6 Park and Recreation (82 ac) / Water Bodies none VSFCD none 9 408.73 Agriculture East Vallejo FPD VSFCD none 10 4.72 Agriculture East Vallejo FPD VSFCD well 11 250.09 Agriculture Cordelia FPD none none

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-16

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Data Source: LAFCO Staff Report for August 8, 2016 meeting, Agenda Item 7D. Data Source for water supply: Pamela Sahin, Water Conservation Coordinator, City of Vallejo

1 SID – Solano Irrigation District 2 VSFCD –Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District

The unincorporated islands also receive utilities from the following service providers: • Electric and Natural Gas: Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) • Cable: DIRECTV and Comcast

As described in the above Table, Areas # 1 to 5 are developed and may utilize public services. Areas # 6 to 11 are undeveloped and used as open space or agriculture and public services are often not necessary.

Solano County Housing Assessment In 2015, Solano County updated its Housing Element, a part of the General Plan. As part of that process, the County prepared a Housing Needs Assessment. This Assessment identified four unincorporated islands within the City of Vallejo and the District that had potential housing needs and which may meet the criteria for a disadvantaged neighborhood. These unincorporated islands are commonly referred to as: 1) Starr Subdivision, 2) Homeacres, 3) Springs Road and 4) Sandy Beach. The four islands are urbanized and surrounded on all sides by the City of Vallejo. Each of the unincorporated islands is served by VSFCD and is located within the District’s boundaries.

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-17

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Figure 4.3: LAFCO’s Map of Islands near Vallejo

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-18

Final Wastewater Services MSR

DWR Mapping Tool According the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) on-line mapping tool1, much of the Vallejo area can be considered disadvantaged as shown in Figure 4.4 (right).

The above map depicts Disadvantaged Communities Block Groups. This layer is derived from data of the US Census ACS 2010-2014 showing census block groups identified as disadvantaged communities (less than 80% of the State's median household income) or severely disadvantaged communities (less than 60% of the State's median household income). However, U.S. Census Community Block Group data is low resolution and does not provide information on specific neighborhoods.

Census Data In 2014, the statewide annual median household income (MHI) was $61,933. This yields a DUC threshold MHI of less than $49,546 (80 percent of the statewide MHI). Relevant census data were reviewed for the Vallejo area. Solano County has a total of 284 Block Groups as defined by the U.S. Census. Of these, 72 Block Groups have a median household income of less than $49,546 and meet the disadvantaged threshold (U.S. Census, 2014). Most of these block groups are outside the geographic area of interest for this study. The U.S. Census Tool called “Census Explorer was used to depict median income for census tracts within and near Vallejo as shown in Figure 4.5, below. Many of the census tracts within Vallejo meet the financial criteria to be classified as disadvantaged.

1 DWR mapping tool is available at: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/dacs/

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-19

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Figure 4.5

The census tracts and block groups that relate to the eleven unincorporated islands that LAFCO identified is shown in Table 4.6, below. The areas listed in Table 4.6 correspond to the area numbers depicted in Figure 4.3, above.

The data for median household income shown in Table 4.6 above indicates that Area 1meets the financial criteria (80% of statewide MHI) to be classified as a disadvantaged unincorporated community. Additionally, portions of Areas 4, 5 and 6 also meet the financial to be classified as a disadvantaged unincorporated community. Area 8 appears to meet the financial criteria; however there is a high margin of error for this area which potentially pushes the MHI above the threshold. Areas 6 and 8 are located along the river and bay shoreline and are comprised of marshland and other habitat features. Since they are not developed, there is not a demand for public services in these two areas.

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-20

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Table 4.6: 11 Unincorporated Islands with Census Data Area Acreage Census Tract Census Block Median Margin of Disadvantaged Number of Group Household Error within Margin Blocks within Income in Block of Error Block Group Group Surrounded 1 5.29 2502.00 1 $40,711 4541 Yes Data not available 2 9.38 2505.02 1 and 2 $69,844 and n/a No 3 blocks $62,756 2521.04 $131,597 n/a No Data not available

3 270.85 2505.01 1 and 2 $58,636 and n/a No 25 blocks $55,179 2506.01 1 $62,206 n/a No Data not available 4 11.86 2508.01 1 $74,111 n/a No 6 blocks 2508.01 3 $38,854 10073 Yes Data not available 5 70.74 2511 1 $47,837 3817 No 31 blocks

2507.01 1 $32,750 6439 Yes Data not available

Substantially Surrounded (75%) 6 222.13 2518.03 1 $59,545 n/a No 5 blocks 2518.02 1 $19,572 4597 Yes Data not available 7 44.77 2518.03 1 $59,545 n/a No Data not available 8 297.6 2518.04 1 and 3 $43,056 28,091 No Data not available 2518.03 1 $59,545 n/a No Data not available 9 408.73 2501.06 1 $159,844 n/a No Data not available 10 4.72 2501.06 1 $159,844 n/a No Data not available 11 250.09 2521.04 1 and 2 $131,597 n/a No Data not available Data Source: Solano County GIS data and US Census via http://factfinder.census.gov. Methodology by Caltrans. Data compiled by Stolen & Harrison.

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-21

Final Wastewater Services MSR

District Data

For low income residents, the District offers a discount on cost of service. The District publishes public information on the Reduced Rate Program and customers are eligible to apply provided they meet the requirements of the PG&E CARE Program. The District uses its property tax revenue to fund the low income program. No health and safety issues have been identified within the unincorporated islands.

DUC Summary Eleven unincorporated islands have been identified within the VSFCD boundary area. Four areas appear to potentially meet disadvantaged financial criteria as listed in Table 4.6, above. Based on information in the Solano County Housing Needs Assessment, two areas (#3, Starr and #5, Homeacres) are in need of programs to improve housing conditions and could potentially be classified as DUCs. Additionally, census data listed in Table 4.6 shows that at least portions of four areas (1, 4, 5, and 6) meet the financial criteria to be classified as DUCs. These four areas do receive water, fire, and wastewater services as listed in Table 4.5, above. Additionally, no public health and safety issues have been identified. This analysis is based on the best information currently available.

Findings & Determinations for Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities

4. The median household income (MHI) within the Vallejo community is $58,472. This is higher than the DUC threshold MHI of less than $49,546 (80 percent of the Statewide MHI).

5. There are 11 fully and partially surrounded unincorporated islands within the City of Vallejo and the District. Each of the 11 islands do receive water, wastewater, and fire services. No deficiency in public services to these areas have been identified.

6. Preliminary indications from Solano County’s Housing Needs Assessment indicate that Starr Subdivision and Homeacres neighborhood could potentially meet disadvantaged criteria; however specific financial data was not analyzed in the County’s Assessment.

7. The median household income for census tracts and block groups near the 11 unincorporated islands was studied as listed in Table 4.6. Based on this analysis, at least

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-22

Final Wastewater Services MSR

a portion of four unincorporated islands do meet the financial threshold to be classified as DUCs.

8. No health and safety issues have been identified within these four unincorporated islands. Each of the four islands do receive water, wastewater, and fire services. No deficiency in public services to these areas have been identified.

9. For low income residents, the District offers a discount on cost of service. The District publishes public information on the Reduced Rate Program and customers are eligible to apply provided they meet the requirements of the PG&E CARE Program. The District uses its property tax revenue to fund the low income program. No health and safety issues have been identified within the unincorporated islands.

4.5: PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES

Service Overview VSFCD provides wastewater and flood control services to customers within their boundary. The District’s major facilities include 436 miles of sewer pipes, 250 miles of storm drain pipes, 10,000 catch basins, 28 sewer pump stations, 5 stormwater pump stations, and the wastewater treatment plant (VSFCD, 2016). District-owned lands include 12.36-acres for the treatment plant and pump stations and 1,417-acres on Tubbs Island where biosolids are spread for agricultural use (VSFCD, 2016).

The number of sewer connections served by the District is estimated to be 37,804 (Table 4.7); approximately 76 percent of the District’s customers are residential uses (Morton, 2016) and a significant fraction of the residential customers live in multi-family units (i.e. condominiums or apartments). In 2015, the District regulated approximately 460 businesses including 5 Significant Industrial Users (SIUs), approximately 189 small commercial/industrial businesses, approximately 225 food service facilities (restaurants, delicatessens, rest homes, etc.) and approximately 46 dental practitioners (VSFCD Environmental Services Department, 2016). A 6th SIU is currently completing the permitting process and will be discharging as soon as the process is complete (VSFCD, 2016).

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-23

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Table 4.7: Summary of Sewer Connections in District Type of Sewer Connection Number of Connections in 2016 Commercial/Industrial Connections 460 Residential Connections 37,344 Total Number of Sewer Connections 37,804

Wastewater Service The District’s original facilities and infrastructure were built in the late 1950s (Solano LAFCo, 2006). The primary infrastructure and capital focus for wastewater service has been on maintaining and improving existing systems. The District facilities and infrastructure system has undergone numerous updates, repairs and expansions. The first comprehensive facilities master plan for the District was created in 1987 and outlined specific maintenance and capacity issues to be addressed. The District periodically updates the existing master plan, with the most recent comprehensive update in 1997. Additionally, in 2002 the District implemented a Storm Drain Master Plan (Solano LAFCo, 2006).

The 1997 Wastewater Facilities Master Plan/Action Plan (current Master Plan) built upon the 1987 Master Plan and its 1992 Interim Update. Since the development of the 1987 Master Plan, the District has experienced almost continuous construction and upgrading at its wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). With the completion of these projects, the treatment plant has expanded its design/permitted capacity to its current 15.5 million gallons per day (MGD) average dry weather flow at full secondary level of treatment. With this treatment capability, the District indicates that the plant, as it currently exists, is able to meet the wastewater needs of the service area through its current projected buildout (Solano LAFCo, 2006).

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-24

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Collection System Infrastructure

The existing collection system for the District consists of approximately 436 miles of sewer main lines ranging in size from four (4) inches to sixty (60) inches in diameter; 36 pump stations; 11.6 miles of force mains; and 76 miles of lower laterals in the public right-of-way/easement, ranging in size from four (4) inches to eight (8) inches (VSFCD Field Operations Department, 2016).

The current Master Plan emphasizes long-term programs, mainly an infiltration/inflow (I/I) reduction program. The program includes I/I source detection, flow monitoring, computer modeling, and geographic information system (GIS) Continual Condition Assessment. However, corrective maintenance also is a significant component of the Master Plan. This includes improvements to reduce I/I, continuation of an upper lateral (privately-owned pipes) replacement program, replacement and conversion of private sewer mains, and the cyclic replacements and rehabilitation of mains as part of the Capital Improvement Program (VSFCD Field Operations Department, 2016). There are several measures of integrity for a wastewater collection system, including peaking factors, efforts to address l/l, and inspection practices. The specific measures the District takes to ensure integrity of the system are described in the following paragraphs.

VSFCD has an active program of collection system maintenance, inspection, repair and rehabilitation. The District has preventive maintenance programs in place to continually assess the condition of the system during maintenance activities. The District uses closed circuit television (CCTV) inspections, both on a spot check basis and as part of a continual system wide assessment, with feedback from field crews to adjust maintenance schedules as maintenance is being performed (VSFCD, 2016).

The District plans for cleaning and inspection of the system on regular cycles including jet inspection every 3-4 years and CCTV inspection every 8 years. The District tracks the frequency of service calls, CCTV condition assessment, preventative maintenance schedule frequency, and I/I reduction to help plan for repair and

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-25

Final Wastewater Services MSR

rehabilitation of the system infrastructure. The District also has I/I reduction strategies in place including manhole inspection/rehabilitation, main line condition assessment, an Upper Lateral I/I Reduction Program, and Smart Cover monitoring of the collection system (VSFCD, 2016).

VSFCD utilizes Infor Public Sector Version 8.3 software for its Computerized Maintenance Management System. The District upgraded in 2014 from Hansen version 7.7 to Infor Public Sector 8.3 to stay current with new management technologies. Infor allows the District to track schedules, manage workloads, record CCTV Data to track changes over time, and make decisions regarding in-house repairs and system-wide rehabilitation. The District is planning to upgrade the software to Infor Public Sector 8.5 to enhance mobile computing capabilities for the field crew. The District currently uses laptops and iPads in the field to access and input information into Infor and to manage USA tickets, GIS, and emails as needed (VSFCD, 2016).

VSFCD uses these strategies and programs to reduce sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) in the system, which has significantly reduced SSOs from 73 occurrences in 2006 to 20 in 2015 (VSFCD, 2016).

Treatment System Infrastructure

The District operates under the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order No. 2006- 0003-DWQ which specifies water discharge requirements for the District’s Sanitary Sewer Collection System. The District operates under the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R2-2012-0017 and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CA0037699, which specifies the Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) for the District’s WWTP on Ryder Street. The current WDR for the treatment plant prohibits the discharge of average dry weather flows greater than 15.5 MGD and average wet weather flows greater than 60 MGD (VSFCD Field Operations Department, 2016).

In 2015, the District’s average annual flow volume at the WWTP was 8.8 MGD and the peak daily flow for the year was 49.1 MGD (VSFCD, 2016). A formal enforcement action (R2-2016-1009) was taken in March 2016 in response to a chlorine violation on November 14, 2014; the

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-26

Final Wastewater Services MSR

mandatory minimum penalty was applied (VSFCD, 2016).

The WWTP uses trickling filters/solids contact to achieve a secondary level of treatment (VSFCD, 2016). Order No. R2-2012-0017 and NPDES Permit No. CA0037699 includes the following facility and discharge description for the District. The Discharger owns and operates a collection system and secondary wastewater treatment facility. The treatment system consists of screens, aerated grit removal, primary sedimentation, biofiltration, biological aeration, mechanical skimming, secondary clarification, disinfection by chlorination and/or ultraviolet light, and dechlorination. Wastewater is discharged from Discharge Point No. 001 to the Carquinez Strait and from Discharge Point No. 002 to Mare Island Strait, both waters of the United States. Wastewater is discharged from Discharge Point No. 001 during normal operations. Discharge through Discharge Point No. 002 occurs only during wet weather when effluent flows exceed 30 MGD. Lime stabilization and gravity thickening are used to treat solids removed from the wastewater stream; belt filter presses are also used to dewater solids. The Discharger hauls and disposes of stabilized and dewatered biosolids off-site.

Solids are de-watered and stabilized with lime to meet land application requirements required under the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Part 503 rules. Biosolids are transported by District trucks to a farm owned by the District on Tubbs Island2 in Sonoma County. Biosolids are stockpiled on a storage pad and applied to fields annually in September, in a rotating 5 year schedule (VSFCD, 2016).

The District does not currently produce recycled water; however, the District has received a Proposition 1 Planning Grant to partially fund a Recycled Water Feasibility Study (VSFCD, 2016).

Sewer Demand Demand for wastewater service is typically impacted by development occurring within the District that could result

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-27

Final Wastewater Services MSR

in an increase in the demand for those services and the need for additional infrastructure. For example, the addition of 1,400 residential homes, and 7 million square feet of commercial and industrial space as envisioned by the Mare Island Reuse Plan could add about 0.7 to 1.0 MGD of Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) to be treated. However, VSFCD will further analyze potential impacts of growth on the collection, treatment, and disposal system as development projects are proposed. At a cursory level, future growth within VSFCD’s boundaries is expected to be approximately 2 percent within the 20 year planning period (VSFCD, 2016).

In 2012 the District prepared a Local Limit Assessment which studied current capacity and treatment efficiency, but did not reflect future growth. Based on this study, current flows into the WWTP are little over 50% of plant capacity based on the current loading and in compliance with the NPDES permit. District engineers indicate it is unlikely that the WWTP will reach its capacity within the next 10 years, even if Mare Island development rate were to increase substantially. The District’s present wastewater treatment facilities are built to accommodate potential growth in the City of Vallejo (personal communication Dan Tafolla, and Johnson Ho December 2016). However, the District’s collection system would likely require upgrades to accommodate new development. For example, the geographic distribution of the collection sewer pipes may need to be expanded to reach new neighborhoods and typically this expansion is the responsibility of private land developers. Additionally, the size of some neighborhood sewer pipes may be too small to accommodate new growth. Again, responsibility for increasing the size of sewer pipes sometimes falls to private land developers who wish to accommodate new growth.

Flood Control Service The District is responsible for an extensive storm water drainage system. The District manages over 11,400 storm drain structures, including 239 miles of pipe, 11.5 miles of open channel, 5 detention basins, and 9 pump stations (VSFCD Field Operations Department, 2016). Vallejo contains several natural creeks including Blue Rock Springs Creek and Hanns Rindler Creek which drain to San Pablo Bay, part of the Bay/Delta estuary. Additionally, several lakes are located in the watershed including Lake Chabot and Lake Dalwigk. Flood Zones within the City are shown in Figure 4.6. The basic topography and hydrology of the area is shown in Figure 4.7, (next page) which is an excerpt from a 1947 map by the U.S. Geological Survey. A more detailed map of the watersheds in the area has been prepared by VSFCD and is shown in Figure

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-28

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Figure 4.6 4.7. The creeks receive drainage and precipitation from storm events and may periodically be subject to flooding.

The storm water system bypasses the WWTP and is discharged directly to San Pablo Bay (VSFCD, 2016). Several of VSFCD’s storm water basins drain into Lake Dalwigk, a storm water storage facility which VSFCD owns (VSFCD Finance Department, 2016). Lake Dalwigk and the parklands that surround it are managed by the Greater Vallejo Recreation District. The park contains marsh habitat for amphibians and other wildlife.

The District inspects all storm water drainage inlets annually in preparation for the winter storm season so as to minimize the potential for maintenance-related localized flooding. As an example, of the 11,400 storm drain structures maintained by the District, approximately 7,600 are drain inlets that are inspected annually to determine specific cleaning needs. Of the drain inlets the District inspected in 2015, 300 needed follow up cleaning; a number that has been fairly static each year since this inspection process has been in place.

The District has an active outreach program to educate the public regarding storm water discharges to the natural environment, which has made a noticeable difference in the reduction of debris in the drain inlets. Maintenance of all the open channels, drainage ditches, and creeks in the District is managed in compliance with the appropriate permits, which limit maintenance activities to mowing and specific obstructive debris removal. The District is beginning a permit and project process to allow more targeted debris removal of drainage channels to allow for improving conveyance capacity over time and through on-going maintenance efforts (VSFCD Field Operations Department, 2016).

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-29

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Any new development Figure 4.7 projects are required to provide storm water infrastructure, such as debris capture devices that meet District requirements as outlined in the District’s storm water ordinances (VSFCD, 2016).

Adequacy and Challenges in Provision of Service and Infrastructure

The potential challenges the District has identified regarding the provision of wastewater and flood control services include (Vallejo, 2016):

Increased water quality regulations for the San Pablo Bay discharge permit Expansion of the wastewater treatment plant for production of recycled water Reduction in wastewater flows from water conservation efforts Rapid increase in implementation of major development projects

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-30

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Figure 4.8: Watersheds in the Vallejo Area

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-31

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Findings &Determinations for Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities

10. The number of sewer connections served by the District is estimated to be 37,804; approximately 76 percent of the District’s customers are residential uses. There are approximately 460 commercial and industrial customers, including 5 Significant Industrial Users (SIUs), served by the District.

11. New development projects are required to provide storm water facilities as part of project improvement plans.

12. As a result of the District’s measures to ensure integrity of the wastewater collection system, VSFCD has significantly reduced Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) from 73 occurrences in 2006 to 20 in 2015.

13. The treatment plant has sufficient design and permitted capacity to meet projected growth for the City of Vallejo and unincorporated areas within District boundaries.

14. The Capital Improvement Plan focuses on improvements for effectiveness of the maintenance program and to reduce I/I in the sewer collection system, and plans for projects to correct these deficiencies in a timely manner. Implementation of the CIP would appear to allow the sewer system to function effectively throughout the plan period.

4.6: FINANCIAL ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES In California, special districts are classified as enterprise or non-enterprise districts, based on their source of revenue: Enterprise districts: Primary revenue source is fees for public service. Under this model, the customers that consume goods or services such as drinking or irrigation water, waste disposal, or electricity, pay a fee. Rates are set by a governing board and there is a nexus between the costs of providing services and the rates customers pay. Sometimes enterprise district may also receive property taxes which comprise a portion of their budget. Non-enterprise districts: Districts which receive property taxes are typically classified as non-enterprise districts. Services that indirectly benefit the entire community, such as flood or fire protection, community centers, and cemetery districts are often funded through property taxes.

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-32

Final Wastewater Services MSR

VSFCD is primarily an enterprise district but also receives a property tax share. VSFCD has three enterprise funds including: wastewater, storm water, and upper lateral. Additionally, VSFCD also provides non-enterprise functions which are funded through property taxes. Property taxes are administered by County of Solano program and these tax revenues are considered subventions not restricted as to purpose.

VSFCD has several accounting policies which are described in the beginning of its annual Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) (i.e. financial statements). A few of the key policies include Long-Term Debt Costs of Issuance Policy, Risk Retention Policy, and Net Position Policy. It has an adopted management and budget policy addressing budget preparation, fixed asset accounting, investment of funds, and expense authorization. Budgets are adopted in public meetings on a biennial basis by the District’s Board of Trustees (not by the City of Vallejo). The fiscal year begins on July 1 and ends on June 30. The Budget and financial audits for the most recent year is available to the public via the District’s website3. Financial information for previous years is available upon request from District staff.

Although VSFCD is a separate legal entity, apart from the City of Vallejo, its finances are a Component Unit of the City of Vallejo. Component units are legally separate organizations and are utilized for agencies where elected officials of the primary government are financially accountable. Financial accountability exists in situations where a voting majority of an organization’s governing body is substantively the same as the governing body of the primary government. VSFCD’s Board of Trustees4 approves the annual budget and audit. Additionally, specific financial information is submitted to the State Controller’s Office and the County of Solano (VSFCD, CAFR, 2016).

Financing Corporation Many districts in California utilize nonprofit corporations (referred to as "63-20 Corporations") in structuring public/private infrastructure debt. Public agency members can restrict the purposes or powers of the nonprofit in its certificate of incorporation. The Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District’s Financing Corporation was organized only to provide financial assistance to the District by acquiring, constructing, improving and financing various facilities, land and equipment, and by leasing or selling certain facilities, land and equipment for the use, benefit and enjoyment of the public served by the District. The Financing Corporation has no

3 VSFCD budget is available at: https://www.vsfcd.com/SitePages/financials.aspx 4 VSFCD is governed by an eight-member Board of Trustees composed of the seven-members of the Vallejo City Council and one member from the Solano County Board of Supervisors that serve staggered four-year terms.

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-33

Final Wastewater Services MSR

members and its Board of Directors consists of the same VSFCD Trustees. No separate financial statements are prepared for the Financing Corporation.

Financial Performance Indicators Table 4.8: Financial Performance Indicators

Key Performance Indicators Notes Summary financial information presented The District’s biennial budget does provide in a standard format and simple language. text and tables that summarize financial information. Reserve funds and their purpose Area for improvement. District policy on the accumulation and VSFCD currently has a reserve policy that is use of reserves being evaluated and updated as part of the upcoming rate study*. Plans for the future, including anticipated The District is in the process of completing a revenues, expenditures, reserves and long-term financial plan and rate study which trends in user rates is anticipated to be completed in early 2017 for Board of Trustee consideration*. Rates Rates for storm water were adequately described to voters during a recent ballot measure. Wastewater rates are currently being reviewed as part of a rate study which will ensure rates are adequate for the cost of providing service and maintaining infrastructure* *Data Source: Ms. Mary Morris, VSFCD Director of Finance, personal communication, December 2016

VSFCD’s enterprise funds are accounted for using the full accrual basis of accounting. With this accounting method, revenues from user fees and other sources are recorded when earned, and expenses for goods and services are recorded when obligations are incurred (VSFCD, CAFR, 2016). Additionally, the District’s financial statements are prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is responsible for establishing GAAP for state and local governments through its statements and interpretations. The District uses the accrual basis of accounting. VSFCD has received several Certificates of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association for its' Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (VSFCD, CAFR, 2016).

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-34

Final Wastewater Services MSR

The most recent independent auditor’s report was prepared for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014/2015 and dated January 12, 2016, and was attached to the District’s Financial Statements. The audit found that VSFCD’s financial statements fairly presented their financial position in all material respects. Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States were followed. (Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Company LLP, 2016). The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) contains a Statement of Net Position, Statement of Revenues and Expenses and Changes in Net Position, Statement of Cash Flows and Notes to Basic Financial Statements. Increases or decreases in net position over time are an indicator of the District’s overall financial health and should be considered together with management’s short and long-term plans for prospectively financing programs and services.

Figure 4.9 : Revenues FY 14/15 Interest & Revenues Property investment taxes 2% VSFCD has two basic 3% operating non- types of revenue, revenues operating Operating 1% revenues revenues consist 2% primarily of charges for Service services. charges 92% Non-operating revenues and expenses are Data Source: VSFCD, CARF, 2016 related to financing and investing type activities. Property tax receipts are also an example of non- operating revenue.

The District primarily (91% to 92%) receives revenue as fees for service as shown in Figure 4.9, below. Sources of revenue include: wastewater service charges, drainage fees, connection fees, interest income, and property tax. For the fiscal year 2015-16, the VSFCD served approximately 38,000 customer accounts and gathered approximately $31 million in revenue from rate-based service charges and total revenues were almost $34 million as shown in Table 4.9, below (VSFCD, CAFR, 2016). VSFCD receives an allocation of property taxes as authorized by the State of California. In FY 15/16, property tax revenue was $949,071. This is slightly higher than in prior years due to an increase in property tax values (VSFCD, CAFR, 2016).

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-35

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Table 4.9: Condensed Statements of Revenues

Description Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Amount Percent Ended Ended Ended Ended Ended Increase Increase 6/30/2011 6/30/2012 6/30/2013 6/30/2014 6/30/2015 (Decrease) (Decrease) 2015-2014 2015-2014 Revenues S ervice charges $25,192,643 $25,917,040 $26,778,540 $ 27,312,302 $ 28,208,614 $ 896,312 3.3% Other operating revenues 731,993 743,917 662,325 761,584 434,531 (327,053) -42.9% Property taxes 762,361 729,637 811,231 778,473 876,878 98,405 12.6% Interest and investment 1,042,068 1,606,780 275,791 1,209,719 752,513 (457,206) -37.8% Other non -operating 200,344 329,894 323,932 453,552 518,096 64,544 14.2% revenues Total revenues 27,929,409 29,327,268 28,851,819 30,515,630 30,790,632 275,002 0.9% Source: VSFCD, CAFR, 2016, 2014, and 2012

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-36

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Expenses

In FY14/15, operating expenses were $25 million for the wastewater system, $2.4 million for storm water, and $0.47 million for the upper lateral system. Breaking expenses down by categories (including non-operating interest expense) shows that in FY 14/15 salaries and benefits for employees are the largest (43%) expense for the District as shown in Figure 4.10, below. In FY15/16, operating expenses were $26.5 million for the wastewater system, $2.4 million for storm water, and $0.66 million for the upper lateral system. (VSFCD, CAFR, 2016).

Figure 4.10: VSFCD Expenses FY 14/15 Interest expense 8%

General & admin 8%

Utilities & phone 6% Salaries and benefits 43% Depreciation and amortization 27%

Operations materials, supplies and service %

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-37

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Table 4.10: Condensed Statements of Expenses and Changes in Net Position

Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Percent Ended Ended Ended Ended Ended Increase Description 6/30/2011 6/30/2012 6/30/2013 6/30/2014 6/30/2015 (Decrease) 2015-2014 Expenses Salaries and benefits 11,806,666 15,326,564 11,933,622 12,893,571 13,144,752 1.9% Operations materials, supplies and 2,645,808 2,607,931 2,513,384 2,953,539 2,338,680 -20.8% Deprec iation and amortization 8,164,530 8,279,443 8,317,451 8,336,273 8,328,691 -0.1% Utilities and telephone 1,737,079 1,357,460 1,647,826 1,548,515 1,670,587 7.9% General and administrative 1,686,030 1,996,831 2,237,321 2,558,376 2,461,696 -3.8% Interest expense 3,244,200 3,195,587 3,034,667 2,676,177 2,529,416 -5.5% Total expenses 29,284,313 32,763,816 29,684,271 30,966,451 30,473,822 -1.6%

Income before capital contributions (1,354,904) (3,436,548) (832,452) (450,821) 316,810 -170.3% Connection fee revenue 214,574 306,174 57,990 216,982 100,179 -53.8% Contributions from developers 629,636 4,507,084 0 0 0 0 Net Position Increase (decrease) in net position (510,694) 1,376,710 (774,462) (233,839) 416,989 -278.3% Net position - beg of year 190,705,810 190,195,116 $191,571,826 190,233,312 175,184,366 -7.9% Net position - end of year $190,195,116 $191,571,826 $190,797,364 $ 189,999,473 $175,601,355 -7.6% Source: VSFCD, CAFR, 2016, 2014, 2012

Note: The 2013/2014 and the 2014/2015 Net Position at the beginning of the year is a restatement due to the implementation of GASB 68.

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-38

Final Wastewater Services MSR

The District’s annual Financial Statement provides financial trend information to assist the public with understanding changes in financial performance and financial outcomes. Between the years 2006 to 2015, VSFCD’s total net position has declined by ten percent as shown in Figure 4.11. The decline is attributable to less net investment in capital assets, less restricted funds for capital and debt service, less unrestricted funds (property tax and other), and implementation of new GASB statements that increase long-term liabilities. Overall, having a stable net position shows that a district has been able to maintain a positive fund balance, such that spending is in line with revenues (or in some situations reserves are available to maintain the fund balance).

Figure 4.11: Total net position

$200,000,000

$190,000,000

$180,000,000

Total net $170,000,000 position

$160,000,000 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

Source: VSFCD, CAFR, 2016

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-39

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Source: VSFCD, CAFR, 2016

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-40

Final Wastewater Services MSR

In recent years, operating revenue has exceeded operating expenses. However, during years 2006 to 2012, expenses exceeded revenues and the difference was made whole from reserve funds. This situation indicates that VSFCD revenues are sensitive to the state of the local economy. This also indicates that having sufficient reserve funds is important to VSFCD to help it weather the economically lean years. Figure 4.12 and Table 4.11 below compares operating revenue to operating expenses over the ten year study period.

Figure 4.12 : VSFCD Operating Revenues and Expenses

$30,000,000

$25,000,000 Total operating

$20,000,000 revenues

$15,000,000 Total operating U.S. $ expenses

$10,000,000

$5,000,000 . $0 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-41

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Table 4.11: Changes in Net Position

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-42

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Changes in net position reflect several factors. Connection fee revenue is highly variable and is somewhat dependent on the rate of new home or commercial development. Property tax revenue reached a peak high of $1 million in 2008.

Non-operating costs reached a peak high in 2009 at $5.7 million. This was also at the peak of the recession. The high cost can be partly attributable to interest expense in 2009 at $3.5 million and investment losses also at $3.5 million. Funds utilized for capital or other permissible purposes also change through time. Changes in unrestricted net position reflect swings due to the utilization of cash to construct capital assets or other financing activities.

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-43

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Assessed Value of Property Within VSFCD Boundaries

A portion of VSFCD’s revenues are from local property taxes. Property tax revenue is dependent upon the value of the properties within the District’s boundaries. The Solano County Assessor’s Office assigns assessed values to properties. The County Auditor’s Office retains records of property assessed values and property taxes collected.

The Auditor-Controller groups taxable properties into Tax Rate Areas (TRAs). The TRA contains the taxing authority for each area as established by the State Board of Equalization, as well as the tax rates for each authority, including districts such as VSFCD. The TRA is shown on the property tax bill that is mailed to owners of property in the County. VSFCD has 98 TRAs within its boundaries including TRA # 7000-7088 and # 92002 -92023.

The total value of assessed properties within the District’s boundaries is $9.6 billion as shown in Table 4.12, below. VSFCD also has a bond debt that is financed based partially on assessed property value within the benefit area at $2.4 billion. For comparison purposes, the total net value of all assessed properties in Solano County is $48.8 billion.

Table 4.12: Assessed Property Value by Fund for FY 16/17 NET SECURED NET TOTAL NET FUND DESCRIPTION VALUE SBE VALUE UNSECURED VALUE GENERAL 1 COUNTY* $45,983,277,526 $26,822,206 $2,835,057,918 $48,845,157,650 22 VSFCD OPERATING $9,309,385,695 $271,792 $315,514,075 $9,625,171,562 285 VSFCD BOND DEBT $2,382,768,228 $271,792 $17,191,644 $2,400,231,664 Data Source: Solano County Auditor's Office Report # R720102B Available on-line at: http://www.co.solano.ca.us/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=25551

The value of assessed properties change over time. This annual variation for the past five fiscal years for VSFCD’s Fund 22 is shown in Figure 4.13, below. Since 2014, the total assessed property value has increased slightly each year.

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-45

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Figure 4.13: Total Assessed Property Value in VSFCD boundaries

$15,000,000,000

$10,000,000,000

$5,000,000,000

$0 12_13 13_14 14_15 15_16 16_17 Fiscal Year Data Source: Solano County Auditor's Office

Based on property values, the County Auditor makes projections about expected tax revenue during an upcoming year to help agencies monitor their finances. For FY 16/17, the Auditor projects that VSFCD will receive approximately $1.04 million in tax revenue as shown in Table 4.13 and Figure 4.14, below.

Figure 4.14: Property Tax Projection For VSFCD

1% 0% FY 2016/17 2% 1%5% 3% SECURED

UNITARY

UNSECURED

HOME 88% OWNERS SUPPLE MENTAL

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-46

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Table 4.x: Property Tax Projection for County and VSFCD for FY 16/17 UNS ECUR HOME SUPPLE RDA PASS- RDA RES. TOTAL FUND NO. S ECURED UNITARY ED OWNERS MENTAL THRU BALANCE PROPERTY TAXES GENERAL FD 001 $70,694,669 $3,125,279 $3,833,700 $919,690 $1,700,000 $15,849,682 $4,450,545 $100,573,565 COUNTY VSFCD FD 022 $908,178 $29,527 $49,095 $8,426 $15,575 $3,162 $23,672 $1,037,635 Data Source: Solano County Auditor's Office, 2016. http://www.co.solano.ca.us/depts/auditor/divisions/proptax/prop_tax_info/2016_201

Capital Improvement Plan

VSFCD Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) aims to upgrade and replace aging District sewer system and focuses on line rehabilitation and elimination of overflows. The CIP costs approximately $3M annually and is financed via rates on a pay-as-you-go basis. During FY 14/15, the District completed several CIP projects and construction costs totaled $8,760,436 (VSFCD, CAFR, 2016). VSFCD routinely inventories its capital assets and performs condition assessments to identify projects to include in the CIP. The CIP is a five-year rolling plan that funds projects which take more than one year to complete. The District lists its upcoming capital improvement projects as line items in budget worksheets. Anticipated capital improvement projects include:

Wastewater Capital Projects

Mare Island Strait outfall #122916 Meadows force main #130612 Army Reserve sewer #130516 Mare Island force main replacement Alabama Street sewer #132816 Gary Circle/Magazine #131012 Denton Court #2 #152516 Skibbereen/Monteith 8" sewer #071027 Pepper Drive #131412 Chase Street GIS implementation and upgrade (software) #3 water station Distributive Control Systems (DCS) upgrade Biotower media replacement - one per year Lateral replacement - 25 each year Permit mandated Collection Sys Repairs Solids Processing blding improvements GPS equipment Recycled Water Facility Facility Maintenance bldg improvements Advanced Treatment for Nutrients

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-47

Final Wastewater Services MSR

MIPS mechanical improvements Levee Maintenance Treatment plant seawall (Data Source: VSFCSD, Budget 2015)5

The District aims to spend $7.2 million in FY 15/16 and $5.2 million in FY 16/17 on capital improvement projects. The above listed improvement projects are expected to be completed within the next five years (through year 2020) at an estimated cost of $21 million.

The District is developing an Asset Management Plan (AMP) to guide the process of identifying best practices and prioritizing maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement efforts to ensure longevity of District facilities and infrastructure. The AMP will also help the District plan for potential changes to water quality regulations (VSFCD, 2016) (Morton, 2016).

Reserves

In California, many special districts have accumulated reserves. There are no standards guiding the size and use of reserve funds. Reserve and investment policies and practices could be improved through the establishment of guidelines and enhanced scrutiny. VSFCD is in the process of updating its reserve policy (VSFCD, 2016).

Table 4.13 below shows that each of the three enterprise funds has a reserve account and the total District-Wide Reserve Cash & Investments Reconciliation for FY 2015-16 is $42.5 million. Interest and investment income in FY 15/16 totaled $840,119. Investments include custody securities with a fiscal agent and construction and reserve funds with trustee banks.

One of VSFCD’s major initiatives is to perform a reserve analysis in connection with long-term financial planning to find the right balance between rates, reserve levels, use of debt, and a consistent capital replacement program.

5 From Five-Year Capital Projects Worksheet on page 27 of pdf

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-48

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Table 4.14: Cash & Investments Name of Account Amount Wastewater Funding Reserve Cash & Investments $17 million Reconciliation FY 2015-16 Storm Water Funding Reserve Cash & Investments $24 million Reconciliation FY 2015-16 Upper Lateral Reserve Cash & Investments Reconciliation FY $1.5 million 2015-16 District-Wide Reserve Cash & Investments Reconciliation $42.5 million FY 2015-16 (Total) Data Source: VSFCD, CAFR, 2016

In addition to reserve cash and investments, VSFCD has specified debt service reserves as follows: 2014 Revenue Bonds Debt Service Reserve Fund 2011 Revenue Bonds Debt Service Reserve Fund 2006 Certificates of Participation Debt Service Reserve Fund 1993 Certificates of Participation Debt Service Reserve Fund

These debt service reserves total almost $5 million and are designed to hold funds for payment of debts and loans made to the District for capital improvement projects (VSFCD, CAFR, 2015).

Comparing the size of a district’s reserve/investment fund to their annual gross revenue is a common financial metric. Table 4.14, above indicates that total investments are $41.5 million. In FY 14/15, gross revenue was $30.8 million. The comparative calculation shows that total investments are equivalent to 1.3 of gross revenue.

Undesignated reserves are called the Unrestricted Net position in VSFCD financial documents. These total $13.7M (not cash). Essentially all these funds would be designated for operating or capital reserve (Ms. M Morris, personal communication, December 2016).

Debt and Liabilities

The District’s debt is all associated with its Wastewater Fund. Standard & Poor's, a credit rating agency, has assigned the District an AA- credit rating. As of June 2015, the District’s long-term debt burden was $59 million which represents a per capita decreased $34 from last year to $456 (VSFCD, CAFR, 2016). Long-term debt net of premium (discount) is shown in Table 4.15, below.

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-49

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Table 4.15: Long-term debt Description Fiscal Year Ended Amount Increase Percent Increase June 30, 2015 6/30/2014 (Decrease) (Decrease) 2014 Revenue bonds - net $ 33,089,018 $ 34,277,971 $ (1,188,953) -3.5% 2011 Revenue bonds - net 2,591,818 2,799,545 (207,727) -7.4% 1993 Cert of participation - 11,718,624 13,718,280 (1,999,656) -14.6% 200 8 State Revolving 2,792,753 3,037,308 (244,555) -8.1% Fund loan 2004 State Revolving 6,503,828 7,230,146 (726,318) -10.0% Fund loan Interfund note - wastewater- 2,780,962 3,098,618 (317,656) -10.3% storm water

Long term liabilities - net $ 59,477,003 $ 64,161,868 $ (4,684,865) -7.3% Source: VSFCD, CAFR, 2016

In 2015, the district reduced the principal on its debt by $4,230,872.

Rates

VSFCD charges fees for both wastewater and flood control services. The District’s rates cover the costs of operation, maintenance, and repair (OM&R) and debt financed capital improvements plus other costs anticipated in connection with its programs. The rates are consistent with requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board. Rates are set for the District’s three programs as follows:

Wastewater fund: rate adjustments were approved by the Board of Trustees for fiscal years beginning July 1, 2012, 2013, and 2014 to fund debt service, maintain a capital program, keep with rising costs, and in accordance with the District’s Long Term Financial Plan. The rate adjustments were 2.5% for each of the three fiscal years, respectively. Storm water fund: Rates were last set in 1998 at $1.97 per month. A rate equity study found the rate structure to be inequitable since the rate does account for runoff and pollutant loadings for customer classifications. A recent ballot initiative updates rates for the storm water fund with an effective date of July 1, 2015. Upper lateral fund: This fund’s rates were adjusted during the 2004-05 fiscal year from .69 cents per month to $1.38 per month. The upper lateral rate is a function of program demand that remains high.

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-50

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Wastewater Rate Details Wastewater rates provide for the following: 1. regular costs of operation and maintenance, 2. funding capital replacements, improvements, and collection systems rehabilitation, 3. debt service on improvements and upgrades to wastewater infrastructure, and 4. debt coverage requirements in accordance with bonded indebtedness contractual obligations.

The last formal study of sewer rates was completed in 2000. Since then, rates have been raised to keep pace with inflation to some degree and not due to capital projects (Ms. Morris, personal communication, December 2016). For example, sewer rates were last raised in June 2012 at a public meeting of the Board of Trustees by 2.5 percent annually. Sewer rates are raised only after other alternative funding sources are considered. A new rate study is currently in progress. Wastewater rates are $43.35 per month for a single family residence. This is comparable to neighboring sewer agencies as shown in Table 4.16, below.

Table 4.16: Comparison of Wastewater Rates

Monthly Monthly Monthly Residential Residential Residential Wastewater Rate Wastewater Wastewater (2014-15) Rate (2015-16) Rate (2016-17) A Fairfield-Suisun $32.71 Napa 39.15 Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control 43.35 American Canyon 48.97 Rio Vista 51.60 and 87.92 Benicia 53.26 55.39 56.49 Vacaville 56.61 Sonoma County Water 65.17 through Authority (8 districts) 158.25 Santa Rosa 101.04 Source: VSFCD, Budget, 2015

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-51

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Storm Water Rates A 2015 ballot measure established storm water rates consistent with the requirements of Proposition 218 (California Constitution Article XIII, Sections C and D). Residential rates for storm water services are an annual flat-rate (paid bi-monthly) in one of three categories: 1) high density (multi-family) at $12.46 per unit, 2) single-family standard lots at $23.64 per parcel, and 3) single-family large lots (>10,450 sq. ft.) at $36.70 per parcel.

Commercial/industrial rates are an annual area based parcel fee (paid bi-monthly) in one of three categories: 1) light runoff load (unimproved lots) at $0.79 per 1,000 sq. ft., 2) medium runoff load (landscaped lots) at $4.66 per 1,000 sq. ft., and 3) heavy runoff load (impervious surface lots) at $10.25 per 1,000 sq. ft.

When special circumstances exist, the District’s Group IV Special rate may be used to calculate the annual fee.

In municipal service reviews, LAFCO often assesses whether rates are sufficient to cover operating expenses, debt service, and planned capital improvements. Bond obligations sometimes require a district to maintain specific ratios of income to expenses. VSFCD’s Budget notes that net revenues of the wastewater activity meet the bond covenant test and comply with the required coverage. Rates for flood control recently passed the scrutiny of a public ballot initiative.

Findings &Determinations for Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services

15. VSFCD has three enterprise funds, the wastewater fund, the storm water fund, and the upper lateral fund. VSFC also collects a small amount of property taxes. VSFCD is an enterprise district since most of its revenues are derived from its rate structure.

16. VSFCD’s adopted management and budget policy has been shared with the MSR authors. This policy addresses budget preparation, fixed asset accounting, investment of funds, and expense authorization.

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-52

Final Wastewater Services MSR

17. The VSFCD Budget is adopted in public meetings on a biennial basis by the District’s Board of Trustees (not by the City of Vallejo). The fiscal year begins on July 1 and ends on June 30.

18. Although VSFCD is a separate legal entity, apart from the City of Vallejo, its finances are a Component Unit of the City of Vallejo. Component units are legally separate organizations and are utilized for agencies where elected officials of the primary government are financially accountable.

19. VSFCD’s Board of Trustees receive an audited financial statement on an annual basis.

20. In FY 14/15, total annual revenue was almost $31 million and total annual expense was almost $30.5 million.

21. During years 2006 to 2012, expenses exceeded revenues and the difference was made whole from reserve funds. This situation indicates that VSFCD revenues are sensitive to the state of the local economy. This also indicates that having sufficient reserve funds is important to VSFCD to help it weather the economically lean years. Additional detail is provided in Figure 4.12 and Table 4.11.

22. The data presented in this MSR suggests that VSFCD has the financial ability to continue to provide public services into the future.

4.7: STATUS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED FACILITIES 4.6.1. Shared Facilities and Regional Cooperation

The District does not jointly own or share capital facilities or services with other agencies (VSFCD, 2016). Nor is there any other agency in the District’s sphere of influence that provides wastewater and flood control services (Solano LAFCo, 2006). The 2006 MSR did not identify specific opportunities for the District to share facilities with other agencies and no specific opportunities were identified during the preparation of this MSR. It is recommended that the District continue to participate in regional planning efforts and be open to new opportunities to share facilities and to assess these ideas as they arise.

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-53

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Although no opportunities have been identified at this time for the District to share facilities with other public agencies, the District does collaborate with other agencies and organizations in other ways, including the following:

The District works in conjunction with the Solano County Disaster Council, a coalition of Solano County safety personnel, to adequately prepare and respond in the event of an emergency. The District also participates in joint training efforts with the greater area for emergency response and safety (VSFCD Finance Department, 2016).

The District participates in the City of Vallejo’s General Plan process (VSFCD, 2016).

The District participates in department head meetings with the City of Vallejo (Morton, 2016).

The District participates in executive and staff level interagency meetings twice a month (Morton, 2016).

The District participates in the following organizations: National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA), Water Environment Federation (WEF), California Water Environment Association (CWEA), and Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA) (Morton, 2016).

The District helped organize the formation of the Vallejo Watershed Group (Solano LAFCo, 2006).

Findings & Determinations for Opportunities for Shared Facilities

23. VSFCD works cooperatively with many different agencies including its regulatory agencies such as the RWQCB, and other local service providing agencies such as Solano County and the City of Vallejo. Additionally, the District participates in several organizations including the National Association of Clean Water Agencies and the California Association of Sanitation Agencies among others. The District also helped organize the formation of the Vallejo Watershed Group.

24. VSFCD does not jointly own or share capital facilities or services with other agencies. There are no other agencies in the District’s sphere of influence that provide wastewater and flood control services. It is recommended that the District continue to be open to new opportunities to share facilities and to assess these ideas as they arise.

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-54

Final Wastewater Services MSR

25. VSFCD is well managed and operated as evidenced by its compliance with regulatory permits, open meeting laws and by the numerous awards it has received. Additionally, VSFCD works cooperatively with other local agencies and organizations. 26. Because the District discharges treated water into a nearby brackish marsh, water quality is important to the public, wildlife, and to regulators. Therefore, it is recommended that the District participate in local watershed associations and Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) groups.

4.8: GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND ACCOUNTABILITY In a municipal service review, LAFCO is required to make a determination about a district’s government structure and accountability. In California, there are two types of special districts, as defined in GC 56032.5 and 56044: Dependent districts: Function as subdivisions of another multipurpose local government. Board members may be ex-officio member of other governing boards such as city councils or the board of supervisors. Independent districts: Have their own governing board and are usually elected directly by voters or are appointed to fixed terms. The VSFCD is a dependent district. It is governed by an eight-member Board of Trustees, composed of the seven- members of the Vallejo City Council and one member from the Solano County Board of Supervisors. The current Board of Trustee members are identified in Section 4.1. The representative from Solano County Board of Supervisors is appointed annually in January by the Board of Supervisors (VSFCD Webmaster).

Terms of the Trustees expire at the time of their departure from the City Council or Board of Supervisors (Solano LAFCo, 2006). The District is a component unit of the City of Vallejo under accounting rules but is a separate legal entity. The Board sets policy for the District and appoints the District Manager and Treasurer who serve at the pleasure of the Board (VSFCD Finance Department, 2016).

The seven Trustees associated with the Vallejo City Council receive $100 per month, regardless of attendance. The Trustee that is the member-at-large, typically a Solano County Supervisor, receives $100 per meeting attended (VSFCD, 2015).

Regularly scheduled Board meetings are held on the second Tuesday of every month at 6:00 p.m., at Vallejo City Hall, 555 Santa Clara Street in Vallejo. Additional special meetings are held as needed. The Board has adopted ‘Rules of Order and Procedure’ by which it governs its

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-55

Final Wastewater Services MSR

meetings in compliance with the requirements of California Government Code sections 54950 through 54963 (The Brown Act). The Protocols were last updated in May 12, 2015.

All meetings are publicly posted a minimum of 72 hours prior to the meeting. Postings are located on public information boards at Vallejo City Hall and the District office. The Board meeting agenda and supplemental materials are also posted on the District’s website at: https://www.vsfcd.com/SitePages/minutes_and_agendas.aspx. The agenda for each Board meeting includes a general public comment period entitled Community Forum for anyone wishing to address the Board on any matter. All meetings are open to the public in accordance with the Brown Act.

The District’s website is a communication tool for meeting agendas, minutes, and adopted resolutions, and provides information about the District’s services and programs. District customers can complete a customer service survey online, in paper form, or in person (VSFCD, 2016). To keep its customers informed about the District’s activities and services, the District Public Information Office produces a bimonthly newsletter, The Current. The District also helped organize the formation of the Vallejo Watershed Group to coordinate efforts of local government agencies and private citizens to address water quality/environmental concerns at Lake Chabot and White Slough (Solano LAFCo, 2006).

The Board of Trustees and its representatives appear to comply with the requirements of the Brown Act, the Political Reform Act, and similar laws. The existing structure of the District, created by special enabling legislation6 by the California legislature in 1952 by Enabling Act 8934, is sufficient to allow the District to continue service provision in the foreseeable future. There are no legal or administrative limitations on the District to future service provision (Solano LAFCo, 2006).

6 A copy of the District’s enabling legislation is available on the District’s website at: https://www.vsfcd.com/Site_PDFs/DistrictEnablingAct8934.pdf

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-56

Final Wastewater Services MSR

4.8.1. Management Efficiencies

The VSFCD’s mission is to provide quality wastewater and flood control services to the Vallejo community in order to protect the public’s health, safety and the environment. The VSFCD’s vision is that the District will continue to be a model of customer service, environmental sensitivity, innovation and regional cooperation (VSFCD Finance Department, 2016).

The District operates under the direction of the Board of Trustees. The District Manager reports to the Board and is responsible for directing District operations. The District Manager is the chief administrative officer responsible for the District's day-to-day operations in accordance with CONTACT INFORMATION: Board policies, approved budget, and legal and Melissa Morton, District regulatory compliance. The Treasurer is charged Manager with cash and investment management in 450 Ryder Street accordance with California law, policy, and general Vallejo, CA 94590 direction (VSFCD Finance Department, 2016). [email protected]

As shown in Figure 4.15, the District Manager oversees the Management Team consisting of the District Clerk, HR Administrator, Finance Director, Safety and Risk Management Director, District Engineer, Field Operations Superintendent, Plant Operations and Maintenance Director, Environmental Services Director. As of July 1, 2015, VSFCD had a total staff of 85.95 full-time equivalents (FTE) to manage and operate the wastewater treatment plant (VSFCD, 2016). This includes VSFCD staff and consultants with 16.96 FTE for Administration, 8.28 FTE for Management, and 60.71 FTE for Wastewater Service (VSFCD, 2016).

The District implements a successful Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) program which is necessary to upgrade and replace aging facilities and infrastructure. District staff routinely inventories its capital assets and performs condition assessments to identify projects to include in the CIP. The District is also developing an Asset Management Plan (AMP) to guide the process of identifying best practices and prioritizing maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement efforts to ensure longevity of District facilities and infrastructure.

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-57

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Strategic Plans & Management Plans

Ideally, all Districts in Solano County would have an updated strategic plan or master plan that links together goals, objectives, actions, and best management practices. Every five years, the VSFCD’s public meeting agenda allows time for the Board to consider district-wide strategic goals. The most recent goal setting session occurred on October 22, 2014 where they developed the following goals:

Goal 1. Succession Planning Goal 2. Capital Improvement/Infrastructure Viability Goal 3. Communication/Public Education and Outreach Goal 4. Innovation

In addition to agreeing on the above goals, the effort resulted in the development of a 2014/2017 Action Plan7, which lists the responsible parties and key milestone dates.

The District prepares for natural diasters such as flood, earthquake, sea level rise, and more by the development of a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (LHMP). The LHMP, which is required by federal law to be eligible for mitigation grant consideration. The District is currently in the last stages of updating its LHMP as noted on its website at: https://www.vsfcd.com/SitePages/disasters.aspx .

In June 2015, the District awarded a contract to a consultant to prepare an Asset Management Program to implement asset management best practices for investment and management decision making. The life cycle of the District’s infrastructure will be analyzed and tradeoffs between cost of service and risk of asset failure will be studied.

The development and implementation of a strategic action plan and other management plans such as VSFCD’s Asset Management Plan and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update are measures of management efficiency and effectiveness.

7 The District’s Action Plan is available on the District’s website at: https://www.vsfcd.com/Site_PDFs/Supplemental_Information_2015_02_10.pdf

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-58

Final Wastewater Services MSR

District Awards

The District is the recipient of many awards of excellence at the local, state and national levels for maintaining an efficient, well-run operation. These awards are received from the local chapter of the California Water Environment Association (CWEA), the state CWEA, the national Water Environment Federation, and the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA). Awards received typically are for plant of the year, collection system of the year, Burke award for safety, excellence in management recognition, and awards for individual achievements. The District recently received the NACWA Platinum Award for five continuous years of “0” violations. The District received the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report from the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada for the fiscal year 2015. The current Report for 2016 conforms to Certificate of Achievement program requirements and has been submitted for award consideration. VSFCD has won many awards for public service (VSFCD Finance Department, 2016).

Findings & Determinations for Accountability for Community Service Needs

27. VSFCD is governed by an eight-member Board of Trustees composed of the seven- members of the Vallejo City Council and one member from the Solano County Board of Supervisors that serve staggered four-year terms. The VSFCD Board meets at Vallejo City Hall, 555 Santa Clara Street in Vallejo, on the second Tuesday of the month. VSFCD meetings are noticed according to the Brown Act and the meetings provide sufficient opportunities for public comment.

28. The existing structure of the District, created by special enabling legislation by the California legislature in 1952 by Enabling Act 8934, is sufficient to allow the District to continue service provision in the foreseeable future. There are no legal or administrative limitations on the District to future service provision. 29. The District’s boundary and SOI includes 4,666 acres of water or submerged lands that are part of the San Francisco Estuary/San Pablo Bay, as shown in Figure 4.1. This parcel (APN 0067-010-010) was included the District’s original 1952 boundary and was identified in the District’s original 1953 submittal to the CA Board of Equalization. The District does not provide service to this parcel. Therefore, it is recommended that LAFCO consider detaching the parcel from the District boundary and SOI.

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-59

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Figure 4.15 District Organizational Chart

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-60

Final Wastewater Services MSR

4.9: LAFCO POLICIES AFFECTING SERVICE DELIVERY Cortese-Knox Hertzberg allows LAFCOs to establish policies to implement the law and process applications. Solano LAFCO has implemented eleven standards, six mandatory standards which mirror the requirements of CKH, and five discretionary standards. Application of discretionary standards lies with the Commission. There are no other aspects of wastewater and storm drainage service required to be addressed in this report by LAFCO policies that would affect delivery of services.

Finding & Determination: Any Other Matters Related to Service Delivery as Required by LAFCO Policy

30. There are no other aspects of wastewater or storm drainage service required to be addressed in this report by LAFCO policies that would affect delivery of services.

4.10: SUMMARY OF MSR FINDINGS & DETERMINATIONS Based on the information included in this report, the following written determinations make statements involving the service factors the Commission must consider as part of a municipal service review.8 The determinations listed below are recommendations from the consultant to the Commission. The Commission’s final MSR determinations will be part of a Resolution, which the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting.

Growth and Population Projections

1. The current (year 2016) population of VSFCD is 124,134 permanent residents.

2. Although the population within the City of Vallejo declined during years 2000 to 2010, it recently has experienced an increase of 1.01% percent.

8 The service factors addressed in this report reflect the requirements of California Government Code §56430(a) as of January 1, 2008.

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-61

Final Wastewater Services MSR

within the City of Vallejo (and within the District) is expected to grow by 13,700 persons (11.6 percent) as listed in Table 4-4.

Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities

4. The median household income within the Vallejo community is $58,472. This is higher than the DUC threshold MHI of less than $49,546 (80 percent of the Statewide MHI).

7. The median household income for census tracts and block groups near the 11 unincorporated islands was studied as listed in Table 4.6. Based on this analysis, at least a portion of four unincorporated islands do meet the financial threshold to be classified as DUCs.

Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-62

Final Wastewater Services MSR

11. New development projects are required to provide storm water facilities as part of project improvement plans.

13. The treatment plant has sufficient capacity to meet projected growth for the City of Vallejo and unincorporated areas within District boundaries.

Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services

17. The VSFCD Budget is adopted in public meetings on a biennial basis by the District’s Board of Trustees (not by the City of Vallejo). The fiscal year begins on July 1 and ends on June 30.

19. VSFCD’s Board of Trustees receives an audited financial statement on an annual basis.

20. In FY 14/15, total annual revenue was almost $31 million and total annual expense was almost $30.5 million

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-63

Final Wastewater Services MSR

22. .The data presented in this MSR suggests that VSFCD has the financial ability to continue to provide public services into the future.

Opportunities for Shared Facilities

25. VSFCD is well managed and operated as evidenced by its compliance with regulatory permits, open meeting laws and by the numerous awards it has received. Additionally, VSFCD works cooperatively with other local agencies and organizations. 26. Because the District discharges treated water into a nearby brackish marsh, water quality is important to wildlife and to regulators. Therefore, it is recommended that the District participate in local watershed associations and Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) groups.

Accountability for Community Service Needs

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-64

Final Wastewater Services MSR

meetings are noticed according to the Brown Act and the meetings provide sufficient opportunities for public comment.

29. *The District’s boundary and SOI includes 4,666 acres of water or submerged lands that are part of the San Francisco Estuary/San Pablo Bay, as shown in Figure 4.1. This parcel (APN 0067-010-010) was included the District’s original 1952 boundary and was identified in the District’s original 1953 submittal to the CA Board of Equalization. The District does not provide service to this parcel. Therefore, it is recommended that LAFCO consider detaching the parcel from the District boundary and SOI.

Any Other Matters Related to Service Delivery as Required by LAFCO Policy

30. There are no other aspects of wastewater and flood control service required to be addressed in this report by LAFCO policies that would affect delivery of services.

4.11: ISSUES WITH RECOMMENDATIONS This MSR describes the provision of wastewater services by VSFCD to its constituents. No red flags were found during this analysis. However, one area for continual improvement was noted and listed in the above determinations with a * (asterisk) symbol. They are also repeated below in Table 4.17.

Table 4.17: Issues with Recommendations

Determination Issue Recommendation #

25 The District’s boundary and It is recommended that LAFCO consider SOI includes 4,666 acres of detaching the parcel from the District water or submerged lands that boundary and SOI.

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-65

Final Wastewater Services MSR

are part of the San Francisco Estuary/San Pablo Bay, as shown in Figure 4.1. This parcel (APN 0067-010-010) was included the District’s original 1952 boundary and was identified in the District’s original 1953 submittal to the CA Board of Equalization. The District does not provide service to this parcel.

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-66

Final Wastewater Services MSR

4.12: REFERENCES

Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2013. “Projections 2013.” Association of Bay Area Governments.

ABAG et al. 2014. The Context. Plan Bay Area 2040. [Online]. Available at: http://www.planbayarea.org/the-plan/the-context.html. Accessed July 20, 2016.

City of Vallejo. 1999. Vallejo General Plan. City of Vallejo Planning Commission. Vallejo City Council.

City of Vallejo. 2005. City of Vallejo: 2005 Municipal Service Review. City of Vallejo Planning Commission.

City of Vallejo. 2005. Downtown Vallejo Specific Plan. Vallejo City Council.

City of Vallejo. 2007. Mare Island Specific Plan. Vallejo City Council.

City of Vallejo. 2014. “Propel Vallejo – General Plan Update, Project Components.” City of Vallejo Planning Commission. Vallejo City Council. Web. 25 July 2016.

City of Vallejo. July 2015. Propel Vallejo: General Plan Update, Zoning Code Update: Code Diagnosis Memo. [Online]. Available at: http://propelvallejo.com/zoning-code-update/. Accessed July 20, 2016.

Morton, Melissa. 2016. Personal interview by Kateri Harrison, Uma Hinman, and Elliot Mulberg. June 20.

Smith-Heimer, Janet. 2015. Economic & Market Trends Report. Submitted to Mark Hoffheimer, Senior Planner. City of Vallejo.

Solano County. April 2015. 2015–2023 Housing Element Update Appendix A: Housing Needs Assessment. 61-pages. [Online]. Available at: https://www.solanocounty.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=8762. Accessed July 27, 2016.

Solano LAFCo. November 2006. Solano LAFCo Sewer Municipal Service Review. 45-pages. Davis, California.

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-67 Final Wastewater Services MSR

State of California Controller's Office. 2016. Government Compensation in California. [Online]. Available at: http://publicpay.ca.gov/. Accessed July 14, 2016.

State of California Department of Finance. 2016. “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2016 with 2010 Census Benchmark.” Web. 20 July 2016.

SWA Group, MacKay & Somps, Fehr + Peers, Goodwin Consulting Group, and BAR Architects. 2013. Solano 360 Final Specific Plan. Prepared for County of Solano, City of Vallejo, and Solano County Fair Association. Approved by the Solano County Board of Supervisors.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. “Vallejo City Quickfacts.” American Factfinder. U.S. Department of Commerce. Web. 18 July 2016.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. “Median Household Income In The Past 12 Months (In 2014 Inflation- Adjusted Dollars). 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.” American Factfinder. U.S. Department of Commerce. Web. http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/ searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t&keepList=t#none. Accessed 23October2016.

Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District (VSFCD). June 17, 2016. District Response to Information Request from the Local Agency Formation Commission of Solano County in preparation for the 2016 Municipal Service Review. 12-pages. Available at LAFCo’s office upon request.

Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District (VSFCD). 2015. Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District Code. [Online]. Available at: https://www.vsfcd.com/Site_ PDFs/District_Code_Thru_Supp_17_Entire.pdf. Accessed July 25, 2016.

Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District (VSFCD) Environmental Services Department. January 29, 2016. Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District Annual Treatment Plant Summary 2015. 38-pages. Vallejo, California.

Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District (VSFCD) Field Operations Department. 2016. Revisions to 2006 Solano LAFCo Sewer MSR. 7-pages. Available at LAFCo’s office upon request.

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-68 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District (VSFCD) Finance Department. January 2016. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, A Component Unit of the City of Vallejo, Years Ended June 30, 2015 With Comparative Amounts for June 30, 2014. 71-pages. Vallejo, California.

Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District. (VSFCD). Webmaster. Board of Trustees. [Online]. Available at: https://www.vsfcd.com/SitePages/board_trustees.aspx. Accessed July 14, 2016.

Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District (VSFCD). Finance Department. January 12, 2016. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, A Component Unit of the City of Vallejo for Years Ended June 30, 2015 With Comparative Amounts for June 30, 2014. 71 pages. Vallejo, California.

Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District (VSFCD). June 9, 2015. Biennial Budget for Fiscal Years 2016 and 2017. 166 pages. Vallejo, California. Retreived from . Accessed August 23, 2016.

Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Company LLP. Certified Public Accountants. January 4, 2016. Independent Auditor’s Report. Pleasanton, CA.

Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District 4-69 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Chapter 5: Comments Received and Responses to Comments

The Draft MSR/SOI Update was distributed to the two service providers described in this MSR and it was posted to LAFCo’s website on December 12 2016. The Commission held a public meeting on the Draft MSR/SOI Update on Monday, December 12, 2016. The public was encouraged to provide comments for staff to review and incorporate into this Final MSR. No public comments were received during the public comment period.

Comments Received 5-1

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Chapter 6: Glossary

Annexation: The annexation, inclusion, attachment, or addition of territory to a city or district.

Average base flow (ABF): Flow in the sanitary sewer during dry-weather months, measured when no appreciable rain is falling. Base flow consists of sanitary flow plus groundwater infiltration.

Average dry-weather flow (ADWF): The 30-day rolling average wastewater flow from May through October.

Average wet-weather flow (AWWF): The 30-day rolling average wastewater flow from November through April.

Best Management Practices: Best management practices are defined as methods or techniques found to be the most effective and practical means in achieving an objective (such as minimizing pollution) while making the optimum use of the District’s resources.

Bond: An interest-bearing promise to pay a stipulated sum of money, with the principal amount due on a specific date. Funds raised through the sale of bonds can be used for various public purposes.

Buildout: The maximum development potential when all lands within an area have been converted to the maximum density allowed under the General Plan.

Board of Directors: The legislative body or governing board of a district.

Board of Supervisors: The elected board of supervisors of a county.

City: Any charter or general law city.

Community Services District (CSD): A geographic subarea of a county used for planning and delivery of parks, recreation, and other human services based on an assessment of the service needs of the population in that subarea. A CSD is a taxation district with independent administration.

Consolidation: The uniting or joining of two or more districts into a single new successor district.

Contiguous: In the case of annexation, territory adjacent to an agency to which annexation is proposed. Territory is not contiguous if the only contiguity is based upon a strip of land more than 300 feet long and less than 200 feet wide.

Cost avoidance: Actions to eliminate unnecessary costs derived from, but not limited to, duplication of service efforts, higher than necessary administration/operation cost ratios, use of outdated or deteriorating infrastructure and equipment, underutilized equipment or buildings or facilities, overlapping/inefficient service boundaries, inefficient purchasing or budgeting practices, and lack of economies of scale.

Glossary 6-1 Draft Wastewater Services MSR

Crown (of the sewer): The upper portion of the sewer pipes.

Design flow: The selected flow condition for wastewater collection system design, determined by adding corresponding peak sanitary flow and peak groundwater infiltration. This is also referred to as peak dry-weather flow.

Design storm: An abstraction based on historical data that determines the amount of stormwater inflow and rainfall-dependent infiltration.

Detachment: The removal from a city or district of any portion of the territory of that city or district.

Development Fee: A fee charged to the developer of a project by a county, or other public agency as compensation for otherwise-unmitigated impacts the project will produce. California Government Code Section 66000, et seq., specifies that development fees shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged. To lawfully impose a development fee, the public agency must verify its method of calculation and document proper restrictions on use of the fund.

Dissolution: The termination of the existence of a district or city and the cessation of all its corporate powers, except for the purpose of winding up the affairs of the district.

District or special District: An agency of the state, formed pursuant to general law or special act, for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions within limited boundaries. "District" or "special district" includes a county service area. Also is referred to as a district of limited powers. May include the following: airport district, community services district, municipal utility district, public utilities district, fire protection district, harbor district, port district, recreational harbor district, small craft harbor district, resort improvement district, library district, local hospital district, local health district, municipal improvement district formed pursuant to any special act, municipal water district, police protection district, recreation and park district, garbage disposal district, garbage and refuse disposal district, sanitary district, or county sanitation district.

Dry-weather flow: Wastewater flow monitored during the dry season, occurring May through October. Consists of sanitary flow and groundwater infiltration.

Excessive infiltration and inflow: The quantities of infiltration/ inflow that can be economically eliminated from a wastewater collection system by rehabilitation, as determined by a cost-effective analysis.

Formation: The formation, organization, or creation of a district or city.

Function: Any power granted by law to a local agency or a county to provide designated governmental or proprietary services or facilities for the use, benefit, or protection of all persons or property.

Functional revenues: Revenues generated from direct services or associated with specific services, such as a grant or statute, and expenditures.

Glossary 6-2 Draft Wastewater Services MSR

General plan: A document containing a statement of development policies including a diagram and text setting forth the objectives of the plan. The general plan must include certain state mandated elements related to land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open- space, noise, and safety.

General revenues: Revenues not associated with specific services or retained in an enterprise fund.

Groundwater: Water under the earth’s surface, often confined to aquifers capable of supplying wells and springs.

Independent Special District: Any special district having a legislative body all of whose members are elected by registered voters or landowners within the district, or whose members are appointed to fixed terms, and excludes any special district having a legislative body consisting, in whole or in part, of ex officio members who are officers of a county or another local agency or who are appointees of those officers other than those who are appointed to fixed terms. "Independent special district" does not include any district excluded from the definition of district contained in §56036.

Infiltration: The water entering a sewer system and service connections from the ground, through such means as, but not limited to, defective pipes, pipe joints, connections, or manhole walls. Infiltration does not include, and is distinguished from, inflow.

Infiltration and inflow (I&I): The collective term used to describe the extraneous flow in a wastewater collection system from both rainfall-dependent infiltration and inflow or groundwater infiltration.

Infrastructure: Public services and facilities, such as pipes, canals, levees, water-supply systems, other utility, systems, and roads.

LAFCo: Local Agency Formation Commission.

Local accountability and governance: A style of public agency decision making, operation and management that includes an accessible staff, elected or appointed decision-making body and decision making process, advertisement of, and public participation in, elections, publicly disclosed budgets, programs, and plans, solicited public participation in the consideration of work and infrastructure plans; and regularly evaluated or measured outcomes of plans, programs or operations and disclosure of results to the public.

Local agency: A city, county, or special district or other public entity, which provides public services.

Management Efficiency: The organized provision of the highest quality public services with the lowest necessary expenditure of public funds. An efficiently managed entity (1) promotes and demonstrates implementation of continuous improvement plans and strategies for budgeting, managing costs, training and utilizing personnel, and customer service and involvement, (2) has the ability to provide service over the short and long

Glossary 6-3 Draft Wastewater Services MSR

term, (3) has the resources (fiscal, manpower, equipment, adopted service or work plans) to provide adequate service, (4) meets or exceeds environmental and industry service standards, as feasible considering local conditions or circumstances, (5) and maintains adequate contingency reserves.

Merger: The termination of the existence of a district, by the assumption of the district's responsibilities by a city.

Municipal services: The full range of services that a public agency provides, or is authorized to provide, except general county government functions such as courts, special services and tax collection. As understood under the CKH Act, this includes all services provided by Special Districts under California law.

Municipal Service Review (MSR): A study designed to determine the adequacy of governmental services being provided in the region or sub-region. Performing service reviews for each city and special district within the county may be used by LAFCO, other governmental agencies, and the public to better understand and improve service conditions.

Ordinance: A law or regulation set forth and adopted by a governmental authority.

Peak flow: Maximum measured daily flow. Commonly measured in cubic feet per second (cfs). Typically occurs during wet-weather events and can also be referred to as peak wet-weather flow.

Peaking Factor: The ratio of peak hourly wet-weather flow to base flow.

Per Capita Water Use: The water produced by or introduced into the system of a water supplier divided by the total residential population; normally expressed in gallons per capita per day (gpcd).

pH: A measure of the relative acidity or alkalinity of water. Water with a pH of 7 is neutral; lower pH levels indicate increasing acidity, while pH levels higher than 7 indicate increasingly basic solutions.

Plan of reorganization: A plan or program for effecting reorganization and which contains a description of all changes of organization included in the reorganization and setting forth all terms, conditions, and matters necessary or incidental to the effectuation of that reorganization.

Potable Water: Water of a quality suitable for drinking.

Principal act: In the case of a district, the law under which the district was formed and, in the case of a city, the general laws or a charter, as the case may be.

Principal LAFCO for municipal service review: The LAFCO with the lead responsibility for a municipal service review. Lead responsibility can be determined pursuant to the CKH Act §56388 and is typically, the LAFCO in the Principal County with the greatest assessed value. See also definition of a Principal LAFCO as it applies to government

Glossary 6-4 Draft Wastewater Services MSR

organization or reorganization actions, by negotiation, or by agreement among two or more LAFCOs.

Proceeding: A course of action taken at a public meeting.

Public agency: The state or any state agency, board, or commission, any city, county, city and county, special district, or other political subdivision, or any agency, board, or commission of the city, county, city and county, special district, or other political subdivision.

Rainfall-dependent infiltration and inflow (RDI/I): Rainfall runoff from both infiltration and inflow sources that enter the wastewater collection system during and shortly after a rain event. RDI/I consists of stormwater inflow and rainfall-dependent infiltration.

Rate restructuring: Rate restructuring does not refer to the setting or development of specific rates or rate structures. During a municipal service review, LAFCO may compile and review certain rate related data, and other information that may affect rates, as that data applies to the intent of the CKH Act (§56000, §56001, §56301), factors to be considered (§56668), SOI determinations (§56425) and all required municipal service review determinations (§56430). The objective is to identify opportunities to positively impact rates without adversely affecting service quality or other factors to be considered.

Reorganization: Two or more changes of organization initiated in a single proposal.

Responsible LAFCO: The LAFCO of a county other than the Principal County that may be impacted by recommendations, determinations or subsequent proposals elicited during a municipal service review being initiated or considered by the Lead LAFCO.

Retained earnings: The accumulated earnings of an enterprise or intragovernmental service fund which have been retained in the fund and are not reserved for any specific purpose (debts, planned improvements, and contingency/emergency).

Reserve: (1) For governmental type funds, an account used to earmark a portion of fund balance, which is legally or contractually restricted for a specific use or not appropriable for expenditure. (2) For proprietary type/enterprise funds, the portion of retained earnings set aside for specific purposes. Unnecessary reserves are those set aside for purposes that are not well defined or adopted or retained earnings that are not reasonably proportional to annual gross revenues.

Service lateral: A sewer connecting a building or house to the mainline sewer.

Service review: A study and evaluation of municipal service(s) by specific area, subregion or region culminating in written determinations regarding seven specific evaluation categories.

Sewage: Sewage is the wastewater released by residences, businesses and industries in a community. Typically it is 99.94 percent water, with only 0.06 percent of the wastewater

Glossary 6-5 Draft Wastewater Services MSR

dissolved and suspended solid material. The cloudiness of sewage is caused by suspended particles which in untreated sewage ranges from 100 to 350 mg/l.

Specific plan: A policy statement and implementation tool that is used to address a single project or planning problem. Specific plans contain concrete standards and development criteria that supplement those of the general plan.

Sphere of influence (SOI): A plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the LAFCO.

Sphere of influence determinations: In establishing, amending, or updating a sphere of influence, the Commission must consider five written determinations related to present and planned land uses, need and capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services that the agency provides, the existence of social and economic communities of interest, including disadvantaged unincorporated communities, and the effect of LAFCO policies.

Stormwater runoff: Rainwater which does not infiltrate into the soil and runs off the land.

Subject agency: Each district or city for which a change of organization is proposed or provided in a reorganization or plan of reorganization.

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS): A quantitative measure of the residual minerals dissolved in water that remains after evaporation of a solution. Usually expressed in milligrams per liter.

Treated water: Raw water which has been treated for human consumption through secondary or tertiary processes at a water treatment plan (WTP).

Watershed: An area of land that drains water, sediment and dissolved materials to a common receiving body or outlet. The term is not restricted to surface water runoff and includes interactions with subsurface water. Watersheds vary from the largest river basins to just acres or less in size. In urban watershed management, a watershed is seen as all the land which contributes runoff to a particular water body.

Zoning: The primary instrument for implementing the general plan. Zoning divides a community into districts or "zones" that specify the permitted/prohibited land uses.

Glossary 6-6 Final Wastewater Services MSR

Chapter 7: Acknowledgments

Assistance and Support Several people contributed information that was utilized in this Municipal Service Review Update. Solano LAFCo and SWALE Inc. wish to acknowledge the support received from the following individuals and organizations.

LAFCo Staff Rosanne Chamberlain, Interim Executive Officer Elliot Mulberg, Former Executive Officer Michelle McIntyre, Analyst Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District Gregory Baatrup, General Manager Meg Herston, Env Compliance Engineer Taylon Sortor, Assistant General Manager

Vallejo Sanitation Flood Control District Melissa Morton, District Manager Holly Charlety, District Clerk

Report Preparers A team of consultants authored this MSR Update and provided an independent analysis. The expertise and contributions provided by this consulting team are greatly appreciated. The names and roles of the individual experts responsible for writing this MSR are provided below.

SWALE Inc. Kateri Harrison, Project Manager, Co-Author Andrew Dellas, Socio-Economics of VSFCD Amanda Ross, Socio-Economics of FSSD

Uma Hinman Consulting Uma Hinman, Co-Author, Owner Larkyn Feiler, Co-Author, Planner

Robertson-Bryan Inc. Art O’Brien, Engineer/Technical Reviewer

Baracco & Associates Bruce Baracco, Project Advisor

Acknowledgements 7-1

Appendices

This MSR Update for Wastewater Services by Solano LAFCO includes several appendices as follows:

Appendix 1 Wastewater Regulations Appendix 2 FSSD District Brochure Appendix 3 VSFCD Timeline Appendix 4 Solano County Economic Forecast by Caltrans Appendix 5 Drainage Maintenance Agreement Among the Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District, the City of Fairfield, and the City of Suisun City Compiled, as amended, through January 23, 1995

Final Wastewater Services MSR

Appendix 1: Wastewater Regulations

REGULATIONS FOR WASTEWATER SYSTEMS Both state and federal regulatory authority exists for the control of water quality in surface waters of California. Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates municipal and industrial effluent discharges to navigable waters through the issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. The basic approach used in both state and federal processes is 1) to designate beneficial uses to be protected, 2) to set water quality objectives that are protective of the most sensitive uses, and 3) to control municipal, industrial, and other sources to meet these objectives.

Federal Wastewater Treatment Regulations

Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.) is the federal law that governs and authorizes water quality control activities by the EPA. Pursuant to federal law, the EPA has published water quality regulations under Volume 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR). The CWA regulates water pollution through two different and supplementary approaches:

. Water quality and technology-based standards; and . Section 303 of the CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards for all surface waters of the United States. Appendix 1: Wastewater Regulations ………………………………………………………………………A1-1 The two approaches to regulating water pollution are implemented through the use of discharge permits, which contain mass or concentration-based effluent limits for the pollutants in the permittee’s wastewater. These approaches are applied to pollutant dischargers through the implementation of the national wastewater discharge permitting program set up under the CWA. The CWA established national goals to eliminate pollutant discharges to navigable waters and to assure that all navigable waters would be fishable and swimmable.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) The NPDES permit system was established under section 402 of the CWA to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States. The discharge of wastewater to surface waters is prohibited unless an NPDES permit has been issued which allows that discharge. Each NPDES permit contains limits on allowable concentrations and/or mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge. Under the NPDES program, dischargers are required to monitor and provide reports on compliance with their permit limits. These reports, formally titled Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), are submitted to the appropriate regulatory agency, and they describe water quality data and analysis. The regulatory agency or any interested citizen can review this data to determine whether or not the discharger has complied with its NPDES permit requirements, and, if appropriate, pursue action to enforce compliance.

Stormwater: Areas within Solano County are subject to the NPDES stormwater permit regulations, and are subject to the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2015-0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 (the “2015 Permit” or “Permit”). The 2015 Permit regulates the discharge of stormwater runoff from the municipal separate storm sewer systems (“MS4s”) and other designated stormwater discharges from municipalities and flood management agencies in Alameda County, Contra Costa County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, and the Cities of Fairfield, Suisun City, and Vallejo and the Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District in Solano County. The purpose of the stormwater permitting program is to prevent pollution in local waterways. Stormwater can adversely impact avian, aquatic, and plant life in receiving waters and can cause serious human health impacts. For example, high mercury levels in the Bay make regular consumption of fish unsafe. Urban stormwater runoff is one of the largest sources of pollution in San Francisco Bay and its tributaries. On April 1, 2016, FSSD prepared a Watersheds and Management Areas Plan1 for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and Mercury (Hg) and submitted it to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) by the Fairfield-Suisun Urban Runoff Management Program (FSURMP), as required by Provisions C.11.a.iii.(1) and C.12.a.iii.(1) of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) (Order R2-2015-049). The Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District also submitted a similar plan2 to the Board on April 1, 2016.

Wastewater: The California Regional Water Quality Control Board is responsible for implementing the NPDES permit system as it pertains to wastewater discharge. Fairfield

1 The entire FSSD Plan is available online at: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/ water_issues/programs/stormwater/Municipal/wma/C.11-12.a.iii%20Progress%20Rpt%20FSURMP.pdf 2 The VSFCD Mercury And PCBs Control Measures Implementation Status Report is available online at: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/stormwater/Municipal/wma/C.11- 12.a.iii%20Progress%20Rpt%20VSFCD_033116.pdf

Appendix 1: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………A1-2 Suisun Sewer District’s WWTP operates under Order No. R2- 2015-0013 (NPDES No. CA0038024). Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District’s wastewater treatment plant operates under Permit Order No. R2-2012-0017 and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CA0037699).

Enforcement of NPDES guidelines and permits in Solano County falls within jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and is subject to review by the EPA Regional Administrator (EPA Region IX, San Francisco Office). In addition, the RWQCB regulates activities involving discharges to land or groundwater from diffused sources. A Report of Waste Discharge must be filed with the CVRWQCB to obtain a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) for these types of non-surface water discharge.

Congress amended the CWA in 1987 to include non-point source pollutants. Non-point source pollutants are often chemicals from lawns or gardens, automobile residues, urban runoff, or household cleaning agents or compounds. Non-point source pollution can also include runoff from agricultural uses. Most non-point source pollutants enter the wastewater stream and the water supply in large quantities and sudden surges, largely due to storm events. Although the EPA has established NPDES requirements for storm water, control of this type of pollution has proven to be difficult and could require upgrades to existing wastewater treatment plants. On August 12, 2015, the EPA3 approved SWRCB’s Six-Year Plan (2014-2020) with Regional Water Quality Control Boards. These new regulations may further affect the wastewater agencies in Solano County, especially those with high storm water infiltration rates.4

Section 303(d) Impaired Waters List and TMDLs Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, states are required to develop lists of water bodies which will not attain water quality objectives after implementation of required levels of treatment by point source dischargers (municipalities and industries) (40 C.F.R. §130.7(b)(4)). For example, the EPA and RWQCB are developing a TMDL for dissolved oxygen in Suisun Marsh. See SFRWQCB website at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/ water_issues/programs/TMDLs/suisunmarshtmdl.shtml for additional details.

National Toxics Rule The EPA established the National Toxics Rules (NTR) to create numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for California and 13 other states and territories that were not in complete compliance with the CWA. For California, the NTR established water quality standards for protection of aquatic life and/or human health for 36 pollutants for which water quality criteria exist, but which were not covered under California’s statewide water quality regulations.

3 EPA’s approval letter for the Six Year Plan is available on-line at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nps/docs/plans_policies/usepa_approval_2014to202020.pdf 4 State Water Resources Control Board. Nonpoint Source Pollution (NPS) Control Program. www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nps.

Appendix 1: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………A1-3 California Toxics Rule The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.) is the federal law that governs and authorizes water quality control activities by the EPA. Pursuant to federal law, the EPA has the NTR. There are 126 constituents listed in the California Toxics Rule (CTR) criteria, which include the previously issued NTR criteria for California. Some of the key elements of the CTR include:

. Amended numeric standards for 30 toxic pollutants and added new criteria for 8 toxic pollutants to protect aquatic life and human health uses for water bodies. . Dissolved-based standards for most trace metals and endorsement of the use of translator mechanisms for determination of local metals objectives. . Provisions for compliance schedules to provide time for permittees to meet the new toxics standards. . Provisions for mixing zones when calculating toxic constituent effluent limitations. . Use of interim effluent limits to provide time for dischargers to take actions to meet final limits.

The EPA promulgated numeric water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants and other water quality standards for waters in the State of California pursuant to section 303(c)(2)(B) of the CWA if those pollutants could be reasonably expected to interfere with the designated uses of states' waters. Although California had adopted numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants in 1992, the courts ordered California to rescind these water quality control plans in 1994 and the new water quality criteria rule, known as the California Toxics Rule (CTR), temporarily replaced the standards adopted in 1991. The CTR established:

. Ambient aquatic life criteria for 23 priority toxics; . Ambient human health criteria for 57 priority toxics; and . Compliance schedule provision.

Under the CTR various regional water quality control boards will issue schedules of compliance for new or revised NPDES permit limits based on the federal criteria when certain conditions are met. Currently each basin plan, as prepared by the regional water quality control board, contains a water quality criterion that all waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. This has been contested by local jurisdictions all over California since it is expected to add significantly to the cost of wastewater treatment.

EPA contends that since California is implementing EPA’s current regulations, the CTR will not impose any incremental costs and that the water quality criterion does not directly create economic impacts. EPA staff notes that California has some discretion to develop mechanisms that could result in more flexibility for local areas (e.g., site-specific criteria, phased TMDL program).

For Solano County, the San Francisco RWQCB does not require a separate and specific CTR permit. The wastewater agencies that discharge to surface waters were required to complete a number (depending on whether discharger is major or minor, municipal or industrial) of rounds of sampling under the CTR. Recently written permits include effluent limitations based

Appendix 1: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………A1-4 on the results of the CTR samples; future permits will identify specific pollutants and limits based on current testing.

California Wastewater Treatment Regulations The California Water Code is the principal state regulation governing the use of water resources within the State of California. This law controls, among other issues, water quality protection and management, and management of water-oriented agencies. Division 7 of the California Water Code, commonly referred to as the Porter-Cologne Act, is the principal mechanism for regulation of water quality and pollution issues within California. This act established a regulatory program to protect the water quality and beneficial uses of all state waters. The Porter-Cologne Act also established the State Water Resources Control Board and California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) as principal state agencies responsible for water quality control. The SWRCB has divided California into nine regions with Solano County located in the San Francisco Bay RWQCB.

The Porter-Cologne Act grants the SWRCB and regional offices broad powers to protect water quality and is the primary vehicle for implementation of California’s responsibilities under the federal CWA. These broad powers include the authority and responsibility to adopt plans and policies, to regulate discharges to surface and groundwater, to regulate waste disposal sites and to require cleanup of hazardous materials and other pollutants. The Porter-Cologne Act also includes reporting requirements for unintended discharges of any hazardous substance, sewage, or oil/petroleum product.

The San Francisco Bay RWQCB, as with all other regional boards, must formulate and adopt a water quality plan for its region which must conform to the Porter-Cologne Act. The Porter- Cologne Act also provides that a regional office, such as the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, may include within its regional plan water discharge prohibitions applicable to local conditions, areas, and types of waste. The regional offices are also authorized to enforce discharge limitations, take actions to prevent violations, and conduct investigations about the quality of any of the waters of the state. Civil and criminal penalties are applicable to persons who violate the requirements of the Porter-Cologne Act or SWRCB/RWQCB orders.

The Porter-Cologne Act also requires local governments to notify their regional office of the filing of tentative subdivision maps of six (6) or more family units unless the development discharges waste into a community sewer system. It also requires that any person discharging or proposing to discharge waste, even individual septic systems for single-family residences, to file a report with the regional offices. For more than 20 years, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB has waived the filing of those reports for individual septic systems in Solano County since the County’s Department of Environmental Health (EH) had adopted substantially similar policies and ordinances5 regulating waste discharge. However, local jurisdictions in Solano County are still required to notify the San Francisco Bay RWQCB of development with six units or more.

5 Solano County Sewage Standards in Chapter 6.3 of the County Ordinance is available on-line at: https://www.solanocounty.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=7909

Appendix 1: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………A1-5 Other state agencies with jurisdiction or involvement in water quality regulation in California include the Department of Public Health (DPH) for drinking water regulations and water reclamation criteria, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, the Department of Fish and Game, and the Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment.

California Storm Drainage & Flood Control Regulations SB 985 addresses Runoff recapture and requires that state and local agencies regulating stormwater diversion systems to identify opportunities for capturing that runoff -- including summer season runoff -- for some form of reuse.

Local Wastewater Regulations The Cities of Fairfield and Suisun City have policies and procedures consistent with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB recommendation for connection to a public wastewater system in urbanized areas. Specifically, both cities generally require areas receiving sewer service to be annexed to the city.

Wastewater Solids Regulations Solids generated at a wastewater treatment facility comprise screenings, grit, primary or raw sludge (PS) and secondary or waste activated sludge (WAS). The screenings and grit are typically dewatered and disposed in a landfill. Sludge generated by a wastewater treatment facility is defined as biosolids once beneficial use criteria, as determined by compliance with EPA regulations, have been achieved through stabilization processes. Stabilization processes are described as those that help reduce pathogens and reduce vector attraction.

Several federal, state, and local regulations are in place that influence whether biosolids from municipal wastewater treatment plants can be reused or disposed of. Increased concerns and debate over biosolids disposal and its associated environmental impacts have led to more stringent revisions and amendments for many of these regulations. Continuing changes in regulations affecting biosolids management make a flexible management program essential.

Federal, state, and local agencies are responsible for regulating biosolids beneficial reuse/disposal. The authority of each agency varies based on the beneficial reuse/disposal methods employed. However, overall guidelines are established by the EPA. These guidelines are in turn implemented by state and local governments. Many state and local agencies in California have developed additional rules, guidelines, and criteria for biosolids management.

In order to implement the long-term biosolids permitting program, required by the Water Quality Act of 1987, the EPA initiated two rule makings. The first rulemaking established requirements and procedures for including biosolids management in NPDES permits, procedures for granting state biosolids management programs primacy over federal programs, or for federal programs to implement biosolids permits if a state so chooses.

The second rulemaking proposed to regulate and control biosolids permitting was 40 CFR Part 503, Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge. This rule addresses three general categories of beneficial reuse/disposal of biosolids including:

. Land application of sewage sludge for beneficial use of organic content;

Appendix 1: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………A1-6 . Surface disposal of biosolids in a monofill, surface impoundment, or other dedicated site; and . Incineration of sewage sludge with, or without, auxiliary fuel.

Future Regulatory Considerations This section provides insight into the future regulatory considerations that may affect County sewer systems’ effluent discharges. Identifying future regulatory trends is critical for the following reasons:

. Developing treatment scenarios and alternatives; . Planning for process and layout requirements for future regulatory compliance; and . Making budget considerations for major design and construction projects.

Identifying future pollutants of concern (POCs), such as metals, nutrients, and/or pathogens, will help to develop alternatives that are flexible and can be easily expanded or upgraded to treat future POCs. For example, planning may include reserving space in the site layout for nutrient reduction, tertiary filtration, advanced oxidation, or an alternative disinfection method that would provide treatment of future POCs.

Nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorus, are the leading cause of impairments to the nation’s surface waters and as a result are receiving greater regulatory scrutiny regarding their contribution to the overall quality of the nation’s receiving waters. Although appropriate amounts of nutrients are vital for the health and proper functioning of water bodies, excessive nutrient concentrations can cause water quality degradation.

Nationwide Nutrient Criteria In November 2007, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a petition with the EPA to require that nutrient removal be included in the definition of secondary treatment. The petition stated that “there are many [biological processes] which can achieve total phosphorus levels of 1.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L) as a monthly average, and a total nitrogen of 6 to 8 mg/L as an annual average” (NRDC et al, 2007).

In response to the petition by NRDC, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) wrote to the EPA in February 2008, September 2009, and June 2010 urging the EPA to deny the petition to modify the secondary treatment regulations for several legal, technical, and political reasons including but not limited to the potentially exorbitant cost to publically owned treatment works and the inappropriateness of establishing national limits for local and regional water quality issues (NACWA, 2008; NACWA, 2009). In October 2009, the EPA stated they were actively analyzing the data and information to prepare a report and preliminary response to the NRDC petition. They stated they would consider NACWA, other stakeholders, and all information carefully before taking action on the NRDC petition (U.S. EPA, 2009a).

Due to the scientific uncertainties associated with the development of numeric nutrient criteria and the magnitude of the expected costs of compliance, nutrient water quality policies are very controversial and have sparked several legal actions across the country. The State of Florida has become the initial focus of environmental groups’ efforts to push the EPA to develop federal numeric nutrient criteria to be imposed on the states. The EPA has agreed to a consent decree in

Appendix 1: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………A1-7 the environmental suit, and has made a determination that numeric nutrient standards are necessary in Florida. Proposed criteria for total nitrogen and total phosphorus were released in January 2010. This action is possibly precedential, and may result in environmental groups suing the EPA to impose nutrient criteria in other areas of the country.

State of California Nutrient Numeric Endpoints In addition to the increasingly stringent regulation of nutrients, there is a trend towards increasing regulation of emerging microconstituents and bioaccumulative pollutants in treated effluent discharges.

Microconstituents and Bioaccumulative Constituents Microconstituent, also referred to as “contaminants of emerging concern” (CECs) by the EPA Office of Water, are substances that have been detected in surface waters and the environment and may potentially cause deleterious effects on aquatic life and the environment at relevant concentrations. Microconstituents include:

. Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs; used in flame retardants, furniture foam, plastics, etc.) and other organic contaminants.

. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs), including a wide suite of human prescribed drugs, over-the-counter medications, bactericides, sunscreens, and synthetic musks.

. Veterinary medicines such as antimicrobials, antibiotics, anti-fungals, growth promoters, and hormones.

. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), including synthetic estrogens and androgens, naturally occurring estrogens, as well as many other compounds capable of modulating normal hormonal functions and steroidal synthesis in aquatic organisms.

. Nanomaterials such as carbon nanotubes or nano-scale particulate titanium dioxide.

Bioaccumulative constituents are substances that are taken up by organisms at faster rates than the organisms can remove them. As a result, these constituents accumulate in the organism and the food chain, and can remain in the environment for long periods of time. Mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxins are some bioaccumulative constituents that are being increasingly regulated.

Appendix 1: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………A1-8

Monitoring requirements for these trace pollutants are increasing, including requirements to analyze constituents at lower detection limits. It is likely that water quality criteria followed by new effluent limits will be added to permits. Implementation of CEC standards is not expected to be imminent as the EPA is currently focused on assessing the potential impact CECs have on the environment and human health.

The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is in the process of developing statewide policies for nutrients. The SWRCB held a scoping meeting in October 2011 to seek input on content for a proposed Nutrient Numeric Endpoint (NNE) framework and policy for inland surface waters.

California State Recycled Water Policy The SWRCB adopted a Recycled Water Policy (RW Policy) in 2009 and updated in 2013 to establish more uniform requirements for water recycling throughout the State and to streamline the permit application process in most instances6. The RW Policy includes a mandate that the State increase the use of recycled water over 2002 levels by at least 200,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) by 2020 and by at least 300,000 AFY by 2030. It also includes goals for stormwater reuse and conservation and potable water offsets by recycled water. The onus for achieving these mandates and goals is placed on both recycled water purveyors and potential users. Since the recycled water project permit process is streamlined, projects will not be required to include a monitoring component. If any regulations arise from new knowledge of risks associated with CECs, then projects will be given compliance schedules. Regulations are not expected to arise in the imminent future.

6 Details are at the State Water Board website at www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_recycling_policy/.

Appendix 1: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………A1-9 REFERENCES Alameda County Water District et. al. September 2013. San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. 973-pages. Authored by Kennedy/Jenks Consultants in consultation with ESA, and Kearns & West. Available on-line at: http://bairwmp.org/docs/2013-bairwm-plan-update/2013-final-plan/San%20Francisco%20Bay% 20Area%20IRWMP%20Final_September%202013.pdf

City of Suisun City. Sewer System Management Plan, Feb 2014. 106-pages Available on-line at: http://www.suisun.com/wp-content/files/Elements_1-11_-_Sewer_System_ Management_Plan_- _2014.pdf.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2010 Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List / 305(b) Report).

State Water Resources Control Board. Nonpoint Source Pollution (NPS) Control Program. www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nps.

Appendix 1: Wastewater Regulations …………………………………………………………………A1-10 FairfieldFairfield--SuisunSuisun SewerSewer DistrictDistrict

Board of Directors: Pete Sanchez, President ● Catherine Moy, Vice President Pam Bertani ● Jane Day ● Mike Hudson ● Harry Price Mike Segala ● Chuck Timm ● Rick Vaccaro ● Lori Wilson

A. Preliminary Treatment B. Primary Treatment C. Intermediate Treatment Debris and grit that are harmful to downstream The primary clarifiers at the head of the The oxidation towers and intermediary equipment are removed with bar screens and facility remove heavier solids through set- clarifiers remove soluble organic matter. degritting equipment. Influent flow is tling. measured and recorded at this location.

D. Secondary Treatment E. Tertiary Treatment Secondary treatment is accomplished in the aeration tanks and secondary clarifiers. Bacteria Filters provide a polishing step to remove consume organic matter in the intermediate treatment effluent, generating an ‘activated’ the few suspended particles remaining in sludge. To survive, bacteria need oxygen that is provided in the aeration tanks. Secondary the secondary clarifier effluent. clarifiers remove the activated sludge through settling.

F. Ultraviolet Disinfection (UV) G. Final Effluent Storage H. Anaerobic Digestion UV light destroys the genetic makeup of Final effluent can be discharged directly Solids removed in the clarifiers are thickened pathogenic organisms to prevent the spread of into the Suisun Marsh, or temporarily and then digested in a closed vessel. waterborne diseases to downstream users and the stored in large, earthen reservoirs for later Digesters provide an environment to reduce environment. use in irrigation or utility applications. the organic matter and disease-causing organisms. Methane is produced as the solids are digested and is used as a fuel for on-site electrical generators.

J. Flow Equalization Flow equalization facilities are used to divert and temporarily store incoming flows during high flow, wet weather periods. The stored wastewater is routed back to the plant for treatment. I. Dewatering The digested solids are pumped to the dewatering building or solar drying beds, where excess water is removed. Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District 1010 Chadbourne Road Fairfield, CA 94534 (707) 429-8930 www.fssd.com

The Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District oversees wastewater collection and treatment, water recycling, and stormwater management services in a 41-square-mile area of Solano County, California. The service area encompasses the cities of Fairfield and Suisun City as well as one of the nation’s most FLOWS AND LOADING strategically important military installations, Travis Air Force Base. Average Daily Flow: The District owns and operates a system of sanitary sewers and pumping stations 12.2 million gallons per day that serves 135,000 residential, commercial and industrial customers and government Agencies. Major industries includes Anheuser-Busch Brewery, Travis Biosolids Disposal: Air Force Base, and Super Store Industries. Households, retail businesses, major 10,400 wet tons annually food and beverage producers, light industries, manufacturers and vital military Operations depend upon this service. Suspended Solids Removed: 99.5% of incoming solids The District’s collection system consists of 13 pump stations and a 70-mile network of 12 to 48 inch diameter sewer pipes that collect and transport sanitary waste to a Dry Weather Capacity: modern, efficient wastewater treatment plant. The treatment facilities, which 23.7 million gallons per day occupy about 150 acres, replaced three older plants in 1976 and have undergone major renovation and expansion to keep pace with the region’s population and Irrigation/Utility Water Output: economic growth, as well as technological advancements in the wastewater 193 million gallons industry. The District’s mission is to safeguard public health and the environment. Just south POWER of the District’s boundary is the sensitive Suisun Marsh, which is the nation’s largest brackish water marsh as well as the largest wetland on the Pacific Coast. Consumed: This 116,000-acre region not only supports abundant plant life but also serves as a 11,642 MWh annually stopover for up to 1.5 million migratory birds traversing the Pacific Flyway each year. Protecting public and environmental health requires the District to ensure that Sources: discharged water meets stringent water quality standards set by Federal, State and PG&E, solar, wind and Regional agencies. methane co-generation

Wind Turbine Power Solar Power Wastewater treatment is an The District’s property is host energy-intensive process. for the solar system owned The District’s wastewater and operated by SunEdison. treatment facilities are the The solar system has the first in California to be capacity to deliver 1 MW of powered by wind turbines. power to the treatment plant The four are rated at 50 kw at 12 KV and produces and became operational in approximately 20% of early 2010. electricity used each year. VALLEJO SANITATION & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT

1952 1970 1977 1987 1990 2005 2006 2010 VSFCD created by California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act VSFCD begins more Clean Water Act amendments shift VSFCD wins national first place award Treatment plant VSFCD completes $60 District wins two major statewide awards: a special act of requires sewage treatment plants to keep advanced focus to polluted runoff, and the from the U.S. EPA for innovative and completes major million project designed Wastewater Plant of the Year and Safety the California water clean, balancing economic treatment. District creates its first Storm Drain beneficial application of biosolids to odor reduction to eliminate sewer over- Plant of the Year from the California legislature. considerations with environmental goals. Master Plan. farmland in Sonoma County. project. flows in Vallejo. Water Environment Association.

1959 1972 1983 1988 1991 2002 2008 Wastewater Clean Water Act established, initial District purchases Tubbs District improves Treatment plant capacity is VSFCD wins Governors VSFCD wins Governors Environmental Economic treatment plant focus on reducing polluted effluent Island farm for the secondary facility to increased from 30 to 60 Environmental Economic Leadership Award for Energy Conservation; major begins treating from industrial and sewage beneficial reuse of biosolids. provide better service. million gallons per day. Leadership Award for Energy modifications to the plant includes building a 8.5 Vallejo’s sewage. treatment facilities. Conservation million gallon storage tank to prevent overflows.

CELEBRATING 60 YEARS OF SERVICE 1952 - 2012

CELEBRATING 60 YEARS OF SERVICE Solano County Economic Forecast

Solano County is located on the Northeast edge of the San thousands Total Wage & Salary Job Creation of jobs Francisco Bay, approximately halfway between San Francisco and 1990 - 2040 Sacramento. Solano County has a population of 427,700 people 6 and a total of 129,900 wage and salary jobs. The per capita income in Solano County is $43,319 and the average salary per worker 4 is $67,135. 2 In 2014, employment in Northern California increased by 3.4 percent, whereas employment in the greater Bay Area grew 0 by 4.0 percent. In Solano County, a total of 2,700 wage and salary jobs were created, representing an increase of 2.1 percent. The -2 unemployment rate improved significantly, falling from 9.0 percent -4 in 2013 to 7.4 percent in 2014.

Most major sectors gained jobs in 2014. The largest increases -6 were observed in manufacturing (+630 jobs), leisure and hospitality 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 (+600 jobs), education and healthcare (+550 jobs), and wholesale constant 2014 Real Per Capita Personal Income and retail trade (+420 jobs). The largest losses occurred in dollars per person 1990 - 2040 construction (-190 jobs) and financial activities (-190 jobs). 70,000 From 2009 to 2014, the Solano County population increased at an annual average rate of 0.7 percent. This growth was due 65,000 largely to the natural increase (new births), as net migration was 60,000 low. 55,000 California 50,000

45,000

40,000 Solano County forecast 35,000 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Forecast Highlights

• In 2015, total employment will increase by 2.6 percent. Between • Net migration will remain positive over the forecast period. From 2015 and 2020, the annual growth rate is expected to average 2015 to 2020, an average of 2,800 net migrants will enter the 1.6 percent. county each year.

• Average salaries in Solano County are virtually identical to the • Real per capita income is forecast to rise by 3.3 percent in 2015. California state average. Between 2015 and 2020, inflation- Between 2015 and 2020, real per capita income will grow at adjusted salaries are projected to increase by 0.7 percent per an average rate of 0.8 percent per year. year in Solano County, compared to 0.6 percent per year across the state. • Total taxable sales, adjusted for inflation, are expected to increase by an average of 1.7 percent per year during the • Between 2015 and 2020, the largest employment increases will 2015-2020 period. occur in education and healthcare (+2,600 jobs), construction (+1,800 jobs), leisure and hospitality (+1,700 jobs), and • Industrial production is expected to increase by 4.8 percent in professional services (+1,500 jobs). Together, these sectors will 2015. Between 2015 and 2020, the growth rate is forecasted account for 68 percent of net job creation in the county. to average 3.1 percent per year.

• The population is expected to grow by 1.2 percent in 2015. Annual growth in the 2015 to 2020 period is forecast to average 1.1 percent.

189 Solano County Economic Forecast 2006-2014 History, 2015-2040 Forecast

Net Registered New Homes Total Taxable Personal Real Per Inflation Rate Real Farm Real Industrial Unemploy- Population Migration Vehicles Households Permitted Sales Income Capita Income (% change Crop Value Production ment Rate (people) (people) (thousands) (thousands) (homes) (billions) (billions) (dollars) in CPI) (millions) (billions) (percent) ------2006 411,351 -2,268 380 140.0 1,300 $6.5 $15.3 $44,748 3.2 281.6 2.9 4.9 2007 412,636 -1,836 375 140.5 973 $6.3 $16.0 $45,157 3.4 312.7 3.0 5.3 2008 413,167 -2,468 371 141.1 562 $6.0 $16.2 $44,527 2.9 331.5 3.2 6.9 2009 412,488 -3,558 372 140.9 559 $5.3 $15.9 $43,359 0.8 282.9 3.0 10.6 2010 413,129 -1,769 371 141.8 441 $5.2 $15.8 $42,448 1.3 287.5 2.9 12.5 2011 414,268 -1,198 365 142.4 388 $5.8 $16.5 $42,971 2.7 314.9 2.8 12.1 2012 419,064 2,605 368 142.8 529 $6.0 $17.3 $43,358 2.7 360.4 2.9 10.6 2013 422,899 1,619 381 143.3 800 $6.4 $18.1 $43,914 2.3 358.1 2.9 9.0 2014 427,743 2,559 389 143.9 666 $6.8 $19.0 $44,319 2.8 358.7 3.2 7.4 2015 432,611 2,622 395 144.5 983 $7.1 $20.0 $45,765 1.2 359.9 3.3 6.5 2016 437,971 3,122 400 145.4 1,280 $7.6 $21.4 $46,907 3.2 362.2 3.5 5.6 2017 443,249 3,021 404 146.6 1,508 $8.0 $22.5 $47,132 3.2 366.5 3.6 5.3 2018 448,274 2,746 408 148.0 1,603 $8.4 $23.5 $47,259 3.0 371.0 3.7 5.2 2019 453,218 2,638 411 149.5 1,610 $8.7 $24.6 $47,474 2.8 375.4 3.8 5.1 2020 458,006 2,458 414 150.9 1,605 $9.0 $25.6 $47,608 2.9 376.7 3.9 5.1 2021 462,840 2,506 416 152.4 1,565 $9.3 $26.7 $47,548 3.0 378.9 4.0 5.1 2022 467,732 2,566 418 153.9 1,519 $9.6 $27.8 $47,568 3.1 380.5 4.1 5.1 2023 472,718 2,654 420 155.3 1,492 $9.9 $28.9 $47,740 2.7 381.4 4.2 5.0 2024 477,616 2,572 421 156.6 1,491 $10.3 $30.2 $48,139 2.6 382.8 4.3 5.0 2025 482,301 2,376 423 158.0 1,464 $10.6 $31.6 $48,515 2.8 384.3 4.4 5.0 2026 486,879 2,281 425 159.3 1,409 $11.0 $33.0 $48,790 2.8 385.8 4.5 5.0 2027 491,269 2,107 427 160.6 1,363 $11.4 $34.4 $49,023 2.8 387.2 4.7 5.0 2028 495,635 2,111 429 161.9 1,319 $11.9 $35.9 $49,301 2.7 388.7 4.8 5.0 2029 499,928 2,048 432 163.1 1,293 $12.4 $37.3 $49,640 2.5 389.7 5.0 5.0 2030 504,098 1,943 434 164.3 1,278 $13.0 $38.8 $50,042 2.4 391.6 5.1 5.0 2031 508,164 1,841 436 165.5 1,276 $13.6 $40.4 $50,488 2.3 393.5 5.2 5.0 2032 512,107 1,719 439 166.6 1,274 $14.3 $42.0 $50,870 2.5 395.4 5.4 5.0 2033 515,951 1,609 441 167.8 1,258 $14.9 $43.7 $51,444 2.1 397.3 5.6 5.0 2034 519,667 1,485 443 169.0 1,243 $15.6 $45.5 $51,997 2.3 399.3 5.8 5.0 2035 523,433 1,555 446 170.1 1,216 $16.2 $47.4 $52,512 2.4 401.3 5.9 5.0 2036 527,344 1,702 448 171.2 1,195 $16.9 $49.4 $52,831 2.8 403.2 6.1 5.0 2037 531,302 1,773 450 172.3 1,180 $17.5 $51.4 $53,117 2.8 405.2 6.3 5.0 2038 535,303 1,839 452 173.4 1,163 $18.1 $53.5 $53,469 2.7 407.2 6.5 5.0 2039 539,331 1,895 454 174.5 1,147 $18.8 $55.8 $53,760 2.8 409.3 6.7 5.0 2040 543,311 1,856 455 175.5 1,137 $19.4 $58.1 $54,076 2.8 411.3 6.9 5.0

percent Population Growth units New Residential Units change permitted 1990 - 2040 1990 - 2040 6.0 3,200

2,800 5.0 2,400 4.0 2,000 3.0 1,600 2.0 1,200 1.0 800

0.0 400

-1.0 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

190 Solano County Employment Forecast 2006-2014 History, 2015-2040 Forecast

Total Wage Manufac- Transportation Wholesale & Financial Professional Health & & Salary Farm Construction turing & Utilities Retail Trade Activities Services Information Education Leisure Government ------employment (thousands of jobs)------

2006 133.2 1.73 12.6 10.6 4.2 23.0 6.2 11.5 1.6 17.9 13.5 26.0 2007 131.6 1.55 10.7 10.6 4.5 22.4 5.6 11.5 1.6 18.6 13.7 26.6 2008 129.0 1.60 9.2 10.3 4.6 21.8 5.1 10.6 1.5 19.2 13.9 26.9 2009 124.7 1.56 7.4 9.9 4.6 20.3 5.1 10.8 1.3 19.8 13.8 26.1 2010 120.9 1.39 7.2 9.7 4.2 20.6 5.2 8.8 1.3 20.2 13.7 24.9 2011 120.6 1.41 7.8 9.6 3.7 20.5 5.1 8.8 1.1 20.4 13.9 24.3 2012 123.1 1.49 8.1 10.0 3.7 21.2 5.0 8.9 1.1 21.2 14.2 24.1 2013 127.2 1.67 8.6 10.2 3.9 21.4 5.1 9.4 1.1 23.0 14.6 24.0 2014 129.9 1.88 8.4 10.8 4.1 21.8 4.9 9.5 1.1 23.6 15.2 24.3 2015 133.3 1.88 8.8 11.0 4.3 22.2 4.9 10.1 1.1 24.4 15.9 24.4 2016 136.7 1.89 9.1 11.1 4.4 22.6 5.0 10.6 1.1 25.0 16.6 25.0 2017 139.6 1.91 9.8 11.3 4.5 22.8 5.1 10.9 1.1 25.4 17.1 25.3 2018 141.4 1.92 10.1 11.4 4.5 23.0 5.1 11.1 1.1 26.0 17.4 25.4 2019 143.0 1.94 10.4 11.4 4.6 23.2 5.1 11.3 1.1 26.5 17.6 25.5 2020 144.6 1.94 10.5 11.5 4.6 23.3 5.1 11.6 1.1 27.0 17.7 25.9 2021 145.3 1.95 10.6 11.5 4.6 23.4 5.1 11.8 1.1 27.6 17.7 25.6 2022 146.4 1.95 10.7 11.5 4.6 23.5 5.1 12.0 1.1 28.1 17.7 25.6 2023 147.5 1.96 10.7 11.5 4.6 23.6 5.1 12.3 1.1 28.7 17.7 25.7 2024 148.4 1.96 10.7 11.4 4.7 23.7 5.1 12.5 1.1 29.2 17.7 25.8 2025 149.3 1.97 10.7 11.5 4.7 23.8 5.1 12.8 1.1 29.6 17.7 25.9 2026 150.2 1.97 10.7 11.4 4.7 23.9 5.1 13.0 1.1 30.1 17.8 26.1 2027 151.2 1.98 10.6 11.4 4.7 24.0 5.1 13.2 1.1 30.5 17.9 26.3 2028 152.3 1.98 10.6 11.4 4.7 24.1 5.1 13.5 1.1 30.9 17.9 26.6 2029 153.5 1.98 10.5 11.4 4.7 24.2 5.1 13.7 1.1 31.4 18.1 26.9 2030 154.9 1.99 10.5 11.4 4.7 24.3 5.1 13.9 1.1 31.8 18.2 27.3 2031 156.2 2.00 10.5 11.4 4.7 24.4 5.1 14.1 1.1 32.3 18.3 27.8 2032 157.7 2.00 10.5 11.4 4.7 24.5 5.1 14.2 1.1 32.8 18.5 28.4 2033 159.1 2.01 10.5 11.4 4.8 24.6 5.1 14.4 1.1 33.2 18.6 28.9 2034 160.4 2.02 10.5 11.4 4.8 24.7 5.1 14.6 1.1 33.7 18.8 29.4 2035 161.6 2.02 10.4 11.4 4.8 24.8 5.1 14.7 1.2 34.1 18.9 29.7 2036 162.7 2.03 10.4 11.4 4.8 24.9 5.1 14.8 1.2 34.6 19.1 30.0 2037 163.8 2.03 10.4 11.4 4.8 24.9 5.1 15.0 1.2 35.1 19.2 30.3 2038 164.9 2.04 10.4 11.4 4.8 25.0 5.1 15.1 1.2 35.5 19.4 30.5 2039 165.9 2.05 10.3 11.5 4.8 25.0 5.1 15.3 1.2 36.0 19.5 30.7 2040 166.9 2.06 10.3 11.5 4.8 25.1 5.1 15.4 1.2 36.4 19.7 30.8

thousands Manufacturing Employment thousands Employment in Professional Services of jobs of jobs 1990 - 2040 1990 - 2040 12 16

11 14

10 12

9 10

8 8

7 6

6 4 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

191 thousands of percent Real Retail Sales Growth Real Earnings Per Worker change constant 2014 1990 - 2040 dollars per worker 1990 - 2040 10 85

80 5 75

0 70 California -5 65

60 -10 Solano 55 County forecast -15 50 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

inmigrants Net Migration inflation adjusted Industrial and Farm Production Indices minus index (1990=100) outmigrants 1990 - 2040 1990 - 2040 700 15,000 600 12,000

500 9,000

400 6,000

3,000 300 Industrial 0 200

-3,000 100 Farm forecast -6,000 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 County Economic and Demographic Indicators Projected Economic Growth (2015-2020)

Expected retail sales growth: 6.7% Expected population growth: 5.9% Expected job growth: 8.5% Net migration to account for: 55.1% Fastest growing jobs sector: Construction Expected growth in number of vehicles: 4.8% Expected personal income growth: 10.1%

Demographics (2015)

Unemployment rate (March 2015): 6.3% Population with B.A. or higher: 24.0% County rank* in California (58 counties): 20th Median home selling price (2014): $300,000 Working age (16-64) population: 66.1% Median household income: $64,618

Quality of Life

Violent crime rate (2013): 473 per 100,000 persons High School drop out rate (2014): 10.6% County rank* in California (58 counties): 41th Households at/below poverty line (2015): 10.4% Average commute time to work (2015): 31.1 minutes * The county ranked 1st corresponds to the lowest rate in California

192 Drainage Maintenance Agreement Among the Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District, the City of Fairfield, and the City of Suisun City Compiled, as amended, through January 23, 1995

DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT MADE AND ENTERED INTO ON THIS FIRST DAY OF MARCH, 1988, BY AND BETWEEN

FAIRFIELD-SUISUN SEWER DISTRICT, a public corporation, hereinafter referred to as “DISTRICT,”

AND

CITY OF FAIRFIELD, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as “FAIRFIELD,”

AND

CITY OF SUISUN CITY, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as “SUISUN CITY,”

RECITALS

1. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is constructing the modified Fairfield Vicinity Streams Project on land owned by the State of California and FAIRFIELD and SUISUN CITY.

2. FAIRFIELD and SUISUN CITY have agreed with the United States and the State of California to operate and maintain the drainage facilities constructed as part of the Fairfield Vicinity Streams Project.

3. DISTRICT has completed a drainage maintenance feasibility study and additional analyses which demonstrated advantages to regionalizing the maintenance management of certain storm water drainage facilities including the federal Fairfield Vicinity Streams Project.

4. FAIRFIELD and SUISUN CITY are desirous of DISTRICT, through exercise of its statutory authority, assuming limited responsibility for maintenance of drainage facilities.

5. DISTRICT is amenable to assuming such limited responsibility.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:

SECTION I

DEFINITIONS

1. CITIES – collective reference to FAIRFIELD and SUISUN CITY acting as individual parties to this agreement.

2. District Engineer – The General Manager/District Engineer of the DISTRICT or such other person as may be designated to act on behalf of DISTRICT by the Board of Directors.

3. Director of Public Works – The Director of Public Works or such other person as may be designated to act on behalf of the city by the city council.

4. Local Facilities – those storm drainage facilities for which DISTRICT provides supplemental maintenance funding only under the terms of this agreement but for which CITIES retain direct operation and maintenance responsibility.

5. Regional Facilities – those storm drainage facilities for which DISTRICT accepts limited maintenance responsibility under the terms of this agreement.

6. Natural Creeks – open drainage channels which have not been materially altered in either channel shape or alignment from their natural state.

7. Improved Channels – open drainage channels which have been altered from their natural state in order to improve their capacity to carry water.

SECTION II

DISTRICT AGREES:

1. Regional Facilities – To assume responsibility for the following maintenance activities on Regional Facilities owned by or under the control of CITIES:

A. Storm Water Pumping Stations

1) perform all required preventive and corrective maintenance of existing and future pumping stations which are turned over to the DISTRICT in acceptable structural and mechanical condition.

2) make recommendations for station improvements to increase reliability and/or capacity.

3) make no modifications or improvements to facilities which would adversely affect pumping capacity or reliability without the express written consent of the Director of Public Works of the city in which the facility is located.

4) inspect for operational readiness during dry weather conditions.

5) monitor operational status during wet weather conditions and make reasonable efforts to keep the station in operation.

6) maintain written records of work performed and make such records available for inspection by the Director of Public Works during normal business hours.

B. Other Facilities – provide periodic inspection, cleaning and repair of Regional Facilities including pipelines, improved channels, natural creeks, detention basins, bridge foundations, sloughs, culverts and appurtenant structures as required to maintain design hydraulic capacity in accordance with this agreement, but not including maintenance of fences, gates, guardrails, barricades or other devices intended to limit public access or contact with the maintained facilities.

C. Replace equipment and structures that fail, provided that the District’s obligation shall not exceed $50,000 per fiscal year.

D. Prepare and submit such reports on maintenance activity as may be required by non-city agencies. CITIES shall provide data to DISTRICT for preparation of said reports for those facilities maintained by CITIES.

E. Act as Lead Agency for purposes of obtaining permits, licenses, easements or other instruments that may be necessary to carry out DISTRICT responsibilities.

F. Regional Facility Inventory – implement and maintain a computerized data base inventory of regional drainage facilities and make summary reports and data available to CITIES as requested.

G. Act as Lead Agency for the purpose of dealing with the Regional Water Quality Control Board, EPA and other agencies promulgating non-point source pollution control regulations.

H. Insurance – require DISTRICT contractors or other parties working on any activities associated with this contract to indemnify and hold harmless CITIES, and to name CITIES as additional insureds.

I. With approval of DISTRICT Board of Directors, participate in the Section II.I. is construction of specific capital improvements to the drainage system. added 01/23/1995 2. Local Facilities – Provide supplemental funding to CITIES at levels set by the DISTRICT in accordance with procedures established herein.

3. Enterprise Fund – establish a separate enterprise fund to account for revenues and expenditures related to drainage maintenance activities of the DISTRICT. Revenues shall include drainage maintenance fees, interest income and grants-in-aid related to activities under this agreement.

A. Restrictions – to make no transfers into or out of the enterprise fund unless authorized by the DISTRICT Board of Directors.

B. Annual Financial Report – to prepare an annual financial report of the enterprise fund audited by an independent Certified Public Accountant. The report shall be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and standards and submitted to the DISTRICT Board of Directors within six months of the close of each fiscal year.

C. Budget – to prepare an annual budget for the activities covered by this agreement, including estimated revenues, fees, and maintenance and capital expenses and allocation to and status of reserves.

SECTION III

CITIES AGREE:

1. to allow DISTRICT and its contractors and agents free and unencumbered access to facilities for the purpose of performing its obligations under this agreement.

2. to furnish DISTRICT with all available spare parts, construction drawings, maintenance manuals, maintenance records, operational records, equipment guarantees, financial records and related materials for each facility for which DISTRICT assumes limited maintenance responsibility.

3. to warrant the overall structural and mechanical integrity of the facilities as of the effective date of this agreement and make such repairs as may be required by DISTRICT to bring existing facilities up to acceptable structural and mechanical condition. Work shall be completed before the effective date of this agreement.

4. fund and construct such capital improvements to increase reliability and/or hydraulic capacity as may be recommended by DISTRICT and determined to be financially feasible by CITIES.

5. that new storm water pumping stations will be designed and constructed to conform with minimum engineering standards established by DISTRICT.

6. submit to District on or before May 1 each year an annual report on maintenance activities completed during the prior calendar year.

SECTION IV

THE PARTIES MUTUALLY AGREE:

1. Maintenance Planning Committee – there shall be established a Maintenance Planning Committee, hereinafter COMMITTEE, consisting of the District Engineer of DISTRICT, the Director of Public Works of FAIRFIELD and the Director of Public Works of SUISUN CITY, or their respective designees. The COMMITTEE shall meet on a regular basis, but not less than once each calendar year, to review and plan regional maintenance priorities for the upcoming year, and make recommendations to DISTRICT for consideration in preparation of the annual budget.

Section IV.2.A 2. Local Facility Maintenance amended 06/27/1994 A. Enterprise Fund Accounts – CITIES shall each establish a separate & 01/23/1995 enterprise fund account within their respective financial accounting systems to account for revenues and expenditures directly related to maintenance of local facilities under the terms of this agreement. Revenues include the annual DISTRICT funding and other revenues such as interest earnings or grants-in-aid related to activities under this agreement.

1) Eligible Expenditures – Eligible expenditures shall be limited to the following:

a. Direct expenses related directly to the maintenance and rehabilitation of such facilities including salaries, employee fringe benefits, equipment costs, materials, and supplies.

b. Indirect expenses may be charged to the enterprise fund but not exceeding 15% of the eligible direct expenses.

c. Capital improvements to the drainage system which have been budgeted and approved by the DISTRICT.

2) Interfund Transfers and Loans – No interfund transfer of funds into or out of the enterprise fund shall be made unless authorized by the DISTRICT.

3) Annual Financial Report – CITIES shall prepare an annual financial report of the enterprise fund for the fiscal year which shall be audited by an independent certified public accountant. The report shall be prepared in accordance with generally-accepted accounting principles and standards and submitted within six months of the close of the fiscal year.

4) Reserve Account – CITIES shall create a reserve account within the enterprise fund for major maintenance and replacement of local facilities. Any funds not spent during the fiscal year shall be deposited to this reserve account. The minimum fund balance shall be maintained at no less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the average annual revenues allocated to CITY by DISTRICT.

5) Disaster Relief Funds – In the event of a flooding emergency for which CITIES apply and receive state and/or federal relief funds, that portion of said relief funds related to repayment of enterprise fund expenditures associated with the emergency shall be deposited in the enterprise fund to offset eligible expenses incurred during the emergency. The CITIES are responsible for providing documentation of the eligible emergency expenses and shall be responsible for responding to the state or federal audits of said funds and expenses.

B. Facility Inventory – CITIES and DISTRICT agree to jointly develop a computerized data base inventory of drainage maintenance facilities within their jurisdictions. The inventory shall be in a format approved by the District Engineer and, as a minimum, contain information on location, type of facility, size, materials of construction, date installed and maintenance history. CITIES shall submit to DISTRICT on or before May 1 each calendar year a printed report listing all facilities within their respective jurisdictions by type and size and an updated copy of the complete inventory on magnetic media. This report shall include all new facilities placed in service during the previous calendar year as well as all previously- inventoried facilities. This inventory shall subdivide facilities into Local and Regional categories for purposes of this agreement. Pipelines under 36" in diameter and appurtenant structures shall be included as local facilities. Designation of larger facilities as local shall be at discretion of CITIES, but local facilities inventory for facilities larger than 33" diameter may not be increased or decreased more than 10 percent in any fiscal year as measured by effect on total supplemental funding by DISTRICT unless authorized by DISTRICT Board.

C. Maintenance Cost Allowance – DISTRICT shall annually remit to CITIES for deposit to each city’s enterprise fund an amount of money which shall be calculated on the basis of Unit Maintenance Cost Allowances and number of units maintained in accordance with procedures established herein. Unit Maintenance Cost Allowances shall be established annually by the DISTRICT by incorporation into the annual budget.

The amount to be deposited by DISTRICT shall be determined by multiplying the number of units of each type of facility in each city’s Local Facility Inventory by the Unit Maintenance Cost Allowance for that type of facility and subtracting the city’s local contribution to the fund as shown in the example attached as EXHIBIT A.

D. Neither DISTRICT nor any officer or employee thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by FAIRFIELD under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction not delegated to DISTRICT under this agreement. It is also agreed that, pursuant to Government Code § 895.4, FAIRFIELD shall fully indemnify and hold DISTRICT harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code § 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by FAIRFIELD under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction not delegated to DISTRICT under this agreement.

E. Neither FAIRFIELD nor any officer or employee thereof, is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by DISTRICT under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to DISTRICT under this agreement. It is also agreed that, pursuant to Government Code § 895.4, DISTRICT shall fully indemnify and hold FAIRFIELD harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code § 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by DISTRICT under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to DISTRICT under this agreement.

F. Neither DISTRICT nor any officer or employee thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by SUISUN CITY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction not delegated to DISTRICT under this agreement. It is also agreed that, pursuant to Government Code § 895.4, SUISUN CITY shall fully indemnify and hold DISTRICT harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code § 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by SUISUN CITY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction not delegated to DISTRICT under this agreement.

G. Neither SUISUN CITY nor any officer or employee thereof, is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by DISTRICT under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to DISTRICT under this agreement. It is also agreed that, pursuant to Government Code § 895.4, DISTRICT shall fully indemnify and hold SUISUN CITY harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code § 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by DISTRICT under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to DISTRICT under this agreement.

3. Termination – Either CITY may terminate its participation in this agreement by giving written notice to the DISTRICT no later than May 31 of any year. Such termination shall be effective on July 1 of that year. The DISTRICT may terminate its participation in this agreement with respect to either CITY by giving written notice no later than March 1 of any year. Such termination shall be effective on July 1 of that year.

4. FAIRFIELD agrees to provide supplemental financial management services to DISTRICT for Drainage Maintenance activities in accordance with the provisions of the existing financial management agreement between DISTRICT and FAIRFIELD. As compensation for these supplemental services, DISTRICT agrees to pay $2500 per year in addition to compensation provided under existing agreement. Supplemental compensation shall be adjusted annually by the mechanism provided under existing agreement.

5. Mutual Aid – DISTRICT and CITIES agree to provide mutual aid and assistance for drainage maintenance when requested during emergency situations, and agree to reimburse each other for expenses related to said aid and assistance.

6. Effective Date – the effective date of this agreement shall be 12:01 A.M. July 1, 1988.

IN WITNESS the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day first above-written. EXHIBIT A

Example Calculation of Local Facilities Maintenance Cost Allowance

Facility Inventory Unit Maintenance Total Type of Facility Units No. of Units Cost Allowance Allowance

Storm drain pipes L.F. 200,000 X $0.20 = $40,000 less than 33"

Storm drain pipes L.F. 15,000 X 0.20 = 3,000 greater than 33"

Box culvert drains L.F. 1,000 X 0.35 = 350

Improved Earth Channel L.F. 15,000 X 2.50 = 37,500

Natural Creek L.F. 25,000 X 2.00 = 50,000

Total 130,850

Less local contribution -50,000

District contribution $80,850

Agenda Item 7C Staff Draft

Staff Report DATE: February 27, 2017

TO: Local Agency Formation Commission

FROM: Michelle McIntyre, Analyst

SUBJECT: Municipal Service Review City of Benicia

RECOMMENDATION:

Find the Municipal Service Review (MSR) for the City of Benicia adequate and complete pursuant to the requirement of Government Code Section 56430.

BACKGROUND:

The Commission received the draft MSR for the City of Benicia on December 12, 2016 and circulated the draft for public review. Staff received comments from City of Benicia: staff, Planning Commission, and City Council. The comments received are included as Attachment D and were incorporated and addressed within the final MSR document. As of the writing of this report, staff has not received additional comments.

The Benicia City Council subsequently adopted Resolution 17-6 (Attachment C) adopted on February 17, 2017, recommending the LAFCO adopt the MSR with amendments.

Staff recommends the Commission find the MSR for the City of Benicia adequate and complete pursuant to the requirements of GCS 56430 and find the study to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21102 and 21150.

Attachments: A – LAFCO Staff Proposed Resolution B – Notice of Exemption pursuant to CEQA C - Benicia City Council Resolution 17-6 D– Comments on the draft MSR received from the City of Benicia E - Final MSR

RESOLUTION NO. 17-03

RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF SOLANO ADOPTING THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FOR THE CITY OF BENECIA ______

WHEREAS, Solano LAFCO initiated and conducted a service review of the City of Benicia in 2005 and has prepared a comprehensive update and review of the municipal services of the City of Benicia as of February 2017; and

WHEREAS, the Commission received the draft Municipal Service Review for the City of Benicia, on December 12, 2016, circulated the draft for public review, and held a public meeting to consider the final Municipal Service Review for the City of Benicia, on February 27, 2017; and

WHEREAS, at its meeting of February 27, 2017, the Solano Local Agency Formation Commission received and considered all written and oral testimony and comments related to the Municipal Service Review for the City of Benicia, its findings and determinations, including the environmental determination; and,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED as follows:

1. The Municipal Services Review for the City of Benicia is found to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21102 and 21150 in that it is a descriptive and planning study for possible future action for which funding has not been committed.

2. The Municipal Services Review for the City of Benicia is found to be adequate and complete pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 56430 and determinations regarding municipal services are approved as set forth and described in the attached “Exhibit A” and by this reference incorporated herein.

3. The Executive Officer is hereby directed to file a Notice of Exemption in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and local ordinances implementing the same.

UPON MOTION of Commissioner ______seconded by Commissioner ______, the foregoing resolution is adopted this 27th day of February 2017 by the following vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:

______Nancy Shopay, Chair Local Agency Formation Commission County of Solano, State of California

ATTEST:

______Michelle McIntyre, Clerk to the Commission

Comments Received for Benicia MSR

Benicia City Council -Page 9-1: “The City of Benicia is a general law city and has a Council-Manager form of government with a separately elected Mayor and a four member city council. The Mayor is elected to a four year term, and, separately, the five remaining four members of the City Council are elected at large for alternating four-year terms.”

Benicia Planning Commission -Update the background information tables with current information, especially with regards to water and sewer.

-On page 7-1, Section 7.0, delete the sentence: “In general, new development pays its own way with regard to services and facilities and has a positive impact on the City’s budget.”

-Determination 6.9.4 (6.9.3 in Section 11), add the word “to” so as to read “sold to and used by the Valero…” Make the determination numbering consistent at chapter’s end and in Section 11.

Benicia Staff -On page 2-2, the Executive Summary states “…The City’s budget and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) are reviewed and adopted annually by the City Council as part of a public process.” The City does not have a current CIP, rather Benicia uses a project priority system outlined in the biennial budget. Sections 7.1 and 7.3 clarify this point.

-On page 3-3, the end of Section 3.0, the City Profile briefly comments on the urban growth boundary. Mention should be made that this boundary was established by voter initiative Measure K in 2003 and that it sunsets in 2023.

-The Northern Gateway property is mentioned throughout the document (See Section 6.2, 6.8, 7.0). The proposed development of this property is uncertain at this time, as the project application is incomplete. The same property is also mentioned as the Benicia Business Park twice on page 6-15, which is an outdated reference to a withdrawn application.

-Table 6-2 in the Parks and Recreation section should list the special use facilities found on page 6-4 and programs that are offered through the Parks and Community Services should be briefly mentioned in this section.

-Section 6.5.1, Transportation and Circulation, should mention and outline the proposed Industrial Park Transportation & Employment Center Plan.

-Section 6.9, Water, should mention and outline the proposed Benicia Water Reuse project.

-Section 7.3, Capital Improvements, on page 7-7, discusses updating the library’s cataloging system every five years. While migration to a new ILS is an example of a priority project, it does not occur at five year intervals.

-Section 8.2, Open Space and Recreation Services, should call out the Solano Open Space Committee (previously Tri-City and County Cooperative Planning Group).

-Section 9.2, Accountability, should mention the City’s Open Government Ordinance, Title 4, of the Benicia Municipal Code.

Solano LAFCO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION

Notice of Exemption

Project Title: ___ Municipal Services Review: County Sanitation Districts and Municipal Service Review: City of Benicia; Pursuant to Government Code 56430

Project Location - Specific: Comprehensive studies of services provided: City of Benicia, Fairfield- Suisun Sewer District, Vallejo Sanitation & Flood Control District,

Project Location – City: Areas include Benicia, Vallejo, Fairfield & Suisun City Project Location - County: Solano County

Description of Project: Review of local government service providers

Name of Public Agency Approving Project: _Solano LAFCO

Name of Person or Agency Carrying out Project: Solano LAFCO

Reasons why project is exempt: Descriptive and Planning Study for Possible Future Action for which Funding has not been approved

Signature: ______Date: 2/27/17 Title: Executive Officer__

X Signed by Lead Agency Date received for filing at OPR: ______Signed by Applicant

POSTED ON:

City of Benicia Municipal Service Review

Solano LAFCO

Prepared By: Michelle McIntyre and Amy Million

Acknowledgment: Renata Di Battista, Christina Ratcliffe, and Abigail Urrutia

February 27, 2017

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR i February 27, 2017

Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... 1-1 1.0: Introduction ...... 1-2 1.1 – Role and Responsibility of LAFCO ...... 1-2 1.2 – Purpose of this Municipal Service Review ...... 1-2 1.3 – Uses of the Municipal Service Review ...... 1-3 1.4 – Sphere of Influence ...... 1-3 1.5 – California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ...... 1-4 2.0: Executive Summary ...... 2-1 3.0: City Profile & History ...... 3-1 4.0: Growth and Population Projections ...... 4-1 4.1 – Population...... 4-1 4.1.1 – Growth Trends ...... 4-1 4.1.2 – Population Projections ...... 4-1 5.0: Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ...... 5-1 6.0: Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities ...... 6-1 6.1 – Animal Control ...... 6-1 6.2 – Fire ...... 6-1 6.3 – Law Enforcement ...... 6-2 6.4 – Parks and Recreation ...... 6-4 6.4.1 – Types of Parks and Facilities ...... 6-4 6.4.2 – Current and Future Park Needs ...... 6-5 6.4.3 – Proposed Park Facilities ...... 6-6 6.5 – Public Works ...... 6-9 6.5.1 – Transportation and Circulation ...... 6-9 6.5.2 – Transit Services ...... 6-11 6.6 – Solid Waste ...... 6-11 6.7 – Stormwater ...... 6-12 6.7.1 – Benicia’s Stormwater Management Program ...... 6-14 6.8 – Wastewater ...... 6-15 6.9 – Water ...... 6-16 6.9.1 – Historical Water Use ...... 6-16 6.9.2 – Projected Usage ...... 6-19 7.0: Financial Ability to Provide Services ...... 7-1 7.1 – General Fund ...... 7-1 7.2 – Enterprise Funds ...... 7-4 7.2.1 – Wastewater Funds ...... 7-4 7.2.2 – Water Funds ...... 7-5 7.3 – Capital Improvements ...... 7-6 7.3.1 – Assessment Districts ...... 7-7 7.3.2 – Benefit Districts ...... 7-7 7.3.3 – Capital License Tax ...... 7-7

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR ii February 14, 2017

7.3.4 – Development Agreement ...... 7-7 7.3.5 – General Obligation Bonds ...... 7-8 7.3.6 – Park Dedication/Quimby Act ...... 7-8 7.3.7 – School Impact Fees ...... 7-8 7.3.8 – State and Federal Grants...... 7-8 7.3.9 – Traffic Mitigation Fee ...... 7-8 7.3.10 – Wastewater Capacity Fund ...... 7-9 7.3.11 – Water Capacity Fund ...... 7-9 8.0: Status and Opportunities for Shared Facilities ...... 8-1 8.1 – Shared Facilities ...... 8-1 8.1.1 – Animal Services ...... 8-1 8.1.2 – Fire ...... 8-1 8.2 – Open Space and Recreation Services ...... 8-1 8.3 – Police Department ...... 8-2 8.4 – Solid Waste ...... 8-2 8.5 – Stormwater ...... 8-2 8.6 – Transportation Services ...... 8-2 8.7 – Water & Wastewater ...... 8-3 8.8 – Management Efficiencies ...... 8-3 9.0: Government Structure and Accountability ...... 9-1 9.1 – Government Structure ...... 9-1 9.2 – Accountability ...... 9-1 10.0: LAFCO Policies Affecting Service Delivery ...... 10-1 11.0: Summary of Findings & Determinations ...... 11-1 12.0: References ...... 12-1

List of Tables Table 4-1: Population Growth in Benicia and Solano County Since 1970...... 4 -1 Table 4-2: Solano Cities and County—Population Projections 2010–2040 ...... 4 -1 Table 5-1: Median Household Income by Census Track ...... 5-1 Table 6-1: Existing Park Land per Capita ...... 6 -6 Table 6-2: Existing and Future Parks and Recreation Facilities within City Limits ...... 6-7 Table 6-3: Future Roadway Improvements ...... 6 -9 Table 6-4: Contracted Water Supply ...... 6-17 Table 6-5: Baseline Treated Water Demand Forecast by Category ...... 6-20 Table 6-6: Baseline Raw Water Demands ...... 6-20 Table 6-7: Total Raw Water Demand Forecasts ...... 6-21 Table 7-1: Statement of Revenues for the Past Five Years and Current Year ...... 7 -1 Table 7-2: Statement of Expenditures for the Past Five Years and Current Year ...... 7-2 Table 7-3: Sewer Rates from January 17, 2013–June 30, 2017 ...... 7-4 Table 7-4: Water Service Rates to Residential Users ...... 7-5 Table 7-5: Additional Volume Charges to Residential Users ...... 7 -5

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR iii February 27, 2017

Table 7-6: Water Service Rates to Commercial and Industrial Users ...... 7 -5 Table 7-7: Additional Volume Charges to Commercial and Industrial Users ...... 7 -6

List of Exhibits Exhibit 1: City of Benicia, City Boundary and Sphere of Influence 2016 ...... v Exhibit 2: General Fund Revenues and Expenditures ...... 7-3

List of Attachments

Attachment 1: List of Parks and Facilities, Map of Parks in Benicia……………….…………………………1 Attachment 2: Citywide Organizational Chart……………………………………………….…………………………2

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR iv February 14, 2017

Exhibit 1: City of Benicia, City Boundary and Sphere of Influence 2016

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR v February 27, 2017

Introduction

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments BART Bay Area Rapid Transit BUSD Benicia Unified School District CAD Computer aided dispatch CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CIP Capital improvement program CKH Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 DUC Disadvantaged unincorporated community DWR California Department of Water Resources ELAP Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ERP Enterprise Resource Planning System JPA Joint powers agreement LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission SOI Sphere of influence Mgd million gallons per day MHI Median household income MOU Memorandum of understanding MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MSR Municipal service review NBA North Bay Aquaduct NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System PCI Pavement condition index SCWA Solano County Water Agency SID Solano Irrigation District SOI Sphere of influence SOLTrans Solano Transit STA Solano Transportation Authority SWMP Storm Water Management Plan SWP State Water Project SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board WTP Water Treatment Plant WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 1-1 February 27, 2017 Introduction

1.0: Introduction

1.1 – Role and Responsibility of LAFCO The fundamental role of a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is to implement the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg (CKH) Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code Section 56000, et seq.), providing for the logical, efficient, and most appropriate formation of local municipalities, service areas, and special districts. The CKH requires all LAFCOs, including Solano LAFCO, to conduct a Municipal Service Review (MSR) prior to updating the spheres of influence (SOI) of the various cities and special districts in Solano County (Government Code Section 56430). CKH requires an MSR and SOI update every 5 years.

1.2 – Purpose of this Municipal Service Review This MSR will provide Solano LAFCO with an informational document and make determinations for each of the seven elements prescribed by CKH. This MSR evaluates the structure and operation of the City and discusses possible areas for improvement, coordination, or changes to the SOI as appropriate. The purpose of the MSR is to collect data in order to provide a comprehensive analysis of service provision by the City of Benicia (City). The boundaries of the City and proposed SOI are shown in Exhibit 1. Key sources for this study included agency-specific information gathered by reviewing strategic plans, general plans, websites, financial reports, agency audits, research, personal communication, and the Municipal Service Review Guidelines published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.

The report contains one section for each of the following seven elements as prescribed by CKH:

Growth and Population Projections for the Affected Area. This section reviews projected growth within the existing service boundaries of the City and analyzes the City’s plans to accommodate future growth.

The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. A disadvantaged unincorporated community is defined as inhabited territory with a median household income of 80 percent or less of the statewide median income.

Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services Including Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies. This section discusses the services provided including the quality and the ability of the City to provide those services, including a discussion of capital improvement projects currently underway and projects planned for the future where applicable.

Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Services. This section reviews the City’s fiscal data and rate structure to determine viability and ability to meet service demands. It also addresses funding for capital improvement projects.

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 1-2 February 14, 2017 Introduction

Status of and Opportunities for Shared Facilities. This section examines efficiencies in service delivery that could include sharing facilities with other agencies to reduce costs by avoiding duplication.

Accountability for Community Service Needs, including Government Structure and Operational Efficiencies. This section examines the City’s current government structure, and considers the overall managerial practices. It also examines how well each agency makes its processes transparent to the public and invites and encourages public participation.

Matters Related to Effective or Efficient Service Delivery Required by Commission Policy. This section includes a discussion of any Solano LAFCO policies that may affect the ability of each agency to provide efficient services.

1.3 – Uses of the Municipal Service Review The MSR is used to examine the operations of a local agency, identify those agencies that may be unable to perform their mandated services, or identify ways to provide more effective and efficient services. Government Code Section 56375 allows LAFCO to take action on recommendations found in the MSR, such as initiating studies for changes of organization, updating the SOI, or initiating a change of organization.

Studies in anticipation of a change of organization are useful to identify potential issues that may arise during the process. Issues can range from legal barriers to fiscal constraints to concerns of residents and landowners. A study would allow more focused analysis and the opportunity to resolve issues or options before beginning the process.

The MSR also provides the necessary information to help LAFCO make decisions on a proposed SOI update. In evaluating the SOI, the MSR provides the information necessary to determine if the agency has the capability to serve a larger area. The MSR discusses the financial condition of the agency, source of revenues, and projected expenses. It also includes a discussion of the projected infrastructure needs that would allow for expansion of those services. The MSR, however, does not address the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), but it is one requirement for the SOI update. That requires a separate analysis.

Alternatively, the MSR can recommend changes of organization such as consolidation, dissolution, merger, establishment of a subsidiary district, or the creation of a new agency that typically involves a consolidation of agencies. Those changes of organization may also require an environmental review, a property tax sharing agreement, and an election.

1.4 – Sphere of Influence The SOI is defined as “a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service areas of a local agency” (Government Code Section 56076). The SOI represents one of the most important tools LAFCO uses to “carry out its purposes and responsibilities for planning and shaping the logical and orderly development and coordination of local government agencies” (Government Code Section 56425).

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 1-3 February 27, 2017 Introduction

CKH requires LAFCO to adopt an SOI for each city and special district in the County. The SOI serves much the same function for LAFCO as general plans serve for cities and counties: it guides the Commission in its consideration of annexations and other forms of reorganizations. The sphere represents the logical extent of the agency’s boundary in the next 5 to 20 years. However, since LAFCO is required to update and review the sphere every 5 years, the sphere in all practicality has a 5-year planning horizon. When adopting the SOI, the Commission must make the following determinations:

Present and planned land uses in the area. This consists of a review of current and planned land uses, including agricultural and open-space, based on planning documents.

Present and probable need for public facilities and services. This includes a review of the services available in the area and the need for additional services.

Present Capacity of Public Facilities. This section includes an analysis of the capacity of public facilities and the adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide.

Social or economic communities of interest. This section discusses the existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. These are areas that may be affected by current services provided by the Agency or areas that may receive services in the future.

Present and probable need for services to disadvantaged communities. The Commission must also consider services to disadvantaged communities which are defined as inhabited areas within the SOI whose median household income is less than or equal to 80 percent of the statewide median income.

An SOI may be amended or updated. An amendment is a relatively limited change to the SOI to accommodate a specific project. Amendments can add or remove territory, address a change in provision of services by an agency, or revise a plan for services when it becomes impractical. Solano LAFCO’s policy defines a SOI amendment as requests that are less than 40 acres in aggregate for the agency in the last 12 months.

An update is a comprehensive review of the SOI that includes the map and relevant portions of one or more MSRs. The review allows for the identification of areas that are likely to receive services and to exclude those territories that are not or will not be served in the SOI.

1.5 – California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq., also known as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), requires public agencies to evaluate the potential environmental effects of their actions. This MSR is exempt from CEQA under Class 6 categorical exemption. CEQA Guidelines Section 15306 states that “Class 6 consists of basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities that do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.”

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 1-4 February 14, 2017 Executive Summary

2.0: Executive Summary

The City of Benicia is located in southern Solano County approximately 35 miles northeast of San Francisco and 57 miles southwest of Sacramento. The City is built on a peninsula of land that reaches south from the main body of Solano County and creates a prominent bend in the Carquinez Strait; Benicia lies on the north shore of the Carquinez Strait. From this peninsula, highway and railroad bridges span the Strait to connect Benicia with the Contra Costa County cities of Martinez and Concord.

The City boundary and SOI area is made up primarily of rolling hills, rising to an elevation of 1,160 feet. On the southern boundary of the City, the land slopes down to the Carquinez Strait. The eastern city limits are bordered by the marshlands of Suisun Bay. The City of Vallejo is located generally west of Benicia. To the north, the City’s SOI extends to the Tri- City and County Open Space Area.

Benicia was founded by Robert Semple in 1846 who named the City after General Vallejo’s wife, Francisca Benicia Carillo de Vallejo. In 1850 Benicia was incorporated, named the county seat for Solano County, became the state capital, and was established as a port of entry by the United States Congress. Benicia remained the state capital for only one year, and the county seat was moved to Fairfield nine years later in 1859.

Section 4 of this report provides population data for the City. Benicia grew as an industrial center during the 1860s and experienced stable growth due to industrialization through the First World War. By the 1920s; however, the decline of local industries reduced the employment base and led to a population loss. During World War II, Benicia’s arsenal prominence and productivity increased and there was a surge in the City’s population. By the late 1960s, residential expansion was underway with the development of Southampton Subdivision. In 1970, Benicia’s population reached 8,783 and by 2010, Southhampton Subdivision was largely built out and the City’s population stood at 26,997. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects that between the year 2010 and 2040, Benicia’s population will increase by 16.3 percent or approximately 4,403 new residents to 31,400.

Section 5 examines the possible locations of disadvantaged unincorporated communities. In reviewing the Census income data for Benicia’s city boundary as well as the SOI area, there are no disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the City’s boundary and SOI.

Section 6 of the report covers an extensive discussion on the City’s public facilities. The City is responsible for myriad municipal services, including animal control, fire protection, law enforcement, parks and recreation, public works, solid waste, stormwater, wastewater, and water.

Section 7 discusses the City’s financial ability to provide services. In addition to the five-year statement of revenues and expenditures, the section discusses Measure C, a 1-cent-on-the- dollar sales tax increase that went into effect on April 1, 2015. In addition to allocating sufficient revenue to sustain current service levels, the City Council dedicated more than half

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 2-1 February 27, 2017 Introduction the estimated revenue to be collected in the first two years ($4 million) to address infrastructure improvements. The section goes on to address enterprise funds as well as planned improvement projects that have been prioritized by the City.

Section 8 discusses the status of and opportunities for shared facilities. An identification and examination of opportunities for shared facilities and resources may determine if public service costs can be reduced. The report identifies that the City works with other agencies to provide solid waste, transportation, animal services, fire suppression, law enforcement, and open space, however; the report notes that because of Benicia’s somewhat isolated location, it is not always feasible or cost-effective to share services with other agencies. The City also uses a competitive bidding process when obtaining outside services and capital improvement construction. The City’s budget and planned improvements are reviewed and adopted annually by the City Council through a project priority system as part of the public budget process.

Section 9 reviews Benicia’s governmental structure and accountability. It notes that the City has a Council-Manager form of government with a separately elected Mayor and Council. The Council is responsible for governing as well as establishing the overall priorities and direction of the City’s municipal government. There are ample opportunities for public involvement and input; citizens are encouraged to attend regularly scheduled meetings and serve on boards, commissions, and committees. The City communicates to its citizens via its website, Twitter feed, Facebook page, Nextdoor, and in-person outreach. The City holds public meetings in compliance with the Brown Act.

Finally, Section 10 discusses LAFCO policies that may affect the City’s service delivery and its future plan for providing service include the LAFCO’s Sphere of Influence Policy, the Commission’s adopted Standards, and the Out of Area Service Policy.

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 2-2 February 14, 2017 City Profile

3.0: City Profile & History

The City of Benicia is a general law city and has a Council-Manager form of government with a separately elected Mayor and a four member city council, elected to four-year terms. The Council appoints the City Manager and Attorney and also confirms the Mayor’s appointments to all city boards, committees, and commissions. The City Clerk and Treasurer are elected.

Until the 1820s, the north shore of the Carquinez Strait was home to tribal Native Americans, including the Patwin, Karki, and Huichiun groups, who found the area suitable for settlement because of the presence of fresh water, areas of high ground, and abundant supply of shellfish, salmon, and meal.

The first Europeans to visit the area arrived in 1772. By 1823, the lands along the north shore of the Carquinez Strait, including Benicia, were part of the San Francisco de Solano Mission. Following Mexico’s independence from Spain in 1821, Mexico took jurisdiction over the former Spanish territory in California. In 1844, Benicia was part of the 84,000-acre Rancho Suscol land grant owned by Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo, a Mexican military commander. During this period, Native American populations in the area diminished significantly and the land was put to use for cattle ranching and farming.

Following the Bear Flag Revolt of 1846, Robert Baylor Semple obtained interest in a portion of Rancho Suscol and established a new town, Benicia, on the north shore of the Carquinez Strait. Jasper O’Farrell was hired to survey and prepare the first plat of Benicia, which was completed in July 1847. A five-mile stretch of shoreline was selected and a grid system of streets established. The City was oriented in a northeast-southwest line originating at First Street, with a succession of blocks on each side. Streets were assigned names in alphabetical order in the east-west direction and numerical order in the north-south direction. Settlement of Benicia in the following years was influenced not only by the O’Farrell plat, but also by the shoreline and extensive marshes that were interspersed through the eastern part of the community. A ferry service was developed and by November 1847, Benicia was settled with approximately 15 homes.

Following discovery of gold at Sutter’s mill in 1848, Benicia became a waypoint for thousands of miners making their way to and from the Sierras. The City’s population grew and the downtown area along lower First Street developed with hotels, saloons, and gambling houses. In 1850, Benicia was one of the two first cities to be incorporated in the State of California, became the Solano County seat, and was designated by Congress as an official port of entry. The same year, the Pacific Mail Steamship Company, the first major industrial works constructed in California, set up operations in Benicia.

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 3-1 February 27, 2017 Introduction

In 1849, approximately 345 acres were deeded to the Federal Government for the purpose of establishing a military post, the Benicia Arsenal. It was designated as one of five major U.S. arsenals in 1852 and remained in operation through the 1960s.

Educational institutions were established in Benicia as well: the Young Ladies Seminar and Blake’s School for Boys were founded in 1852; St. Catherine’s Academy was founded in 1854; and the College of St. Augustine opened in 1867. None of these institutions remain in operation today though some buildings remain and have been converted to other uses.

In 1852, Benicia constructed a government building that was designated the new state capital in 1853. Additional development of the downtown in support of the legislature followed; however, because of the lack of facilities the capital was moved to Sacramento in 1854.

The City grew as an industrial center during the 1860s, with the opening of several businesses such as the Benicia Flouring Mill, Benicia Cement Works, and four tanneries. By the end of the 1880s, Benicia was the tanning capital of the west and home to the Matthew Turner Shipyard and Benicia Agricultural Works.

Because of its location along the Carquinez Strait, Benicia became a transportation center at the beginning of the Gold Rush era, providing ferry service to transport passengers and goods between San Francisco and interior areas such as Sacramento and the Sierras. The completion of the Central Pacific Railroad, which traversed the waterfront and Benicia Arsenal and terminated at the Carquinez Strait, greatly increased commercial transport and expanded industrial opportunities for the City.

Benicia experienced stable growth that was due to industrialization through the First World War. By the 1920s however, the decline of local industries reduced the employment base and led to population loss; Benicia’s total population diminished by approximately 30 percent in the period from 1920 to 1936.

The establishment of new train routes and advent of the automobile changed the City’s role as a transportation center as automobile ferries were established to serve those commuting to employment on the other side of the Carquinez Strait.

World War II saw an increase in the Benicia Arsenal’s prominence and productivity, as well as a surge in the City’s population. By 1944, Benicia’s population swelled to 8,300. The Arsenal was re-activated during the Korean War. While military operations scaled back during peacetime, Benicia experienced population growth during the baby boom period following World War II, resulting in the expansion of residential areas and the construction of educational and civic facilities.

The 1960s brought further changes. Construction of the Martinez Bridge—along with I-680 and I-780, which traversed the City in both the east-west and north-south directions— changed travel patterns and led to suburbanization of the hills above Benicia. Commercial centers shifted north to Military Highway, where they were accessible by vehicle and provided convenient off-street parking. The Benicia Arsenal was closed in 1961 and the City

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 3-2 February 14, 2017 City Profile of Benicia subsequently annexed the land, which would later become the Benicia Industrial Park. In 1966, Humble Oil Company began construction on an oil refinery on 400 acres in the northern portion of the Arsenal, today known as the Valero Refinery. Submerged lands were transferred to the California Land Commission with an agreement for Benicia to operate a deep-water port, now AMPORTS, which was leased to Benicia Industries in 1966. Residential expansion was underway as well and in 1964, plans were announced for development of the Southampton Subdivision.

Since the 1960s, Benicia’s growth has continued largely in accord with the land use framework set forth for the Benicia Industrial Park and Southampton Subdivision. By 2010, Southampton Subdivision was largely built out and the City’s population stood at 26,997. The downtown has retained much of its historic character, though industrial sites have been replaced by parks, natural areas, and new housing. Historic preservation efforts for downtown Benicia began in the early 1970s, culminating in the adoption of the Downtown Historic Conservation Plan (1990) and the Arsenal Historic Conservation Plan (1993). Following a period of substantial population growth, the City of Benicia established a 20- year growth boundary in 2003 to limit development north of Lake Herman Road. Today, the Benicia Industrial Park is the economic engine of the community, while the historic downtown and waterfront parks represent the local identity and host community gatherings.

The City has a 20-year urban growth boundary, established by voter initiative (Measure K) in 2003 which will sunset at the end of 2023.

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 3-3 February 27, 2017

Growth and Population Projections

4.0: Growth and Population Projections

4.1 – Population 4.1.1 – Growth Trends The City’s population grew significantly from a population of 8,783 in 1970 to a population of 24,437 in 1990. The population boom increased the City’s population by approximately 782 new residents per year. Since the 1990s, the City’s percent change in population has slowed down significantly. Between 1990 and 2000, the City’s population grew by 2,428 new residents or an average of 243 persons per year. Between 2000 and 2010, the City’s population grew by just 132 new residents; an average of 13 persons per year.

Table 4-1: Population Growth in Benicia and Solano County Since 1970

BENICIA1 SOLANO COUNTY2

YEAR Population Percent Change Population Percent Change 1970 8,783 — 169,941 — 1980 15,376 75% 235,203 38% 1990 24,437 59% 340,421 45% 2000 26,865 10% 394,542 16% 2010 26,997 0.5% 413,344 4.8%

Sources: 1 http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/cities/Benicia.htm accessed 12-21-2015. 2 http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/counties/SolanoCounty.htm accessed 11-2-2015.

4.1.2 – Population Projections ABAG prepares population projections for the nine Bay Area counties and their jurisdictions. ABAG projects that between the year 2010 and 2040, Benicia’s population will increase by 16.3 percent from 26,997 to 31,400 or approximately 4,403 new residents. This equates to adding, on average, approximately 147 new residents per year for the next 30-year time frame. In comparison, Solano County as a whole is expected to grow by nearly 24 percent in the same time frame.

Table 4-2: Solano Cities and County—Population Projections 2010–2040

Percent Change between Community 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040 2010 & 2040 Benicia 26,997 27,600 28,300 29,000 29,700 31,400 16.3% Dixon 18,351 18,700 19,000 19,400 19,800 20,700 12.8% Fairfield 105,321 111,500 117,900 124,400 131,400 146,500 39.1% Rio Vista 7,360 7,500 7,900 8,300 8,400 8,800 19.6%

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 4-1 February 27, 2017 Growth and Population Projections

Percent Change between Community 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040 2010 & 2040 Suisun City 28,111 28,900 29,800 30,700 31,600 33,700 19.9% Vacaville 92,428 95,300 98,200 101,700 105,500 109,700 23.3% Vallejo 115,942 118,100 121,000 124,200 126,200 128,600 13.7% Unincorporated 18,834 19,700 20,600 21,500 22,600 23,700 31.1% Solano County 413,344 427,300 442,700 459,200 475,200 511,600 23.8%

Source: ABAG Population Projections 2013.

Findings & Determinations 4.1 Benicia had a population of 26,997 in 2010 with only a 0.5% increase from 2000.

4.2 ABAG projects that by 2040, Benicia’s population will increase by 4,403 residents to 31,400. That averages to about 0.5% annually, which is consistent with recent growth.

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 4-2 February 14, 2017 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities

5.0: Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities

The Commission is required to provide written determinations with respect to the location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the SOI. The California Government Code Section 56033.5 defines a disadvantaged unincorporated community as an inhabited territory (12 or more registered voters) with an annual median household income that is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median household income (MHI).

According to the Census, the MHI for the State in 2013 dollars was $61,094. The Census also provides MHI data at the County and census tract levels. There are several census tract areas within the city limits as well as the areas adjacent to the City of Benicia. As indicated in Table 5-1, there are no census tract areas with income less than 80 percent of the State’s MHI within or surrounding the city. Therefore, there are no disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the boundaries or SOI of Benicia.

Table 5-1: Median Household Income by Census Track

Percentage of State Census Track MHI MHI 2505.02 $72,692 119% 2506.04 $95,761 157% 2506.05 $99,722 163% 2520.00 $63,729 104% 2521.02 $72,981 119% 2521.03 $63,315 104% 2521.04 $145,625 238% 2521.05 $97,536 160% 2521.06 $82,500 135% 2521.07 $88,617 145% 2521.08 $79,375 130%

Source: http://www.census.gov/censusexplorer/censusexplorer.html accessed 4-26-2016.

Findings & Determinations 5.1 There are no disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to Benicia’s SOI.

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 5-1 February 27, 2017

Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities

6.0: Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities

6.1 – Animal Control The City’s Police Department is responsible for animal control within the City of Benicia. The Police Department staffs one full-time animal control officer. Animal shelter facilities are located at the City’s Corporation Yard on East Second Street. In 2014, 1,027 calls were received for animal control services. Additional after-hour services are provided through an agreement with the Solano County Sheriff’s Office. In addition, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Solano County has been established for the animal shelter services.

Finding/Determination 6.1.1 The Benicia Police Department is responsible for animal control. The City has an after hour services agreement with the Solano County Sheriff’s office for animal control and the City has a MOU with Solano County for animal shelter services. Animal Control services are adequate

6.2 – Fire Services provided by the City Fire Department include fire suppression, fire prevention, basic and advanced life support medical services, technical rescue services, disaster preparedness, code enforcement, and weed abatement services.

Fire suppression and emergency medical services are provided by the City Fire Department from two fire stations. Fire Station #11 is located near the Downtown at 150 Military West and Station #12 is located in Southampton at 601 Hastings.

Standard response times are dependent on the nature of the emergency services and the established agreements or requirements. Response standards to emergency medical calls are set through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the Solano County Emergency Services Cooperative. The standard is to arrive on-scene of a medical emergency within 7 minutes of the time of the dispatch at least 90 percent of the time. Response standards to fire suppression calls are established through the National Fire Protection Association and are based upon a number of factors. Historical data on these responses show an average response time of 5 to 7 minutes. The response time standards for both EMS and Fire Suppression calls comply with the standards.

The average Fire Department daily staffing level is eight firefighters per day plus a Chief Officer. This staffing level is established in a MOU between the City and the Benicia Firefighter’s Association, Local 1186. The Department’s staffing allows engine companies three staff members, including a captain, engineer, and paramedic firefighter; and it allows rescue companies two staff members, including an engineer and paramedic firefighter or firefighter.

The department is an “all-risk” fire department and provides a variety of emergency and non-emergency services to the community. The total request for service (call) for fiscal year

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 6-1 February 27, 2017 Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities

2015-2016 was 2,465. The breakdown of those calls for the same fiscal year was 61.22 percent medical, 5.80 percent rescue, and 32.98 percent other types of calls.

To provide for future buildout of the Benicia Industrial Park, located within the city limits south of Lake Herman Road on the vacant, 527-acre “Northern Gateway” property, an additional fire station may be needed. A proposed fire station and training facility may be built and staffed as the industrial park develops to meet response and service standards. The timing of a new fire station will be based on when, where, and how the Northern Gateway site develops in the future. Future funding for development and staffing of the station are not yet determined but may be established through development agreements, fees, and/or assessments.

Findings & Determinations 6.2.1 Services provided by the Benicia Fire Department include fire suppression, fire prevention, basic and advanced life support medical services, technical rescue services, disaster preparedness, code enforcement, and vegetation management services.

6.2.2 Fire suppression and emergency medical services are provided by the City Fire Department from two fire stations.

6.2.3 The average Fire Department daily staffing level is eight firefighters per day plus a Chief Officer. The Department’s staffing allows engine companies three staff members, including a captain, engineer, and paramedic firefighter; and it allows rescue companies two staff members, including an engineer and paramedic firefighter or firefighter.

6.2.4 The total request for service (call) for fiscal year 2015-2016 was 2,465. The breakdown of those calls for the same fiscal year was 61.22 percent medical, 5.80 percent rescue, and 32.98 percent other types of calls.

6.2.5 To provide for future buildout of the Benicia Industrial Park located on the vacant, 527-acre Northern Gateway property, an additional fire station and additional staffing may be needed to meet response and service standards.

6.3 – Law Enforcement Police protection services are provided by the Benicia Police Department located adjacent to the City Hall on East L Street. The department currently divides the City into four designated beats or areas of patrol assignment. Determinations of these beats are based on geographical boundaries. Although Benicia’s residential areas are largely built out, future development of the Northern Gateway site, which is the last remaining large development site, could have a significant impact on the current beat structure.

Currently, average emergency response times are tracked and available through the department’s automated computer aided dispatch (CAD) system. The program was last updated during the budget cycle 2013–2015 to include a new auditing process for police

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 6-2 February 14, 2017 Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities reports and to streamline state reporting requirements. The information is monitored by the department. Based on crime rate, citizen complaints, and citizen polls, the level of service and response times are adequate and meet the needs of the community. For in-progress or life-threatening emergency calls (Priority 1) the average response time from 2013 to 2014 was 6 minutes and 21 seconds.

The Benicia Police Department currently has 51 full- and part-time staff members. Thirty-two staff members are sworn officers. The current ratio is about 1.18 sworn officers per 1,000 population. This ratio compares with other cities similar in size and staffing: Dixon 1.36, Pinole 1.41, and Hercules at 0.96.

The need for additional officers and equipment is based on the City’s planned growth and projected land use. To staff one additional beat 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, the department would need to hire five patrol officers (to cover days off, training, vacations, and sick leave) and one non-sworn person. The non-sworn position would be support personnel to facilitate the projected increase in calls for service and comprehensive reporting. The addition of personnel would not occur all at once but would gradually increase, commensurate with the demand created by new development. A commensurate number of police vehicles will also be needed to keep pace with the anticipated hiring of the additional officers. Other costs such as fuel and police officer training would also increase with demand created by new development. The additional officers, vehicles, and equipment are not currently budgeted but would be included in the appropriate two-year budget cycle when the need dictates.

Currently, the police station is located in a former school building built in 1942 and remodeled in 1962 to house the police. The police station is inadequate both in size and in modern police function. Police operations are located in two separate buildings, including a temporary building used for investigations. The temporary building is out of compliance with the City of Benicia’s building codes. At this time, funding is not available to construct a new police station.

Findings & Determinations 6.3.1 Average emergency response times are tracked and available through the department’s automated computer aided dispatch (CAD) system. The program was last updated during the budget cycle 2013-2015 to include a new auditing process for police reports and to streamline state reporting requirements.

6.3.2 For in-progress or life-threatening emergency calls (Priority 1) the average response time from 2013-2014 was 6 minutes and 21 seconds.

6.3.3 The Benicia Police Department currently has 51 full- and part-time staff members. Thirty-two staff members are sworn officers. The current ratio is about 1.18 sworn officers per one-thousand population, and is consistent with nearby cities of similar size.

6.3.4 The police station is inadequate both in size and in modern police function. Police operations are located in two separate buildings, including a temporary building used for investigations. The temporary building is out of compliance with the City of

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 6-3 February 27, 2017 Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities

Benicia’s building codes. At this time, funding is not available to construct a new police station.

6.4 – Parks and Recreation The City of Benicia Parks & Community Services Department is responsible for providing park and community services programs for the citizens of Benicia. The General Plan contains planning policies concerning the financing and construction of park facilities. The plan includes a quantitative and qualitative inventory of existing park and outdoor recreation facilities, identification of potential open space areas, and an inventory of existing outdoor recreation facilities.

Within the city limits are 48 parks, facilities, and public access areas totaling 1,248 acres. These include state facilities, a regional park, community parks, neighborhood parks, and other outdoor recreation improvements. Table 6-1 lists existing and future parks and recreation facilities within the city limits.

6.4.1 – Types of Parks and Facilities Regional Parks. A regional park (250–1,000 acres) generally serves one or more communities and accommodates a variety of activities designed to enhance the use and experience of the natural environment. Uses may include open space areas, trails, nature centers, and camping. The General Plan established a standard of 10-acres per 1,000 people for regional parks. Benicia has one regional park (Lake Herman), but there are also two state- owned parks that serve as regional facilities: Benicia State Recreation Area (State Park Road) and the State Capitol Historic Park (115 West G Street).

Community Parks. Community parks are typically large-scale (30–100 acres) and are intended to serve users within walking and driving distance. Their amenities are oriented to both adults and children, often providing specialized facilities such as swimming pools, tennis courts, community centers, and sports fields. Community parks in Benicia are the primary resource for activities sponsored by the Parks and Community Services Department. The General Plan established a standard of 2.5 acres per 1,000 people for community parks. Facilities in this category include the Community Park (540 Rose Drive) and the West 9th Street Park and Launch Ramp (southwest corner of West 9th Street and West 10th Street).

Public Special Use Facilities. Special use facilities are generally single purpose in nature, having a unique or important indoor or outdoor recreational purpose. Examples in Benicia include the Senior Center (187 East L Street), James Lemos Swim Center (181 East J Street), Community Center (370 East L Street), and the City Cemetery (Riverhill Drive).

Neighborhood Parks. Neighborhood parks are small-scale parks (2–15 acres), which ideally serve a neighborhood within a radius of approximately one-half mile. They usually emphasize child-oriented facilities, providing a variety of play spaces and associated amenities. The General Plan established a one-half mile-radius standard for neighborhood parks and a population ratio of 3.5 acres per 1,000 people. Examples of neighborhood parks in Benicia include Southampton Park (southeast corner of Panorama Drive and Chelsea Hills Drive) and Willow Glen Park (600 Block of West K Street).

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 6-4 February 14, 2017 Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities

Waterfront Park. A waterfront park serves the entire community and accommodates activities appropriate to the characteristics of the site such as low impact outdoor recreational activities, community events and festivals, and enjoyment of the surrounding natural environment. The waterfront parks designation does not include permanent sports fields, courts, equipment, or buildings, except for a public restroom and similar amenities. Walkways, benches, drinking fountains, and trash receptacles are permitted. This park designation was established in November 2004 by an advisory vote of the citizens of Benicia. A byproduct of this initiative created the Benicia Urban Waterfront Enhancement and Master Plan, adopted by City Council in October 2014. The initiative established a 16-acre project site located to the west of First Street, south of B Street, with the Marina channel to the east and the Carquinez Strait to the south, encompassing the First Street Green. The First Street Green will preserve the marshlands within its boundaries, thereby protecting the wildlife that relies on this ecologically sensitive habitat.

Open Space Areas. An open space area is typically a large undeveloped area, preserved in its natural state, to serve as a greenbelt divider or environmental resource, to promote public health and safety, and to provide those types of outdoor recreation that do not substantially alter or destroy the natural environment. Low-intensity outdoor recreational uses such as hiking and picnicking are often compatible with open space areas. These facilities are attractive to local and region-wide visitors. Examples of open space areas in Benicia include the Southampton Open Space and the Benicia/Vallejo Buffer Zone.

Pocket Parks. Pocket parks are small green islands, landscaped with park amenities, such as a drinking fountains, benches, and play equipment. These parks are typically remainder parcels of subdivisions. Examples of pocket parks in Benicia include Arneson Park (Southwest corner of West 4th Street and West I Street) and Gull Point (Gull Point Court).

Linear Parks and Trails. A linear park is a strip of land established for purposes of walking, hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, and boating and often includes a natural or man-made linear resource such as a stream drainage, bluff line, ridge, utility and creek rights-of-ways, or service road. A system of off-road bikeways and pedestrian paths at both the neighborhood and community-wide scale often provide safe and pleasant transportation connections, as well as opportunities for outdoor recreation. Segments of the Bay Area Ridge Trail, Bay Trail, and Great Delta Trail have been designated linear parks and trails in Benicia.

6.4.2 – Current and Future Park Needs The City Parks, Trails & Open Space Master Plan (adopted in July 1997) compared acreages of existing and planned parkland in relation to both the existing and projected population of the City. Using the standard ratios shown in Table 6-1, the City has more than adequate regional parkland but is deficient in community and neighborhood parks. The Parks, Trails & Open Space Master Plan identified a shortfall of 35 acres of neighborhood parks and 18 acres of community parks.

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 6-5 February 27, 2017 Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities

Table 6-1: Existing Park Land per Capita

Standard Park Type Acres Acres/1,000 people (Acres/1,000 people) Regional Park 577 21.0 10.0 Community Park 50 1.8 2.5 Neighborhood Parks 79 2.9 3.5 Recreational Facilities 10 0.4 — TOTAL 716 26.1 —

Source: Table 2-14 of the 1999 Benicia General Plan

Since the adoption of the Parks, Trails & Open Space Master Plan two neighborhood parks have been completed. St. Catherine’s Wood Neighborhood Park is approximately 0.5 acre and is located north of the Solano Square Shopping Center. The park includes a playground, entry plaza, and seating area. Water’s End, formerly referred to as Park D-7 prior to construction, was the second neighborhood park completed. Located in the northeastern portion of the Southampton development, this park is 3.5 acres in size. The park includes a playground, a basketball court, and seating areas.

The table with details of all parks and facilities and a map of the locations is included as Attachment 1.

6.4.3 – Proposed Park Facilities The following list of park sites was obtained from the 1997 Parks, Trails & Open Space Master Plan, which recommends the development of new park and outdoor recreation facilities to keep pace with the growth of the City, including the proposed parks listed below.

Bottle Hill Park. This 0.5-acre neighborhood park, in the southeastern portion of the downtown area, will provide panoramic views of the Carquinez Strait, and sheltered areas for a tot lot and picnic facilities.

Hastings Drive Neighborhood Park. This proposed 10-acre park is located in the Southampton open space in the central western portion of the Southampton development. The site contains a small drainage channel and is surrounded by existing homes. The Braito Pathway runs through the proposed park site within a trail easement linking the Rose Drive and Hastings Drive bikeways. The topography in the area would require terracing for additional facilities. The park will include a multi-purpose playing field, tennis court, basketball courts, playground, grass play area, picnic area, path, and benches.

Perth Way Neighborhood Park. This is a proposed 8-acre neighborhood park located in the open space in the eastern portion of the Southampton development. The site is relatively flat but high in elevation, providing views toward Suisun Bay. Planned facilities include a multi-purpose playing field, tennis court, basketball court, playground, grass play area, picnic area, path, and benches.

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 6-6 February 14, 2017 Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities

Table 6-2: Existing and Future Parks and Recreation Facilities within City Limits

Category Name Acreage Regional Parks Lake Herman 577.0 Waterfront Parks Waterfront Park (First Street Green*) 16.0 Community Parks and Benicia Community Park 50.0 Facilities Benicia Middle School 8.0 City Cemetery 24.0 City Gym 0.5 City Park 4.5 Clock Tower 0.5 Community Center 3.5 First Street Peninsula Pier 2.0 Fitzgerald Field 4.0 Jack London Park 7.7 James Lemos Swim Center 1.0 Little League Field 4.0 West 9th Street Park 6.0 Neighborhood Parks Bottle Hill Park (future) 0.5 Bridgeview Park 4.5 Channing Circle Park 2.5 Civic Center Park (East K Street) 3.5 Duncan Graham Park 2.0 Ethelree Saraiva Park 0.5 Francesca Terrace Park 5.0 Gateway Park 0.5 Hastings Drive Neighborhood Park (future) 10.0 Matthew Turner Park 2.5 Overlook Park 3.5 Perth Way Neighborhood Park (future) 8.0 St. Catherine’s Wood Neighborhood Park 0.5 Skillman Park 3.0 Solano Park 2.0 Southampton Park 6.0 Willow Glen Park 4.5

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 6-7 February 27, 2017 Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities

Table 6-2: Existing and Future Parks and Recreation Facilities within City Limits

Category Name Acreage Waters End Park 3.5 Small Scale Public Access Arneson Park 0.5 Areas Bardoni Public Access 0.5 Benicia Views II 0.5 Gull Point 0.5 John’s Place Public Access & Median 0.5 Kevin McCall Public Access 0.5 Turnbull Park 0.5 West 8th Street Public Access 0.5 West 11th Street Public Access 0.5 West 13th Street Public Access 0.5 West C Street Public Access 0.5 West E Street 0.5 West F Street. 0.5 SUBTOTAL 777.7 State Parks and Facilities Benicia State Capitol Historic Park 1.5 Benicia State Recreation Area 469.0 TOTAL 1,248.2

Note: * First Street Green (3.0 acres) is included in the total acreage of the of the Waterfront Park created by Measure C.

Determinations 6.4.1 Within the city limits are 48 parks, facilities, and public access areas totaling 1,248 acres. These include state facilities, a regional park, community parks, neighborhood parks, and other outdoor recreation improvements.

6.4.2 The City has more than adequate regional parkland but is deficient in community and neighborhood parks. The Parks, Trails & Open Space Master Plan identified a shortfall of 35 acres of neighborhood parks and 18 acres of community parks and since the Parks, Trails & Open Space Master Plan, two neighborhood parks have been added with facilities appropriate to the size of the parks.

6.4.3 The City’s 1997 Parks, Trails & Open Space Master Plan recommends the development of new park and outdoor recreation facilities keep pace with the growth of the City.

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 6-8 February 14, 2017 Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities

6.5 – Public Works The City’s Public Works Department is responsible for the operation, maintenance, design, construction, and repair of the City’s public infrastructure. The Public Works Department is subdivided into five areas: administration, engineering, water treatment operations, wastewater treatment operations, and maintenance.

6.5.1 – Transportation and Circulation The City of Benicia contains two interstate freeways (Interstate 780 and Interstate 680), ten major arterial streets, and many collector and local streets. Caltrans is responsible for the maintenance of Interstates 780 and 680. A major segment of the transcontinental railroad system is along the easterly border of the City and is owned and operated by the Union Pacific Railroad.

The City’s objectives for roadway performance are stated in General Plan Policy 2.20.1 of the Circulation Element:

• Policy 2.20.1: Maintain at least Level of Service “D” on all city roads, street segments, and intersections.

Level of Service D is intended to have functioning intersections, but short queues develop and cars may have to wait through one cycle during short peaks.

Improvements to the local street network are included in the City’s Traffic Impact Fee Program where future development pays its fair share of costs to address the future capacity needs of development. The need to improve roadway and parking facilities is carefully balanced with the need to control traffic congestion in Benicia and the goal of maintaining a walkable community. Continued enhancement of the City’s small-town atmosphere of pedestrian-friendly streets and neighborhoods depends on favorable traffic conditions that can only be maintained through a balanced transportation system.

The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is a measure of the condition of the city’s roadways. On a scale of 0 to 100 with 100 being the best. The value is calculated from a visual survey of pavement distress. Various distress combinations result in points deducted from the starting value of 100. The current PCI is 58. The goal of the Public Works Department to increase the average PCI to 63 in five years.

Roadway improvements to adequately serve the City’s needs over the next 20-years are listed in the following section. Other transportation projects, such as freeway mainline improvements, park & ride lots, and major transit improvements, are included in the long- range plans of the Solano Transportation Authority. These projects are dependent on cooperation with outside agencies and shared funding sources.

Table 6-3: Future Roadway Improvements

Streets Interchanges Widen/extend Industrial Way from I-680 to Lake Improve Lake Herman/I-680 interchange with

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 6-9 February 27, 2017 Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities

Table 6-3: Future Roadway Improvements

Streets Interchanges Herman Rd new signals, bridge widening and possible ramp modifications Extend Bayshore Road from Park Rd to Improve Bayshore/Industrial/I-680 split Industrial Way interchange with new frontage road connection. Widen East 2nd St from Industrial Way to Lake Install I-780 auxiliary lanes between E 2nd & E Herman Rd 5th. Widen Columbus Pkwy from Benicia Rd to I-780 Install I-780 auxiliary lanes between Military West & Columbus Pkwy Widen State Park Rd overcrossing at I-780 Improve/widen I-780 ramps at Southampton Road Widen East 2nd St. from I-780 to Military East Improve/widen I-780 ramps at East 2nd St. Widen East 5th St. from I-780 to Military East Install traffic signals at remaining freeway ramps with stop controls. Widen Park Rd between Bayshore and Industrial Construct improvements identified by the Way Solano Transportation Authority as required. Widen Park Rd between Adams and new connector road Construct connector road between E 2nd St and Park Rd New traffic signal and intersection improvements citywide Enhance First St. corridor Convert Bayshore Road from private to public ownership

Note: Some of these improvements are located within Caltrans jurisdiction and require coordination to be fully implemented.

In addition to those projects above, the City of Benicia has proposed the Industrial Park Transportation and Employment Center Plan. The Benicia Industrial Park is a significant employment center in Solano County. Home to over 600 firms employing more than 5,000 workers, which comprises over a third of the total jobs in Benicia, the Industrial Park serves as the economic engine for the city, contributing approximately two-thirds of the city’s sales tax revenue. The Park is strategically located, served by I-680, a private deep water port, and Union Pacific Railroad mainline and spurs. In addition, SolTrans local buses and FAST intercity express buses both service the Park, and a bus transit hub is currently under construction.

The Benicia Industrial Park has been recognized as a Priority Development Area (PDA) by the

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 6-10 February 14, 2017 Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities

Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). PDAs are places that local jurisdictions have identified within their communities where new development will support the day-to-day needs of residents and workers in a pedestrian-friendly environment served by transit. While the addition of residential uses is not anticipated as part of the Industrial Park’s PDA designation, as an employment-based PDA, the Industrial Park has the added goal of advancing employment growth by attracting new business and providing for the renovation of established areas.

6.5.2 – Transit Services As of December 2010, the City of Benicia ceased independent operation of a public transit system. Through a joint powers agreement between the City of Benicia, the City of Vallejo, and the Solano Transportation Authority, Solano County Transit (SolTrans) was created to build a unified public transit system in southern Solano County. SolTrans provides a fixed route between Benicia and Vallejo as well as express bus service to Walnut Creek and El Cerrito North del Norte regional BART stations. General transit within Benicia is provided through a SolTrans branded dial-a-ride service.

In addition, SolTrans provides paratransit bus service, and administers local and intercity Taxi Scrip Programs with direct service between cities in Solano County for ambulatory ADA paratransit qualified individuals.

Regional transit services are coordinated through the Solano Transportation Authority, which includes the Capital Corridor train service, regional bus service, and other local agency services.

Findings & Determinations 6.5.1 The City’s Public Works Department is responsible for the operation, maintenance, design, construction, and repair of the City’s public infrastructure.

6.5.2 Improvements to the local street network are included in the City’s Traffic Impact Fee Program where future development pays its fair share of costs to address the future capacity needs of development. Measure C revenues will assist with some long term maintenance and replacement costs.

6.5.3 Other transportation projects, such as freeway mainline improvements, park & ride lots, and major transit improvements are included in the long-range plans of the Solano Transportation Authority.

6.5.4 Through a joint powers agreement between the cities of Benicia and Vallejo, and the Solano Transportation Authority, Solano County Transit (SolTrans) was created to build a unified public transit system in southern Solano County.

6.6 – Solid Waste The Public Works Department and the City Manager’s Office each share a role in managing solid waste within the City. The City Manager’s Office is responsible for managing curbside

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 6-11 February 27, 2017 Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities garbage collection through a contract with a local franchised hauler, Republic Services. The Public Works Department is responsible for street sweeping services.

Solid waste is taken to Keller Canyon Landfill in Pittsburg, California. The landfill accepted 46,244 tons of waste from Benicia in 2014. The facility has a permitted fill area of 244 acres with a remaining capacity of 58.6 million cubic yards as of March 2012. It is projected that the landfill will reach capacity in 2078. The remaining permitted disposal capacity at the landfill is adequate to handle the projected waste generation through buildout of the General Plan, particularly in light of the State’s waste diversion requirements. The City’s Franchise Agreement guarantees continued waste disposal capacity for the existing and future community.

Determinations 6.6.1 The City has a contract with Republic Services, a local franchised hauler, for curbside garbage collection.

6.6.2 Solid waste is taken to Keller Canyon Landfill in Pittsburg, California. It is projected that the landfill will reach capacity in 2078.

6.6.3 The remaining permitted disposal capacity at the landfill is adequate to handle the projected waste generation through buildout of the General Plan.

6.7 – Stormwater The Benicia Public Works Department is responsible for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of storm drain facilities within the city limits. The facilities include drainage inlets, manhole structures, culverts, open ditches, pump stations, and portions of Sulphur Springs Creek, a large drainage channel. Concurrent with development, these facilities are installed, upgraded, or replaced as needed.

The City of Benicia is along the north shore of the Carquinez Strait, where the combined flows of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers have cut a deep gorge through the Coast Range. The Strait is a crucial link in northern California’s inland waterway, connecting San Pablo Bay and San Francisco Bay to the west with the Sacramento and San Joaquin River deltas to the east. Through the Strait, ocean-going ships can reach the Port of Benicia or continue on to the Central Valley ports of Sacramento and Stockton. All the City’s stormwater is conveyed both by natural and man-made channels, and by drainage culverts to the Carquinez Strait.

The boundaries of the drainage watershed located within the City of Benicia are the Carquinez Strait (southerly), the Lake Herman/Sky Valley/Paddy Creek areas (northerly), the City of Vallejo (westerly), and Suisun Bay (easterly). The watershed includes the following sub-basins:

• Goodyear Slough/Industrial Park (northeasterly section) • Benicia Urban Areas • Sulphur Springs Creek/Lake Herman

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 6-12 February 14, 2017 Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities

All the sub-basins are served by natural or constructed drainage systems, such as creeks, ditches, and storm drain culverts. The terrain within the sub basins is quite diverse. There are steep hills north of Military and Interstate 780. Flat and rolling terrain extends to the south and east including most of the industrial park. The climate in Benicia is similar to that experienced countywide—typically dry in the summer with mostly seasonal rainfall between October and April. The ten-year average annual precipitation over the basin is 19.01 inches. General area-wide storms of two or three days in duration are typical.

The Goodyear Slough/Industrial Park sub-basin is a flat area directly connected with the westerly boundary of Suisun Bay.

The Benicia Urban Area sub-basin consists of numerous small drainage areas that drain portions of the Southampton area, the Arsenal area, and the areas south of the I-780 freeway, including Downtown. The most intensively developed areas within the Benicia city limits include the downtown area with a central commercial district and the area along Southampton Road, with medium- to high-density residential land uses and a commercial shopping center. The total land area is approximately 13 square miles.

The Sulphur Springs Creek/Lake Herman sub-basin consists of the area upstream of Lake Herman between the cities of Vallejo and Benicia, the Paddy Creek area, and the major portions of the Benicia Industrial Park. The area upstream of Lake Herman consists of the Sky Valley area with portions in the City of Vallejo, Solano County, and a portion within the City of Benicia’s SOI. Lake Herman is the major body of water in the drainage basin and is located on Sulphur Springs Creek about two miles north of downtown Benicia. Sulphur Springs Creek is the main channel traversing the basin with the area north of Lake Herman called Sky Valley. The watershed includes Sulphur Springs Mountain range to the west as well as lesser ridges to the north, east, and south. Sulphur Springs Mountain has a peak elevation of 1,000 feet. The Lake Herman sub-basin covers an area approximately 10 square miles.

The primary land use in the Sulphur Springs Creek/Lake Herman sub-basin north of Lake Herman is agricultural; there are several beef cattle ranches, a small dairy, and an abandoned walnut orchard. Syar Industries, an aggregate mining firm, has facilities near the western end of the watershed. The majority of its operations lie outside the watershed; however, in December of 2014, the Solano County Planning Commission approved a use permit and reclamation plan to expand the quarry pit to 211 acres from 113 acres and double the extraction rate to 4 million tons annually. The City provided comments on the project during the Environmental Impact Report process. The mitigation measures identified for the project reduced the impacts to a less-than-significant level.

The primary land use south of Lake Herman is industrial located within the Benicia Industrial Park. The final phases of the Southampton residential development also drain into Sulphur Springs Creek south of Lake Herman with storm flows regulated by two detention basins.

In addition to several ranch homes, there are several residences within the watershed located on Lake Herman Road west of the lake. The Hiddenbrooke residential subdivision, located in the City of Vallejo, was constructed in Upper Sky Valley with a golf course that has been

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 6-13 February 27, 2017 Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities operating since 1991. This entire area drains into a retention basin and ultimately into Lake Herman.

6.7.1 – Benicia’s Stormwater Management Program The City of Benicia is required by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the provisions of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II regulations and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Phase II General Permit requirements to develop and implement a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP). The SWMP is intended to reduce pollutants that may be present in stormwater runoff from streets and property within the city limits.

The City intends to control and manage its stormwater in compliance with the provisions of the State General Stormwater Permit by applying for coverage under the Phase II General Permit as regulated by the SWRCB San Francisco Bay Region 2.

The City of Benicia has adopted a Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, Chapter 15.64 of the Benicia Municipal Code, to address stormwater control within the City. Several key components of the Program include the following:

• Public Education and Outreach • Public Participation/Involvement • Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination • Construction Site Storm water Runoff Control • Post-Construction Storm water Management • Pollution Prevention for Municipal Operations

The City provides a detailed annual report on the progress and effectiveness of the Program and identifies necessary changes to the Program based on performance. In addition, the State General Permit requires development of a guidance document and implementation of tasks annually. The City has implemented a number of the elements, including recycling programs, educational documents, storm drain mapping, street sweeping, drainage inlet cleaning, storm drain stenciling, and annual outfall monitoring.

Determinations 6.7.1 The Benicia Public Works Department is responsible for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of storm drain facilities within the city limits.

6.7.2 All the City’s stormwater is conveyed both by natural and man-made channels, and by drainage culverts to the Carquinez Strait.

6.7.3 All the sub-basins are served by natural or constructed drainage systems, such as creeks, ditches, and storm drain culverts.

6.7.4 The City of Benicia has adopted a Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance to address stormwater control within the City.

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 6-14 February 14, 2017 Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities

6.7.5 The State General Permit requires development of a guidance document and implementation of tasks annually. The City has implemented a number of the elements including recycling programs, educational documents, storm drain mapping, street sweeping, drainage inlet cleaning, storm drain stenciling, and annual outfall monitoring.

6.7.6 Measure C revenues will assist with some long term maintenance and replacement costs.

6.8 – Wastewater The City of Benicia owns and operates the facilities providing wastewater collection, treatment, and discharge for its service area, which is coterminous with the city limits. The City’s wastewater system currently serves approximately 8,900 residential (single- and multi- unit dwellings) and 609 commercial/industrial connections. The system includes the treatment plant, approximately 150 miles of pipeline, 23 pumping stations, and a 1,300-foot- long deep-water outfall to the Carquinez Strait.

The Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is located on seven and a half acres of land in the southeast section of the City at 614 East Fifth Street. Discharges from the plant are regulated by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, through a NPDES permit.

The plant was originally built in 1958, and provided primary level (removal of grit and solids) treatment only. It was upgraded to include secondary (biological removal of most of the remaining pollutants) treatment in 1978. In 1998, the plant was again upgraded to address reliable capacity, odors, and noise. The most recent project (2003 Infiltration and Inflow Improvements Project) included installing a three-mile-long, main trunk relief sewer pipeline to convey intercepted wet weather flows from the far western side of the City to the plant. In addition, modifications were made to the WWTP to accommodate peak wet weather flows, including new screening structures, upgraded disinfection/dechlorination facilities, and larger effluent pumps. The main objective of this project was to minimize sanitary sewer overflow within the lower portions of the City. Repair and replacement of old sewer pipelines will continue to be scheduled on an annual basis to reduce infiltration and inflow from the system over time.

The plant treats an average dry weather flow capacity of 4.5 million gallons per day (mgd) and has a sustained wet weather secondary treatment capacity of 11 mgd. Currently, the plant discharges an average dry weather flow of approximately 2.0 mgd (2015 data). Plant capacity is a function of both flow (volume of water) and loading (pollutant concentration). Capacity of the plant is adequate to handle wastewater generated by both existing and projected uses within the city limits, as defined by the 1999 General Plan for the 2020 planning horizon, including Pine Lake area.

Wastewater is transported to the plant via two main interceptors. A 36-inch interceptor enters the plant from the west. The land use in this area is primarily residential with both single- and multiple-family dwellings, and some light commercial. The area is near buildout

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 6-15 February 27, 2017 Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities with only small infill parcels remaining. A 24-inch interceptor enters the plant from the east serving primarily commercial and industrial uses, including the Benicia Industrial Park, and Pine Lake area. The City’s sanitary sewer pipelines have adequate capacity to convey wastewater collected from existing customers discharging to the system and for limited degrees of rainfall-dependent infiltration and inflow.

Future large-scale development, including Northern Gateway property, will require additional analysis of the collection system to determine capacity constraints and identify needed improvements to accommodate the increase in wastewater to be conveyed.

Findings & Determinations 6.8.1 The City of Benicia owns and operates the facilities providing wastewater collection, treatment, and discharge within the city limits.

6.8.2 The plant treats an average dry weather flow capacity of 4.5 million gallons per day (mgd) and has a sustained wet weather secondary treatment capacity of 11 mgd. Currently, the plant discharges an average dry weather flow of approximately 2.0 mgd (2015 data).

6.8.3 Capacity of the plant is adequate to handle wastewater generated by both existing and projected uses within the city limits.

6.8.4 Future development of the Northern Gateway property will require additional analysis of the collection system to determine capacity constraints and identify needed improvements to accommodate the increase in wastewater to be conveyed.

6.9 – Water The City of Benicia owns and operates the facilities providing potable water to users within its service area, which is coterminous with the city limits. The treatment facility is located off Lake Herman Road. Water is pumped to the treatment plant through the Transmission Main that runs along I-680 from Cordelia to the treatment plant. At the Water Treatment Plant (WTP), the raw water is distributed through the Diversion Structure for treatment or by gravity flow to Lake Herman. The treatment plant operates under regulatory oversight of the State Water Resources Control Board—Division of Drinking Water and has a rated hydraulic capacity of 12 million gallons per day. The raw water transmission system consists of two pumps stations and approximately 18 miles of pipeline. The treated water distribution system consists of three pump stations, five reservoirs, nine pressure-reducing stations, and approximately 160 miles of pipelines. The City maintains emergency storage at Lake Herman with a capacity of 1,390 acre-feet at full pool. Lake Herman has an average yield of 500 to 1,000 acre-feet annually with no yield during dry years. The lake also provides storage for excess water delivered through the North Bay Aqueduct (NBA).

6.9.1 – Historical Water Use The City contracts to receive Delta water via the NBA through agreements with the Solano County Water Agency (SCWA) for State Water Project (SWP) water and with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) for Settlement Water. The City also receives Lake

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 6-16 February 14, 2017 Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities

Berryessa water from the SWP through agreements with the City of Vallejo and the Solano Irrigation District (SID). Approximately half the City’s raw water demand is sold to and used by the Valero Benicia Refinery for industrial cooling and boiler use. The remaining raw water is treated at the City’s WTP for its municipal demand. Water stored in Lake Herman is captured through stormwater runoff or impounded from excess raw water diversion from the WTP.

Table 6-4: Contracted Water Supply

Source Contract Amount (AFY) State Water Project 16,075 Settlement Water 10,500 Vallejo Agreement 1,100 Solano Irrigation District Agreement 2,000 Lake Herman 500* Total 30,175

Note: * Based upon historical observation)

State Water Project (SWP): The City receives SWP water through an agreement with SCWA. SCWA is a State Water Contractor and maintains an agreement with the DWR for the SWP water (called Table A water), and in turn contracts with cities in Solano County to provide this supply. The water supply for the SWP comes from Lake Oroville in Butte County and water rights for flows in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River systems. The SWP contract runs to year 2035 and is renewable. The City’s current SWP contract amount is 17,200 acre- feet per year (AFY), with 16,075 AFY guaranteed after the cities of Rio Vista or Dixon connect to the NBA.

Water Rights Settlement: The City of Benicia, along with the cities of Fairfield and Vacaville, asserted a priority right with the State of California for water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta pursuant to the Watershed-of-Origin Statute.

DWR diverts water under an appropriative right that allows diversion of water that is not needed to meet in-Delta needs or outflow needs. The City is able to pump Settlement Water whenever the water restriction Term 91 is lifted, normally during the winter months. In California, courts have held that appropriative water rights may be limited under the Public Trust Doctrine.

Vallejo Agreement: The City currently has an active water purchase agreement with the City of Vallejo. The agreement was executed in 1962 and has been amended twice. The second amendment extended the expiration date of the agreement to February 28, 2025. The City anticipates this agreement will be renewed at its expiration.

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 6-17 February 27, 2017 Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities

In the agreement, the City will purchase 1,100 AFY of Vallejo’s Solano Project “call” water from Lake Berryessa. The agreement also provides that the City can receive up to 3 million gallons per day (mgd) of the water as treated water, in lieu of raw water, by means of an interconnection between the Benicia and Vallejo treated water systems, which does not currently exist. Currently, the City can only receive raw water from Vallejo by means of the Cordelia Pump Station and Cordelia Transmission Main. In order to receive treated water, a new interconnection would be required. The agreement provides that shortages (reductions) experienced by Vallejo may be passed on to Benicia.

Solano Irrigation District (SID): SID is the holder of a contractual right to receive entitlements from the Solano Project as a Participating Agency of the SCWA under the terms of a Participating Agency Contract providing for the delivery of and allotment of 141,000 AFY from the Solano Project to SID. In March 2009, the City entered into a purchase agreement with the SID to provide 2,000 AFY of “carry-over.” Water will be provided through water deliveries from Lake Berryessa and the Putah South Canal of the Solano Project. There is no specified date of termination of the agreement as long as SID maintains the adequate water rights from SCWA, and payments to SID are met. The agreement is subject to a reduction in supply based on drought conditions.

The SID water was purchased as an alternative raw water supply and to improve drinking water quality when the water drawn from the Delta through the North Bay Aquaduct (NBA) is high in total organic carbon. This water source can be counted towards the total water available, but was not intended to increase availability for future growth. Any new water use of any significance would have to be analyzed in this context.

Lake Herman: Lake Herman is located in the hills between the cities of Benicia and Vallejo and has an approximate storage capacity of 1,400 acre-feet. The dam that created Lake Herman was constructed in 1905 and raised in 1943 to its current height of 116 feet above sea level. Lake Herman is part of the Sulphur Spring Creek watershed. The average yield of its watershed is 500 AFY to 1,000 AFY, with no yield in dry years. The lake serves as terminal storage for excess supply delivered to the City through the NBA.

Pumped raw water from the NBA or Putah South Canal is delivered to the City’s treatment facility at a diversion structure. Since the pump stations operate at a fixed speed, surplus flow not needed at the plant is diverted by gravity to Lake Herman through a 24-inch- diameter pipeline. The City has the ability to pump water from Lake Herman back to the treatment facility through the Lake Herman Pump Station. This is typically done during emergencies when supply from the NBA or Putah South Canal is not available. The pump station has a total pumping capacity of 9.6 mgd.

Water Reuse Project (Proposed): The City of Benicia is has proposed a Water Reuse Project which would allow the City to produce about 2,000 acre feet per year (AFY), or 650 million gallons, of recycled water at the Benicia Wastewater Treatment Plant. By sending all or most of that water to one of the City’s largest water users, the Refinery, the City is able to accomplish a number of objectives:

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 6-18 February 14, 2017 Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities

Increases annual potable water supply available to residents and businesses by 2,000 acre feet, which represents 20 to 25 percent of the City’s overall water needs. During periods when SWP supply is not limited, this water can be banked in Lake Berryessa for use during times of shortages, thus reducing the need to purchase imported water at premium rates.

The highly-treated recycled water produced would meet State of California rules for unrestricted non-potable use for industrial, irrigation, dust control, and residential use. Recycled water will be available to citizens, construction contractors and for irrigation of parks and other locations near the pipeline

A year-round, high-demand water reuse customer allows cost-effective production of recycled water, because of lower pipeline construction costs and economies of scale. It has an additional benefit of reducing discharge to the San Francisco Bay and the activities associated with complying with current and future discharge regulations. Flexibility can be built into the recycled water project to serve smaller, seasonal, irrigation or industrial customers now and in the future.

Because a lower level of treatment meets Valero’s needs, this recycled water project is less expensive than one studied in 2008. In 2008, the need for higher recycled water quality was driven by using recycled water in Valero’s boiler feed water system, which required highly treated recycled water using reverse osmosis. The current study targets recycled water use in the Refinery’s cooling tower system only, and water quality that can be achieved with less- expensive treatment.

The tertiary treated water produced at the treatment plant will assist the City in complying with potential nutrient regulations for continued discharge to the San Francisco Bay. The project implements the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan and Strategic Plan in relation to achieving sustainability, ensuring an adequate water supply and promoting water conservation.

6.9.2 – Projected Usage The City of Benicia’s 2012 Water Systems Master Plan developed a baseline forecast for treated water demands assuming that no additional conservation from 2009–11 levels would occur in the future. Baseline water demand forecasts presented in the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan were used for the water demand. Forecast consumption for the various land use categories were summarized to provide the baseline treated production projection shown in Table 6-5.

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 6-19 February 27, 2017 Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities

Table 6-5: Baseline Treated Water Demand Forecast by Category

Water Consumption (AFY)

Water Use Category 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Single-Family Residential 2,701 2,743 2,786 2,830 2,876 2,909 Multi-Family Residential 467 474 482 489 497 503 Commercial/Institutional 381 387 393 399 406 410 Industrial 89 90 92 93 95 96 Irrigation 536 544 553 562 571 577 Other 9 9 9 9 10 10 Total 4,183 4,247 4,315 4,382 4,455 4,505

The total amount of raw water supply the City is projected to need, based on treated water demands and raw water projections at the baseline level, and is shown in Table 6-6. Raw water projections include raw water for the Valero refinery and operations raw water used for treatment processes at the water and surplus raw water supply that bypasses the treatment plant and is stored in Lake Herman for future emergency use. The projected total raw water demands are expected to increase from approximately 10,863 AFY in 2010 to 11,940 AFY in 2035, an increase of over 1,077 AFY.

Table 6-6: Baseline Raw Water Demands

Raw Water Demands (AFY)

Type 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Treated Water 4,183 4,247 4,315 4,382 4,455 4,505 Valero Raw Water 4,792 5,296 5,800 5,800 5,800 5,800 Operations and Emergency 441 441 441 441 441 441 Raw Water Unaccounted For Water 1,447 1,109 1,173 1,180 1,188 1,194 Total Raw Water Demand 10,863 11,093 11,729 11,803 11,884 11,940

High, baseline, and low raw water demand projections were developed to examine the City’s supply needs for water (Table 6-7). These projections include both production demands and Valero’s raw water demands. The high demand assumes industrial treated water use is twice that in baseline conditions, no significant savings from conservation programs occur, and the projected Valero raw water demand is 10 percent over baseline values shown in Table 6-5. The baseline case is based on historical data regarding Valero’s raw water demand and assuming current levels of conservation and 100 percent planned buildout as phased; with Valero’s raw water demand curve remaining relatively flat at levels extrapolated from

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 6-20 February 14, 2017 Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities historical use data. The low demand assumes that additional conservation activities cause a decrease from the baseline demands by 10 percent and that buildout for treated water supply is 80 percent of baseline construction; which is equivalent to a total of 18 percent reduction in treated water demand, and a 10-percent reduction in non-potable demands.

Table 6-7: Total Raw Water Demand Forecasts

Annual Demand (AFY)

Scenarios 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Baseline Scenario Treated Water Demand 4,183 4,247 4,315 4,382 4,455 4,505 Valero Raw Water Demand 4,792 5,296 5,800 5,800 5,800 5,800 Operations & Emergency 441 441 441 441 441 441 Demand Unaccounted For Water 1,447 1,109 1,173 1,180 1,188 1,194 Total Demand 10,863 11,093 11,729 11,803 11,884 11,940 High Demand Scenario Treated Water Demand 4,272 4,337 4,407 4,475 4,550 4,601 Valero Raw Water Demand 5,271 5,826 6,380 6,380 6,380 6,380 Operations & Emergency 441 441 441 441 441 441 Demand Unaccounted For Water 1,447 1,109 1,173 1,180 1,188 1,194 Total Demand 11,431 11,713 12,401 12,476 12,559 12,616 Low Demand Scenario Treated Water Demand 3,012 3,058 3,107 3,155 3,208 3,244 Valero Raw Water Demand 4,313 4,766 5,220 5,220 5,220 5,220 Operations & Emergency 441 441 441 441 441 441 Demand Unaccounted For Water 1,302 998 1,056 1,062 1,069 1,075 Total Demand 9,024 9,219 9,779 9,834 9,894 9,935

Findings & Determinations 6.9.1 Benicia owns and operates the facilities providing potable water to users within the city limits.

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 6-21 February 27, 2017 Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities

receives Lake Berryessa water from the SWP through agreements with the City of Vallejo and the Solano Irrigation District.

6.9.3 The City maintains emergency storage at Lake Herman with a capacity of 1,390 acre- feet at full pool. Lake Herman has an average yield of 500 to 1,000 acre-feet annually with no yield during dry years.

6.9.4 Approximately half the City’s raw water demand is sold to and used by the Valero Benicia Refinery.

6.9.5 The City’s total water supply (contracted and by right)is 30,175 AFY.

6.9.6 The projected total raw water demands are expected to increase from approximately 10,863 AFY in 2010 to 11,940 AFY in 2035. Even with the additional demand the city has adequate supply from a diversity of sources to meet those demands.

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 6-22 February 14, 2017 Financial Ability to Provide Services

7.0: Financial Ability to Provide Services

The City of Benicia offers a full range of services to its residents and businesses. This includes police, fire, street and facilities maintenance, library, parks and community services, as well as general administration. Although primarily funded out of the General Fund, some additional department support comes from Special Revenues, such as Gas Tax and Traffic Mitigation, which support street resurfacing and traffic calming measures. In addition, Benicia has always been active in seeking grants and state entitlement funds. These funds help the departments maintain the City’s quality of life.

The City’s remaining vacant land is close to existing services, including the 527-acre Northern Gateway property west of I-680.

7.1 – General Fund The General Fund is the primary operating fund of the City. The fund accounts for all revenues, expenditures, transfers, and other activity not accounted for in other city funds.

The City continues to experience flattening or declining revenues coupled with rising employee retirement benefit and workers’ compensation costs. In the past, these challenges were met through employee contract negotiations, cost‐containment measures, inter‐fund loans, and drawdowns of reserve balances. Despite these measures, without additional action, budgeted General Fund reserves will fall below the key levels set in the City’s Reserve Policy in future budgets. Per the General Fund’s 10‐year forecast, the City reserve levels will remain at or close to the 20 percent reserve policy for the next five years. Beyond the next five years, as expenditures continue to outpace revenues, the City will need to address this structural deficit by reducing expenditures and/or seeing increased revenues. City management will work with the Council to discuss long‐term budget stabilization measures to restore fund reserves, eliminate operating deficits, and deliver services efficiently and effectively to the citizens of Benicia in a sustainable manner.

The City adopts a two year budget to allow for better fiscal planning. The current budget is the 2015-17 budget. Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 outline the City’s revenues and expenditures, broken down by major categories, over the past five fiscal years starting in FY2010–11 and continuing through to the most recent budgeted year, FY2015–16. Note that FY 2015-16 actuals are draft amounts, as these are unaudited as of November 10, 2016.

Table 7-1: Statement of Revenues for the Past Five Years and Current Year

FY10-11 to FY15–16 Revenues

FY15–16 FY15-16 Revenue Source Budget Actuals* FY14–15 FY13–14 FY12–13 FY11–12 FY10–11 Taxes

Property 15,678,000 15,580,028 15,152,388 14,291,376 11,835,074 12,659,984 12,162,807

Sales 7,932,600 8,992,100 5,892,568 6,371,951 7,085,187 6,217,952 6,150,614

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 7-1 February 27, 2017 Financial Ability to Provide Services

Table 7-1: Statement of Revenues for the Past Five Years and Current Year

FY10-11 to FY15–16 Revenues

FY15–16 FY15-16 Revenue Source Budget Actuals* FY14–15 FY13–14 FY12–13 FY11–12 FY10–11 Utility users 6,308,850 4,594,385 4,318,066 4,739,792 4,825,055 5,087,381 5,027,163

Franchise tax 2,233,600 2,079,543 2,200,664 1,859,241 1,637,825 1,598,207 1,570,184

Other 905,000 1,106,213 1,070,045 965,749 931,059 839,480 844,334

Licenses and 370,500 480,554 539,451 391,987 331,830 277,267 315,208 permits

Fines and 79,500 102,280 82,198 92,633 125,016 184,084 99,898 forfeitures

Use of money 34,745 801,087 490,006 437,227 311,010 437,602 570,763 and property

Revenue from 30,000 258,354 382,439 382,457 2,050,280 2,229,811 2,240,416 other agencies

Current service 2,132,000 2,197,690 1,761,507 1,712,085 1,423,705 1,308,688 1,222,815 charges

Community — 44,736 37,721 38,197 — — — donations

Other 103,435 140,528 86,189 179,912 507,168 161,397 471,900

Note: * For FY 2015–16 actual revenues are draft amounts, as the audit has not been finalized as of Nov. 10, 2016.

Table 7-2 outlines the City’s annual expenditures, by department, from the 2010–2011 fiscal year through the current year.

Table 7-2: Statement of Expenditures for the Past Five Years and Current Year

FY15–16 FY15–16 EXPENDITURES Budget Actuals** FY14-15 FY13–14 FY12–13 FY11–12 FY10–11

Current

Administration 4,620,620 $4,212,645 $3,930,343 $3,074,350 2,943,896 2,957,695 3,101,146

Public safety––police 8,952,310 8,545,510 8,257,338 8,231,407 8,078,683 7,874,874 8,252,596

Public safety–fire 7,344,790 7,482,751 6,870,350 6,449,095 6,490,519 6,193,078 6,555,355

Parks and community 5,282,390 5,005,501 4,985,127 4,839,940 4,619,097 4,561,963 4,807,911 services

Community 1,394,355 1,342,025 1,079,054 931,502 1,010,550 —* —* Development

Public Works 2,298,975 2,133,662 1,786,668 1,177,976 1,160,546 2,009,147* 2,469,041*

Library 1,361,905 1,264,161 1,238,938 1,196,032 1,204,180 1,165,025 1,211,576

Economic 679,035 744,461 572,719 537,493 599,745 443,384 458,470

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 7-2 February 14, 2017 Financial Ability to Provide Services

Table 7-2: Statement of Expenditures for the Past Five Years and Current Year

FY15–16 FY15–16 EXPENDITURES Budget Actuals** FY14-15 FY13–14 FY12–13 FY11–12 FY10–11 Development

General 1,010,205 528,614 722,030 2,899,981 2,821,213 2,863,369 2,606,994

Capital outlay 2,760,000 415,396 214,588 406,691 248,754 207,940 198,058

Debt Service

Principal 390,990 341,761 326,668 312,139 — — —

Interest and fiscal — 49,229 69,736 86,945 11,749 18,312 91,960 charges

Note: * For FY 2010–11 & FY 2011–12, Public Works and Community Development were combined as one department ** For FY 2015-16 Actuals, amounts are drafts, as the audit has not been finalized as of Nov. 10, 2016.

It should be emphasized that despite the anticipated long‐term structural deficit, balancing measures utilized thus far have achieved notable results. The most recent proposed General Fund budget for FY2016–17 will allow the City to continue providing existing services and is the first budget since the 2008 recession that departments were not recommending reductions in order to maintain the City’s General Fund reserve policy of 20 percent over the course of the two‐year budget cycle. Exhibit 2 compares the revenues and expenditures from FY2010–11 to the most recent budgeted year, FY2015–16. As shown, following the period of the recession, the City’s general fund remained relatively stagnant but in FY2015– 16 the expenditures and revenues increased.

Exhibit 2: General Fund Revenues and Expenditures

Exhibit 1: General Fund Revenues and Expenditures 40,000,000 35,000,000 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 0 Budgeted FY2010-11 FY2011-12 FY2012-13 FY2013-14 FY2014-15 FY2015-16 Revenues 30,676,102 31,001,853 31,063,209 31,462,607 32,013,242 35,808,230 Expenditures 29,753,107 28,294,787 29,188,932 30,143,551 30,053,559 36,095,575

Revenues Expenditures

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 7-3 February 27, 2017 Financial Ability to Provide Services

The effect of the recession was more than a temporary period of economic contraction as it reshaped Benicia’s fiscal landscape. Projects that are funded through the General Fund have faced serious cutbacks or funding deferral over the past decade. In response to the City’s financial situation and its citizens’ desire to maintain their quality of life, in 2014 the City Council placed Measure C on the ballot. Measure C is a 1‐cent-on-the-dollar sales tax increase that goes directly to the City of Benicia and cannot be appropriated by county or state government. Measure C went into effect on April 1, 2015 and was projected to generate $3.7 million annually. For the 2015/2016 fiscal year, the projected impacts are slightly higher at $4.4 million. The City Council adopted an allocation plan for Measure C to provide assurance that the revenue would be used as intended. In addition to allocating sufficient revenue to sustain current service levels, the City Council dedicated more than half the estimated revenue to be collected in the first two years ($4 million) to address badly needed infrastructure improvements such as playground equipment replacement, road maintenance (including pothole repair) sidewalk repair, equipment for fire and police operations, and pool repairs.

An updated General Fund 10‐year forecast presented February 2015, showed the positive impact Measure C revenues had on reversing the budget deficit. In addition, the Measure C Sales Tax added capital funding for the General Fund. Furthermore, with the addition of Measure C revenues, the City will be able to initiate a limited number of key projects during the next two budget cycles.

7.2 – Enterprise Funds By definition, an enterprise activity charges direct fees for services. Customers that consume goods or services such as drinking or irrigation water, waste disposal, or electricity, pay a fee. Rates are set by a governing board and there is a nexus between the costs of providing services and the rates customers pay.

7.2.1 – Wastewater Funds The Wastewater Funds account for the operating revenues, expenses, debt service, and capital improvement costs related to providing the safe and reliable removal of wastewater generated within the City. Wastewater rates also pay for some non‐point source pollution prevention and other federal and state environmental programs related to water discharge treatment systems.

Consistent with Benicia Municipal Code 13.52.040, the current monthly sewer rates for each equivalent dwelling unit are shown in Table 7-3.

Table 7-3: Sewer Rates from January 17, 2013–June 30, 2017

Year Rate January 17, 2013–June 30, 2013 $45.88 July 1, 2013–June 30, 2014 $50.01 July 1, 2014–June 30, 2015 $53.26

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 7-4 February 14, 2017 Financial Ability to Provide Services

Year Rate July 1, 2015–June 30, 2016 $55.39 July 1, 2016–June 30, 2017 $56.49

7.2.2 – Water Funds The Water Funds account for the operating revenues, expenses, debt service, and capital improvement costs related to the utility. Operating activity includes costs for water supply contracts, storage, and the negotiation and management of untreated water supply to Valero Refining Company, costs related to Federal and State water quality, and environmental mandates.

For fiscal year ending June 30, 2015, the City’s water utility fund collected $9.0 million in user fees to sustain the system. The system has $34.9 million in capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation, financed with $11.0 million of long-term debt. The fund made $1.7 million in debt service payments for the year. The net position decreased by $.3 million due to increased operating costs and the added costs of purchasing additional water as a result of the drought experienced throughout the state.

Consistent with Benicia Municipal Code 13.12.010, the current water rates are shown in Table 7-4 through Table 7-7.

Table 7-4: Water Service Rates to Residential Users

Service Charge 01/17/13– July 1, 2013– 07/01/14– 07/01/15– 07/01/16– (per unit, per month) 06/30/13 06/30/14 06/30/15 06/30/16 06/30/17 Single-family dwelling $14.77 $16.68 $18.60 $19.86 $20.56 Multifamily dwelling $11.09 $12.52 $13.96 $14.91 $15.43

Table 7-5: Additional Volume Charges to Residential Users

Volume Charge 01/17/13– July 1, 2013– 07/01/14– 07/01/15– 07/01/16– (per unit, per month) 06/30/13 06/30/14 06/30/15 06/30/16 06/30/17 0–8 hundred cubic feet $1.46 $1.65 $1.84 $1.97 $2.04 8–30 hundred cubic feet $2.30 $2.60 $2.90 $3.10 $3.21 Over 30 hundred cubic feet $2.46 $2.78 $3.10 $3.31 $3.43

Table 7-6: Water Service Rates to Commercial and Industrial Users

Monthly Service Charge 01/17/13– July 1, 2013– 07/01/14– 07/01/15– 07/01/16– (per meter) 06/30/13 06/30/14 06/30/15 06/30/16 06/30/17 5/8- or ¾-inch $19.08 $21.54 $24.02 $25.65 $26.55 1-inch $33.90 $38.27 $42.67 $45.57 $47.16

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 7-5 February 27, 2017 Financial Ability to Provide Services

Monthly Service Charge 01/17/13– July 1, 2013– 07/01/14– 07/01/15– 07/01/16– (per meter) 06/30/13 06/30/14 06/30/15 06/30/16 06/30/17 1½-inch $76.24 $86.07 $95.97 $102.50 $106.09 2-inch $135.50 $152.98 $170.57 $182.17 $188.55 3-inch $304.85 $344.18 $383.76 $409.86 $424.21 4-inch $541.93 $611.84 $682.20 $728.59 $754.09 6-inch $1,219.32 $1,376.61 $1,534.92 $1,639.29 $1,696.67

Table 7-7: Additional Volume Charges to Commercial and Industrial Users

Volume Charge 01/17/13– July 1, 2013– 07/01/14– 07/01/15– 07/01/16– (per unit, per month) 06/30/13 06/30/14 06/30/15 06/30/16 06/30/17 0–30 hundred cubic feet $1.99 $2.25 $2.51 $2.68 $2.77 Over 30 hundred cubic feet $2.33 $2.63 $2.93 $3.13 $3.24

7.3 – Capital Improvements The last Capital Improvement Program (CIP) was created in 2009 and covered projects from 2009–2014. Currently, the City does not have a CIP.

The most recently adopted City budget, FY2015–17, prioritizes improvement projects, and categorizes them into four levels. Level 1 is designated for projects that are a high priority and are recommended to be funded with one-time revenues from the General Fund. There are three projects that fall under Level 1: the Enterprise Resource Planning System (ERP), the Arsenal, and St. Augustine repairs. The appropriations for these projects are anticipated to be $1.35 million.

The items in Level 2 were recommended for funding and reviewed as part of the budget process. These items are included in the adopted FY2015–17 budget. Generally, items in Level 2 are those that staff have already received Council’s direction to proceed and/or they are mandated by an outside authority; the project can be completed with existing staffing and resource levels; and/or because it is a notable project that represents a core department function that will be completed during the next budget cycle.

The City’s 13 departments have outlined 38 projects that fall into the Level 2 category. The appropriations for these projects are anticipated to be $14.42 million during the FY2015–17. A quarter of these funds go into the Water Meter Replacement Program, which is one of the 38 projects. This project is sponsored by the Public Works Department and will be funded by the Water Fund. Examples of other projects included in this level are the Fire and Community Development departments’ update of the Uniform Codes every three years and the Library’s update of its cataloging system. While not routine, day‐to‐day endeavors, these projects are representative of the department’s core functions.

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 7-6 February 14, 2017 Financial Ability to Provide Services

Level 3 projects are those that were not proposed to be in the most recent annual budget. They were included in the project list because staff acknowledges that they are high-priority projects; however, staff also recognizes that the City lacks sufficient resources to complete these projects at this time. Five projects on this list are considered top priorities in this level, should funding become available during the biennial funding.

Finally, Level 4 are items that the City currently does not have the financial resources, staff or time available to undertake. They remain on the list as projects for consideration in future budget cycles.

7.3.1 – Assessment Districts Assessment districts may be established by the City Council to finance needed public improvements. Establishment of assessment districts requires the approval of two-thirds of all property owners in the proposed district. With this approval, an assessment district issues bonds to pay for the improvements and assesses the property owners for the annual debt service of the bonds. Examples of projects financed this way include: storm drainage facilities, street improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement), and water and sewer mains.

7.3.2 – Benefit Districts Properties within a benefit district contribute funds as development occurs. When sufficient funds accumulate, improvements are built (typically, after a majority of the properties develop, the remaining area is converted to an assessment district to fund the balance of the total costs so that the improvements can be completed before complete buildout of the district). Examples of improvements funded with this method in Benicia are street paving and widening.

7.3.3 – Capital License Tax The City collects a construction license tax at the time of issuance of building permits for residential structures and commercial facilities. Revenues from this tax are used solely for public facilities and buildings. Examples of public projects funded through the Capital License Tax program are Citywide ADA improvements to City—owned facilities.

7.3.4 – Development Agreement A development agreement between the City and a developer specifies the standards and conditions that will apply for the life of a development project. A development agreement may allow, for example, a developer to increase density on his or her property in exchange for the provision of additional parkland or funding for park development. Development agreements will continue to provide a portion of park acquisition and development funding. Examples of parkland acquired through development agreements are the Benicia Community Park, Waters End Park, and Skillman Park. Other public facilities provided through a development agreement include trails, water-sewer extensions, paving, and street widening.

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 7-7 February 27, 2017 Financial Ability to Provide Services

7.3.5 – General Obligation Bonds General Obligation Bonds are issued by the City to finance the acquisition and construction of public capital facilities and real property. General Obligation Bond measures must be passed by a two-thirds majority of the voters within the municipality. General Obligation Bond funding is derived from increased local property taxes. The City has funded wastewater treatment plant improvements facilities through General Obligation Bonds.

7.3.6 – Park Dedication/Quimby Act The City’s Park Land Dedication Ordinance, which incorporates provisions of the Quimby Act requires, as a condition of approval of a tentative map, the dedication of land or payment of an in lieu fee to be used for the purposes of acquiring and developing parkland. The amount of dedicated parkland required is equivalent to 5 acres for every 1,000 persons in the development. Because of the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, all new developments will continue to contribute a portion of the parkland necessary to serve that development. In Benicia, several parks were developed under the requirements of the City’s Park Dedication Ordinance including Bridgeview, Southampton Park, Benicia Community Park, Gateway Park, Skillman Park, Solano Park, and Jack London Park.

7.3.7 – School Impact Fees The City collects a school impact fee on all new residential and commercial development in the City. This fee is a pass—through to the school district and is authorized per state law (Proposition 1A, 1998). No school impact fee revenues accrue to the city

7.3.8 – State and Federal Grants The City actively pursues state and federal grants for public infrastructure and facilities such as parks. A recent example is the procurement of State funding for improvements to the City’s First Street Pier for parking and pedestrian improvements. The City seeks grants to implement Climate Action Plan strategies and projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare the City for climate change. These include but are not limited to the following: electric vehicle infrastructure planning and installation, sea level rise assessments and adaptation planning, active transportation, renewable energy, and energy efficiency projects. The City has received grant funds from the California Energy Commission, the State Coastal Conservancy, and other state and federal agencies. The City also receives monies for transportation improvements from the State Gas Tax, Assembly Bill 2928, and the Transportation Development Act.

7.3.9 – Traffic Mitigation Fee The City collects traffic impact fees for all new residential, commercial, and industrial uses in accordance with the Citywide Traffic Impact Fee Program. The fee program identifies the intersection and roadway improvements citywide necessary to mitigate the impacts from development buildout in accordance with the General Plan. Each new development is charged its fair share of costs based upon the incremental increase in traffic generated from that development. Only capital improvement projects identified in the fee program can use this revenue source.

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 7-8 February 14, 2017 Financial Ability to Provide Services

7.3.10 – Wastewater Capacity Fund The Wastewater Capacity Fund is used to increase the capacity needs of the City utilities as defined by demand growth from development. The fee is expected to pay for all or a portion of the costs of providing public services to the new development. The City has had very little new development in the last decade, especially since the 2008 Recession. The majority of the working capital reserves are from earlier developments. The balances in these funds are finite as the City is essentially built out.

7.3.11 – Water Capacity Fund The Water Capacity fund is used to increase the capacity needs of the city utilities as defined by demand growth from development. The fee is expected to pay for all or a portion of the costs of providing public services to the new development.

Findings & Determinations 7.1 Between FY 2010–11 and FY 2014–15, the City’s general fund remained relatively stagnant but in FY 2015–16, the expenditures and revenues increased. Revenues kept pace with expenses.

7.2 In 2014, Measure C was approved by the voters. Measure C is a 1‐cent-on-the-dollar sales tax increase that goes directly to the City of Benicia. Measure C went into effect on April 1, 2015 and was projected to generate $3.7 million annually.

7.3 The City Council has allocated half the revenue for the first two years of Measure C to needed infrastructure improvements such as playground equipment replacement, road maintenance (including pothole repair) sidewalk repair, equipment for fire and police operations, and pool repairs.

7.4 The City’s Park Land Dedication Ordinance, which incorporates provisions of the Quimby Act requires, as a condition of approval of a tentative map, the dedication of land or payment of an in lieu fee to be used for the purposes of acquiring and developing parkland. The amount of dedicated parkland required is equivalent to 5 acres for every 1,000 persons in the development.

7.5 The last Capital Improvement Program (CIP) was created in 2009 and covered projects from 2009–2014. At this point in time the City does not have a CIP, but prioritizes improvement projects biennially as part of the comprehensive budget planning process.

7.6 The most recently adopted two-year City budget, FY2015–17, prioritizes improvement projects and categorizes them into four levels.

7.7 The city collects a number of fees that go directly to maintaining and upgrading infrastructure to keep pace with the needs of development. The City has received grant funds from the California Energy Commission, the State Coastal Conservancy, and other state and federal agencies. The City also receives monies for transportation

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 7-9 February 27, 2017 Financial Ability to Provide Services

improvements from the State Gas Tax, Assembly Bill 2928, and the Transportation Development Act.

7.8 General Obligation Bonds are issued by the City to finance the acquisition and construction of public capital facilities and real property. The City has funded wastewater treatment plant improvements facilities through General Obligation Bonds.

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 7-10 February 14, 2017 Status and Opportunities for Shared Facilities

8.0: Status and Opportunities for Shared Facilities

8.1 – Shared Facilities Identification and examination of opportunities for shared facilities and resources may determine if public service costs can be reduced. The benefits of sharing costs for facilities can be numerous, including pooling of funds for economies of scale; reduced service duplications and costs; diversion of administrative functions of some facilities; and providing better overall service. Maximizing the opportunities to share facilities allows for a level of service that may not otherwise be possible under normal funding constraints.

Examples of the City and other agencies benefiting from sharing costs of a municipal service include:

8.1.1 – Animal Services The Police Department employs one full-time Animal Control Officer who provides animal control services to the community. The City of Benicia has a financial agreement with Solano County in which Solano County provides after-hours animal control services and animal sheltering.

8.1.2 – Fire The Benicia Fire Department is an “all risk agency” providing services in the areas of fire prevention and suppression, emergency medical services, technical rescue, and hazardous materials incident response. These services are provided by a dedicated staff operating from two fire stations within the community. The Fire Department enhances services to Benicia by responding to requests for aid from other agencies through mutual aid agreements. In return, resources are provided to Benicia when needed. Mutual Aid is requested through dispatch as the need is recognized. The Fire Department also manages automatic response agreements with neighboring agencies. Adjacent fire jurisdictions respond simultaneously to areas of Benicia that are close to their fire station. Each jurisdiction is automatically dispatched upon receiving the initial 911 call.

8.2 – Open Space and Recreation Services The City of Benicia has a Joint Use Agreement with Benicia Unified School District (BUSD), which allows for city recreation programming at Benicia Middle School, and BUSD use of city recreation facilities.

The City of Benicia worked with the City of Vallejo to establish the Vallejo-Benicia Open Space Buffer, a permanent open space buffer between the two cities that also houses a Bay Area Ridge Trail segment.

The Solano Open Space Committee (previously Tri-City and County Cooperative Planning Group) JPA was entered into and became effective in 1995 by the Cities of Benicia, Fairfield, Vallejo and the County of Solano. The JPA plans for 10,000 acres of open space land between the three cities, with the shared goal to plan for, manage, and maintain the land for open space preservation, conservation and enhancement uses, agricultural production, and

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 8-1 February 27, 2017 Status and Opportunities for Shared Facilities regional parkland and recreation. Solano Land Trust has partnered with the JPA to acquire, manage, and develop trailheads and trails in some of the associated acreage.

The City also has cooperative relationship with State Parks, which has two parks wholly or partially within the City’s boundaries, including an ongoing landscape maintenance agreement for a portion of the Benicia Capitol State Historic Park.

The City contracts special event and Farmers’ Market management through Benicia Main Street.

8.3 – Police Department The Police Department provides police services to the City of Benicia and currently sees no viable option to contract out any police-related service. However, the Police Department does have agreements with surrounding law enforcement agencies to provide mutual aid. In addition, the police department participates in a regional SWAT team and narcotic task force, which provide additional resources to the community.

8.4 – Solid Waste The City contracts with Republic Services to provide street sweeping, collection of residential recyclables, yard waste, garbage, hazardous waste, and commercial refuse in the City of Benicia. Solid waste is deposited to the Potrero Hills Landfill. The Potrero Hills Landfill receives waste from Sierra foothill counties and Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Mendocino, Napa, Sacramento, Santa Clara, San Mateo, Solano, and Yolo Counties. The City anticipates that there will be continued shared use of the Potrero Hills Landfill by these cities.

8.5 – Stormwater City policies require private developers to pay impact fees and install infrastructure necessary to mitigate storm drainage impacts from new developments. Storm drainage discharge occurs in locations managed by different public agencies, e.g., the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These trends will continue as new development occurs in the City. The City is part of a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) and has a Phase II small NPDES permit.

8.6 – Transportation Services Solano County Transit (Soltrans) operates the local transit services for cities of Benicia and Vallejo. Solano Transportation Authority (STA) manages the SolanoExpress Bus service and coordinates with local transit agencies to plan, fund and improve intra-county transit connections. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) governs the freeways that connect the municipalities and the associated off-ramps. Communication and assistance between Benicia and Caltrans is necessary and frequent. All projects impacting state facilities are accomplished under a state encroachment permit or project approval process with review and approval by Caltrans. No additional opportunities for shared services have been identified.

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 8-2 February 14, 2017 Status and Opportunities for Shared Facilities

8.7 – Water & Wastewater Water and wastewater services are provided to Benicia residents and businesses by the City of Benicia. The City provides water service within city limits. The City of Benicia is separated from nearby cities and there are no feasible or cost-effective opportunities for sharing water and wastewater treatment facilities. The City operates an Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP)-certified lab.

8.8 – Management Efficiencies The City uses a budget procedure and competitive bidding process to ensure avoidance of unnecessary costs associated with obtaining outside services and capital improvements construction. The City’s budget and capital improvements program are reviewed and adopted annually as part of a public process that involves hearings before the City Council.

One measure of management efficiency is whether the city does long range planning. It completed an urban water management plan in 2015, a stormwater management plan, and sewer system management plan in 2009. The City reviews its strategic plan during every budget cycle. During the FY 2015-2017 the City council agreed to extend the FY 2013-2015 Strategic Plan through FY 2015-17.

The management structure of the City providing services to its lands and residents is efficient and effective, providing ongoing oversight and administration of essential government services. No opportunities for changes in management structures or organization have been identified that would result in additional efficiencies.

Findings & Determinations 8.1 The City collaborates with a number of other agencies in the areas of animal services, fire suppression, open space and recreation services, police, solid waste, stormwater, transportation, water, and wastewater. Cooperative agreements are in place to reduce costs and to provide enhanced services for major service responsibilities of the city.

8.2 The current management structure provides effective oversight and administration of essential government services. No opportunities for changes in management structures or organization have been identified that would result in additional efficiencies.

8.3 While the City does not have a Capital improvement Plan, the City is dedicated to long range planning. The City adopts a two year budget in odd numbered years, including the most recent fiscal plan for FY 2015-2017. In addition the City has adopted an Urban Water Management Plan, a stormwater management plan, and a sewer system management plan. Extensive planning is an important indicator of management efficiency.

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 8-3 February 27, 2017

Government Structure and Accountability

9.0: Government Structure and Accountability

9.1 – Government Structure The City of Benicia is a general law city and has a Council-Manager form of government with a separately elected Mayor and a four member city council. The Mayor is elected to a four- year term, and, separately, the remaining four members of the City Council are elected at large for alternating four-year terms. The Council appoints the City Manager and Attorney and also confirms the Mayor’s appointments to all city boards, committees, and commissions. The City Clerk and Treasurer are separately elected.

The Council is responsible for governing as well as establishing the overall priorities and direction for the City’s municipal government. The Council’s responsibilities include adoption of city ordinances and policies; establishing short- and long-term goals for the City; and adoption of the City’s budget, including approval of programs, projects, contracts, agreements, and services. Actions of the Council are regulated in accordance with applicable statutes and city procedures.

The City is staffed with eleven departments: City Manager, City Attorney, Economic Development, Administrative Services, Finance, Parks and Community Services, Library, Fire, Police, Community Development, and Public Works. City Hall, the primary location for City administrative functions, is located at 250 East L Street and is open from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

9.2 – Accountability Council meetings are held on the first and third Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall. There are ample opportunities for public involvement and input at regularly scheduled meetings. The agenda and packets are posted on the City’s website and available for public review. Public notices are published in accordance with the Brown Act, other applicable statutes and regulations, and city procedures. Council meetings along with many boards, committees, and commission meetings can be viewed via Comcast Channel 27, AT&T U-Verse Channel 99, or via the City’s streaming video on its website.

Benicia has adopted City’s Open Government Ordinance, Title 4, of the Benicia Municipal Code which states it is the goal of the City to, “make it easier for people to access city government so that they may be more informed about what their city is doing and so that they may be involved in a more meaningful and knowledgeable way. Open meetings, easier access to public records, ethical guidelines and a watchdog commission will help increase the public trust and confidence in the city government and will increase the public awareness and knowledge about their government. A well-educated public and ethical officials are essential to good government.”

The City provides information to the citizens via its website, Twitter feed, Facebook page, and Nextdoor—a free social networking service for neighborhoods. In addition to its online presence, the City also provides in-person outreach. For example, recently, the City had a

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 9-1 February 27, 2017 Government Structure and Accountability staffed booth at the local farmers market to answer any questions citizens may have with regard to proposed water-rate changes.

There are myriad boards, commissions, and committees that provide abundant opportunities for citizen participation and involvement in their governmental affairs. The City’s website has a list of the boards and commissions, including those listed below, as well as a posting of open seats for those who want to serve. Applications are available online.

Council/Commission/Board Meetings Time

Arts and Culture Commission 2nd Thursday 7:00 p.m. Benicia Zoning Administrator Meet as necessary Hearing 1st, 3rd & 4th Tuesdays

City Council 7:00 p.m. (Click for Calendar) City Council/School Board Quarterly 8:30 a.m.

Liaison 3rd Tuesday of October

Civil Service Commission 2009, January 2010, April 6:30 p.m. 2010, and July 2010 Community Sustainability 3rd Monday 6:00 p.m.

Commission Design Review see Historic Preservation

Economic Development Board 4th Wednesday 5:30 p.m.

Finance Committee 4th Thursday 9:00 a.m. Historic Preservation see Historic Preservation

Historic Preservation Review 4th Thursday 6:30 p.m.

Housing Authority Board 4th Wednesday 6:00 p.m.

Human Services Board 2nd Monday 7:15 p.m.

Board of Library Trustees 2nd Tuesday 6:30 p.m. Open Government Quarterly 5:00 p.m.

Commission

Parks, Recreation& Cemetery 2nd Wednesday 6:30 p.m.

Planning Commission 2nd Thursday 7:00 p.m. Sky Valley Open Space Quarterly 7:00 p.m.

Committee

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 9-2 February 14, 2017 Government Structure and Accountability

Traffic, Pedestrian & Bicycle Quarterly 7:00 p.m.

Safety Youth Action Coalition 4th Wednesday 3:30 p.m. Youth Commission Bi Weekly Wednesday 5:00 p.m. Youth Master Plan Steering 1st Wednesday 4:00 p.m. Committee

Findings & Determinations 9.1 The City of Benicia is a general law city and has a Council-Manager form of government with a separately elected Mayor and four council members.

9.2 The Council is responsible for governing as well as establishing the overall priorities and direction for the City’s municipal government.

9.3 The City is staffed by eleven departments, including City Manager, City Attorney, Economic Development, Administrative Services, Finance, Parks and Community Services, Library, Fire, Police, Community Development, and Public Works.

9.4 Council meetings along with many boards, committees, and commission meetings can be viewed via Comcast Channel 27, AT&T U-Verse Channel 99 or via the City’s streaming video on its website.

9.5 Public notices are published in accordance with the Brown Act, other applicable statutes and regulations, and City procedures.

9.6 The City provides information to the citizens via its website, Twitter feed, Facebook page, Nextdoor, and in-person outreach. Transparency and outreach enhance accessibility and accountability of city governance.

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 9-3 February 27, 2017

LAFCO Policies Affecting Service Delivery

10.0: LAFCO Policies Affecting Service Delivery

In the future, as the City elects to extend its service boundary area, some of LAFCO’s policies should be considered. These policies include the Sphere of Influence (SOI) policy, the Commission’s adopted Standards, and the Out of Area Service Agreement Policy. LAFCO staff should be consulted early in the process to ensure policy specific requirements are met.

The Commission’s SOI policy requires that the City update or amend its sphere every five years or as necessary. Additionally, the City may designate areas in its SOI as near-term or long-term. Near-term SOI areas are those the City intends to annex in 0 to 5 years, while long-term SOI areas are those the City intends to annex in the next 5 to 20 years.

The Commission has adopted eleven Standards in conjunction with the factors enumerated in GC §56668 to act as a guideline to measure the appropriateness and correctness of a proposal. Some Standards are quantitative in that specific information and minimum submittal requirements are stipulated. Other standards are qualitative and require specific documentation by the applicant. In deciding change of organization proposals, the Commission needs to make determinations on the degree of compliance or non-compliance for each Standard citing fact to support each determination. In addition, the Commission has determined that six of the Standards (numbers 1–6) are mandatory; LAFCO must make determinations of full compliance with the mandatory Standards to approve a proposal. The other five Standards (numbers 7–11) are discretionary; LAFCO may make determinations of less than full compliance with one or more of the discretionary standards and still have the discretion to approve or deny a proposal.

There are instances when a city may desire to extend services outside its jurisdictional boundaries for a specified service(s). GC §56133 describes the conditions that authorize LAFCO to approve out-of-area service extensions. Generally, out-of-area service requests within an agency’s SOI are permissible so long as it is an anticipation of a later change of organization. For areas outside of an agency’s SOI, the Commission must make a finding that there is an existing or impending threat to the health or safety of the public or the residents of the affected territory.

Findings & Determinations 10.1 LAFCO’s Sphere of Influence, adopted Standards and Out of Area Service Agreement are policies the City will have to consider if they propose to extend services to future service delivery areas.

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 10-1 February 27, 2017

Summary of Determinations

11.0: Summary of Findings & Determinations

4.1 Benicia had a population of 26,997 in 2010.

4.2 ABAG projects that by 2040, Benicia’s population will increase by 4,403 residents to 31,400. That averages to about 0.5% annually, which is consistent with recent growth.

5.1 There are no disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to Benicia’s SOI.

6.1.1 The Benicia Police Department is responsible for animal control. The City has an after hour services agreement with the Solano County Sheriff’s office for animal control and the City has a MOU with Solano County for animal shelter services. Animal Control services are adequate

6.2.1 Services provided by the Benicia Fire Department include fire suppression, fire prevention, basic and advanced life support medical services, technical rescue services, disaster preparedness, code enforcement, and vegetation management services.

6.2.2 Fire suppression and emergency medical services are provided by the City Fire Department from two fire stations.

6.3.1 Average emergency response times are tracked and available through the department’s automated computer aided dispatch (CAD) system. The program was last updated during the budget cycle 2013-2015 to include a new auditing process for police reports and to streamline state reporting requirements.

6.3.2 For in-progress or life-threatening emergency calls (Priority 1) the average response time from 2013-2014 was 6 minutes and 21 seconds.

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 11-1 February 27, 2017 Summary of Determinations

6.4.1 Within the city limits are 48 parks, facilities, and public access areas totaling 1,248 acres. These include state facilities, a regional park, community parks, neighborhood parks, and other outdoor recreation improvements.

6.4.3 The City’s 1997 Parks, Trails & Open Space Master Plan recommends the development of new park and outdoor recreation facilities keep pace with the growth of the City.

6.5.1 The City’s Public Works Department is responsible for the operation, maintenance, design, construction, and repair of the City’s public infrastructure.

6.6.1 The City has a contract with Republic Services, a local franchised hauler, for curbside garbage collection.

6.6.2 Solid waste is taken to Keller Canyon Landfill in Pittsburg, California. It is projected that the landfill will reach capacity in 2078.

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 11-2 February 14, 2017 Summary of Determinations

6.6.3 The remaining permitted disposal capacity at the landfill is adequate to handle the projected waste generation through buildout of the General Plan.

6.7.1 The Benicia Public Works Department is responsible for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of storm drain facilities within the city limits.

6.7.2 All the City’s stormwater is conveyed both by natural and man-made channels, and by drainage culverts to the Carquinez Strait.

6.7.3 All the sub-basins are served by natural or constructed drainage systems, such as creeks, ditches, and storm drain culverts.

6.7.4 The City of Benicia has adopted a Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance to address stormwater control within the City.

6.7.6 Measure C revenues will assist with some long term maintenance and replacement costs.

6.8.1 The City of Benicia owns and operates the facilities providing wastewater collection, treatment, and discharge within the city limits.

6.8.3 Capacity of the plant is adequate to handle wastewater generated by both existing and projected uses within the city limits.

6.9.1 Benicia owns and operates the facilities providing potable water to users within the city limits.

6.9.2 The City contracts to receive Delta water via the NBA through agreements with the Solano County Water Agency for State Water Project (SWP) water and with the California Department of Water Resources for Settlement Water. The City also receives Lake Berryessa water from the SWP through agreements with the City of Vallejo and the Solano Irrigation District.

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 11-3 February 27, 2017 Summary of Determinations

6.9.4 Approximately half the City’s raw water demand is sold to and used by the Valero Benicia Refinery.

6.9.5 The City’s total water supply (contracted and by right)is 30,175 AFY.

7.1 Between FY 2010–11 and FY 2014–15, the City’s general fund remained relatively stagnant but in FY 2015–16, the expenditures and revenues increased. Revenues kept pace with expenses.

7.6 The most recently adopted two-year City budget, FY2015–17, prioritizes improvement projects and categorizes them into four levels.

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 11-4 February 14, 2017 Summary of Determinations

8.1 The City collaborates with a number of other agencies in the areas of animal services, fire suppression, open space and recreation services, police, solid waste, stormwater, transportation, water, and wastewater. Cooperative agreements are in place to reduce costs and to provide enhanced services for major service responsibilities of the city.

9.1 The City of Benicia is a general law city and has a Council-Manager form of government with a separately elected Mayor and four council members.

9.2 The Council is responsible for governing as well as establishing the overall priorities and direction for the City’s municipal government.

9.4 Council meetings along with many boards, committees, and commission meetings can be viewed via Comcast Channel 27, AT&T U-Verse Channel 99 or via the City’s streaming video on its website.

9.5 Public notices are published in accordance with the Brown Act, other applicable statutes and regulations, and City procedures.

10.1 LAFCO’s Sphere of Influence, adopted Standards and Out of Area Service Agreement are policies the City will have to consider if they propose to extend services to future service delivery areas.

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 11-5 February 27, 2017

References

12.0: References

Document Citations Annual Solid Waste Disposal Capacity Report for the City of Benicia. City of Benicia, 2013.

Benicia General Plan. City of Benicia, 1999.

Benicia Parks, Trails and Open Space Master Plan. Prepared by EDAW, Inc., 1997.

Benicia Police Department Annual Report. City of Benicia, 2014.

Benicia: Portrait of an Early California Town. Robert Brueggemann, 1980.

City of Benicia Historic Context Statement. City of Benicia, 2011.

City of Benicia Public Works FY2015-2017 Adopted Budget. City of Benicia 2015.

City of Benicia Water System Master Plan. Prepared by NV5, Inc., 2012.

Practical Guide for Quality Management of Pavement Condition Data Collection. Linda Pierce, Ginger McGovern and Kathryn Zimmerman. February 2013.

Personal Communications Eleccion, Gina. Management Analyst. City of Benicia Police and Fire Departments.

Giuliani, Mario. Economic Development Manager. City of Benicia Economic Development Division.

Gregory, Jeff. Waste Water Treatment Plant Superintendent. City of Benicia Public Works Department.

Porteshawver, Alex. Climate Action Plan Coordinator. Community Development Department.

Rahill, Timothy. Chief Business Official. Benicia Unified School District.

Randall, Victor. Management Analyst. City of Benicia Parks and Community Services.

Riley, Jason. Principal Civil Engineer. City of Benicia Public Works Department.

Rovanpera, Scott. Water Treatment Plant Superintendent. City of Benicia Public Works Department.

Urrutia, Abigail. Assistant Finance Director. City of Benicia Finance Department.

Williams, Sharon. Interim Management Analyst. City of Benicia Public Works Department.

Solano LAFCO—Benicia MSR 12-1 February 27, 2017

PERSONNEL FY 2015-2017 Adopted Budget

The citywide organization chart is shown in below. It shows the two elected positions, which are the City Clerk and City Treasurer. It also shows the two positions appointed by the City Council, which are the City Manager and City Attorney.

City Council

Boards and City Treasurer City Clerk City Attorney Commissions (Elected) (Elected)

City Manager

Assistant City Economic Manager / Development Administrative Services

Information City Clerk Finance Human Resources Technology

Parks and Community Fire Library Community Police Public Works Development Services

~Continue to next page~

4-5 Agenda Item 7D Staff Draft

Staff Report

DATE: February 27, 2017

TO: Local Agency Formation Commission

FROM: Michelle McIntyre and LAFCO Finance Committee (Commissioners Sanchez and Vasquez)

SUBJECT: Mid-Year Budget Status, and Budget Re-appropriation and Appropriation

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the mid-year budget status report. Re-appropriate funds to Salaries and Employee Benefits from Services Supplies, and Appropriate funds from Fund Balance.

BACKGROUND:

For fiscal year 2016-2017, the Commission budgeted for a consultant to provide executive officer services; however, on November 21, 2016 the Commission voted to begin recruitment for an employee to serve as the LAFCO executive officer. It is now the intent of the Commission to hire an executive officer.

On February 10th, the LAFCO Finance Committee reviewed the status of the budget and determined re- appropriating funds and appropriating some of the fund balance from the prior year is financially prudent.

Mid-Year Status:

The mid-year budget status provides an overview of LAFCO’s expenses and revenues through December 31, 2016. The Commission’s adopted operating budget for the current year is $415,310. This included $129,745 for salaries and employee benefits, and $285,565 for services and supplies. At mid-year, expenditure (actuals plus encumbrance) totaled $238,239 which represents approximately 57% of the adopted operating budget.

Agenda Item 7D Staff Draft

For the purposes of this report, the term “revenue” is broadly used to encompass all sources of funds used to finance LAFCO’s total expenditure. This includes funding from the county and cities, fees collected from changes of organization applications, and interest income. At mid-year, total revenue recognized was $362,600, representing 98% of the anticipated budget amount.

The table below includes a summary of the mid-year budget status along with the proposed adjustments.

Table - Summary of Mid Year Status and Proposed Adjustments

2016-17 Mid-Year – Percent of Proposed Adjusted Adopted (Actual Plus Budget at Adjustment Budget Encumbrance) Mid-Year

EXPENDITURES Salaries and Benefits $129,745 $64,092 49% $56,147 185,892 Services and Supplies $285,565 $174,146 61% ($53,065) 232,500 Total Expenditures $415,310 $238,239 57% $418,392

REVENUES Intergovernmental $358,464 $358,464 100% Revenue Applications $10,000 $3,400 34% Interest Income $1,000 $736 74% Total Revenues $369,464 $362,600 98%

Reserve $83,102 $83,102 Fund Balance $11,976 $11,976 ($3,082) $8,894

Proposed Adjustments:

Salaries and Employee Benefits- Employees are paid with funds appropriated to the Salaries and Employee Benefits budget category. Since the executive officer position was previously filled by a consultant, the Commission did not appropriate funds in this budget category for two full time employees. The Committee recommends the Commission appropriate an additional $56,147 to plan for a full time executive officer for the remaining fiscal year.

Services and Supplies- Consultants are paid with funds appropriated to the Services and Supplies budget category. The Commission had previously extended a contract for executive officer services, which was not renewed. As a result, the

Agenda Item 7D Staff Draft

Services and Supplies category will have an excess appropriation; therefore, the Committee recommends the Commission re-appropriate $53,065 from Services and Supplies to Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Fund Balance- The fund balance account represents the carry-over funds from the prior fiscal year’s budget. Presently, the Commission’s unappropriated fund balance is $11,976.50. Of that sum, the Committee recommends the Commission appropriate $3,082 to the Salaries and Employee Benefits category.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Finance Committee recommends the Commission approve the attached resolution to: 1) Re-appropriate $53,065 from Services and Supplies to Salaries and Employee Benefits. 2) Appropriate $3,082 from Fund Balance to Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Attachments: Draft Resolution Finance Committee Agenda Packet

Agenda Item 7D Staff Draft RESOLUTION NO. 17-04

LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF SOLANO COUNTY ------WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of Solano County appropriated funds within the Services and Supplies category for a consultant providing executive officer services to the LAFCO for fiscal year 2016-17; and,

WHEREAS, it is the intent of the LAFCO that beginning March 2017, the LAFCO will appoint an employee to fill the vacant executive officer position; and,

WHEREAS, employees are paid with funds appropriated to the Salaries and Employee Benefits budget category; and,

WHEREAS, as a result, the Salaries and Employee Benefits category will have a deficit while the Services and Supplies category will have an excess appropriation; and,

WHEREAS, re-appropriating funds from the Services and Supplies category and appropriating some of the Fund Balance is necessary to avoid a deficit in appropriation for the Salaries and Services category; and,

WHEREAS, the Salaries and Employee Benefits budget category shall be increased by $56,147; and,

WHEREAS, the Services and Supplies budget category shall be decreased by $53,065.

WHEREAS, the Fund Balance account shall be decreased by $3,082.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Local Agency Formation Commission of Solano County re- appropriates and appropriate funds as outlined above.

------

UPON MOTION of Commissioner ______, seconded by Commissioner _____, the foregoing resolution is adopted this 27th day of February, 2017 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:

______Nancy Shopay, Chair Local Agency Formation Commission County of Solano, State of California

ATTEST:

______Roseanne Chamberlain, Executive Officer

Solano Local Agency Formation Commission 675 Texas St. Ste. 6700 • Fairfield, California 94533 • (707) 439-3897 FAX: (707) 438-1788

Finance Committee Members: Commissioners Sanchez and Vasquez

Location Solano County Government Center 675 Texas Street Ste. 6700 Fairfield, CA 94533 February 10, 2017 10:00 AM

Public parking is available on the second floor of the parking garage adjacent to the Solano County Government Center. Vehicular entrance to the parking garage is on Delaware St.

Commissioners Harry Price, Vice-Chair Pete Sanchez • Jim Spering • John Vasquez Alternate Commissioners Len Augustine • Nancy Shopay, Chair • Skip Thomson Staff Roseanne Chamberlain, Interim Executive Officer • Michelle McIntyre, Analyst • P. Scott Browne, Legal Counsel

A G E N D A

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. PUBLIC COMMENTS

Opportunity for the public to speak to the Commission on any subject matter within the Commission’s jurisdiction but not appearing on today’s agenda.

4. Mid-Year Budget Receive an update of the budget as of December 31, 2016, mid-year.

5. End of Year Projection Receive an end of year projection for fiscal year 2016-2017. The committee may recommend appropriation transfers.

6. Budget FY 2017-2018 Discuss the budget and work plan for the upcoming fiscal year.

7. Adjournment

LAFCO MID YEAR (MY) BUDGET: FY 16/17 FUND: 345

12/31/2017 01/31/2017 CATEGORY 16/17 Mid Year Actuals Actuals Plus Proposed SUBOBJECT Description WB Plus Encumbrance Encumbrance Adjustment Adjusted Budget Year End Projection 1000 SALARIES AND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 0001110 SALARY/WAGES REGULAR 91,434 42,552 49,586 45,612 137,046 137,046 0001210 RETIREMENT-EMPLOYER 14,121 11,527 12,227 4,543 18,664 18,664 0001212 DEFERRED COMP-COUNTY MATCH 130 61 71 45 175 175 0001220 FICA-EMPLOYER 1,326 630 734 105 1,431 1,431 0001230 HEALTH INS-EMPLOYER 15,969 7,522 8,884 3,915 19,884 19,884 0001231 VISION CARE INSURANCE 240 70 83 101 341 341 0001240 COMPENSATION INSURANCE 702 781 781 702 702 0001241 LT DISABILITY INSURANCE ER 200 122 144 200 200 0001250 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 434 - 434 434 434 0001260 DENTAL INS-EMPLOYER 1,283 562 666 12 1,295 1,295 0001270 ACCRUED LEAVE CTO PAYOFF 3,431 - - 1,814 5,245 5,245 0001290 LIFE INSURANCE-EMPLOYER 475 266 313 475 475 TOTAL SALARIES AND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 129,745 64,092 73,923 56,147 185,892 185,892

2000 SERVICES AND SUPPLIES 0002021 COMMUNICATION-TELEPHONE SYSTEM 300 249 249 250 550 0002028 TELEPHONE SERVICES 2,100 922 1,306 2,100 0002035 HOUSEHOLD EXPENSE 500 - - (500) - 0002051 LIABILITY INSURANCE 3,563 3,363 3,363 3,563 0002140 MAINTENANCE-BLDGS & IMPROVE 150 - - 150 150 0002170 MEMBERSHIPS 4,657 4,650 4,650 4,657 0002171 PROFESSIONAL LICENSES & CERT 800 - - (800) - - 0002180 BOOKS & SUBSCRIPTIONS 400 - - 400 0002200 OFFICE EXPENSE 1,500 656 656 1,500 0002203 COMPUTER COMPONENTS <$1,500 500 - - 500 0002205 POSTAGE 1,000 7 43 (800) 200 200 0002235 ACCOUNTING & FINANCIAL SERVICE 24,000 9,585 15,891 24,000 24,000 0002245 CONTRACTED SERVICES 40,000 14,295 22,285 (17,000) 23,000 23,000 0002250 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 154,300 113,447 129,335 (24,715) 129,585 129,585 0002266 CENTRAL DATA PROCESSING SVCE 8,450 4,249 4,958 8,450 0002270 SOFTWARE 600 - - 600 0002280 PUBLICATIONS AND LEGAL NOTICES 2,800 336 336 (2,000) 800 800 0002285 RENTS & LEASES - EQUIPMENT 6,000 1,913 2,702 6,000 0002295 RENTS & LEASES-BUILDINGS/IMPR 18,145 15,824 15,824 18,145 18,145 0002310 EDUCATION & TRAINING 2,000 - - (1,500) 500 500 0002311 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 0002335 TRAVEL EXPENSE 10,400 3,059 3,059 (5,000) 5,400 5,400 0002339 MANAGEMENT BUSINESS EXPENSE 300 - - 300 300 0002355 PERSONAL MILEAGE 2,000 491 491 (1,000) 1,000 1,000 0002360 UTILITIES - - - - - TOTAL SERVICES AND SUPPLIES 285,565 174,146 206,247 (53,065) 232,500 232,500

9200 LICENSES, PERMITS & FRANCHISE 0009229 LICENSES & PERMITS-OTHER 10,000 3,400 3,400 - 10,000 17000 TOTAL LICENSES, PERMITS & FRANCHISE 10,000 3,400 3,400 - 10,000 17000

9400 REVENUE FROM USE OF MONEY/PROP 0009401 INTEREST INCOME 1,000 736 1,592 - 1,000 2000 TOTAL REVENUE FROM USE OF MONEY/PROP 1,000 736 1,592 - 1,000 2000

9500 INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES 0009511 OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 358,464 358,464 358,464 - 358,464 TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES 358,464 358,464 358,464 - 358,464

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 415,310 238,239 TOTAL REVENUES 369,464 362,600 - NET COUNTY COST 45,846 (124,361)

740 Fund Balance from FY 2015-2016 $ 11,976.50 730 General Reserve Account $ 83,102.00 Salary Projection - Executive Officer Based on 3-1-17 start date or 88 work days, 704 total Hours

Acct # Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5

Total Sal Hourly Rate $ 52.00 $ 54.60 $ 57.33 $ 60.19 $ 63.21 Longevity 10 years $ 1.30 $ 1.37 $ 1.43 $ 1.50 $ 1.58 Total Sal Hourly 1110 $ 53.30 $ 55.97 $ 58.76 $ 61.69 $ 64.79 Total Sal 704 hours 1110 $ 37,523.20 $ 39,399.36 $ 41,369.33 $ 43,433.10 $ 45,612.34

Total Ben CalPERS 1210 $ 3,736.94 $ 3,923.78 $ 4,119.97 $ 4,325.50 $ 4,542.53 Classic Member (12.429% - 2.47% EE paid Enhancement) Def Comp 1212 $ 45.00 $ 45.00 $ 45.00 $ 45.00 $ 45.00 ($5 x 9 payperiods) Medical 1230 $ 3,915.00 $ 3,915.00 $ 3,915.00 $ 3,915.00 $ 3,915.00 75% of Kaiser Family Rate ($1907*75%), minus MEC ($125) begin April 1 Dental 1260 $ 100.70 $ 100.70 $ 100.70 $ 100.70 $ 100.70 Eligible following 3 months of cont service (used Family Rate) Vision 1231 $ 12.20 $ 12.20 $ 12.20 $ 12.20 $ 12.20 Eligible following 3 months of cont service (used Family Rate) Life 1290 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Eligible following 6 months of cont service LTD 1241 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Eligible following 6 months of cont service S. Sec 1220 $ 105.00 $ 105.00 $ 105.00 $ 105.00 $ 105.00 Used current employee rate Health Sav 1270 $ 1,492.40 $ 1,567.02 $ 1,645.37 $ 1,727.45 $ 1,814.13 Prorated, (9 PP = 35% of 80 hours) Total Ben 9,407 9,669 9,943 10,231 10,535

Total Sal/Ben 46,930 49,068 51,313 53,664 56,147

2250 Vendor Date Amount Total by Vendor Mulberg 8/4/2016 $ 9,700.00 9/12/2016 $ 10,950.00 10/6/2016 $ 7,000.00 11/1/2016 $ 10,100.00 12/6/2016 $ 9,450.00 1/18/2017 $ 11,000.00 $ 58,200.00 Browne 8/2/2017 $ 1,750.00 8/25/2017 $ 1,762.40 12/6/2017 $ 5,250.00 1/18/2017 $ 1,750.00 $ 10,512.40 Others 8/16/2017 $ 1,035.00 10/26/2017 $ 350.00 1/24/2017 $ 437.50 $ 1,822.50 Per Diem Jul-Jan $ 3,800.00 $ 3,800.00

Actuals as of Jan 24 $ 74,334.90

Chamberlain Jan-April $ 35,000.00 Browne Jan-Jun $ 12,350.00 Website Jan-Jun $ 400.00 Per Diem Jan-Jun $ 5,000.00 Office Help Jan-Jun $ 2,500.00

Projection sum $ 55,250.00 Actuals plus projection $ 129,584.90

Working Budget Actuals+projection Balance $ 154,300.00 $ 129,584.90 $ 24,715.10 Agenda Item 7E Staff Draft

Solano Local Agency Formation Commission • 675 Texas St. Ste. 6700 Fairfield, California 94533 (707) 439-3897 • FAX: (707) 438-1788

Date: Commission Meeting of February 27, 2017

To: Commissioners and Alternates

From: Roseanne Chamberlain, Executive Officer

Subject: Revisions to the Reserves Policies

RECOMMENDATION

The Executive Officer recommends the Commission revise its policies for reserve accounts as attached.

BACKGROUND

The wording of the current policies for reserves could be subject to interpretation and misunderstanding by the county auditor’s staff, the funding agencies or others.

LAFCO does not have an account to allow for building a reserve fund for potential legal defense.

DISCUSSION

The attached draft policies provide a clearer statement about the existing contingency reserve fund, without substantially changing the commission’s intent for the reserves. A new statement is added to acknowledge the fund balance account and clarify the commission’s exclusive discretion to use fund balance.

These policy concepts were discussed with Simona Padilla-Sholtens, Solano County Auditor, and were reviewed by the Finance Committee at their meeting of February 10, 2017. The Finance committee changes are reflected in the attached draft policies.

Attachments: Draft Reserve Policies

Agenda Item 7E Staff Draft

Solano LAFCO Reserves Policy Adopted June 14, 2010 Amended June 8, 2015 PROPOSED AMENDMENT FEBRURARY 27, 2017

GENERAL POLICY

It is the policy of the Commission to carry out its responsibilities by prudently planning ahead for economic downturns and unforeseen costs through its budgetary process.

RESERVES

A. The Commission maintains a contingency reserve fund of not less than 20 percent of annual budgeted expenditures in any given year. This fund is intended for extraordinary, unbudgeted, and high priority expenditures authorized by the commission. Transfers from the contingency reserve fund require a budget amendment approved by the commission with four (4) affirmative votes.

B. Fund balance amounts remaining after the close of the fiscal year may be appropriated by LAFCO into the budget of a future year at the discretion of the Commission.

C. The commission may appropriate revenue to establish and maintain a legal defense reserve fund to minimize the cost impact of litigation on the funding cities and the county in any given fiscal year. The Commission may use fund balance, general reserves above the 20% minimum, or other sources of revenue to fund its legal defense reserve. Agenda Item 7F

Solano Local Agency Formation Commission • 675 Texas St. Ste. 6700 Fairfield, California 94533 (707) 439-3897 • FAX: (707) 438-1788

Date: Commission Meeting of February 27, 2017

To: Commissioners and Alternates

From: Roseanne Chamberlain, Executive Officer

Subject: Increase in Salary Schedule for Future Executive Officer

RECOMMENDATION

The Personnel Committee recommends an increase in the top step of the Executive Officer pay scale to $140,000/year.

BACKGROUND

The Commission is continuing its efforts to recruit and hire a permanent Executive Officer. Members of the Personnel Committee discussed the potential need to increase the top step of the salary scale to $140,000. The current pay range is $108,154 to $131,462, excluding benefits.

DISCUSSION

Members of the Personnel Committee have reviewed applications which may show that some applicants have income requirements above the current pay scale. The higher salary range will potentially enhance negotiations with any candidates in the current group of applications and may attract additional candidates to the position if a new recruitment effort is launched.

Attachments: none

Agenda Item 7G Staff Draft

Solano Local Agency Formation Commission • 675 Texas St. Ste. 6700 Fairfield, California 94533 (707) 439-3897 • FAX: (707) 438-1788

Date: Commission Meeting of February 27, 2017

To: Commissioners and Alternates

From: Roseanne Chamberlain, Executive Officer

Subject: Rotation of Officers (Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson)

RECOMMENDATION

The Executive Officer recommends that the Commission consider a rotation of its Officers, allowing city, county or public members to serve as Chairperson of the Commission. If the commission chooses to establish a rotation of officers, the Executive Officer recommends that the rotation begin and end at the first meeting of each year, and the Bylaws be modified to reflect the desired changes.

BACKGROUND

Under the statutes and bylaws, the Commission has latitude to elect any member to serve as an officer. By general convention, however, the Public Member was elected and re-elected to serve as the Chairman for years. The Bylaws specify that the “Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson shall be elected by the members of the Commission from among their membership at the first meeting of June…”. Solano LAFCo has experienced remarkable stability among its members.

The Public Member Alternate, Nancy Shopay was elected Chairperson through the first meeting of June 2017 or until the appointment of a Public Member. Commissioner Spering suggested to the Personnel Committee that the Commission might consider a rotation of its officers.

DISCUSSION

Appointments to LAFCO typically occur at the beginning of the calendar year, along with other appointing actions taken by the city selection committee and the Board of Supervisors. Elsewhere on this agenda the Commission will consider shifting the 4-year terms of office to coincide with the calendar year. It seems consistent to also change the election of officers to the same time frame. Commissioners Harry Price, Vice-Chair • Pete Sanchez • Jim Spering • John Vasquez Alternate Commissioners Len Augustine • Nancy Shopay, Chair • Skip Thomson Staff Roseanne Chamberlain, Interim Executive Officer • Michelle McIntyre, Analyst • P. Scott Browne, Legal Counsel

Agenda Item 7H Staff Draft

Solano Local Agency Formation Commission • 675 Texas St. Ste. 6700 Fairfield, California 94533 (707) 439-3897 • FAX: (707) 438-1788

Date: Commission Meeting of February 27, 2017

To: Commissioners and Alternates

From: Roseanne Chamberlain, Executive Officer

Subject: Change the Date for Commissioner Terms

RECOMMENDATION

The Executive Officer recommends the terms for LAFCo Commissioners end in January, i.e. the first Monday of January, to allow for appointments to coordinate with the calendar year and with city and county appointment actions; and the Bylaws be modified to reflect the desired changes.

BACKGROUND

LAFCo terms are four years. Government Code §56334 states, in part, “The expiration date of the term of office of each member shall be the first Monday in May in the year in which the term of the member expires, unless procedures adopted by the commission specify an alternate date to apply uniformly to all members”.

County representatives to LAFCO are reviewed and appointed/reappointed in January each year. Most other appointments made by cities and the county have terms that begin and end at the beginning of the year. Government Code §56334 allows LAFCo to set the terms of office to an alternate date, which can coincide with these other appointments. All commissioners serve until the appointment and qualification of his or her successor.

DISCUSSION

There was informal consensus among personnel committee members that shifting term dates to the beginning of the year would simplify coordination with other agencies. The May appointment date appears to be unique to LAFCO and could be inconvenient or confusing for other appointing authorities. In addition, terms will be easier to track when they follow the calendar year. Commissioners Harry Price, Vice-Chair • Pete Sanchez • Jim Spering • John Vasquez Alternate Commissioners Len Augustine • Nancy Shopay, Chair • Skip Thomson Staff Roseanne Chamberlain, Interim Executive Officer • Michelle McIntyre, Analyst • P. Scott Browne, Legal Counsel

Agenda Item 7I Staff Draft

Solano Local Agency Formation Commission • 675 Texas St. Ste. 6700 Fairfield, California 94533 (707) 439-3897 • FAX: (707) 438-1788

Date: Commission Meeting of February 27, 2017

To: Commissioners and Alternates

From: Roseanne Chamberlain, Executive Officer

Subject: Commissioner Signature Authority

RECOMMENDATION

Modify the Bylaws to clearly designate additional signers for LAFCo financial documents in the absence of the Chairperson. The Executive Officer recommends that the Vice Chair and one other commissioner, perhaps a county member, be authorized to sign in the absence of the Chairperson.

BACKGROUND

The Bylaws address the duties of the Chairperson and designate a Vice Chair who assumes the duties of the Chairperson in his or her absence. There are also provisions for a Chairman Pro Tem. The intent appears to specifically apply to the conduct of meetings and any actions taken by LAFCo at those meetings. In other procedures for handling financial documents, the Chairperson alone is designated as having signature authority for financial matters (contracts greater than $10,000, signing off on the Executive Officer’s invoice, etc.).

DISCUSSION

It is reasonable to assume that the Chairperson, under unusual circumstances, might not always be available for a timely signature. The bylaws do not clearly indicate that the Vice Chair or any another commissioner is authorized to sign. Designating the Vice Chair and one other signer, preferably a county member of LAFCo would prevent delay and increase convenience when the Chairperson is otherwise unable to sign.

Attachments: none

Agenda Item 7J Staff Draft

Staff Report

DATE: February 27, 2017

TO: Local Agency Formation Commission

FROM: Michelle McIntyre, Analyst

SUBJECT: Change Commission Meeting Time

RECOMMENDATION:

Change the Commission’s meeting times to begin at 10:00 am.

BACKGROUND:

The Bylaws provide for LAFCO meetings to begin at 10:00 AM. On June 13, 2016 the Commission adopted the meeting schedule for fiscal year 2016/2017. At that time, the Commission voted to meet at 1:30 p.m. on the second non-holiday Monday in February, April, June, August, October, and December. However, several Commissioners have since expressed a desire to revert to the 10:00 a.m. meeting times pursuant to the Bylaws.

Staff request approval to change the meeting times to 10:00 am. This will affect the remaining 2016 scheduled Commission meetings which are April 10 and June 12, 2016.

Attachment: None

Agenda Item 7K Staff Draft

Solano Local Agency Formation Commission • 675 Texas St. Ste. 6700 Fairfield, California 94533 (707) 439-3897 • FAX: (707) 438-1788

Date: Commission Meeting of February 27, 2017

To: Commissioners and Alternates

From: Roseanne Chamberlain, Executive Officer

Subject: Conflict of Interest Code

RECOMMENDATION

The Executive Officer recommends the Commission approve previous changes to the Conflict of Interest Code, reaffirm the Conflict of Interest Code as attached, and direct staff to file the reviewed Conflict of Interest Code with the Registrar of Voters.

BACKGROUND

The Registrar of Voters receives and retains the LAFCo Form 700s and related conflict of interest materials on behalf of LAFCo. Commissioners, the Executive Officer, and Analyst are required to file conflict of interest statements, since all participate in the LAFCO decision-making process. Others, such as contractors, who may make recommendations to the Commission may also be required to file. The records suggest that the most recent review and update of the Conflict of Interest Code for LAFCO was in 2008, however a biennial review is needed by the Registrar of Voters office.

DISCUSSION

The Conflict of Interest Code is not substantively out of date but the review should be formalized by a commission action and the update filed with the Registrar of Voters.

Attachments: Conflict of Interest Code, including Exhibit A

Agenda Item 7K Staff Draft

Solano Local Agency Formation Commission 675 Texas St. Ste. 6700 • Fairfield, California 94533 • (707) 439-3897 FAX: (707) 438-1788

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF SOLANO COUNTY

The Political Reform Act, Government Code Section 8000, et seq., requires state and local government agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict of interest codes.

The Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a regulation, 2 California Code of Regulations, Section 18730, which contains the terms of a standard conflict of interest code.

It can be incorporated by reference and may be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission after public notice and hearings to conform to amendments in the Political Reform Act.

Therefore, the terms of 2 California Code of Regulations, Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission are hereby incorporated by reference and, along with the attached Exhibits in which members and employees are designated and disclosure categories are set forth, constitute the conflict of interest code of the agency named above.

All designated positions required to submit a statement of financial interests shall file the disclosure statement with the agency who will make the statements available for public inspection and reproduction. (Government Code Section 8008).

Upon receipt of the statements the agency shall make and retain a copy thereof and shall forward the original of these statements to the Solano County Elections Department, Attention: Statement of Economic Interests filing officer.

Review Date: February 27, 2017

Agenda Item 7K Staff Draft Local Agency Formation Commission of Solano County

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE

EXHIBIT A --DESIGNATED POSITIONS

Position Disclosure Category LAFCO Commissioner 1,2,3,4 Alternate Commissioner 1,2,3,4 Executive Officer 1,2,3,4 Policy Analyst 1,2,3,4 Commission Clerk, When Utilized 1 Clerical Support Staff, When Utilized none

Consultants, When Utilized 1,2,3,4, subject to contract terms

Agenda Item 7K Staff Draft

Local Agency Formation Commission of Solano County

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE

EXHIBIT B -- DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES

1. Income: A payment received, including but not limited to any salary, wage, advance, dividend, interest, rent, proceeds from any sale, gift, including any gift of food or beverage, loan forgiveness or payment of indebtedness received by the filer.

2. Interests in Real Property: Any leasehold, beneficial or ownership interest or an option to acquire such an interest in real property located in the jurisdiction owned directly, . indirectly or beneficially by the filer or his or her immediate family if the fair market value of the interests is $1,000 or more.

3. Investment: Any financial interest in or security issued by a business entity, including but not limited to common stock, preferred stock, rights, warrants, options, debt instruments and any partnership or other ownership interest owned directly, indirectly or beneficially by the filer or his or her immediate family, if the business entity or any parent, subsidiary, or otherwise related business entity is located in the jurisdiction, has an interest in real property in the jurisdiction, or does business or plans to do business in the jurisdiction , or has done business within the jurisdiction at any time during the two years prior to the time any statement or other action is required.

4. Investments or Positions in a Business Entity: Investments or positions held in any organization or enterprise operated for profit, including but not limited to a proprietorship, partnership, firm, business trust, joint venture, syndicate, corporation or association.

Agenda Item 7L

Solano Local Agency Formation Commission • 675 Texas St. Ste. 6700 Fairfield, California 94533 (707) 439-3897 • FAX: (707) 438-1788

Date: Commission Meeting of February 27, 2017

To: Commissioners and Alternates

From: Roseanne Chamberlain, Executive Officer

Subject: Executive Officer’s Report

______

RECOMMENDATION: Receive the Report.

It hardly seems like 7 weeks have passed since I started with Solano LAFCo. In addition to the items contained in this meeting packet, my activities and accomplishments of these weeks are listed below.

• Reviewed policies, contracts, bylaws, memorandum of understanding, standards and procedures, including office operations and project procedures. Annotated all for possible revisions and future updates. • Identified the need for AB-8 resolutions for all future boundary changes related to districts under Revenue & Taxation Code 99 • Established a comfortable working relationship with Bernadette Curry, Deputy County Counsel assigned to special districts • Met with Simona Padilla Scholtens, County Auditor; identifed needed policy clarifications (contained elsewhere on this agenda) and improvements for clarity in wording of the MOUs between LAFCo and auditor and LAFCo and the county • Established a comfortable working relationship with Michelle Hepner, the county’s intergovernmental liaison • Reviewed and sorted “working files” left by Elliot Mulberg (estimated total 5 record boxes) • Reviewed records and record management needs

Agenda Item 7L

• Assisted Michelle McIntyre with the completion of the first independent audit of LAFCo financial statement, reviewed various financial procedures to understand LAFCo’s financial processes, and received documents from Simona Padilla Scholtens, County Auditor, to establish the audit trail for fund balance reduction in FY 14-15 • Supported committee meetings for Legislation, Personnel, and Finance with Michelle McIntyre’s assistance • Reviewed and comprehensively edited two MSRs, contained elsewhere on this agenda • Met twice with Marc Fox to support the Personnel Committee’s recruitment efforts; compiled a table of applications received from county HR; noted that the current LAFCo positions remain on the county’s personnel allocation and requested HR remove those listings • Placed the county recruitment for EO on the CALAFCO website, circulated the job opening to UC Davis Extension, Sac State MPA & alumni list serve, UC Davis alumni list serve. Made numerous personal contacts (phone & email) to recruit eligible candidates • Received and initiated a response to a public records act request by Kemble, for documents and electronic communications related to Middle Green Valley and Woodcreek 66. • Secured copies of court documents/complaint from Jim Laughlin, deputy county counsel, pertaining to the county’s Woodcreek 66 litigation for Scott Browne, LAFCo legal counsel • Completed the filings for cemetery District name change. Assisted in review of process for reduction in number of board positions for cemetery district. • Met Matt Walsh and reviewed documents for proposed county park & open space district in support of the legislation committee • Reviewed and explained application requirements and standards to the applicants for RD 2034 Detachment, LAFCo Project 2016-03 to ensure completion of their application • Introduced myself to the regional Planner’s meeting group • Established a comfortable working relationship with Michelle McIntyre, including personal encouragement for her efforts to complete her Master’s thesis

Solano Local Agency Formation Commission 675 Texas St. Ste. 6700  Fairfield, California 94533 (707) 439-3897  FAX: (707) 438-1788

Date: February 8, 2017

To: Simona Padilla Sholtens, Solano County Auditor‐Controller

From: Roseanne Chamberlain, Executive Officer

Subject: Audit Trail ‐ Auditor’s Apportionment Under Government Code §56381

Thank you for coming by on Monday February 6th, to discuss my need to document the July 2014 adjustment/reduction in the cities and county apportionment of LAFCo revenues. The information is needed for LAFCo’s audit of fiscal year 2014‐15.

As you know, LAFCo is completing its first independent audit with James Marta & Company. Our auditor, Mario da Costa requested documentation for the difference between the amount budgeted by LAFCO and the amount apportioned and billed to the agencies under Government Code §56381. LAFCo had insufficient documentation of this action to establish an audit trail showing the change in revenues. The documents in your files provide the needed information.

I also appreciate your willingness to “cc” LAFCo each year in the future when you prepare the apportionment calculations and send invoices to the agencies for the LAFCo budget. This simple communication from you will ensure that we minimize future misunderstandings.

As a result of our discussion, I also plan to propose a minor modification to the LAFCo Reserves policies to clarify the nature of our reserve accounts. I appreciate your thoughts about structuring those accounts. We will also evaluate the possibility of appropriating reserves and fund balance for specific purposes such as a legal defense reserve fund.

I look forward to working with you and your staff and I appreciate all the help provided to LAFCo by your staff so we could complete our financial audit this year.

Commissioners Harry Price, Vice‐Chair Pete Sanchez  Jim Spering  John Vasquez Alternate Commissioners Len Augustine  Nancy Shopay, Chair  Skip Thomson Staff Roseanne Chamberlain, Interim Executive Officer  Michelle McIntyre, Analyst P. Scott Browne, Legal Counsel

Solano Local Agency Formation Commission 675 Texas St. Ste. 6700  Fairfield, California 94533 (707) 439-3897  FAX: (707) 438-1788

Date: February 17, 2017

To: Marc Fox, Director of Human Resources

From: Roseanne Chamberlain, Executive Officer

Subject: County Personnel Allocation Correction

______

Thank you for your efforts and those of your staff to help LAFCo with the first phase of our recruitment for a permanent Executive Officer. The commission and I appreciate the work done on behalf of LAFCo.

As we discussed when we met recently, I am concerned that two LAFCo positions remain on the County’s Personnel Allocation and appear in that list as county employees. I appreciate your explanation that this is merely a hold-over from years ago and has no significance to the County’s relationship to LAFCo. Unfortunately, I believe that this error creates a misunderstanding among the public, county staff, and the unions. It is foreseeable that two non-county LAFCo positions listed as county employees could create some untoward consequences for the County and for LAFCo in the future.

You indicated that the unions need to be consulted for changes to the county’s personnel allocation list. I will be happy to meet with union representatives or others to help explain and correct the error. Please let me know the best way to proceed.