1. Receive staff presentation and hold the Public Hearing.
2. Adopt Resolution 2026-01 approving the Elkhorn Fire Protection District (FPD), Springlake FPD, and County Service Area 9 (CSA 9) Reorganization (LAFCo Application #24-02) as follows, subject to terms and conditions (Attachment A):
   • Dissolve Elkhorn FPD and CSA 9; and
   • Amend the Springlake FPD Sphere of Influence to include the entirety of Elkhorn FPD and CSA 9’s former territories; and
   • Annex the former territories of Elkhorn FPD and CSA 9 into the Springlake FPD.
3. Determine that the Project is exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15320, and direct staff to file a Notice of Exemption.
4. Direct staff to conduct the Protest Hearing and provide notification as required.

The Elkhorn Fire Protection District (FPD) was established in 1965 following several significant fires in the Yolo Bypass area. Elkhorn FPD has experienced persistent service and organizational challenges throughout its history. From the late 1960s through the 1980s, multiple County departments, fire agencies, and LAFCo studies identified chronic deficiencies, including inadequate equipment, lack of mutual aid agreements, poor dispatch communication, and frequent reliance on neighboring districts for emergency response. LAFCo repeatedly considered boundary adjustments and dissolution—most notably in the 1984 Municipal Service Review (MSR), which found that after 18 years the district still had no mutual aid, no recruitment program, no training, and minimal equipment. Although the 1984 MSR recommended dissolution and formation of a County Service Area (CSA), nearby districts at the time did not support contracting with a CSA, and following public input LAFCo granted Elkhorn additional time to improve. LAFCo later determined that the district was making sufficient progress and did not pursue dissolution at that time.

In 2007, LAFCo completed an MSR concluding that Elkhorn FPD was providing service deemed adequate, though significantly dependent on mutual aid. To support response capability, the Cities of West Sacramento and Woodland entered into an automatic-aid agreement with Elkhorn FPD effective January 1, 2015. Subsequent MSRs continued to identify service sustainability concerns, and the 2016 MSR recommended that Elkhorn FPD contract with the Cities for service, an action the district did not pursue. Consequently, the 2022 MSR therefore recommended full dissolution of the district. Due to increasing costs associated with the automatic-aid agreement, the Cities terminated the automatic-aid agreement on September 14, 2023, providing 30 days’ notice.

The Elkhorn FPD continues to struggle with a stable population to provide an adequate volunteer base. The current Chief has held his position for over 40 years and there is no succession plan. The FPD indicates it currently has six active volunteers, three of which live within the district.

Proposal Description
On August 21, 2024, the Elkhorn FPD Board adopted a resolution initiating this Yolo LAFCo application process to dissolve the District because it cannot reliably sustain long term the resources or capacity to provide adequate fire protection and emergency response services. The Elkhorn FPD submitted its application for dissolution on September 26, 2024, following the LAFCo meeting where a fee waiver was granted. The application was limited to dissolution only, knowing that LAFCo has the power to amend proposals and could determine the most appropriate method to reorganize the provision of services in the FPD territory. LAFCo conducted study sessions regarding the Proposal on October 21, 2024, and January 29, 2026, and ultimately determined to amend the Proposal to dissolve both the Elkhorn FPD and CSA 9, and annex both territories into the Springlake FPD. The Board of Supervisors recently rescinded its delegated authority to a local fire commission on March 24, 2026, and now acts as the Springlake FPD Board of Directors advised by a five-member citizen advisory committee (comprised of the former commissioners). The Advisory Committee would be expanded to seven members to add representation from these annexed territories.  

Fire protection and emergency services in the Elkhorn area will be provided by neighboring cities through contractual agreements with the City of West Sacramento (for the response area south of CR 124) and the City of Woodland (for the response area north of CR 124). For CSA 9, services would not change and will continue to be provided by the City of West Sacramento. CSA 9 has been added to the LAFCo Reorganization because its services are already provided by the City of West Sacramento and there are organizational efficiencies with consolidating into one district. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) committing parties to this plan for services and draft agreements for such have already been approved by Yolo County, Springlake FPD, the City of West Sacramento, and the City of Woodland. 

Funding for the service contracts will come from existing revenue sources, including property tax allocations and the existing special assessment of $2.50 per acre that has supported Elkhorn FPD. These funds would help pay for contracted services. CSA 9 does not currently have a special assessment, and via annexation will be subject to Springlake FPD’s assessment pursuant to Government Code Section 57330.

Property tax and special assessment revenues alone are not sufficient to cover the Cities’ estimated service costs. Therefore, Yolo County has agreed to subsidize these costs for the five-year contract period. Following the contract period, it is likely that through renegotiated service costs and/or a new Prop 218 assessment, Springlake FPD would endeavor to close the funding gap without continued use of County General Funds.

The table below is based on 2024 data and has since been updated. However, these are the revenues and costs that were used to negotiate service contracts and are more commonly referred to.

Factors to be Considered
Government Code Section 56375 authorizes LAFCo to review and approve proposals for "changes in organization" and "reorganizations" (i.e. more than one change in organization proposed or approved concurrently) consistent with policies adopted by the Commission. Government Code Section 56880 authorizes LAFCo to impose a wide variety of conditions on a proposal that it approves. Government Code Section 56021 defines "changes of organization" to include annexation and dissolution of special districts, among other actions. In accordance with Government Code Section 56668, the analysis below responds to the factors to be considered in the review of a proposal.

There is a present and ongoing need for organized fire protection and emergency response services within Elkhorn FPD and CSA 9. As documented in LAFCo’s 2022 Municipal Service Review, Elkhorn FPD’s current service model is inadequate due to a declining population, limited local volunteer capacity, and response times impacted by volunteers responding from outside the district. Annexation to Springlake FPD, with service delivery through contracts with the Cities of West Sacramento and Woodland, will provide adequate service levels. Springlake FPD has the ability to provide service to the affected territories, supported by a memorandum of understanding among Yolo County, Springlake FPD, and the Cities approving the agreements and funding in concept. Because Elkhorn FPD and CSA 9 lack sufficient revenues to fully fund the City contracts, Yolo County will provide gap funding for a five-year term. RSG, Inc. has prepared a fiscal analysis supporting feasibility, included in the attachments.


The Elkhorn area is predominantly agricultural, with a declining population and minimal local services that would support urban development; significant growth is not anticipated. The proposal is consistent with the County General Plan, does not induce growth, and does not convert agricultural or open space lands (Gov. Code § 56377; § 56668(d), (e)). Boundaries are definite and certain, do not divide parcels, and create no islands or corridors (Gov. Code § 56668(f)). A portion of Elkhorn FPD is already within Springlake FPD’s sphere; this action amends the sphere to include the remaining Elkhorn and CSA 9 territories to enable annexation (Gov. Code § 56668(i)).

The reorganization is not anticipated to negatively affect social interests. The Cities have provided auto/mutual aid for decades, and Springlake FPD’s Advisory Committee will be expanded to represent the annexed areas. Consolidation into Springlake FPD will reduce fragmentation, improve management efficiency, and may yield economic benefits to property owners: Elkhorn FPD and CSA 9 currently default to ISO Class 10 for purposes of determining insurance rates, whereas Springlake FPD’s district?wide ISO rating is Class 2Y; property insurance premiums may decrease depending on carrier policies.

The proposal promotes environmental justice by ensuring equitable access to fire protection and emergency response services regardless of race, culture, or income. Regional transportation planning, potable water availability, and regional housing allocations are not implicated by this governance change. Existing land use designations are unaffected. The territories are not mapped as very high fire hazard zones or State Responsibility Areas. Property tax exchange negotiations required by Revenue and Taxation Code § 99 were completed and approved by the Yolo County Board of Supervisors on March 24, 2026.

The reorganization aligns with Yolo LAFCo Standards of Evaluation by consolidating services into a single district best positioned to provide efficient, accountable service (Standards §§ 2.1–2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 2.8, 2.12). No new agency formation is proposed (§ 2.4). The Plan for Services requires no new infrastructure; service contracts commence on the effective date. Terms and conditions are set forth in the resolution, including indemnification of LAFCo, protest procedures and recording of the Certificate of Completion, interim fiscal governance limits on Elkhorn FPD (Gov. Code § 56885.5(a)(4)), termination of Elkhorn FPD employment/volunteer agreements on the effective date, successor rights and obligations vesting in Springlake FPD (Gov. Code § 56886(h), (i)), retention and continuation of Prop 218 assessments, and extension of Springlake FPD charges, fees, assessments, and taxes to CSA 9.

Based on the record, statutory criteria in Government Code Section 56668, applicable Government Code provisions governing LAFCo authority and terms/conditions, and Yolo LAFCo policies and Standards of Evaluation, the Commission finds the reorganization is consistent with planned, orderly, and efficient provision of services; is financially feasible with County gap funding during the initial term; preserves agricultural lands and existing land use patterns; promotes organizational efficiency and service adequacy; and serves the public interest. Approval with the specified terms and conditions is warranted.

Terms and Conditions
The terms and conditions require Elkhorn FPD to indemnify LAFCo against any legal challenges related to the approval, which obligation will transfer to Springlake FPD as the successor agency. If no sufficient protests are filed, the Executive Officer will record the dissolution with an effective date of July 1, 2026. Until that date, Elkhorn FPD is restricted from increasing compensation or incurring new financial obligations beyond its current budget. Upon dissolution, Springlake FPD will assume all of Elkhorn FPD’s and CSA 9’s responsibilities, assets, liabilities, contracts, and revenues, including the continuation of the existing Prop 218 assessment. All employment and volunteer agreements with Elkhorn FPD will terminate, and Springlake FPD’s current assessment will be extended to CSA 9.

Public and Agency Outreach
The Elkhorn FPD submitted the application to dissolve the district in September 2024. Thereafter, LAFCo routed the application to all affected agencies and received no written comments. After the proposal was modified to include the annexation of Elkhorn FPD and CSA 9’s territory into Springlake, LAFCo routed the revised proposal and again received no comments. LAFCo staff organized a Reorganization Committee including representatives from the Elkhorn and Springlake FPD boards and met regularly until taking a break during City-County service contract negotiations. Following negotiations, the reorganization plan was modified and re-routed in February 2026, and no agency comments were received.

Staff provided updates at Elkhorn FPD board meetings in November 2024, February 2025, and February 2026. Along with the public hearing notice, staff mailed a detailed FAQ document to landowners and registered voters in the district. In response, we have received several questions but no verbal or written support or opposition to the proposal yet.

Elkhorn FPD held a community meeting on April 8, 2026. In addition to the FPD board members, fire chief, and LAFCo staff, there were 11 members of the public in attendance, four of whom were agency staff. The general sentiment expressed was a desire to find a compromise that would ensure adequate levels of service, along with frustration that County funds are not being provided directly to the FPD to support additional volunteers. LAFCo staff emphasized that Elkhorn’s volunteer model is no longer sustainable and that a contract model would provide more efficient service delivery.

Elkhorn FPD called a special meeting on April 13, 2026 to consider two items: a request from one board member to rescind the FPD’s resolution requesting dissolution (which failed), and to determine the FPD’s position for the LAFCo meeting. Apparently, no board members are available to attend LAFCo’s meeting, and a "rebuttal letter" is forthcoming, though it has not yet been received. Any correspondence received after the agenda packet will be provided in a supplemental packet. While board members may disagree about dissolution, they appear able to coalesce around the idea of putting the question before their constituents through the protest process.

Protest Proceedings
If LAFCo approves the proposal, protest proceedings will follow. LAFCo staff will give notice of the protest hearing to all landowners and registered voters in the affected territory (i.e. the Elkhorn FPD and CSA 9 territory) via direct mailing. Any protest votes that have been received in advance of the hearing or provided in person at the hearing are tallied, in separate categories for: (1) registered voters; and (2) landowners with a weighted vote per assessed value owned (and one can submit protests in both categories if eligible for both). The recommended actions include directing staff to conduct the protest hearing, tentatively planned for May 26th, so there will be time to measure the protest and have a Conducting Authority resolution prepared for LAFCo’s regular May 28th meeting.

The next steps will depend on the percentage of protests received in either category (i.e. not both added together):

• If less than 25% protest is received for both categories: the LAFCo action goes through.
• If 50% or more protest is received for either category: LAFCo’s action is terminated.
• If both categories receive less than a 50% protest but one is at least 25%: the question goes to an election at the general election.

If an election is needed, it typically occurs at the next general election (i.e. the question is added to Official Elections Ballots for voters registered within Elkhorn FPD and CSA 9). The results of the election are a simple majority vote, and there is no landowner vote.

The goal is for the reorganization changes and new services to take effect July 1, 2026, coinciding with the new fiscal year. If the reorganization is put to an election, the election process will delay the effective date.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
CEQA Guidelines Section 15320 (Class 20) provides for a categorical exemption for changes in organization of local agencies that do not change the geographical area in which previously existing powers are exercised. One of the specific examples cited includes "consolidation of two or more districts having identical powers." In addition, the so-called “common sense” exemption applies “[w]here it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3).) The proposal would change the governance of existing agencies without changing the scope of services provided. Therefore, staff recommends LAFCo direct staff to file a Notice of Exemption for this project.