LAKE COUNTY >> With a relieved round of applause, two years of work on the Lake County Watershed Protection District’s municipal service review came to its conclusion on Thursday afternoon.
The county’s Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) adopted the district’s first municipal service review (MSR) with a handful of adjustments offered by county administration and subsequently the review’s advisory committee.
Previously, the county had requested more time to review the MSR before its adoption at LAFCo’s previous meeting in November. Dec. 11 they offered their comments, which were then further adjusted by the review committee consisting of Betsy Cawn, Mike Dunlap, Maurice Taylor and Suzanne Lyons.
LAFCo Chair Stacey Mattina seemed intent upon moving the final review process along and keeping the couple of dozen attendees focused on the task at hand. A few newcomers were a little too late in offering their comments.
And for the most part, there was little contention about the final adjustments, despite a few quippy remarks between commission and committee members.
Comparing LAFCo’s draft of the MSR and the county’s changes, in general the county administration’s adjustments softened the criticism cast upon the district, especially in regards to its lack of financial transparency.
The county’s change that drew the most focus concerned the Clean Water Program (CWP) Advisory Council.
With a joint powers agreement between the county and the cities, the Clean Water Program, managed by the Watershed Protection District (WPD), is responsible for overseeing the county’s compliance with its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit for preventing water pollution.
The Advisory Council is supposed to meet quarterly, as specified in the council’s bylaws. However, the council has not met since September 2013.
In the county’s requested changes to the WPD’s review, it noted that an update to permit requirements have specified implementation measures to the extent that “there has not been a need for Advisory Council meetings.”
Lyons and Cawn argued Thursday one of the JPA members couldn’t simply declare meetings of the CWP Advisory Council were not needed. They argued in favor of adding two paragraphs to the section recommending review of the responsibilities of the multi-jurisdictional Advisory Council and urging the WPD’s Board of Directors to review the council’s duties and bylaws.
Water Resources Director Scott De Leon objected to the notion that the county was trying to get rid of or stop meetings of the Advisory Council. He instead pointed to the fact that the state hasn’t given clear direction on how to implement the updated version of the NPDES permit.
“It’s being inferred that we don’t know what we’re doing so we need to meet to figure out what we’re doing and I don’t think that’s correct,” he said. “Because it’s (the permit requirements) a moving target, we haven’t had those meetings.”
With agreement that the two paragraphs suggested by the MSR committee be added, the meeting briefly touched on the importance of the CWP Advisory Council’s meetings and annual reports. It moved to add a paragraph under the review’s findings that would encourage the CWP to begin meeting again.
Also under its findings, a graph concerning the WPD’s current lack of a comprehensive and independent audit promoted another round of discussion about the district’s financial transparency.
District 3 Supervisor Denise Rushing once again argued the district’s one page in the county’s comprehensive audit was satisfactory and suggested the county “could produce a little report of the Watershed Protection District” by separating the district’s audit information under a separate cover “for the public to see.”
Cawn argued separating the small amount of information in its own gold-plated binder wouldn’t help explain the district’s regulatory requirements, its costs of delivering services, a long-term budget for future its requirements or the its assets and liabilities.
The spat was quickly over at Mattina’s suggestion to keep moving forward.
With a handful of other wording and grammatical changes, the commission took their vote to adopt the 41-page MSR.
Two years of hard work by the reviewA committee, which was now free to disband, earned the commission’s gratitude.
The next tasks on the commission’s plate will be the city of Clearlake’s review and the county’s five fire protection districts’ review.
Within the next fiscal year, the commission will also have to begin work on reevaluating the WPD’s sphere of influence, which outlines the district’s geographical limits of its service areas. The district’s sphere was adopted in 1985 and extends to the county lines, according to LAFCo Executive Officer John Benoit.
A LOOK AT THE FINAL MSR
MSRs allow local agency formation commissions to study a district’s existing and future public services and ensure those services are provided efficiently.
Although the county’s WPD was not required to undergo a review of its services as it is a dependent district of the county, “the district chose to forego exemption in the hopes that a review would provide a useful tool as it considers future service structure and needs,” according to the MSR.
Indeed, with the lack of general understanding of what services the district provides and the county’s desire to levy taxes for the lake to be managed by the district, the MSR could also serve as a valuable tool for the district.
The MSR outlines the district’s primary goal in protecting the county’s watersheds and provides information on state and federal environmental regulations that fall under the district’s umbrella of responsibilities.
The WPD’s responsibilities include “Clear Lake as a public trust asset”; protecting groundwater resources; administration of aquatic plant management and invasive species prevention and management of the county’s Clean Water Program.
Since 2010, the district as a whole has fallen under the responsibility of the county’s Department of Water Resources; De Leon currently manages the district and about 7 of his staff also work for the district.
The overlap of the department and district in part convolutes the amount of financial resources used by the district. However, the district is in part funded by general property tax revenue while funds for special studies have come through state or federal grants.
The district has delegated money to be spent on flood corridor management and flood zone maintenance, drainage planning for communities, keeping up with water quality compliance, watershed support programs and the operation of the Highland Springs recreational area.
It also is responsible for maintaining 11 miles of levees and 13 miles of creeks and drainage ditches. It owns thousands acres of property in the Adobe Creek Watershed and around Highland Creek and Middle Creek.
It’s annual revenue is estimated to be around $2 million.
In its findings, LAFCo gives a number of recommendations to the district.
It advises the district of the importance of participating in planning processes and coordination of efforts at city, county and regional levels; that the district should complete enabling tasks such as adopting operational bylaws and policies; provide greater outreach with stakeholder groups and develop a strategic plan to guide its efforts.
Additionally, finding a new and consistent revenue source is advised as many of the district’s projects are on hold due to a lack of funding. Conducting budgets and audits of the district is also encouraged to enhance understanding of the district.
The district is described as appearing “generally” accountable, although LAFCo proposes making available a list of the district’s services, among other suggestions. It’s viability of forming the WPD into an independent district should also be considered with a study, the MSR states.
For those interested, a copy of the WPD’s review can be viewed at www.lakelafco.org.
