Appendix A COMMENTS ON
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
MSR AND RESPONSES
TO COMMENTS
APPENDI
XA:COMMENTS ON PUBLIC REVIEW DRAF
T
MSRANDRESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Thisȱ appendixȱ containsȱ w rittenȱ andȱ oralȱ com m entsȱ andȱ responsesȱ toȱ com m entsȱ onȱ theȱ Publicȱ R eview ȱ
D raftȱM SR .ȱȱȱ
Theȱfollow ingȱcom m entsȱw ereȱsubm ittedȱonȱtheȱD raftȱM SR :ȱ
Ŷ
ButteȱC ountyȱA dm inistrationȱ(letterȱdatedȱSeptem berȱ7,ȱ2006)ȱ
Ŷ
ButteȱLA FC O ȱPublicȱH earingȱ(Septem berȱ11,ȱ2006)ȱ
Eachȱcom m entȱw ithinȱtheȱButteȱC ountyȱA dm inistrationȱletterȱ(denotedȱ“BC ”)ȱhasȱbeenȱgivenȱaȱnum ber.ȱȱ
C om m entsȱ receivedȱ duringȱ theȱ Butteȱ LA FC O ȱ publicȱ hearingȱ heldȱ onȱ Septem berȱ 11,ȱ 2006,ȱ areȱ denotedȱ
w ithȱtheȱletterȱ“L”.ȱȱȱ
R esponsesȱ areȱ num beredȱ soȱ thatȱ theyȱ correspondȱ toȱ theȱ appropriateȱ com m ent.ȱȱ Forȱ exam ple,ȱ theȱ firstȱ
com m entȱ onȱ theȱ Butteȱ C ountyȱ A dm inistrationȱ com m entȱ letterȱ “BC ”ȱ isȱ num beredȱ BC Ȭ1.ȱȱ W hereȱ
appropriate,ȱresponsesȱareȱcrossȬreferenced.ȱ
M u n i c i p a l ȱ Servi c eȱ R evi ew ȱ
P :\P rojec tsȱȬȱ W P ȱ O n l y\51061.00ȱ C h i c oȱ M S R \Fi n a l ȱ M S R \A p p en d i xȱ A .d oc ȱ
ȱ
1
BUTTE COUNTY ADM INISTRATION
M EM BERSOF THE BOARD
25COUNTY CENTER DRIVE
OROVILLE,CALIFORNIA 95965-3380
Telephone:(530) 538-7631 Fax:(530) 538-7120
PAUL M CINTOSH
Chief Administrative Officer
BILL CONNELLY
JANE DOLAN
M ARY ANNE HOUX
CURT JOSIASSEN
KIM K.YAM AGUCHI
September 7, 2006
Steve Lucas, Executive Officer
Butte Local AgencyFormation Commission
1453 Downer Street, Suite C
Oroville, CA 95965-4950
RE:
DRAFT M unicipal Service Review – Cityof Chico
Dear M r. Lucas:
Pursuant to Government Code Section 56430, the Butte Local AgencyFormation Commission
has prepared a Draft M unicipal Service Review for the Cityof Chico. The Countyof Butte
(“County”) submits the followingcomments, based on staff review of the document. The
Countylooks forward to havingits concerns addressed.
Chapter 2 – INTRODUCTION
Figure 2-2 – Cityof Chico M unicipal Review Incorporated and Unincorporated Areas The map reflects that there will be an island created around E. Eaton Road, south to E.
Lassen Avenue, which seems odd.
BC-1
x
Land Use Inventory– page 2-11 Is it anticipated that the list of targeted annexation areas greater than 100acres be annexed
prior to 1/07?
BC-2
x
Page 2.1, Section 2.2. The studyblends analysis of the existingSOIwith specific
information from the Northwest Chico Specific Plan that requires an SOIexpansion. It is
difficult to distinguish between the two in the bodyof this document. As a result, it is
difficult to determine how much of the document is analyzingthe potential expansion and
how much of the document assumes the expansion.
x
x
Pg2-2 W hat are the demand or unit count assumptions for the Unincorporated Area, Butte
County? This section discusses the capacityof the reference proj
ect areas in relationship to
meetingthe RHAPallotment for the 2001-2008timeframe. There is no further discussion
that relates this number to the purpose of the M SR and, for example, Table 3-1 on page 3-2
BC-3
BC-4
that shows projections to 2025 or the statement on page 3-3 that the City estimates a
population of 13,000 more persons that BCAG’s estimates.
x
Section 2.3.3 Study Areas on page 2-11. Figure 2.2 cuts of parts of the SOI boundary. This
figure should be revised to include the full extent of the SOI boundary to avoid any confusion
about the study area. It is not always clear in the document when the existing SOI boundary
is being studied and when the SOI boundary plus the Northwest Chico Specific Plan is being
studied.
BC-4
(con't.)
BC-5
Chapter 3 – GROW TH AND POPULATION
x
x
x
x
Growth projections included in the document analyze the residential expectations yet there is
little or no analysis of the industrial and commercial projects and need for infrastructure.
This is important as the document indicates that Chico has an estimated 46 percent of the
Butte County jobs. Table 3-1 indicates a 2.3 percent growth rate of employment in the City.
There is no description of the infrastructure necessary to support the job creation related to
commercial and industrial growth.
Page 3-3, Determination 3-3. How was this determination made with the preceding
discussion of Section 3.2? This reveals a gross density of 2.68 units per acre with a 2.27
persons per household rate.
BC-6
BC-7
Page 3-3, Determination 3-4: How was this determination made out of the preceding
discussion in section 3.2 “Growth Plan”? What is the boundary of the area referenced in this
determination? Is this area in the MSR study area?
BC-8
Section 3.3 discusses the residential land use and supply without a discussion of the
unincorporated areas within the City SOI.
BC-9
Chapter 4– INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES
Secti
on 4.1 – W ater
x
Page 4.1-5 Paragraph 2 “Special precautions must be taken to prevent groundwater
contamination from any development in the foothills.”
BC-10
This is a significant concern. Specific implementation criteria should be developed to ensure
that impacts upon development are necessary and appropriate.
x
Page 4.1.5 indicates that Figure 4.1.2 ”shows the area of” (nitrate) “concern throughout the
city”. Figure 4.1.2 appears to delineate proposed project areas for sewer extension, and does
not include areas of elevated nitrate concentrations located outside of planned sewer project
areas. Some sewer project areas are included because of existing high density or other
factors, and may not have elevated nitrate in groundwater
2
BC-11
x
Page 4.1-6 Paragraph 3. There are two other identified separate VOC contamination areas
that are not mentioned. So this would be more accurate to say that there are six areas of
known groundwater contamination.
VOC contamination is generally accurate but appears to omit additional VOC plumes
identified at the Pillsbury Road area (“North Valley Cleaners plume”, PCE) and at the
Speedway Ave/Hegan Lane area (TCE, responsible party not yet identified.)
BC-12
Discussion regarding groundwater quality also does not address a large plume of petroleum
contamination at the Midway/Hegan Lane Area (Jesse Lange Distributing, Kinder Morgan.)
x
Figure 4.1-2 Areas of Nitrate Concern This is an incorrect map. This map shows the areas
proposed to be sewered. The area of Nitrate Concern is much larger.
x
Page 4.1-13 PP-Implementation-28 “In unincorporated areas, require annexation to the City
as a condition of extending City Services.”
BC-13
BC-14
Exceptions are appropriate in specific circumstances. The City has extended sewer to some
parcels without requiring annexation in the case of a public health problem needing
correction. (See first paragraph on page 4.2-7).
x
Items 4.1-7 and 4.1-8 – statements seem to conflict. 4.1-7 states that water supply is
adequate to the year 2024. 4.1-8 states that production capacity is sufficient through 2015,
but only if conservation measures are continued.
BC-15
x
(page 4.1-2) What is the plan for groundwater after 2012 (which is only 6 years away)?
How is Cal Water ensuring that conservation measures are used so that the water supply is
not depleted due to the anticipated growth in the area?
BC-16
x
Figure 4.1-1 The proposed growth is outside of the Cal Water District and Sphere? Is that
boundary proposed for expansion also?
BC-17
x
Summary of Written Determinations (page 4.1-19)
Various years are mentioned as the point at which the water supply will no longer be
adequate for the residents of the area – which date is correct? 2012, 2015, 2024, or 2030?
BC-18
Page 4.1-12 discussion regarding SB 610 and 221 does not indicate if the City and related
service providers have fulfilled these requirements to date.
BC-19
x
Section 4.2 - Wastewater
x
4.2.3 Improvements
Septage (contents of septic tanks) generated from the Greater Chico Urban Area is delivered
to settling ponds at the Neal Road Landfill. These ponds are scheduled to be closed in 2014
as part of a landfill expansion. A draft Butte County Septage Management Plan (2006)
speaks to the need for the city and county to participate in development of a receiving facility
3
BC-20
and treatment for septage generated in the Greater Chico Urban Area not serviced by the
municipal sewer system.
Approximately 3 million gallons per year of septage is attributable to the Greater Chico
Urban area based on tracking systems used by local septage hauling companies.
x
Page 4.2-9 Paragraph 3 There are some inaccuracies in this paragraph.
The NCP was adopted by the Board into Ordinance BCC 19-13 on September 25, 2001.
There are details still to be agreed upon for an MOU between the County, City, and RWQCB
in order to enable implementation of the entire plan.
x
BC-21
Page 4.2-10 Demand section “By 2015, wastewater flow is expected to exceed the WPCP’s
current capacity of 9 mgd without annexation of NAP communities.”
This MSR is a preliminary step in a proposed expansion of the City of Chico’s SOI. It is
important that the City complete efforts to increase WPCP capacity, as necessary to service
areas within the current SOI that is planned to be sewered to reduce the nitrate impact on the
groundwater, and to accommodate planned future growth within the current and proposed
expanded SOI.
x
BC-20
(con't.)
(page 4.2-19)
States that the NCSP proposes to construct a Northwest trunk line to tie
into existing infrastructure, but that no funding to construct the new line has been identified.
How does this solve the wastewater problem in the NCSP?
BC-22
BC-23
Section 4.3 - Storm Drainage
County staff only had time to review Chapter 4.3 of the MSR, all other chapters affected by the
comments below should be modified by the consultant. Our comments are as follows:
x
Please provide a copy of the letter referenced in footnote 8 on page 4.3-6.
x
Page 4.3-15 paragraph 3. By agreement with the Department of Water Resources, Butte
County only maintains the Sycamore-Mud Creek-Sandy Gulch levees and structures.
Funding for this maintenance is provided by CSA 24. Butte County does not maintain flood
control channels.
BC-24
BC-25
BC-26
The Department of Water Resources is responsible for maintenance of the Sycamore-Mud
Creek-Sandy Gulch channels. The Department of Water Resources maintains the Little
Chico Creek Diversion and Butte Creek levees with funding through State Maintenance Area
5. The City of Chico and Department of Water Resources share responsibility for
maintenance of the Little Chico Creek channel.
x
Page 4.3-15 paragraph 5. Funding for CSAs 22, 23 and 25, is only for the operation and
maintenance of the facilities constructed as part of the original Assessment Districts. CSA
funding does not provide for maintenance of new, primarily subdivision related, storm
drainage facilities that connect to these original facilities.
4
BC-27
x
Page 4.3-16 paragraph 2. Suggested wording: The maintenance and repair of diversion
structures, levees, and access roads that were constructed as part of the U.S Army Corps of
Engineers Big Chico Creek, Sycamore Creek, Mud Creek, Sandy Gulch and Lindo Channel
improvement projects are funded by CSA No. 24, administered by the County Department of
Public Works. Open ditches and certain other facilities in CSAs 22, 23, and 25 are also
maintained by the County with funds generated within said CSAs.
BC-27
(con't.)
x
Page 4.3-16 last paragraph. Both the City and County are part of the NPDES Phase II permit
requirements for the Chico Urbanized Area. We have permits and have been working
cooperatively to comply with State and Federal requirements.
BC-28
x
Page 4.3-20 NCSP. The Shasta Union Drainage Assessment District (SUDAD) Channel and
all other facilities constructed by this Assessment District are maintained by CSA 25. CSA
25 only covers a small portion of the NCSP. Peak flow attenuation is a critical part of the
NCSP. There is only one drainage concept shown on Figure 6-3 of the NCSP, it does not
show any detention facilities west of Highway 99. What is the source of references to
proposed detention facilities west of Highway 99? Where is Powerline Drive?
BC-29
Will existing CSA’s administered by the County be dissolved and service provision
transferred to the City upon annexation of the planning area? When do we expect to have the
mechanism for transfer of existing funding for maintenance of CSA’s to the City in place?
BC-30
x
Section 4.4 - Roadways
x
Table 4.4-2;includes a project to install a signal on 99 at Estates Drive. This project is
complete and should be removed from list.
x
Page 4.4-11: Northwest Chico Specific Plan (NCSP). This section is somewhat confusing. It
appears the author is discussing two (2) different specific plans in the same general area. The
North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) was approved by the County and includes sections both
within the City as well as their SOI. The Northwest Chico Specific Plan (NWCSP) was
approved by the City and includes areas both in and outside the SOI. The MSR should
separate the two (2) specific plans with a detailed discussion of each.
BC-31
BC-32
x
Page 4.4-14;Should revise the TEA 21 (Transportation Equity Act… ) with the new federal
transportation Act...SAFETEA-LU.
BC-33
x
Page 4.4-15 (Determination 4.4-4) Need to explain how service levels are affected as
additional areas are annexed. i.e.. annexation in itself does not create additional traffic on
roadways.
BC-34
The City has been depending upon fund balance (page 4.4-15) for street maintenance. Fund
balance is no longer available. How will the City fund the increased need for street
maintenance and improvements?
BC-35
x
5
Section 4.5 - Police Services
x
Determination #4.5-1 that “The CPD is not meeting the [current]desired level of service.”
x
Determination #4.5-3 discusses that new development can help contribute, through fees,
towards facilities and equipment but not toward staffing.
BC-36
How will the City provide the expanded services that are necessary, given the projected deficit in
the City’s future budgets for existing services? Development won’t be funding operations,
unless the City implements CFD’s or a similar financing mechanism.
x
(page 4.5-1) Where is the Chico Police Department getting its standards (staffing goals)?
The numbers don’t seem to calculate correctly based on the population figures stated.
Section 4.6 - Fire Services
x
Determination 4.6-1 Statement does not include the fact that the Butte County Fire
Department provides the same service in the same areas. In fact, the number of responses by
Butte County Fire Department into the City of Chico is higher than the number of City
responses in the County’s jurisdiction (statistics are available from the County). The City
does not provide all these services to the sphere of influence. BCFD provides it to areas
outside the City limits. Through CUAFRA they respond to emergencies with one engine to
designated areas.
BC-37
Determination 4.6-2 What are the City’s “service” and “station” ratio’s based on? Are
these the NFPA guidelines for urban departments? NFPA 5.2.4.1 Addresses initial arriving
companies. NFPA 5.2.4.2 Addresses the full alarm. It says the Fire Department shall have the
capability to deploy an initial full alarm assignment within 8 minutes response time to 90%
of the incidents as established in NFPA Chapter 4. (I think that is 14 or 15 People) This
appears that it does not include any response from County Fire.
BC-38
Determination 4.6-3 and 4.6-4 How will the City meet the build out identified? NWCSP
description of fire services and station needs are not accurate. It seems like a very broad
statement that says we want more fire stations. North Chico Specific Plan and Chico Urban
Area Fire and Rescue plan both address cooperation and coordination that should be stated
here.
BC-39
x
Determination 4.6-5 The funding for design of Fire Station 7 is not included in fiscal year
06/07, it appears in fiscal year 07/08.
BC-40
x
Determination 4.6-6 The 06/07 RDA budget includes $4,000,000 to assist Butte County in
moving the fire stations on Fair Street (S. Chico) and north on Highway 99 (Nord) to new
sites. The $4,000,000 consists of $2,000,000 in grant funds and $2,000,000 in loan funds.
The new sites that are cited are not correct and are from a document that is more than 10
years old. The Fire Chiefs throughout jurisdictions within Butte County are in the process of
revising old plans for station location and the City and County need to discuss revising
BC-41
x
x
6
CUAFRA where station locations do not meet current needs nor do they make sense based
on planned annexations within and around the City of Chico.
BC-41
(con't.)
States that “An amendment to the Agreement (CUAFRA) to expand the service area to
include the NCSP and North Sycamore areas is currently being processed.” Not as far as the
County is aware.
BC-42
x
Statement that Stations 41 is not fully staffed is misleading. It is fully staffed for County
standards, but not City standards.
BC-43
x
NCSP calls for expansion of CUAFRA, but it has not happened to date.
x
Determination 4.6-4 – states that NCSP will have adequate fire protection once planned
facility construction and expansions are completed. Does not talk about the fact that the City
may build the new station, but does not plan on staffing it for a number of years. In other
words, it will not be operational just because it is built.
x
x
Determination 4.6-5 and 4.6-6 Information is inaccurate regarding RDA funding for Butte
County stations. There is $4 million in FY 06-07 (combination of grant and loan) to replace
two stations, not three. Stations 42 is not part of the discussion at this time. CUAFRA
requires Station 42 to remain as is until Station 7 is operational (based on City of Chico, this
may be in 2009-10). How does set-aside funding in one-budget year lead to on going
funding of operations in an additional station?
BC-44
BC-45
BC-46
x
Mutual Aid agreements – it should read that through CUAFRA that the City the single
closest engine for emergency response.
BC-47
x
Is it Chico’s position that they are the only Fire Department providing service to the sphere
of influence as well as within the City?
BC-48
x
In CUAFRA the City Fire Department responds to the River. If they will only be responding
in the sphere will the County be taking back areas outside the sphere?
BC-49
Section 4.7 - Parks and Recreation
x
No mention of the CARD parks and recreation facility fees adopted by the County, which are
different than the CARD fees adopted by the City.
x
There is a more recent nexus study, done in 2005, by EPS for CARD, for the unincorporated
areas of the District.
BC-50
BC-51
Section 4.8 - Solid Waste
x
4.8.1 and 4.8.3 Funding & Fees
BC-52
7
The City of Chico allows for approximately 20,000 tons (2005) of waste generated within the
city limits to be exported to an out-of-county landfill instead of directing the waste to the
county owned landfill (Neal Road Landfill).
In addition to funding the operation of the Neal Road landfill, landfill gate fees are used to
fund Household Hazardous Waste programs, (including the permanent facility located at the
Chico Airport), E-Waste collection from community partners in each local jurisdiction,
public education programs including schools, landfill closure activities, and landfill
environmental compliance activities. These programs benefit all county residents, but in
effect are only funded by gate fees attributable to those communities that direct their waste to
the county landfill.
BC-52
(con't.)
The City of Chico is the most populated jurisdiction in the county and historically has
contributed the majority of the waste delivered to the landfill. Closure costs realized now
result from waste delivered in previous years. Closure expenses are in part funded by gate
fees of waste delivered now.
Funding requirements will certainly increase in the future. Should the City of Chico allow
additional waste to be exported, the current funding mechanism would be jeopardized,
placing undue pressure to increase existing gate fees beyond what would be expected in
annual cost of living adjustments.
Editorialcorrections:
x
4.8.1 Recycling
x
5th line: recyclables are not delivered to Ord Ranch Transfer Station in Gridley, Waste
Management exports to a processing facility out of the county.
BC-53
Chapter 5 – REMAINING REVIEW FACTORS
Section 5.1 - Finance Constraints and Opportunities
x
Determination 5.1-7 Doesn’t make sense. If the City already can’t afford the level of
services needed by existing residents, how will they provide the higher level? How does
adopting a balanced budget and/or reducing expenditures realize higher revenues?
BC-54
Didn’t the City Manager just do a 10-year forecast that shows budget deficits in the future if
the City doesn’t curb it’s spending or increase it’s revenues?
Sections 5.2 – 5.4 and 5.5 - Cost Avoidance Opportunities/ Opportunities for Rate
Restructuring/Opportunities for Shared Facilities/Management Efficiencies
x
Determination 5.2-2 - Examples? Where are the City and County co-located?
BC-55
x
Determination 5.2-3 and 5.3-1 The City needs to consider adopting County development
impact fees to cover impacts of development on the Sheriff, Fire, Roads, District Attorney
BC-56
8
and General County Government. Growth in Chico, without offsetting development impact
fees for County services used by City residents, will be detrimental to the County and
existing residents.
BC-56
(con't.)
Other possibilities for cost savings and cost effectiveness purposes could include: joint
dispatch for emergency services (fire, police, etc.), joint information systems project,
consolidation of public works yards; mechanical services for vehicles/equipment, etc. Some
of these joint efforts have been successful in other jurisdictions in California.
BC-57
x
Determination 5.4-3 The funding the City puts forth to extend hours at the Chico Branch of
the Butte County Library is not a subsidy; refer to revised contract language.
BC-58
x
Determination 5.4-4 It appears the planning area depends upon Butte County for some
portion of law enforcement? Will substation need to move, just as the fire stations in the
planning area are?
BC-59
Determination 5.4-5 The statement references four fire stations (two in the planning area
and two adjacent). Stations 41 and 42 are in the planning area…which two stations are
adjacent? RDA funding is to assist in relocation Stations 41 (Nord) and 44 (S. Chico), not
Station 42 or a forth station that is unidentified in the report.
BC-60
x
x
As I stated before, the County looks forward to having our questions and concerns addressed as
part of the Municipal Service Review process. If I, or my staff, can be of assistance in clarifying
items or providing accurate data please do not hesitate to call. You can reach me at 538-7224.
Respectfully,
Paul McIntosh
County Administrative Officer
9
Comment Letter BC: Butte Cou ntyAdmi
ni
s
trati
on (
September 7,2006)
CommentL
et
t
erBC:
But
t
eCount
yAdmi
ni
s
t
r
at
i
on(
Sept
ember7,2006)
„ Responset
oCommentBC1
Figureȱ2Ȭ2ȱaccuratelyȱreflectsȱanȱ“island”ȱthatȱhasȱbeenȱcreatedȱbyȱrecentȱannexationȱactivity.ȱȱ Dueȱtoȱitsȱ
sizeȱandȱtheȱtimingȱofȱitsȱcreation,ȱitȱcannotȱbeȱannexedȱunderȱspecialȱislandȱannexationȱproceedings.ȱȱ Itȱ
willȱ likelyȱ remainȱ anȱ islandȱ untilȱ theȱ areaȱ supportsȱ annexationȱ orȱ changesȱ inȱ stateȱ lawȱ enableȱ itȱ toȱ beȱ
addressedȱasȱanȱisland.ȱ
„ Responset
oCommentBC2
AtȱtheȱtimeȱtheȱdraftȱMSRȱwasȱbeingȱprepared,ȱitȱwasȱtheȱCity’sȱintentȱtoȱhaveȱfiledȱapplicationsȱforȱtheȱ
“island”ȱ annexationsȱ listedȱ priorȱ toȱ Januaryȱ 1,ȱ 2007,ȱ correspondingȱ toȱ theȱ expirationȱ ofȱ theȱ “island”ȱ
annexationȱauthorizationȱinȱstateȱlaw.ȱȱDueȱtoȱworkload,ȱotherȱpriorities,ȱandȱtheȱlikelihoodȱthatȱtheȱlawȱ
willȱ beȱ extendedȱ forȱ anotherȱ sevenȱ yearsȱ (ABȱ 2223),ȱ theȱ Cityȱ willȱ notȱ completeȱ theȱ annexationsȱ inȱ theȱ
timeframeȱspecified.ȱȱAȱrevisedȱschedule,ȱincludingȱactualȱannexationȱdistrictȱtitlesȱ(whereȱassigned),ȱhasȱ
beenȱ prepared.ȱȱ Pleaseȱ seeȱ Chapterȱ 2,ȱ Textȱ Changes,ȱ forȱ revisionsȱ toȱ Tableȱ2Ȭ2,ȱ whichȱ appearsȱ onȱ pageȱ
2Ȭ10ȱinȱtheȱDraftȱMSR.ȱ
„ Responset
oCommentBC3
Asȱstatedȱonȱpageȱ2Ȭ11ȱinȱtheȱDraftȱMSR,ȱincludingȱSectionȱ2.3.3.,ȱthreeȱotherȱmajorȱtargetedȱannexationȱ
areasȱplannedȱasȱexpansionȱareasȱforȱtheȱCityȱofȱChicoȱareȱlocatedȱinȱorȱadjacentȱtoȱtheȱCity’sȱnorthernȱ
SOI.ȱȱ These,ȱ shownȱ onȱ Figureȱ 2Ȭ2,ȱ includeȱ theȱ N orthwestȱ Chicoȱ Specificȱ Planȱ (N CSP)ȱ Area,ȱ N orthȱ
SycamoreȱArea,ȱandȱThorntreeȱArea.ȱȱ TheȱDraftȱMSRȱassumesȱtheȱthreeȱareas.ȱȱ PleaseȱseeȱalsoȱResponseȱ
toȱCommentȱBCȬ5.ȱ
ForȱtheȱInfrastructureȱN eedsȱandȱDeficienciesȱcomponentȱofȱtheȱDraftȱMSR,ȱseparateȱdeterminationsȱareȱ
madeȱforȱtheȱN orthwestȱChicoȱSpecificȱPlanȱArea.ȱ
„ Responset
oCommentBC4
TheȱCityȱofȱChicoȱMSRȱaddressesȱtheȱcharacteristicsȱofȱtheȱCity,ȱnotȱButteȱCounty.ȱȱTherefore,ȱnoȱdemandȱ
orȱunitȱcountȱassumptionsȱwereȱdevelopedȱforȱtheȱunincorporatedȱareaȱsurroundingȱtheȱCity.ȱȱ Theȱonlyȱ
reliableȱ Countyȱ growthȱ numbersȱ areȱ fromȱ theȱ annualȱ Stateȱ Departmentȱ ofȱ Financeȱ estimatesȱ forȱ theȱ
entireȱunincorporatedȱarea.ȱȱPleaseȱseeȱalsoȱResponseȱtoȱCommentȱBCȬ9ȱregardingȱtheȱRegionalȱHousingȱ
AllocationȱPlanȱ(RHAP)ȱallotment.ȱ
Tableȱ3Ȭ1ȱwasȱdevelopedȱandȱadoptedȱbyȱButteȱCountyȱAssociationȱofȱG overnmentsȱ(BCAG ).ȱȱTheȱCityȱofȱ
Chicoȱ Draftȱ MSRȱ simplyȱreportsȱ thatȱ agency’sȱ projections,ȱ whichȱ areȱ usedȱ inȱ determiningȱ housingȱ fairȱ
shareȱ andȱ forȱ otherȱ purposes.ȱȱ Itȱ isȱ fairȱ toȱ assumeȱ thatȱ theȱ City’sȱ 2010ȱ populationȱ willȱ exceedȱ theȱ 2010ȱ
BCAG ȱprojectionȱofȱ80,570,ȱsinceȱcurrentȱCityȱpopulationȱisȱalreadyȱinȱexcessȱofȱ82,000.ȱȱTableȱ3Ȭ2ȱclearlyȱ
identifiesȱtheȱassumptionsȱthatȱleadȱtoȱpopulationȱgrowthȱprojectionsȱidentifiedȱinȱtheȱDraftȱMSR.ȱ
„ Responset
oCommentBC5
Figureȱ2Ȭ2ȱinȱtheȱDraftȱMSRȱhasȱbeenȱrevisedȱtoȱaddȱtheȱnorthȱairportȱandȱsouthȱChicoȱSOIȱareas.ȱȱPleaseȱ
seeȱChapterȱ2,ȱTextȱChanges.ȱ
MunicipalȱServiceȱReviewȱ
P : \ P r o j e c t s ȱȬȱ W P ȱ O n l y \ 5 1 0 6 1 . 0 0 ȱ C h i c o ȱ M S R \ F i n a l ȱ M S R \ A p p e n d i x ȱ A . d o c ȱ
ȱ
3
Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
„ Response to Comment BC-6
TheȱMSRȱreliesȱonȱpopulationȱgrowth,ȱwhichȱisȱindicativeȱofȱgrowthȱtrendsȱinȱparallelȱindicatorsȱsuchȱasȱ
employment.ȱȱTheȱuseȱofȱpopulationȱgrowthȱtoȱidentifyȱservice/infrastructureȱneedsȱisȱconsistentȱwithȱtheȱ
requirementsȱ forȱ anȱ MSRȱ establishedȱ inȱ theȱ adoptedȱ MSRȱ Guidelinesȱ (Augustȱ 2003).ȱȱ Basedȱ onȱ aȱ
comprehensiveȱreviewȱofȱtheȱGuidelines,ȱwhichȱwereȱusedȱinȱtheȱpreparationȱofȱtheȱDraftȱMSR,ȱthereȱareȱ
noȱrequirementsȱforȱtheȱMSRȱtoȱaddressȱemploymentȱgrowth,ȱasȱsuggestedȱbyȱtheȱcommenter.ȱȱItȱshouldȱ
beȱ notedȱ theȱ serviceȱ andȱ infrastructureȱ projectionsȱ inȱ Chapterȱ 4ȱ inȱ theȱ Draftȱ MSRȱ doȱ accountȱ forȱ nonȬ
residentialȱgrowth.ȱȱForȱtheseȱreasons,ȱnoȱchangesȱtoȱtheȱMSRȱareȱnecessaryȱasȱaȱresultȱofȱthisȱcomment.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-7
Determinationȱ 3Ȭ3ȱ isȱ basedȱ onȱ theȱ reportȱ ofȱ completedȱ andȱ projectedȱ annexationȱ activityȱ listedȱ inȱ
Tableȱ2Ȭ2ȱinȱtheȱDraftȱMSR.ȱȱ Forȱtheȱgrossȱdensityȱandȱhouseholdȱrateȱvaluesȱprovidedȱinȱtheȱcommentȱ
letter,ȱitȱappearsȱtheȱCountyȱassumedȱallȱtheȱlandȱannexedȱorȱtoȱbeȱannexedȱisȱresidentialȱandȱdeveloped,ȱ
whichȱisȱnotȱcorrect.ȱȱȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-8
Theȱ discussionȱ inȱ Sectionȱ 3.2,ȱ Growthȱ Plan,ȱ hasȱ beenȱ supplementedȱ toȱ includeȱ informationȱ aboutȱ theȱ
physicalȱ locationȱ ofȱ growthȱ areasȱ beyondȱ theȱ City’sȱ currentȱ SOI.ȱȱ Pleaseȱ seeȱ Chapterȱ 2,ȱ Textȱ Changes.ȱȱ
TheȱareaȱaddressedȱinȱDeterminationȱ3Ȭ4ȱisȱtheȱNorthwestȱChicoȱSpecificȱPlanȱarea,ȱtheȱboundariesȱareȱ
depictedȱ inȱ Figureȱ 2Ȭ2,ȱ andȱ theȱ areaȱ isȱ addressedȱ byȱ theȱ MSR.ȱȱ Determinationȱ 3Ȭ4ȱ hasȱ beenȱ revisedȱ toȱ
provideȱmoreȱspecificityȱaboutȱtheȱNorthwestȱChicoȱSpecificȱPlan.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-9
Theȱ informationȱ providedȱ inȱ Sectionȱ 3.3,ȱ Projectȱ Absorptionȱ –ȱ Landȱ U seȱ Supplyȱ vs.ȱ Demand,ȱ isȱ basedȱ
almostȱ entirelyȱ onȱ theȱ Cityȱ ofȱ Chico’sȱ 2005ȱ Housingȱ Element,ȱ whichȱ addressesȱ landȱ withinȱ theȱ City’sȱ
sphere,ȱandȱtheȱportionȱofȱNorthwestȱChicoȱSpecificȱPlanȱareaȱoutsideȱtheȱsphere,ȱwithoutȱdistinguishingȱ
betweenȱCityȱandȱCountyȱjurisdictions.ȱȱ TheȱHousingȱElementȱconcluded,ȱandȱtheȱMSRȱincorporatesȱbyȱ
referenceȱ (seeȱ footnotesȱ 3ȱ throughȱ 6),ȱ theȱ conclusionȱ thatȱ thereȱ isȱ adequateȱ landȱ toȱ meetȱ projectedȱ
demandȱasȱdeterminedȱbyȱtheȱRegionalȱHousingȱAllocationȱPlanȱadoptedȱbyȱBCAG.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-10
Commentȱnoted.ȱȱTheȱDraftȱMSRȱreportedȱinformationȱpreviouslyȱidentifiedȱ(seeȱfootnoteȱ9).ȱȱItȱisȱnotȱtheȱ
purposeȱ ofȱ theȱ Draftȱ MSRȱ toȱ evaluateȱ theȱ environmentalȱ effectȱ ofȱ developmentȱ projects,ȱ orȱ toȱ proposeȱ
specificȱimplementationȱcriteriaȱorȱtoȱevaluateȱwhetherȱsuchȱcriteriaȱwouldȱbeȱnecessaryȱandȱappropriate.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-11
Commentȱnoted.ȱȱ Theȱtextȱonȱpageȱ4.1Ȭ5ȱandȱFigureȱ4.1Ȭ2ȱwillȱbeȱrevisedȱtoȱindicateȱareasȱtoȱbeȱseweredȱ
toȱaddressȱnitrateȱcontamination.ȱȱPleaseȱseeȱChapterȱ2,ȱTextȱChanges.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-12
Theȱ additionalȱ informationȱ providedȱ byȱ theȱ commenterȱ regardingȱ otherȱ locationsȱ withȱ groundwaterȱ
contaminationȱhasȱbeenȱaddedȱtoȱtheȱDraftȱMSRȱonȱpageȱ4.1Ȭ6.ȱȱPleaseȱseeȱChapterȱ2,ȱTextȱChanges.ȱ
4
C i t y ȱ o fȱ C h i c o ȱ
Comment Letter BC: Butte Cou nty Administra tion (September 7, 2006)
„ Response to Comment BC-13
PleaseȱseeȱResponseȱtoȱCommentȱBCȬ11.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-14
Commentȱnoted.ȱȱ TheȱCityȱofȱChicoȱParksȱandȱPublicȱServicesȱElementȱPPȬImplementationȱ28ȱlistedȱonȱ
pageȱ 4.1Ȭ13ȱ isȱ quotedȱ fromȱ theȱ City’sȱ Generalȱ Plan.ȱȱ Itȱ isȱ notȱ aȱ policy,ȱ determination,ȱ orȱ findingȱ ofȱ theȱ
DraftȱMSR.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-15
Determinationȱ 4.1Ȭ7ȱ onȱ pageȱ 4.1Ȭ17ȱ isȱ reportedȱ informationȱ presentedȱ inȱ theȱ Northwestȱ Chicoȱ Specificȱ
PlanȱEIRȱ(pleaseȱseeȱtheȱtextȱonȱtheȱpreviousȱpageȱ[pageȱ4.1Ȭ16]ȱandȱcitedȱreferences.ȱȱThisȱdeterm inationȱ
reflectsȱ averageȱ m axim um ȱ dayȱ demand.ȱȱ D eterm inationȱ 4.1Ȭ8ȱ isȱ basedȱ onȱ C alȱ W aterȱ C hicoȱ projectionsȱ
relatedȱtoȱcapaci
ty.ȱȱD eterm inationsȱ4.1Ȭ7ȱandȱ4..1Ȭ8ȱhaveȱbeenȱrevisedȱtoȱprovideȱm oreȱconsistencyȱinȱtheȱ
conclusionsȱregardingȱw aterȱavailability.ȱȱPleaseȱseeȱC hapterȱ2,ȱTextȱC hanges.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-16
Theȱ inform ationȱ presentedȱ onȱ pageȱ 4.1Ȭ15ȱ inȱ theȱ D raftȱ MSR ,ȱ w hichȱ isȱ assum edȱ toȱ beȱ theȱ focusȱ ofȱ thisȱ
com m ent,ȱ relatesȱ toȱ projectedȱ changesȱ inȱ groundw aterȱ elevationsȱ identifiedȱ inȱ theȱ Groundw aterȱ
R esourcesȱ A nalysisȱ (seeȱ footnoteȱ 28).ȱȱ Theȱ conclusionsȱ ofȱ theȱ Groundw aterȱ R esourcesȱ A nalysisȱ doȱ notȱ
predictȱ depletionȱ ofȱ w aterȱ supply,ȱ asȱ suggestedȱ byȱ theȱ com m ent.ȱȱ Theȱ sourceȱ docum entsȱ forȱ theȱ
availabilityȱ ofȱ w aterȱ toȱ m eetȱ futureȱ grow thȱ inȱ theȱ C hicoȱ SO Iȱ areȱ theȱ U rbanȱ W aterȱ Managem entȱ Planȱ
preparedȱ byȱ theȱ w aterȱ provider,ȱ C alȱ W aterȱ C hico,ȱ andȱ theȱ C ity’sȱ MSR ȱ forȱ dom esticȱ w aterȱ andȱ
w astew ater.ȱȱTheseȱdocum entsȱw ereȱm adeȱavailableȱtoȱC ountyȱstaffȱforȱreview ȱandȱcom m entȱduringȱtheirȱ
preparationȱandȱadoptionȱhearings.ȱȱȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-17
Theȱ C alȱ W aterȱ C hicoȱ serviceȱ areaȱ andȱ sphereȱ areȱ determ inedȱ underȱ theȱ Publicȱ U tilityȱ codes,ȱ notȱ localȱ
authority.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-18
Theȱ D raftȱ MSR ȱ hasȱ reportedȱ dataȱ from ȱ variousȱ sourcesȱ asȱ toȱ theȱ availabilityȱ ofȱ w aterȱ throughȱ certainȱ
tim efram es.ȱȱTheȱreferenceȱdocum entsȱforȱtheȱavailabilityȱofȱw aterȱtoȱm eetȱprojectedȱdem andȱareȱtheȱC alȱ
W aterȱC hicoȱU rbanȱW aterȱManagem entȱPlanȱandȱtheȱD om esticȱW aterȱandȱW astew aterȱServicesȱMSR ȱforȱ
theȱC ityȱofȱC hico.ȱȱ Studiesȱpreparedȱinȱsupportȱofȱthoseȱdocum entsȱpresentȱdifferentȱperiodsȱforȱw aterȱ
supply/dem and,ȱ suchȱ asȱ thoseȱ listedȱ byȱ theȱ com m enter,ȱ dependingȱ onȱ theȱ natureȱ andȱ purposeȱ ofȱ theȱ
study.ȱȱ Itȱ shouldȱ beȱ notedȱ thatȱ anȱ MSR ȱ needȱ onlyȱ lookȱ forw ardȱ fiveȱ yearsȱ (pleaseȱ seeȱ pageȱ 2Ȭ1).ȱȱ
Therefore,ȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱthisȱD raftȱMSR ,ȱallȱofȱtheȱstudiesȱconcludeȱanȱadequateȱw aterȱsupplyȱthroughȱ
2011.ȱȱ C om m entsȱ directedȱ toȱ theȱ validityȱ ofȱ theȱ tim efram esȱ establishedȱ inȱ theseȱ otherȱ studiesȱ andȱ
docum entsȱareȱm oreȱappropriatelyȱdirectedȱtoȱthoseȱstudiesȱand/orȱtheȱw aterȱprovider,ȱinȱthisȱcase,ȱC alȱ
W aterȱC hico.ȱ
MunicipalȱServiceȱReviewȱ
P : \ P r o j e c t s ȱȬȱ W P ȱ O n l y \ 5 1 0 6 1 . 0 0 ȱ C h i c o ȱ M S R \ F i n a l ȱ M S R \ A p p e n d i x ȱ A . d o c ȱ
ȱ
5
Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
„ Response to Comment BC-19
Commentȱ noted.ȱȱ Theȱ Draftȱ MSRȱ identifiesȱ theȱ regulatoryȱ settingȱ thatȱ affectsȱ theȱ serviceȱ (waterȱ inȱ thisȱ
case),ȱ notȱ anȱ evaluationȱ ofȱ theȱ agency’sȱ compliance.ȱȱ Theȱ Cityȱ isȱ awareȱ ofȱ theseȱ requirementsȱ andȱ
compliesȱthroughȱprojectȱandȱGeneralȱPlanȱapprovalȱprocesses.ȱȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-20
Commentȱ noted.ȱȱ Theȱ informationȱ providedȱ inȱ theȱ commentȱ regardingȱ theȱ landfillȱ hasȱ beenȱ addedȱ toȱ
pageȱ4.8Ȭ4ȱinȱSectionȱ4.8,ȱSolidȱWaste.ȱȱPleaseȱseeȱChapterȱ2,ȱTextȱChanges.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-21
Commentȱnoted.ȱȱTheȱtextȱinȱtheȱDraftȱMSRȱhasȱbeenȱcorrected.ȱȱPleaseȱseeȱChapterȱ2,ȱTextȱChanges.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-22
Theȱ“Improvements”ȱsubsectionȱbeginningȱonȱpageȱ4.2Ȭ10ȱinȱtheȱDraftȱMSRȱidentifiesȱtheȱCity’sȱscheduleȱ
toȱ bringȱtheȱ plantȱ capacityȱ toȱ 12ȱmgdȱ byȱ2008,ȱ andȱ 15ȱ mgdȱ byȱ 2014,ȱ providingȱ capacityȱ forȱ urbanȱ areaȱ
buildoutȱ andȱ N itrateȱ Actionȱ Planȱ (N AP)ȱ communities.ȱȱ Theȱ longȬtermȱ projectedȱ wastewaterȱ generationȱ
(Tableȱ4.2Ȭ3ȱonȱpageȱ4.2Ȭ10)ȱindicatesȱthatȱbyȱ2025,ȱtheȱplantȱcapacityȱwillȱbeȱexceededȱbyȱ0.2ȱmgd,ȱwellȱ
beyondȱtheȱfiveȬyearȱhorizonȱofȱtheȱMSR,ȱandȱwouldȱassumeȱthatȱnoȱadditionalȱcapacityȱupgradesȱwereȱ
completedȱbeyondȱtheȱ2014ȱimprovements.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-23
TheȱportionȱofȱtheȱtrunkȱlineȱwithinȱtheȱN orthwestȱChicoȱSpecificȱPlanȱareaȱwillȱbeȱconstructedȱasȱpartȱofȱ
theȱindividualȱdevelopmentȱprojectsȱproposedȱwithinȱtheȱarea,ȱbutȱtheȱlineȱwillȱnotȱextendȱtoȱtheȱWaterȱ
PollutionȱControlȱPlant.ȱȱRather,ȱaȱmainȱwillȱconnectȱthisȱareaȱtoȱtheȱexistingȱN orthwestȱChicoȱliftȱstation,ȱ
whichȱisȱbeingȱupgradedȱtoȱhaveȱadequateȱpumpingȱandȱlineȱcapacityȱtoȱserveȱtheȱarea.ȱȱ Becauseȱofȱtheȱ
costȱ ofȱ theȱ completeȱ N orthwestȱ Trunkȱ Sewerȱ extendingȱ toȱ theȱ treatmentȱ plantȱ onȱ Riverȱ Roadȱ andȱ theȱ
extentȱ ofȱ theȱ areaȱ toȱ beȱ served,ȱ itȱ isȱ likelyȱ thatȱ aȱ specialȱ financingȱ mechanism,ȱ suchȱ asȱ anȱ assessmentȱ
district,ȱwillȱbeȱrequiredȱtoȱfundȱthisȱconstructionȱproject.ȱȱTheȱlastȱparagraphȱonȱpageȱ4.2Ȭ12ȱinȱtheȱDraftȱ
MSRȱhasȱbeenȱrevisedȱtoȱincorporateȱthisȱinformation.ȱȱPleaseȱseeȱChapterȱ2,ȱTextȱChanges.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-24
Commentȱnoted.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-25
Aȱ copyȱ ofȱ theȱ letterȱ referencedȱ inȱ footnoteȱ 8ȱ onȱ pageȱ 4.3Ȭ6ȱ inȱ theȱ Draftȱ MSRȱ wasȱ providedȱ toȱ Butteȱ
CountyȱonȱSeptemberȱ19,ȱ2006.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-26
Commentȱnoted.ȱȱTheȱsecondȱfullȱparagraphȱonȱpageȱ4.3Ȭ15ȱinȱtheȱDraftȱMSRȱhasȱbeenȱrevisedȱtoȱclarifyȱ
maintenanceȱresponsibilities.ȱȱPleaseȱseeȱChapterȱ2,ȱTextȱChanges.ȱ
6
C i t y ȱ ofȱ C hi coȱ
Comment Letter BC: Butte Cou ntyAdmi
ni
stra ti
on (
September 7,2006)
„ Response to Comment BC-27
Commentȱnoted.ȱȱ Theȱtextȱonȱpagesȱ4.3Ȭ15ȱandȱ4.3Ȭ16ȱdescribingȱfundingȱsourcesȱandȱresponsibilitiesȱinȱ
CSAsȱ No.ȱ 22,ȱ 23,ȱ andȱ 25,ȱ andȱ U.S.ȱ Armyȱ Corpsȱ ofȱ EngineerȬconstructedȱ projectsȱ andȱ fundingȱ inȱ CSAȱ
No.24ȱhasȱbeenȱrevisedȱasȱsuggestedȱbyȱtheȱcommenter.ȱȱPleaseȱseeȱChapterȱ2,ȱTextȱChanges.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-28
Theȱ secondȱ sentenceȱ inȱ theȱ thirdȱ paragraphȱ underȱ theȱ “Nationalȱ Pollutantȱ Dischargeȱ Eliminationȱ
System”ȱsubheadingȱonȱpageȱ4.3Ȭ16ȱinȱtheȱDraftȱMSRȱnotesȱthatȱButteȱCountyȱisȱrequiredȱtoȱcomplyȱwithȱ
theȱ NDPESȱPhaseȱIIȱMS4ȱ permittingȱ requirements.ȱȱ Aȱ statementȱ hasȱbeenȱ addedȱ toȱ theȱ textȱ toȱ indicateȱ
thatȱ bothȱ theȱ Cityȱ andȱ Countyȱ areȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ NPDESȱ Phaseȱ IIȱ permitȱ requirementsȱ forȱ theȱ Chicoȱ
Urbanizedȱ Area,ȱ andȱ thatȱ theȱ twoȱ jurisdictionsȱ areȱ permittedȱ andȱ haveȱ beenȱ workingȱ cooperativelyȱ toȱ
complyȱwithȱstateȱandȱfederalȱrequirements.ȱȱPleaseȱseeȱChapterȱ2,ȱTextȱChanges.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-29
Twoȱalternativesȱforȱstormȱdrainageȱdetentionȱwestȱofȱtheȱfreeway,ȱsizedȱtoȱattenuateȱpeakȱflowsȱtoȱratesȱ
atȱ orȱ belowȱ thatȱ anticipatedȱ inȱ theȱ designȱ ofȱ theȱ Shastaȱ Unionȱ Drainageȱ Assessmentȱ Districtȱ (SUDAD)ȱ
system,ȱ areȱ describedȱ onȱ pagesȱ 105ȱ throughȱ 107ȱ ofȱ theȱ Northwestȱ Chicoȱ Specificȱ Planȱ (NCSP)ȱ andȱ
depictedȱonȱFiguresȱ8Ȭ4ȱandȱ8Ȭ5ȱinȱthatȱdocument.ȱȱTheȱdetentionȱlocationsȱareȱalsoȱdepictedȱonȱtheȱNCSPȱ
Illustrativeȱ Plan,ȱ Figureȱ 4Ȭ1.ȱȱ Powerlineȱ Driveȱ isȱ anȱ internalȱ collectorȱ street,ȱ runningȱ northȱ andȱ south,ȱ
parallelȱwithȱanȱexistingȱpowerlineȱeasementȱcrossingȱtheȱspecificȱplanȱarea.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-30
Butteȱ LAFCOȱ hasȱ suggestedȱ thatȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ CSAsȱ shouldȱ beȱ dissolvedȱ withȱ theȱ Cityȱ assumingȱ
maintenanceȱresponsibility,ȱandȱtheȱDraftȱMSRȱechoesȱthisȱpositionȱasȱaȱdetermination.ȱȱ TheȱMSRȱscopeȱ
doesȱ notȱ extendȱ toȱ timingȱ andȱ identifyingȱ theȱ mechanismȱ toȱ implementȱ transferȱ ofȱ CSAȱ responsibilityȱ
andȱ assets.ȱȱ Thatȱ remainsȱ upȱ toȱ theȱ affectedȱ agencies,ȱ and,ȱ despiteȱ theȱ LAFCOȱ correspondenceȱ
recommendingȱ initiationȱ ofȱ discussionȱ toȱ moveȱ inȱ thisȱ directionȱ (seeȱ Responseȱ toȱ Commentȱ BCȬ25),ȱ
neitherȱagencyȱhasȱtakenȱstepsȱtoȱmoveȱforward.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-31
Commentȱnoted.ȱȱ Tableȱ4.4Ȭ2ȱonȱpageȱ4.4Ȭ11ȱinȱtheȱDraftȱMSRȱhasȱbeenȱamendedȱtoȱdeleteȱtheȱreferenceȱ
toȱaȱsignalȱatȱEstatesȱDriveȱandȱH ighwayȱ99.ȱȱThisȱprojectȱhasȱbeenȱcompleted.ȱȱPleaseȱseeȱChapterȱ2,ȱTextȱ
Changes.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-32
Theȱcommenterȱisȱcorrect.ȱȱ Theȱreferenceȱinȱtheȱthirdȱparagraphȱonȱpageȱ4.4Ȭ11ȱtoȱH icksȱLaneȱwideningȱ
andȱ theȱ “V illageȱ Core”ȱ comesȱ fromȱ theȱ Northȱ Chicoȱ Specificȱ Planȱ preparedȱ andȱ adoptedȱ byȱ Butteȱ
County.ȱȱAȱbriefȱdescriptionȱofȱtheȱNorthȱChicoȱSpecificȱPlan,ȱdistinguishingȱitȱfromȱtheȱNorthwestȱChicoȱ
Specificȱ Plan,ȱ hasȱ beenȱ addedȱ toȱ theȱ Draftȱ MSRȱ inȱ responseȱ toȱ Countyȱ commentsȱ regardingȱ
Determinationȱ 3Ȭ4,ȱ pageȱ 3Ȭ3.ȱȱ Theȱ Northȱ Chicoȱ Specificȱ Planȱ isȱ notȱ discussedȱ inȱ detailȱ inȱ otherȱ
assessmentsȱofȱinfrastructureȱandȱservices,ȱandȱitȱwouldȱbeȱinconsistentȱtoȱdoȱsoȱforȱjustȱroadways.ȱ
M u n i c i p a l ȱ Servi c eȱ R evi ew ȱ
P :\P ro jec t sȱȬȱ W P ȱ O n l y \51061.00ȱ C h i c o ȱ M S R \Fi n a l ȱ M S R \A p p en d i xȱ A .d o c ȱ
ȱ
7
Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
„ Response to Comment BC-33
Commentȱnoted.ȱȱ TheȱreferencesȱtoȱtheȱTEAȱ21ȱonȱpagesȱ4.4Ȭ14ȱandȱ4.4Ȭ15ȱinȱtheȱDraftȱMSRȱhaveȱbeenȱ
correctedȱasȱsuggestedȱbyȱtheȱcommenter.ȱȱPleaseȱseeȱChapterȱ2,ȱTextȱChanges.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-34
Determinationȱ 4.4Ȭ4ȱ doesȱ notȱ referȱ toȱ levelȱ ofȱ serviceȱ forȱ describingȱ trafficȱ volumeȱ capacity,ȱ butȱ ratherȱ
maintenanceȱserviceȱlevels.ȱȱ AsȱadditionalȱroadwaysȱareȱaddedȱtoȱtheȱCity’sȱmaintenanceȱresponsibilityȱ
throughȱ annexation,ȱ serviceȱ levelsȱ areȱ adverselyȱ affectedȱ toȱ theȱ degreeȱ proportionateȱ increasesȱ inȱ
resourcesȱareȱnotȱallocated.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-35
Theȱinformationȱpresentedȱinȱtheȱsecondȱparagraphȱunderȱ“FundingȱConstraints”ȱandȱDeterminationȱ4.4Ȭ
5ȱonȱpageȱ4.4Ȭ15ȱinȱtheȱDraftȱMSRȱreflectsȱtheȱlossȱofȱoneȱfundingȱsourceȱforȱstreetȱmaintenance;ȱtheȱfirstȱ
paragraphȱdescribesȱmultipleȱsourcesȱthatȱfundȱstreetȱmaintenanceȱandȱmajorȱroadwayȱimprovements.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-36
Commentȱ noted.ȱ Theȱ determinationȱ acknowledgesȱ thatȱ staffingȱ isȱ notȱ paidȱforȱ byȱdevelopmentȱ impactȱ
fees,ȱ butȱ ratherȱ fromȱ theȱ Generalȱ Fund.ȱȱ Theȱ discussionȱ ofȱ fundingȱ forȱ publicȱ safetyȱ inȱ theȱ Draftȱ MSRȱ
(Policeȱ Servicesȱ onȱ pageȱ 4.5Ȭ2ȱ andȱ Fireȱ Servicesȱ onȱ pageȱ 4.6Ȭ5)ȱ reflectsȱ theȱ factȱ thatȱ theȱ majorityȱ ofȱ thisȱ
fundingȱ comesȱ fromȱ theȱ City’sȱ Generalȱ Fund.ȱȱ Absentȱ aȱ specialȱ taxȱ levyȱ dedicatedȱ toȱ publicȱ safetyȱ
servicesȱ(requiringȱvoterȱapproval),ȱthereȱisȱnoȱfundingȱdedicatedȱexclusivelyȱtoȱtheseȱservices.ȱȱ Asȱpartȱ
ofȱtheȱbiannualȱbudgetȱprocess,ȱasȱwellȱasȱperiodicȱbudgetȱstatusȱreviews,ȱtheȱadequacyȱofȱfundingȱforȱ
theseȱ servicesȱ isȱ examinedȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ overallȱ Cityȱ resourcesȱ andȱ priorities.ȱȱ Historically,ȱ theseȱ
servicesȱhaveȱreceivedȱadequateȱfundingȱforȱstaffingȱandȱphysicalȱassets.ȱȱȱ
Projectedȱ deficitsȱ forȱ futureȱ budgetȱ yearsȱ areȱ aȱ fiscalȱ planningȱ toolȱ toȱ emphasizeȱ longȬtermȱ financialȱ
commitmentsȱ inȱ lightȱ ofȱ onȬgoingȱ obligationsȱ andȱ priorities.ȱȱ Byȱ law,ȱ theȱ Cityȱ mustȱ adoptȱ aȱ balancedȱ
budgetȱandȱitȱdoesȱso.ȱȱResourcesȱareȱallocatedȱtoȱdifferentȱservicesȱbasedȱonȱresourcesȱandȱpriorities.ȱ
Theȱ informationȱ inȱtheȱ firstȱ twoȱ paragraphsȱ onȱ pageȱ 4.5Ȭ1ȱinȱ Sectionȱ 4.5,ȱ Policeȱ Services,ȱ comesȱ fromȱ aȱ
varietyȱofȱsourcesȱ(seeȱfootnotes)ȱandȱdoesȱnotȱnecessarilyȱrepresentȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱperiodȱorȱconsistentȱ
applicationȱ ofȱ terminologyȱ andȱ goals.ȱȱ Theȱ importantȱ considerationȱ isȱ theȱ determinationȱ thatȱ staffingȱ
goalsȱ(notȱstandards)ȱareȱnotȱcurrentlyȱbeingȱmet,ȱandȱpoliceȱstaffingȱandȱotherȱresourcesȱareȱevaluatedȱ
regularlyȱthroughȱtheȱCityȱbudgetȱprocess.ȱȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-37
TheȱChicoȱFireȱDepartmentȱhasȱlegalȱjurisdictionȱoverȱtheȱincorporatedȱportionȱofȱtheȱUrbanȱArea,ȱandȱ
theȱ Butteȱ Countyȱ Fireȱ Departmentȱ hasȱ legalȱ jurisdictionȱ overȱ theȱ unincorporatedȱ area.ȱȱ Theȱ
unincorporatedȱportionȱofȱtheȱUrbanȱAreaȱisȱrapidlyȱdecreasingȱasȱallȱislandsȱareȱbeingȱannexedȱintoȱtheȱ
city.ȱȱ Oneȱ provisionȱ ofȱ theȱ Chicoȱ Urbanȱ Areaȱ Fireȱ andȱ Rescueȱ Agreementȱ (CUAFRA)ȱ providesȱ forȱ
responseȱ byȱ theȱ closestȱ cityȱ orȱ countyȱ engineȱ toȱ emergenciesȱ withinȱ theȱ CUAFRAȱ serviceȱ area.ȱȱ Butteȱ
CountyȱFireȱrespondsȱtoȱcityȱemergenciesȱthatȱareȱcloserȱtoȱtheirȱtwoȱstationsȱwithinȱtheȱUrbanȱAreaȱandȱ
viceȱversa.ȱȱ SinceȱtheȱimplementationȱofȱCUAFRA,ȱtheȱnumberȱofȱcityȱcallsȱrespondedȱtoȱbyȱtheȱcountyȱ
8
CityȱofȱChicoȱ
Comment Letter BC: Butte Cou nty Administra tion (September 7, 2006)
hasȱgoneȱupȱasȱtheȱneedȱforȱtheseȱcountyȱstationsȱatȱtheirȱlongȱtimeȱtraditionalȱlocationsȱhasȱdeclined.ȱȱInȱ
summary,ȱbothȱagenciesȱcurrentlyȱhaveȱjurisdictionalȱareasȱwithinȱtheȱsphere.ȱȱCUAFRAȱdoesȱnotȱchangeȱ
theȱlocalȱjurisdiction.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-38
TheȱserviceȱmeasuresȱfoundȱinȱtheȱJanuaryȱ2005ȱChicoȱFireȱDepartmentȱStrategicȱPlanȱcomeȱfromȱmanyȱ
sourcesȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ Nationalȱ Fireȱ Protectionȱ Associationȱ (NFPA),ȱ Insuranceȱ Servicesȱ Officeȱ (ISO),ȱ
Nationalȱ Accreditation,ȱ etc.ȱȱ Theȱ serviceȱ measuresȱ areȱ designedȱ toȱ giveȱ theȱ Cityȱ Councilȱ andȱ publicȱ aȱ
snapshotȱ ofȱ theȱ qualityȱ ofȱ fireȱ servicesȱ inȱ theȱ city.ȱȱ Theȱ twoȱ mostȱ importantȱ factorsȱ areȱ ISOȱ ratingȱ andȱ
responseȱtimesȱ(seeȱpageȱ4.6Ȭ2ȱinȱtheȱDraftȱMSR).ȱȱISOȱisȱanȱindependentȱratingȱserviceȱthatȱcompletedȱitsȱ
onȬsiteȱ surveyȱ ofȱ theȱ Cityȱ inȱ 2004ȱ duringȱ whichȱ theȱ Cityȱ retainedȱ itsȱ enviableȱ ISOȱ 2ȱ designation.ȱȱ Thisȱ
providesȱpotentialȱinsuranceȱreductionsȱforȱCityȱresidentsȱoverȱunincorporatedȱresidents.ȱȱ ButteȱCountyȱ
FireȱisȱratedȱasȱanȱISOȱ4ȱinȱareasȱservedȱbyȱfireȱhydrants.ȱȱ TheyȱareȱcurrentlyȱbeingȱreȬrated.ȱȱ TheȱCityȱ
Generalȱ Planȱ targetsȱ aȱ 4Ȭminuteȱ averageȱ responseȱ (driving)ȱ timeȱ throughoutȱ theȱ city.ȱȱ Thisȱ closelyȱ
parallelsȱ theȱ NFPAȱ Standard.ȱȱ Duringȱ theȱ ISOȱ ratingȱ process,ȱ theȱ incorporatedȱ areaȱ hadȱ anȱ averageȱ
responseȱ timeȱ ofȱ 4.1ȱ minutes.ȱȱ Thisȱ includesȱ theȱ responseȱ severalȱ timesȱ aȱ dayȱ ofȱ Butteȱ Countyȱ Fireȱ
enginesȱtoȱCityȱcalls.ȱȱȱ
TheȱCityȱmeetsȱtheȱNFPAȱtargetȱofȱtheȱfirstȱalarmȱarrivingȱatȱsceneȱwithinȱ8ȱminutesȱinȱmostȱareasȱofȱtheȱ
City.ȱȱAȱCityȱfirstȱalarmȱforȱaȱconfirmedȱstructureȱfireȱincludesȱaȱChiefȱOfficer,ȱ4ȱCaptains,ȱ12ȱsuppressionȱ
personnelȱ andȱ aȱ Fireȱ Preventionȱ Officerȱ forȱ aȱ totalȱ ofȱ 18ȱ fullȱ timeȱ personnel.ȱȱ Inȱ addition,ȱ theȱ Cityȱ
volunteerȱ fireȱ companyȱ isȱ dispatched,ȱ addingȱ anȱ averageȱ ofȱ 12ȱ additionalȱ personnel.ȱȱ Thisȱ exceedsȱ theȱ
NFPAȱStandard.ȱȱIfȱaȱCountyȱfireȱengineȱwereȱcloserȱtoȱtheȱfire,ȱanȱadditionalȱtwoȱpersonnelȱwouldȱbeȱatȱ
scene.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-39
Generalȱ Planȱ buildoutȱ willȱ requireȱ constructionȱ ofȱ twoȱ newȱ fireȱ stationsȱ (#6ȱ andȱ #7),ȱ expansionȱ ofȱ oneȱ
stationȱ (#3),ȱrelocationȱ ofȱoneȱ stationȱ (#2),ȱ andȱupgradesȱtoȱ theȱ Fireȱ Trainingȱ Center.ȱȱ Theȱ expansionȱofȱ
FireȱStationȱ3ȱisȱcurrentlyȱunderȱconstruction.ȱȱ FireȱStationȱ6ȱdesignȱandȱconstructionȱisȱfullyȱfundedȱinȱ
theȱcurrentȱbudget.ȱȱFireȱStationȱ7ȱisȱincludedȱinȱtheȱCityȱ10ȬY earȱPlanȱwithȱdesignȱalreadyȱfundedȱinȱ2007ȱ
08,ȱ constructionȱ fundedȱ inȱ 2008ȱ 09,ȱ andȱ standardȱ 3ȱ personȱ staffingȱ inȱ 2009ȱ 10.ȱȱ Theȱ designȱ forȱ theȱ
expansionȱandȱrelocationȱofȱFireȱStationȱ2ȱisȱplannedȱfollowingȱcompletionȱofȱFireȱStationȱ7.ȱȱAllȱofȱtheseȱ
projectsȱareȱincludedȱinȱtheȱCityȱBudgetȱCapitalȱImprovementȱPlan,ȱNEX USȱStudy,ȱEIRȱorȱ10ȱY earȱPlan,ȱ
asȱappropriate.ȱȱ Atȱthisȱtime,ȱtheȱonlyȱprojectȱthatȱdoesȱnotȱhaveȱaȱspecificȱtimetableȱisȱtheȱFireȱTrainingȱ
Centerȱimprovements,ȱwhichȱisȱaȱ$50,000ȱupgrade.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-40
Theȱcommenterȱisȱcorrect.ȱȱTheȱfirstȱsentenceȱofȱtheȱparagraphȱunderȱ“FundingȱandȱFees”ȱȱonȱpageȱ4.6Ȭ9ȱ
inȱtheȱDraftȱMSRȱhasȱbeenȱrevisedȱtoȱindicateȱfiscalȱyearȱ2007Ȭ08ȱfundingȱinsteadȱofȱ2006Ȭ07.ȱȱ Pleaseȱseeȱ
Chapterȱ2,ȱTextȱChanges.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-41
TheȱRDAȱhasȱbudgetedȱ$4ȱmillionȱ(halfȱgrant,ȱhalfȱloan)ȱtoȱassistȱButteȱCountyȱtoȱmoveȱStationsȱ41,ȱ42,ȱ
andȱ44ȱtoȱmutuallyȱagreedȬuponȱȈidealȈȱlocations.ȱȱ Anȱinteragencyȱagreementȱtoȱimplementȱthisȱhasȱnotȱ
MunicipalȱServiceȱReviewȱ
P : \ P r o j e c t s ȱȬȱ W P ȱ O n l y \ 5 1 0 6 1 . 0 0 ȱ C h i c o ȱ M S R \ F i n a l ȱ M S R \ A p p e n d i x ȱ A . d o c ȱ
ȱ
9
Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
beenȱconsummatedȱbetweenȱtheȱparties.ȱȱ TheȱCUAFRAȱPlanȱadoptedȱbyȱtheȱBoardȱandȱCouncilȱinȱ1999ȱ
suggestedȱ locationsȱ thatȱ haveȱ sinceȱ beenȱ modifiedȱ inȱ numerousȱ documentedȱ discussionsȱ betweenȱ Cityȱ
andȱ County.ȱȱ Similarȱ discussionsȱ haveȱ takenȱ placeȱ inȱ developingȱ theȱ Countyȱ Fireȱ Chiefs’ȱ Associationȱ
Draftȱ Fireȱ andȱ Rescueȱ Plan.ȱȱ Theȱ revisedȱ recommendationȱ hasȱ beenȱ thatȱ Stationȱ 44ȱ wouldȱ moveȱ toȱ aȱ
locationȱ closerȱ toȱ Southgateȱ ratherȱ thanȱ Estatesȱ Driveȱ becauseȱ ofȱ lackȱ ofȱ availableȱ propertyȱ andȱ theȱ
locationȱofȱaȱfutureȱinterchangeȱatȱSouthgate.ȱȱ Stationȱ41,ȱbecauseȱofȱitsȱageȱandȱdangerousȱHighwayȱ99ȱ
location,ȱandȱStationȱ42ȱfromȱitsȱtemporaryȱsiteȱwouldȱmoveȱtoȱtheȱareaȱofȱK eeferȱRoadȱandȱHighwayȱ99,ȱ
possiblyȱasȱaȱtwoȬcompanyȱstation.ȱȱ TheȱCountyȱhasȱindicatedȱthatȱitȱhasȱbeenȱlookingȱforȱsitesȱatȱtheseȱ
twoȱlocations.ȱȱAȱcomponentȱofȱthisȱsolutionȱandȱinȱrecognitionȱofȱtheȱgrantȱandȱloan,ȱtheȱCountyȱwouldȱ
provideȱtheȱ1.6ȱacresȱitȱownsȱatȱHicksȱLaneȱandȱEatonȱRoadȱtoȱtheȱcityȱasȱtheȱsiteȱforȱFireȱStationȱ7.ȱ
Bothȱtheȱlastȱparagraphȱinȱtheȱ“FundingȱandȱFees”ȱsectionȱonȱpageȱ4.6Ȭ9ȱandȱDeterminationȱ4.6Ȭ6ȱhaveȱ
beenȱrevisedȱtoȱcorrectlyȱidentifyȱfundingȱallocations.ȱȱPleaseȱseeȱChapterȱ2,ȱTextȱChanges.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-42
Twoȱ Amendmentsȱ toȱ theȱ Chicoȱ Urbanȱ Areaȱ Fireȱ andȱ Rescueȱ Agreementȱ (CUAFRA),ȱȱ expandingȱ theȱ
serviceȱareaȱboundaries,ȱhaveȱbeenȱrequestedȱbyȱButteȱCountyȱFire.ȱȱTheȱAmendmentȱhasȱbeenȱapprovedȱ
asȱtoȱformȱbyȱtheȱCityȱAttorneyȱandȱisȱbeingȱreturnedȱtoȱButteȱCountyȱFireȱforȱforwardingȱtoȱtheȱBoardȱasȱ
anȱ agendaȱ item.ȱȱ Theȱ primaryȱ areaȱ beingȱ addedȱ isȱ thatȱ westȱ ofȱ theȱ airport,ȱ eastȱ ofȱ Highwayȱ 99,ȱ andȱ
boundedȱbyȱK eeferȱRoadȱonȱtheȱnorth.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-43
Theȱtextȱonȱpageȱ4.6Ȭ8ȱinȱtheȱDraftȱMSRȱregardingȱStationȱ41ȱhasȱbeenȱrevisedȱtoȱnoteȱthatȱtheȱstationȱisȱ
staffedȱtoȱCountyȱstandards,ȱbutȱoperatesȱwithȱoneȬthirdȱlessȱstaffingȱthanȱaȱCityȱengineȱandȱfrequentlyȱ
doesȱnotȱhaveȱaȱcaptainȬinȬcharge.ȱȱPleaseȱseeȱChapterȱ2,ȱTextȱChanges.ȱȱȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-44
TheȱNorthwestȱChicoȱSpecificȱPlanȱAreaȱisȱwithinȱcurrentȱChicoȱUrbanȱAreaȱFireȱandȱRescueȱAgreementȱ
(CUAFRA)ȱboundariesȱandȱrequiresȱnoȱfurtherȱaction.ȱ
ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-45
Stationȱ7ȱwillȱbeȱstaffedȱinȱ2009Ȭ10ȱpursuantȱtoȱtheȱCity’sȱ10ȬYearȱPlan,ȱNorthwestȱChicoȱSpecificȱPlanȱEIRȱ
mitigationȱrequirements,ȱandȱCityȱCouncilȱdirection.ȱȱItȱwillȱnotȱbeȱvacant.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-46
ItȱisȱcorrectȱthatȱCityȱandȱCountyȱFireȱrealizeȱthatȱtheȱStationȱ42ȱcrewȱwouldȱremainȱinȱplaceȱuntilȱStationȱ
7ȱ opensȱ inȱ 2009Ȭ10.ȱȱ Thisȱ isȱ probablyȱ aȱ mootȱ pointȱ becauseȱ theȱ constructionȱ ofȱ aȱ newȱ stationȱ forȱ theȱ
Countyȱwouldȱtakeȱthatȱlong,ȱconsideringȱaȱsiteȱhasȱnotȱyetȱbeenȱacquired.ȱ
TheȱRDAȱofferȱofȱ$4ȱmillionȱ(halfȱgrant,ȱhalfȱloan)ȱisȱdirectlyȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱmovesȱforȱStationsȱ42ȱandȱ44ȱ
fromȱ theȱ coreȱ ofȱ theȱ Urbanȱ Area,ȱ whereȱ theȱ valueȱ ofȱ theirȱ locationȱ hasȱ diminishedȱ significantly.ȱȱ
CombiningȱStationsȱ41ȱandȱ42ȱatȱtheȱnewȱnorthȱlocationȱwasȱproposedȱbyȱButteȱCountyȱFire.ȱ
10
CityȱofȱChicoȱ
Comment Letter BC: Butte Cou nty Administra tion (September 7, 2006)
Theȱ financialȱ planningȱ processesȱ forȱ theȱ cityȱ haveȱ changedȱ withȱ theȱ newȱ Cityȱ Manager.ȱȱ Theȱ financialȱ
commitmentȱtoȱstaffingȱStationȱ7ȱisȱnowȱfoundȱinȱtheȱ10ȬYearȱFinanceȱPlanȱratherȱthanȱaȱsetȬasideȱbudgetȱ
item.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-47
TheȱChicoȱUrbanȱAreaȱFireȱandȱRescueȱAgreementȱ(CUAFRA)ȱprovidesȱthatȱtheȱclosestȱengineȱresponds,ȱ
regardlessȱ ofȱ jurisdiction.ȱȱ Theȱ lastȱ paragraphȱ onȱ pageȱ 4.6Ȭ2ȱdiscussingȱ mutualȱ aidȱ hasȱ beenȱ revisedȱ toȱ
clarifyȱthis.ȱȱPleaseȱseeȱChapterȱ2,ȱTextȱChanges.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-48
Thereȱ isȱ noȱ languageȱ inȱ theȱ Draftȱ MSRȱ thatȱ statesȱ thatȱ theȱ Cityȱ ofȱ Chicoȱ isȱ theȱ onlyȱ agencyȱ withinȱ theȱ
Sphereȱ ofȱ Influenceȱ withȱ fireȱ protectionȱ jurisdiction.ȱȱ Butteȱ Countyȱ Fireȱ responsibilitiesȱ areȱ referredȱ toȱ
frequently.ȱȱUltimately,ȱtheȱpurposeȱofȱtheȱsphereȱisȱtoȱdelineateȱanȱareaȱwhereȱtheȱCityȱwouldȱbeȱableȱtoȱ
provideȱallȱnecessaryȱmunicipalȱservicesȱincludingȱfireȱprotection.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-49
Theȱ Draftȱ MSRȱ doesȱ notȱ stateȱ thatȱ theȱ Cityȱ onlyȱ respondsȱ toȱ firesȱ withinȱ theȱ Cityȱ limitsȱ orȱ Sphereȱ ofȱ
Influence.ȱȱTheȱCityȱrespondsȱautomaticallyȱtoȱChicoȱUrbanȱAreaȱFireȱandȱRescueȱAgreementȱ(CUAFRA)ȱ
areas,ȱ includingȱ theȱ Sacramentoȱ River,ȱ whichȱ areȱ outsideȱ ofȱ theseȱ boundaries.ȱȱ Theȱ Cityȱ hasȱ alsoȱ
respondedȱtoȱmutualȱaidȱrequestsȱfromȱasȱfarȱawayȱasȱtheȱMississippiȱRiver.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-50
Aȱsecondȱparagraphȱhasȱbeenȱaddedȱtoȱtheȱ“FundingȱandȱFees”ȱsubsectionȱonȱpageȱ4.7Ȭ2ȱinȱtheȱDraftȱtoȱ
describeȱ theȱ Butteȱ Countyȱ Chicoȱ Areaȱ Parksȱ andȱ Recreationȱ Districtȱ (CARD)ȱ Parksȱ andȱ Recreationȱ
FacilityȱFee.ȱȱPleaseȱseeȱChapterȱ2,ȱTextȱChanges.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-51
TheȱtextȱrevisionȱnotedȱinȱBCȬ50ȱregardingȱtheȱButteȱCountyȱCARDȱfeeȱalsoȱnotesȱtheȱ2005ȱnexusȱstudyȱ
referencedȱinȱtheȱcomment.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-52
Commentȱnoted.ȱȱTheȱCityȱhasȱconsideredȱadoptionȱofȱaȱ“FlowȱControlȱOrdinance”ȱrequiringȱdisposalȱofȱ
wasteȱ collectedȱ underȱ Cityȱ franchisesȱ toȱ beȱ disposedȱ ofȱ exclusivelyȱ atȱ theȱ Countyȱ Nealȱ Roadȱ Landfill.ȱȱ
Basedȱ onȱ anȱ opinionȱ fromȱ theȱ Cityȱ Attorney’sȱ office,ȱ itȱ wasȱ concludedȱ thatȱ suchȱ anȱ ordinanceȱ hadȱ theȱ
potentialȱtoȱexposeȱtheȱCityȱtoȱliability,ȱandȱtheȱordinanceȱwasȱnotȱpursued.ȱȱ(Aȱcopyȱofȱthatȱopinionȱwasȱ
deliveredȱtoȱtheȱCountyȱatȱtheȱtimeȱtheȱissueȱwasȱdiscussedȱinȱ2004.)ȱ
Theȱ Cityȱ isȱ notȱ opposedȱ toȱ payingȱ forȱ itsȱ shareȱ ofȱ theȱ costsȱ forȱ hazardousȱ wasteȱ andȱ otherȱ recyclingȱ
programsȱandȱlandfillȱclosureȱcosts,ȱbutȱwouldȱratherȱimplementȱthatȱfundingȱthroughȱanȱAB939/Closureȱ
administrationȱfeeȱorȱsomeȱotherȱmechanismȱthanȱdirectingȱtheȱflowȱofȱtrashȱtoȱtheȱNealȱRoadȱLandfill.ȱȱȱ
MunicipalȱServiceȱReviewȱ
P : \ P r o j e c t s ȱȬȱ W P ȱ O n l y \ 5 1 0 6 1 . 0 0 ȱ C h i c o ȱ M S R \ F i n a l ȱ M S R \ A p p e n d i x ȱ A . d o c ȱ
ȱ 11
Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
„ Response to Comment BC-53
Commentȱ noted.ȱȱ Theȱ thirdȱ sentenceȱ inȱ theȱ “Recycling”ȱ sectionȱ onȱ pageȱ 4.8Ȭ1ȱ inȱ theȱ Draftȱ MSRȱ hasȱ
amendedȱtoȱindicateȱthatȱrecyclablesȱareȱnotȱdeliveredȱtoȱtheȱOrdȱRanchȱTransferȱStationȱinȱGridley.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-54
ServicesȱprovidedȱbyȱtheȱCityȱareȱadequatelyȱfunded,ȱandȱserviceȱlevelsȱareȱappropriateȱasȱdemonstratedȱ
byȱ thisȱ MSR.ȱȱ Theȱ Cityȱ regularlyȱ reviewsȱ servicesȱ andȱ serviceȱ levelsȱ throughȱ budgetȱ adoptionȱ andȱonȬ
goingȱ statusȱ reviews.ȱȱ Theȱ 10Ȭyearȱ forecastȱ isȱ aȱ budgetȱ planningȱ toolȱ usedȱ toȱ ensureȱ thatȱ currentȱ fiscalȱ
decisionsȱareȱmadeȱinȱtheȱ contextȱ ofȱ longȬtermȱ commitments.ȱȱ Theȱ forecastȱ demonstratesȱ theȱ costsȱ ofȱ aȱ
fiscalȱdecisionȱbeyondȱtheȱcurrentȱbudgetȱperiod.ȱ
Theȱlastȱtwoȱsentencesȱonȱpagesȱ5.1Ȭ3ȱandȱ5.1Ȭ4ȱandȱDeterminationȱ5.1Ȭ7ȱonȱpageȱ5.1Ȭ5ȱinȱtheȱDraftȱMSRȱ
haveȱ beenȱ revisedȱ toȱ clarifyȱ theȱ informationȱ regardingȱ theȱ City’sȱ budget.ȱȱ Pleaseȱ seeȱ Chapterȱ 2,ȱ Textȱ
Changes.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-55
ButteȱCountyȱEnvironmentalȱHealthȱmaintainsȱanȱofficeȱandȱvehicleȱfleetȱatȱtheȱChicoȱMunicipalȱCenter,ȱ
411ȱMainȱStreet.ȱȱTheȱCountyȱBuildingȱDivisionȱhasȱmaintainedȱanȱofficeȱatȱtheȱsameȱlocationȱinȱtheȱpast.ȱȱ
CityȱmeetingȱfacilitiesȱareȱavailableȱforȱCountyȱuse.ȱȱCityȱfuelingȱfacilitiesȱhaveȱbeenȱavailableȱforȱCountyȱ
use.ȱȱ Itȱ isȱ recognizedȱ thatȱ futureȱ opportunitiesȱ mayȱ beȱ realized,ȱ asȱ envisionedȱ inȱ theȱ Municipalȱ Affairsȱ
Agreementȱ(1987).ȱȱ Determinationȱ5.2Ȭ2ȱonȱpageȱ5.2Ȭ3ȱinȱtheȱDraftȱMSRȱhasȱbeenȱrevisedȱtoȱrecommendȱ
thatȱ futureȱ collaborativeȱ efforts,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ examplesȱ listedȱ above,ȱ shouldȱ beȱ encouraged.ȱȱ Pleaseȱ seeȱ
Chapterȱ2,ȱTextȱChanges.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-56
TheȱCityȱhasȱconsideredȱtheȱCounty’sȱrequestȱtoȱadoptȱCountyȱdevelopmentȱimpactȱfeesȱtoȱcoverȱimpactsȱ
ofȱ developmentȱ onȱ theȱ Sheriff,ȱ Fire,ȱ Roads,ȱ Districtȱ Attorney,ȱ andȱ Generalȱ Countyȱ Governmentȱ inȱ theȱ
past,ȱ andȱ declinedȱ toȱ imposeȱ theseȱ developmentȱ impactȱ feesȱ onȱ Cityȱ development.ȱȱ Theȱ Countyȱ mayȱ
renewȱ thisȱ discussionȱ atȱ itsȱ option,ȱ butȱ theȱ impositionȱ ofȱȱ developmentȱ impactȱ fees,ȱ exceptȱ forȱ thoseȱ
providingȱfacilitiesȱenablingȱtheȱCityȱtoȱprovideȱservices,ȱisȱbeyondȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱDraftȱMSR.ȱ
Determinationȱ5.3Ȭ1ȱaddressesȱtheȱcostsȱtoȱprovideȱservices,ȱnotȱdevelopmentȱimpactȱfees.ȱȱToȱtheȱextentȱ
CityȱresidentsȱuseȱaȱserviceȱprovidedȱbyȱtheȱCounty,ȱtheyȱwillȱpayȱanyȱapplicableȱfeesȱorȱserviceȱcharges.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-57
TheȱCityȱisȱopenȱtoȱdiscussionȱonȱspecificȱproposalsȱrelatedȱtoȱconsolidationȱofȱservicesȱwhereinȱthereȱareȱ
efficienciesȱ andȱ savingsȱ whileȱ stillȱ maintainingȱ anȱ equalȱ orȱ betterȱ levelȱ ofȱ serviceȱ toȱ Chicoȱ citizens.ȱȱ
Internally,ȱ theȱ Cityȱ alreadyȱ operatesȱ aȱ consolidatedȱ Police/Fireȱ Dispatchȱ Centerȱ andȱ aȱ consolidatedȱ
Centralȱ Garage.ȱȱ Anotherȱ alternativeȱ thatȱ hasȱbeenȱ discussedȱ isȱ toȱ haveȱtheȱcityȱbuildȱ theȱ twoȱ newȱ fireȱ
stationsȱ andȱ thenȱ leaseȱ themȱ toȱ theȱ Countyȱ forȱ anȱ extendedȱ period.ȱȱ Thisȱ providesȱ flexibilityȱ forȱ bothȱ
agenciesȱinȱtheȱfutureȱasȱtheȱcityȱgrowsȱintoȱtheseȱareas.ȱ
PleaseȱseeȱalsoȱResponseȱtoȱCommentȱBCȬ55.ȱ
12
CityȱofȱChicoȱ
Comment Letter BC: Butte Cou nty Administra tion (September 7, 2006)
„ Response to Comment BC-58
Commentȱnoted.ȱȱTheȱCityȱofȱChicoȱallocatesȱ$157,359ȱ(inȱfiscalȱyearȱ2006/2007)ȱfromȱCityȱfundsȱtoȱButteȱ
Countyȱ forȱ theȱ soleȱ purposeȱ ofȱ increasingȱ theȱ Chicoȱ Branchȱ ofȱ theȱ Butteȱ Countyȱ Library’sȱ hoursȱ ofȱ
operationȱfromȱ35ȱhoursȱperȱweekȱtoȱ60ȱhoursȱperȱweek.ȱȱTheȱlastȱsentenceȱinȱtheȱ“Library”ȱdiscussionȱonȱ
pageȱ 5.4Ȭ2ȱ andȱ Determinationȱ 4.4Ȭ3ȱ haveȱ beenȱ revisedȱ toȱ beȱ consistentȱ withȱ theȱ contractȱ languageȱ
summarizedȱabove.ȱȱPleaseȱseeȱChapterȱ2,ȱTextȱChanges.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-59
Theȱ unincorporatedȱ portionsȱ ofȱ theȱ planningȱ areaȱ areȱ underȱ theȱ jurisdictionȱ ofȱ Butteȱ Countyȱ lawȱ
enforcement.ȱȱ Deploymentȱ ofȱ Countyȱ lawȱ enforcement,ȱ includingȱ sitingȱ ofȱ facilities,ȱ isȱ solelyȱ aȱ Countyȱ
decision.ȱ
„ Response to Comment BC-60
Theȱ twoȱ stationsȱ withinȱ theȱ planningȱ areaȱ thatȱ areȱ specificallyȱ tiedȱ toȱ theȱ $4ȱ millionȱ forȱ relocationȱ areȱ
Stationsȱ42ȱandȱ44.ȱȱTheȱtwoȱstationsȱadjacentȱto,ȱbutȱoutsideȱtheȱplanningȱarea,ȱareȱStationsȱ41ȱandȱ45.ȱȱAsȱ
statedȱinȱtheȱdiscussionȱofȱFireȱServicesȱ(Sectionȱ4.6ȱinȱtheȱDraftȱMSR),ȱsufficientȱquartersȱforȱtheȱStationȱ
41ȱcrewȱtoȱbeȱlocatedȱatȱoneȱofȱtheȱtwoȱnewȱstationsȱwasȱaddedȱatȱtheȱrequestȱofȱCountyȱFire.ȱȱ Countyȱ
FireȱStationȱ42ȱwouldȱnotȱrelocateȱtoȱoneȱofȱtheȱnewȱsitesȱuntilȱCityȱStationȱ7ȱwasȱinȱoperation.ȱ
MunicipalȱServiceȱReviewȱ
P : \ P r o j e c t s ȱȬȱ W P ȱ O n l y \ 5 1 0 6 1 . 0 0 ȱ C h i c o ȱ M S R \ F i n a l ȱ M S R \ A p p e n d i x ȱ A . d o c ȱ
ȱ 13
Verbal comments on the Chico MSR recorded by staff at the September 11, 2006 hearing:
Source
Comment
Beck
Page 4.1-5: Wants to see some discussion of naturally occurring nitrates and
their contribution to the groundwater quality.
L-1
Page 4.4-2: Concerned with the lack of discussion on street conditions and LOS
issues. What are the City’s LOS standards?
L-2
Page 4.7-10 – There are two Park Ranger Program headings on this page, and it
appears that the first one can be deleted since the same information is found
under the second heading.
L-3
Provide a page of acronym definitions.
L-4
Page 4.8-1: Wants more discussion of compost facility at airport and a clear
description of the landfill capacity and projected life span.
L-5
Questioned the use of developer fees to fund the planning program and if this
was a reasonable expectation?
L-6
Leverenz
Questioned the discussion of sewer plant capacity with respect to annexation of
nitrate parcels and on-going growth.
L-7
Are there plans for additional trunk lines to the treatment plant?
Dolan
Questioned possible discrepancies between the MSR and the Nitrate Compliance
Plan with respect to the connection of septic parcels to the sewer system.
Perhaps a more clear discussion of the relationship between annexation and
implementation of the Nitrate Compliance Plan?
L-8
Connelly
Questioned the water availability section with respect to groundwater pumping
and the Tuscan aquifer. Concerned about the lack of hard science available at
this time to accurately predict future groundwater levels.
L-9
Adams
Questioned the discussion of the availability of public safety based on a lack of
secured funding. Used West Avenues Plan for Services as an example of
incomplete information related to public safety services.
L-10
Mann
Urged the Commission to adopt MSR citing the urgent need for housing and the
relationship of the MSR to the Northwest Chico Specific Plan.
L-11
Butte LAFCO Pu blic Hea ring(September 11, 2006)
Butte L
AFCO Publ
i
cHear
i
ng(
September11,2006)
AȱpublicȱhearingȱtoȱreceiveȱoralȱcommentsȱonȱtheȱDraftȱMSRȱwasȱheldȱSeptemberȱ11,ȱ2006.ȱȱButteȱLAFCOȱ
staffȱ recordedȱ theȱ commentsȱ fromȱ theȱ Commission.ȱȱ Twoȱ membersȱ ofȱ theȱ publicȱ submittedȱ commentsȱ
(CommentsȱLȬ10ȱandȱLȬ11).ȱ
„ Response to Comment L-1
Theȱ lastȱ sentenceȱ inȱ theȱ secondȱ paragraphȱ underȱ theȱ headingȱ “Groundwaterȱ Q uality”ȱ onȱ pageȱ 4.1Ȭ5ȱ inȱ
theȱ Draftȱ MSRȱ notesȱ thatȱ studiesȱ haveȱ shownȱ thatȱ nitrateȱ concentrationsȱ inȱ groundwaterȱ mayȱ notȱ beȱ
solelyȱdueȱtoȱsepticȱtanks.ȱȱHowever,ȱCommissioner/SupervisorȱDolanȱpointedȱoutȱthatȱextensiveȱtestingȱ
hasȱconfirmedȱsepticȱasȱclearlyȱtheȱmajorȱsourceȱofȱcontaminationȱ(seeȱalsoȱpageȱ4.2Ȭ2ȱinȱtheȱDraftȱMSR).ȱ
„ Response to Comment L-2
Determinationȱ4.4Ȭ1ȱandȱtheȱprecedingȱdiscussionȱonȱpagesȱ4.4Ȭ2ȱandȱ4.4Ȭ3ȱinȱtheȱDraftȱMSRȱaddressȱtheȱ
physicalȱconditionȱofȱtheȱroadways,ȱnotȱtheȱoperatingȱconditionsȱ(i.e.,ȱtrafficȱcongestion).ȱȱȱ
TheȱDraftȱMSRȱdiscussesȱtheȱLevelȱofȱServiceȱ(LOS)ȱonȱmajorȱroadwaysȱonȱpagesȱ4.4Ȭ1ȱandȱ4.4Ȭ2.ȱȱGeneralȱ
PlanȱPolicyȱTȬGȬ11ȱonȱpageȱ4.4Ȭ3ȱcontainsȱtheȱCity’sȱpolicyȱonȱacceptableȱlevelȱofȱservice.ȱȱ Anȱadditionalȱ
planȱ policyȱ (TȬGȬ12)ȱ addressesȱ circumstancesȱ whereȱ aȱ lowerȱ levelȱ ofȱ serviceȱ mayȱ beȱ accepted.ȱȱ Anȱ
additionalȱ determinationȱ (newȱ Determinationȱ 4.4Ȭ1)ȱ hasȱ beenȱ added,ȱ withȱ subsequentȱ renumberingȱ ofȱ
theȱdeterminationsȱpresentedȱinȱtheȱDraftȱMSR.ȱȱTheȱlistȱofȱpoliciesȱonȱpageȱ4.4Ȭ3ȱhasȱalsoȱbeenȱrevisedȱtoȱ
includeȱGuidingȱPolicyȱTȬGȬ12.ȱȱPleaseȱseeȱChapterȱ2,ȱTextȱChanges.ȱ
„ Response to Comment L-3
Commentȱnoted.ȱȱPleaseȱseeȱChapterȱ2,ȱTextȱChanges.ȱ
„ Response to Comment L-4
Aȱ comprehensiveȱ listȱ ofȱ abbreviationȱ usedȱ inȱ theȱ Draftȱ MSRȱ hasȱ beenȱ preparedȱ (newȱ Chapterȱ 6ȱ inȱ theȱ
MSR)ȱandȱtheȱTableȱofȱContentsȱrevisedȱaccordingly.ȱȱPleaseȱseeȱChapterȱ2,ȱTextȱChanges.ȱ
„ Response to Comment L-5
BasedȱonȱcurrentȱpermitȱconditionsȱforȱtheȱlandfillȱandȱtheȱdiscussionȱatȱtheȱButteȱLAFCOȱpublicȱmeetingȱ
onȱ Septemberȱ 11,ȱ 2006,ȱ theȱ informationȱ regardingȱ landfillȱ capacityȱ andȱ lifeȱ span,ȱ asȱ presentedȱ onȱ pageȱ
4.8Ȭ4,ȱ inȱ theȱ Draftȱ MSRȱ isȱ correct,ȱ andȱ noȱ additionalȱ explanationȱ isȱ required.ȱȱ Theȱ descriptionȱ ofȱ theȱ
compostȱprogramȱonȱpageȱ4.8Ȭ1ȱhasȱbeenȱexpanded.ȱȱPleaseȱseeȱChapterȱ2,ȱTextȱChanges.ȱ
„ Response to Comment L-6
Theȱ textȱonȱ pageȱ 4.9Ȭ2ȱinȱtheȱ Draftȱ MSRȱ hasȱ beenȱ revisedȱ toȱclarifyȱtheȱ sourceȱ ofȱ fundingȱ forȱplanningȱ
programs.ȱȱPleaseȱseeȱChapterȱ2,ȱTextȱChanges.ȱ
MunicipalȱServiceȱReviewȱ
P : \ P r o j e c t s ȱȬȱ W P ȱ O n l y \ 5 1 0 6 1 . 0 0 ȱ C h i c o ȱ M S R \ F i n a l ȱ M S R \ A p p e n d i x ȱ A . d o c ȱ
ȱ 15
Chapter 3. Responses to Comments
„ Response to Comment L-7
Theȱ“Improvements”ȱsectionȱbeginningȱonȱpageȱ4.2Ȭ10ȱinȱtheȱDraftȱMSRȱidentifiesȱtheȱCity’sȱscheduleȱtoȱ
bringȱ theȱ plantȱ capacityȱ toȱ 12ȱ millionȱ gallonsȱ perȱ dayȱ (mgd)ȱ byȱ 2008,ȱ andȱ 15ȱ mgdȱ byȱ 2014,ȱ providingȱ
capacityȱforȱurbanȱareaȱbuildoutȱandȱNitrateȱActionȱPlanȱ(NAP)ȱcommunities.ȱȱ TheȱlongȬtermȱprojectedȱ
wastewaterȱgenerationȱ(Tableȱ4.2Ȭ3)ȱindicatesȱthatȱbyȱ2025,ȱtheȱplantȱcapacityȱwillȱbeȱexceededȱbyȱ.2ȱmgd,ȱ
wellȱbeyondȱtheȱfiveȬyearȱhorizonȱofȱtheȱMSR,ȱandȱalsoȱassumingȱthatȱnoȱadditionalȱcapacityȱupgradesȱ
wereȱcompletedȱbeyondȱtheȱ2014ȱimprovements.ȱ
Theȱ sewerȱ masterȱ planȱ includesȱ aȱ newȱ trunklineȱ extendingȱ toȱ theȱ sewerȱ treatmentȱ plant,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ
numerousȱcapacityȱupgradesȱtoȱtheȱexistingȱtrunkȱsystem.ȱȱTheȱnewȱlineȱwouldȱserveȱtheȱairport,ȱtheȱareaȱ
alongȱ Eatonȱ Roadȱ westȱ ofȱ Cohasset,ȱ theȱ areaȱ alongȱ Hicksȱ Laneȱ northȱ ofȱ Sycamoreȱ Creek,ȱ andȱ futureȱ
growthȱ areasȱ inȱ northwestȱ Chico.ȱȱ Theȱ textȱ onȱ pageȱ 4.2Ȭ11ȱ inȱ theȱ Draftȱ MSRȱ hasȱ beenȱ revisedȱ toȱ moreȱ
clearlyȱidentifyȱsewerȱtrunkȱlineȱimprovements.ȱȱPleaseȱseeȱChapterȱ2,ȱTextȱChanges.ȱ
„ Response to Comment L-8
TheȱNitrateȱComplianceȱPlanȱ(NCP)ȱdiscussionȱonȱpagesȱ4.2Ȭ2ȱandȱ4.2Ȭ7ȱinȱtheȱDraftȱMSRȱappearsȱtoȱbeȱ
accurate.ȱȱ Tableȱ4.2Ȭ3ȱ andȱ discussionȱ underȱ “Improvements”ȱ onȱ pageȱ 4.2Ȭ10ȱ isȱ alsoȱ helpfulȱ inȱ
understandingȱ theȱ increaseȱ inȱ treatmentȱ capacityȱ neededȱ toȱ implementȱ theȱ NCP.ȱȱ Ofȱ theȱ 3.3ȱ millionȱ
gallonsȱperȱdayȱ(mgd)ȱincreaseȱinȱdemandȱprojectedȱbetweenȱ2005ȱandȱ2010,ȱ2ȱmgdȱ(roughlyȱequivalentȱ
toȱ 8,000ȱ units)ȱ isȱ attributableȱ toȱ NCPȱ connections.ȱȱ Duringȱ thisȱ sameȱ period,ȱ theȱ Cityȱ willȱ expandȱ theȱ
treatmentȱ plantȱ capacityȱ toȱ 12ȱ mgd,ȱ resultingȱ inȱ treatmentȱ capacityȱ inȱ excessȱ ofȱ projectedȱ demandȱ ofȱ
10.6ȱmgd.ȱȱ Evenȱ ifȱ NCPȱ connectionsȱ wereȱ accelerated,ȱ additionalȱ capacityȱ isȱ availableȱ toȱ accommodateȱ
additionalȱ connections.ȱȱ Aȱ furtherȱ plantȱ expansionȱ toȱ 15ȱ mgdȱ isȱ plannedȱ forȱ completionȱ byȱ 2014,ȱ
providingȱ capacityȱ beyondȱ 2020ȱ forȱ newȱ developmentȱ andȱ continuedȱ connectionȱ ofȱ unitsȱ currentlyȱ onȱ
septicȱsystems.ȱȱȱ
Theȱ relationȱ betweenȱ annexationȱ andȱ sewerȱ connectionȱ forȱ NCPȱ implementationȱ isȱ describedȱ onȱ pageȱ
4.2Ȭ7ȱasȱfollows:ȱ
Theȱ Cityȱ andȱ Butteȱ Countyȱ haveȱ enteredȱ intoȱ anȱ agreementȱ toȱ permitȱ existingȱ developedȱ
propertiesȱ toȱ connectȱ toȱ theȱ sanitaryȱ sewerȱ withoutȱ firstȱ annexing.ȱȱ However,ȱ sewerȱ linesȱ
haveȱ notȱ yetȱ beenȱ extendedȱ toȱ manyȱ ofȱ theseȱ areas,ȱ soȱ connectionȱ isȱ notȱ currentlyȱ feasible.ȱȱ
Providingȱ thisȱ serviceȱ withoutȱ annexationȱ mayȱ alsoȱ requireȱ approvalȱ ofȱ theȱ Butteȱ LAFCOȱ
pursuantȱtoȱGovernmentȱCodeȱSectionȱ56133.ȱ
„ Response to Comment L-9
Commentȱ noted.ȱȱ Theȱ Draftȱ MSRȱ reliedȱ onȱ theȱ bestȱ availableȱ informationȱ fromȱ Calȱ Waterȱ Chico,ȱ theȱ
purveyorȱofȱdomesticȱwaterȱinȱtheȱChicoȱarea.ȱ
TheȱCityȬpreparedȱGroundwaterȱResourcesȱAnalysisȱStudyȱconcludedȱthatȱgroundwaterȱresourcesȱinȱtheȱ
ButteȱBasinȱareȱsufficientȱthroughȱ2012ȱ(Determinationȱ4.1ȱ5),ȱwhileȱtheȱCaliforniaȱWaterȱServiceȱ(CWS)ȱ
estimatesȱsufficientȱsuppliesȱthroughȱ2030ȱ(Determinationȱ4.1ȱ6).ȱȱInȱaddition,ȱCWSȱprojectsȱinȱTableȱ4.1ȱ3ȱ
thatȱtheȱprojectedȱmaximumȱdayȱdemandȱinȱ2020ȱofȱ88.7ȱmgdȱwillȱexceedȱtheȱcurrentȱ85.7ȱmgdȱcapacityȱ
ofȱtheȱcompanyȇsȱ63ȱwellsȱbyȱtheȱyearȱ2020.ȱȱ WhileȱtheseȱconcernsȱmayȱbeȱinconsequentialȱoverȱtheȱfiveȬ
yearȱlifeȱspanȱofȱtheȱMSR,ȱitȱdoesȱrequireȱattentionȱtoȱaccuratelyȱevaluateȱwaterȱservices.ȱ
16
CityȱofȱChicoȱ
Butte LAFCO Pu blic Hea ring (September 11, 2006)
Theȱtwoȱstudiesȱnotedȱaboveȱrepresentȱdifferentȱtimeframesȱandȱpurposes.ȱȱTheȱCityȱstudyȱwasȱintendedȱ
toȱforecastȱsupplyȱandȱdemandȱforȱtheȱperiodȱofȱtheȱ1994ȱGeneralȱPlanȱupdateȱorȱ15ȱyearsȱ(fromȱtheȱdateȱ
ofȱtheȱstudy),ȱwhileȱtheȱCalȱWaterȱChicoȱstudyȱaddressedȱaȱlongerȱperiodȱtoȱsatisfyȱtheirȱneeds,ȱpossiblyȱ
imposedȱ byȱ legislationȱ regulatingȱ privateȱ utilities.ȱȱ Whileȱ itȱ isȱ correctȱ thatȱ demandȱ willȱ exceedȱ currentȱ
supplyȱbyȱ2020,ȱCalȱWaterȱChicoȱandȱtheȱChicoȱMSRȱrecognizeȱthisȱcondition,ȱandȱtheȱMSRȱincludesȱtheȱ
followingȱstatementȱonȱpageȱ4.1Ȭ15:ȱ“Asȱregionalȱsupplyȱconditionsȱdictate,ȱCalȱWaterȱChicoȱwillȱurgeȱitsȱ
customersȱtoȱreduceȱdemandȱaccordinglyȱandȱwillȱconstructȱnewȱwel
l
sȱandȱstorageȱf
acil
itiesȱasȱtheȱneedȱarises.
”ȱȱ
[emphasisȱadded].ȱ
Atȱ thisȱtime,ȱ thereȱisȱ noȱotherȱ sourceȱ ofȱ differentȱorȱbetterȱ information,ȱ althoughȱ numerousȱ studiesȱareȱ
underwayȱthatȱmayȱprovideȱthatȱinformation.ȱȱ ThisȱissueȱisȱbeyondȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱChicoȱMSR.ȱȱ Inȱanyȱ
case,ȱ itȱ isȱ recognizedȱ thatȱ longȬtermȱ waterȱ supplyȱ isȱ ofȱ criticalȱ importanceȱ inȱ theȱ County.ȱȱ Shouldȱ
additionalȱ informationȱ becomeȱ available,ȱ theȱ adoptedȱ “Domesticȱ Waterȱ andȱ Wastewaterȱ Serviceȱ MSR”ȱ
wouldȱ needȱ toȱ beȱ amendedȱ toȱ includeȱ theȱ additionalȱ information,ȱ andȱ theȱ Chicoȱ MSRȱ updatedȱ toȱ beȱ
consistent.ȱ
„ Response to Comment L-10
Theȱ discussionȱ ofȱ fundingȱ forȱ publicȱ safetyȱ inȱ theȱ Draftȱ MSRȱ (Policeȱ Servicesȱ onȱ pageȱ 4.5Ȭ2ȱ andȱ Fireȱ
Servicesȱonȱpageȱ4.6Ȭ5)ȱreflectsȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱmajorityȱofȱthisȱfundingȱcomesȱfromȱtheȱCity’sȱGeneralȱ
Fund.ȱȱAbsentȱaȱspecialȱtaxȱlevyȱdedicatedȱtoȱpublicȱsafetyȱservicesȱ(requiringȱvoterȱapproval),ȱthereȱisȱnoȱ
fundingȱ dedicatedȱ exclusivelyȱ toȱ theseȱ services.ȱȱ Asȱ partȱ ofȱ theȱ biannualȱ budgetȱ process,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ
periodicȱbudgetȱstatusȱreviews,ȱtheȱadequacyȱofȱfundingȱforȱtheseȱservicesȱisȱexaminedȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱ
overallȱ Cityȱ resourcesȱ andȱ priorities.ȱȱ Historically,ȱ theseȱ servicesȱ haveȱ receivedȱ adequateȱ fundingȱ forȱ
staffingȱandȱphysicalȱassets.ȱȱȱ
Theȱ commentȱisȱ correctȱinȱ notingȱthatȱdiscussionȱofȱ servicesȱinȱ conjunctionȱ withȱindividualȱ annexationȱ
applicationsȱisȱminimal.ȱȱTheȱMSRȱisȱintendedȱtoȱbridgeȱthatȱgapȱbyȱdetailingȱservicesȱandȱcapabilities.ȱ
„ Response to Comment L-11
Commentȱnoted.ȱȱ AsȱaȱfollowȬupȱtoȱthisȱcomment,ȱButteȱLAFCOȱstaffȱalsoȱreiteratedȱtheȱconclusionsȱofȱ
theȱDraftȱMSRȱregardingȱpopulationȱprojectionsȱandȱdemandȱforȱservices,ȱnotingȱthatȱtheȱCityȱofȱChicoȱ
populationȱisȱforecastȱtoȱgrowȱatȱaȱrateȱofȱ3%ȱoverȱtheȱnextȱ20ȱyears,ȱresultingȱinȱtheȱCityȱgainingȱanȱevenȱ
greaterȱ shareȱ ofȱ housingȱandȱ employmentȱgrowthȱwithinȱ theȱ county.ȱȱ Ifȱ projectionsȱ proveȱ accurate,ȱ byȱ
2025,ȱtheȱCityȱpopulationȱwillȱsurpassȱtheȱunincorporatedȱCountyȱasȱtheȱlargestȱgovernanceȱunitȱwithȱaȱ
populationȱofȱ125,920.ȱȱThisȱrepresentsȱanȱapproximatelyȱ46,000Ȭpersonȱincreaseȱoverȱtheȱ20Ȭyearȱperiod,ȱ
whichȱwillȱrequireȱsignificantȱinvestmentsȱinȱinfrastructureȱandȱserviceȱcapacityȱatȱallȱlevels.ȱ
Theȱ3%ȱgrowthȱrateȱnotedȱaboveȱisȱtheȱBCAGȱprojection.ȱȱTheȱCity’sȱGeneralȱPlanȱprojectsȱgrowthȱatȱ2ȱtoȱ
2½ %,ȱ andȱ historicallyȱ theȱ growthȱ rateȱ (exclusiveȱ ofȱ annexation)ȱ hasȱ beenȱ aboutȱ 2%.ȱȱ Theȱ readerȱ isȱ
referredȱ toȱ Tablesȱ 3Ȭ1ȱ andȱ 3Ȭ2ȱ inȱ theȱ Draftȱ MSR.ȱȱ Regardlessȱ ofȱ whichȱ growthȱ rateȱ isȱ used,ȱ theȱ Cityȱ
recognizesȱ thatȱ significantȱ investmentȱ inȱ infrastructureȱ andȱ serviceȱ capacitiesȱ willȱ beȱ requiredȱ toȱ
maintainȱ adequateȱ serviceȱ levels.ȱȱ Asȱ aȱ toolȱ toȱ ensureȱ thatȱ adequateȱ fundingȱ isȱ provided,ȱ theȱ Cityȱ isȱ
developingȱaȱtenȬyearȱbudgetȱprojectionȱtoȱforecastȱresourcesȱandȱdemand.ȱ
MunicipalȱServiceȱReviewȱ
P : \ P r o j e c t s ȱȬȱ W P ȱ O n l y \ 5 1 0 6 1 . 0 0 ȱ C h i c o ȱ M S R \ F i n a l ȱ M S R \ A p p e n d i x ȱ A . d o c ȱ
ȱ 17