Draft Scope of Services
Municipal Service Review
Western Nevada County
Wastewater Service
I.
Definition of the Municipal Service Review
Nevada LAFCo will conduct a Municipal Service Review of wastewater services as
provided in the western portion of Nevada County and portions of Placer County. The
Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act (California Government Code Section 56430) requires the
Commission to complete this study to develop baseline information for updating spheres
of influence. The statute sets forth the form and content of the report, which must inform
the Commission’s determinations on the following nine issues:
1. Infrastructure needs or deficiencies
2. Growth and population projections for the affected area
3. Financing constraints and opportunities
4. Cost avoidance opportunities
5. Opportunities for rate restructuring
6. Opportunities for shared facilities
7. Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of
consolidation or reorganization of service providers
8. Evaluation of management efficiencies
9. Local accountability and governance.
The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has prepared draft guidelines for
conducting these studies, which should be reviewed and utilized when practical.
II.
Identification of Service Providers
Within the geographic area targeted for review (see map included as Exhibit 1), the
following agencies provide wastewater service:
 City of Grass Valley
 City of Nevada City
 County Sanitation District
 Kingsbury Greens Community Services District
 Donner Summit Public Utility District
Additionally, several mobile home parks in the County utilize community sewage systems, under discharge permits issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
III.
Local Context/Issues Identification
The region chosen for study includes the cities of Grass Valley (population of 12,000)
and Nevada City (population 3,050) as well as the communities of Alta Sierra, Lake of
the Pines, Lake Wildwood, Penn Valley, Soda Springs, and portions of Placer County
1
served by the Donner Summit Public Utility District. The majority of Nevada County
population resides in the unincorporated area.
Wastewater service in the study area is provided by the above public agencies, although
the balance of the unincorporated area is served by private septic systems. The City of
Grass Valley operates a treatment plant and provides service in the City and in the Glenbrook Basin, an unincorporated area within the City’s sphere scheduled for annexation
within the next five years. The City of Nevada City provides collection and treatment
within the City, as well as to selected parcels outside the City. The Donner Summit Public Utility District operates a treatment plant serving the Soda Springs community; it also
serves the neighboring Serene Lakes development in Placer County through a service
agreement with Sierra Lakes County Water District. The County Sanitation District
provides service within nine zones scattered throughout western Nevada County.
Kingsbury Greens Community Services District provides collection and treatment to a
forty-five-unit condominium complex in southern Nevada County. Finally, County
Service Areas 21 and 24 (Zone 1) are authorized to provide wastewater service but do not
currently do so.
Important considerations:
IV.

Recent changes in Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements continue to
require costly improvements to all wastewater treatment discharge systems. Financing these improvements will present continuing difficulties for agencies with small
customer bases.

The Donner Summit Public Utility District treatment plant is presently at capacity,
and the District is negotiating an agreement with Sierra Lakes County Water District
regarding expansion of the facility.

Several communities in the study area consist of small-lot subdivisions approved in
the 1960s and 70s on private septic systems. The County has not yet undertaken a
comprehensive study of these areas to determine whether they are experiencing an
accelerated rate of septic system failure or whether the dense clustering of these small
systems has any impact on groundwater quality.

Assembly Bill 885, recently adopted, will result in adoption of regulations and standards for permitting and operation of private on-site sewage disposal systems.
Service Review Objectives and Guidelines
Nevada LAFCo is committed to conducting municipal service reviews in a fair, accurate
and objective manner. Also, the Commission wishes to provide effective and meaningful
opportunities for public participation in the review process. The attached Procedural
Guidelines for MSRs (Exhibit 2) reflect the Commission’s approach to service reviews.
V.
Work Plan
A. Process: At a minimum, preparation of the service review will include the following
steps, although other activities may be necessary:
1. Data collection and interviews with key staff and board members. (Refer to the
Final Draft Municipal Services Review Guidelines available at the OPR website.)
2. Consultant’s independent verification of submitted data
3. Analysis of data and preparation of preliminary findings
2
4. Presentation of preliminary findings to key agency and LAFCo staff
5. Preparation of draft Municipal Services Report
6. Presentation of draft report to LAFCo Commission prior to its public release
7. Publication and public release of the draft report; this will begin the public
comment period
8. Preparation of final draft, including responses to comments and recommended
determinations for each of the nine factors and responses to comments
9. Presentation of final report to Commission at public hearing
10. Commission’s adoption of report and determinations
B. Data: To the extent appropriate, research for preparation of the service review should
include the following sources and subjects. LAFCo will be developing a dynamic
population and development pattern model in consultation with the County, cities,
and the Nevada County Transportation Commission, which will be available to the
consultant for use in the service review. Other information will be specific to the
agencies affected by the service review.




























Principal acts
General plans/zoning ordinances
Recent and proposed projects
Master service plans
Agency maps
District/city policies
Board, management and administrative manuals/procedures
Existing spheres of influence
Demographic information
Projected growth
Communities of interest
Regional agencies providing support
Criteria/best practices as used by appropriate industry groups
Capital improvement plans
Existing operating/capital improvement budgets
Environmental impact reports, if applicable and/or available
Existing joint agreements and contracts
Water source, storage, conveyance, treatment and distribution capacity
information
Infrastructure map
Current and planned financing plans for service upgrades and capacity
improvements
Agency bond ratings
Agency investment policies, if applicable
Joint financing/shared facilities
Agency budgets and financial reports, including revenue sources and
expenditures
District cost avoidance practices
Insurance
Customer needs and preferences
Per unit service cost
3


















VI.
Competitive bid policies
Comparable rate information
Current organizational chart
Mission statement
Continuing education/training
Staffing levels
Opportunity for customer comments
Available revenues
Amounts and types of reserves
Adopted policies for reserves
Asset disposition plan
AB 8 share/Gann limit
Surplus property policies
Board policies and practices
Days/hours of operation
Annual reports/status reports
Newsletters
Voter participation
Outline for the Service Review Report
The Municipal Service Review must include data and analysis upon which the Commission’s determinations on the items required by Section 56430 of the Government Code
can be based. The recommended format for the MSR includes the following sections:
1.
Executive Summary
1.1. LAFCo’s Responsibilities, Spheres of Influence and Municipal Service
Reviews
1.2. Summary of Significant Issues and Conclusions
1.3. Description of Public Participation Process
2.
Setting
2.1. Description of Existing Services and Providers
2.2. Service Areas and Spheres of Influence
2.3. Present Levels of Service
2.4. Present Rates
2.5. Infrastructure/Facilities/Personnel Deployment
2.6. Significant Issues
3.
Growth and Population
3.1. Present and Projected Service Population over 20 Year Timeframe
3.2. Land Use and Significant Growth Areas
4.
Infrastructure
4.1. Capacity Analysis
4.1.1. Sufficiency for Present and Projected Need
4.1.2. Adequacy to Meet Current and Known Future State and Federal
Requirements
4.2. Age and Condition of Facilities
4.3. Plans for Expansion/Upgrades
4.4. Reserve Capacity
4
5.
Financing Constraints and Opportunities
5.1. Finance Plans
5.2. Bond Rating
5.3. Joint Finance Projects
5.4. Revenue Sources
6.
Cost Avoidance Opportunities
6.1. Current Practices
6.2. Overlapping Services
6.3. Transfer of Costs to Public
6.4. Inter-Agency Cooperation
7.
Rate Restructuring
7.1. Current Rate Structure Basis
7.1.1. Tax Revenues/Service Ratio
7.1.2. Rates/Service Ratio
7.2. Assessment/Fee Districts
7.3. Rate Comparisons
8.
Opportunities for Shared Facilities
8.1. Currently Shared Resources, Facilities, Personnel, and Systems
8.2. Opportunities for Expanded Sharing
9.
Government Structure Options
9.1. Review of Alternatives
9.1.1. Formation and Reorganization of New Agencies
9.1.2. Private Sector Opportunities
9.2. Previous Restructuring Efforts
9.3. Opportunities for and Obstacles to Restructuring
10.
Evaluation of Management Efficiencies
10.1. Review of Current Management Structure
10.2. Interdepartmental Relations, Communication, and Coordination
10.3. Inter-Agency Relations, Communication, and Coordination
11.
Local Accountability and Governance
11.1. Governing Body Selection Process and Participation Levels
11.2. Public Access and Interest
11.3. Budget Process
Exhibits:
1 Map of Designated Study Area
2 Municipal Service Reviews Preliminary Guidelines
5