HomeMy WebLinkAboutHansford Economic Consulting UVBGSA Regulatory Fee Study - Final HANSFORD
ECONOMIC CONSULTINGLLc
Ukiah Valley Basin
Groundwater Sustainability
Agency
7
n
Regulatory Fee Study
FINAL
0
0
0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1. Executive Summary 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Fee Setting Authority and Purpose of the Fee Study 3
1.3 Calculated FY 2025 Fee 4
2. The Ukiah Valley Basin Economy and Groundwater Use 7
2.1 UVBGSA Socioeconomics 7
2.2 Industry and Jobs 8
2.3 Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Users 15
2.4 Groundwater Extraction Estimates 21
3. Fee Development 28
3.1 Fee Authority 28
3.2 Methodology Development 29
3.3 Public Outreach 31
4. Fee Calculation 34
4.1 Cost Basis of Fee 34
4.2 Data Sources 38
4.3 Fee Calculations 39
4.4 Regulatory Fee Collection 42
4.5 Example Customer Bills 43
S. Fee Implementation 48
5.1 Fee Adoption 48
5.2 Appeals 49
APPENDICES
A Public Outreach Materials
B Board Discussion Materials
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 FY 2025 UVBGSA Regulatory Fee 5
2 Estimated UVBGSA Population and Housing Units 7
3 Estimated Proportion of Spanish Speakers 8
4 Jobs by Census Place in Mendocino County 8
5 Largest Employers in Mendocino County 9
6 Jobs by Industry Sector in Mendocino County 10
7 Acres of Crops Grown in UVBGSA 11
8 Ranking of Agricultural Commodities by Production Value 13
9 Mendocino County 2021 Agricultural Commodity Values Detail 14
10 Public Water Systems in the UVBGSA Management Area 16
11 Agricultural Production Acres including Timber and Rangeland 17
12 Properties with Cannabis License(s) 19
13 Public Water Systems Reported Groundwater Extraction 22
14 Public Water Systems Total Water and Agricultural Water Consumption 23
15 IDC Model Agricultural Water Use Estimates 24
16 Estimated Agricultural Groundwater Extraction 24
17 Cannabis Cultivation Estimated Water Use 25
18 Estimated UVBGSA Cannabis Water Use 25
19 Groundwater Extraction Calculation Fee Group 3 26
20 Groundwater Use by Customer Group 27
21 Summary of Projected GSA 5-Year Budget 34
22 Historical Price Index Changes 35
23 Projected GSA 5-Year Expenses Excluding PMAs in Inflated Dollars 36
24 Projected 5-Year Cash Balances 37
25 Cost Basis of Fee Components 39
26 Summary of GSA Fee Parcels and Acreage 40
27 UVBGSA Fee Calculations FY 2025 Except Group 2 41
28 Calculated Public Water Systems FY 2025 Fees 43
29 Example Crop Land Bills 44
30 Fee Calculations for a Ranch 44
31 Single Family Horne Fee Ranges (Groups 1 &3) 46
32 Example Bills for Group 1 Businesses 47
33 Example Bills for Group 3 Businesses 47
Q
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1 Top Five Commodities in Mendocino County by Production Value 12
2 Mendocino County Agricultural Production Value by Commodity Group 12
3 Ten-Year Historical Change in Agricultural Product Values 13
4 Estimated Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Use 26
5 Components of Five-Year Budget Projection 35
6 Projected GSA Ending Cash Balances by Fiscal Year 38
7 Revenue Collection by Group 42
8 Comparison of UVBGSA with Sonoma County GSAs Fees for Grape Growers 45
9 Comparison of UVBGSA with Sonoma County GSAs Fees for an Orchard 45
LIST OF MAPS
MAP PAGE
1 UVBGSA Management Area 2
2 River Estates Mutual: Example PWS exporting Groundwater from the Basin 17
3 Cannabis Property classified Crop Land by DWR 19
4 Cannabis Property in Group 2 20
5 Fee Structure Objectives 30
ACRONYMS
CPUC—California Public Utilities Commission
CWD—County Water District
DWR—California Department of Water Resources
ET—Evapotranspiration
GIS—Geographic Information System
GSA—Groundwater Sustainability Agency
GSP—Groundwater Sustainability Plan
JPA—Joint Power Authority
PMA—Project and Management Actions
RRFC—Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District
SGMA—Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
URRWA—Upper Russian River Water Agency
UVBGSA—Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency
UVSD—Ukiah Valley Sanitation District
UVWA—Ukiah Valley Water Authority
FEE STUDY PREFACE
The Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency commissioned this study to establish a
new regulatory fee sufficient to generate revenues that will support the typical annual operation
costs of its regulatory program authorized by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
(SGMA).The analyses, opinions, and findings contained within this report are based on primary
data collected through interviews and research, as well as many sources of secondary data
available as of the date of this report.While it is believed that the secondary sources of information
are accurate,this is not guaranteed. Updates to information used in this report could change or
invalidate the findings contained herein.
Every reasonable effort has been made in order that the data contained in this study reflect the
most accurate and timely information possible. No responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in
reporting by the client, its consultants and representatives, or any other data source used in the
preparation of this study. No warranty or representation is made that any of the projected values or
results contained in this study will be achieved.There will usually be differences between
forecasted or projected results and actual results due to changes in events and circumstances.
Changes in economic and social conditions due to events including, but not limited to, major
recessions, availability of water resources due to droughts and operating conditions, major
environmental problems, or disasters that could negatively affect operations,expenses and
revenues may affect the result of the findings in this study. In addition, other factors not considered
in the study may influence actual results.
The fee study consultant team that prepared this report includes:
Catherine Hansford, HEC LLC
Schaelene Rollins, Rollins PR Consulting
Mark Foree, Mark Foree Consulting LLC
Elizabeth Schlegel, Kristy Chang, Mo Tangestani, and Diego Ramirez, KSN, Inc.
We want to thank Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency member agency staff, and
all the stakeholders who helped inform development of the Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater
Sustainability Agency regulatory fee.
Catherine Hansford
J(4
Hansford Economic Consulting LLC
O
O
0
Section 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency(UVBGSA or Agency)was created in 2017
by a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA)to serve as the official groundwater management agency for the
Ukiah Valley Basin required by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act(SGMA) of 2014.
Member agencies include the City of Ukiah (City), County of Mendocino (County), Russian River
Flood Control and Water Conservation District(RRFC), and the Upper Russian River Water Agency
(URRWA).The four member agencies agreed to fund, or partially fund, the UVBGSA through 2026,
or until a revenue source is established and collected to fully fund GSA activities.
SGMA provides for the local regulation of groundwater by requiring that all groundwater basins in
the State of California be managed by groundwater sustainability agencies. Bulletin 118 Interim
Update 2016,circulated by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), identifies the
groundwater basins and sub-basins to be managed, and designates their priority status. The Ukiah
Valley Basin is a medium priority basin.As required by SGMA for a medium priority basin, a
Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP)was prepared and submitted to DWR before January 31,
2022.The GSP was approved by DWR, with a letter of corrective actions to be addressed, in July
2023.
SGMA defines sustainable groundwater management as the management and use of groundwater
in a manner that can be maintained during the planning and implementation horizon without
causing undesirable results'.The six undesirable results are:
1. Chronic lowering of groundwater levels,
2. Significant and unreasonable reduction of groundwater storage,
3. Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion,
4. Significant and unreasonable degradation of water quality,
5. Significant and unreasonable land subsidence, and
6. Surface water depletions that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on
beneficial uses of surface water.
The GSP addresses each of these undesirable results as they pertain to the Ukiah Valley Basin and
provides a plan for sustainability of groundwater in the Ukiah Basin by 2043.The Ukiah Valley Basin,
and therefore the UVBGSA's Management Area, is illustrated in Map 1 on the following page.
Key elements of the GSP include completion of a fee study to ensure the long-term financial
viability of the UVBGSA,and completion of several Projects and Management Actsons(PMAs)2 to
avoid undesirable results in perpetuity.
t Water Code 10721.
2 Actions that implement the GSP.
Ukiah Valley Bas.n Groundwater Sustainability Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 Page 1
Map 1
UVBGSA Management Area
fir~
Ukiah Valley
Basin GSA
Boundaries
20
Lake
�- f Mendocino
„u Nit Part of
CSA,Basin
Talmage
CS 7C'
x a �
n
0
n •�
0
C
101
. t' Not Part of
GSA Basin
_ 253
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainabi ity Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 Pope 2
1.2 FEE SETTING AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE OF THE FEE STUDY
The UVBGSA has the authority to charge fees, conduct investigations, register wells, require
reporting, and take other actions to sustainably manage groundwater resources of the Ukiah Valley
Basin.To date, most UVBGSA expenses have been related to development of the GSP,the cost of
which was paid for with a grant from DWR. Member agencies have contributed$68,750 per year
each to pay for the operating expenses of the Agency and contributed an additional $30,000 each in
FY 2025 to fund the fee study.The member agencies have also provided considerable in-kind
service costs to the UVBGSA. A new regulatory fee,which is the subject of this report,will be
imposed that will replace member contributions.
Water Code and Proposition 26
Water Code Sections 10730, 10730.1 and 10730.2 set forth the authority for the UVBGSA to
establish and charge fees.The UVBGSA regulatory fee described in this report is being adopted
pursuant to Water Code Section 10730,which follows the fee adoption requirements for regulatory
fees under Proposition 26.The fee being considered in this report is exempt from voter approval, as
it is not a tax pursuant to California Constitution Article XIIIC(Proposition 26,Section 1(e)(3)3).The
fee may be charged to pay for"reasonable costs"of a regulatory program.The fee must be
proportional and related to benefits of the program.'As directed by the UVBGSA Board of Directors
(Board)s, revenue from the fee will not be used to pay for other operational costs (such as providing
water service)or for infrastructure or resource capital costs for the foreseeable future.
This report documents the methodology, public outreach conducted, and Fiscal Year 2024/25 (FY
2025) new UVBGSA regulatory fee proposed to fund the regulatory activities of the UVBGSA.The
fee will only fund SGMA-related regulatory activities (such as GSP development), day-to-day
administrative operations costs, PMAs that are investigative in nature, and prudent reserves.All
beneficiaries of groundwater sustainability will be charged the fee except for federal lands and
tribal lands held in trust by the federal government.The UVBGSA will regulate de minimis extractors
pursuant to Water Code Section 10730(a) (these are domestic well owners pumping less than two
acre-feet per year per parcel; domestic use excludes any commercial activities)'.
Goals of the fee study are:
1. Establish and secure a fee structure that the UVBGSA can adopt with confidence and with
maximum buy-in from interested parties and stakeholders.
2. Provide a fee structure that generates sufficient revenue to support the financial obligations
and budget needs of the UVBGSA pursuant to SGMA's mandate.
s"As used in this Article,"tax"means any levy,charge,or exaction of any kind imposed by a local government,
except the following: .. .(3)A charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing
licenses and permits, performing investigations,inspections,and audits,enforcing agricultural marketing orders,
and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof. ..."
°The fee might also be cons-dered not a tax because it Is a charge imposed for the specific service or benefit of
providing for a sustainable groundwater basin(California Constitution Article XIIIC,sections 1(c)(1)and 1(c)(2)).
s Board of Directors meeting, February 13,2024.
Water Code section 10721(e).
Uk ah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainabil-ty Agency Fee Study Flnal May 20,2024 Page 3
3. Set a fee structure that is economically and easily administered, charged, and collected.
A key tenant in developing the regulatory fee structure has been to maintain transparency
throughout the project, informing the UVBGSA customer base about the fee study and how
customers can be involved and provide input to the process. Public outreach efforts are described
in detail in Section 3.3 of the report.
UVBGSA Board Approval
For the regulatory fee to be implemented,there must be an affirmative vote by a majority of the
UVBGSA's Board of Directors (four of the six Directors must be in favor), per Article 9 of the JPA.The
six-member board includes representatives of the JPA member agencies plus an agricultural
representative and a tribal representative. Each member has one vote.
1.3 CALCULATED FY 2025 FEE
The fee study presents the fee structure that was developed and presented to the public with
outreach materials and workshop presentations.The fee structure was developed using two key
pillars of information that were constructed through the fee study process:
1. Stakeholder and public comment on who should be charged,and the most equitable fee
structure.
2. Available data upon which to confidently calculate the fee each year.
Fee Components
The proposed fee structure comprises two components (or parts), rather like a water bill. Part 1 is a
per acre per year(annual)fee paid for by all property owners(hereinafter referred to as "users"),
except for federal properties, and properties held in trust for tribes,within the Ukiah Valley Basin.
The Part 1 fee collects for core administrative costs of the Agency(about 23%of annual costs,
depending on the budget adopted).The Part 2 fee collects for all other Agency costs.The Part 1 fee
will be collected from every user with property taxes, unless the property owner does not receive a
property tax bill, in which case the UVBGSA will bill the fee directly.
The Part 2 fee is paid by groundwater customer type. Different types of groundwater users have
been identified and placed into four groups(definitions provided on pages 5-5). Group 1 users will
not pay the Part 2 fee to the UVBGSA;their water service provider will receive an annual bill for
their share of the Part 2 fee costs.Water service providers are responsible for recovering UVBGSA
fees from their customers. Groups 1, 2,and 3 use Ukiah Valley Basin groundwater, either directly or
indirectly, as explained in greater detail in Section 2.3 of the report. Group 1 users are supplied
groundwater by a municipal water service provider for non-agricultural purposes. Group 2 users
collectively use groundwater to grow crops,and Group 3 use groundwater for domestic or
commercial economic activities, not growing a crop. Group 4 does not use groundwater(vacant
land and rangeland,for example).The fourth group will only be subject to payment of the Part 1 fee
(interchangeably'base fee')for core administrative functions of the GSA.Groups 2 and 3 will pay
their Part 2 fees with property taxes, unless the property owner does not receive a property tax bill,
in which case the UVBGSA will bill the fee directly.
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainabdity Agency Fee Study F nal May 20,2024 Page 4
Table 1 presents the calculated UVBGSA Part 1 and Part 2 regulatory fees for FY 2025.After
accounting for administrative costs, DWR-reporting activities, bad debt, and maintenance of at least
25%of costs held in reserve, approximately$1.0 million is projected to be available for PMAs over
the next five years if the FY 2025 budget of$600,000 increases 4%each year.
Table 1
FY 2025 UVBGSA Regulatory Fee
FY 2025
Fee Component Fee
PART 1 FEE:BASE FEE $4.07 Per Acre in GSA Boundary
Every parcel is charged the base fee plus the group fee for the group the parcel is classified
as(1]
PART 2 FEES
GROUP 1 PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS $0.1352 Per 1,000 gallons extracted
GROUP 2 CROP LAND $32.75 Per Cropped Acre [2)
GROUP 3 IMPROVED PROPERTIES(41 $34.67 Per Acre of Entire Parcel [3)
GROUP 4 ALL OTHER $0.00
Source HEC May 2024. tot table
(11 Federal properties and tribal properties held in trust by the Federal government are exempt.
(21 Properties classified group 2 because of a medium,large,or nursery cannabis license capped at 1.0
acre.
(3) Residential group 3 properties capped at 0.5 acres.
141 Improved properties not in groups 1 or 2.
Fee Group Definitions.
Group 1: Public Water Systems
The definition of Group 1 users is every parcel served by a Public Water System (PWS) using potable
water for non-agricultural purposes.A PWS is defined by the California Safe Drinking Water Act as
follows:
"Public water system means a system for the provision of water for human consumption
through pipes or other construction conveyances that has 1S or more service connections or
regularly serves at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year."
Group 2: Crop Land
The definition of Crop Land is land meeting one of the following characterizations:
a) Property identified as growing crops using DWR's most recently released publicly available
crop mapping dataset.
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Susta inability Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 Page 5
b) Property with at least one medium, large,or nursery stock cannabis license Issued by (D
Mendocino County as of June 1 of each year.
Property in Group 2 pursuant to b) is capped at 1.0 acre for the Part 2 fee calculation.
Group 3: Improved Property not in Groups 1 or 2
The definition of fee Group 3 users is Improved Property where Improved means the property has
an improvements value as shown on a property tax bill for structure(s) located on the property, and
the property is:
a) NOT served by a PWS but may be served by a State Small Water System.
b) NOT identified as Crop Land.
Rural Residential property acreage is limited to 0.5 acres for the Part 2 fee calculation.
Group 4:All Other
Fee group 4 properties are all remaining properties in the UVBGSA's Management Area that are not
fee exempt and are not in Groups 1, 2,or 3.The land is:
a) Located outside public water system service provider boundaries.
b) Unimproved;the only economic activity taking place is raising livestock, or for an
environmental, recreational,or cultural purpose.
Fee Adoption
The new fee must be adopted by resolution or by ordinance; it is proposed that the UVBGSA will
adopt the fee by resolution in June 2024.The 2024 resolution will establish the fee for FY 2025. A
fee resolution must be adopted every year to place the fees on the tax roll, regardless of whether
the fee amounts change or not.The fee should be adjusted each year to reflect the UVBGSA's
budget for the upcoming fiscal year, incorporating the most recent 5-year rolling average
groundwater extractions for fee groups 1 and 2,and the most recent DWR crop mapping data.
In the event the required annual data updates are not performed and/or the budget is adopted
later than May, the fee study recommends including an automatic annual increase in the fee
resolution.The recommended automatic fee increase is 4° every year or the 12-month change
(March to March) in the West Region Consumer Price Index published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
0
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 Page b
SECTION 2: THE UKIAH VALLEY BASIN ECONOMY AND GROUNDWATER USE
2.1 UVBGSA SOCIOECONOMICS
About one-quarter of Mendocino County's population resides in the Ukiah Valley Basin. Of the
more than 20,000 people permanently residing in the Ukiah Valley Basin, more than 16,000 live in
the City of Ukiah.Table 2 shows the number of housing units and population in each of the Ukiah
Valley Basin's US Census places'.Almost all the communities in the Ukiah Valley Basin are classified
as Disadvantaged by the State. Redwood Valley and Talmage are considered Severely
Disadvantaged8.
On average,there are 2.71 permanent persons per housing unit in the Ukiah Valley Basin,which is
higher than the countywide average of 2.22. US Census data ranks Mendocino County relatively low
for persons per household (ranks 39"in the State, of 58 counties).This indicates that although
there are many low-income households in the Ukiah Valley Basin, crowded living conditions that
often accompany agricultural communities,such as Merced County(with 3.35 persons per unit), are
not present. Home ownership is low; Mendocino County ranks 361h in the State for percentage of
owner-occupied units'.A high proportion (about 50%)of residents in Ukiah and Talmage do not
own the properties where they reside.
Table 2
Estimated UVBGSA Population and Housing Units
Median %Units %of
Disadvantaged Household Housing Owner County Persons
Census Place Community[1] Income Units Occupied Population Popin. per Unit
Redwood Valley yes $48,750 648 61% 1,798 2% 2.77
Calpella no $89,250 239 79% 617 1% 2.58
Ukiah yes $56,975 6,187 48% 16,728 18% 2.70
Talmage yes $43,258 360 50% 989 1% 2.75
Subtotal UVBGSA 7,434 50% 20,132 22% 2.71
Remainder County 33,842 63% 71,402 78% 2.11
Total County 41,276 60% 91,534 2.22
Source:20215-year ACS Data Table 51901,825003,and 01`05,Census Bureau. econ
I1)If the median household income is less than 80%of the Statewide median household income
($84,097),the State considers it Disadvantaged.Calpella has a very large margin of error.
'Https:ww2.census.gov."The Bureau of the Census defines a place as a concentration of population that is legally
incorporated,or a statistical equivalent treated as census designated place."
8 The State defines Disadvantaged as the community having a median household income(MHI) less than 80%of
the Statewide MHI.A Severely Disadvantaged community has an MHI less than 60%of the Statewide MHI.
9 2021 US Census data table 51101.
Ukiah valley Basin Groundwater sustainabi ity Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 Page 7
Residents of the Ukiah Valley Basin predominantly speak English; however, about 35%of the
population are Spanish speakers,as shown in Table 3.
Table 3
Estimated Proportion of Spanish Speakers
%of %
Total UVBGSA Spanish
Census Place Population Popin. Hispanics Speakers
Redwood Valley 1,798 9% 694 39%
Calpella 617 3% 250 41%
Ukiah 16,728 83% 5,949 36%
Talmage 989 5% 188 19%
Subtotal UVBGSA 20,132 100% 7,081 35%
Source:20215-year ACS Data Table DP05,Census Bureau. lang
2.2 INDUSTRY AND JOBS
Almost 40%of all the jobs in Mendocino County are located within the Ukiah Valley Basin.The
major employment hub is the City of Ukiah.Table 4 shows the estimated number of jobs by Census
Place.
Table 4
Jobs by Census Place in Mendocino County
In Number %of
Census Place UVBGSA of lobs County
Redwood Valley yes 236 1%
Calpella yes 121 0%
Ukiah yes 8,710 31%
Talmage yes 809 3%
Subtotal UVBGSA 9,876 36%
All Other Census Places no 8,839 32%
Remainder of County possibly 9,058 33%
Total County 27,773 100%
Source:onthemap.ces.census.gov,using 2021 ACS data. jobs
The largest employers in Mendocino County and the City of Ukiah are listed in Table S. Most of the
employers have operations located within the Ukiah Valley Basin. Health services, education/
government employers, and agricultural and forestry-related processing and packaging feature
heavily in this list.
O
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 POPS
Table 5
Largest Employers in Mendocino County
Employer Location Industry
Adventist Health Howard Memorial Willits Hospitals
Adventist Health Mendocino Coast Fort Bragg Hospitals
Adventist Health Ukiah Valley Ukiah Hospitals
Adventist Health Ukiah Valley Ukiah Outpatient Services
California Department-Forestry Willits State Government-Fire Protection
Coyote Valley Casino Redwood Valley Casinos
Dharma Realm Buddhist Association Ukiah Montessori Schools
Fetzer Vineyards Hopland Wineries(mfrs)
Mendocino Community Health Ukiah Clinics
Mendocino County Ukiah Government Offices-County
Mendocino County Food Stamps Ukiah Government Offices-County
Mendocino County Office of Education Ukiah Boards of Education
Mendocino County Sheriff Point Arena Government Offices-County
Mendocino County Social Services Ukiah Government Offices-County
Mendocino Headlands State Park Mendocino State Parks
Mendocino Redwood Co LLC Calpella Restaurants
Metalfx Inc Willits Sheet Metal Fabricators(mfrs)
Pacific Coast Farm Credit Ukiah Loans-Agricultural
Pacific Medical Resources Fort Bragg Nursing Services
Safeway Fort Bragg Grocers-Retail
Sawmill Ukiah Sawmills& Planing Mills-General
Ukiah City Civic Center Ukiah Halls&Auditoriums
Ukiah High School Ukiah Schools
Ukiah Unified School District Ukiah School Districts
Walmart Ukiah Department Stores
Source:Employment Development Department,State of California(dataset from America's Labor Market
Information System Employer Database,2024 1st Edition),
Table 6 shows the number of jobs by industry sector.The top five industry sectors in Mendocino
County(health care and social assistance, retail trade, educational services, accommodation and
food services,and public administration) are the same as the top five industry sectors in Ukiah.
Together the top five industry sectors comprise 60%of total County jobs, and about 75%of City of
Ukiah jobs.
Mendocino County and the Ukiah Valley Basin's economy is heavily dependent on the quantity of
good quality water available to sustain industry, including production and processing of agricultural
commodities.
Ukiah valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 pale 9
Table 6
Jobs by Industry Sector in Mendocino County
O N
�p Q W"O t0 V 0 00 M m m m M M M N N N N ti N .-4 O O O Q
N W W W G
J1 LA N M %D N M M ri N M O W u'i N l6 -* O1 O
jp N W r., CDV1 In N O O N N W tO IT 01 00 CO
N M N 00 W M M M N N ry ry ry rti ' ' N
C
O
:6
Of
E
W
OC
g
C
rG _
C C
r E H o
a
�e y T n a
� c n -
o `w ii
a m c a �` M c m .0 2
U U U y V a c � m
N.
N to F } Qr 7 V G
ca wc-E c a to r wd Cd -0at O—
m
c
CL
o v c c 3 E
u
o a c
N
cn,n '� mL y �^
a c .G oil v 0 m C a, E c
.R C V1 G C u E C rp CO N E •
7 N E -O C C N 3 lu N OJ N N O t' 7
.Q ry .a i C O ry 0 i+ u y ri E 7 is t-
C ld Q F a E v 'n 3 m y .+ O N m C w
ED 00 7 w C Lv W
CU
l U d ty'j cCC D F C . O yO
CC W cGO *I
O .0 O M O O ON 00 rO Ln M M M N N N N 14 1 O O O
O N W W r4 C
V1 O N �r O 00 O 00 r` V rr ry Oi 01 N W 00 V W 0 M
y� M r• v O W V1 %n r` O M r-r W n W V m O n N M N
O Q V r71 N n rr ff n V m r, r` 10 er V C M N r4 r4 N
Ln M N N N N ti N N
cc
Y
IE
E
CI
a
c
A
o c
aci m c
a,l ` Vi O .`a.
ta 0! V b
u° c m vOi 'c a v
c E
c w is w
_ a c
U C w U !� yr C fe U c C Z r6 i! C -0 _
m7 F 3 u
n C
o 7 a v t z m `—° 'o
Q 0 N t eo m y a -c O
0 O d m
_ 1A IN
CL
•'J N •G O L 7 Y ' C • E m �"' U_
N a U �C LAX OJ fC a a
IA L6V
m vO1 O - c LL O m c O C C } ro
m
01 a o f ti ° m m a ; m e °1 0 a t
0 E Q ra t! y N N v1 " O G7 C N A N O O
E `-' u c ar u' w c W m E c m
o c .` C E
z z � Warl Q3aocc <
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency fee Study Final May 20,2024 Page 10
Agriculture
While agriculture is not a major employment sector in the Ukiah Valley, it does contribute to the
prosperity of the valley.Table 7 summarizes acreage of crops grown in the GSA's management
area.The dominant crop is wine grapes.The valley is also well known for producing pears.
Table 7
Acres of Crops Grown in UVBGSA
DWR Map Acres in
Code Crop UVBGSA
V Vineyard 15,339
X Unclassified [11 1,252
G6 Miscellaneous grain and hay 810
D6 Pears 557
D13 Walnuts 245
P3 Mixed pasture 212
P1 Alfalfa&Alfalfa mixtures 65
C6 Olives 32
P6 Miscellaneous grasses 27
T18 Miscellaneous truck&berry 7
T16 Flowers, nursey,and Christmas tree farms 4
CTotal Cropped Land 18,550
Source:DWR Statewide Crop Mapping.
(11 Property partially used for growing crops during the year.
Agricultural statistics beyond acreage grown in the Ukiah Valley are not available, but the County
prepares agricultural statistics,as required,for the State each year.The top five Mendocino County
agricultural commodities by production value are shown in Figure 1. Wine grapes have the highest
commodity value in the County,followed by forest products.Timber accounts for about 20%of the
County's total agricultural value,and the County is ranked second of the counties reporting timber
value in the State; however, in terms of total agricultural production value, Mendocino ranks 351h of
the State's 58 countieslo
io California County Agricultural Commissioners'Report Crop Year 2021-2022,March 26 2024,California
Department of Food and Agriculture.
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Susta nability Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 P ag*11
Figure 1 0
Top Five Commodities in Mendocino County by Production Value
pears = $10,745,343
Field Crops _ $13,898,210
Livestock - $18,453,440
Forest Products
_ [2] $67,128,681
Wine Grapes $84,484,842
In 2021, Mendocino County's total agricultural production value was$200 million,excluding fish
catch. Figure 2 shows the percentage of total production value by commodity group.
Figure 2
Mendocino County Agricultural Production Value by Commodity Group
All Other
Pears 3%
Field Crops 5%
7%
Livestock
(Meat)
9% Wine Grapes
Forestry
Products
Table 8 shows the ranking of agricultural production value by commodity. Wine grapes and forest
products have been the top two producers since 2010.
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Susta nability Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 Pap 12
Table 8
Ranking of Agricultural Commodities by Production Value
Commodity[1] 2021 Commodity[1] 2010
nominal$s
1 Wine Grapes $84,484,842 1 Wine Grapes $73,904,000
2 Forest Products[2] $67,128,681 2 Forest Products[2] $57,673,418
3 Livestock $18,453,440 3 Field Crops $11,107,500
4 Field Crops $13,898,210 4 Pears $10,325,300
5 Pears $10,745,343 5 Livestock $7,718,300
6 Nursery Production $1,821,000 6 Livestock&Poultry Products $6,043,700
7 Livestock&Poultry Products $1,389,000 7 Nursery Production $3,167,000
8 Vegetable Crops $1,387,000 8 Miscellaneous [3] $1,600,000
9 Miscellaneous[3] $1,085,000 9 Apples $1,305,600
10 Apples $163,800 10 Vegetable Crops $1,200,000
Total $200,556,316 Total $174,044,818
Source:2021 Mendocino County Agricultural Commissioner's Annual Report toplo
[1]Excludes fish catch value.
[21 Log Value at Mill
[3]Miscellaneous includes berries,cherries,chestnuts,olives,guava,peaches,persimmons,
table grapes,pistachios and walnuts.
Figure 8 further demonstrates the dominance of fruit/nuts/wine grapes of agricultural production
value in the County. Forestry products and fish catch are excluded in the graph.
Figure 3
Ten-Year Historical Change in Agricultural Product Values
Fruit/Nut#/Wine Grapes f Livestock(Meat) Livestock(Products) ■Nursery ■Vegetables ■Field Crops
$200,000,000
$180,000,000 .
$160,000,000
$140,000,000 •
$120,000,000 , 1
$100,000,000
$80,000,000
$60,000,000
S40,000,000
$20.000 000
$0
$012 2013 701� 2015 d016 2p17 7C19 20t9 2��0 i021
Note:Figures in nominal dollars(not adjusted for inflation).
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainab lity Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 Page 13
Table 9 provides the 2021 commodities values with a description of the commodities included in
each commodity group.
Table 9
Mendocino County 2022 Agricultural Commodity Values Detail
2021 Commodity
Commodity Group Value
Fruit and Nut Crops
Fresh Apples $81,900
Other Apples(dried,juice,etc.) $81,900
Wine Grapes $84,484,842
Bartlett Pears $9,563,000
Bosc Pears $424,096
Red Pears $751,512
Other Pears(canning,fresh,dried,paste,etc.) $8,889,763
Miscellaneous $1,085,000
Subtotal Fruit and Nut Crops $105,362,013
Livestock
Cattle and Calves $17,498,400
Sheep and Lambs $404,700
Hogs and Pigs $81,340 0
Miscellaneous $469,000
Total Livestock $18,453,440
Livestock and Poultry Products
Milk n.a
Wool $21,000
Miscellaneous(eggs,apiary,cheese, manure,etc.) $1,368,000
Total Livestock and Poultry Products $1,389,000
Nursery
Turf and Cut Flowers $1,805,000
Christmas Trees $16,000
Total Nursery $1,821,000
Vegetables $1,387,000
Field Crops
Irrigated Pasture $979,200
Pasture $6,849,810
Range $3,919,200
Miscellaneous(alfalfa, barley, beans,corn,hay&oats) $2,150,000
Total Field Crops $13,898,210
Total Commodities Value in 2021(excl.forestry&fish catch) $283,234,326
Source:2021 Mendoc no County Agricultural Commis{ioner's Annual Report. value
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainabdity Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 Page 14
2.3 UKIAH VALLEY BASIN GROUNDWATER USERS
The customer base of the UVBGSA is all beneficiaries of sustainable groundwater management
within the Ukiah Valley Basin that reside or own property within the UVBGSA management area.
Beneficiaries include individuals, businesses, and government agencies, including the State of
California. Beneficiaries may also include wildlife, riparian habitat and other environmental users of
groundwater and groundwater that interacts with surface water; however,for purposes of the
regulatory fee, beneficiaries are defined as all property owners within the UVBGSA management
area because all properties reap the benefit of UVBGSA's groundwater management activities.
The Ukiah Valley Basin's water resources are interconnected.The GSA is monitoring and evaluating
all water sources to continually improve its hydrologic model as environmental conditions change.
Use of surface water and other waters cannot be parsed out with precision, as documented in the
GSP; therefore, all properties within the GSA management area do,to some degree, benefit from
the GSA's activities. Even if the benefit is not obvious today, all water sources need to be protected,
monitored, and managed to ensure a stable supply of groundwater in perpetuity.
Properties may be using groundwater supplied by a public water system, by a domestic well,
commercial production well, or an irrigation well, or they may be passive users of groundwater".
The fee study grouped groundwater users into four types. Group 1 users are supplied groundwater
by a municipal water service provider for non-agricultural purposes. Group 2 users collectively use
groundwater to grow crops, and Group 3 use groundwater for domestic or commercial economic
activities, not growing a crop.The fourth group does not use groundwater; examples include vacant
land (such as an undeveloped industrial lot, range land, right-of-way, and utilities).
Group 1: Public Water Systems
Group 1 Definition.The definition of Group 1 users is every parcel served by a PWS using potable
water for non-agricultural purposes. A PWS is defined by the California Safe Drinking Water Act as
follows:
"Public water system means a system for the provision of water for human consumption
through pipes or other construction conveyances that has 15 or more service connections or
regularly serves at least 2S individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year."
There are 11 water systems meeting the definition of a PWS in the Ukiah Valley. Of these, Rogina
Water Company is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).The other water
systems are regulated by the State Water Boards. Four county water districts have a JPA for joint
management, and potential future consolidation,of assets and operations.The URRWA is
collectively responsible for the Calpella County Water District (CWD),Willow CWD, Millview CWD,
and Redwood Valley CWD. Because management activities for these four water districts are
consolidated the fee study calculations are only shown for the URRWA. In February 2024, a new JPA
11 Surface water users affect groundwater supplies in the Ukiah Valley Basin.Dry farming is another passive use of
groundwater as precipitation is consumed by plants rather than reaching the aquifer.
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainabiiity Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 Pap IS
was formed,the Ukiah Valley Water Authority(UVWA).The UVWA integrates the governance and
water infrastructure of the City of Ukiah, Millview CWD and Redwood Valley CWD.The PWSs and
total number of connections they serve (includes agriculture) in the Ukiah Valley Basin are listed in
Table 10.
Table 10
Public Water Systems in the UVBGSA Management Area
Water System Name Population Served Total Connections
Upper Russian River Water Agency
Calpella County Water District 548 185
Willow County Water District 3,797 1,079
Millview County Water District 5,500 1,715
Redwood Valley County Water District 5,200 1,317
Subtotal URRWA 15,045 4,296
River Estates Mutual Water Company 250 83
Rogina Water Company 2,554 1,001
City of Ukiah 16,607 4,938
Lake View Mutual Water Company 90 29
Yokayo Tribe of Indians 75 23
Flight Ridge 206 3 0
City of 10,000 Buddhas 400 50
Total 35,227 10,423
Source Drinking Water Watch:https:l/sdwis.waterboards.ra.gov./PDWW: May 2024
Many of the water providers serve(export)groundwater to customers(and parcels) outside the
UVBGSA management area. Map 2 illustrates water exportation from inside the basin to outside
the basin by River Estates Mutual Water Company. Blue dots(with a blue circle around them)show
the location of the water provider's wells.The blue shaded area shows properties served by the
water provider; most properties served are outside the GSA's management (fee) area.
Group 2: Crop Land
To develop the definition of crop land,the fee study first examined the Assessor's records of
agricultural land use in the GSA's management area.Table 11 shows the Assessor classifies almost
14,000 acres of property Irrigated Agriculture, and just over 16,000 acres of property Dry
Agriculture for a total of 30,310 acres of parcels engaged in agricultural production.The largest
acreage used for agriculture is for raising livestock (rangeland). Almost all the irrigated acres are
planted vineyards.The Assessor's data, however, is only updated when necessitated -by change of
ownership,for example. It is not always reflective of current uses of land. A data source that is
considered more reflective of agricultural land use is provided by DWR,the "DWR crop map"which
is updated each year using aerial photography.
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 Page 16
Map 2
River Estates Mutual: Example PWS exporting Groundwater from the Basin
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agencys...:s.,,p..Yr pr•
auvMSAF—A,—.SwRCBGAMA.
+. 0[2023
-- i
• �1 Supplemental Dao
Well, SWRCOGAMA on2623
a q
y
k
Wue,DiFtrict Bmn,dary,
M.W--C—ty OvilaD
UVBGSA Fadvalty Ovr.d►-1,
parzelgont D-U21
Table 11
Agricultural Production Acres including Timber and Rangeland
Land Use
Crop/Use Code Acres Irrigated
Orchard 41 2,096 Irrigated
Orchard 51 75
Vineyard 42 11,728 Irrigated
Vineyard 52 1,624
Classified lands 53 1,753
Permanent pasture(dairy) 43 46 Irrigated
Row crops 44 18 Irrigated
Range 54 11,919
Recreational residential 55 943
Timber: assessable young growth 62 107
Total 30,310
Total Irrigated 13,888 46%
Total Dry(includes Timber) 16,422 54%
Source:UVSGSA fee database May 2024. ag acres
Uk-ah Valley Bas n Groundwater Susta inability Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 Page 17
Group 2 Definition. Crop Land is land meeting one of the following characterizations:
a) a) Property identified as growing crops using DWR's most recently released publicly
available crop mapping dataset.
b) Property with at least one medium, large, or nursery stock cannabis license issued by
Mendocino County as of June 1 of each year'.
Property in Group 2 pursuant to b) is capped at 1.0 acre for the Part 2 fee calculation.
In 2010,the County worked with DWR to develop a GIS file showing dry and irrigated portions of
agricultural properties.This work effort has not occurred since,so although the DWR updates its
maps each year to show portions of properties being cropped or having been disturbed for
agricultural purposes for some portion of the past year, it cannot be stated with any accuracy if dry
or irrigated farming is taking place".The GSP, and subsequent annual reports prepared for the GSA,
input the 2010 data to DWR's Integrated Water Flow Model Demand Calculator(IDC)to estimate
agricultural water demand".
While not considered an agricultural commodity by the State of California,a crop that is grown in
abundance (legally and illegally) in Mendocino County, is cannabis.The GSP notes that water use of
cannabis was not accounted for in the water budget but that it is an agricultural use of water and
that it should be investigated due to its potential to impact water demand in the Basin in the
future14. Stakeholders and the public were asked about the importance of cannabis cultivation in
the fee structure.Their responses were in favor of a fee on cannabis license holders (see Section
3.3).
The Mendocino County cannabis licensing department provided a shapefile identifying Assessor
Parcel Numbers (APNs)with cannabis licenses.This data was joined with the other fee study data
sources using GIS to ascertain the total number of current valid cannabis licenses in the GSA's
management area.Table 12 shows there are 50 properties with at least one current valid cannabis
license (some have 2 or 3 licenses). Of the 50 properties, 27 would be considered Crop Land using
the DWR definition of Crop Land, and 23 would not. Properties with small cultivation licenses were
not included in the fee study because water use in the maximum allowable canopy is similar to that
of having a vegetable garden,or a second home on the property.
Map 3 highlights a parcel that is classified Crop Land using the 2020 DWR crop map. DWR identifies
the parcel as growing grapes and truck nursery and berry crops.The parcel has two cannabis
licenses. Map 4 shows four cannabis license parcels within the UVBGSA management area that are
in Group 2 because of cannabis cultivation;they would not otherwise be in Group 2. (The red and
white line is the UVBGSA boundary—the map also shows two cannabis licenses parcels outside the
GSA management area).
11 LandlCL the firm that prepares the cropping maps for DWR,confirmed this verbally May 2024.
11 Pages 215 and 216 of the GSP.
14 Pages 62 and 234 of the GSP.
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Susta nability Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 Page 18
Table 1,2
Properties with Cannabis License(s)
Number of Properties
Have Already in Cannabis Crop
License Type License(s) Group 2 [1) Land (2)
#of properties
Medium cultivation 11 3 8
Large cultivation 20 9 11
Nursery Stock/Seed 19 15 4
Total so 27 23
Source:HEC May 2024 canna char
[1] Meets definition of Crop Land per DWR crop mapping data.
[2] Not classified Crop Land by DWR data definitions.
Map 3
Cannabis Property classified Crop Land by DWR
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Fee Assessment Map
A.
Gl "
y
r-
+ '`
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Susta inability Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 Page 19
Map 4
Cannabis Property in Group 2
jUkiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency fee A%wssme^*+dan
•
` \
t=
OF
f
* r
h
• f r • i
. ram
t.
Unlike the vast agricultural growing regions California is so well known for, agriculture in Ukiah is
both large-scale and small-scale (some may be described as hobby growing),and rarely is an entire
parcel cropped. Cannabis cultivation is limited to canopy size by license type per Mendocino County
Ordinance 4522. Even with two or three licenses on a parcel,the cannabis cultivation area is
unlikely to exceed one acre. For this reason, parcels in Group 2 that are in this group because they
cultivate cannabis are capped at 1.0 acre when considering them as a groundwater user.
All properties that DWR's crop maps identify as having grown a crop for some portion of the year,
even if they are currently fallow but have been engaged in agricultural economic activity, are
considered Group 2 groundwater users.
Group 3: Improved Property not in Groups 1 or 2
Although there are various incomplete sources of well information for the Ukiah Valley housed by
DWR, the SWRCB, and the County, except wells owned by the PWSs(which are well documented),
the locations of wells in the Ukiah Valley Basin are not documented with precision by any regulatory
body. By examining maps and Assessor data, and the incomplete well information housed by the
State,there is much non-agricultural economic activity taking place outside of the water service
provider boundaries within the GSA management area. Group 3 includes improved properties not
in groups 1 or 2, and it largely consists of residential parcels that can be characterized as rural with
Ukiah Valley Bas n Groundwater Sustainability Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 Pate 20
much larger parcel size than in the urban areas. Residential parcels may be quite large (40 acres for
example), but water use will remain limited to the structures on the parcel, and small areas of
outdoor watering for landscaping or vegetable gardens,for example. For this reason, residential
parcels in group 3 are capped at 0.5 acres when considering them as a groundwater user.
Group 3 Definition.The definition of fee Group 3 users is Improved Property where Improved
means the property has an improvements value as shown on a property tax bill for structure($)
located on the property, and the property is:
a) NOT served by a Public Water System but may be served by a State Small Water System.
b) NOT identified as Crop Land.
Rural Residential property acreage is capped at 0.5 acres for the Part 2 fee calculation.
Group 4:All Other
Group 4 Definition. Fee Group 4 properties are all remaining properties in the GSA's
management area that are not fee exempt and are not in Groups 1, 2,or 3.The land is:
a) Located outside public water system service provider boundaries.
b) Unimproved;the only economic activity taking place is raising livestock, or for an
environmental, recreational, or cultural purpose.
2.4 GROUNDWATER EXTRACTION ESTIMATES
Groundwater extraction estimates were developed for the three groundwater user groups.
Group 1: Public Water Systems
All Public Water Systems are required to file electronic annual reports with the State Water
Boards"'. In their reporting,each water system must state quantity produced by facility extraction
type. Water production reported from wells is considered groundwater for purposes of the fee.
Table 13 provides historical records of groundwater extraction by Public Water System (URRWA
water systems are grouped together). Due to fluctuation in use of surface water and groundwater
that occurs annually depending on the abundance of surface water,the analysis uses the 5-year
rolling average pumping for the fee study. Average annual total pumping by the 11 water systems
for the past five years is 1.25 billion gallons.
is DWR compiles the EAR data into public water systems statistics surveys,detail of which can be obtained from
Public Water Systems Statistics Surveys fcajzov).
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Susta inability Agency Fee Study F-nal May 20,2024 :cage a
Table 13
Public Water Systems Reported Groundwater Extraction
River Yokayo Flight City of 10K
Calendar Year Ukiah Rogina URRWA Estates Lake View Tribe Ridge[21 Buddhas TOTAL
Groundwater Production(Extraction)in Thousands of Gallons
2015 382,992 129,128 384,438 9,384 2,919 3,344 8,965 11,100 932,270
2016 298,015 131,763 413,507 9,544 2,352 2,482 6,039 16,900 880,602
2017 412,355 140,732 438,763 11,956 2,212 n.r. n.r. 16,400 1,022,418
2018 337,463 143,628 464,153 11,244 2,041 2,264 5,798 17,200 983,791
2019 569,538 151,413 447,978 11,169 2,339 2,648 4,082 16,200 1,205,367
2020 491,178 324,468 503,821 11,677 2,957 n.r. 4,736 6,120 1,344,957
2021 734,185 n.r. 421,740 9,362 2,311 n.r. 3,974 6,590 1,178,161
2022 477,059 143,485 696,441 8,594 1,980 3,050 1,785 6,440 1,338,834
Average Water Extraction per Year
5-Years 521,885 190,749 506,827 10,409 2,326 2,654 4,075 10,510 1,249,434
Non-Agricultural 521,885 174,778 334,367 10,409 2,326 2,654 937 10,510 1,057,866
Agricultural[1) 0 15,970 172,460 0 0 0 3,138 0 191,568
Source:Electronic Annual Reports filcd wit^the State Water Boards. extract
[1)See Table 14 for agricultural consumption as a percentage of total water consumption. Note:n.r.=not reported.
(2)Flight Ridge provided water consumption data for 2023,which demonstrated 77%of water is used for agricultural purposes.
Data not included in the study pe-California Code 7927.410 customer confidentiality requirements.
The URRWA, Rogina Water Company, and Flight Ridge serve agricultural customers.The percentage
of total water consumption by agriculture was applied to groundwater pumping to net an estimate
of groundwater pumped for agricultural purposes by the Public Water Systems.Agricultural water
use is deducted from total PWS pumping because agricultural groundwater use is accounted for in
the Group 2 groundwater extraction estimate.Average annual total pumping by the 11 water
systems for non agricultural purposes for the past five years is estimated at 1.06 billion gallons.
'fable 14 shows agriculture as a share of total water consumption by the Public Water Systems.
Flight Ridge was contacted directly for data, as that water system did not report agricultural water
use to the State. It may be possible to refine the estimate of groundwater pumped for agricultural
use by PWSs'customers further in future updates to the fee,as the reduction for agricultural water
use may be overstated (a greater than proportionate share of agriculture's water use may be
surface water).
Currently,the Public Water Systems are unable to provide datasets matching water service with
APNs; therefore, any property in a PWS service boundary not classified in Group 2 is included in
Group 1. As a result, some properties classified as Group 1 should possibly be classified as Group 3.
The fee study recommends the UVBGSA work with the Public Water Systems to refine this portion
of the fee so that all properties are placed in the correct fee group.
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Susta nability Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 page 22
Table 14
Public Water Systems Total Water and Agricultural Water Consumption
Calendar Year Rogina URRWA
Total Consumption(Thousands Galls)
2015 129,128 522,288
2016 122,859 624,425
2017 131,815 571,362
2018 135,963 691,912
2019 n.r. 472,197
2020 n.r. 677,658
2021 122,850 641,870
2022 109,721 597,207
Total Avg.Annual Consumption
5-Years 122,844 616,169
Ag.Consumption(Thousands Galls)
2015 8,361 269,909
2016 8,904 240,140
2017 8,926 n.r.
2018 7,665 297,536
C 2019 n.r. 158,885
2020 n.r. 515,895
2021 13,678 60,826
2022 9,512 15,189
Agriculture Avg.Annual Consumption
5-Years 10,285 209,666
Ag.As%of Total 8% 34%
Source EARS filed with the State Water Boards.
Note:n.r.=not reported.
Group 2: Crop Land
The estimate of groundwater applied to crop land is provided in the GSP and GSA annual reports
prepared for and submitted to DWR. As previously described, agricultural water use is estimated
using the IDC model.The total estimated water use for purposes of the fee study uses a 5-year
rolling average for the same reasons previously given. Using the IDC model estimates, 39%of water
used for agricultural purposes is groundwater,and 61%is surface water, as shown in Table 15111
16 Recycled water is a blend of groundwater and surface water used by City of Ukiah and Ukiah Valley Sanitation
District(UVSD)sewer customers,collected,and treated at the City's wastewater treatment plant.It is not included
in the calculation of the share of agricultural water that is groundwater versus surface water.
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Fee Study Final May 20.2024 Rage?3
Table 15
IDC Model Agricultural Water Use Estimates
Surface Recycled
Water Year Groundwater Water Water Total
2015 all figures in acre-feet 13,582
2016 13,222
2017 12,453
2018 No breakdown available for these years 13,152
2019 13,204
2020 14,884
2021 10,702 12,487 1,104 24,293
2022 3,326 9,536 910 13,772
Last 5 Years 14,028 22,023 2,014 38,065
5-Yr Share 39% 61% 100%
Source:LWA est-mates prepared for the GSP, ag use
the 2021 Annual Report,and the 2022 Annual Report.
Due to the imprecision of the analysis,agriculture's share of total water used is rounded to 40%to
determine the annual estimated groundwater extraction by agriculture calculated in Table 16.
Table 16
Estimated Agricultural Groundwater Extraction
Total Agricultural GW Share Est.GW
Water Year Applied Water[AF] [1] Extraction
2015 13,582 40% 5,433
2016 13,222 40% 5,289
2017 12,453 40% 4,981
2018 13,152 40% 5,261
2019 13,204 40% 5,282
2020 14,884 40% 5,954
2021 24,293 40% 9,717
2022 13,772 40% 5,509
5-Year Avg.Ac-Ft Agricultural GW Extraction Est. 6,344
Source: Larry Wa ker Associates,December 2023. We
[1] U�e5 the 2021 and 2022 annual reports rounded,applied each year.
0
Uk ah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 Pam 24
Cannabis water use is not included in the prior two tables. Cannabis water use is estimated using
limited information on water requirements of cannabis plants.Table 17 estimates the annual water
use of a cannabis farm (license) by license type.The analysis should be considered high-level and
should be refined over time as greater research is conducted and better information becomes
available regarding water use of cannabis plants. For example, outdoor growing has a limited
growing season (summertime), but indoor growing can occur year-round. No UVBGSA management
area specific data was obtainable.
Table 17
Cannabis Cultivation Estimated Water Use
License Type Maximum Canopy Estimated Growing Full Canopy
Canopy Area Plants Days Galls/Yr Ac-Ft/Yr
Sq. Ft. Acres [11 Jun-Oct(2] (3] [4)
Small cultivation 2,500 0,06 100 150 90,000 0.28
Medium cultivation 5,000 0,11 200 150 180,000 0.55
Large cultivation 10,000 0.23 400 150 360,000 1.10
Nursery Stock/Seed 22,000 0.51 880 150 792,000 2.43
Source:Mendocino County Ordinance No 4522,Dr.Ted Graham,UC Berkeley,email correspondence canna use
February 11,2024,and Zheng,Z.,Fiddes,K.&Yang,L.A narrative review on environmental
impacts of cannabis cultivation,J Cannabis Res 3,35(2021).
[1]200 plants per 5,000 scl ft. (2)One growing season per year.
(3]Water use of 6 gallons per plant per day during the growing season.
[4] Per Dr.Graham,cannabis farms use between 1 and 2.5 acre-feet of water per year.
Table 18 calculates the estimated annual cannabis water use of Group 2 users is 87.5 acre-feet.
Table 18
Estimated UVBGSA Cannabis Water Use
Number of Estimated
Cannabis Full Canopy Total Ac-Ft
License Type Licenses Ac-Ft/Yr per Year
[1] [2] (3]
Medium cultivation 12 0.55 6.63
Large cultivation 38 1.10 41.98
Nursery Stock/Seed 16 2.43 38.89
Total 66 87.50
Source;UVBGSA fee parcel database,HEC May 2024. c 1..1..!
[1]Number of medium,large&nursery licenses in the GSA boundaries.
[2)Estimate using maximum canopy allowable Mendocino County
Ordinance No.4522.
(3]All water use assumed to be groundwater.
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainab lily Agency Fee Study Final May 20.2024 Pale 7s
Group 3:Improved Properties not in Group 1 or 2
Groundwater extraction for Group 3 was determined using 2023 water meter consumption records
for Millview County Water District customers.Average annual water use by residential, commercial,
industrial, and institutional land uses was multiplied by the acreage of each land use type.Table 19
shows Group 3 users are estimated to use 211 acre-feet per year.
Table 19
Groundwater Extraction Calculation Fee Group 3
Thousands Acre-Ft per Acre Improved Parcels Est.Ac-Ft
Assessor Land Use Galls. per Year per Year Acreage per Year
per acre [2] [2] [1]
Rural Residential 240,000 0.74 156 115
Commercial 134,600 0.41 34 14
Industrial 327,000 1.00 72 72
Institutional 283,800 0.87 11 10
Total 0.77 273 211
Source:UVBGSA fee database,Millview CWD metered use records,and HEC May 2024. group 3
11)Acres of parcels with improvements. Residential parcels capped at 0.5 acre.
[2]Data from Millview CWD consumption records.
Total Groundwater Use
The estimate of total groundwater use developed for the FY 2025 fee calculations is provided in
Table 20. Estimated water use by the three fee groups is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4
Estimated Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Use
Group 3: Other
Improved
Properties,2%
Group 1
Public Water
31
Group 2:
Crop band,
67
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 Page 26
Based on the estimates of historical proportion of groundwater extraction by the three fee groups
in the Ukiah Valley Basin,Group 1 users are responsible for 31%; Group 2 users are responsible for
67%, and Group 3 users are responsible for 2%of the Part 2 estimated FY 2025 costs.
Table 20
Groundwater Use by Customer Group
Group Est.GW
Fee Group Share Extraction Methodology Data Source
Group 1:Public Water Systems Acre-Feet
Municipa.Mix(GSP definition[(1) 3,882 Rolling 5-yr gw extrwt nn average EAR Reports to DWR
less portion that is for crops 595 Rolling S-yr%of consumption by Agriculture EAR Reports to DWR
Total Group 1 GW Use)acre-feet) 31% 3,297
Group 2:Crop Land
Agricultural(GSP definition)[21 6,344 Rolling 5 year gw extraction average IDC Model used in the GSP and Annual Reports
plus Cannabis Use 88 Max.crop coverage per license 1100%gw) Mendocino County cannabis licenses database
plus crop portion of Municipal Mix 595 Rolling 5-yr%of consumption by Agriculture EAR Reports to DWR
Total Group 2 GW Use(acre-feet) 67% 7,027
Group 3:Other Improved Properties
Tota Improved Acres 273 Parcels with Improvement Value not n Groups 1 or 2 Fee Parcel Database,Resid.capped 0.5 a:rrs
Annual Average Acre-Feet per Acre 0.77 Est.Extraction per Acre(100%gw)by and use type Millview CWD 2023 metered customer data
Total Group 3 GW Use(acre-feet) 2% 211
Total Estimated Groundwater Use 100% 10,525 for dm
Source State EAR Reports filed by each Public Water System,Mendocino County,UVBGSA GSP and 2021 to current GSA annual reports.
[11 Total differs from the GSP because of the inclusion of Rogina,Yokayo Tribe,Flight Ridge,Lake View,and City of 10 Thousand Buddhas water systems
and calendar year rather than water year reporting.
[II About 40%of total agricultural water use is from groundwater,per GSP consultant calculations.
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability,Agency Fee Study F,nal May 20,2024 :kape 7
SECTION 3: FEE DEVELOPMENT
One of the first tasks of the Board was to determine what type of fee would best characterize the
purpose of the fee under the California Constitution.At the October 2023 and January 2024 Board
meetings,the different funding mechanisms available and types of fees were presented.At the
February 2024 Board meeting,direction was provided to proceed with a regulatory fee adopted
under the Proposition 26 process requirements which is authorized under SGMA.
3.1 FEE AUTHORITY
Disclaimer:HEC is not an attorney. The following is an interpretation of California law as if applies to
UVBGSA's fee-setting abilities. HEC is not, and does not claim to be, an attorney qualified to provide
legal opinions.
UVBGSA's fee authority is derived from the SGMA-specific legislation codified in Water Code 10730
through 10731 "Financial Authority".This section of the Water Code allows UVBGSA to impose fees
for regulated activities, including but not limited to, permits to operate wells,the costs of a
groundwater sustainability program such as development and amendment of a groundwater
sustainability plan (GSP), investigations, inspections,compliance assistance, enforcement, and
program administration including a prudent reserve. In addition, after the adoption of a GSP,
UVBGSA could impose fees to pay for GSP activities that require land acquisition and/or
construction of infrastructure that implement PMAs in the GSP. UVBGSA's revenue collection
authority, not the subject of this Study, also includes:
• One-time regulatory fees for permits and inspections (Proposition 26 exception 1(e)(2)),
and
• Meter installation cost recovery for meters installed within the Ukiah Valley Basin (Water
Code 10725.8(b)); however, UVBGSA cannot require meters to be installed on de minimis
users(domestic wells that pump less than two acre-feet per year).
Under Proposition 26,a regulatory fee, an assessment,and a property-related charge are all
exemptions from the definition of a tax. Regulatory fees are adopted pursuant to the requirements
of Proposition 26, and as specified in Water Code 10730(b).Assessments and property-related
charges are adopted pursuant to the requirements of Proposition 218 (Article XIII D of the California
Constitution). Property-related charges were ruled out at this time by the Board because the agency
is not a water provider; it only conducts regulatory activities17. UVBGSA could form an assessment
district(limited to no bond issuance authority) under various enabling laws such as the Landscape
and Lighting Act of 1972 and the Benefit Assessment Act of 1982; however, assessments must only
cover the portion of agency costs that are incurred to provide special benefit to parcels. UVBGSA
cannot prove special benefit of groundwater sustainability management actions to parcels within its
Ukiah Valley Basin because of the lack of current understanding of groundwater and surface
interaction. In addition,groundwater management activities within UVBGSA could be of benefit to
persons outside of the Ukiah Valley Basin.
'y The UVBGSA Board could adopt a Proposition 218 fee in the future for certain projects.
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainab lity Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 Page 28
The new UVBGSA regulatory fee must be no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of
the governmental activity, and the manner in which the costs are allocated to a payor must bear a
fair or reasonable relationship to the payor's burden on, or benefits received from, the
governmental activity.
3.2 METHODOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
The fee structure was developed using two key pillars of information that were constructed through
the fee study process:
1. Stakeholder and public comment on who should be charged, and the most equitable fee
structure.
2. Available data upon which to confidently calculate the fee each year.
Before the UVBGSA Board meeting held October 12, 2023, HEC researched other GSA fee structures
for insights of what fee structures are being adopted across the state. Key highlights and take aways
of the case study research included:
• Fee Pathway. Of the 22 GSAs researched, 20 use a SGMA-authorized funding tool.Of those,
half at least started with a Proposition 26 fee,and half started with a Proposition 218 fee.
• Fee Structure.Ten of the case studies have an acreage-only fee, 7 have an extraction-only
fee, 3 have an acreage fee and water systems pay a lump sum amount, and 2 have a hybrid
fee. Hybrid fee structures were used for GSAs with significant urban population. One GSA
has a hybrid fee with a base fee.Another GSA is considering a new fee with a base fee
component.
• Fee Collection.The majority of GSAs(all those with acreage or hybrid fees and the Sonoma
County GSAs-there are 3 but they were counted as 1 for the case study research-which
have extraction fees), collect fees with property taxes. Most water providers want the GSA
fee to be on the property tax bill to distinguish the fee from their own water fees.
• UVBGSA Fee.The UVBGSA should choose a fee structure that works best for all the
beneficiaries of groundwater management in the Ukiah Valley Basin; it could be unique to
UVBGSA.
Map 5 illustrates the fee structure objectives that were constantly considered as the fee
methodology was developed.
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Susta inability Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 Pam 29
Map 5
Fee Structure Objectives
�0
Defensibility o Understandability
Methodology demonstrates
reasonableness of the fee Understandable by
structure and amount(s)per CA the customer base
j Constitution
Financial Simplicity
Stability r Functional ease,
Confidence that the fee keeps administrative
structure will produce costs down
I anticipated revenues 5
Equity Enforceability
All parties given equal AbilityIo collect the
oppodundyto participate in fee based on reliable
the process data
UVBGSA's Proposition 26 fee options past-GSP adoption include a wellhead fee, parcel fee, acreage
fee, water connection fee, and extraction fee. Fee structure options originally presented but
eliminated include these:
• Wellhead fee—insufficient data exists to develop a wellhead fee.
• Parcel fee—this fee structure was eliminated in favor of an acreage fee because an acreage
fee has a stronger linkage to the benefits of the GSA's activities, including surface area of
rainfall collection and the interconnection of surface water and groundwater in various
parts of the basin.
• Connection fee—only applicable to groundwater users served by a public water system,this
fee structure is less robust than an extraction fee for the groundwater users served by a
public water system. While the fee charged to the Public Water Systems is based on
extraction,the providers can distribute their fee among customers as they choose,which
could include cost allocation by connection.
At the October 12, 2023 and January 11, 2024 Board meetings,findings from the case studies,the
stakeholder interviews, and available data sources were discussed in the context of the fee
structure goals.
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustamabdity Agency Fee Study Fina'May 20,2024 ftge N
At its February 13, 2024 Board meeting,the Board directed proceeding with a Proposition 26 fee,
agreeing that all beneficiaries of groundwater management should pay for the regulatory costs of
UVBGSA, including domestic well owners. Domestic well owners are referred to in the Water Code
as "de minimis users".As the location of de minimis users is unknown in the GSA's management
area, and because Water Code 10730 requires groundwater users to be regulated if they are to be
charged a Proposition 26 fee,the GSA must adopt a resolution regulating de minimis users18.
The fee was developed and refined between February and May, 2024.The developed fee
methodology recognizes the difference in water use between customer groups and it provides
some flexibility in that it can be updated within its original framework with better information,
technological advances, and new data sets.
3.3 PUBLIC OUTREACH
A key tenant in developing the regulatory fee structure has been to maintain transparency
throughout the project, informing the UVBGSA stakeholders and the community about the fee
study and how they can be involved and provide input to the process.
Outreach Overview
Public outreach served as one of the fundamental components of establishing a reasonable,
equitable and legally defensible fee structure. Key principles included transparency, inclusion, and
recognition of the diversity of groundwater users in the Ukiah Valley Basin, as well as cultural,
environmental, and economic considerations. Clarity about the setting of and use of the fee was a
key objective given the GSA has been funded thus far by JPA members. Outreach goals, objectives
and considerations were identified at the onset in a Communication and Engagement Plan,which
was reviewed by GSA staff, including GSA legal counsel.The fee consultant team was also educated
about Tribal engagement protocol and communication tactics.
Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement
The team reviewed a list of stakeholders compiled during the GSP development and identified
priority stakeholders to be contacted for the fee study.An introductory email was sent to
representatives to explain the fee study purpose and provide options for meetings.
The fee study consultant team met with organizations or its representatives, either in-person or via
phone or video conference. In total, 21 meetings were held with representatives from Ukiah City
and County agencies, environmental interests,agricultural interests, disadvantaged communities,
small water systems, and private/public water agencies. Information obtained during the interviews
was taken into consideration when developing the fee structure. Several attempts were made to
engage local Tribal representatives, both formally and via email and calls to designated
representatives; however,only the Yokayo Tribe was engaged in the stakeholder process.
18 Regulation may refer to Water Code 10725.4,specifically conducting investigations,and in connection with such
investigations,"inspecting the property or facilities of a person or entity to ascertain whether the purposes of this
part are being met and compliance with this part."
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Susta nability Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 PJgc 31
Highlights from the stakeholder engagement included: 0
• Reduce the 5-year GSA budget from the potential total costs presented at the October 12,
2023 Board meeting to address minimum administration needed to comply with SGMA
(annual reporting, GSA/GSP management, etc.).
• Establish a fee that places the least amount of economic impact on the Ukiah community
(affordability for low income households, particularly renters, and current depressed wine
grape prices).
• All water users should pay a fee regardless of the water source they use (surface and
groundwater are interconnected).
• All parcels with wells should pay(regulate di minimis users).
• Parcel/acreage fee was the most supported methodology;stakeholders were clear the fee
structure needs to account for different land use types.
• Consider whether cannabis growers should be charged a fee.
• Collecting the fee with property taxes is ideal.Water systems do not want to add to billing
and create new fees on existing water bills.
• Be mindful of other fees that agriculture and water systems pay to Russian River Flood
Control Agency and the difficulty to absorb another fee.
Public Outreach Tactics
Several tactics were used to provide a broader outreach effort:
• Website-specific fee study tab on the GSA's website
• Fee-Specific Frequently Asked Questions(FAQ)*
• Fee study presentations and display boards
• Mailer*to all property owners in the Ukiah Valley Basin to advertise fee study workshops
held in January and March and board meetings when the fee study was on the agenda
• Advertisements* for the January and March workshops in the Ukiah Daily Journal
• Social media posts and workshop notifications provided to GSA member agencies to
promote engagement via their agency channels
• Media relations and reporter communications
*Dual English/Spanish languages
Public Workshops
Two workshops were held. The January 11, 2024 presentation included background about SGMA,
UVBGSA's role in developing a groundwater sustainability plan, and an in-depth explanation of the
fee study.The March 13, 2024 public workshop addressed the fee structure under consideration,
fee study methodology, provided examples for residential, commercial and agriculture
beneficiaries, and reviewed outreach efforts. In total, more than 90 participants attended the two
workshops.
Developed supporting materials included PowerPoint presentations,display boards,fact sheets and
meeting facilitation materials. Most materials were available in English and Spanish languages, and
Spanish translation services were provided at both workshops.
The fee study process considered community feedback received during the two public workshops.
In general,the public had many questions related specifically to the GSA and SGMA at both
Uk A Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 Pagr 3z.
workshops, although the second workshop received more questions related to the fee
methodology. Fee-related comments and question topics included:
• Understanding the GSA budget, GSA management costs and related costs to implement the
GSP.The GSA budget, or cost basis, is used to set the fee needed to sustain the operations
of the GSA.
• Understanding both the individual and greater benefits received from paying a fee to the
GSA.
• Whether all well owners, including di minimis users,should be charged a fee;similarly
understanding why a private single well-owner would have to pay to use its"own"water.
• Whether meters will be required on domestic wells.
• Whether the GSA has the authority to regulate well permits and if permits will be limited
(especially applicable to Redwood Valley area).
• Understanding how properties will be charged if not all acres are irrigated,and if a parcel
extends beyond the GSA boundaries.
• Considerations for how the fee will be established (i.e. parcel and land use types, irrigated
acres and whether to charge certain crop types,such as cannabis).
• Whether to charge all water users a base fee.This would include all property owners either
with a well or on a public water system.
• Voicing general support for charging the fee to cannabis cultivators.
• Understanding how the fee will be collected (water provider bills, property tax bills).
• Understanding how the fee will be adopted (Proposition 26 or Proposition 218).
Detailed workshop summaries are included in the Appendix A.The public also had the opportunity
to participate and provide input at UVBGSA Board meetings when the fee study was on the agenda.
The fee study was discussed at the August 30 and October 12, 2023 Board meetings,the January 11,
February 13, and March 13, 2024 UVBGSA Board meetings.
Appendix A of this report provides copy of the following public outreach materials:
• A.1 state and Fee Study Outreach Plan
• A.2 Stakeholder Summary Report
• A.3 Mailer to all Property Owners
• A.4 Display Ads
• A.5 Fact Sheet
• A.6 Internet Postings
• A.7 Fee Study Workshop Summaries
• A.8 Media Articles
All Board discussion materials and public outreach presentations are provided in Appendix B.
Ukiah Val ey Bas n Groundwater Sustainability Agency Fee Study Fina`May 20,2024 Page 3;
Section 4: FEE CALCULATION 0
4.1 COST BASIS OF FEE
To date, most UVBGSA expenses have been related to administrative functions of the GSA and
development of the GSP,the cost of which was paid for with a grant from DWR. Member agencies
have contributed$68,750 per year each to pay for the operating expenses of the Agency, and an
additional $30,000 each in FY 2024 to fund the Fee Study. Member agencies have also provided
considerable in-kind service costs to the UVBGSA.A new regulatory fee,which is the subject of this
report, will be imposed that will replace member contributions.
The $600,000 FY 202S budget comprises UVBGSA's core administrative costs, DWR-reporting
activities, administrative support for GSP action items, PMAs, and a prudent reserve.Table 21
shows the five-year budget forecast in real (inflated) dollars with a FY 2025 starting budget of
$600,000.The projection assumes that UVBGSA's budget increases 4%each year,the average
annual price increase in California for the past 5 years. Historical annual increases in various price
indexes is shown in Table 22 for reference.
Table 21
Summary of Projected GSA 5-Year Budget
Cast Fiscal Year Ending 5-Yr
Category 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Total Share
Fee Revenues $600,000 $624,000 $649,000 $675,000 $702,000 $3,250,000 100%
Costs
Core Operating $138,000 $144,000 $150,000 $156,000 $163,000 $751,000 23%
DWR Reporting $130,000 $136,000 $142,000 $148,000 $154,000 $710,000 22%
GSP Administrative Support 11) $113,000 $118,000 $123,000 $128,000 $134,000 $616,000 19%
Remaining for PMAs&Other[2) $219,000 $226,000 $234,000 $243,000 $251,000 $1,173,000 36%
Source:UVBGSA financial projections,May 2024. sum cost
[1]Preliminary estimate,actual costs will depend on the PMAs pursued.
[21 May be spent on PMAs,added to reserves,or used for any other purpose of the GSA.
Components of the budget projection are shown in Figure S.
Ukiah Valley Bas n Groundwater Sustainability Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 Page 34
Table 22
Historical Price Index Changes
Average Change per Year
Index 20 Yrs 10 Yrs 5 Yrs
June to June 2003-2023 2013 2023 2018 2023
ENR Construction Cost Index
All Cities 3.5% 3.4° 3.8%
San Francisco 3.5% 4.0% 5.0%
Consumer Price Index
West Region 2.8% 3.2% 4.2%
California 2.8% 3.2% 4.0%
Source:Bureau of Labor Statistics and the index
Engineering News Record.
Figure 5
Components of Five-Year Budget Projection
N Core Operating DWR Reporting
$800,000 •GSP Administrative Support a Remaining for PMAs&Other
$700,000 $675,000 $702,000
$600,000
$624,000 $649,000
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$0
FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029
Operating expenses include agency staffing, currently provided by a consulting engineering firm,to
provide reports and proof of SGMA compliance required by DWR, develop implementation policies
and guidelines, provide grant writing, and legal counsel. Regulatory compliance and administration
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Fee Study Finaz May 20,2024 Pie 35
costs include general operational costs such as small tools, materials and supplies,travel and
training costs, insurance,dues, and permit costs,as well as costs associated with data gathering
(data networks,monitoring activities, mapping and so forth) and County fees to place UVBGSA's
regulatory fee on the property tax roll.The projection of expenses excluding potential PMA
expenses is provided in detail in Table 23. GSP administrative support costs will vary with the
number and scale of PMAs undertaken in the five-year period.
Table 23
Projected GSA 5-Year Expenses Excluding PMAs in Inflated Dollars
Expense Fiscal Year Ending
Item 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
costs inflation factor---> 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
Core Administrative Costs All figures in inflated$s
County Administration $5,000 $5,200 $5,500 $5,700 $5,900 $6,100
Annual Workshops $0 $4,200 $4,400 $4,500 $4,700 $4,900
Board/TAC Meetings $45,000 $46,800 $48,700 $50,700 $52,700 $54,800
Insurance $2,500 $2,600 $2,800 $2,900 $3,000 $3,100
Legal[3] $40,000 $52,000 $54,100 $S6,300 $58,500 $60,900
Fee Program Administration $0 $15,600 $16,300 $16,900 $17,600 $18,300
County Fees Costs $12,000 $12,400 $12,800 $13,200 $13,600
Subtotal Core Administration Costs $92,500 $138,400 $144,200 $149,800 $155,600 $161,700
GSP Administrative Suppport
GSP Implementation Overs ght $15,000 $20,900 $21,700 $22,500 $23,400 $24,400
Rate and Fee Support $25,000 $10,400 $10,900 $28,200 $11,700 $12,200
Contracts/Fiscal Management $12,000 $20,800 $21,700 $22,500 $23,400 $24,400
Outreach and Engagement $10,000 515,600 $16,300 $16,900 $17,600 $18,300
Miscellaneous"as requested"Items $0 $5,800 $6,000 $6,200 $6,500 $6,700
Website/Email $2,S00 $3,200 $3,300 $3,400 $3,600 $3,700
Grant Writing $25,000 $36,400 $37,900 $39,400 $41,000 $42,600
Subtotal GSP Administrative Costs $90,000 $113,000 $118,000 $139,000 $127,000 $132,000
DWR-Reporting Activities
Report;ng $20,000 $20,800 $21,700 $22,500 $23,400 $24,400
Technical Support $45,000 $78,000 $81,200 $84,400 $87,800 $91,300
Monitoring/Data Collection $79,000 $31,200 $32,500 $33,800 $35,100 $36,500
Total DWR-Reporting Activities(rounded) $144,000 $130,000 $135,000 $141,000 $146,000 $152,000
Estimated Recurring Annual Expenses $326,000 $381,400 $397,400 $429,600 $429,100 $446,200
5i ume:2024 edopted budget,UVBGSA staff.ano NEC.May 2024
Table 24 provides a cash flow analysis for the UVBGSA for the next five fiscal years. Note that the
estimates of costs and revenues are best estimates and that only year-end values are reported;
actual costs and revenues will likely vary from these estimates over time, and there could be
periods of time during the fiscal year that the UVBGSA is unable to maintain its target minimum
cash threshold because it needs to draw from reserves.
After accounting for administrative costs, DWR-reporting activities, bad debt, and maintenance of
at least 25%of casts held in reserve, UVBGSA would be able to spend approximately$1.0 million on
PMAs over the next five years.
Ukiah Valley Bas n Groundwater Sustainability Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 Paige 36
Table 24
Projected 5-Year Cash Balances
Revenues and Fiscal Year Ending
Expenses 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Revenue
New Fee Mechanism[1) $0 $600,000 $624,000 $649,000 $675,000 $702,000
Grants $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Revenue $0 $600,000 $624,000 $649,000 $675,000 $702,000
Expenses
Core Administrative $92,500 $138,000 $144,000 $150,000 $156,000 $163,000
DWR Reporting $144,000 $130,000 $136,000 $142,000 $148,000 $154,000
PMA-Driven Administrative $90,000 $113,000 $118,000 $123,000 $128,000 $134,000
Total Expense $326,500 $381,000 $398,000 $415,000 $432,000 $451,000
Estimated Net Revenue ($326,500) $219,000 $226,000 $234,000 $243,000 $251,000
Beginning Balance $191,000 $104,500 $145,500 $172,780 $187,310 $190,060
Net Revenues ($326,500) $219,000 $226,000 $234,000 $243,000 $251,000
GSA Member Contributions $395,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Bad debt[2) $0 ($18,000) ($18,720) ($19,470) ($20,250) ($21,060)
PMA Costs ($155,000) ($160,000) ($180,000) ($200,000) ($22%000) ($240,000)
Estimated Ending Balance $104,500 $145,500 $172,780 $187,310 $190,060 $180,000
Reserves
Target Reserves $120,375 $135,250 $144,500 $153,750 $163,000 $172,750
Cash Ba ance as%of Casts 21.7% 26.9% 29.91"3 30.5% 29.2% 26.0%
Financial Health Criteria
Target Cash Balance 25%of Costs no yes yes yes yes yes
Gross Revenues Ratio 1.2(3) yes yes yes yes yes yes
Source Fee study,HEC May 2024. flow
[11 Assumes adopted fee increases 4%each year. [2)Allowance of 3%for potential lagged payments and/or uncollectable bills
[3]Gross revenues ratio target of 1.2 times total expensCs-
The cash flow includes an allowance for delinquencies (unrealized fee revenue). Although fees
placed on property tax bills are guaranteed to the GSA on the Teeter Plan, unreceived billings of
delinquent accounts will not be disbursed to UVBGSA until July or August (the next fiscal year). In
addition, it is likely some direct bills will not be paid.The target minimum cash threshold is 25%of
operating costs, the same as the City of Ukiah.An additional financial criteria applied in the financial
model is that gross revenues must exceed 1.2 times total expenses.
Figure 6 demonstrates that the fee meets the two financial criteria in each year; note however,that
the projection is for fiscal year-end only and it is possible that at some point during the fiscal year
the GSA may have to use some of its reserves to pay invoices. For example,the GSA will not receive
any fee revenue between July and December.
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustamabi`ityAgency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 Pgtc 37
Figure 6
Projected GSA Ending Cash Balances by Fiscal Year
$240,000 �Ending Cash Reserves @ 25% of Costs
$200,000 $191,000 $187,310 $190,060
$172,780 $180,000
$160,000 $145 500
$120,000
$104 500
$80,000
$40,000
$0
FY2023 FY2024 FY2O25 FY2026 FY2027 FY2O28 FY2029
4.2 DATA SOURCES
California law generally provides that a fee calculation need only rely upon the best available data
at the time the fee is calculated.The fee calculations herein rely on the best available data sources
as of the time of this fee study(May 2024). Data sources used to develop the FY 2025 fee include:
• Mendocino County Assessor Parcel Database,
• Mendocino County Environmental Health Department Small Water Systems Database,
• The Ukiah Valley Basin GSP, 2021 Annual Report, and 2022 Annual Report,
• Mendocino County cannabis license database November 2023,
• Mendocino County's GIS shapefiles of water system boundaries,
• Department of Water Resources Water Management Planning Tool
(https:/Jgis.water.ca.pov/`a,Qplboundariesr`),
• Millview County Water District water use by customer type,
• DWR 2020 crop mapping, and
• CA.gov Electronic Annual Reporting System reports provided by DWR staff.
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater 5ustainab lity Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 Pa�e3Q
4.3 FEE CALCULATIONS
The fee calculations are performed for the entire Ukiah Valley Basin shown in Map 1 on page 2.
All beneficiaries of groundwater management will pay at least Part 1 of the new regulatory fee.The
fee calculations are explained in steps.
Step 1:Allocate the cost basis to the fee parts and fee groups.
The Part 1 fee pays for the core administrative costs of the GSA included in the budget.All other
budgeted costs are included in the Part 2 fee.
Cost allocation for FY 2025 is based on the 5-year rolling average annual groundwater pumping for
fee groups 1(Public Water Systems)and 2 (Crop Land), and an estimate of the average annual
water use of Group 3 (Improved Properties not in Group 1 or 2).The fee study acknowledges that
the estimates do not provide a perfect accounting of groundwater use in the Ukiah Valley Basin.
UVBGSA is still in its infancy and developing data sets.The fee study does not have to provide a
perfect accounting;the importance of Step 1 of the fee methodology is to allocate costs in a
reasonable manner between the types of users of Ukiah Valley Basin groundwater.
Table 25 shows the cost allocation for step 1.
Table 25
Cost Basis of Fee Components
Share of FY2025 Fee-
Total Cost Recovered
Fee Component Basis Costs
PART 1 FEE: Base Fee 23% $138,000
PART 2 FEES:Customer Group Fees 77% $462,000
FY2025 Cost Basis 100% $600,000
Fee Group
1. Properties Served by a PWS not Crop Land 31% $143,000
2. Crop Land 67% $310,000
3. Improved Properties not in Groups 1 or 2 2% $9,000
Total Fees by Customer Group 100% $462,000
Source:HEC May 2024,
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Fee Study F nal May 20,2024 Pagr.19
Step 2: Determine the units upon which to allocate the fee-recovered costs.
Part 1 Fee
The Part 1 fee cost basis is divided by the number of acres of fee-paying parcels in the GSA's
boundary.
Part 2 Fee
The Part 2 fee cost basis is calculated for each of the fee groups differently.
Group 1 Fee.The Group 1 allocated cost is divided by the 5-year rolling average groundwater
extraction net of estimated agricultural water by the Public Water Systems.
Group 2 Fee.The Group 2 allocated cost is divided by the number of cropped acres of Group 2
properties,where cropped acres are identified by the most recent DWR crop mapping GIS file, and
cannabis license properties not otherwise engaged in growing crops are capped at 1.0 acre. Parcels
that straddle the GSA boundary pay for crops grown on that parcel that extend beyond the
boundary because,similar to the exportation of groundwater by the public water systems,
agricultural properties may apply water obtained from inside the UVBGSA management area to
their property lying adjacent to the GSA's boundary.
Group 3 Fee.The Group 3 allocated cost is divided by the number of fee-paying acres of Group 3
properties. Fee-paying acres include the entire acreage of parcels with some portion of the parcel in
the Ukiah Valley Basin except for residential properties which are capped at 0.5 acres per parcel.
Residential properties are identified by Assessor land use code; however,the Assessor land use
code is not always representative of economic activity taking place on the parcel. For example,
Recreational Residential should only be a code used for parcels 5 to 40 acres in size but many of the
parcels classified as Recreational Residential by the Assessor are smaller than 5 acres.Although it
would be ideal,determining actual economic activity each year for each Group 3 parcel would be
too administratively burdensome.Table 26 provides a summary of number of GSA fee parcels and
acreage of parcels by fee group.
Table 26
Summary of GSA Fee Parcels and Acreage
Fee GSA Area of Fee-Exempt Parcels
Group Parcels In GSA Fee Acres
base fee acres group fee acres
Group 1 9,396 11,306 n.a.
Group 2 952 16,447 9,967
Group 3 367 2,737 273
Group 4 274 5,271 n.a.
Total 10,989 35,761
Source:UVBGSA fee database,May 2024. lu
0
Uk A Valley Bas n Groundwater Sustamabdity Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 Pap 41D
Step 3: Perform the Fee Calculations
Table 27 shows the fee calculations for the Part i and Part 2 fees. A 5% margin for error is included
in the acreage to account for potential refinements to the database prior to the list of parcels being
placed on the property tax roll.
Table 27
UVBGSA Fee Calculations FY 2025
Item FY 2025
TOTAL COST BASIS $600,000
PART 1 BASE FEE
Cost Basis $138,000
[1] Acreage of Fee-Paying Parcels (acres in the GSA Boundary) 33,973
Base Charge per Acre inside the GSA Boundary $4.07
PART 2 GROUP FEES
Group 1 Fee to Public Water Systems
Cost Basis $143,000
Thousands of Gallons(Non-Ag Use) 1,057,866
Fee per Thousand Gallons of Extraction $0.1352
Group 2 Fee to Crop Land
Cost Basis $310,000
[1] Cropped Acres of entire Parcels(2] 9,468
Fee per Cropped Acre $32.75
Group 3 Fee to Improved Properties not in Group 1 or 2
Cost Basis $9,000
[1) Improved Properties Acres of entire Parcels [3) 260
Fee per Acre $34.67
Source:HEC fee model,May 2024. fee calc
[11 Reduced 5%to allow for errors/adjustments in fee-setting period(Jul-Aug).
[21 Cropped acres per DWR Cropping Map plus acreage of parcels growing cannabis capped at 1.0 acre.
(21 Residential capped 0.5 acres per parcel.
Uk ah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 Page a I
4.4 REGULATORY FEE COLLECTION
If adopted,the regulatory fee will be placed on the property tax roll by the Mendocino County
Auditor-Controller, and it will be collected by the Mendocino County Treasurer-Tax Collector19.
Mendocino County adopted the Teeter Plan which guarantees payment of the full amount of the
fees that are charged,with the County pursuing any unpaid fees. Fee revenues will be disbursed to
UVBGSA in December(about 55%),April (about 38%) and July or August(about 7%)20.
Properties not assessed on the property tax roll include railroad and utility-owned parcels, State of
California owned parcels, and local government owned parcels if those parcels are located within
their own jurisdiction.These property owners would be billed directly by UVBGSA.
Illustration of revenue collection by customer group is shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7
Revenue Collection by Group
Group 4(Part 1
Fee Only)
4% Group 1 (Part 1 Fee paid by
Group 3 (Other Property Owners)
Improved Properties) 7%
3%
19 All fees would be placed on the property tax roll,with the exception of properties that do not receive a property
tax bill.
20 Mendocino County Guide for Placement of Fixed Charges on Secured Tax Roll.
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 POW 42
` 4.5 EXAMPLE CUSTOMER BILLS
Public Water Systems.
Public Water Systems FY 2025 bills for Group 1 users are estimated in Table 28 using data as of
early May, 2023. Data upon which the fees are calculated will be updated as part of the fee-setting
process in July.The base fees for parcels served by Public Water Systems are not included in the
table because the fee will be different for every parcel, depending on its size.
Table 28
Calculated Public Water Systems FY 2025 Fees
Fee Based on GW Extraction
5-Yr Rolling Avg. FY 2025 ANNUAL
Public Water System GW Extraction Fee
Fee per Unit thousand gallons $0.1352
URRWA 334,367 $45,206
River Estates Mutual Water Company 10,409 $1,407
Rogina Water Company 174,778 $23,630
City of Ukiah 521,885 $70,559
Lake View Mutual Water Company 2,326 $314
Yokayo Tribe of Indians 2,654 $359
Flight Ridge 937 $127
City of 10,000 Buddhas 10,510 $1,421
Total 1,057,866 $143,023
Source:DWR Annual Electronic Records,and HEC fee model,May 2024.
Crop Land.
Examples of Group 2 bills are shown in Table 29 for three ten-acre farms cropping 1.5 acres, 6,0
acres, and 9.5 acres respectively.The Part 1 base fee is the same for each farm, but the Part 2 fee
differs based on the acreage of the farm that is cropped, according to the 2020 DWR crop mapping
data.
Table 30 provides an example of total fees that would be paid by a certain ranch.
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainab lity Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 Page 4;
Table 29
Example Crop land Bills
Item Farm 1 Farm 2 Farm 3
Total Parcel Acreage 10 10 10
Cropped Acreage 1.5 6.0 9.5
Base Fee
Base Fee per acre $4.07 $4.07 $4.07
Total Base Fee a $40.70 $40.70 $40.70
Group 2 Fee
Fee per cropped acre $32.75 $32.75 $32,75
Group 2 Fee b $49.13 $296.50 $311.13
Total Annual Fees a+b $89.83 $237.20 $351.83
Source:HEC May 2024, crop bill
Table 30
Fee Calculations for a Ranch
Fee Acres in Cropped Base Group Fee per
Group Land Use GSA Acres Fee Fee Parcel
fee per unit----> $4.07 $32.75
2 Crop Land 6.00 1.79 $24 $59 $83
2 Crop Land 5.00 1.26 $20 $41 $62
2 Crop Land 15.70 6.48 $64 $212 $276
4 Recreational 7.00 $28 $28
Total Annual Fees 33.70 9.53 $137 $312 $449
Monthly Fees $37
Source:HEC fee calculations,May 2024.
Group 2 Fee Comparison with Sonoma County GSA Fees
The Sonoma County GSAs have an extraction fee structure.The fees are based on estimated
extraction according to the estimated water demands of different crop types.The UVBGSA fee does
not differentiate between crop types. Figure 8 compares the UVBGSA calculated fees for the three
farms in Table 29 with the subsidized and unsubsidized fees of the Sonoma County GSAs21 for 10
acres of grapes.The figure shows the UVBGSA fee is greater than the Santa Rosa Plain GSA fee but
lower than the unsubsidized fees of the Petaluma and Sonoma GSAs.The UVBGSA fee is higher in
21 Sonoma County subsidizes the fee in the Sonoma and Petaluma GSAs so that all three GSAs pay$40 per acre-
foot per year,the same fee as the Santa Rosa Plain GSA.
Ukiah VaLey Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Fee Study F nal May 20,2024 PW 44
comparison to the Sonoma GSAs when a small portion of the parcel is cropped because of the Part
1 fee component.The Sonoma County GSAs do not have a base fee.
Figure 8
Comparison of UVBGSA with Sonoma County GSA Fees for Grape Growers
10 Acre Parcel Growing Grapes
9.5 acres
v
L
U
Q 0 Petaluma
6.0 acres
a ❑Sonoma
a.
0
U pSanta Rosa Plain
1.5 acres !Ukiah Valley
$0 5200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400
ANNUAL Fee
Figure 9 displays the fees for the three farms growing apples or pears. For parcels cropping more
than about 2.5 acres of orchard,the Sonoma County GSA fees are significantly higher than
UVBGSA's fees.This is because the UVBGSA fee does not vary depending on crop type whereas the
Sonoma County GSA fees do.
Figure 9
Comparison of UVBGSA with Sonoma County GSA Fees for an Orchard
10 Acre Orchard
9.5 acres
a�
L
U
Q ■Petaluma
v 6.0 acres
Q- 0 Sonoma
a
0
u` ID Santa Rosa Plain
1.5 acres i Ukiah Valley
$0 $800 $1,600 $2,400 $3,200 $4,000
ANNUAL Fee
Ukiah Val ey Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 Page OS
Single Family Homes
Single family home bills will vary,depending on whether the home is served by a Public Water
System (in Group 1)or has another source of water(in Group 3).
The bill of a home in Group 1 is dependent on how the water provider passes through the fee it has
been charged to its customers.Without knowing how each water provider will do this,the example
bills for Group 1 in Table 31 calculate the bill assuming the water provider charges the customer
based on water consumption.A range of costs is shown according to annual water use. City of
Ukiah single family homes typically use approximately 7,500 gallons per month,according to its
latest water rate study,and Millview County Water District customers typically use approximately
9,500 gallons per month based on 2023 metered water use data. Part 1 fees increase bills for
residential properties according to the acreage of the parcel within the GSA's boundaries, but Part 2
fees only vary up to parcels of half an acre for residential properties in Group 3.The total annual
UVBGSA-related fees paid by single family homes in groups 1 and 3 are likely to be similar, ranging
between $10 and $25 in FY 2025.
Table 31
Single Family Home Fee Ranges(Groups 1&3)
Item Calculation Water Use Range(Gallons per Month)
5,000 9,000 11,500 13,600
Water Use Assumptions
Gallons per Year a 60,000 108,000 138,000 163,200
Acre feet per Year b=a/325,851 0.18 0.33 0.42 0.50
Group 1
Base Fee c $4.07 $4.07 $4.07 $4.07
Parcel Acreage(quarter acre lot) d 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Base Fee a=c*d $2.02 $1.02 $1.02 $1.02
Group Fee per Thousand Galls f $0.1352 $0.1352 $0.1352 $0.1352
Group 1 Fee g=f*(c/1000) $8 $15 $19 $22
Total Group 1 ANNUAL Fee h=a+g $9 $16 $20 $23
Group 3
Base Fee c $4.07 $4.07 $4.07 $4.07
Parcel Acreage(estimate) d 0.25 0.75 1.50 2,00
Base Fee a=c*d $1.02 $3.05 $6.11 $8.14
Group Fee per Acre f $34.67 $34.67 $34.67 $34.67
Group 3 Fee[1] g=d*f $9 $17 $17 $17
Total Group 3 ANNUAL Fee h=e+g $10 $20 $23 $25
[1]Group 3 Residential fee capped at 0.5 acres.
Ukiah Valley Bas n Groundwater Sustainability Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 Pa;e+l6
Non-Residential Properties
Tables 32 and 33 show examples of UVBGSA fees for non-residential property owners in Group 1
and Group 3, respectively.
Table 32
Example Bills for Group 1 Businesses
Apartment
Item Building Hotel
Assumptions:
Acres(in Millview CWD) 2.13 4.39
Annual Water Use(thousands of gallons) 84 57
Base Fee
Base Fee per Acre $4,07 $4.07
Total Base Fee(served by Water District) $9.67 $17.97
Group 1 Fee
Water use fee per 1,000 galls(estimated) $0.1352 $0.1352
Apartments Group 1 Fee $11.32 $7.75
Total ANNUAL Fee $19.99 $25.61
Source:HEC May 2024, apt bill
Table 33
Example Bills for Group 3 Businesses
Item Restaurant Bar
Base Fee
Base Fee per Acre $4.07 $4.07
Total Base Fee $6.27 $14.65
Group 3 Fee
Group 3 Fee per Acre $34.67 $34.67
Number Acres 1.S4 3.60
Group 3 Fee $53.39 $124.81
Total ANNUAL Fee $59.66 $139.46
Source:HEC May 2024. bar
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 Paige A
Section 5: FEE IMPLEMENTATION
The calculated fee is a regulatory fee adopted pursuant to SGMA(Water Code section 10730).That
section provides:
Permit fees and fees on groundwater extraction or other regulatory activity [may be imposed]
to fund the costs of a groundwater sustainability program, including, but not limited to,
preparation, adoption, and amendment of a groundwater sustainability plan, and
investigations, inspections, compliance assistance, enforcement, and program administration,
including a prudent reserve.
5.1 FEE ADOPTION
To adopt the new fee,the UVBGSA Board must hold at least one public meeting. Prior to the public
meeting, notice must be provided as follows:
(1) Publicize once a week for 2 weeks at least 14 days ahead of the meeting, (2) post notice on the
agency's website, (3) send by mail to any interested party who files written request for notice of
agency meetings on new or increased fees.
(2) The notice must include time and place of meeting,general explanation of the item,and a
statement that the data upon which the proposed fee is based is available(this must be made
available to the public at least 20 days prior to the meeting).
A fee resolution must be adopted every year to place the fees on the tax roll, regardless of whether
the fee amounts change or not.The fee should be adjusted each year to reflect the UVBGSA's
budget for the upcoming fiscal year, incorporating the most recent 5-year rolling average
groundwater extractions for fee groups 1 and 2, and the most recent DWR crop mapping data. In
the event the required annual data updates are not performed and/or the budget is adopted later
than May, the fee study recommends including an automatic annual increase in the fee resolution.
The recommended automatic fee increase is 4% every year or the 12-month change (March to
March) in the West Region Consumer Price Index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
For the calculated fees to be implemented,there must be a majority vote of the Board of
Directors22.After adopting the fee, UVBGSA must continue with the following actions to implement
the fee for FY 2025, and each fiscal year thereafter:
1. The UVBGSA shall notify the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)of the fee by way of
letter to the Director of the Water Division immediately following adoption of the fee, before
the fee is imposed.
2. The UVBGSA shall provide the Mendocino County Auditor-Controller's office all required
documentation authorizing placement of the fee on the property tax roll by August 1, 2024 and
21 Four out of six votes. O
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Fee Study final May 20,2024 Page 48
Pshall provide the list of Assessor Parcel Numbers and fee amounts to be placed on the FY 2025
roll no later than the date specified by the Mendocino County Auditor-Controller (usually
around August 10th).
Pursuant to SB 323 effective January 1, 2022, set forth in Government Code Section 53759,the fee
payors have a 120-day challenge period following adoption of the new fee.
5.2 APPEALS
Appeals guidelines will be developed and provided in either the fee resolution itself, or a separate
resolution, and appeal forms shall be posted on the UVBGSA website.
The property owner shall first be required to pay the fee as charged. Following payment of the fee,
an appeal may be filed with UVBGSA. Upon review,the appeal shall be either granted or denied.
Any person may pay the fee under protest and bring action against the governing body in the
superior court to recover any money that the UVBGSA refuses to refund.
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Fee Study Final May 20,2024 plige 49
0
0
0
Appendices available online or by request.
0
0
0