Volume I - Main Report

El Dorado Local Agency Formation Commission FINAL Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update Main Report Volume I of II Approved April 27, 2022 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page intentionally left blank Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Final Municipal Service Review & Sphere of Influence Update Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services Main Report Volume I of II Approved April 27, 2022 Prepared for: Consultant: 550 Main St., Suite E P.O. Box 550710 Placerville, CA 95667 South Lake Tahoe, CA 96155 www.edlafco.us www.southforkconsulting.com Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page intentionally left blank Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final EL DORADO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION Commissioners Cody Bass, City of South Lake Tahoe Representative John Hidahl, El Dorado County Representative Jackie Neau, City of Placerville Representative Michael Powell, Public Member Representative George Turnboo, El Dorado County Representative Brain Veerkamp, Special District Representative Tim White, Special District Representative Alternate Commissioners Patricia “Patty” Borelli, City Representative Michael Saunders, Special District Representative Wendy Thomas, El Dorado County Representative Bill Wilde, Public Member Representative LAFCO Staff Erica Sanchez, Interim Executive Officer Kelly Witt, Administrative Assistant Malathy Subramanian, Legal Counsel Consultant P.O. Box 550710 South Lake Tahoe, CA 96155 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table of Contents Volume I of II – (this volume) Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ i Chapter 1: Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 1-1 Chapter 2: Resolution .................................................................................................................. 2-1 Chapter 3: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 3-1 Chapter 4: Countywide Infrastructure ......................................................................................... 4-1 Chapter 5: Countywide Finances ................................................................................................. 5-1 Chapter 6: Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations ......................................................... 6-1 Chapter 7: Comments Received .................................................................................................. 7-1 Chapter 8: References.................................................................................................................. 8-1 Chapter 9: Glossary ...................................................................................................................... 9-1 Chapter 10: Acknowledgements ................................................................................................ 10-1 Appendices Appendix A: County of El Dorado Profile and Demographic Data (2019-2020) .......................... A-1 Appendix B: County of El Dorado Economic and Demographic Profile (2018) ........................... B-1 Appendix C: IAFF Local 3556 – How Many Firefighters? ............................................................. C-1 Appendix D: Other Agencies Providing Fire Protection and EMS in the County ......................... D-1 Appendix E: Lake Tahoe Fire Chiefs’ Association ......................................................................... E-1 Appendix F: Ember Awareness .................................................................................................... F-1 Appendix G: Fire Agency Stations by Number, Address, and Staffing......................................... G-1 Appendix H: 2020 Fiscal and Deployment Conditions Scores by Fire Agency ............................. H-1 Appendix I: CalPERS Pooled Plans-Funded Status by Applicable Fire Agency (June 30, 2019) .... I-1 Appendix J: Rolling Stock Resources by Fire Agency .................................................................... J-1 Appendix K: CEQA Notice of Exemption ...................................................................................... K-1 Appendix L: SOI Maps per Agency ................................................................................................ L-1 Volume II of II – Agency Municipal Service Reviews (separately bound) Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I Cover Photo Credits El Dorado County Fire Protection District, https://www.facebook.com/eldofire/photos/4473120702784131. El Dorado County Fire Protection District, https://www.eldoradocountyfire.com/news. El Dorado Hills County Water District, https://www.edhfire.com/. Volume II Cover Photo Credits Mosquito Fire Protection District, https://mfpd.us/. Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District, https://www.facebook.com/DiamondSpringsElDoradoFireProtectionDistrict/photos /1598247740223889. Lake Valley Fire Protection District, https://lakevalleyfire.org/photos/. Georgetown Fire Protection District, https://www.facebook.com/GEOFIREDEPT/photos/1585957018417824. Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Acronyms and Abbreviations AB Assembly Bill ACS American Community Survey AEU CAL FIRE Amador-El Dorado Unit ALS Advanced Life Support AMC Amador Fire Protection District AVL Automatic Vehicle Location through GPS BLM U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management BLS Basic Life Support CAD Computer-Assisted Dispatch CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal OES California Office of Emergency Services Cal OSHA California Division of Occupational Safety and Health CalPERS California Public Employees Retirement System CAL STAR California Shock Trauma Air Rescue Cal Tahoe JPA California Tahoe Emergency Services Operations Authority CAM Cameron Park Community Services District CAO Chief Administrative Officer CCI California Climate Investments CC&Rs Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions CDF California Department of Forestry CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERT Community Emergency Response Training CFAA California Fire Assistance Agreement CHP California Highway Patrol CKH Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Reorganization Act of 2000 i Volume I of II Acronyms and Abbreviations Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final CIP Capital Improvement Plan CPR Cardiopulmonary resuscitation CSA County Service Area CSD Community Services District CSU California State University CWD County Water District DIFs Development Impact Fees DOF Department of Finance DSP Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District DUC Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community DWR California Department of Water Resources ECC Emergency Command Center ECF El Dorado County Fire Protection District EDSO El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office EDC County of El Dorado EDH El Dorado Hills County Water District EID El Dorado Irrigation District EKGs Electrocardiograms EMS Emergency Medical Service EMT Emergency Medical Technician ENF Eldorado National Forest ERAF Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FESS 2010 Fire and Emergency Services Study FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zones FIRESCOPE Firefighting Resources of Southern California Organized for Potential Emergencies FLL Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District ii Volume I of II Acronyms and Abbreviations Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final FOL City of Folsom FPD Fire Protection District FPO El Dorado County Fire Prevention Officer FPPC Fair Political Practices Commission FRA Federal Responsibility Area FRAP California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resource Assessment Program FSC Fire Safe Council FY Fiscal Year GAAP Generally Accepted Accounting Principles GASB Government Accounting Standards Board GC Government Code GCC Government Compensation in California GDPUD Georgetown Divide Public Utility District GEO Georgetown Fire Protection District GFCSD Grizzley Flat Community Services District GIS Geographic Information System3 GM General Manager GRV Garden Valley Fire Protection District HOV High occupancy vehicle JPA Joint Powers Authority IDLH Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health ISO Insurance Services Office ITF Inter-facility transfer ITS Intelligent Transportation System LAV Lake Valley Fire Protection District LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission LFP Lockwood Fire Protection District iii Volume I of II Acronyms and Abbreviations Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final LSA Limited Service Area LRA Local Responsibility Area LRVSP Lime Rock Valley Specific Plan Area LTBMU Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit LTCCP 2016 Linking Tahoe Corridor Connection Plan LTRFCA Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chiefs’ Association LUCAS Lund University Cardiopulmonary Assist System MEK Meeks Bay Fire Protection District MHI Median household income MPCIP Master Plan and Capital Improvement Plan MQT Mosquito Fire Protection District MSR Municipal Service Review NFPA National Fire Protection Association NTF North Tahoe Fire Protection District OPEB Other Post Employment Benefit OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research PILT Payment in Lieu of Taxes PIO Pioneer Fire Protection District PPC Public Protection Classification PSAPs Public Safety Answer Points RES Rescue Fire Protection District RFI Request for Information RPPUD River Pines Public Utility District SACOG Sacramento Area Council of Governments SB Senate Bill SCBA Self-contained breathing apparatus SCO State Controller's Office iv Volume I of II Acronyms and Abbreviations Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final SLT City of South Lake Tahoe SOI Sphere of Influence SRA State Responsibility Area SSA Shared Services Agreement STPUD South Tahoe Public Utility District TDOX Tahoe-Douglas Fire Protection District TFFT Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team TRA Tax Rate Area TRPA Tahoe Regional Planning Agency TUC California Dept of Forestry - Tuolumne-Calaveras Unit UAL Unfunded Accrued Liability VFA California Volunteer Fire Assistance VMVSP Village of Marble Valley Specific Plan Area West Slope JPA El Dorado County Emergency Services Authority WUI Wildland Urban Interface 24/7/365 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year v Volume I of II Acronyms and Abbreviations Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Chapter 1. Executive Summary Table of Contents 1.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................1-2 1.2 Summary of Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services in the County ......................1-3 1.3 MSR/SOI Update Key Findings ..........................................................................................1-7 1.3.1 West Slope ......................................................................................................................... 1-7 1.3.2 Tahoe Basin ...................................................................................................................... 1-11 1.3.3 Ambulance Services ......................................................................................................... 1-12 1.4 Key Recommendations ................................................................................................... 1-13 1.4.1 Chapter 4 – Countywide Infrastructure ........................................................................... 1-13 1.4.2 Chapter 5 – Countywide Finances ................................................................................... 1-13 1.4.3 Chapter 6 – Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations ........................................... 1-14 1.5 SOI Recommendations ................................................................................................... 1-14 1.5.1 Cameron Park Community Serivces District .................................................................... 1-15 1.5.2 Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District ....................................................... 1-15 1.5.3 El Dorado Country Fire Protection District ...................................................................... 1-15 1.5.4 El Dorado Hills County Water District .............................................................................. 1-15 1.5.5 Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District ................................................................. 1-15 1.5.6 Garden Valley Fire Protection District ............................................................................. 1-15 1.5.7 Georgetown Fire Protection District................................................................................ 1-16 1.5.8 Lake Valley Fire Protection District .................................................................................. 1-16 1.5.9 Meeks Bay Fire Protection District .................................................................................. 1-16 1.5.10 Mosquito Fire Protection District .................................................................................... 1-16 1.5.11 Pioneer Fire Protection District ....................................................................................... 1-16 1.5.12 Rescue Fire Protection District ........................................................................................ 1-16 1.5.13 City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department ..................................................................... 1-17 1.5.14 County Service Area 3 ...................................................................................................... 1-17 1.5.15 County Service Area 7 ...................................................................................................... 1-17 Volume I of II Executive Summary Page 1-1 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 1.1 Introduction This Municipal Service Review (MSR) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) Analysis examines how fire protection and emergency medical services are delivered throughout the County of El Dorado. The report is divided into two volumes. Volume I – Main Report, includes: the executive summary; introduction; a summary analysis of countywide fire protection and emergency medical services; a summary of countywide financial ability to provide services; and the SOI analysis for each agency. Volume II – Agency MSRs, includes the MSR Chapters and determinations for each agency analyzed in this report. The first chapter of Volume II contains summary information pertinent to specific sections within each MSR chapter in order to reduce duplicative information. The information contained in this report does not explicitly plan for future services, nor will any action or change in services occur directly as a result of LAFCO’s adoption of this document. However, this MSR/SOI Update will be used as a guide for future decisions by LAFCO in determining an agency’s ability to provide services. The MSRs for each agency are detailed in Volume II of this report. Each MSR discusses service delivery and efficiency for each agency, including an analysis and a written statement of conclusions, known as determinations, for each of the following factors: • Growth and population projections for the fire agency service areas; • Disadvantaged unincorporated communities; • Present and planned capacity of public facilities; • Financial ability of each agency to provide services; • Opportunities for shared facilities; • Accountability for government service needs; and • Any other matter related to service delivery as required by policy of El Dorado LAFCO. El Dorado LAFCO has added: ‘The potential effect of each agency services on agricultural and open space lands.’ The specific determinations for each fire protection and emergency medical services provider, and the key facts that support each determination, are discussed within each MSR chapter in Volume II. An agency’s determinations were rated on a scale of Above Average, Average, and Below Average when compared to similar fire protection and emergency medical service agencies. Some determinations were statements of fact and were not rated. Each MSR chapter contains a description and analysis of the essential operational and management aspects for each agency and constitutes a review of each agency’s ability to meet the service demands of the customers within its boundaries. These MSRs provide a description of existing services in each agency as a “snapshot” of existing conditions. Each agency type operates under a “principal act,” which governs the provision of one or more public services. The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) determines the boundaries and spheres of influence of each agency’s principal county (the county having the greater portion of the entire assessed value of all taxable property within the district, pursuant to Section 56066 of the Government Code). The County of El Dorado is considered the principal county for each of these fire protection and emergency medical services agencies as the greatest portion of the taxable property within each agency is located within the County of El Dorado, even though a portion of Alpine County also receives services from Lake Volume I of II Executive Summary Page 1-2 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Valley Fire Protection District, and a portion of Sacramento County also receives services from El Dorado Hills County Water District. The SOI analysis for this report can be found in Volume I – Chapter 6, Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations, and provides three options for the Commission to consider. These three options are: Option 1 – Maintain Existing SOIs and Friendly SOI Changes Option 2 – Establish a West Slope Fire Authority Option 3 – Boundary Adjustments Consultants and LAFCO staff are recommending the Commission approve Option 1 – Maintain Existing SOIs and Friendly SOI Changes, and consultants have provided determinations for this option. The two additional options are presented to the Commission for discussion purposes only. These options offer possible avenues of study in future MSR/SOI Updates and future reports that could be commissioned by the County or LAFCO. This MSR/SOI update is part of the Commission’s adopted review schedule and represents the third cycle (2013-2021) in a three-cycle series to provide updates for fire protection and emergency medical services for the fire protection and emergency medical service agencies in the County of El Dorado. LAFCO’s 2006 Countywide Fire Services MSR (1st Cycle 2001-2008) included all of the fire protection and emergency service providers within the County of El Dorado. LAFCO’s 2011 Fire MSR (2nd Cycle – 2008-2013) only covered the single purpose fire protection and emergency medical services agencies; the multi-purpose agencies, Cameron Park and Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services Districts, and the City of South Lake Tahoe were reviewed separately between 2012 and 2016. This 3rd Cycle includes an analysis for all fire protection and emergency medical service providers within the County of El Dorado. 1.2 Summary of Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services in the County This MSR/SOI Update considers the formation, boundary, government structure, population and land use, disadvantaged communities, finances, and the provision of fire protection facilities and services in El Dorado County by the 13 fire service providers and two County Service Areas (CSAs). Figure 1-1 shows the boundary of each of the fire service providers and Figure 1-2 shows the boundaries of the CSAs. Fire protection and emergency medical services are provided by nine Fire Protection Districts (FPDs), two Community Service Districts (CSDs), one City, and one County Water District (CWD). The Fire Protection Districts are as follows: 1) Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District (DSP); 2) El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF); 3) Garden Valley Fire Protection District (GRV); 4) Georgetown Fire Protection District (GEO); 5) Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LAV); 6) Meeks Bay Fire Protection District (MEK); 7) Mosquito Fire Protection District (MOS); Volume I of II Executive Summary Page 1-3 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 8) Pioneer Fire Protection District (PIO); and 9) Rescue Fire Protection District (RES). The two Community Services Districts are Cameron Park CSD (CAM) and Fallen Leaf Lake CSD (FLL). The City is the City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department (SLT) and the County Water District is the El Dorado Hills County Water District (EDH). Ambulance emergency medical services are provided through two Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs) established by the County of El Dorado through County Service Area (CSA) 3 and CSA 7. The JPA for the Tahoe Basin is California Tahoe Emergency Services Operations Authority (Cal Tahoe JPA) which operates in CSA 3; the JPA for the West Slope of the County of El Dorado is the El Dorado County Emergency Services Authority (West Slope JPA) which operates in CSA 7. Volume I of II Executive Summary Page 1-4 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 1-1: Regional Map of Fire Service Providers Volume I of II Executive Summary Page 1-5 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 1-2: County Service Area Boundaries Volume I of II Executive Summary Page 1-6 of 1-18 F i g 0 u r C o u n t y 49 E l D o ra d o H F ire D e p a rtm 50 16 2 4 e X - X S e r v i c e A r e a s 3 a n d 7 80 G e o rg e to w n F P D M a in S ta tio n 193 C S A 7 49 E l D o ra d o C o u n ty F P P la c e rv ille S ta tio n P L A C E R V IL L E M a rs h a ll M e d ic a E l D o ra d o C o u n ty F P D ills S h in g le S p rin g s e n t D ia m o n d S p rin g s F ire P ro te c tio n D is tric t C a m e ro n P a rk F ire D e p a rtm e n t 49 8M ile s D l C e n te r E l D o P le a s E l D o ra d o C o u n ty F P o llo c k P in e s ra d o C o u n ty F P D a n t V a lle y P D 50 88 F N o rth ire S ta H o m T a h o tio n 5 e w o o e1d L ake Tahoe 89 S O U T H L A K E T A H O E S o u th L a k e T a h o e B a rto n M e m o ria l H o s p ita l F ire D e p a rtm e n t 50 M e y e rs S ta tio n L a k e V a lle y F P D 89 C S A 3 89 A m b u la n c e H o s p ita l C itie s C o u n ty B o u n d a rie s D istrict Boundaries from El D orado C ounty LA FC o. Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, USG S, NO AA Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 1.3 MSR/SOI Update Key Findings This section details a summary of key findings from the analysis presented in Volume I of this report. MSR determinations and recommendations for each agency can be found in each agency’s subsequent MSR Chapter in Volume II. A summary of key findings by fire agency can be seen in Table 1-1 on the next page. 1.3.1 West Slope Overall, this report found that all fire agencies on the West Slope are operating well together. Through the Fire Chiefs Association, the fire agencies coordinate and operate seamlessly with an automatic/mutual aid, boundary drop, and closest resource dispatch system. One great attribute for the fire agencies in the County of El Dorado is that they have close working relationships, are respectful of each other, and communicated to consultants a sense of comradery between each fire agency with the common goal to provide the highest level of service to residents of the County. The majority of the fire chiefs interviewed for the preparation of this MSR/SOI Update did not suggest that the variation between numbers of agency responses to automatic aid are a hinderance or concern. Even the agencies that provided more aid to their neighbors than they received in 2019 tout the system as a benefit to the County. These relationships and the close coordination between agencies are a benefit to the County as evidenced through the continued success of the automatic dispatch system. The majority of the agencies are struggling to secure adequate revenue to be able to fund enough firefighters on shifts to meet the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710 standards for staffing. As discussed in Volume II – Chapter 1, Fire and Emergency Medical Services Agency MSR General Information, research and studies found that (2-0) staffing models are seriously deficient in keeping ahead of wildfire and slower for key activities in relation to fire suppression than (3-0) and (4-0) staffing models. A detailed description of the difficulties firefighters in the County face due to limited staffing can be found in Volume I – Appendix C. Through research outlined in the referenced chapter, and discussions with various fire chiefs and personnel in the County and throughout the state, a three staff per engine (3-0) model, though not ideal, is utilized in this MSR/SOI Update as an acceptable minimum standard practice. As shown in Table 1-1, six of the nine fire agencies (66 percent) in West Slope of the County are not meeting this minimum standard for career fire departments some or all of the time, and only two meet NFPA 1710 standards some of the time. The property tax increments available to the fire agencies on the West Slope have remained relatively stable since the 2011 MSR. Property taxes have historically made up a significant portion of recurring revenue for the fire agencies in the County. However, due to changes in property tax allocations for special districts, property tax revenues have greatly diminished over the years. As a result, many of the fire agencies in the County now have insufficient funds for anticipated increases in operational costs, personnel costs, and maintenance costs; as well as funding for major capital improvements. Average property tax amounts per taxable parcel range from $1,015 in EDH to $140 in PIO. Many agencies have passed benefit assessments and special taxes to try to alleviate some of the financial challenges; but many of those have not increased since their inception and are not keeping up with inflation. More detail can be found in Volume I – Chapter 5, Countywide Finances. Volume I of II Executive Summary Page 1-7 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 1-1: Summary of Key Findings by Agency Agency Non- Average Average Recurring 2020 Fiscal Percent of Property Estimated Total Calls Property Tax Revenues as and Staffing Aid Calls Tax Agency Net Agency Population for Service per Taxable Percentage of Deployment Model Received Increment Position 2019 2020 2019 Parcel FY Total Condition (2019) FY 2018/2019 Revenue (FY Estimates 2018/2019 2018/2019) West Slope CAM 2-0 19,697 3,508 17% 14.13% $720 $15,547,462 33% Fair DSP 3-0/4-0 13,286 3,845 50% 20.57% $535 $(8,601,813) 13% Limited ECF 2-0/3-0 49,340 10,843 35% 13.82% $357 $(25,232,988) 37% Limited EDH 3-0/4-0 51,348 6,161 8% 18.32% $1,015 $32,896,285 12% Great GRV (1-0)* 4,685 1,388 39% 8.24% $188 $792,831 82% Limited GEO (1-0)* 4,322 2,279 13% 12.29% $213 $(2,867,298) 68% Limited MQT (2-0/3-0)* 1,712 465 10% 11.61% $168 $657,473 44% Limited PIO 1-0 8,834 1,729 22% 10.02% $140 $2,034,997 14% Fair RES 2-0 4,763 1,520 32% 11.00% $386 $(1,615,043) 10% Limited Tahoe Basin FLL 2-0 1,731 30 Unknown+ 5.34% $128 $1,149,049 85% Deficient LAV 2-0 22,323 1,001 Unknown 20.34% $552 $(4,802,034) 32% Fair MEK 2-0 5,153 934 Unknown 9.63% $398 $1,089,121 5% Limited SLT 3-0/4-0 22,525 3,299 Unknown 22.22% $194 $109,091,066 33% Great *GEO, GRV, and MQT each operate as a combination or volunteer fire department under NFPA 1720. More information can be found in the MSR Chapter for these Districts. +SLT Dispatch was not able to provide a breakdown in mutual aid calls received versus provided for agencies in the Tahoe Basin. The analysis for the West Slope could not be replicated for these agencies. Volume I of II Executive Summary Page 1-8 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Though the net positions appear to show the majority of the agencies in the County are in good financial position, this is only a snapshot of time that does not tell the whole story. Some agencies appear to be drawing down from reserves to cover expenditures over revenues, while others appear to have excess revenues available year over year. Multiple factors affect an agency’s net position with some agencies covering a much higher unfunded accrued liability than others. More detail can be found in Volume I – Chapter 5, Countywide Finances. The 2020 Fiscal and Deployment Condition Estimates shown in Table 1-1 diverge from the estimates that were produced for the 2010 Fire and Emergency Services Study (FESS) and 2011 MSR. The analysis for 2010 was not able to be reproduced, therefore a comparison between 2010 and 2020 could not be conducted. Consultants created a new estimate calculation with a formulaic approach that should be reproduceable for future MSR/SOI Updates. The determinations and criteria for the 2020 Fiscal and Deployment Condition Estimates were chosen based on the range of information provided in order to estimate the fiscal and deployment conditions of the fire agencies while attempting to align with the information presented in the 2010 Fiscal and Deployment Condition Estimates. Agencies could receive a range of scores that fall within four categories: 1) Great, 2) Fair, 3) Limited, and 4) Deficient. Seven of the fire agencies (77 percent) on the West Slope are estimated to be below the “Fair” category. These agencies are generally struggling with lower staffing levels, a negative net position, require more aid from neighboring agencies, and were found to be at or below average for meeting infrastructure needs and providing sufficient services to meet current and future demands. Station Staffing and Volunteers Of the 45 fire stations on the West Slope, 42 percent are staffed full-time, 18 percent are staffed part- time/seasonally, and 40 percent are not staffed. Of the stations that are not staffed, nine (56 percent) were historically staffed by volunteers. With the loss of volunteers at those nine stations, it is likely that the “wide station spacing” identified in the 2010 Fire and Emergency Services Study (FESS) is worsened by stations that are no longer staffed (even with volunteers). Many of the unstaffed stations are scattered throughout the West Slope and are used to house additional equipment and apparatus. The largest gap between staffed stations appears to be along the US Highway 50 Corridor from ECF Station No. 17 in Pollock Pines to LAV Station No. 7 in Meyers. Three agencies in the County own multiple stations within their boundaries, but only staff one station. In the 2010 FESS, it was determined that approximately 300 volunteers were available to the County for daily minimum staffing. Of the agencies that still utilize volunteers, there is estimated to be approximately 150 volunteers available Countywide. This is significantly less than the estimated 300 volunteers that were available throughout the County in 2010. Dispatch System Challenges There are concerns with the dispatch system on the West Slope. It is likely that inadequate radio coverage is an issue for fire agencies throughout the County. Consultants have been made aware of numerous gaps in the system. For example, many chiefs have described occasions where personnel (based on pager calls) leave for a call five to 10 minutes before formally receiving the dispatch. In addition, firefighting personnel need to manually switch to different repeaters as they travel through the County which can pose challenges, especially for new staff. The EDH Fire Chief noted that the current dispatch system is over 40 years old and is antiquated when compared to neighboring dispatch systems such as the Sacramento Volume I of II Executive Summary Page 1-9 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Regional Fire/EMS Communications Center. The command station hardware used in the system is 17 years old and needs to be replaced. If this station were to fail, CAL FIRE Camino ECC would lose all contact with providers in the County (Frank Yost, personal communication, February 23, 2022). According to the El Dorado County Communications Manager, no studies have been conducted or are planned to determine the efficiency and status of dispatch system infrastructure. The dispatch system delays and challenges outlined in Volume I - Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure, may be an issue, not only for residents who experience these delays when accessing the system, but also for firefighting personnel. Lack of radio coverage can leave firefighters vulnerable when responding to incidents if they are unable to call for help or backup when entering a building or arriving on scene. Roadway System Challenges Multiple fire agencies have expressed common delays in responding to emergencies after inclement weather due to downed trees and limbs. Much of the access problems due to fallen debris occur along the West Slope. It is not uncommon for hundreds of trees to be felled by a large storm and it can take the County Department of Transportation Maintenance and Operations Division up to three months to clean up the damage from major storms on County roads. The delays in response by County Division staff can be attributed to major financial losses and subsequent reduction in staffing levels in FY 2008/2009. Though the economy has recovered, staffing levels have not, while the demand for maintenance work to clear brush alongside County roadways has greatly increased. More information on these challenges can be found in Volume I - Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. Water System Challenges Water available for fire suppression is varied throughout the West Slope based on fire agency location. El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) is the largest purveyor of water in the County. Fire agencies have indicated that the fire hydrant capacity and available water storage is adequate except for the following agencies: • DSP: The southern portion of DSP (south of the town of El Dorado) has only a few fire hydrants. Consequently, most of these residents rely on private wells that may have insufficient fire flow. DSP has begun to impose a residential water supply and sprinkler standard on certain projects. However, there are no plans to increase the capacity of the overall water system. • MQT: The water system overall is fragile and could easily fail during a wildfire that attacks the pump station and backup generator. The pump station and backup generator are not “hardened” or resistant to wildfire and are exposed. Also, the daily usage of EID water customers can affect water tank capacity and pressure depending on time of day. Hardening of the water supply for MQT as well as the need for more water storage within the District may warrant further study. • PIO: PIO recognizes the need to provide a more efficient emergency water delivery/supply system for the communities served. The sufficiency of available water supply for fire flows throughout PIO’s boundary area is a subject that may warrant further study. • RES: For RES, the majority of the District relies on rural, privately owned water tanks and wells for water supply. Overall, the provision of water sufficient for fire flows to all areas of the RES is an issue that needs further study. Volume I of II Executive Summary Page 1-10 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 1.3.2 Tahoe Basin Two agencies in the Tahoe Basin are estimated to be below the “Fair” category for 2020 Fiscal and Deployment Condition Estimates. Both FLL and MEK, as well as LAV (which is estimated to be in the “Fair” category), are struggling with adequate finances to be able to fund enough firefighters on shifts to meet the National Fire Protection Association 1710 standards for staffing. As shown in Table 1-1, three of the four fire agencies in the Tahoe Basin of the County are not meeting minimum standards for career fire departments all of the time. MEK has a Shared Services agreement with North Tahoe Fire Protection District (NTF) in Placer County with the Districts moving towards an annexation of MEK into NTF. MEK’s low staffing is augmented by the robust services of NTF. FLL’s location is isolated from the other agencies in the Tahoe Basin and does not operate in the winter months due to lack of access. FLL has recently been the subject of a review by the California State Auditor that found that the District’s billing practices as well as its small electorate jeopardize its ability to provide services. The District has been working to correct those issues identified in the State Auditor’s report. LAV, though in the “Fair” category, has a high negative net position and failed to increase its benefit assessment in recent years. Property tax concerns summarized for the West Slope also jeopardize the stability of the fire districts in the Tahoe Basin. LAV, FLL, and SLT have entered into a South Shore Response Plan with other neighboring fire agencies in the basin. This Plan operates like an automatic aid agreement, meaning aid is automatically dispatched by contractual agreement. These agencies along with MEK also operate together under the Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chiefs’ Association (LTRFCA) which makes resources available between 10 fire agencies in the basin through mutual aid. The LTRFCA works collaboratively on regional issues relating to the delivery of fire, rescue, and emergency medical services in the greater Lake Tahoe Region. Station Staffing and Volunteers Of the ten fire stations in the Tahoe Basin, six are staffed full-time, two are staffed part-time/seasonally, and two are not staffed. All agencies in the Tahoe Basin own and staff at least one fire station. None of the fire agencies in the Tahoe Basin utilize volunteers. LAV is considering restarting its volunteer program within the next few years due to local citizens expressing an interest in volunteering. Due to the high number of staffed stations, the Tahoe Basin appears to have adequate coverage, although it should be noted that the topography, seasonal variability of weather and visitor traffic, and narrow two-lane mountain roads can make access to areas challenging. Dispatch System Challenges Reliable communications in the Lake Tahoe Basin are difficult due to the topography in the area. The Fire Chief for LAV mentioned that the SLT Dispatch primary repeater for the area does not reach many areas of the LAV District. LAV owns and maintains a repeater located on the Angora Ridge which will simulcast transmissions. This repeater on the Angora Ridge allows LAV and FLL to receive all communications. The City of South Lake Tahoe is aware of gaps in the system and will be working diligently within the next few years to make the necessary upgrades. The new system being pursued by SLT would: add a new alerting system in all participating fire stations; build redundancies into the system to ensure no loss in communications should one system fail (also called “hardening” the system); upgrade mobile command Volume I of II Executive Summary Page 1-11 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final for mobile dispatching during a disaster; and improve interoperability between Nevada and California agencies. SLT is also looking at using geolocation software on all participating fire agency units to dispatch the closest resource more accurately to incidents as opposed to the current system which automatically dispatches the closest agency. Roadway System and Snow Removal Challenges Emergency vehicle access on County maintained roads during snowstorms can be difficult on the south side of Emerald Bay. Due to continued funding shortfalls, three of the seven snowblowers utilized by the County Department of Transportation Maintenance and Operations Division are over 40 years old with parts no longer being made for them. In the big winter of 2018/2019, all seven snow blowers were down at one time due to mechanical failures. A strong relationship between Division staff and LAV personnel helps to ensure emergency vehicles can make it to incidents as quickly as possible during winter storms, however better funding for snow removal equipment and staffing would increase reliability for snow removal in the region and ensure roadways are passible by emergency vehicles to the best extent possible without the need to call for service. The existing taxes for snow removal on the South Tahoe side of Emerald Bay have not increased since 1983, while equipment costs have increased over 400 percent since that time. Roadways meant to be maintained by the County are falling further into disrepair, leading to more expensive repairs needed that are unable to be completed based on the diversion of funds to snow removal equipment. More information on these challenges can be found in Volume I - Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. Water System Challenges Water service in the Tahoe Basin side of the County is provided by multiple providers throughout the area. The South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) is the largest purveyor in the Tahoe Basin side of the County, providing water to hydrants for LAV and SLT. The water systems within the City of South Lake Tahoe are generally able to meet current demands for domestic service, although there are areas where fire flow and reliability are inadequate and need to be upgraded. STPUD’s system is undergoing updates to increase efficiency. Unfortunately, whether it is due to too much demand, mechanical failure, or electrical outages, MEK can experience situations where a community "runs out" of water at least once a year. In many areas, the water companies cannot provide the required fire flows necessary to meet the state's codes. MEK has responded to potential water shortages by acquiring equipment to carry and/or pump more water from Lake Tahoe or other sources, and by requiring homes to include auxiliary tanks and fire sprinkler systems. 1.3.3 Ambulance Services Ambulance services throughout the County appear to be operating well. Funding for both CSAs is adequate to meet current and future needs with healthy reserves for both CSAs. There are a few challenges that have been identified as detailed in Volume II - Chapter 15, County Service Area (CSA) 3 and CSA 7 MSR, and summarized here. According to discussions with County staff, the data provided to the County from City of South Lake Tahoe Dispatch Center as of the beginning of 2019 is no longer provided in a format that allows for easy analysis. Therefore, the County does not know if the ambulances for CSA 3 met contract requirements for 2019 and beyond. As mentioned previously, SLT is in the process Volume I of II Executive Summary Page 1-12 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final of updating the South Lake Tahoe Dispatch Center to incorporate modern dispatch technology such as geolocation of all units at any one time. Currently, it is not possible to review response time data for the Cal Tahoe JPA contract. Through interviews with the various fire chiefs on the West Slope, consultants were told of the need for an additional ambulance on the West Slope to help offset the high volume of calls experienced by the four ambulances along the US Highway 50 Corridor. It was suggested that the lowest call volume ambulance (Medic 61, located out of Georgetown Fire Protection District) be pulled into the US Highway 50 Corridor area during peak call times to alleviate some of the stress to the system that the other four ambulances (Medics 25, 49, 85, and 89) experience, or that another ambulance (possibly a reserve ambulance) be added to assist this area during peak call times. The West Slope JPA could consider adding a reserve ambulance to the area to assist these four ambulances during peak call times, alleviating some of the burden carried by paramedic staff. Per the contract with the County of El Dorado, ambulances may be staffed with a minimum staffing level of no less than one (1) Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) and one (1) paramedic. In many cases, the fire agencies that are transporting agencies are choosing to staff both positions in each ambulance as firefighter/paramedic positions instead of staffing one position as an EMT. Fire agencies could consider reducing costs associated with ambulance services by switching to one (1) EMT and one (1) paramedic per shift. 1.4 Key Recommendations Through the course of Volume I, consultants have provided recommendations for LAFCO to consider within each chapter in addition to the determinations required by the CHK Act. The recommendations and their subsequent details are listed below for ease of reference. 1.4.1 Chapter 4 – Countywide Infrastructure • Consultants recommend that a future study be conducted of the dispatch system inefficiencies including time delays in re-routing calls for service. The study should also determine gaps in radio coverage and other issues that may need to be addressed to create a more efficient and safe system for residents and firefighters in the County. • Consultants recommend LAFCO consider reviewing trends of calls received versus responded to by agencies, and how staff levels may play a role in this disparity at the next MSR/SOI Update. 1.4.2 Chapter 5 – Countywide Finances • Consultants recommend that each fire agency in the County have current financial plans that provide a timeline for facility improvements, anticipated future staffing needs, and apparatus replacement schedules with identified funding sources. • Consultants recommend that the next MSR/SOI Update utilize the same scoring criteria outlined in this chapter to determine trends in the fiscal and deployment conditions of the fire agencies. • Consultants recommend that the 2011 MSR “Plan A” option be considered as a discussion item for the proposed Fire Summit. Volume I of II Executive Summary Page 1-13 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • Consultants recommend that the 2011 MSR “Plan B” option be considered as a discussion item for the proposed Fire Summit. • Consultants recommend that further analysis of a Countywide Sales Tax Initiative be considered including discussions with Amador County as to the success of Amador County’s Measure M. County fire chiefs would need to be included in discussions regarding how to ensure equitable distribution of the funds should the County choose to take up this option. 1.4.3 Chapter 6 – Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations The SOI Study recommends, under Option 1, that all fire agency SOI’s remain unchanged except for the following: • Designate a Zero Sphere for RES in anticipation of annexation into EDH. • Expand the SOI for EDH to include the RES SOI and District Boundary. • Designate a Zero Sphere for MEK in anticipation of annexation into North Tahoe Fire Protection District in Placer County. In addition, the CSA SOI’s are also recommended to remain unchanged. Fire Summits As detailed in Volume I - Chapter 6, Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations, consultants recommend that LAFCO, the County of El Dorado, and the fire agencies in the County work together to host two Fire Summits: one for the West Slope and one for the Tahoe Basin. Fire agencies in the County currently work very closely together to provide collaborative fire protection and emergency medical services. However, many agencies are facing difficult financial challenges. Agencies are providing the best services they can with limited financial resources and are taking full advantage of alternative financing options available to them. A Fire Summit hosted in both areas of the County would provide opportunities for the public to gain a holistic view of fire protection and emergency medical services and a better understanding of the challenges fire agencies face. Because of the close working relationships the agencies have with each other, it is likely that Fire Summits which include the County of El Dorado, as well as LAFCO, would bring forth positive solutions that can be supported by all parties involved. Consultants hope that the LAFCO Commission will seriously consider hosting or partnering with the County of El Dorado or the fire agencies to host these Fire Summits within two years of the release of this report and follow with the stakeholder meetings as outlined. There may be grants available to provide funding for these Summits. 1.5 SOI Recommendations MSR determinations can be found at the end of each Chapter in Volume I and at the end of the MSR analysis for each agency in each agency’s Chapter in Volume II. SOI Determinations for each fire agency can be found in Volume I – Chapter 6, Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations. These determinations will be considered by the Commission during a public hearing. The recommendations for each agency’s SOI are listed below. Volume I of II Executive Summary Page 1-14 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 1.5.1 Cameron Park Community Serivces District Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by the Cameron Park Community Services District as those specified in Community Services District Law, California Government Code Section 61000 et seq. Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that the Cameron Park Community Services District Service Area Boundary and SOI for all services remain unchanged as shown Appendix L. 1.5.2 Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District as those specified in California Health & Safety Code §13862. Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that the Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Sphere of Influence remain unchanged as shown Appendix L. 1.5.3 El Dorado Country Fire Protection District Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by El Dorado County Fire Protection District as those specified in California Health & Safety Code §13862. Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that the El Dorado County Fire Protection District Sphere of Influence remain unchanged as shown Appendix L. 1.5.4 El Dorado Hills County Water District Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by El Dorado Hills County Water District as those specified in California Health & Safety Code §13862. Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that the El Dorado Hills County Water District Sphere of Influence be updated to expand its original sphere to include the District Boundary and SOI of Rescue Fire Protection District, as shown in Appendix L. 1.5.5 Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by the Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District as those specified in Community Services District Law, California Government Code Section 61000 et seq. Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that the Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Sphere of Influence remain unchanged as shown Appendix L; and that the District Municipal Service Review be revisited within 3 years. 1.5.6 Garden Valley Fire Protection District Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by Garden Valley Fire Protection District as those specified in California Health & Safety Code §13862. Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended Volume I of II Executive Summary Page 1-15 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final that the Garden Valley Fire Protection District Sphere of Influence remain unchanged as shown in Appendix L; and that the District Municipal Service Review be revisited within 3 years. 1.5.7 Georgetown Fire Protection District Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by Georgetown Fire Protection District as those specified in California Health & Safety Code §13862. Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that the Georgetown Fire Protection District Sphere of Influence remain unchanged as shown Appendix L. 1.5.8 Lake Valley Fire Protection District Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by Lake Valley Fire Protection District as those specified in California Health & Safety Code §13862. Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that Lake Valley Fire Protection District Sphere of Influence remain unchanged as shown Appendix L. 1.5.9 Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by Meeks Bay Fire Protection District as those specified in California Health & Safety Code §13862. Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that the Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Sphere of Influence be reduced to a zero sphere as shown in Appendix L in anticipation of future annexation into North Tahoe Fire Protection District in Placer County. 1.5.10 Mosquito Fire Protection District Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by Mosquito Fire Protection District as those specified in California Health & Safety Code §13862. Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that Mosquito Fire Protection District Sphere of Influence remain unchanged as shown Appendix L; and that the District Municipal Service Review be revisited within 3 years. 1.5.11 Pioneer Fire Protection District Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by Pioneer Fire Protection District as those specified in California Health & Safety Code §13862. Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that Pioneer Fire Protection District Sphere of Influence remain unchanged as shown Appendix L; and that the District Municipal Service Review be revisited within 3 years. 1.5.12 Rescue Fire Protection District Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by Rescue Fire Protection District as those specified in California Health Volume I of II Executive Summary Page 1-16 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final & Safety Code §13862. Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that the Rescue Fire Protection District Sphere of Influence be reduced to a zero sphere, as shown in Appendix L; and that the District Municipal Service Review be revisited within 3 years. 1.5.13 City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by the City of South Lake Tahoe as specified under Government of Cities Law, California Government Code Section 34000 et seq. Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that the City of South Lake Tahoe Sphere of Influence remain unchanged, as shown in Appendix L. 1.5.14 County Service Area 3 Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by County Service Area No. 3 as Emergency Medical Services. All powers specified under Government Code §25213 are designated as latent with the exception of Government Code 25213(t). Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that the CSA 3 Sphere of Influence remain unchanged, as shown in Appendix L. 1.5.15 County Service Area 7 Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by County Service Area No. 7 as Emergency Medical Services. All powers specified under Government Code §25213 are designated as latent with the exception of Government Code 25213(t). Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that the CSA 7 Sphere of Influence remain unchanged, as shown in Appendix L. Volume I of II Executive Summary Page 1-17 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume I of II Executive Summary Page 1-18 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Chapter 2. Resolution The resolution can be found on the following pages. Volume I of II Resolution Page 2-1 of 2-20 Page 2-2 of 2-20 Page 2-3 of 2-20 Page 2-4 of 2-20 Page 2-5 of 2-20 Page 2-6 of 2-20 Page 2-7 of 2-20 Page 2-8 of 2-20 Page 2-9 of 2-20 Page 2-10 of 2-20 Page 2-11 of 2-20 Page 2-12 of 2-20 Page 2-13 of 2-20 Page 2-14 of 2-20 Page 2-15 of 2-20 Page 2-16 of 2-20 Page 2-17 of 2-20 Page 2-18 of 2-20 Page 2-19 of 2-20 Page 2-20 of 2-20 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Chapter 3. Introduction This chapter provides an introductory overview of the Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR/SOI Update including information about the El Dorado Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), the process, summary information about the County of El Dorado, and additional details relevant to the Municipal Service Review (MSR) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) discussions for each fire protection and emergency medical services agency. Table of Contents 3.1 Role and Responsibility of LAFCO ......................................................................................3-3 3.2 About El Dorado LAFCO ....................................................................................................3-3 3.2.1 LAFCO Commissioners .......................................................................................................................... 3-4 3.2.2 LAFCO Staff and Administrative ............................................................................................................ 3-5 3.3 About El Dorado County ...................................................................................................3-5 3.3.1 General Information.............................................................................................................................. 3-6 3.3.2 Tourism.................................................................................................................................................. 3-7 3.3.3 Tahoe Basin ........................................................................................................................................... 3-7 3.3.4 Wildfire History ..................................................................................................................................... 3-8 3.3.5 Countywide Fire Hazard Zones and Responsibility Areas ................................................................... 3-11 3.3.6 Countywide Vegetation Management and Defensible Space ............................................................ 3-13 3.3.7 Tahoe Basin Fuels Reduction .............................................................................................................. 3-14 3.3.8 Tahoe Network of Fire Adapted Communities ................................................................................... 3-14 3.3.9 El Dorado County Fire Safe Council..................................................................................................... 3-14 3.4 Purpose of the Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence ................................... 3-15 3.4.1 LAFCO Determinations ........................................................................................................................ 3-16 3.1.1 Other Service Providers ...................................................................................................................... 3-18 3.5 Past MSR/SOI’s for Fire & Emergency Services ................................................................ 3-18 3.6 Methodology ................................................................................................................. 3-19 3.6.1 Local, State, and Federal Databases ................................................................................................... 3-20 3.7 California Environmental Quality Act Exemptions............................................................ 3-20 3.8 Public Participation ........................................................................................................ 3-21 Table of Tables Table 3-1: El Dorado LAFCO Commissioners ............................................................................................. 3-4 Table 3-2: Allocation Performance Table for 2015-2032 by Jurisdiction .................................................. 3-7 Table 3-3: Top Ten Fires with Most Acres Burned (1990 to 2020) ............................................................ 3-8 Table 3-4: Local, State, and Federal Responsibility Area Acreage........................................................... 3-11 Table 3-5: FHSZs by Acreage and Percent in the County......................................................................... 3-13 Volume I of II Introduction Page 3-1 of 3-22 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table of Figures Figure 3-1: Regional Division of the County into the West Slope and the Tahoe Basin ........................... 3-5 Figure 3-2: Population by Age Group 2019, County of El Dorado versus the State of California ............. 3-6 Figure 3-3: Property Tax Revenue Distribution ......................................................................................... 3-6 Figure 3-4: Map of Historic Fires in the County of El Dorado (1990-2020) plus the 2021 Caldor Fire ..... 3-9 Figure 3-5: State and Federal Responsibility Areas for the County of El Dorado.................................... 3-12 Figure 3-6: FHSZs in SRAs and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRAs in the County .................. 3-13 Volume I of II Introduction Page 3-2 of 3-22 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 3.1 Role and Responsibility of LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) are independent agencies that were established by state legislation in 1963 in each county in California to oversee changes in local agency boundaries and organizational structures. It is LAFCO’s responsibility to: • oversee the logical, efficient, and most appropriate formation of local cities and special districts; • provide for the logical progression of agency boundaries and efficient expansion of municipal services; • assure the efficient provision of municipal services; and • discourage the premature conversion of agricultural and open space lands. (Government Code [GC] §§ 56100, 56301, 56425, 56430, 56378). The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH Act) requires each LAFCO to prepare a Municipal Service Review (MSR) for its cities and special districts. MSRs are required prior to and in conjunction with the update of a Sphere of Influence (SOI) (Assembly Committee on Local Government, 2020). This review is intended to provide El Dorado LAFCO with the necessary and relevant information related to fire protection and emergency medical services countywide. 3.2 About El Dorado LAFCO Each LAFCO works to implement the CKH Act to meet local needs through the flexibility allowed in how state regulations are implemented. As part of this process, El Dorado LAFCO originally adopted Policies and Guidelines on November 7, 1988; which have been amended 48 times, most recently on August 25, 2021. LAFCO’s Policies and Guidelines address Commission procedures, LAFCO operations, and procedures for MSRs, SOIs, and Changes of Organization. The Policies and Guidelines can be found on El Dorado LAFCO’s website (https://www.edlafco.us/). This MSR/SOI Update was written under the auspices of El Dorado LAFCO. The mission of El Dorado LAFCO is to coordinate the logical and timely changes in local governmental boundaries (§56001); conduct special studies which review ways to reorganize, simplify and streamline governmental structures (§56301); and prepare spheres of influence for each city and special district within the County (§56425). The Commission promotes the provision of efficient and economical services while encouraging protection of agricultural and open space lands (§56001, §56300). Further efforts include discouraging urban sprawl and encouraging orderly formation and development of local agencies based upon local conditions and circumstances (§56301) (LAFCO, 2021). An MSR is an information tool that can be used to facilitate cooperation among local agencies and LAFCO to achieve efficient delivery of services. Describing existing fire protection and emergency medical services and discussing opportunities to improve efficiencies is a key objective of this MSR, consistent with El Dorado LAFCO’s purpose. An SOI is a depiction of a local agency’s probable physical boundaries and service area. Since this MSR/SOI Update will be published on the LAFCO website, it also contributes to El Dorado LAFCO’s principle relating to public accessibility and accountability. A public hearing will be conducted by El Dorado LAFCO on this MSR/SOI Update, thereby contributing to the aim of encouraging an open and engaged process. Volume I of II Introduction Page 3-3 of 3-22 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 3.2.1 LAFCO Commissioners El Dorado LAFCO is composed of seven regular Commissioners: two members from the Board of Supervisors; two members who represent cities; two members who represent special districts; and one public member who represents the public as a whole. There are four alternate Commissioners; one from each of the above membership categories. County representatives (regular and alternate) to LAFCO are selected as part of the Board of Supervisors' committee assignment process. City representatives (regular and alternate) to LAFCO are selected by the mayors of both cities. Special district representatives (regular and alternate) to LAFCO are nominated and elected by the special districts in the County of El Dorado. The LAFCO Executive Officer first coordinates a nomination process whereby all special districts may nominate one of their own directors (or the director of another special district) to appear on the ballot. Once the nomination period closes, the Executive Officer then coordinates an election where all special districts are eligible to vote. Special rules adopted by special districts govern this election process. The regular county, city, and special district members of LAFCO (six total) select one person to represent the public at large, and one person to serve as the public alternate. The public member and alternate cannot be an elected or appointed official of any public agency in the County of El Dorado (LAFCO, 2021a). The current El Dorado LAFCO Commissioners and their terms of office are listed in Table 3-1. Table 3-1: El Dorado LAFCO Commissioners Commissioner Date Term Title Position Name Expires John Hidahl Chair El Dorado County Representative May 2024 Special District Representative (El Dorado Brain Veerkamp Vice Chair May 2025 Irrigation District) Wendy Thomas Commissioner El Dorado County Representative May 2022 Cody Bass Commissioner City Representative (South Lake Tahoe) May 2022 Jackie Neau Commissioner City Representative (Placerville) May 2022 Michael Powell Commissioner Public Member May 2022 Patricia “Patty” Alternate City Representative May 2024 Borelli Michael Special District Representative (Georgetown Alternate May 2023 Saunders Divide Public Utility District) George Turnboo Alternate County Representative May 2022 Vacant Alternate Special District Representative May 2023 Vacant Alternate Public Member May 2024 Source: LAFCO, 2021 Volume I of II Introduction Page 3-4 of 3-22 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 3.2.2 LAFCO Staff and Administrative LAFCO’s staff includes an Interim Executive Officer, an Administrative Assistant, and LAFCO Counsel as listed below. LAFCO staff can be contacted at the LAFCO office at (530)-295-2707. LAFCO staff consists of: • Erica Sanchez, Interim Executive Officer • Kelly Witt, Administrative Assistant • Malathy Subramanian, Legal Counsel 3.3 About El Dorado County El Dorado County, located in east-central California, encompasses 1,805 square miles of rolling hills and mountainous terrain. The County’s western boundary contains part of Folsom Lake, and the eastern boundary is also the California-Nevada State line and contains part of Lake Tahoe. The County is topographically divided into two zones. The northeast corner of the County is in the Lake Tahoe Basin, while the remainder of the County is in the West Slope, the area west of Echo Summit. This report divides much of the information regarding fire protection and emergency medical service agencies between these two distinct areas. The County of El Dorado General Plan also divides the County into these two regions as shown in Figure 3-1. The County is diverse, inviting residents and tourists alike to enjoy outdoor recreation activities year-round throughout the County (EDC, 2021). Two incorporated cities are located within El Dorado County: Placerville and South Lake Tahoe. The County also provides essential services such as law enforcement, public health, animal control, planning, building inspection, road maintenance, and snow removal for residents of unincorporated areas. Figure 3-1: Regional Division of the County into the West Slope and the Tahoe Basin Volume I of II Introduction Page 3-5 of 3-22 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 3.3.1 General Information From 2010 to 2019 the County grew 6.5 percent, with the majority of citizens residing outside of the incorporated cities. Approximately 22 percent of the County population in 2019 was 65 years or older. This is seven percent higher than the Statewide percent (US Census, 2019). Figure 3-2 shows population distribution by age group for the County compared to the State. Figure 3-2: Population by Age Group 2019, County of El Dorado versus the State of California Property taxes are a major source of unrestricted revenue for the County, schools, cities, and special districts. Proposition 13 in 1978 established the current method of assessment. Property owners may also vote to include certain types of additional special assessments along with property taxes. The County Assessor maintains the inventory of assessable property and prepares the assessment rolls. The Auditor maintains the tax rates, calculates the taxes due, and adds any special assessments. Property taxes are allocated by the Board of Supervisors within a county based primarily upon the historical share of property tax received by local agencies prior to Proposition 13. Under certain conditions, taxes may be reallocated. Figure 3-3 shows the general distribution of property taxes in the County (EDC, 2019). More information on County demographics and socio-economic interdependencies can be found in Volume I -Appendix A and Appendix B. Figure 3-3: Property Tax Revenue Distribution Volume I of II Introduction Page 3-6 of 3-22 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 3.3.2 Tourism The Sierra Foothill Region experiences a significant seasonal influx of visitors seeking recreational opportunities. These areas include the historic city of Placerville, the Apple Hill area in Camino, and wine tasting in the Fair Play/Somerset region (Visit El Dorado, 2021). Visitor populations can place additional burdens on service providers and create wide variations in peak demands for particular services. While visitors are present most of the year, it is in the summer months of June to August (river season) that sees the region's greatest number of visitors. The Lake Tahoe Region experiences a significant seasonal influx of visitors seeking recreational opportunities. The Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) estimates roughly 24 million visitors come into the Tahoe Basin each year, of which 40 percent are day visitors (Tahoe Prosperity Center, 2017). The Tahoe Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Authority estimates over 100,000 visitors travel per day through the Emerald Bay-Highway 89 corridor which includes Camp Richardson, Fallen Leaf Lake campground, the Camp Richardson Hotel, and numerous popular beaches. The Tahoe Basin area also includes two major ski areas: Sierra-at-Tahoe and Heavenly Valley. Visitor populations can place additional burdens on service providers and create wide variations in peak demands for particular services. While visitors are present most of the year, it is in the winter months of December to March (ski season) that the greatest number visit the region. 3.3.3 Tahoe Basin The Lake Tahoe area of the County is under the jurisdiction of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), the County of El Dorado, and the City of South Lake Tahoe. The TRPA is the agency responsible for regional planning, development and redevelopment oversight, regulatory enforcement, and implementation of environmental protection and restoration of Lake Tahoe and the surrounding region. Growth within this area of the County is more complex due to the policies that limit development overseen by the TRPA. Both an allocation and development right are required in order to build a residential unit within the Basin. Typically, each undeveloped residential lot has one development right associated with it. If more than one housing unit is proposed for a site, additional development rights need to be purchased and transferred to the parcel to match the allocations received. Every two years, jurisdictions within the Lake Tahoe Basin receive a set number of residential allocations from the TRPA to be distributed to properties basin wide. These allocations are set based on specific criteria and the remaining number of allocations available before buildout of the Lake Tahoe Basin is achieved. Table 3-2 shows the minimum allocations the County and City could achieve per year as well as the base allocation, or maximum allocation achievable by the County and City (City of South Lake Tahoe, 2020; El Dorado County, 2020). Table 3-2: Allocation Performance Table for 2015-2032 by Jurisdiction Minimum Allocations Jurisdiction Deduction Increments Base Allocation with Deductions County of El Dorado 8 5.5 30 City of South Lake Tahoe 10 5.75 33 Source: TRPA, 2016 Volume I of II Introduction Page 3-7 of 3-22 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Deduction increments dictate how much allocation each jurisdiction can lose based on compliance with TRPA policies. From 2020 until 2032, the County of El Dorado and the City of South Lake Tahoe combined could increase residential development by 75 more units (6.25 units per year). This is assuming both the County and the City do not receive any deductions in allocations over the next twelve years. 3.3.4 Wildfire History According to the Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP), there have been 137 wildfires in El Dorado County between 1990 and 2020 that have burned approximately 169,872 acres. The FRAP compiles fire perimeters and has established an on-going fire perimeter data capture process. CAL FIRE, the United States Forest Service Region 5, the Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park Service jointly develop the fire perimeter GIS layer for public and private lands throughout California at the end of the calendar year. Data from this GIS map is used to provide information regarding wildfire history in the County of El Dorado. The top ten wildfires from 1990 to 2020, in order of most acres burned can be seen in Table 3-3. A map of fires in the County from 1990 to 2020 can be seen in Figure 3-4. This figure also includes the Caldor Fire, which started on August 14, 2021. Table 3-3: Top Ten Fires with Most Acres Burned (1990 to 2020) Reported Acres Fire Name Year Agency Burned King 2014 USFS 97,717 Cleveland 1992 USFS 24,580 Freds 2004 USFS 7,700 Trailhead 2016 USFS 5,646 Sand 2014 CAL FIRE 4,240 Caples 2019 USFS 3,444 Angora 2007 USFS 3,100 Hunter 2002 USFS 2,400 Plum 2002 USFS 1,763 Fork 2020 USFS 1,673 Half of the most destructive wildfires from 1990 to 2020 have occurred in the last 10 years. The King Fire in 2014 burned 97,717 acres and destroyed 12 homes; the 2014 Sand Fire destroyed 19 homes; and the 2007 Angora Fire destroyed 254 homes (EDC, 2020). The Caldor Fire, which occurred in 2021, burned for two months, consuming 221,835 acres. The Caldor Fire burned approximately 124,118 more acres (or 56 percent) than the previously largest King Fire. Volume I of II Introduction Page 3-8 of 3-22 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 3-4: Map of Historic Fires in the County of El Dorado (1990-2020) plus the 2021 Caldor Fire GIS Data from: CAL FIRE FRAP https://frap.fire.ca.gov/ Not to scale GIS Data from: CAL FIRE FRAP https://frap.fire.ca.gov/ Volume I of II Introduction Page 3-9 of 3-22 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume I of II Introduction Page 3-10 of 3-22 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Caldor Fire The Caldor Fire burned 221,835 acres or approximately 347 square miles from August 14, 2021 to October 21, 2021. The fire destroyed 1,003 structures, damaged 81 structures, and there were 5 confirmed injuries of fire personnel and civilians, and one death (CAL FIRE, 2021b). The Caldor Fire is ranked as the 15th largest wildfire in the State and the 16th most destructive (CAL FIRE, 2021c; 2021d). The town of Grizzly Flats was largely destroyed by the fire, as was infrastructure for the Pioneer Fire Protection District (PIO) in which the fire originated. More information on the losses sustained by PIO can be found in Volume II – Chapter 12, Pioneer Fire Protection District MSR. Through the latter half of August, the fire moved east along Highway 50 and crested the Lake Tahoe Basin at Echo Summit. The City of South Lake Tahoe, as well as surrounding areas was put under a mandatory evacuation order on August 30, which lifted September 5 as weather and fire behavior improved. A roughly 50-mile stretch of State Highway 50 was closed to the public for about a month. Most of the destroyed structures are located in Grizzly Flats, but some are also located along the Highway 50 corridor near the summit, near Phillips Tract, and Twin Bridges, according to a damage map from Cal Fire (McGough, 2021; CAL FIRE, 2021e). The fires destruction within the Tahoe Basin appears to have been less severe due to tree-thinning projects that have taken place within the Basin that helped eliminate low-hanging limbs and other “ladder fuels” at could have created crown fires, which would have made the situation far less manageable. According to firefighters and foresters interviewed by the Sacramento Bee, fuel-reduction projects played a major role in protecting the communities of Christmas Valley and Meyers (Kasler and Pohl, 2021). 3.3.5 Countywide Fire Hazard Zones and Responsibility Areas The suppression of fires in local structures is a significant focus of each fire protection and emergency medical services agency in the County. The fire agencies work in conjunction with CAL FIRE, the USFS, and other local organizations for the suppression of wildfires throughout the County through mutual aid agreements. Much of the County is made up of State Responsibility Area (SRA) and Federal Responsibility Areas (FRAs) as shown in Figure 3-5 on the next page. As detailed in Table 3-4, approximately 95.5 percent of the County of El Dorado is within a State or Federal Responsibility Area for fire protection services. CAL FIRE is legally and financially responsible to provide fire protection in all SRAs. Areas under the FRA are managed by a federal agency, such as the U.S. Forest Service. A very small percentage, approximately 4.5 percent, is within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) in which the local fire agency would have fire protection responsibility. Table 3-4: Local, State, and Federal Responsibility Area Acreage Responsibility Area Acreage Percent Federal Responsibility Area 545,458 47.62% State Responsibility Area 548,624 47.89% Local Responsibility Area 51,476 4.49% Volume I of II Introduction Page 3-11 of 3-22 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 3-5: State and Federal Responsibility Areas for the County of El Dorado GIS Data from: CAL FIRE FRAP https://frap.fire.ca.gov/ Not to scale A Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) is a mapped area that designates zones (based on factors such as fuel, slope, and fire weather) with varying degrees of fire hazard (i.e., moderate, high, and very high). FHSZ maps evaluate wildfire hazards, which are physical conditions that create a likelihood that an area will burn over a 30- to 50-year period. They do not take into account modifications such as fuel reduction efforts. While FHSZs do not predict when or where a wildfire will occur, they do identify areas where wildfire hazards could be more severe and therefore are of greater concern. FHSZs are meant to help limit wildfire damage to structures through planning, prevention, and mitigation activities/requirements that reduce risk. The FHSZs serve several purposes: they are used to designate areas where California’s wildland urban interface building codes apply to new buildings; they can be a factor in real estate disclosure; and local governments consider fire hazard severity in the Safety Elements of their General Plans. The information here includes Fire Hazard Severity Zones for State Responsibility Area lands and separate draft Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones for Local Responsibility Area lands. Moderate, high, and very high FHSZs are found in areas where the State has financial responsibility for fire protection and prevention (SRAs). Only very high FHSZs are found in Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs). Consultants reviewed available GIS data for California Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), including both proposed Fire Hazard Severity Zones for State Responsibility Area lands, and draft Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones for Local Responsibility Area lands (CAL FIRE, 2021f). This data was last updated by CAL FIRE on July 30, 2021. A map of FHSZs for the County can be found in Figure 3-6 on the next page. Volume I of II Introduction Page 3-12 of 3-22 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 3-6: FHSZs in SRAs and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRAs in the County GIS Data from: CAL FIRE FRAP https://frap.fire.ca.gov/ Not to scale As shown in Table 3-5, the City of Placerville and the City of South Lake Tahoe LRAs have been identified as a Very High FHSZ. Of the areas in the County located within an SRA and LRA, approximately 75 percent are located in a Very High and High FHSZ. Of the total 566,288 acres, approximately 55 percent is within a Very High FHSZ. Table 3-5: FHSZs by Acreage and Percent in the County Fire Hazard Zone Acreage Percent Very High 311,407 54.99% High 115,891 20.47% Moderate 138,990 24.54% 3.3.6 Countywide Vegetation Management and Defensible Space In May 2019, the County of El Dorado Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 5105, Chapter 8.09 for Vegetation Management and Defensible Space. This ordinance was last revised in February 2020. The ordinance was enacted for: the removal of hazardous vegetation and combustible materials in the unincorporated areas of the County; to provide enforcement of existing state law (PRC 4291); build upon the existing grassroots efforts countywide through various fire safe councils (such as FRA 50, SOFAR, etc.); reduce the potential for fire; and promote the safety and wellbeing of the community. The ordinance does not address clearing on public lands such as those managed by the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, or the Bureau of Reclamation. Volume I of II Introduction Page 3-13 of 3-22 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Defensible Space inspections are conducted annually in the County. CAL FIRE does 4,291 inspections annually countywide. The County also works in partnership with the location fire protection districts who conduct defensible space inspections, the community service districts, HOAs, etc. The County has designated areas called County Emphasis Areas (CEA) which are for focused, proactive inspections (EDC, 2020). More information on the County’s ordinance and program can be found at: https://www.edcgov.us/Government/CAO/VegetationManagement. 3.3.7 Tahoe Basin Fuels Reduction Fire agencies in the Tahoe Basin work as collaborative partners with the Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team (formed in 2008 and includes 22 Agencies around the Tahoe Basin including Local, State, Federal and Special Districts) to implement the 2014 Lake Tahoe Basin Multi-Jurisdictional Fuel Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy, 2015 Lake Tahoe Basin Community Wildfire Protection Plan, and 2019 Lake Tahoe Forest Action Plan overseen by a Multi-Agency Coordinating Group which includes the seven Lake Tahoe Basin fire chiefs and nine local agency executives. Other agencies that treat forest fuels: U.S. Forest Service - LTBMU, Tahoe Resource Conservation District, California Tahoe Conservancy, California State Parks, Tahoe Resource Conservation District, Tahoe City PUD, private landowners, and private water purveyors (Eric Horntvedt, personal communication, February 2021). 3.3.8 Tahoe Network of Fire Adapted Communities The Tahoe Network of Fire Adapted Communities is a program designed to help residents and visitors prepare for wildfire. This multi-agency and community collaboration effort helps residents take individual action to collectively reduce their neighborhood’s risk from wildfire. Led by the Tahoe Resource Conservation District in collaboration with local fire districts, Tahoe Network members have the opportunity to work together with neighbors to prepare for wildfire. Tahoe Network offers the following services: free defensible space inspections, home hardening education, free curbside chipping, robust outreach and education, free community assistance in the form of fire crew workdays and green waste dumpsters, and free Firewise community risk assessments. There are no formal Fire Safe Councils in the Basin, however the Tahoe Network of Fire Adapted Communities works closely with identified volunteer neighborhood leaders to integrate NFPA's Firewise USA Recognition Program into the Tahoe Network of Fire Adapted Communities Program (Eric Horntvedt, personal communication, February 2021). There are currently three recognized Firewise communities in the Tahoe Basin side of the County of El Dorado (NFPA, 2021). 3.3.9 El Dorado County Fire Safe Council The El Dorado County Fire Safe Council is a non-profit, Public Benefit Corporation. The Council’s mission is “to protect the people of El Dorado County and their property from the effects of catastrophic wildfire through education, cooperation, innovation, and action.” The council was organized in September 2001 and currently has over 150 individuals from the public and private sectors who are committed to making El Dorado County more fire safe. Through community outreach and public education, the Council endeavors to make residents of the County aware of the risks of living within a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and what they can do to protect their home and property from wildfire. There are 25 associated Councils in the County located on the West Slope. A map of those councils can be found at: Volume I of II Introduction Page 3-14 of 3-22 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final https://www.edcfiresafe.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Council-Map-Update-07-02-2021.pdf. Information on how homeowners can protection their home from wildfire can be found in Volume I – Appendix F. 3.4 Purpose of the Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Municipal Service Reviews (MSRs) are intended to provide a comprehensive analysis of the services provided by special districts and other service providers that are under the legislative authority of LAFCO. This MSR/SOI Update studies the fire protection and emergency medical services provided by thirteen fire agencies and two County Service Areas (CSAs). The fire agencies can be broken into separate governmental entities of which nine are fire protection districts, two are community services districts, one is a city, and one is a county water district; each with its own separate governing board, personnel policies, and financing structure. The thirteen fire protection and emergency medical services agencies service areas are generally broken up into two regions of the County. Nine of the thirteen fire agencies are located in what is known as the “West Slope” of the County which is identified by the County General Plan Housing Element as all areas of the County not within the Tahoe Basin or the Tahoe National Forest Area. The “Tahoe Basin” includes four of the fire agencies and is the areas of the County within the Tahoe Basin and the Tahoe National Forest. The fire agencies are listed by West Slope and Tahoe Basin as follows: West Slope • Cameron Park Community Services District (CAM) • Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District (DSP) • El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF) • El Dorado Hills County Water District (EDH) • Georgetown Fire Protection District (GEO) • Garden Valley Fire Protection District (GRV) • Mosquito Fire Protection District (MQT) • Pioneer Fire Protection District (PIO) • Rescue Fire Protection District (RES) Tahoe Basin • Fallen Leaf Lake Fire Protection District (FLL) • Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LAV) • Meeks Bay Fire Protection District (MEK) • City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department (SLT) Emergency medical services are provided through two Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs), divided by the West Slope and the Tahoe Basin. The County provides funding through the two CSAs for equipment and personnel salaries while nine of the fire protection and emergency medical service agencies administer emergency services. The CSAs and their respective JPAs are as follows: Volume I of II Introduction Page 3-15 of 3-22 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final West Slope • CSA 7 administered through the El Dorado County Regional Prehospital Emergency Services Operations Authority (West Slope JPA) Tahoe Basin • CSA 3 administered through the California Tahoe Emergency Services Operations Authority (Cal Tahoe JPA) This review also provides technical and administrative information to support El Dorado LAFCO’s evaluation of the existing boundary and sphere of influence for each of the thirteen fire protection and emergency medical service agencies and two CSAs. Although the fire protection and emergency medical service agencies are under the auspices of El Dorado LAFCO as the principal LAFCO, the agencies resources also provide critical services to portions of Sacramento, Placer, Amador, and Alpine Counties. 3.4.1 LAFCO Determinations With this MSR/SOI Update, El Dorado LAFCO can make informed decisions based on the best available data for each fire protection and emergency medical service provider and area. The information presented in Volumes I and II of this report offers a description of existing services provided by each fire agency, or a “snapshot” of existing conditions. The information contained herein does not explicitly plan for future services, nor will any action or change in services result directly as a result of LAFCO’s adoption of this report. However, this MSR/SOI Update will be used as a guide for future decisions by LAFCO in determining an agency’s ability to provide services. Written determinations (similar to ‘findings’), as required by law, are presented within each fire agency and CSA specific chapter in Volume II of this report. LAFCO is the ultimate decision maker regarding approval or modification of any determinations, policies, boundaries, and discretionary items. This MSR/SOI Update makes determinations in each of the seven mandated areas of evaluation for MSRs and each of the five topic areas for evaluation of the agencies SOIs. The analysis provided in the MSR Chapters in Volume II provide the basis for El Dorado LAFCO to review proposed changes to the fire protection and emergency medical services agencies SOI. An SOI is defined in GC § 56425 as “a plan for the probable physical boundary and service area of a local agency or municipality as determined by the Commission.” LAFCO is required to adopt an SOI for each city and each special district in its jurisdiction. When reviewing and determining the SOI for each fire agency and CSA, LAFCO will consider and make recommendations based on the following information: • The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands; • The present and probable need for public services and facilities in the area; • The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides; • The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if LAFCO determines that they are relevant to the service provider; and Volume I of II Introduction Page 3-16 of 3-22 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • The presence of disadvantaged unincorporated communities for those agencies that provide water, wastewater, or structural fire protection services. In addition to the above, El Dorado LAFCO’s Policies and Guidelines include special criteria for review of sphere of influence amendments (§56425) including the following: • The service capacity, level and types of services currently provided by the agency and the areas where these services are provided, topographic factors, financial capabilities, costs of service, and social and economic interdependencies; • Existing and planned land uses, land use plans and policies; consistency with county and city general plans; projected growth in the affected area, and potential effects on agricultural and open space lands; • A description of the services that will be provided to any areas which may be added to the sphere, the timing and method for funding expansion of facilities or services; and • An analysis of the effects a proposed sphere of influence on other agencies and their service capabilities. Ideally, an MSR will support LAFCO and will also provide the following benefits to the subject agencies: • Provide a broad overview of agency operations including type and extent of services provided; • Serve as a prerequisite for a Sphere of Influence Update; • Evaluate governance options and financial information; • Demonstrate accountability and transparency to LAFCO and to the public; and • Allow agencies to compare their operations and services with other similar agencies. The SOI determinations for each fire and emergency service provider as well as the two CSAs can be found in Volume I – Chapter 6, Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations. The Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations includes three options for the Commission to consider. These three options are: Option 1 – Maintain Existing SOIs and Friendly SOI Changes Option 2 – Establish a West Slope Fire Authority Option 3 – Boundary Adjustments Consultants and LAFCO staff are recommending the Commission approve Option 1 – Maintain Existing SOIs and Friendly SOI Changes, and consultants have provided determinations for this option. The two additional options are presented to the Commission for discussion purposes. These options offer possible avenues of study in future MSR/SOI Updates and future reports that could be commissioned by the County or LAFCO. Three agencies are recommended for changes to their respective SOIs as a result of ongoing discussions and future annexations. This report also recommends that the Municipal Service Review (MSR) for three agencies be revisited within 3 years to evaluate District viability. Details regarding those SOI changes can be found under Volume I – Chapter 6, Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations, Option 1. Volume I of II Introduction Page 3-17 of 3-22 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 3.1.1 Other Service Providers The services provided by the fire protection and emergency medical service agencies make up the majority of the developable area of the County. Residents of the County also receive public services from an array of service providers such as County government, the City of Placerville, the City of South Lake Tahoe, several school districts, El Dorado Transit, Cameron Park Airport District, several community services districts, private utility companies, and several state and regional agencies. Some of these other service providers are described in greater detail in Appendix D. Residents in the County interact with a networked array of private and public service providers. Understanding and documenting the fire protection and emergency medical service agencies’ place within this network is one of the objectives of this MSR/SOI Update. 3.5 Past MSR/SOI’s for Fire & Emergency Services Fire and emergency services were last reviewed at a countywide level by El Dorado LAFCO in 2011 in County Fire Suppression and Emergency Services Municipal Service Review. The 2011 MSR reviewed 10 fire protection district and one county water district. These agencies were analyzed in one MSR as a whole. Updates to the SOI’s for 12 of the fire service providers was last approved in 2011. The multi-service fire protection and emergency service providers, including two community services districts and city, were reviewed separately between 2012 and 2016. This MSR/SOI Update diverts from the 2011 MSR in that it includes individual MSRs for all thirteen fire and emergency service agencies and two CSAs. In order to provide some holistic analysis of the County as a whole, this MSR/SOI Update includes a countywide discussion of specific infrastructure and agency finances. The 2011 Countywide Fire Suppression and Emergency Services MSR relied heavily on the 2010 Fire and Emergency Services Study (FESS) prepared by Citygate Associates. The 2010 FESS provided invaluable information related to the services, equipment, personnel, and facilities for the fire agencies studied and the bedrock of analysis for the determinations made in the 2011 MSR. The County has not updated the FESS since 2010 and although this current MSR/SOI Update attempts to analyze the fire agencies along a similar path of detailed analysis, the available data and expertise required for a thorough study similar to the 2010 FESS is beyond the scope of this document. It is recommended that in addition to this MSR/SOI Update, the County consider an update to the 2010 FESS to gain a clearer picture of the current status of the fire and emergency service agencies within the County. The 2011 MSR concluded that the fire agencies have properly trained personnel and sufficiently well- maintained equipment to serve the public regardless if some of the agencies had no paid staff or relied on older equipment. The fire agencies reviewed in the 2011 MSR did not include CAM, FLL, or SLT. The 2011 MSR concluded that all of the fire agencies and CAL FIRE operate as one within the County with any variance in service levels within the parameters acceptable by the communities they serve. However, the 2011 MSR acknowledged that the financial constraints experienced by some of the agencies placed additional stress on the automatic aid system for neighboring agencies which threatened to undermine this system. As part of the analysis, the 2011 MSR provided three options for consideration by the fire and emergency services agencies: Volume I of II Introduction Page 3-18 of 3-22 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Plan A. This option attempts to recapture ERAF funds currently diverted to schools through consolidation of the districts on the West Slope and the East Slope with two fire agencies, EDH and LAV. Both EDH and LAV are exempt from ERAF diversions due to having jurisdiction within another county, categorizing them as “multi-county” agencies. This would allow the ERAF exemption to be extended to the other fire and emergency service agencies, recapturing the majority of the $1.7 million being diverted to schools. Plan B. This option would adjust CSA 7’s “Ambulance Services West Slope Special Tax” which has not changed since 1997. Through specific changes to the tax including adding an escalator, tying the tax to the number of dwelling units, and expand the types of services provided, this option would stabilize the poorer fire and emergency service agencies and may also increase the likelihood of consolidations. This option would require approval by the voters through a ballot measure. Smaller Consolidation Discussions. Other options discussed in the 2011 MSR include the agencies forming a Fire Joint Power Agency, and the readjustment of some service boundaries. Ultimately, the 2011 MSR reaffirmed the existing spheres of influence for each agency and encouraged dialogue to continue between the fire protection and emergency medical service providers rather than recommend vast changes to the SOIs. 3.6 Methodology The CKH Act indicates that LAFCO should review and update a Sphere of Influence every five years, as necessary, consistent with GC § 56425(g) and § 561061. The MSRs for countywide fire and emergency services was last updated in August 2011 as part of the 2011 Countywide Fire and Emergency Services Municipal Service Review and approved as part of LAFCO Resolution No. L-2011-09. The CAM, FLL, and SLT were not included in the 2011 MSR. However, these agencies had separate MSR/SOI Updates that were last updated in May 2012, October 2013, and August 2016 respectively. SOIs for the fire agencies in the 2011 MSR/SOI Update were updated to affirm their current spheres. This MSR/SOI Update evaluates the structure and operation of fire and emergency services throughout the county and determines the capacity of the fire agencies to service existing customers and accommodate additional service demands. Key references and information sources for this study were gathered and include: • published reports; • review of agency files and databases online (agendas, minutes, budgets, contracts, audits, etc. on agency websites); • master plans; • capital improvement plans; • dispatch data; • audited financial statements; 1 The CKH Act (GC § 56106) states that all timeframes are directives. Any provision governing the time in which Commission is to act, is deemed directory rather than mandatory. Volume I of II Introduction Page 3-19 of 3-22 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • General Plans, Regional Plans and Community Plans; and • State and regional agency information (permits, reviews, communications, regulatory requirements, etc.). The consulting team, in coordination with the El Dorado LAFCO Executive Officer, sent all fire protection and emergency service agencies a Request for Information (RFI) in August 2020. Members of the consultant team also conducted interviews with fire agency representatives during meetings held from August 2020 to October 2020. Each fire protection and emergency medical service agencies’ response to LAFCO’s request for information is a key information source utilized in this analysis. The MSR for each agency found in Volume II of this report forms the basis for specific judgments, known as determinations, about each agency that LAFCO is required to make (GC § 56425, 56430). These determinations are described in the MSR Guidelines from the Office of Planning & Research (OPR) as set forth in the CKH Act, and they fall into seven categories, as listed below: 1. Growth and population projections for the affected area; 2. Location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence; 3. Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services including infrastructure needs or deficiencies; 4. Financial ability of agency to provide services; 5. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities; 6. Accountability for community service needs, including government structure and operational efficiencies; and 7. The potential effect of agency services on agricultural and open space lands. An MSR must include an analysis of the issues and written determination(s) for each of the above determination categories. 3.6.1 Local, State, and Federal Databases In addition to the information provided by the fire protection and emergency medical services agencies, consultants received raw dispatch data for the agencies reviewed in this report from two CAL FIRE Emergency Command Centers (ECC) and from the City of South Lake Tahoe Dispatch Center. Information on how the data was utilized can be found in Volume II – Chapter 1, Fire and Emergency Medical Services Agency MSR General Information. Other information from the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as well as geographic data provided by these organizations, and CAL FIRE through ArcGIS, were utilized to provide contextual information throughout the report. 3.7 California Environmental Quality Act Exemptions The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is contained in Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. Under this law, public agencies are required to evaluate the potential environmental effects of their actions. The Municipal Service Reviews and Sphere of Influence Updates addressed in this report (13 fire agencies and two emergency medical agencies) are exempt from California Environmental Quality Act Volume I of II Introduction Page 3-20 of 3-22 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final (CEQA) review pursuant to Section 15320 of the CEQA Guidelines, Class 20 – Changes in Organization of Local Agencies. This exemption is appropriate because the proposed changes do not change the geographic area in which previously existing powers are exercised. Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines lists exemptions to be considered when applying a Categorical Exemption; all possible exceptions under §15300.2 have been considered and none were found to apply to this MSR-SOI update (LAFCO Staff, personal communication, December 2021). 3.8 Public Participation LAFCO conducted a public meeting on the Preliminary Draft MSR/SOI Update on January 26, 2022. Comments from the public were solicited. The Commission held a public meeting on the Final MSR/SOI Update on April 27, 2022. This MSR/SOI Update will be published on the Commission’s website (https://www.edLAFCO.us/), thereby making the information contained herein available to anyone with access to an internet connection. A copy of this MSR/SOI Update may also be viewed during posted office hours at LAFCO’s office located at 550 Main Street, Suite E, Placerville, CA 95667. In addition to this MSR/SOI Update, LAFCO’s office maintains files for each service provider, and copies of many of the planning documents and studies that were utilized in the development of this MSR/SOI. These materials are also available to the public for review. Volume I of II Introduction Page 3-21 of 3-22 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume I of II Introduction Page 3-22 of 3-22 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Chapter 4. Countywide Infrastructure This chapter addresses service capacity as it pertains county-wide systems that are utilized by all or some of the fire agencies in order to provide adequate capacity to accommodate current or projected demand for service in the county as a whole or in a particular area or region. The infrastructure elements of fire protection and emergency services beyond those specific to each agency include dispatch systems, water supplies and roadways. This chapter will analyze whether any detected deficiencies exist as a result of short-term constraints or larger underlying problems. El Dorado County Visitors Authority Table of Contents 4.1 Dispatch and Call Response ..............................................................................................4-3 4.1.1 Dispatch Agencies ................................................................................................................................. 4-3 4.1.2 West Slope Dispatch ............................................................................................................................. 4-5 4.1.3 Tahoe Basin Dispatch .......................................................................................................................... 4-12 4.1.4 Response Time Performance .............................................................................................................. 4-14 4.1.5 West Slope Automatic/Mutual Aid ..................................................................................................... 4-18 4.2 County Roadways and Maintenance ............................................................................... 4-26 4.2.1 Vegetation & Tree Debris .................................................................................................................... 4-27 4.2.2 Snow Removal ..................................................................................................................................... 4-28 4.3 Water Supplies and Hydrants.......................................................................................... 4-28 4.3.1 Tahoe Basin ......................................................................................................................................... 4-28 4.3.2 West Slope .......................................................................................................................................... 4-29 4.4 Determinations .............................................................................................................. 4-31 4.4.1 Dispatch Call and Response ................................................................................................................ 4-31 4.4.2 County Roadways & Maintenance ...................................................................................................... 4-32 4.4.3 Water Supplies and Hydrants ............................................................................................................. 4-33 Table of Tables Table 4-1: Dispatched Calls for 2019, Arrived vs. Canceled ...................................................................... 4-8 Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-1 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 4-2: Average Response Times for Tahoe Basin Fire Agencies, 2019 ............................................. 4-16 Table 4-3: Average Response Times for West Slope Fire Agencies, 2019 ............................................... 4-17 Table 4-4: Aid Provided by Agencies (2016 – 2019) ................................................................................ 4-19 Table 4-5: Aid Received by Agencies (2016 – 2019) ................................................................................ 4-20 Table 4-6: Move Up and Cover by Agency Station or Location in Boundary, 2015 to 2019 ................... 4-23 Table 4-7: Agency Move Up and Cover, 2019 ......................................................................................... 4-24 Table of Figures Figure 4-1: Dispatched Calls for 2019, Arrived versus Canceled per Fire Agency ..................................... 4-8 Figure 4-2: Aid Provided by Agencies (2016 – 2019) ............................................................................... 4-20 Figure 4-3: Aid Received by Agencies (2016 – 2019) ............................................................................... 4-21 Figure 4-4: Aid Received/Provided and Total Calls by Fire Agencies for 2019 ........................................ 4-22 Figure 4-5: Move Up and Cover by Agency Station or Location in Boundary, 2016 to 2019 .................. 4-24 Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-2 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 4.1 Dispatch and Call Response The 2011 Countywide Fire and Emergency Services MSR (2011 MSR) utilized the 2010 Fire and Emergency Services Study (2011 FESS) data to summarize dispatch services through call types, response time performance, and mutual aid. This chapter will attempt to follow a similar analysis with the available data provided by CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center Dispatch (CAL FIRE Camino ECC), the City of South Lake Tahoe Dispatch Center (SLT Dispatch), and CAL FIRE Grass Valley Emergency Command Center Dispatch (CAL FIRE Grass Valley ECC). In addition, this chapter will look at the dispatch system as a whole for each area of the County. Dispatch services for El Dorado County are routed through three main Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs): 1. Central Dispatch through El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office for all 911 calls in the unincorporated area of the County; 2. South Lake Tahoe Dispatch Center for the area within the City Limits for the City of South Lake Tahoe; and 3. The City of Placerville Police Department Dispatch for the area within the City Limits for the City of Placerville. (Source: City of South Lake Tahoe, 2020; City of Placerville, 2020; CHP, 2020a; EDC, 2016) Each of these PSAPs will then route calls for fire protection and emergency medical services to either: 1. The CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center (ECC) on the West Slope of El Dorado County; or 2. The Grass Valley Emergency Command Center (ECC) for Meeks Bay Fire Protection District; and/or 3. Each of the individual fire protection and emergency medical services agencies within the South Lake Tahoe Basin area. In addition, calls that are placed within California Highway Patrol (CHP) jurisdiction on the West Slope of the County are received by the CHP Sacramento Communications Center and then routed accordingly while calls that are placed within the South Lake Tahoe Basin CHP area are received by the CHP Chico Communications Center and routed accordingly (CHP, 2020b). 4.1.1 Dispatch Agencies El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office (Central Dispatch) Central Dispatch for El Dorado County through the Sheriff’s Office was established in 1981 to provide the Sheriff’s Office and other public safety agencies with radio dispatch services. Central Dispatch is the PSAP for all 911 calls placed from any hardline phone within the unincorporated areas of the County of El Dorado. Central Dispatch moved to a new Public Safety Facility in 2019 which includes a new 911 Center with new equipment. The new 911 Center is comprised of 8 working stations, two training stations, and two fully functioning workstations off site with the goal to be able to operate fully from any location in an Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-3 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final emergency. In 2019, Central Dispatch received 193,786 calls with 86,923 of those calls dispatched (EDC, 2019b). South Lake Tahoe Dispatch Center (SLT Dispatch) SLT Dispatch is the PSAP for the South Lake Tahoe basin area. SLT Dispatch dispatches emergency services for the City of South Lake Tahoe Police Department, the City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department, Cal Tahoe JPA, Lake Valley Fire Protection District and Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Fire Department. The dispatch center is staffed with one supervisor and ten public safety dispatchers consisting of eight full-time and two part-time positions to handle an average of over 10,000 emergency calls and 65,000 non-emergency calls for service each year (SLT, 2020). City of Placerville Police Department Dispatch (City Police Dispatch) The City of Placerville Police Department Dispatch is the PSAP for the residents of the City of Placerville and routes calls to CAL FIRE Camino ECC for the El Dorado County Fire Protection District, the provider of fire protection services for the City of Placerville. The City Police Dispatch has five fulltime dispatchers, one retired annuitant, and one supervisor. In 2020, the Department handled approximately 5,700 emergency calls and 19,300 non-emergency calls for a total of 25,000 calls (Commander Maciel, personal communication, April 28, 2021). CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center (CAL FIRE Camino ECC) The CAL FIRE Camino ECC is one of four interagency command centers where the United States Forest Service (USFS) is co-located with CAL FIRE. Through a cooperative agreement, CAL FIRE Camino ECC provides fire protection and emergency medical services (EMS) dispatching services for all fire service agencies within Amador County as well as fire and emergency medical dispatching (EMD), and EMS dispatching services on the West Slope of the County of El Dorado. In 2019, CAL FIRE Camino ECC dispatched 39,678 incidents and processed 45,574 events, which equates to a 2.6 percent increase in incidents and 3.7 percent increase in processed calls compared to 2018. CAL FIRE Camino ECC processed over 11,000 requests in support of statewide and national fire activity including requests for CAL FIRE, local government, and federal resources. Locally, the 2019 fire season included 274 wildland fire dispatches. Ninety-five percent of the wildland fires dispatched were contained at less than 10 acres. There were no fires in the State Responsibility Area (SRA) that reached 100 acres (Chief Lindgren, personal communication, November 2020). CAL FIRE Grass Valley Emergency Command Center (CAL FIRE Grass Valley ECC) The CAL FIRE Grass Valley Emergency Command Center (ECC) oversees Command and Control operations for CAL FIRE resources within the Nevada-Yuba-Placer Unit. Through cooperative agreements, the CAL FIRE Grass Valley ECC also provides fire protection and emergency medical dispatching services for local government agencies located within the counties of El Dorado, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, and Yuba, along with Washoe County in the State of Nevada. For purposes of this report, CAL FIRE Grass Valley ECC provides dispatch services for Meeks Bay Fire Protection District (MEK) in the County of El Dorado. CAL FIRE Grass Valley ECC serves as the Region IV coordination center for the Fire and Rescue Branch of the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), overseeing the mobilization of eleven Northern Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-4 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final California counties and the Lake Tahoe Basin. Along with fire equipment, CAL FIRE Grass Valley ECC also coordinates air ambulance requests for the five-county region of the Sierra-Sacramento Valley EMS Agency and serves as the dispatch for Sierra Nevada Ambulance. In 2020, the Grass Valley ECC dispatched 31,533 incidents, processed 39,741 events, and answered over 100,000 phone calls. Of those incidents, there were 341 wildland fires in the State Responsibility Area (SRA), of which 96.7 percent of them were contained at less than 10 acres (Communications Operator Peard, personal communication, January 2021). 4.1.2 West Slope Dispatch As mentioned previously, fire protection and emergency medical services agencies on the West Slope are dispatched through CAL FIRE Camino ECC. These agencies are part of the El Dorado County Emergency Services Authority (West Slope JPA) formed for the purpose of ensuring automatic aid between the fire agencies for the delivery of an extensive, prehospital emergency medical service in an efficient manner without regard to jurisdictional boundaries (West Slope JPA, 2021). A key component of the JPA system is a centralized dispatch center with emergency medical dispatch trained personnel. CAL FIRE Camino ECC is the centralized dispatch center contracted through the West Slope JPA to provide dispatch services for the West Slope agencies. The nine local fire protection and emergency medical services agencies under this agreement are listed as follows: • Cameron Park Community Services District (CAM) • Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District (DSP) • El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF) • El Dorado Hills County Water District (EDH) • Garden Valley Fire Protection District (GRV) • Georgetown Fire Protection District (GEO) • Mosquito Fire Protection District (MQT) • Pioneer Fire Protection District (PIO) • Rescue Fire Protection District (RES) Dispatches also occur through CAL FIRE Camino ECC for neighboring agencies in neighboring counties, CAL FIRE, and USFS. Other members to the West Slope JPA include CAL FIRE Camino ECC and Marshall Medical Center, the local area hospital. Through the current automatic aid dispatch system, all fire agencies in the County along with CAL FIRE are dispatched automatically as the closest resource to any calls for service, regardless of agency boundaries. CAL FIRE Camino ECC utilizes Automatic Vehicle Locating (AVL) to dispatch resources based on GPS location and Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) access showing maps, location of other resources, and incident information to fire and emergency medical personnel. However, not all fire agencies in the County have AVL included in their vehicles and engines because the cost to add this equipment is borne by each agency. The number of calls for service throughout the West Slope have varied with four agencies seeing a downward trend in calls and five agencies seeing an upward trend from 2010 to 2019 as described in each agency’s MSR Chapter in Volume II. Calls may be routed to CAL FIRE Camino ECC from Central Dispatch Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-5 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final through the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office, the City of Placerville Police Department Dispatch, or CHP Sacramento Communications Center depending on the origin of the call. The current County of El Dorado communications infrastructure is owned by the County and CAL FIRE Camino ECC; and maintained by the El Dorado County Communications Manager at the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office. Costs for maintenance are covered by the West Slope JPA and upgrades to the system have been financed by grants through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The system is built on a VHF frequency system utilizing multiple mountain top repeater sites to provide coverage from Echo Summit to the County lines on the north, south, and western boarders of the County (CAL FIRE, 2017). There are two radio channels utilized by fire protection and emergency medical dispatch personnel: the dispatch channel and the command channel. The dispatch channel is owned and operated by CAL FIRE Camino ECC and is used to dispatch fire agencies to calls. The command channel is owned by the County and operated by the El Dorado County Communications Manager at the Sheriff’s Office. The command channel is used by fire agency personnel to communicate en route to calls and at the scene. The licenses for the operation of the two channels are owned by the State of California (Frank Yost, personal communication, February 23, 2022). Of the repeaters utilized by CAL FIRE Camino ECC and fire agency personnel on the West Slope, 18 are owned by the County and maintained by the County Sheriff’s Office, while three are owned and maintained by CAL FIRE Camino ECC. Through an interview with the El Dorado County Communications Manager, consultants were informed that the repeaters have all been upgraded or replaced to meet best practice standards. The repeaters share locations with the Sheriff’s Office. These sites have been hardened for power outages with all repeaters having battery power backup for at least 72 hours. Some repeater locations also have propane tank backup with the ability to run up to 8 days without power (Frank Yost, personal communication, February 23, 2022). Response Plans & Dispatch CAL FIRE Camino ECC receives calls and dispatches fire protection and emergency medical resources based on Response Plans created by each fire agency and categorized by incident type. As mentioned, all local fire agencies within the County, including CAL FIRE, operate with automatic, closest resource, and boundary drop agreements. As a result, CAL FIRE Camino ECC will dispatch the closest appropriate resource throughout the County. For example, if an incident occurs near the boundary of one agency, not all the equipment from that agency may be dispatched to that incident. Dispatch will send out the closest appropriate resource based on the Response Plans regardless of agency and based on the location of resources at the time of the dispatch. CAL FIRE Camino ECC does have the capability to dispatch the closest resource using AVL (Automatic Vehicle Location through GPS) for some agencies, but not for others. Those agencies without AVL are limited to being dispatched to/from fire stations and staging locations. This system creates continuous automatic aid across agency boundaries and ensures that all calls are answered as quickly as possible for all residents and visitors to the County. This system may result in engines with varied staffing levels responding to incidents, whether due to the proximity of resources to the incident, or availability of nearby resources if some resources are committed to another incident at the same time (Assistant Chief Newman, personal communication, December 2020). Costs to respond to out of agency incidents are borne by each agency, though some agencies may bear more of the cost burden than others due to incident frequency and location. Fire agencies review the Response Plans for their specific Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-6 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final responsibility area annually. The number of personnel on each resource per fire agency dictate the number of additional resources that CAL FIRE Camino ECC will request for each type of incident as outlined in the Response Plans. More information on the staffing models, or number of personal per resource, deployed by each agency can be found in each agency’s MSR Chapter in Volume II and summarized in Volume I – Chapter 6, Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations, Section 6.3.2. Camino ECC staff and agency personnel attempt to set Response Plans to be as similar as possible between agencies for consistency and because, although fire agencies staff their equipment differently across the County, there is no guarantee that a specific agency’s engine will be the responding equipment (Assistant Chief Newman, personal communication, December 2020). CAL FIRE Camino ECC uses the Response Plans to set standards for the number of resources being dispatched per incident type rather than relying on a dispatcher’s intuition or a fire chief’s request. For example, a medical aid incident may require a single fire engine and a single ambulance, while a vehicle accident usually includes one fire chief, two fire engines and one ambulance. Structure fires generally require two fire chiefs, four or five engines and one ambulance. The differing levels of staffing between agencies can pose somewhat of a logistical challenge; however the Response Plans in place help to ensure enough personnel are available at each incident to adequately respond. This system can also lead to more resources being dispatched for certain calls for certain fire agencies when compared to others, causing an unequal burden of responses for some agencies. For example, if a fire agency has two personnel per engine, the Response Plan may require more engines dispatched from neighboring agencies to a certain call type versus a fire agency that has four personnel per engine and would not require as many engines for the same call type. CAL FIRE Camino ECC staff acknowledges that, if each fire agency within the County were staffed at the minimum standard (3-0) model (three firefighting personnel per engine), less resources would need to be dispatched per incident. This would allow for more equipment to be available for other incidents, increase the County fire agencies’ ability to respond to simultaneous incidents, reduce the amount of liability for the fire agencies responding, as well as minimize the wear and tear on equipment (Assistant Chief Newman, personal communication, December 2020). As stated in the 2011 MSR and expanded in the 2010 FESS analysis, “El Dorado County has a weight of attack problem. There are currently not enough on-duty firefighters Countywide plus paid-call firefighters and volunteers responding quickly to keep potentially serious emergencies contained and small, particularly if the paid-call firefighters and volunteers cannot provide an immediate response to fill out the necessary staffing.” Weight of attack means the ability to assemble a sufficient number of firefighters in a reasonable period of time to control the emergency safely before it escalates to greater alarms (LAFCO, 2011). As the system described above indicates, the closest resources (sometimes from multiple agencies) are currently responding to incidents immediately, before the initial respondent engine arrives to determine if they can or cannot contain the emergency. This immediate response through the Response Plans means there is likely no need for additional resources to be deployed to an incident, completely removing the additional time it would take to deploy additional resources if it was determined by the initial responding engine that backup was required. The way the system currently operates appears to address the weight of attack problem as described in the 2011 MSR and 2010 FESS analysis. That being said, the low staffing for some agencies may require responding units to arrive from neighboring agencies to begin addressing incidents, which would add to response times. This means that the County may have a “speed of attack” problem. Consultants attempted to calculate response time data for first, second, Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-7 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final third, and fourth responding unit for calls in the County for 2019. Data provided from CAL FIRE Camino ECC contained a number of errors and data formatting proved untenable for the database calculations. Recommendation: Consultants recommend that a future update to the Fire and Emergency Services Study include analysis of the “speed of attack” for units responding to calls. Canceled versus Arrived Calls The existing automatic aid system is beneficial in that the system not only ensures an adequate weight of attack, but is also safer for firefighting personnel. Firefighters can rely on additional resources for incidents instead of playing ‘catchup’ with an incident, starting with minimal resources then having to wait for additional resources to be dispatched and arrive. This system, however, leads to many canceled resources that are not needed. Because dispatched resources are sent based on incident type and per Response Plan requirements, not all resources may actually be needed at any given incident. When the first responding resource arrives, they may inform dispatch that the resources on the way are no longer needed. CAL FIRE Camino ECC dispatch informed consultants that when no on scene time appears in the data provided, the resources was canceled prior to arrival. Consultants utilizing this information, categorized on scene calls by arrived versus canceled based on blank on scene times (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020a). Consultants reviewed the number of resources that were canceled versus arrive for each agency for 2019. A breakdown in number of calls and arrived versus canceled per fire agency can be seen in Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1 below. Figure 4-1: Dispatched Calls for 2019, Arrived versus Canceled per Fire Agency 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 s lla 7,000 C f o 6,000 r e 5,000 b m 4,000 u N 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 CAM DSP ECF EDH GEO GRV MQT PIO RES Arrived Canceled Table 4-1: Dispatched Calls for 2019, Arrived vs. Canceled Agency Arrived Canceled Total Calls for 2019 Percent Canceled CAM 2,746 762 3,508 22% DSP 1,942 1,903 3,845 49% ECF 7,595 3,248 10,843 30% EDH 4,561 1,600 6,161 26% Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-8 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Agency Arrived Canceled Total Calls for 2019 Percent Canceled GEO 771 1,508 2,279 66% GRV 573 815 1,388 59% MQT 168 297 496 60% PIO 851 878 1,729 51% RES 799 721 1,520 47% Total 20,006 11,732 31,769 37% As indicated by Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1 above, some agencies in 2019 had more canceled dispatches than arrived. Specifically, agencies PIO, GEO, GRV, and MQT had over half of all calls in 2019 canceled. The fire agencies RES and DSP had just under half of all calls canceled in 2019. It appears that the CAM and EDH had the least number of canceled calls for service. As mentioned previously, when agency resources are called then canceled, this may add more wear and tear on equipment, and increases fuel consumption. This also may delay an agency’s resources being able to respond elsewhere within that agency depending on the destination of the last call that was canceled. It should be noted that some agencies may decline to respond to some calls for aid, which would also count as a ‘canceled’ call. As noted in the 2011 MSR, “mutual aid greatly enhances services to the residents of the county because it guarantees that a response will be received by the closest available resource regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. On the other hand, while firefighters have an overall mutual respect for each other and an agency’s mission may not directly address financial equity, costs are incurred during mutual aid calls. Most fire chiefs have noted that mutual aid agreements have a real fiscal cost in that they can put a strain on an agency’s resources, both from the perspectives of maintenance to equipment and coverage.” The number of calls that are canceled could provide a starting point to determine the strain the current system places on agency resources. The dispatch model CAL FIRE Camino ECC employs for the County of El Dorado as described in this section is similar to other counties. For example, CAL FIRE Camino ECC also dispatches calls for Amador County fire agencies and utilizes the same model as the County of El Dorado. According to CAL FIRE Camino ECC staff, most of the 21 CAL FIRE ECC’s follow similar models. However, larger municipal agencies such as Sac Metro Fire for the City of Sacramento will generally dispatch fewer resources for similar types of incidents primarily due to higher levels of staffing on each piece of equipment as a result of better funding. Also, larger municipal agencies do not have the extended commitment times necessary for vegetation fires that the fire agencies in the County experience and also cover fewer square miles with more densely populated areas when compared to the fire agencies in the County of El Dorado. Recommendation: Consultants recommend that a future update to the Fire and Emergency Services Study include a review of the current system to determine if there are ways to increase efficiency while acknowledging the financial constraints that limit staffing resources for some agencies. Dispatch System Challenges In the course of discussing the dispatch system with fire chiefs in the County, consultants were made aware of deficiencies in the current dispatch system. The following information is based on conversations with some of the fire chiefs as well as a Needs Assessment and System Issues Report that was prepared by Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-9 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Federal Engineering (FE) at the request of the El Dorado Hills County Water District (EDH) (EDH, 2020). In addition, consultants interviewed staff from the County Sheriff’s Office, CALFIRE, and the West Slope JPA regarding infrastructure challenges. The Needs Assessment and System Issues Report for EDH assessed the existing VHF radio system and dispatch services to identify current and future needs and assist in determining the best course of action for improved radio communications and dispatch services. The limitations of this report are that it only addressed deficiencies and needs for El Dorado Hills County Water District, not countywide. Though the analysis is limited, some of the information presented suggests larger challenges within the dispatch system as a whole. The report found the following dispatch issues: • There is inadequate radio coverage within areas of the EDH boundary including while traveling to calls and interior of buildings; • Operational issues include: o Need for radio users to manually switch to different repeaters. o Radio users not able to hear radio traffic from other areas. o Radio users often “stepping on” radio traffic from another repeater. • Coverage and operational issues can result in a lack of communication, which is a firefighter safety issue; • Need for repeated tactical channels; • CAL FIRE ECC issues include: o CAL FIRE ECC is tailored for wildland fire response and do not adequately address EDH daily needs. o Appears to prioritize their mission over local government needs. o Call taking procedures frequently result in unnecessary units responding to a low-priority call or the responding units are not appropriate for the event type. • Lack of control for needed changes. (Source: EDH, 2020) CAL FIRE Camino ECC in conjunction with the West Slope JPA and EDH prepared an El Dorado County Communications Feasibility Study for the CAL FIRE Camino ECC in response to eight requested enhancements to the current communications system requested by the West Slope JPA and EDH. CAL FIRE determined that the requests were feasible, however the costs were prohibitive for EDH to cover on their own, as all County fire agencies would benefit from the enhancements. Based on conversations with other fire chiefs, it is likely that inadequate radio coverage is a larger issue for other agencies throughout the County. Consultants have been made aware of numerous issues with holes in the system. The operational issues listed above (such as the need for firefighting personnel to manually switch to different repeaters) are likely challenging for other fire agencies throughout the County. The EDH Fire Chief noted that the current dispatch system is over 40 years old and is antiquated when compared to neighboring dispatch systems such as the Sacramento Regional Fire/EMS Communications Center. This sentiment was echoed by the Director for the West Slope JPA when describing the existing infrastructure. Consultants were informed that no funding has been allocated by the County or the West Slope JPA for any meaningful attempts at hardening the system for wildfire Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-10 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final resiliency or upgrading equipment. The West Slope JPA Director is not aware of any plans in place in the event that the system fails (Brain Veerkamp, personal communication, February 22, 2022). According to the El Dorado County Communications Manager, the Sheriff’s Department is planning to spend approximately $700,000 to upgrade the Sheriff’s system to simulcast in order to have Sheriff’s Office personnel radios automatically switch between repeaters as they move throughout the County (Frank Yost, personal communication, February 23, 2022). Lack of funding for the fire protection and emergency medical dispatch system may prevent a similar upgrade from occurring for the dispatch system utilized by CAL FIRE Camino ECC and the fire agencies. Through discussions with CALFIRE Camino ECC and Central Dispatch, it was relayed to consultants that the Central Dispatch system for El Dorado County through the Sheriff’s Office directly transfers information to the system employed by CAL FIRE Camino ECC. When 911 calls for fire and emergency medical services are placed through a landline throughout the County, Central Dispatch receives the call and inputs the incident into the system while simultaneously calling CAL FIRE Camino ECC to relay the incident. While the CAL FIRE Camino ECC dispatcher is verifying the information in the CAD system received from Central Dispatch, a second dispatcher will start dispatching the call to the appropriate closest responding agency. Consultants have heard from numerous fire chiefs that they believe delays are 5 to 6 minutes from when a call is initially taken in to being routed to the time it is routed to the responding fire agency. Many fire chiefs expressed to consultants that they will send resources out to a call and be at the call or having traveled for 5 to 6 minutes, sometimes longer, before the call is officially received by their agency. Firefighting personnel from numerous agencies will listen to the broadcasted call from Central Dispatch, allowing them to get a jump start on calls coming into their jurisdiction. Consultants were not able to obtain dispatch timings for calls routed through Central Dispatch, CAL FIRE Camino ECC, and to the fire agency. According to Central Dispatch, calls are routed to CAL FIRE Camino ECC within seconds (Cassidy Thomason, personal interview, February 22, 2022). This statement could not be verified due to lack of data. CAL FIRE Camino ECC provided consultants with the average transfer times for incidents to fire agencies in 2019 at approximately 1 minute 27 seconds. This suggests that the time to transfer calls is under two minutes on average (Assistant Chief Brain Newman, personal communication, March 2022). A more detailed analysis of transfer call times may help understand the disparities between what fire agency personnel are experiencing and what each dispatch center is reporting. Further analysis could not be completed due to lack of data from Central Dispatch. A more efficient system, with one central dispatch center, could prevent the need to have calls for service routed through multiple dispatch centers. These dispatch system delays and challenges may be an issue, not only for residents who experience these delays, but also for firefighting personnel. Lack of radio coverage can leave firefighters vulnerable when responding to incidents if they are unable to call for help or backup when entering a building or arriving on scene. According to the Sheriff’s Office, mobile radio units receive complete coverage throughout the County, however handhelds do not. Additionally, the command station hardware is 17 years old and needs to be replaced. If this station were to fail, CAL FIRE Camino ECC would lose all contact with providers in the County (Frank Yost, personal communication, February 23, 2022). According to the El Dorado County Communications Manager, no studies have been conducted or are planned to determine the efficiency and status of dispatch system infrastructure. The El Dorado County Communications Manager also relayed to consultants that the West Slope agencies would be more successful in winning grants for dispatch upgrades, such as handheld and mobile radios, by pursuing grants together than through individual Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-11 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final applications or with a few agencies at a time. Consultants hope that the County Sheriff’s Office is in close coordination with the current Communications Manager over succession planning for anticipated retirement and recommend that any anticipated study be conducted before Mr. Yost’s departure from the department. Recommendation: Consultants recommend a future study be conducted of the dispatch system inefficiencies to determine gaps in radio coverage and other issues that may need to be addressed to create a more efficient and safe system for residents and firefighters in the County. This study should include a review of existing infrastructure and provide recommendations for infrastructure hardening, coverage gaps, and estimated costs. 4.1.3 Tahoe Basin Dispatch Dispatch for the County of El Dorado area of the Lake Tahoe Basin is routed through the City of South Lake Tahoe Police Dispatch Center (SLT Dispatch) and the CAL FIRE Grass Valley ECC (Grass Valley ECC). Fire agencies dispatched through the SLT Dispatch are: • City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department (SLT) • Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LAV) • Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District (FLL) • CAL FIRE • USFS Calls for service throughout the Tahoe Basin continued to trend upward from 2010 to 2019 as described in each agency’s MSR Chapter in Volume II. Meeks Bay Fire Protection District (MEK) is the only agency dispatched through Grass Valley ECC within the County of El Dorado. This is due to the various agreements between MEK and North Tahoe Fire (NTF) in Placer County. More information regarding this agreement can be found in Volume II – Chapter 10, Meeks Bay Fire Protection District MSR. Call Re-routing As mentioned previously, all landline calls in the unincorporated areas of the County are routed through the Sheriff’s Office. This includes landlines in the unincorporated areas of the Tahoe Basin. As a result, landline 911 calls are routed through two PSAPs before being dispatched to either LAV or FLL. Through the current system, Central Dispatch with the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office receives all 911 calls by landline and will re-route to SLT Dispatch, which causes delays (Chief Savacool, personal communication, April 2021). LAV staff listen to the Sheriff Dispatch channel which allows LAV to respond to calls before even being dispatched. LAV staff are concerned about the re-routes causing delays and acknowledge that there could be several minutes from when they hear a call on the Sheriff Dispatch channel before they receive the dispatch through SLT (Chief Zlendick, personal communication, February 2021). Consultants were not able to obtain dispatch timings for calls routed through the two PSAPs then to LAV or FLL. It is not known how long it takes for calls to be routed, nor if dispatch systems between the separate PSAPs are able to easily transfer calls. Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-12 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Recommendation: Consultants recommend a future study be conducted of the dispatch system inefficiencies in the Tahoe Basin side of the County to determine gaps in radio coverage and other issues that may need to be addressed to create a more efficient and safe system for residents and firefighters in the Tahoe Basin. Dispatch System Challenges Reliable communications in the Lake Tahoe Basin are difficult due to the topography in the area. Microwave communications have limited success beyond a few miles due to the direct line of sight requirements needed for point-to-multipoint (PtMP) systems. The use of fiber optic communications is limited or non-existent for center-to-center (C2C) communications. Radio systems in place for the fire agencies do not provide adequate coverage for first responders and can result in significant interference in certain areas (GCTC, 2019). The Tahoe Transportation District’s 2016 Linking Tahoe Corridor Connection Plan (LTCCP) and Transit Master Plan identified that cross-jurisdictional Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) and information and communication technology are critically needed to decrease accidents and congestion, improve response times, and provide traveler information. Cellular data analysis indicated approximately 19.5 million to 29 million visitors enter the Tahoe Basin in any given year (58 percent overnight and 42 percent for day use) with the majority of visitors accessing the region on primarily a two-lane mountain highway system with Highway 50 through the County of El Dorado. Communities within the County of El Dorado side of the Tahoe Basin are in the wildland-urban interface and are considered to be “Communities at Risk” susceptible to wildfire. Growth in visitation is expected to occur from the metropolitan of the Sierra Pacific Megaregion, extending from the San Francisco Bay Area to Reno, with visitors driving to Lake Tahoe to enjoy world-class recreation opportunities. As valley temperatures rise, extreme weather associated with an increase in winter and summer recreation travel, and an increase in visitor demand means the occurrence of a significant number of people present in the Basin who are unfamiliar with the regional driving safety requirements, evacuation protocols, routes, and ability to access information during a catastrophic event (GCTC, 2019). The 2007 Angora Fire in the County of El Dorado near Meyers burned 3,100 acres, destroyed 242 residences, 67 commercial structures and damaged 35 other homes. At the peak of the fire there were as many as 2,810 firefighters involved in battling the blaze (Sabalow, 2019; Stockwell, 2007). Following the Angora Fire, the Bi-State Blue Ribbon Commission developed recommendations, many of which have been implemented. One shortcoming remaining in regional interoperations is the large number of dispatch centers servicing the region. There are five dispatch or command centers providing emergency services across the Lake Tahoe Basin region. Some centers are primary, and others are secondary (Public Safety Answering Points - PSAP) using several different Computer-Assisted Dispatch (CAD) platforms with limited ability to transfer emergency calls from CAD to CAD. This leads to phone transfers of emergency callers often multiple times, culminating in duplicate dispatches, increased call taking times, and uncoordinated responses. These practices are also not in alignment with the National Academies of Emergency Dispatch’s best practices. Finding 42 of The Emergency California-Nevada Tahoe Basin Fire Commission Report (2008) identified that “Interagency communications during wildland fire occurrences is at times delayed and confusing” (GCTC, 2019). Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-13 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final As of May 2021, the City of South Lake Tahoe is allocating resources towards updating the existing 40- year-old SLT Dispatch center software and equipment which the current Fire Chief described as antiquated. It was determined that an upgrade would be more efficient than replacement of existing equipment. The new system being pursued by the City would: add a new alerting system in all participating fire stations; build redundancies into the system to ensure no loss in communications should one system fail (also called “hardening” the system); upgrade mobile command for mobile dispatching during a disaster; and improve interoperability between Nevada and California agencies. The City is also looking at using geolocation software on all participating fire agency units to dispatch the closest resource more accurately to incidents as opposed to the current system which dispatches the closest agency (Chief Savacool, personal communication, April 2021). The Fire Chief for LAV mentioned that the SLT Dispatch primary repeater for the area does not reach many areas of the LAV District. LAV owns and maintains a repeater located on the Angora Ridge which will simulcast transmissions. This repeater on the Angora Ridge allows LAV and FLL to receive all communications (Chief Zlendick, personal communication, February 2021). As mentioned above, the City is aware of gaps in the system and will be working diligently within the next few years to make the necessary upgrades. Addendum: Consultants were provided more detailed information from the SLT Fire Department Chief regarding upgrades that have been approved by South Lake Tahoe City Council on September 17, 2021 and December 15, 2020. The City is anticipating spending over $5 million for a major communications system upgrade. With these upgrades, the City will have four towers to greatly improve radio coverage for both fire and police. The Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system is also being upgraded to utilize Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) to transition dispatching from zone based to GPS based. Each fire apparatus and chief officer from all jurisdictions will have a Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) in their vehicle showing maps, location of other resources, and incident information. This will create a true closest resource dispatching process that will significantly improve incident response and will eliminate a lot of unnecessary radio traffic as crews will be able to communicate with dispatchers via the MDT. Additionally, other agencies in the Tahoe Basin will be able to be tracked and dispatched through this CAD system as long as they have a tablet or smartphone tied to their vehicle to this system. The City approved a sole-source CAD option in order install the same CAD system utilized by the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office. This way, both dispatch centers will be on the same system and can mutually track each other’s resources. This will also provide a backup for each dispatch center in the event that one location fails, the other dispatch center can coordinate and communicate with the other’s resources. The upgrades are anticipated to be completed around Quarter 3 of 2022 and will make the South Lake Tahoe Dispatch Center the most technologically advanced dispatch center in the Tahoe Basin (Chief Savacool, personal communication, February 23, 2022). 4.1.4 Response Time Performance As noted above, call data are tracked differently between Camino ECC, Grass Valley ECC, and SLT Dispatch. Raw response time data were collected by consultants as directed by LAFCO staff and analyzed for 2019 Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-14 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final from these three dispatch centers. Consultants attempted to categorize call types in a similar manner between the dispatch centers to make comparisons between the West Slope and the Tahoe Basin. When reviewing response time performance, it is important to note that seconds are critical. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710 Standard lists performance objectives for response times including alarm answering time, processing, turnout, and first-arriving engine on scene. A best practice agency’s total response time according to the NFPA is approximately 6 minutes 31 seconds measured at the 90th percentile. This would include a 15 second call answer time, 60-second call processing time, plus 240 seconds of travel time and does not include time before being notified or call center transfers (NFPA, 2020). Because of the multiple transfers that occur within the County, it is likely for response times to be longer than reflected here. For example, in 2019, South Lake Tahoe Dispatch averaged a 1 minute - 18 second time period between when the call arrived at the center to when it was dispatched out to SLT (SLT, 2020). This does not include calls that may have come from cell phones in the area and were routed through CHP Dispatch. This also does not include the time it took for calls that came from Central Dispatch to be relayed to SLT. Just the additional 1 minute - 18 second delay from when SLT received the call to dispatching the call could have severe consequences. Delayed response times can have life or death consequences. For cardiac arrests, every minute that passes without CPR and defibrillation decreases the chances of survival by 7-10 percent. In a recent study by the Journal of the American Heart Association, survival of a cardiac arrest is 19.5 percent when the EMS team arrives within 0-6 minutes, compared with 9.4 percent if the team arrives after 10 minutes or more (American Heart Association, 2013; Holmen et. al., 2020). Response times are just as critical for fire as for medical emergencies and can have the same life or death consequences. It is generally recognized that a fire’s growth is exponential. The more time passes, the more a fire grows in intensity. The spread of fire to a “flashover” point (the point at which gases and other material ignite, which in turn ignites everything in a room) usually occurs within 5 to 8 minutes from the appearance of flame in typically furnished and ventilated buildings. Once flashover occurs, damage caused by the fire is significant and the environment within the room can no longer support human life. Thus, response time is critical to put out the fire prior to the flashover point (LAFCO, 2018). County of El Dorado Response Time Standards The County of El Dorado does not have response time standards for existing fire protection services. The County does set response time standards for fire agency response and ambulance response for new development projects. Within the County of El Dorado General Plan, the Public Services and Utilities Element Policy 5.1.2.2 states the following levels of services apply to the review of discretionary projects for calls for fire district and ambulance response: Type of Service Community Region Rural Center & Rural Region 8-minute response to 80% of Fire District Response 15 to 45-minute response the population 20-minute response in Rural 10-minute response to 80% of Ambulance Regions and “as quickly as the population possible” in wilderness areas* *In accordance with State standards Source: El Dorado County General Plan, Public Services and Utilities Element, Amended Dec. 2015 Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-15 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final General Plan Policy 5.1.2.4 explains the service standards are different between Rural Centers and Rural Regions than Community Regions based on lower intensity and density of land use. These standards do not apply in the Tahoe Basin as there are no identified Community Regions, Rural Centers, or Rural Regions in the Tahoe Basin in the County’s General Plan. Tahoe Basin Response Times (2019) Data provided by the City of South Lake Tahoe was provided in a format that made it difficult to ascertain response time performance for fire service agencies utilizing this dispatch center. Consultants made every effort to communicate effectively with dispatch center personnel to receive accurate and usable data. Data available to consultants looked at response times for each agency overall (SLT, 2020b). As mentioned above, Meeks Bay Fire Protection District dispatch is operated by Grass Valley ECC. Response time data for MEK was made available to consultants (CAL FIRE Grass Valley ECC, 2020). The response time goals set by each agency in the Basin are as follows: • LAV: Under 10 minutes • FLL: 5 minutes • SLT: 4 minutes • MEK: 8 minutes 20 seconds, 90 percent of the time Response time goals for ambulances with the JPA are described in Volume II - Chapter 15, Community Service Area (CSA) 3 and CSA 7 MSR. Average response times for Tahoe Basin fire agencies in 2019 can be seen in Table 4-2 below. Table 4-2: Average Response Times for Tahoe Basin Fire Agencies, 2019 Average Response Time in Agency Total Calls Hours : Minutes : Seconds FLL 30 00:08:53 LAV 2,002 00:07:30 MEK 200 00:08:50 SLT 3,299 00:05:30 The City had the shortest response time average for 2019 at 5 minutes and 30 seconds. The longest response time average was MEK with 8 minutes 50 seconds. Although the MEK has made many adjustments to improve response times, the District informed consultants that they have remained above the District’s goal response time for incidents involving fire suppression with a response time of 9 minutes 50 seconds, 90 percent of the time in 2019. LAV is the only agency with a response time average in 2019 that meets its response time goals. Since 2019, the City has increased recurring revenue and has been able to increase staffing to fully staff all three stations in the City. Thus, the City may be able to meet its response time goals in the near future. All four agencies are meeting the Cal Tahoe JPA emergency medical response time standards as required by the contract with the County of El Dorado. Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-16 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final West Slope Response Times (2019) Average response times per agency were calculated by consultants utilizing raw response time data provided by CAL FIRE Camino ECC (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020a). All fire agencies on the West Slope of the County are ultimately dispatched through Camino ECC as described above. Multiple agency fire chiefs informed consultants that Camino ECC is not able to provide the level of detail necessary to track response metrics based on some of the stated response time goals for the fire agencies. The response time goals for fire agencies on the West Slope of the County are as follows: • CAM: Meet industry standards for response times; • DSP: Urban – 11 minutes (90 percent of incidents); Semi-Rural – 16 minutes (90 percent of incidents); Rural – 24 minutes (90 percent of incidents); Wilderness – 90 minutes (90 percent of incidents); • ECF: Urban – 11 minutes; Semi-Rural – 16 minutes; Rural – 24 minutes; Wilderness – 90 minutes; • EDH: Urban/Suburban – 6 minutes (90 percent of code three incidents); Rural – 8 minutes (90 percent of code three incidents); Urban – 9 minutes (First-Alarm 90 percent of incidents); All Others – 12 minutes (First-Alarm 90 percent of incidents); • GEO: No response time goals were provided to consultants; • GRV: No response time goals were provided to consultants; • MQT: 10 minutes (80 percent within 8 miles of the fire station); 20 minutes (80 percent for remote locations over 8 miles from the fire station); • PIO: 5 minutes 35 seconds - Core response area, 10 minutes 35 seconds – Middle response area; 15+ minutes – Outside core areas. The goal is to reduce these times by 20 percent by the year 2020 and an additional 10 percent by 2021; and • RES: No response time goals were provided to consultants. Table 4-3 provides a breakdown in the average response times by each fire agency and the number of calls for service those agencies responded to in 2019. Table 4-3: Average Response Times for West Slope Fire Agencies, 2019 Average Response Time in Agency Total Calls Hours : Minutes : Seconds CAM 3,508 00:05:44 DSP 3,845 00:07:31 ECF 10,843 00:08:20 EDH 6,161 00:06:26 GEO 2,279 00:09:11 GRV 1,388 00:12:57 MQT 465 00:10:38 PIO 1,729 00:14:04 RES 1,520 00:08:45 Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-17 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The fire agency with the longest average response time was PIO at 14 minutes 4 seconds, the shortest average response time was CAM at 5 minutes 44 seconds. Five of the fire agencies averaged response times less than 9 minutes while the remaining four averaged response times over 9 minutes. ECF had the highest number of calls while MQT had the lowest number of calls in 2019. Response times for fire agencies on the West Slope vary throughout the County, as do response time goals for each agency. Consultants could not break response time data out by each agency’s goals, nor by County of El Dorado defined standards for 80 percent of the population due to insufficient data. However, consultants can make general observations as follows: • CAM average for 2019 appear to meet response time goals for new discretionary projects in all County community types. CAM contains the Community Region of Cameron Park. • DSP average for 2019 appear to meet response time goals for new discretionary projects in all County community types. DSP contains the Community Region of Diamond Springs. • ECF average for 2019 appear to meet response time goals for new discretionary projects in Rural Centers and Rural Regions. ECF acknowledges that given the geographical layout of the District, it is difficult to give a specific response time goal. Fire stations for the District are not in a typical grid-layout with large changes in elevation throughout the District. ECF contains the Community Regions of Shingle Springs and the City of Placerville. According to information provided by the District, fire engines out of Station No. 25 in Placerville and Station No. 28 in Shingle Springs are below response time goals. • EDH average for 2019 appear to meet response time goals for new discretionary projects in all County community types. EDH contains the Community Region of El Dorado Hills. • GEO average for 2019 appear to meet response time goals for new discretionary projects in Rural Centers and Rural Regions. • GRV average for 2019 appear to meet response time goals for new discretionary projects in Rural Centers and Rural Regions. • MQT average for 2019 appear to meet response time goals for new discretionary projects in Rural Centers and Rural Regions. • PIO average for 2019 appear to meet response time goals for new discretionary projects in Rural Centers and Rural Regions. • RES average for 2019 appear to meet response time goals for new discretionary projects in Rural Centers and Rural Regions. All agencies average response times for 2019 appear to meet response time standards as described in the County of El Dorado General Plan, Public Services and Utilities. Recommendation: Consultants recommend a more thorough analysis of response time data be conducted through an update to the 2010 Fire and Emergency Services Study. 4.1.5 West Slope Automatic/Mutual Aid All West Slope fire agencies operate under automatic aid, boundary drop, and closest resource agreements to allow for a seamless response of services through dispatch on the West Slope. In addition Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-18 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final to the mutual and automatic aid agreements between fire agencies in the County, some fire agencies have mutual and automatic aid agreements with neighboring agencies in Sacramento County to the west and Amador County to the south. Fire agencies in the Tahoe Basin also operate under either mutual and/or automatic aid agreements with neighboring agencies not only in the County of El Dorado, but also with fire agencies in Placer County, Alpine County, and into Nevada. Automatic aid may also include instances where a fire agency needed resources from a neighbor to “move up and cover” (“move up and cover” refers to instances where an agency’s resources (personnel and equipment) are actively responding to calls leaving gaps in their response area and another agency temporarily moves a resource to cover a station or intersection within that agency’s jurisdictional boundary.). For this MSR/SOI Update, LAFCO requested an analysis of automatic aid provided to and received from each agency. LAFCO Staff directed consultants to request raw dispatch data from CAL FIRE Camino ECC. Consultants received the “Mutual Aid Report 1/1/2010 to 12/31/2020,” which provided a breakdown in automatic aid from CAL FIRE Camino ECC dispatch in order to provide the following analysis (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020b). The report shows who the first responder to the call was within another agency’s service area boundary. According to CAL FIRE Camino ECC, automatic aid specifically refers to instances where an agency was first responder to a call within another agency’s jurisdictional boundary. The report includes aid that was provided to/received from all agencies on the West Slope, neighboring agencies in neighboring counties, USFS, and CAL FIRE. Table 4-4 shows the number of times the nine West Slope fire agencies provided automatic aid to any agency operating in the County and in neighboring counties as dispatched through CAL FIRE Camino ECC from 2016 to 2019, as well as the amount of aid provided as a percentage of total calls for that agency for 2019. Table 4-4: Aid Provided by Agencies (2016 – 2019) Number of Calls for Aid Provided by Year Percent of Aid Total Calls Agency Calls Provided for 2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 for 2019 CAM 705 715 721 783 3,508 22% DSP 727 860 884 928 3,845 24% ECF 737 823 864 867 10,843 8% EDH 690 516 696 577 6,161 9% GEO 308 246 338 240 2,279 11% GRV 225 208 221 238 1,388 17% MQT 20 33 28 25 465 5% PIO 132 163 165 213 1,729 12% RES 394 464 520 476 1,520 31% Total 3,938 4,028 4,437 4,347 31,738 14% When comparing the amount of aid West Slope agencies are providing to each other to overall calls for service by agency, RES provided aid for a little over one-third of all calls for service for the District in 2019. The next two highest were DSP (24 percent) and CAM (22 percent) who also provided aid for almost one- quarter of all calls that year. MQT, ECF, and EDH are the three agencies that provide the lowest amount of aid when compared to total calls by each agency for 2019. A trend in aid provided by agencies from 2016 to 2019 can be seen in Figure 4-2. Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-19 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final For 2019, the top three agencies providing aid to other fire agencies were DSP (928), ECF (867) and CAM (783). The amount of aid provided by these fire agencies has continued to trend upward from 2016 to 2019. In 2016, CAM, DSP, ECF, and EDH provided a similar amount of aid. Since 2017, a much larger amount of aid has continued to be provided and has increased year over year with higher disparities in amount of aid provided between CAM, DSP, and ECF. EDH has seen some fluctuation in aid provided since 2017, with a trending decline. In total, aid was provided 4,437 times by fire agencies to each other and to other fire agencies that operate within the County such as CAL FIRE and the U.S. Forest Service as well as neighboring agencies in neighboring counties in 2019. Figure 4-2: Aid Provided by Agencies (2016 – 2019) 1,000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 CAM DSP ECF EDH GEO GRV MQT PIO RES 2016 2017 2018 2019 Table 4-5 shows the number of times the agencies on the West Slope received automatic aid from any agency operating in the County and in neighboring counties dispatched through CAL FIRE Camino ECC from 2016 to 2019, as well as the aid received as a percentage of total calls for that agency in 2019. Table 4-5: Aid Received by Agencies (2016 – 2019) Number of Calls for Aid Received by Year Percent of Aid Total Calls Agency Calls Received for 2019 2016 2017 2018 2019 for 2019 CAM 726 652 672 609 3,508 17% DSP 1,614 1,774 1,980 1,938 3,845 50% ECF 3,252 3,256 3,490 3,761 10,843 35% EDH 338 423 430 491 6,161 8% GEO 169 214 219 288 2,279 13% GRV 424 605 530 537 1,388 39% MQT 35 55 58 52 496 10% PIO 324 361 273 384 1,729 22% RES 402 360 478 485 1,520 32% Total 7,284 7,700 8,130 8,545 31,738 27% Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-20 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final When comparing the amount of aid agencies are receiving from each other, plus other neighboring agencies in other counties as well as the USFS and CAL FIRE to overall calls for service by agency, DSP received the most aid. Half of all calls for service for DSP in 2019 received aid from one or more of the other fire agencies, neighboring agencies in neighboring counties, USFS, or CAL FIRE. GRV, ECF, and RES received aid for over one-third of all calls in 2019. EDH, MQT and GEO are the three agencies that received the lowest amount of aid when compared to total calls by each agency for 2019. Only EDH received less than 10 percent aid when compared to all calls for service in 2019. A trend in aid received by agencies from 2016 to 2019 can be seen in Figure 4-3 below. Figure 4-3: Aid Received by Agencies (2016 – 2019) 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 CAM DSP ECF EDH GEO GRV MQT PIO RES 2016 2017 2018 2019 ECF has received the most aid of any fire agency from 2016 to 2019 with the number of aid dispatches continuing to trend upward. For 2019, the top three agencies to receive aid were ECF (3,761), DSP (1,938), and CAM (609). These same agencies also provided the most aid, however for ECF, the amount of aid received was over four times more than provided. The amount of aid received has trended upward for five agencies and declined for the other four when compared to previous years. In total, aid was received 8,545 times by fire agencies from each other and from other fire agencies that operate within the County as well as neighboring agencies in neighboring counties in 2019. A breakdown in aid received versus provided per agency with total calls per agency can be seen in Figure 4-4 below. Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-21 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 4-4: Aid Received/Provided and Total Calls by Fire Agencies for 2019 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 CAM DSP ECF EDH GEO GRV MQT PIO RES Aid Provided Aid Received Total Calls for 2019 In general, there is a wide disparity between the amount of aid received and the amount provided for agencies on the West Slope of the County. For all calls by agency in 2019, 27 percent were made up of calls for aid received by agencies and 14 percent were made up of calls for aid provided by agencies. Seven of the agencies received aid more than they provided, with only CAM and EDH providing more aid than receiving in 2019. This analysis could not be replicated for the agencies located in the Tahoe Basin because of the limited data available through the dispatch system operated by SLT Dispatch and available data from CAL FIRE Grass Valley ECC for Meeks Bay Fire Protection District. SLT Dispatch could only provide the number of calls where aid was requested from agencies outside of the County of El Dorado and could not break those into which agencies provided aid to each other. Grass Valley ECC did not provide aid data for Meeks Bay. As a result, only an analysis of the West Slope agencies could be conducted to look at amounts of automatic aid provided versus received by agencies. Move Up and Cover Automatic aid also includes instances where a fire agency requires resources from a neighbor to “move up and cover.” “Move up and cover” refers to instances where an agency’s resources (personnel and equipment) are actively responding to calls leaving gaps in their response area and another agency temporarily moves a resource to cover a station or intersection within that agency’s jurisdictional boundary. The fire agencies and CAL FIRE have a move up and cover plan based on priority coverage locations throughout the County. CAL FIRE Camino ECC dispatch automatically dispatches move up and covers based on this plan (Assistant Chief Newman, personal communication, July 31, 2021). For this MSR/SOI Update, LAFCO requested an analysis of move up and cover instances in which an agency provided cover for another agency. LAFCO Staff directed consultants to request raw dispatch data from CAL FIRE Camino ECC. Consultants received the “Engine Covers 2010-2019” report, which provided a breakdown in move up and covers between agency resources, from CAL FIRE Camino ECC dispatch in Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-22 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final order to provide the following analysis (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020c). The move up and cover amounts below for agencies includes only those instances where the agencies that are dispatched by CAL FIRE Camino ECC moved to cover another agency’s stations or areas within that agency’s jurisdiction. In some cases, the move up and cover staging location is not a station, but an intersection within that agency’s jurisdiction. The data does not include instances where an agency moved up and covered its own station or areas within its own boundary. Other agencies that may be dispatched in the County through CAL FIRE Camino ECC include the City of Folsom (FOL), CAL STAR, North Tahoe Fire Protection District (NTF), USFS, Truckee Fire Protection District (TRK), and other agencies in Nevada and Placer Counties. Figure 4-5 and Table 4-6 below shows the number of times agencies on the West Slope in the County were covered by those agencies dispatched through CAL FIRE Camino ECC from 2015 to 2019. This analysis could not be replicated for the agencies located in the Tahoe Basin because of the limited data available through the dispatch system operated by SLT Dispatch and the format that the data was provide to consultants from CAL FIRE Grass Valley ECC for Meeks Bay Fire Protection District. Table 4-6: Move Up and Cover by Agency Station or Location in Boundary, 2015 to 2019 Agency Covered 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total CAM 126 227 131 133 122 739 DSP 80 141 99 87 59 466 ECF 993 1,038 1,028 902 797 4,758 EDH 322 420 439 443 383 2,007 FLL 0 1 0 0 0 1 GEO 6 2 3 1 5 17 GRV 40 29 29 42 20 160 LAV 0 0 0 1 2 3 MQT 0 3 1 0 1 5 PIO 12 16 5 2 29 64 RES 67 25 53 49 42 236 Total 1,646 1,902 1,788 1,660 1,460 8,456 Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-23 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 4-5: Move Up and Cover by Agency Station or Location in Boundary, 2016 to 2019 1,200 1,000 800 2016 600 2017 2018 400 2019 200 0 CAM DSP ECF EDH FLL GEO GRV LAV MQT PIO RES Coverage of Agency Station or Location in Boundary As shown in Figure 4-5 and Table 4-6 above, ECF and EDH have had the most move up and covers to their stations or areas in their boundaries by other agencies dispatched through CAL FIRE Camino ECC. The amount of move up and covers have trended downward for most agencies from 2015 to 2019. ECF has experienced at least double the move up and covers for stations or areas within its boundary when compared to the other agencies. Table 4-7 below shows the move up and cover instances for 2019 broken down by the agency that provided the cover. Included in this table are the City of Folsom (FOL), CAL FIRE Amador-El Dorado Unit (CAL FIRE), and California Shock Trauma Air Rescue (CAL STAR). Table 4-7: Agency Move Up and Cover, 2019 Agency Agencies Providing Cover Covered CAL FIRE CAL STAR CAM DSP ECF EDH FOL GRV PIO RES Total FOL 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 ECF 19 1 12 6 0 23 0 1 86 20 168 DSP 1 0 2 0 38 1 0 0 2 8 52 RES 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 42 EDH 3 0 11 2 12 0 11 0 2 29 70 CAM 12 0 0 2 27 21 0 0 0 6 68 PIO 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 GRV 0 0 2 1 7 0 0 0 0 8 18 LAV 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Total 37 1 27 11 85 92 11 1 90 71 426 For 2019, ECF received the most cover from the other agencies with PIO, EDH, and RES providing the majority of the cover (76 percent). CAM received the next highest cover with the majority provided by ECF and EDH (71 percent). EDH, PIO, and ECF provided the most cover for other agencies. EDH provided Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-24 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final the most cover to RES, ECF, and CAM. ECF provided the most cover to DSP and CAM; and PIO provided the most cover to ECF. Overall, move up and covers occurred 426 times in 2019 between agencies dispatched through CAL FIRE Camino ECC. Automatic/Mutual Aid Challenges As noted throughout this report, the automatic aid system greatly enhances services to residents and visitors in the County by dispatching the closest available resource regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. However, the existing disparities in staffing and unstaffed stations as outlined in Volume I – Chapter 6, Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations could be factors into why certain agencies are receiving more aid than other agencies and why these agencies are also providing less aid than other agencies. For example, DSP currently only staffs one fire station within the District’s jurisdictional boundary. It is likely, therefore, that the closest responding resources into areas of DSP are from neighboring agency fire stations. This could explain the large amount of aid that DSP received in 2019. In addition, the two agencies that have provided more aid than they received appear to be in a better financial position with adequate staffing, equipment, and station coverage than the agencies that received more aid than they provided in 2019. The 2011 MSR states, “Speaking broadly, if an agency has healthy revenues, it has the necessary finances to maintain equipment within NFPA standards and hire sufficient personnel to maintain good coverage across all of its stations 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Conversely, inadequate finances mean equipment that is older than ideal and more reliance on volunteers to ensure adequate coverage throughout the day…Districts in the latter category are one call away, or one piece of equipment away, from being unable to respond to a call. When that occurs, a neighboring agency steps in to respond. This, in turn stretches the neighbor’s resources and adding further stress to the overall system.” Volume I - Chapter 5, Countywide Finances provides a greater discussion regarding the financial health and, in turn, the deployment conditions of each fire agency. Consultants have been made aware from numerous fire chiefs that in some cases individual fire agencies are not able to handle more than one call at a time, relying on their neighbors to respond to calls within their boundaries when they are engaged elsewhere. Based on staffing numbers alone, it is likely that many agencies operating with (1-0) and (2-0) staffing models rely on their neighbors for enough resources to satisfy the “weight of attack” for specific incidents in their jurisdictional boundaries. It is possible, as stated in the 2011 MSR, that a more equitable distribution of fire agency boundaries and resources could alleviate the financial cost burden the automatic system currently places on some agencies over others. The type of agency boundary adjustments that could alleviate the inequities in the system would need to be analyzed based on automatic aid dispatch location data and would require support from fire agencies in the County. Boundary adjustments could be undertaken as a way to remove the fiscal inequity from a misalignment of service area and coverage with the ultimate goal to benefit the residents of the County. The concern with this approach would be that agencies may lose property and special tax revenue as boundaries are readjusted, placing already financially burdened agencies in an untenable position. A limited analysis of these types of boundary adjustments can be found in Volume I – Chapter 6, Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations. Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-25 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 4.2 County Roadways and Maintenance The transportation system within the County of El Dorado is primarily focused on a roadway network with most in-county travel occurring via automobile due to the prevalent low-density development patterns that limit the viability of facilities or services related to transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. The roadway network is mainly rural with some more urban development occurring in the western portion of the County. U.S. Highway 50 is the primary transportation facility in the County of El Dorado, providing connections to Sacramento County to the west and the State of Nevada to the east. Other state highways, county arterials, and a network of local public and private roads constitute the remainder of the roadway system. Access to property is either directly from a fronting arterial road or from public or private local roads, many of which are narrow and unpaved. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) is the primary transportation corridor extending west to east through the County and serving all of the County’s major population centers including El Dorado Hills, Cameron Park, Diamond Springs, Placerville, Camino, Pollock Pines, and South Lake Tahoe. U.S. Highway 50 is also the major commute route to employment locations in the greater Sacramento area and the major shipping route for goods movement by truck. From the Sacramento County line to the City of Placerville, US 50 is a four- lane freeway with an eastbound truck-climbing lane on the steep Bass Lake grade and short sections of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes from the county line to Cameron Park Drive. US 50 transitions to a conventional four-lane highway through the City of Placerville with traffic signals at three major intersections. East of the city and extending into the Lake Tahoe Basin, US 50 is an expressway with unsignalized intersections east to Ice House Road near Riverton, where the highway narrows to two lanes with passing opportunities limited mostly to locations with passing lanes and turnouts as well as private driveway access directly off of the highway. US 50 runs through the fire agencies of El Dorado Hills County Water District (EDH), Cameron Park Community Services District (CAM), Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District (DSP), Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LAV), and the City of South Lake Tahoe (SLT). State Route 49 (SR 49) serves north-south traffic throughout the Sierra Nevada foothills. In and near El Dorado County, SR 49 runs from Plymouth in Amador County through Diamond Springs, Placerville, Coloma, Pilot Hill, and Cool to Auburn in Placer County. The portions of SR 49 between Plymouth and Placerville, Placerville and Coloma, and Cool and Auburn contain sections that are narrow, winding, and steep. SR 49 runs through the fire agencies of Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District (DSP) and El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF). State Route 193 (SR 193) runs northerly from State Route 49 in Placerville to State Route 49 in Cool by way of Georgetown. The two-lane highway is generally far narrower than the Caltrans standard for this type of highway, except for a wider section near Georgetown and a narrower, steep, and winding section north of Placerville. SR 193 runs through the fire agencies of El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF), Garden Valley Fire Protection District (GRV), and Georgetown Fire Protection District (GEO). The other two El Dorado County state highways are State Route 89 and State Route 153. State Route 89, a north-south route in the northern Sierra Nevada, runs entirely within the Tahoe Basin in El Dorado County. State Route 153 is a one-half mile long road that provides access from State Route 49 to the Marshall Monument in Coloma, and does not handle regional traffic. SR 89 runs through the Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LAV) and Meeks Bay Fire Protection District (MEK). Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-26 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 4.2.1 Vegetation & Tree Debris Because much of the County roadways are rural, vegetation clearance can be a challenge for the County Department of Transportation Maintenance and Operations Division. This Division manages repair, maintenance, and replacement of existing County roadway and drainage infrastructure. There are roughly 1,083 miles of roadway maintained by the County (EDC, 2021). The Division responds to service requests for the clearing of brush along County roadways as specified in the Vegetation Management and Defensible Space Ordinance, No. 5101. The Division averages over 1,500 maintenance/service requests per year, with over half going unresolved each year. The increasing demand for roadside vegetation clearing highlights the safety concerns associated with overgrowth along the roadways such as fires, drainage, and line of sight issues (EDC, 2021). Multiple fire agencies have expressed common delays in responding to emergencies after inclement weather due to downed trees and limbs. Much of the access problems due to fallen debris occur along the West Slope. It is not uncommon for hundreds of trees to be felled by a large storm and it can take the Division up to three months to clean up the damage from major storms on County roads. El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department and the California Highway Patrol will contact on call staff for after business hours emergencies. During business hours, these agencies contact the County Headington office to report road related emergencies. In addition, supervising staff for the Maintenance Division use scanners to listen for possible emergency response roadway debris issues to be able to mobilize a response as soon as possible (Brian Mullens, personal communication, January 2021; November 2021). However, it is not uncommon for personnel from the fire agencies to remove trees and roadway debris themselves on the way to emergency calls. In one instance, a major tree fall in the Pollock Pines area required two ambulances, one to retrieve the medical call and meet the other at the downed tree in the roadway, then transfer the patient onto the other ambulance for transport to the nearest hospital. The delays in response by County Division staff can be attributed to major financial losses and subsequent reduction in staffing levels in FY 2008/2009. Prior to FY 2008/2009, the Division employed fifty-five (55) road maintenance workers on the West Slope alone. Due to budget cuts, staff have been reduced to thirty- one (31) maintenance workers on the West Slope as of November 2021. As these positions have been cut from the Division, they were ultimately eliminated, not to be filled again. Though the economy has recovered, staffing levels have not, while the demand for maintenance work to clear brush alongside County roadways has greatly increased. With the amount of maintenance and service requests per year coupled with low staffing levels, it is impossible for the Division to keep up with the current workload. The Division works hard to address all obligations, but falls short due to not enough staff available to work the hours required to complete all of the required and requested work. The Director of Transportation provided an interoffice memo to the County Board of Supervisors and Chief Administrative Office detailing the problems faced by this Division, concluding that the Division will continue to resolve as many service requests as possible, prioritized by public safety, but many will continue to go unresolved while the Department continues to struggle with the required workload along with service requests for road maintenance and brush removal (EDC, 2020a). Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-27 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 4.2.2 Snow Removal County Service Area No. 3 (CSA 3) services include emergency response, drainage, and snow removal for the areas of the County beginning at Strawberry along U.S. Highway 50 east to including the areas of Meyers, Fallen Leaf Lake, Camp Richardson, and Meeks Bay. Snow removal is conducted by the County Department of Transportation Maintenance and Operations Division. The Division equipment and staffing are separated into two areas by Emerald Bay, with one operation occurring in the Meeks Bay side of Emerald Bay, and the other on the South Lake Tahoe side of Emerald Bay, not including the City of South Lake Tahoe which has its own public works department to handle snow removal on city streets. Additionally, the Division does not provide any snow removal services on major highways which are handled by Caltrans. On the South Lake Tahoe side of Emerald Bay, due to continued funding shortfalls, three of the seven snowblowers utilized by the Division are over 40 years old with parts no longer being made for them. In the big winter of 2018/2019, all seven snow blowers were down at one time due to mechanical failures (Peterson, 2020). This presents a major issue for emergency vehicles accessing County maintained roads on this side of Emerald Bay within the Tahoe Basin during winter storms. The Division makes every effort to ensure the main arterials in the area stay clear including North Upper Truckee, South Upper Truckee, Pioneer, and Sawmill Roads. Luckily, there is a strong working relationship between the supervisors and managers of the Division and the Fire Chief for LAV. LAV personnel can call County Division staff to bring out available plows to clear the way for emergency vehicles to gain access to incidents in an emergency. Though this relationship helps to ensure emergency vehicles can make it to incidents as quickly as possible during winter storms, better funding for snow removal equipment and staffing would increase reliability for snow removal in the region and ensure roadways are passible by emergency vehicles to the best extent possible without the need to call for service. The existing taxes for snow removal on the South Tahoe side of Emerald Bay have not increased since 1983, while equipment costs have increased over 400 percent since that time. The Division attempted to increase the existing tax for snow removal equipment during the March 2020 election (Measure M), which failed to gain a two-thirds majority. As a result, the Division has needed to divert road maintenance funding to snow removal. In FY 2019/2020, the Division used over $500,000 of road maintenance funds for snow removal equipment repairs instead of road repairs. Roadways meant to be maintained by the County are falling further into disrepair, leading to more expensive repairs needed that are unable to be completed based on the diversion of funds to snow removal equipment. 4.3 Water Supplies and Hydrants Water is utilized to extinguish structural fires because water serves to suppress the flames and cool the spatial area, thereby preventing further propagation. Maintaining an adequate water supply is critical for the future of the County of El Dorado region. 4.3.1 Tahoe Basin Water service in the Tahoe Basin side of the County is provided by multiple providers throughout the area. The South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) is the largest purveyor in the Tahoe Basin side of the Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-28 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final County, providing water to hydrants for LAV and SLT. The Fallen Leaf Mutual Water Company and several other smaller, organized water providers provide potable water to FLL. SLT also receives water services from the Tahoe Keys Water District, Lakeside Water District, and Lukins Water District (LAFCO, 2020a; SLT, 2018). For MEK, water service is provided by Tahoe City Public Utility District in Placer County and two private water purveyors. Each fire agency can pull water from numerous water storage tanks situated throughout the region as well as utilize water tenders. Water is also available from local natural or neighborhood sources such as rivers, lakes, and ponds. For STPUD, a very robust hydrant system is provided to fire agencies operating within the Districts boundary. Water sources are either gravity-fed or powered by pumps with emergency back-up generators. LAV finds that available fire flows within the service area of STPUD are more than adequate to provide for structural protections and wildland fire suppression (LAFCO, 2011). “Fire flows” refers to is the amount of water available for fire-fighting purposes. The water systems within the City of South Lake Tahoe are generally able to meet current demands for domestic service, although there are areas where fire flow and reliability are inadequate and need to be upgraded. While many large diameter transmission pipelines in the City of South Lake Tahoe are relatively new, a significant amount of pipeline in the system is approaching the end of its useful life and in need of replacement. The STPUD system is undergoing updates to increase efficiency. Detailed information regarding the water services for STPUD are described in LAFCO’s 2013 South Tahoe Public Utility District MSR. Unfortunately, whether it is due to too much demand, mechanical failure, or electrical outages, MEK can experience situations where a community "runs out" of water at least once a year. In many areas, the water companies cannot provide the required fire flows necessary to meet the state's codes. The District has responded to potential water shortages by acquiring equipment to carry and/or pump more water from the Lake Tahoe or other sources, and by requiring homes to include auxiliary tanks and fire sprinkler systems (LAFCO, 2011). 4.3.2 West Slope Water available for fire suppression is varied throughout the West Slope based on fire agency location. El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) is the largest purveyor of water in the County. EID provides water to hydrants in areas of all fire agencies on the West Slope except for GRV. Other water can be obtained through hydrants supplied by the Georgetown Public Utility District (GDPUD) and Grizzly Flats Community Services District (GFCSD), and individual wells on private property. Each fire agency can pull water from numerous local natural or neighborhood sources such as rivers, lakes, ponds, and/or swimming pools as well as water storage tanks owned by the fire agencies or private property owners throughout the County. Fire agency engines also contain water storage, and every agency operates a water tender. Fire agencies have indicated that the fire hydrant capacity and available water storage is adequate except for the following agencies: • DSP: The southern portion of DSP (south of the town of El Dorado) has only a few fire hydrants. Consequently, most of these residents rely on private wells that may have insufficient fire flow. DSP has begun to impose a residential water supply and sprinkler standard on certain projects. However, there are no plans to increase the capacity of the overall water system. Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-29 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • MQT: The water system overall is fragile and could easily fail during a wildfire that attacks the pump station and backup generator. The pump station and backup generator are not “hardened” or resistant to wildfire and are exposed. Also, the daily usage of EID water customers can affect water tank capacity and pressure depending on time of day. Hardening of the water supply for MQT as well as the need for more water storage for the District may warrant further study. • PIO: PIO recognizes the need to provide a more efficient emergency water delivery/supply system for the communities served. The sufficiency of available water supply for fire flows throughout PIO’s boundary area is a subject that may warrant further study. • RES: For RES, the majority of the District relies on rural, privately owned water tanks and wells for water supply. Overall, the provision of water sufficient for fire flows to all areas of the RES is an issue that needs further study. Water resources planning is critical to maintain an adequate water supply for water purveyors throughout the County. Many water resource management plans have been prepared and are described in LAFCO’s MSR/SOI for EID (2020) which can be found on LAFCO’s website at https://www.edlafco.us/. Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-30 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 4.4 Determinations Based on the information included in this report, the following written determinations make statements involving each service factor which the Commission must consider as part of a municipal service review. The determinations listed below are based upon data presented in this chapter and are recommended to the Commission for consideration. The Commission’s final MSR determinations will be part of a Resolution which the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting. 4.4.1 Dispatch Call and Response • All fire agencies within the County operate with automatic and mutual aid, boundary drop, and closest resource agreements. All fire agencies in the County along with CAL FIRE are dispatched automatically as the closest resource to any calls for service, regardless of agency boundaries. This creates continuous automatic aid across agency boundaries and ensures that all calls are answered as quickly as possible for all residents and visitors to the County. • Through the current system, Central Dispatch with the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office receives all 911 calls by land line and will re-route to either Camino ECC or SLT Dispatch, which may cause delays. Recommendation: Consultants recommend that a future study be conducted of the dispatch system inefficiencies including time delays in re-routing calls for service. The study should also determine gaps in radio coverage and other issues that may need to be addressed to create a more efficient and safe system for residents and firefighters in the County. This study should include a review of existing infrastructure and provide recommendations for infrastructure hardening, coverage gaps, and estimated costs. • All agencies appear to meet response time standards as described in the County of El Dorado General Plan, Public Services and Utilities Element based on the average response time for 2019. Fire agencies meeting response times based on agency goals are varied. Consultants recommend a more thorough analysis on response time data be conducted through an update to the Fire and Emergency Services Study. West Slope • Fire agencies on the West Slope are dispatched through CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center. • Based on the Response Plans, the number of personnel on each piece of equipment per fire agency on the West Slope dictates the number of additional resources that CAL FIRE Camino ECC will request for each type of incident. This can lead to more resources being dispatched for certain calls for certain fire agencies when compared to others, causing an unequal burden of responses for some agencies. Recommendation: LAFCO consider reviewing trends of calls received versus responded to by agencies and how staff levels may play a role in this disparity at the next MSR/SOI Update. • For the West Slope, CAL FIRE Camino ECC dispatches all resources needed for each incident, even if not all of the responding resources end up being needed. This is beneficial in that the system not only ensures an adequate weight of attack, but is also safer for firefighting personnel. Firefighters can rely on additional resources for incidents instead of playing ‘catchup’ Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-31 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final with an incident; starting with minimal resources then having to wait for requested resources to be dispatched and arrive. • For West Slope agencies, costs to respond to out of district incidents are borne by each agency, though some agencies may bear more of the cost burden than others due to incident frequency and location. • The dispatch model Camino ECC employs for the West Slope of the County of El Dorado is similar to other counties dispatched by CAL FIRE. • In general, there is a wide disparity between the amount of mutual aid received and the amount provided for agencies on the West Slope of the County. It is possible, as stated in the 2011 MSR, that a more equitable distribution of fire agency boundaries and resources could alleviate the financial cost burden the automatic system currently places on some agencies over others. Recommendation: The County consider hosting a Fire Summit in which these types of discussions can take place in an open forum that could inform the public of the financial constraints placed on fire agencies, the willingness of all agencies to work together, and further promote discussions of mutual benefit of all fire agencies and residents of the County to find solutions to the current inequities in the system. There may be grants available to provide funding for a Fire Summit. Tahoe Basin • Fire agencies in the Tahoe Basin side of the County are dispatched through the City of South Lake Tahoe Police Dispatch Center (SLT Dispatch) and the CAL FIRE Grass Valley ECC (Grass Valley ECC). • Reliable communications in the Lake Tahoe Basin are extremely difficult due to the topography in the area. • The SLT Dispatch primary repeater for the area does not reach a lot of the LAV District area. LAV owns and maintains a repeater located on the Angora Ridge which will simulcast transmissions and allows LAV and FLL to receive all communications. • Existing SLT Dispatch center software is over 40-years-old. Available data from the SLT Dispatch center is extremely limited based on existing software constraints. The City is pursuing a new system to upgrade services, build redundancies into the system, improve interoperability between agencies, and upgrade mobile command. 4.4.2 County Roadways & Maintenance • Because much of the County roadways are rural, vegetation clearance can be a challenge for the County Department of Transportation Maintenance and Operations Division. • With the amount of maintenance and service requests per year coupled with low staffing levels, it is impossible for the County Department of Transportation Maintenance and Operations Division to keep up with the current workload. Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-32 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Roadway Maintenance • Multiple fire agencies have expressed common delays in responding to emergencies after inclement weather due to down trees and limbs. Much of the access problems due to fallen debris occur along the West Slope. • The County Department of Transportation Maintenance and Operations Division will continue to resolve as many service requests as possible, prioritized by public safety, but many will continue to go unresolved while the Division continues to struggle with the required workload along with service requests for road maintenance and brush removal. Snow Removal • Snow removal in CSA 3 is challenging due to the age of the snowblowers, and unavailability of replacement parts, utilized by the Division. The Division makes every effort to ensure the main arterials in the area stay clear including North Upper Truckee, South Upper Truckee, Pioneer Trail, and Sawmill Road. • Close relationships with County staff and local fire agencies in the Tahoe Basin help to ensure emergency vehicles can make it to incidents as quickly as possible during winter storms. • More funding for snow removal equipment and staffing would increase reliability for snow removal in the region and ensure roadways are passible by emergency vehicles to the best extent possible without the need to call for service. • Roadways meant to be maintained by the County are falling further into disrepair, leading to more expensive repairs needed that are unable to be obtained based on the diversion of funds to snow removal equipment. 4.4.3 Water Supplies and Hydrants West Slope • Water available for fire suppression is varied throughout the West Slope based on fire agency location. • Fire agencies have indicated that the fire hydrant capacity and available water storage is adequate except for the following agencies: o DSP: The southern portion of DSP (south of the town of El Dorado) has only a few fire hydrants. Consequently, most of these residents rely on private wells that may have insufficient fire flow. There are no plans to increase the capacity of the overall water system. o MQT: The water system overall is fragile and could easily fail during a wildfire that attacks the pump station and backup generator. Also, the daily usage of EID water customers can affect water tank capacity and pressure depending on time of day. Hardening of the water supply for MQT as well as the need for more water storage for the District may warrant further study. o PIO: PIO recognizes the need to provide a more efficient emergency water delivery/supply system for the communities served. The sufficiency of available water Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-33 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final supply for fire flows throughout PIO’s boundary area is a subject that may warrant further study. o RES: The majority of the District relies on rural, privately owned water tanks and wells for water supply. Overall, the provision of water sufficient for fire flows to all areas of the RES is an issue that needs further study (RES, 2020b). Tahoe Basin • Water service in the Tahoe Basin side of the County is provided by multiple providers throughout the area. • LAV finds that available fire flows within the service area of STPUD are more than adequate to provide for structural protections and wildland fire suppression (LAFCO, 2011). • The water systems within the City of South Lake Tahoe are generally able to meet current demands, although there are areas where fire flow reliability is inadequate and needs to be upgraded. • Unfortunately, whether it is due to too much demand, mechanical failure, or electrical outages, MEK can experience situations where a community "runs out" of water at least once a year. The District has responded to potential water shortages by acquiring equipment to carry and/or pump more water from the lake or other sources, and by requiring homes to include auxiliary tanks and fire sprinkler systems. Volume I of II Countywide Infrastructure Page 4-34 of 4-34 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Chapter 5. Countywide Finances This chapter provides a financial summary of the funding mechanisms utilized by fire protection and emergency medical services agencies in the County, a comparison of the fire agencies including funding sources and financial areas of concern, and a summary of fire agency fiscal and deployment conditions. The chapter provides an overview of the financial health of the fire protection and emergency medical services agencies for the County as a whole and a context for LAFCO’s Municipal Service Review/Sphere of Influence (MSR/SOI) financial determinations. Table of Contents 5.1 Financial Metrics ..............................................................................................................5-3 5.2 Funding Sources ...............................................................................................................5-3 5.2.1 Property Taxes ...................................................................................................................................... 5-3 5.2.2 Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) ........................................................................................................... 5-7 5.2.3 Ad Valorem County Supplement for Rural Fire Protection Districts .................................................... 5-7 5.2.4 Development Impact Fees (DIFs) .......................................................................................................... 5-8 5.2.5 Benefit Assessments, Fire Suppression Assessments, and Special Taxes............................................. 5-9 5.2.6 Emergency Medical Services Funding ................................................................................................. 5-10 5.2.7 Fee for Service ..................................................................................................................................... 5-12 5.2.8 Grants, Fundrasing, Donations............................................................................................................ 5-12 5.2.9 Strike Teams ........................................................................................................................................ 5-13 5.2.10 Other Funding Sources ........................................................................................................................ 5-14 5.3 Agency Financial Comparisons ........................................................................................ 5-14 5.3.1 Agency Summary Funding Sources ..................................................................................................... 5-14 5.3.2 Special Taxes and Benefit Assessments .............................................................................................. 5-15 5.3.3 Recurring Versus Non-Recurring Revenue .......................................................................................... 5-22 5.3.4 Agency Liabilities and Concerns .......................................................................................................... 5-23 5.3.5 Agency Net Positions........................................................................................................................... 5-27 5.4 Summary Fire Agency Conditions .................................................................................... 5-30 5.4.1 2010 Fiscal and Deployment Condition Estimates.............................................................................. 5-30 5.4.2 2020 Fiscal and Deployment Condition Estimates.............................................................................. 5-31 5.5 Alternative Financing Options ......................................................................................... 5-37 Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-1 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 5.5.1 ERAF Funds Retained (2011 MSR “Plan A”) ........................................................................................ 5-38 5.5.2 Adjustment to the CSA 7 Ambulance Services West Slope Special Tax (2011 MSR “Plan B”)............ 5-38 5.5.3 Sales Tax Initiative ............................................................................................................................... 5-39 5.6 Determinations .............................................................................................................. 5-40 5.6.1 Funding Sources .................................................................................................................................. 5-40 5.6.2 Agency Recurrring Versus Non-Reccuring Revenue ........................................................................... 5-41 5.6.3 Agency Debts and Concerns................................................................................................................ 5-41 5.6.4 Agency Net Positions........................................................................................................................... 5-42 5.6.5 2020 Fiscal and Deployment Conditions ............................................................................................. 5-42 5.6.6 Alternative Financing Options ............................................................................................................. 5-42 Table of Tables Table 5-1: Average Property Tax Increment (not including County Supplement Fund) ........................... 5-5 Table 5-2: County Funding – Aid to Fire Amounts by Agency ................................................................... 5-8 Table 5-3: Amounts by Agencies that Received Emergency Medical Funding (FY 2018/2019) .............. 5-10 Table 5-4: Service Review Analysis and Determinations Financing Methods by Agency ....................... 5-16 Table 5-5: Summary Benefit Assessment/Special Tax Information by Agency ....................................... 5-19 Table 5-6: 2010 FESS Condition of Fire Agencies .................................................................................... 5-30 Table 5-7: West Slope Fiscal and Deployment Condition of Fire Agencies, 2020 ................................... 5-33 Table 5-8: Tahoe Basin Fiscal and Deployment Condition of Fire Agencies, 2020 .................................. 5-35 Table 5-9: 2020 Condition Categories versus 2010 Condition Categories & Possible Trend .................. 5-37 Table of Figures Figure 5-1: Average Property Tax per Taxable Parcel (FY 2018/2019) ...................................................... 5-4 Figure 5-2: Direct Assessment and/or Special Tax amounts by Agency (FY 2018/2019) ........................ 5-10 Figure 5-3: FY 2018/2019 Total Revenue vs. JPA Reimbursement .......................................................... 5-11 Figure 5-4: Amounts By Agencies that Charge Service Fees (FY 2018/2019).......................................... 5-12 Figure 5-5: Amounts By Agencies for Grants and/or Donations (FY 2018/2019) ................................... 5-13 Figure 5-6: Amounts by Agency for Strike Team Reimbursements (FY 2018/2019) ............................... 5-13 Figure 5-7: Total Revenue by Agency by Recurring and Non-Recurring Revenue Sources ..................... 5-22 Figure 5-8: CalPERS Fire Agency Pooled Plans-Funded Status for UAL as of June 30, 2019 ................... 5-24 Figure 5-9: Anticipated Public Agency Contribution Increases as of January, 2017 ............................... 5-25 Figure 5-10: Agency Employer Contribution Requirement Amounts for All UAL Payment Plans From FY 2019/2020 to FY 2021/2022 .................................................................................................................... 5-26 Figure 5-11: SLT Employer Contribution Requirement Amounts for All UAL Payment Plans From FY 2019/2020 to FY 2021/2022 .................................................................................................................... 5-26 Figure 5-12: Agency Net Positions (June 30, 2019) ................................................................................. 5-27 Figure 5-13: Agency Net Positions (June 30, 2019) with Net Pension Liability removed ....................... 5-28 Figure 5-14: Negative Net Position Agency’s Revenues Over/Under Expenditures (FY 2018/2019) ..... 5-29 Figure 5-15: Positive Net Position Agency’s Revenues Over/Under Expenditures (FY 2018/2019) ....... 5-29 Figure 5-16: West Slope Fiscal and Deployment Conditions of Fire Agencies as a Spectrum ................ 5-34 Figure 5-17: Tahoe Basin Fiscal and Deployment Conditions of Fire Agencies as a Spectrum ............... 5-36 Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-2 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 5.1 Financial Metrics This MSR/SOI analysis discusses four potential reorganization opportunities for the fire and emergency services agencies for the County of El Dorado. As part of the discussion, this document has pulled out the financial narrative into its own section for a clear summary of the current financial situation for the fire agencies countywide. To the extent feasible, a wholistic look at the financial ability of agencies throughout the County to provide services will be addressed in this section. Individual financial assessments for each agency can be found in that specific agency’s MSR chapter. This chapter culminates in financial and deployment condition estimates for each agency based on specific MSR determinations within each agency’s MSR Chapter and two new criteria based on information presented in this chapter as well as Chapter 19, Countywide Infrastructure. These determinations and criteria were chosen based on the range of information analyzed that address the financial and deployment capabilities of each agency to estimate the financial and deployment conditions of the fire agencies. 5.2 Funding Sources This section details funding sources currently utilized by the Districts. Special Districts in California have been historically subject to laws and policies that have shifted some funding sources away from special districts. A summary of some of these changes are included in this section. As a result of the loss of property tax revenue over the years as described below, the Districts have turned to other financing methods to supplement this reliable revenue source, and to meet the increasing costs for service. 5.2.1 Property Taxes Most of the fire agencies analyzed for this MSR/SOI Update are special districts that are primarily dependent on property taxes as the largest single, stable source of revenue for the fire agency. Property taxes have historically made up a significant portion of discretionary revenue for the fire agencies in the County. However, due to changes in property tax allocations for special districts in California beginning in the 1970s, property tax amounts have greatly diminished for special districts over the years. As a result, many of the fire agencies in the County now have insufficient funds for increases in operational costs, personnel costs, and maintenance costs; as well as funding for major capital improvements. Property taxes are calculated by the County of El Dorado Auditor-Controller’s Office with the assistance of the Assessor’s Office, and are normally based on the value of the owned property, including land and any improvements (EDC, 2018a). Figure 5-1 displays a chart of the average Property Tax amounts received by each fire agency, per taxable parcel, for FY 2018/2019. The number of parcels is based on the parcel count for the number of taxable parcels from the County of El Dorado Auditor-Controller’s Office (EDC, 2018b). The average property taxes per parcel spans from a low of $128 for Fallen Leaf to a high of $1,015 for El Dorado Hills. The average for all of the fire agencies is $384 per parcel. [Special Note: Cameron Park and Fallen Leaf Lake are Community Service Districts that distribute their tax dollars to additional district wide services similar to the City of South Lake Tahoe.] Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-3 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 5-1: Average Property Tax per Taxable Parcel (FY 2018/2019) 2019 Average Property Tax Per Parcel The property tax averages across the County are indicative of where, in general, new development is occuring. EDH, CAM, and DSP have major community centers in the County where much of the growth for the County has occurred over the last 10 years. LAV, MEK, SLT, and FLL are unique in that they are located in the Tahoe Basin where growth is slower due to development regulations. Higher property values and higher property turnover in these areas likely contribute to higher property taxes for LAV and MEK. Due to Proposition 13 described below, increases in property tax are limited to the assessed value of the property prior to Proposition 13, or the market value of the property at the time ownership changed. With new development, new ownership increases the property tax amounts for those properties from pre- Proposition 13 levels. The ability for property taxes to increase is limited to Proposition 13 as outlined below. Fire agencies such as FLL, PIO, and MQT may be able to renegotiate an increase in the property tax allocations they receive through consolidation or annexation efforts. This could be an avenue for underfunded agencies to increase available recurring revenue to meet increases in costs for fire services. Proposition 13 Prior to Proposition 13, each local government (city, county, special district, and school district) annually approved a general tax rate which was transmitted to the County Auditor-Controller to be levied against the assessed value of each property within that local jurisdiction’s boundary. Proposition 13 capped the total amount that can be levied on any given property to one (1) percent of the assessed value of the property prior to Proposition 13 or the value of the property at the time ownership changed, whichever is more recent. Included in this cap is an annual escalator of no more than two (2) percent annually. Proposition 13 removed the ability for local jurisdictions to raise revenue by property tax, effectively Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-4 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final locking the rate of increase (EDC, 2021a). In 1979, Assembly Bill (AB) 8 was adopted which called for the splitting of the given property tax proportionally among all local governments providing service to that property (Chu, 2016). According to the California State Controller, the basic premise of AB 8 is to allocate to each local government entity the amount it received in the prior year, plus a share of the property tax growth within each entity’s boundaries. The revenue allocation of the one (1) percent general property tax levy is calculated pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code §96.5 (California State Controller, 2019). For the County of El Dorado in FY 2018/2019, special districts received an AB 8 allocation factor totaling 25 percent. This includes all special districts in the County such as water districts, community service districts, fire districts, and sewer districts among others. The special districts in the County that provide fire services received a total of 11.8 percent as an AB 8 allocation factor, not including SLT, FLL, and CAM (EDC, 2021b). Almost half of the one (1) percent distribution of Proposition 13’s general property taxes in the County in FY 2018/2019 went to school districts with the remainder divided between the County, cities, and special districts. Of that 48.6 percent for school districts, 11.3 percent went to the Education Revenue Argumentation Fund (ERAF), discussed in the next section (EDC, 2021b). For FY 2018/2019, the fire agencies received differing amounts of AB 8 allocations based on the Tax Rate Areas (TRAs) in each agency’s boundary. A comparison of the average property tax increment percentage (not including County supplement fund) by fire service provider for FY 2018/2019 and the 2011 Countywide Fire Suppression and Emergency Services MSR (2011 MSR) can be seen in Table 5-1. Table 5-1: Average Property Tax Increment (not including County Supplement Fund) Fire Agency 2011 MSR FY 2018/20191 CAM N/A 14.13% DSP 20.54% 20.57% ECF 13.89% 13.82% EDH 18.63% 18.32% FLL N/A 5.34% GRV 8.20% 8.24% GEO 12.29% 12.29% LAV 20.20% 20.34% MEK 7.96% 9.63% MQT 11.61% 11.61% PIO 10.02% 10.02% RES 10.81% 11.00% SLT N/A 22.22% Source: LAFCO, 2011; EDC, 2019c 1Note: The report used for calculating this average shows the Percent of Increment per jurisdiction at the TRA level prior to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) and Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Successor Agency calculations (which are done at the jurisdictional level). The Percent of Increment per jurisdiction at the TRA level are applicable only to that year's Annual Tax Increment. The Percent of Increment for a particular year may NOT be applicable to the entire assessed value of the district or its changes in assessed value since the inception of Proposition 13. AB 8 allocation among fire agencies in the County vary due to variations in the average percentage of tax increment and the total assessed value of properties in each agency’s TRAs. An assessed value is the dollar value assigned to a property to measure applicable taxes. The assessed value determines the value of a Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-5 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final residence for tax purposes and takes comparable home sales and inspections into consideration. Because Proposition 13 limited the total amount that can be levied on any given property based on when Proposition 13 passed or when the property was last sold, there can be wide disparities between the assessed value of a property and its market value, especially if ownership of a property is retained over a longer period of time. A fire agency containing mostly large, rural parcels that rarely change ownership will generally have lower AB 8 allocation increases in any given fiscal year than an agency with smaller, urbanized parcels that frequently change ownership. This can be seen in Table 5-1 where the AB 8 allocation average has changed over time for each agency. This makes it possible for an agency to struggle even with a high property tax percentage. Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) To meet obligations to fund education at specified levels under Proposition 98, the State enacted legislation to shift partial financial responsibility for funding education to local governments (cities, counties and special districts). The State did this through the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF), shifting the allocation of local property tax revenues from local governments to support schools (EOS-LC, 2021). Of the property taxes shifted, 77 percent came from Counties, 14 percent from cities, and seven percent from special districts (Coleman Advisory Services, 2006). There were three ERAF shifts: ERAF I in 1992/93 (still ongoing), ERAF II in 1993/94 (also ongoing), and ERAF III in 2004-2006 (effectively ended). This property tax shift fiscally devastated many non-enterprise districts who relied heavily on property tax revenues. ERAF received 11.3 percent of the AB 8 allocation factor for FY 2018/2019. This represents a significant portion of Proposition 13 property tax allocation for the County. The highest AB 8 allocation of all government entities for FY 2018/2019 was the County General Fund at 21.2 percent, with ERAF making up the next highest AB 8 allocation (EDC, 2021b). There are two fire agencies in the County, EDH and LAV, that are not subject to ERAF losses. This is because these two fire agencies’ boundaries span multiple counties. Proposition 172 Proposition 172 was passed in the wake of the ERAF to add a half cent sales tax for local public safety including sheriff, police, fire, county district attorneys and corrections. This Proposition was passed to mitigate some of the effects of ERAF, but does not totally cover ERAF property tax shifts. Local agencies vary in the degree to which Proposition 172 compensates for ERAF property tax loss (Coleman Advisory Services, 2006). Under Proposition 172, cities and counties must use their allocations from the half-cent sales tax to support “public safety services.” According to the California statute, “public safety services” includes, but is not limited to sheriffs, police, fire protection, county district attorneys, county corrections, and ocean lifeguards. “Public safety services” does not include courts (Government Code 30051 et seq.). El Dorado County Board of Supervisors has discretion over allocation of these funds among public safety services in the County. As of October 2019, 75 percent of this revenue source goes to the County Sheriff, 10 percent to the District attorney, 12 percent to Probation, and three percent to the Public Defender. None of the revenue from Proposition 172 in the County goes to fund fire services. In FY 2018/2019, the County received approximately $11.64 million in Proposition 172 sales tax revenue (Campbell, 2019). In the County of El Dorado Recommended Budget for FY 2018/2019, Proposition 172 is named the “Local Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-6 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Law Enforcement Sales Tax” which suggests the funding can only be used for local law enforcement. However, language in the state statute identifies fire protection as a service that could be allocated these funds. Many of the fire chiefs in the County, through interviews with consultants, expressed frustration that none of the Proposition 172 funds are allocated for fire protection. The Chief Administrative Officer for El Dorado County wrote an opinion piece arguing that if these funds were to shift towards fire services, it would impact the County’s services provided by the sheriff, attorney, probation, and public defender as well as potentially impact other services such as libraries, veterans, senior services, and animal services. It is also mentioned in this opinion piece that the Attorney General in 2004 found that after reviewing Proposition 172, independent fire districts are eligible to receive these revenues at the discretion of the County’s Board of Supervisors (EDC, 2019a). Proposition 1A Proposition 1A was passed by California voters in 2004 to ensure local property tax and sales tax revenues remain with local governments with the goal to safeguard funding for public safety, health, libraries, parks, and other local services. Under Prop 1A, provisions can only be suspended if the Governor declares a fiscal necessity and two-thirds of the legislature concur. The economic downturn of 2008 and subsequent borrowing of funds from local governments by the State with the suspension of Proposition 1A further diminished property tax revenues. Under the suspension, the state borrowed eight (8) percent of the amount of property tax revenue apportioned to cities, counties, and special districts. The state was required to repay these obligations plus interest by June of 2013. 5.2.2 Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) are federal payments to local governments to offset losses in property taxes due to the existence of nontaxable federal lands within their boundaries. The law recognizes the fiscal impact of the inability of local governments to collect property taxes on federally owned land. PILT payments are made annually for tax-exempt federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Forest Service. These payments can be put towards vital services such as firefighting and police protection, construction of public schools and roads, and search-and-rescue operations. The formula used to compute payments to local governments is based on population, revenue sharing payments, and the amount of Federal land within an affected county. For FY 2018/2019, the County of El Dorado received $720,791 covering a total of 544,747 acres (US Department of Interior, 2019). These revenues are allocated at the discretion of the County’s Board of Supervisors. According to conversations with fire chiefs throughout the County, none of the PILT funds are allocated to the fire service agencies. 5.2.3 Ad Valorem County Supplement for Rural Fire Protection Districts From 2001 to 2009, El Dorado County allocated some discretionary funding from the General Fund for fire protection and emergency medical services to eight designated fire agencies. These agencies were chosen for this additional funding due to their property tax increments falling below 13 percent, causing a Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-7 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final reduction in staffing levels. The goal of this additional funding was to increase levels of service for the fire agencies receiving lower property taxes by providing financial stability. Funds received through this program could only be used to provide equipment and manpower for fire protection and emergency medical services. The existing fire agencies that received this additional revenue source were GRV, GEO, MEK, MQT, PIO, FLL, and RES as shown in Table 5-2. Latrobe Fire Protection District also received this additional revenue source, however this District was annexed into EDH in 2014. It should be noted that for FY 2018/2019, none of these seven fire agencies have property tax increments above 13 percent. Table 5-2: County Funding – Aid to Fire Amounts by Agency County Funding – Fire Agency Aid to Fire FLL $60,454 GRV $205,285 GEO $36,240 MEK $312,945 MQT $35,047 PIO $279,047 RES $202,351 Source: LAFCO, 2011 In 2009, the County cancelled this agreement, liquidated the trust fund and authorized funding for the 2010 Fire and Emergency Services Study (2010 FESS) that would assist the County with determining existing levels of service and provide recommendations for how fire services should be funded in the future. The 2010 FESS report recommended continued supplemental funding for an additional two years. The County decided to cease funding for MEK, provide County General Fund assistance to FLL, and shift $1.2 million out of County Service Area (CSA) 7 to provide fire agency assisted funding for two additional fiscal years. This use of CSA 7 funding was controversial and was protested by the fire agencies and the County Auditor-Controller. As a result of the 2010 FESS, it became clear to LAFCO that these districts could never reach a sufficiently high property tax revenue to be self-supporting due to the existing population in 2010 and anticipated future growth in these districts. To make up for lost revenue and lack of additional growth, it was anticipated that these districts would need a voter approved raise in existing direct benefit assessments, fire suppression assessments, or special taxes by 20 percent or more to meet expected financing needs. In order for such increases to pass, a two-thirds majority of each agency’s population must approve of the measure, a difficult and in some cases unlikely feat. More information on each fire agency’s direct benefit assessments, fire suppression assessments, and/or special taxes are discussed in Section 5.2.5. 5.2.4 Development Impact Fees (DIFs) Development Impact Fees (DIFs) are charged to developers when building permits are issued to secure funds for the expansion of existing facilities or construction of new facilities needed as a result of the new development. Fees are based on a nexus study that identifies the relationship between new development and the cost of new facilities and improvements. These fees are also used to partially fund existing Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-8 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final programs and services based on the degree to which new users, both residential and commercial, will increase demand. DIFs are adopted by the County Board of Supervisors as state law prohibits special districts from imposing DIFs. As defined in County Ordinance 13.20.020, a fire protection and emergency medical service agency in the unincorporated area must request that the Board of Supervisors adopt the fee, and the Board must hold a public hearing on the adoption. The Board must review the fee annually and the fire agency must update its plan annually. DIFs can partially offset the cost of services, but cannot cover underlying operational expenses, such as overhead, capital costs and stand-by (readiness) costs. Certain types of development may be exempt from impact fees, such as senior housing projects and non-residential development. Residential and commercial DIF charges are based on square footage. All fire agencies have Development Impact Fees in place. 5.2.5 Benefit Assessments, Fire Suppression Assessments, and Special Taxes Direct benefit assessments, fire suppression assessments, and special taxes can be used by fire protection and emergency medical services agencies for capital improvements, bonding for improvements, ongoing maintenance costs, overhead and administration costs, land acquisition, salaries, and facility improvement. Special taxes and assessments are collected on the County’s annual tax roll and are generally not used for the acquisition of heavy or expensive equipment or construction projects as they do not generate a large enough amount of capital in one year. These funding sources are attractive to local government service providers because of their versatility and long-term stability, they can be used to cover operational costs, and their use is not as restricted as DIFs. Fire assessments are a type of benefit assessment. The amount of the assessment must be justified by how much benefit each property owner receives from the agency’s fire protection and emergency medical services and must be ratified by property owners who would be subject to the increase. A two-thirds majority of registered voters within a fire agency must approve of a special tax. Once the special tax is defined for the voters to be utilized for a specific purpose, the agency may not use those funds for anything else. Since these funds are voter approved, they occur annually and are considered a stable source of income for the fire agencies. Most of the fire agencies in the County have at least one special tax and/or assessment for fire suppression services. However, many of the fire agencies have been unsuccessful in increasing these additional revenue sources, in some cases relying on taxes approved over forty years ago. Because these revenue sources must be presented and ratified by the voters, a fire agency must expend the time and resources to generate support. Many agencies are reluctant to pursue an increase in this revenue source out of fear it will be defeated at the ballot box, or the agencies do not have the resources to lobby voters. Other political factors can influence a successful ballot measure including timing, the burden of other special district assessments, and the state of the economy. For these reasons, this funding source may be unavailable to a fire agency, or may be inadequate to cover expenditures, even if it is the most logical and effective means to raise funds. Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-9 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 5-2 shows the fire agencies which have Direct Assessments and/or Special Taxes listed on their FY 2018/2019 audited financial report or provided consultants with the amount of revenue for the direct assessments and/or special taxes for FY 2018/2019. On average the fire agencies with direct assessments and/or special taxes receive $293,290 of their annual revenue from this revenue source. Figure 5-2: Direct Assessment and/or Special Tax amounts by Agency (FY 2018/2019) El Dorado Hills combined Property Taxes and the District’s Special Tax on their FY 2018/2019 audited financial statement, therefore EDH could not be included in the chart above. The City of South Lake Tahoe Measure S totaled $355,205 for Fiscal Year 2018/2019. This special tax is not included in the chart above because a portion of this tax goes to fund police as well as fire services. 5.2.6 Emergency Medical Services Funding Funding for emergency medical services is controlled by the County Board of Supervisors and administered through County Service Area No. 3 (CSA 3) and County Service Area No. 7 (CSA 7). Both CSAs contract with two Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs) to provide emergency medical services. The JPAs in turn manage sub-contracted “transporting” agencies, which are fire agencies in the County that receive funds from the JPA to administer ambulance services. The fire agencies which receive funding from the JPAs to administer ambulance services and the amounts received for FY 2018/2019 are listed in Table 5-3. More information on emergency medical services funding can be found in Volume II – Chapter 15, County Service Area (CSA) 3 and CSA 7 MSR. Table 5-3: Amounts by Agencies that Received Emergency Medical Funding (FY 2018/2019) Reimbursement Fire JPA Providing Amount Received Ambulance Identifier Agency Funding from JPA for FY 2018/2019 CAM Medic 89 West Slope $1,149,910.00 DSP Medic 48 West Slope *$1,149,749.96 ECF Medic 17, Medic 19, Medic 25, Medic 28 West Slope $4,600,000.00 EDH Medic 85 West Slope $1,150,000.00 GEO Medic 61 West Slope $1,150,000.00 Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-10 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Reimbursement Fire JPA Providing Amount Received Ambulance Identifier Agency Funding from JPA for FY 2018/2019 LAV Medic 7, Medic 6 (Reserve) Cal Tahoe $692,276.00 Source: FY 2018/2019 audited financial statements per agency *DSP did not include ambulance reimbursement in the FY 2018/2019 audited financial statement. This amount was provided to consultants via email. Each participating agency on the West Slope is under a service agreement with the West Slope JPA and receives the same flat rate monthly payment of $95,833.33 per ambulance. The current contract for the West Slope JPA with the County was awarded in July 2018 and runs for five years. The contract totals $56.5 million with an additional $500,000 annually for the first three (3) years for repair and replacement of capital assets. Fire agency staff have expressed to consultants that they are subsidizing the ambulance service in the County. Information regarding how much, if any, each agency is subsidizing ambulance services can be found in each agency’s specific MSR chapter. The LAFCO Ad Hoc Committee requested a graph showing the JPA reimbursements compared to total revenue. Figure 5-3 below shows the breakdown of each agency’s total revenue in FY 2018/2019 compared to the JPA reimbursements each agency received for that fiscal year. Figure 5-3: FY 2018/2019 Total Revenue vs. JPA Reimbursement JPA reimbursements made up over a quarter of total revenue for GEO and ECF and almost a quarter for DSP. For GEO, JPA reimbursements accounted for just under half of all revenue for FY 2018/2019. Based on FY 2018/2019 revenues, it would be extremely difficult for these three agencies to make up the difference if JPA reimbursements were to be reapportioned elsewhere. Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-11 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The current contract with Cal Tahoe JPA was awarded in September 2019 and runs for two years. The contract totals approximately $6.63 million with an additional $120,000 in two lump sum payments for capital asset acquisition, lease, and/or maintenance. 5.2.7 Fee for Service Figure 5-4 below lists the fire agencies that charge service fees for fire services and the amount recovered in fees in FY 2018/2019 listed on their audited financial report or provided to consultants with the amount of revenue for services fees for FY 2018/2019. Figure 5-4: Amounts By Agencies that Charge Service Fees (FY 2018/2019) Some fire agencies recover costs directly by charging fees for services rendered, although as a practice, most fire service providers are reluctant to charge fees for service and do not do so. These direct user fees can supplement other revenue streams utilized by the fire agency. Fees may be charged for ambulance services such as non-emergency transport, as well as backcountry rescues, vehicle extractions, and water rescues. Generally, fire agencies who recover costs through user fees only charge out-of-county visitors. The average amount in service fees by all agencies was $171,208. CAM, SLT, and FLL also charge service fees however these are generally for other services provided by those agencies and consultants are not aware of any service fees charged directly for fire services by these agencies. 5.2.8 Grants, Fundrasing, Donations Grant income is subject to certain priorities and voter discretion with no advanced knowledge or availability of this funding source. After passage of grant propositions from the State or Federal government, local agencies may have to compete for the funds with thousands of other eligible agencies statewide or nationwide. In addition, most grant funds come with conditions of use. In order to compete effectively for grant funding, agencies must invest a substantial amount of time and staffing for each grant application. Grant funding is a useful one-time funding source for special projects such as equipment appropriation but can be too unreliable or variable to cover ongoing expenses or recurring costs. Figure 5-5Figure 5-5 shows the fire agencies which received grants, fundraising and donations as listed on their FY 2018/2019 audited financial report or provided to consultants. The median amount received by agencies was $29,606 Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-12 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final in grants, fundraising, and donations. Other agencies may have received grants and/or donations in FY 2018/2019, but consultants were not provided detailed amounts from those agencies. Figure 5-5: Amounts By Agencies for Grants and/or Donations (FY 2018/2019) Grants from the California Office of Emergency Services, the Federal Department of Homeland Security, and FEMA have been successfully secured by local fire and emergency service agencies in the County of El Dorado, either as individual agencies or working in coordination through the County Office of Emergency Services. Many fire agencies also participate in fundraising as well as receive donations from the communities they serve. Grant funding offers an alternative financial source for fire agencies who lack adequate property tax revenues. Many of the fire agencies in the County applied for and received grants in FY 2019/2020 and FY 2020/2021, which are not discussed here. More information can be found in each agency’s MSR chapter in Volume II. 5.2.9 Strike Teams Over half of the fire agencies in the County supplement and/or rely on strike team reimbursement funds to cover revenue as shown in Figure 5-6. When agencies send out resources in response to a request for mutual aid to fight a wildfire, they are reimbursed for the expenses related to responding to that request. Reimbursement comes from the State of California or the Federal Government. Figure 5-6: Amounts by Agency for Strike Team Reimbursements (FY 2018/2019) Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-13 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Funds received through strike teamwork are generally used to reimburse fire agencies for expenses incurred from responding to that mutual aid request. As of May 2020, the California Fire Assistance Agreement (CFAA) increased reimbursements from the previous 2017 reimbursement rates associated with local fire agencies responding through the California Fire Service and Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid system. For FY 2018/2019, the following agencies received funding from Strike Team revenue that amounted to a total of approximately $6.5 million Countywide. For CAM, PIO, and MEK fire agencies, consultants were not provided with specific amounts the agencies received in Strike Team Reimbursements for FY 2018/2019. These agencies may have received Strike Team Reimbursements during this fiscal year, but this information was not provided to consultants. Some agencies rely on Strike Team revenues more than others, for example strike team reimbursements for GRV and FLL made up 74 and 75 percent respectively of the total FY 2018/2019 revenue for those agencies versus RES or ECF where Strike Team revenue accounted for just 5 percent of the total FY 2018/2019 revenue. 5.2.10 Other Funding Sources Fire agencies in the County have worked to foster other revenue streams. Many Districts benefit from fundraising activities such as pancake breakfasts and winter balls hosted by agency non-profit partner organizations. Other revenue streams include renting of equipment to other agencies, such as CAL FIRE, and/or renting rooms at district stations for community events. It should be noted that these other funding sources make up a very small percentage of overall revenue compared to the other funding sources discussed in this section. 5.3 Agency Financial Comparisons In order to provide a clearer picture of available revenue for all fire-related agencies in the County, this section provides a comparison between the fire agencies in regard to funding sources, the availability of recurring versus non-recurring revenue, and financial areas of concern. The goal is to provide a clear picture of the overall financial situation for fire protection and emergency medical services in the County of El Dorado. 5.3.1 Agency Summary Funding Sources Most fire agencies in the County pursue multiple funding sources in addition to property taxes. Table 5-4 on the next page highlights the various financing methods employed by each agency. Compared to the 2011 MSR, many agencies have added other funding streams such as grants and service fees. Of note, PIO successfully added a special tax since the last MSR in November 2011. While it is helpful for almost all of the agencies to have a direct assessment, fire suppression assessment, and/or special tax in place, most have not been increased since their adoption. Costs for fire equipment, personnel, and infrastructure continue to rise over time and many of these assessments and special taxes do not have escalators (meaning there is no mechanism to increase the assessment or tax to follow inflation without a ballot measure). Without these revenue sources increasing to meet current inflation, many fire agencies are struggling to replace equipment, meet personnel needs, and/or maintain reserve funds. Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-14 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 5.3.2 Special Taxes and Benefit Assessments Of those fire agencies with adopted assessments and/or special taxes, PIO and FLL have successfully passed ballot measures to add assessment funds since the last MSR/SOI Update in 2011. Unfortunately, other fire agencies have not been successful at adding or updating assessments as described below: ● LAV proposed Measure B on the ballot in March of 2020. The measure would have increased the assessment tax per parcel from $20 to $52 per year to fund the replacement of aging and outdated firefighting vehicles and equipment. The proposed increase did not include an escalator or a sunset date. The measure was just shy of the two-thirds majority needed to pass (LAV, 2019). ● ECF proposed Measure B in a special election in August of 2019. The measure would have added an additional assessment per parcel at $96 per year to pay for additional personnel that would allow three crew members instead of two to be staffed on four of the six engines in the District. The District cited safety concerns for the firefighters operating on two-man crews as the reasoning for this increase. The measure failed with only 38 percent of the votes approving of the measure. A two-thirds vote was required to pass (Wong, 2019). Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-15 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 5-4: Service Review Analysis and Determinations Financing Methods by Agency Average Property Tax Development Service Strike Other Agency Assessments2 JPA Provider Grants Increment FY 2018/20191 Impact Fees Fees Teams Funding CAM 14.13% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes DSP 20.57% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ECF 13.82% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes EDH 18.32% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes FLL 5.34% Yes Yes Yes Yes GRV 8.24% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes GEO 12.29% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes LAV 20.34% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MEK 9.63% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes MQT 11.61% Yes Yes Yes Yes PIO 10.02% Yes Yes Yes Yes RES 11.00% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes SLT 22.22% Yes Yes Yes Source: EDC, 2019c 1Note: The report used for calculating this average shows the Percent of Increment per jurisdiction at the TRA level prior to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) and Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Successor Agency calculations (which are done at the jurisdictional level). The Percent of Increment per jurisdiction at the TRA level are applicable only to that year's Annual Tax Increment. The Percent of Increment for a particular year may NOT be applicable to the entire assessed value of the district or its changes in assessed value since the inception of Proposition 13. 2Includes Special Taxes and Benefit Assessments Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-16 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-17 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final ● MQT proposed Measure A on the ballot in March of 2019. The measure would have added a new special tax of $266 per year per parcel, in addition to the existing $204 per parcel, to fund fire protection, both prevention and suppression; emergency response services within the District; for any responses outside the District under automatic/mutual aid agreements with other fire suppression or emergency service agencies; and for any incidental expenses related to the collection of the special tax. The proposal did not include an escalator or a sunset date. The measure would have raised approximately $245,784 annually for the District. The measure failed with only 56% of the votes approving the measure and a two-thirds vote required to pass (EDC, 2019b). ● GRV proposed a Fire Suppression Assessment in July 2019. The assessment would have added a new assessment of $182.58 for improved parcels and $71.38 for unimproved parcels with the option for a two (2) percent annual increase with the District Board approval and no sunset clause. This increase was to keep the current level of service in 2019 and keep all of the existing firefighter positions. The assessment vote was conducted internally by the District and failed. A summary of special tax and assessment information can be seen in Table 5-5 on the next page. Many of the agencies are operating with special taxes or assessments that have not been increased since the 1980s. Most noticeably, ECF and LAV are operating with special taxes and assessments that have not increased and both districts failed to pass increases in the last three years. For agencies that have a special tax or assessment, the amounts they receive equate to between one percent and 41 percent of total revenue for FY 2018/2019. In general, those taxes and assessments that passed before the 2000s make up a smaller percent of all revenue than those that passed after the 2000s. Because of the lack of support for the fire agencies by voters to increase revenue through assessments and/or special taxes, it appears as though voters within these agency’s jurisdictions are satisfied with the level of service currently provided. However, the level of service currently provided by each agency is largely augmented by the automatic/mutual aid system in place throughout the County. This can give residents a false sense of a “higher level of service” or faster response times than an agency is actually able to provide. On the one hand, each agency’s level of service is greatly limited by their available funding to have adequate staffing and resources to cover their service areas. On the other hand, automatic aid agreements that drop boundaries and allow for the closest resource to be dispatched augment each agency’s capabilities, allowing for adequate services and faster response times than would otherwise be the case. A greater discussion of these agreements and their impact on services is discussed in Volume I - Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-18 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 5-5: Summary Benefit Assessment/Special Tax Information by Agency Taxes/ Most Recent Most Recent Assessments Tax/ Ballot Ballot Fire Date Escalator Ballot as Percent of Assessment Amount Delineation Measure Measure Agency Passed Yes/No Measure Total Revenue Type Proposed Pass/Fail Date for FY 2018- Increase Total 2019 DSP Special Tax $649.09 2006 No None N/A N/A 1% Special Tax $35.00 Per parcel 1987 No (Northside) Special Tax (Pleasant $42.00 Per parcel 1981 No Valley) $60.00 Per parcel Special Tax (Coloma/ Per dwelling pad 1981 No Lotus) $60.00 (Mobile Home $96 for all Park) parcels in Per single family addition to ECF $30.00 2019 Fail 3% Special Tax parcel existing special (Pollock taxes and Per multi-family, 1981 No Pines/ assessment commercial, Camino) $60.00 industrial parcel and mobile home Per single family $30.00 parcel Assessment Per multi-family 1981 No (Strawberry) $60.00 and commercial parcel FLL Assessment $660.00 Per parcel 2018 No None N/A N/A 12% Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-19 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Taxes/ Most Recent Most Recent Assessments Tax/ Ballot Ballot Fire Date Escalator Ballot as Percent of Assessment Amount Delineation Measure Measure Agency Passed Yes/No Measure Total Revenue Type Proposed Pass/Fail Date for FY 2018- Increase Total 2019 Special Tax $35.00 Per parcel 1992 No None N/A N/A Per developed Added $182.58 $76.07 parcel for developed parcels and $71.38 for Yes GRV undeveloped 3% Assessment 2005 (Annual at 2019 Fail Per undeveloped parcels with an $47.17 2%) parcel optional 2% annual increase to existing assessment Per developed $68.56 Yes parcel Assessment 2004 (Annual at GEO Per undeveloped None N/A N/A 6% $58.78 2%) parcel Special Tax $35.00 Per parcel 1987 No Per residential $20 parcel $52 total for all LAV Assessment Per commercial 1986 No 2020 Fail 2% $40 parcels parcel $10 Per vacant parcel Per single family Assessment $214.94 2009 No None N/A N/A equivalent MEK Assessment $85 Per parcel 1992 No None N/A N/A 41% Assessment $45 Per parcel 1998 No None N/A N/A Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-20 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Taxes/ Most Recent Most Recent Assessments Tax/ Ballot Ballot Fire Date Escalator Ballot as Percent of Assessment Amount Delineation Measure Measure Agency Passed Yes/No Measure Total Revenue Type Proposed Pass/Fail Date for FY 2018- Increase Total 2019 Added $266 per parcel in MQT Special Tax $204 Per parcel 2001 No 2019 addition to Fail 30% existing special tax PIO Special Tax $85 Per parcel 2011 No None N/A N/A Unknown Special Tax $50 Per parcel 1990 No None N/A N/A Yes RES 15% (Annual at Assessment Per parcel 2% at None N/A N/A Board discretion) Source: From conversations with Fire Chiefs; EDC, 2021; Other sources outlined in each agency MSR Chapter Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-21 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 5.3.3 Recurring Versus Non-Recurring Revenue The 2010 Fire and Emergency Services Study (FESS) analyzed the proportion of stable revenues received by the agencies; called recurring revenue, versus unstable or one-time revenues; called non-recurring revenue. In 2010, roughly 31 percent of the agencies analyzed received funds from the County (called Aid to Fire which ended in 2009) and through strike team reimbursements. Those agencies that had supplemented revenue from the County at the time are listed in Section 3.2.3 above. As mentioned in the 2011 MSR and the 2010 FESS, substantial revenue would have to be raised to replace Aid to Fire. The 2011 MSR acknowledged that these agencies could never reach a sufficiently high critical mass through existing population and land use patterns to be self-supporting through additional taxes and assessments if every other source of revenue stays the same. The 2011 MSR and 2010 FESS concluded that the size of reserves for agencies studied were not at a high enough level for fire agencies to be able to withstand several years of slow revenue decline or one year of significant decline in funding. The reports noted that this is especially worrisome for agencies whose non-recurring revenues constituted 30 percent of their funding. Based on this discussion, consultants reviewed which agencies in the County have 30 percent or more of their funding from non-recurring revenue sources for FY 2018/2019. Figure 5-7 on the below shows the total revenue by fire agency in alphabetical order and the percentage of total revenue that is recurring versus non-recurring for FY 2018/2019. Figure 5-7: Total Revenue by Agency by Recurring and Non-Recurring Revenue Sources e u n e v e R la to T e ta m ix o rp p A 9 1 0 2 For this analysis the following revenue categories are considered recurring revenue: Property Taxes, Direct Taxes and Assessments, Developer Impact Fees, and Interest. All other revenue sources are considered non-recurring. The top of the figure shows the total revenue for each agency in FY 2018/2019. The bottom Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-22 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final of the figure indicates the percentage of recurring and non-recurring revenue generated by each agency in FY 2018/2019. Annual total revenue varies significantly between many of the fire agencies, ranging from a high in El Dorado Hills of $22 million to a low in Mosquito of $600,000. Further, the recurring and non-recurring revenue sources vary significantly among the fire agencies. The City of South Lake Tahoe is not included in Figure 5-7 due to the wide disparity in total revenue between the city and the other fire agencies making it difficult to visualize the total revenue in the figure. The City’s total revenue for FY 2018/2019 was approximately 73 million with 33 percent made up of non- recurring revenue sources and 67 percent made up of recurring revenue sources. Five agencies have 30 percent or less of their revenue from “non-recurring” revenue sources. These agencies are as follows: • DSP (13 percent non-recurring revenue) • EDH (12 percent non-recurring revenue) • MEK (5 percent non-recurring revenue) • PIO (14 percent non-recurring revenue) • RES (10 percent non-recurring revenue) In general, agencies with 30 percent or less of revenue from “non-recurring” revenue sources are in a stable condition. This means these agencies rely less upon unstable or one-time sources of revenue. Agencies in which 40 percent or less of revenue are from “non-recurring” revenue sources are mostly stable but have some room to improve. These agencies would most likely benefit from an increase in the existing special taxes and/or assessments to bring those revenue streams up to current standards. These agencies include CAM (33 percent non-recurring revenue), ECF (37 percent non-recurring revenue), and LAV (32 percent non-recurring revenue). The remaining agencies have 40 percent or more of their revenue from unstable or one-time sources of revenue. In many cases these agencies are relying heavily on Strike Team revenue which is not a stable source because the amount each agency receives is reliant upon demand for the service each fire season. Consultants have found that agencies who rely on over 40 percent of revenue from “non-recurring” revenue sources face a greater risk for a negative net position. Districts with over 40 percent of their revenue from non-recurring revenue sources include GRV, FLL and MQT. Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District (FLL) has the highest non-recurring revenue with 85 percent made up from other sources. This is largely due to Strike Team Reimbursements that are under investigation by the California State Controller’s Office. It should be noted that based on the strong and fierce California fire seasons that have been occurring in recent years, strike team revenue may be considered a source of “recurring revenue” in the future that can be counted on by the fire agencies in the County. For purposes of this report, strike team revenue is not considered a stable revenue source. 5.3.4 Agency Liabilities and Concerns Agency Financial Plans Eight fire agencies (CAM, EDH, ECF, LAV, MQT, PIO, RES, and SLT) within the County provided documents to consultants or summary information detailing current financial plans projecting future conditions over the next five or more years. Long term financial planning helps to balance ongoing financial needs along with capital needed to fund future capital improvement costs for each agency. These long-term financial Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-23 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final plans project future fiscal conditions and can help each agency’s Governing Board make financial decisions to better manage the use of debt financing, structure debt payments, and assist in planning for the funding of capital projects. Some agencies indicated that they have existing equipment and facilities upgrade plans, conduct quarterly reviews, or have yearly in-house processes to address financial planning. Each agency’s financial plans are unique, subject to the needs of that agency and may include anticipated staffing, equipment replacement planning, and upgrades to aging infrastructure. Recommendation: Consultants recommend that each fire agency in the County have current financial plans that provide a timeline for facility improvements, anticipated future staffing needs, and apparatus replacement schedules with identified funding sources. Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) CalPERS On behalf of its full-time employees, all but three of the fire agencies contribute pension payments to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), a multiple-employer public employee defined benefit pension plan. The three agencies in the County that do not contribute are FLL, MQT, and PIO. CalPERS provides retirement, disability, and death benefits to plan members and beneficiaries. CalPERS acts as a common investment and administrative agent for participating public entities within the State. CalPERS is responsible for forecasting agencies’ retirement obligations and ensuring enough money is collected to meet them. Figure 5-8 shows existing total UALs for participating fire agencies in the County of El Dorado as of June 30, 2019. Figure 5-8: CalPERS Fire Agency Pooled Plans-Funded Status for UAL as of June 30, 2019 CAM $2,354,791 DSP $7,959,010 ECF $29,279,085 EDH $21,682,478 GRV $812,255 GEO $3,050,642 LAV $10,908,295 MEK $2,127,344 RES $2,032,347 SLT $19,494,708 $0 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 Source: CalPERS, 2019 CalPERS generates its funding obligations from employee contributions, employer contributions and investment earnings. Each year, CalPERS estimates the value of the retirement obligation versus projected revenue. The difference is called unfunded accrued liability (UAL). UAL is the accumulated pension debt that was not covered by contributions in the past and continues to roll forward year over year, and increase. Interest is paid on the UAL to replace the lost interest had those assets been in the trust earning investment earnings (CalPERS, 2018a). UALs must be funded by agencies and are spread out over 20 to 30 years. Each employer in the CalPERS system has annual payments that are comprised of the Normal Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-24 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Cost (percent of payroll which is shared between employer and employee) and payment towards amortization of the UAL (CalPERS, 2018b). The agencies that participate in CalPERS are required to meet the UAL payments every fiscal year. A breakdown of each agencies rate plan and amounts by name can be seen in Volume I – Appendix I. The total shown for SLT includes only those rate plans identified as “Fire” and not those identified as “Police.” The total for CAM includes all employees, not just fire department personnel. As shown in the Figure 5-8, total UAL for agencies range from approximately $29 million for ECF to approximately $800,000 for GRV. In conversations with consultants, some agency staff expressed concern with keeping pace with CalPERS UAL obligations year over year. In order to maintain the fund above 50 percent, CalPERS anticipates large increases in employee contribution rates for the next 10 to 20 years (CalPERS, 2017; 2018b). As shown in Figure 5-9, UAL payments by public agencies are anticipated to significantly increase over the next four fiscal years, from 15 – 20 percent in FY 2021/2022 to 30 – 40 percent in FY 2024/2025. Figure 5-9: Anticipated Public Agency Contribution Increases as of January, 2017 (Source: CalPERS, 2017) For all UAL plan payments, increases are anticipated up to 30-40 percent by FY 2024/2025. All agencies that participate have miscellaneous plans and safety plans as described in Volume I – Appendix I. Figure 5-10 on the next page shows the total employer contribution requirements by each participating fire agency for FY 2019/2020 through FY 2021/2022 except for SLT. SLT totals can be found in Figure 5-11 on the next page and include all UAL plan payments (police, fire, and miscellaneous). The contribution requirements shown above do not reflect any cost sharing or employee contributions. Some employers may pay employee contributions also, but this is not reflected in the information shown. The contribution requirements are for July 1 of each year. Changes in plan benefits, the funding period, prepayments, or other contract changes may also not be reflected in the figure above. The anticipated increases in UAL payments to CalPERS could represent a significant financial challenge for many of the fire agencies in the County (CalPERS, 2021a; 2021b). Some agencies are seeing an approximately 30 percent increase between FY 2019/2020 and FY 2021/2022. These contributions are only anticipated to continue to increase through FY 2024/2025. It is not clear how agencies are planning to meet these increases in employer contributions. CalPERS has many resources available for public agency employers to find ways to fund the UAL at www.calpers.ca.gov. Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-25 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 5-10: Agency Employer Contribution Requirement Amounts for All UAL Payment Plans From FY 2019/2020 to FY 2021/2022 $117,684 MEK $159,911 $186,418 $109,419 RES $127,917 $153,431 $581,982 LAV $682,811 $816,716 $194,914 GEO $208,822 $240,858 $54,504 FY 2019/2020 GRV $66,247 FY 2020/2021 $69,269 FY 2021/2022 $1,115,898 EDH $1,314,543 $1,588,849 $1,681,277 ECF $1,919,912 $2,219,868 $539,563 DSP $513,266 $600,712 $168,558 CAM $149,233 $193,043 $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 Figure 5-11: SLT Employer Contribution Requirement Amounts for All UAL Payment Plans From FY 2019/2020 to FY 2021/2022 $4,861,917 FY 2019/2020 SLT $5,414,021 FY 2020/2021 $6,222,627 FY 2021/2022 $0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-26 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 5.3.5 Agency Net Positions The Statement of Net Position for each agency as of June 30, 2019 is shown in Figure 5-12. Figure 5-12: Agency Net Positions (June 30, 2019) CAM $15,547,462 DSP $(8,601,813) ECF $(25,232,988) EDH $32,896,285 FLL $1,149,049 GEO $(2,867,298) GRV LAV $(6,780,500) MEK $1,089,121 MQT $657,473 PIO $2,034,997 $(1,615,043) The Net Position comes from each agency’s audited financial statements (except for GRV) and includes a summary of each agency’s assets, deferred outflows of resources, and liabilities, which provide information about the nature, and amounts of investments in assets and obligations to the agency’s creditors. It also provides the basis for computing rates of return, evaluating the capital structure of the agencies and assessing the financial flexibility of each agency. GRV did not have audited financial statements available for review, therefore consultants utilized County ledgers. ECF has the highest negative net position at approximately $25 million while SLT has the highest positive net position at approximately $109 million. Though the net positions appear to show the majority of the agencies in the County are in good financial position, this is only a snapshot of time that does not tell the whole story. A look at overall trends in revenues over/under expenditures as discussed in the next section illustrates if agencies with a positive position are having to pull from reserves to cover expenditures or if agencies in a negative position are able to save excess revenues year over year. For this analysis, consultants reviewed the audited financial statements for each agency from FY 2017-2018 to FY 2018-2019 and the budgets for FY 2019-2020 and FY 2020-2021. The CalPERS UAL is included in the statements of net position for those agencies that participate in CalPERS. Net Position without Net Pension Liability The LAFCO Ad Hoc Committee requested consultants provide a net position summary graph that excluded the net pension liability for those agencies that participate in CalPERS as of June 30, 2019. This analysis utilized the FY 2018/2019 audited financial statements for each agency and excluded the “Net pension liability” line-item from the Liabilities section in the Statement of Net Position. Figure 5-13 shows the Agency Net Positions as of June 30, 2019 with the net pension liability removed. Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-27 of 5-44 M Q T $792,831 RES SLT $109,091,066 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 5-13: Agency Net Positions (June 30, 2019) with Net Pension Liability removed CAM DSP ECF EDH FLL GEO LAV MEK MQT PIO In general, agencies that were in a net negative position moved to a net positive position. Only DSP and GEO remained in a net negative position. Though GRV participates in CalPERS, the unaudited financial compellations received from the County Auditor-Controller’s Office, does not clearly define which liability on the General Ledger is the net pension liability. Therefore, GRV could not be included in this analysis and is not shown in Figure 5-12, even though they participate in CalPERS. While removing the net pension liability may create a closer “apples to apples” comparison between all agencies in the County, those that do participate in CalPERS still need to grapple with the anticipated increases in UAL payments to CalPERS, which could represent a significant financial challenge. Consultants caution making any decisions regarding the financial health of these agencies with the net pension liability removed. Trends in Revenues Over/Under Expenditures The five agencies with a negative net position include DSP, ECF, GEO, RES, and LAV. Based on the revenues over/under expenditures for these agencies from FY 2017-2018 to FY 2020-2021, DSP, RES, and LAV are trending in a positive direction with anticipated revenues over expenditures through FY 2020-2021, allowing these agencies the opportunity to add to reserves. GEO and ECF are trending downward with the amount of revenues over expenditures continuing to decline. It should also be noted that the budgets for FY 2019-2020 and FY 2020-2021 do not include anticipated Strike Team reimbursements. While it appears that DSP, RES, and LAV are trending in a positive direction, the severity of the net position is not likely to be largely affected by the small amounts in revenues over expenditures that these agencies have experienced or are anticipating during the fiscal years studied. Trends for these agencies can be seen in Figure 5-14 on the next page. Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-28 of 5-44 M Q T $(1,664,351) $(201,973) RES SLT Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 5-14: Negative Net Position Agency’s Revenues Over/Under Expenditures (FY 2018/2019) $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 DSP $1,000,000 ECF GEO $500,000 LAV RES $- FY 2017-2018 FY 2018-2019 FY 2019-2020 FY 2020-2021 $(500,000) $(1,000,000) The remaining nine agencies are in a positive net position, with some agencies having a much higher positive net position than others. It is important to note that the net positions for the CAM, FLL, and SLT include all other services that those agencies provide. Due to these agencies including other revenue and expenditures beyond fire protection and emergency medical services in their audited financial statements, they are not included in Figure 5-15 below. Figure 5-15: Positive Net Position Agency’s Revenues Over/Under Expenditures (FY 2018/2019) $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 EDH $2,000,000 GRV $1,500,000 MEK $1,000,000 MQT PIO $500,000 $- FY 2017-2018 FY 2018-2019 FY 2019-2020 FY 2020-2021 $(500,000) $(1,000,000) Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-29 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Of the agencies in the positive net position, MEK, GRV, and MQT revenues over/under expenditures are generally trending in a downward direction. MQT revenues were under expenditures for the first two fiscal years and budgets were at zero for FY 2019-2020 and FY 2020-2021. MEK revenues were over expenditures only for FY 2017-2018 and under expenditures for FY 2018-2019 and FY 2019-2020. MEK also budgeted to zero for FY 2020-2021. GRV sees the highest expenses over revenues with an anticipated upward trend by FY 2020-2021. It should be noted that GRV budgeted for Strike team reimbursements in their budgets. These three agencies may be drawing down from reserves to cover expenditures. EDH and PIO generally had revenues over expenditures from FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021. PIO is seeing each fiscal year’s revenues increasing over expenditures while EDH has seen revenues over expenditures for three fiscal years and revenues under expenditures for FY 2019/2020. In general, it appears that PIO and EDH have excess revenues during the fiscal years studied. MQT, GRV, and MEK had revenues under expenditures for some fiscal years studied and have budgeted to zero for some fiscal years. This suggests that these three agencies may have had to draw down from reserves to cover expenditures. In summary, there is variability in the fiscal conditions of each agency beyond what can be seen in the net position. Some agencies appear to be drawing down from reserves to cover expenditures over revenues, while others appear to have excess revenues available year over year. Multiple factors affect an agency’s net position with some agencies covering a much higher UAL than others. A more detailed analysis of each agency’s finances can be found in the Volume II chapters by agency. 5.4 Summary Fire Agency Conditions LAFCO requested a detailed financial analysis of the fire agencies for this MSR/SOI Update. This section summarizes the 2010 fiscal and deployment condition estimates that were concluded in the 2010 FESS and 2011 MSR and provides a new analysis to determine those conditions for 2020. The analysis for 2010 was not able to be reproduced, therefore a comparison between 2010 and 2020 could not be conducted. The formulaic approach to the new condition determinations were generated in order to be reproducible in future reports. 5.4.1 2010 Fiscal and Deployment Condition Estimates The 2011 Countywide Fire Suppression and Emergency Services MSR (2011 MSR) summarized the 2010 Fire and Emergency Services Study (2010 FESS) conducted by Citygate, which used funding and resource condition criteria to make judgements regarding the fiscal and deployment conditions of the fire agencies. The agencies were grouped into three categories: 1) Best Condition; 2) Modest Condition with Stretched Services; and 3) Unstable Condition. The results of this analysis are duplicated in Table 5-6 below. Table 5-6: 2010 FESS Condition of Fire Agencies Fire Agency 2010 Condition CAM Best DSP Best ECF Modest/Stretched Services EDH Best FLL Unstable Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-30 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Fire Agency 2010 Condition GRV Unstable GEO Unstable LAV Best LAT1 Unstable MEK Best MQT Unstable PIO Unstable RES Modest/Stretched Services SLT Best 1 The Latrobe FPD successfully consolidated with El Dorado Hills Fire Department in 2014. Source: 2010 FESS The 2010 FESS looked at a variety of factors to determine the condition of the fire agencies at the time of the analysis. Those factors were described as judgements based on a series of data elements which Citygate acknowledged may point to competing directions. No other details were provided by Citygate or the last 2011 MSR as to exactly how these conditions were determined. The conditions appear to be judgements based on summarizing the data outlined in the report. In 2010, six agencies were in “Unstable” condition, two were in “Modest with Stretched Services” condition, and six were in what the report considered “Best” condition. Unfortunately, both the 2010 FESS as well as the 2011 MSR do not provide details as to what specific metrics were used to come to these conclusions regarding the fire agencies. Therefore, consultants for this MSR/SOI Update could not precisely replicate the metrics in order to show comparable changes between the fire agencies as of this MSR/SOI Update when compared to the 2011 MSR. In order to avoid inaccurate comparisons, but still provide a similar analysis, a new framework was created based on determinations in each agency’s MSR chapter with the addition of two new criteria. The following information details the new metrics and scores that were used to rate the fiscal and deployment conditions of the fire agencies for this MSR/SOI Update. 5.4.2 2020 Fiscal and Deployment Condition Estimates For 2020 Fiscal and Deployment Condition Estimates, a score for each fire agency was created based on specific MSR determinations within each agency MSR Chapter and two new criteria based on information presented in this chapter as well as Volume I - Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. These determinations and criteria were chosen based on the range of information provided to estimate the fiscal and deployment conditions of the fire agencies while attempting to align with the information that was analyzed to determine the conditions for each agency in the 2011 MSR and 2010 FESS. A summary of agency scores can be seen in Volume I - Appendix H. Scoring was divided into the West Slope and the Tahoe Basin based on the available data provided to consultants. West Slope For the West Slope agencies, total scores have the ability to range from 0 at the lowest to 18 at the highest. Agencies that did not have ratings for one or more of the specific MSR determinations utilized in the Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-31 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final scoring due to complications with receiving the necessary information were given a 0 score for that determination. The determinations from the agency MSR Chapters utilized for the scoring process are as follows: 1. The Agency revenues allow for staffing to meet or exceed the minimum national standard of three firefighters per engine (3-0) model (or meet NFPA 1720 standards if applicable); 2. The Agency has a Positive Net Financial Position for FY 2018/2019; 3. Agency Revenues exceed Expenditures in FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019; 4. The Agency has preventative maintenance measures and has planned for replacement of aging infrastructure; 5. The Agency provides sufficient services to meet current and future demands with: 1) recruitment; 2) mutual aid; 3) and water supply for fire protection; 6. Evaluation of agency's capacity to assist with and/or assume services provided by other agencies; and 7. The Agency meets infrastructure needs for: 1) facilities (stations); 2) rolling stock (engines, apparatus, and emergency medical response units;) 3) dispatch systems; and 4) roadways for emergency access. Scoring of the determinations for each agency were from each MSR Chapter and are based on the following: • An “Above Average” score for a determination received 2 points, • An “Average” score for a determination received 1 point, and • A “Below Average” score for a determination received 0 points. Two additional criteria were evaluated for each fire agency based on information contained in this chapter as well as Volume I - Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. These criteria are as follows: 1) At least 70 percent of Agency revenue is from recurring revenue sources in FY 2018/2019; and 2) 25 percent or less of calls for service were answered by another agency through automatic aid in 2019. These two additional criteria were added to the scoring system based on information discussed in the 2011 MSR and 2010 FESS. Scoring of these two criteria for each agency were based on the following: • For Criteria No. 1, agencies in which revenue from recurring sources comprised more than 70 percent of total revenue received a score of 2, agencies in which revenue from recurring sources comprised more than 60 percent of total revenue received a score of 1, and agencies in which revenue from recurring sources comprised less than 60 precent of total revenue received a score of 0. Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-32 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • For Criteria No. 2, agencies in which 0 to 10 percent of total calls for service were answered by another agency received a score of 2; agencies in which greater than 10, but less than 25 percent of total calls for service were answered by another agency received a score of 1; and agencies in which 25 percent or greater of total calls for service were answered by another agency received a score of 0. The total agency scores were categorized in a range of conditions as follows: • Scores from 0 to 3 are in a “Deficient” condition; • Scores from 4 to 8 are in a “Limited” condition; • Scores from 9 to 13 are in a “Fair” condition; and • Scores from 14 to 18 are in an “Great” condition. Each West Slope agency’s final score and condition are listed in Table 5-7 below. Table 5-7: West Slope Fiscal and Deployment Condition of Fire Agencies, 2020 Fire Agency Total Score Condition Category CAM 9 Fair DSP 7 Limited ECF 8 Limited EDH 17 Great GRV 4 Limited GEO 8 Limited MQT 7 Limited PIO 9 Fair RES 5 Limited As shown in Table 5-7, EDH is the only fire agency on the West Slope with a score in the “Great” category. Much of this is due to the substantial and stable revenue enjoyed by this agency which allows EDH to generally meet above average standards for determinations as well as receive the highest number of points for the two additional criteria. Two agencies (CAM and PIO) are within the “Fair” category. These agencies, though receiving less revenue than an agency in the “Great” category, generally meet above average or average for determinations and received at least one point for the two additional criteria. The remaining seven fire agencies are in the “Limited” category. These fire agencies are struggling to secure financial resources, are generally scored average or below average for determinations, and did not receive points for at least one of the two additional criteria. The scores represent a point on a spectrum of possible scoring between each category. Figure 5-16 on the next page provides a visual of that spectrum. Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-33 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 5-16: West Slope Fiscal and Deployment Conditions of Fire Agencies as a Spectrum 18 17 EDH 16 Great 15 14 13 12 11 Fair e r 10 o c S 9 CAM PIO la t o 8 ECF GEO T 7 DSP MQT 6 Limited 5 RES 4 GRV 3 2 Deficient 1 0 Fire Agency GRV is just one point above “Deficient.” RES is within the “Limited” condition by two points from “Deficient” and DSP and MQT are two points from the “Fair” condition. ECF and GEO are one point below “Fair” while CAM and PIO are one point above “Limited.” EDH is firmly within the “Great” condition. Due to the difficulties in comparing the 2011 MSR, it is not clear if these agencies are trending towards “Great” or towards “Deficient.” Tahoe Basin For the Tahoe Basin agencies, total scores have the ability to range from 0 at the lowest to 16 at the highest. Agencies that did not have ratings for one or more of these specific MSR determinations due to complications with receiving the necessary information were given a 0 score for that determination. The determinations from the agency MSR Chapters utilized for the scoring process are the same as the West Slope agencies. One additional criterion was evaluated for each fire agency based on information contained in this chapter. This criterion is as follows: 1) At least 70 percent of Agency revenue is from recurring revenue sources in FY 2018/2019. Only this criterion could be evaluated for the Tahoe Basin agencies due to complications with available data from SLT Dispatch. More information about dispatch data limitations can be found in Volume I – Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. Scoring of this criterion for each agency was based on the following: Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-34 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • For Criteria No. 1, agencies in which revenue from recurring sources comprised more than 70 percent of total revenue received a score of 2, agencies in which revenue from recurring sources comprised more than 60 percent of total revenue received a score of 1, and agencies in which revenue from recurring sources comprised less than 60 precent of total revenue received a score of 0. The total agency scores were categorized in a range of conditions as follows: • Scores from 0 to 3 are in a “Deficient” condition; • Scores from 4 to 7 are in a “Limited” condition; • Scores from 8 to 11 are in a “Fair” condition; and • Scores from 12 to 16 are in an “Great” condition. Each Tahoe Basin agency’s final score and condition are listed in Table 5-8 below. One of the four agencies in the Tahoe Basin fell into one of the four categories. SLT received a score in the “Great” category. Much of this is due to the substantial revenue enjoyed by the City Fire Department which allows the City to generally meet above average standards for determinations as well as receive one point for the additional criterion. Table 5-8: Tahoe Basin Fiscal and Deployment Condition of Fire Agencies, 2020 Fire Agency Total Score Condition Category FLL 1 Deficient LAV 8 Fair MEK 6 Limited SLT 12 Great LAV received a score in the “Fair” category and, though receiving less revenue than an agency in the “Great” category, generally meets above average or average for determinations and met the additional criterion. The remaining two fire agencies are in the “Limited” and “Deficient” category with MEK and FLL respectively. These fire agencies are struggling to secure financial resources and are generally scored in average or below average for determinations. MEK meets the one additional criterion while FLL does not. The scores represent a point on a spectrum of possible scoring between each condition category. Figure 5-17 on the next page gives a visual of that spectrum. SLT and LAV are just one point within their respective categories. MEK scores within the upper side of the “Limited” category while FLL scores within the lower side of the “Deficient” category. Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-35 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 5-17: Tahoe Basin Fiscal and Deployment Conditions of Fire Agencies as a Spectrum 16 15 14 Great 13 12 SLT 11 10 Fair e 9 r o c S 8 LAV la t o 7 T 6 MEK Limited 5 4 3 2 Deficient 1 FLL 0 Fire Agency Summary Results Overall, ten of the 13 fire protection and emergency medical services agencies in the County are within “Limited” or “Fair” condition. Only two agencies are in “Great” condition, and one is in “Deficient” condition. Because comparisons cannot be drawn between where an agency’s condition is for this MSR/SOI Update compared to the 2011 MSR, it is not clear if any agencies are trending in a negative direction or a positive direction. The scoring for this MSR/SOI Update utilized four different scoring conditions as opposed to the 2011 MSR and 2010 FESS in which only three were utilized. Consultants for this MSR/SOI Update specifically did not use the same language to identify agency conditions in order to avoid the appearance of trends being drawn between the two condition estimates. The inability to directly compare the 2011 MSR to this MSR/SOI Update is due to the lack of clarity in the 2011 MSR and 2010 FESS that made it impossible to exactly replicate the rational for each agency’s 2011 condition. Though consultants would not recommend any inference to be made between the two separate conditions attached to each agency in 2010 and 2020, for the sake of providing a loose analysis of how the agencies may have shifted over the last 10 years, a possible correlation could be considered. Assuming the “Best” 2010 condition and “Great” 2020 condition were considered similar; the “Modest/Stretched Services” 2010 condition and “Fair” 2020 condition were considered similar; and if the two scores of Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-36 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final “Limited” and “Deficient” for the 2020 condition were to be considered similar to the “Unstable” condition for 2010, the following trend could be suggested as shown in Table 5-9 below. Table 5-9: 2020 Condition Categories versus 2010 Condition Categories & Possible Trend Fire 2020 Total 2020 Condition 2010 2020 Possible Condition Agency Score Category Condition Category Categories CAM 9 Fair Best Modest/Stretched Services DSP 7 Limited Best Unstable ECF 8 Limited Modest/Stretched Services Unstable EDH 17 Great Best Best FLL 1 Deficient Unstable Unstable GRV 4 Limited Unstable Unstable GEO 8 Limited Unstable Unstable LAV 8 Fair Best Modest/Stretched Services MEK 6 Limited Best Unstable MQT 7 Limited Unstable Unstable PIO 9 Fair Unstable Modest/Stretched Services RES 5 Limited Modest/Stretched Services Unstable SLT 12 Great Best Best As mentioned, consultants hesitate to make any inference between the 2010 condition and the 2020 condition estimates. Because of the difficulty in drawing one to one comparisons between the two condition years, it is not advisable for any inference to be drawn. For the sake of providing this loose analysis however, it appears that many of the agencies that were considered in “Best” condition in 2010 are now in the “Modest/Stretched Services” or “Unstable” condition for 2020 with only one agency appearing to move in a positive direction from “Unstable” to “Modest/Stretched Services.” Because it is not precisely clear what exactly caused an agency to be considered “Best”, “Modest/Stretched Services” or “Unstable” in 2010, a direct correlation between the condition in 2010 and those for 2020 cannot be determined. The next MSR/SOI Update should be able to replicate the existing analysis to be able to accurately compare the 2020 fiscal and deployment condition of the agencies in the County with future conditions. Recommendation: Consultants recommend that the next MSR/SOI Update utilize the same scoring criteria outlined in this section to determine trends in the fiscal and deployment conditions of the fire agencies. 5.5 Alternative Financing Options The 2011 MSR provided multiple avenues for agencies to increase finances beyond those already explored. A big factor in the discussions in 2011 was the potential for annexation or consolidations between agencies. The following section details those financial options and suggests an additional option Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-37 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final for County fire agencies to consider. An additional resource available to fire agencies in the County is the Funding Alternatives for Emergency Medical and Fire Services produced by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA is updating this guide to provide local-level EMS and fire departments with comprehensive information about funding sources. The estimated release date is January 2022 (FEMA, 2021). More information can be found at: https://www.usfa.fema.gov/grants/. 5.5.1 ERAF Funds Retained (2011 MSR “Plan A”) This option is detailed in the 2011 MSR and suggests that the merging of fire districts to retain ERAF funds could allow for the benefits of consolidation while retaining local control. Proposition 98 shifted partial financial responsibility for funding education to local government through the allocation of local property tax revenues to “educational revenue augmentation funds” (ERAFs). Districts with “multi-county” agencies were made exempt from the 1993/94 ERAF shift. “Multi-county” agencies are those local governments whose service area span more than one County. For the County of El Dorado, EDH and LAV are exempt as their service areas cross into neighboring counties. This option centers around the premise that the ERAF exemption could be extended into other districts if they merge with EDH or LAV. If this were to occur, the majority of the funds being diverted from the fire agencies to education would be retained to fund fire protection and emergency medical services. Consultants are aware of legal precedent that may allow for the ERAF exemption to be extended through the merging of districts. This scenario may relieve some of the funding constraints felt by many of the fire agencies in the County, however political will and community support would be necessary to begin the process of merging fire agencies. This option was brought to the fire agencies back in 2011 and no apparent movement has been made to further this option since. The difficulties in merging fire agencies in the County without the political will by the agencies to do so may make this option unattainable in the current political climate. Unless there is significant buy-in to move this option forward, it is unlikely for this option to succeed. Recommendation: Consultants recommend that this option be considered as a discussion item for the proposed Fire Summit (Details regarding the Fire Summit can be found in Volume I - Chapter 6). 5.5.2 Adjustment to the CSA 7 Ambulance Services West Slope Special Tax (2011 MSR “Plan B”) This option is detailed in the 2011 MSR and suggests an adjustment to the Ambulance Services West Slope Special Tax for CSA 7. This would affect the nine agencies that operate within the West Slope. The proposal for this option in the 2011 MSR is as follows: • Adding an escalator to the charge so that revenue collection can keep up with the rising costs of materials and fuel; • Tying the tax to the number of living units instead of parcels since several multi-bed facilities and elderly care residents, which generate a high number of calls, are located within a single parcel; • Expand the types of services it funds to fire-based Basic Life Support (BLS) medical services; and • Indicate that the current special tax remains in place in case the voters reject the proposed adjustment. Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-38 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final For this option, the increased revenue through an escalator and expansion of services to fire-based BLS medical services would provide additional revenue for all fire agencies on the West Slope. In addition, there has been an influx in age restricted, memory care, and assisted living developments in the West Slope. Consultants looked at dispatch data from CAL FIRE Camino ECC for two assisted living facilities in the Cameron Park area. For these two facilities, CAM responded to 129 calls for services in 2019. This makes up approximately 4 percent of the calls for CAM to these two locations in 2019. This is significant considering that for an assisted living facility, CAM only receives revenue from the parcel and not on the number of living units. This is just one example, for one agency that highlights the benefits of a tax per number of living units instead of on a parcel basis for multi-bed facilities and elderly care residents. Though this option appears to be a more feasible option to Plan A because this option does not require agencies to consolidate, consultants are not aware of any efforts made to further this option since the 2011 MSR. Because there has been great reluctance on the part of voters to approve increases in special taxes/benefit assessments for fire agencies throughout the County, it is not likely that an increase in taxes will be favorably received by the voters. Unless there is significant buy-in by the public through a strategic marketing campaign, it is unlikely for this option to succeed. Recommendation: Consultants recommend that this option be considered as a discussion item for the proposed Fire Summit (Details regarding the Fire Summit can be found in Volume I - Chapter 6). 5.5.3 Sales Tax Initiative This option is new for this MSR/SOI Update and suggests that the County consider passing a sales tax initiative similar to what was passed as Measure M (a ½ cent sales tax measure) in neighboring Amador County. The purpose of Measure M in Amador County was to enhance fire protection by helping staff fire stations, pay salaries, provide on-going training, establish incentive programs to maintain and attract first responder personnel, contribute to the insurance program, and pay administrative costs related to implementing these directives. Revenue is distributed evenly between the fire agencies in Amador County with additional funding provided based on call volumes (Amador County, 2020). While this option could provide a substantial solution to some of the funding woes that plague the majority of the fire agencies in the County of El Dorado, it may not be palatable for residents of the County. If past attempts to increase taxes in the County are any indication, residents are not interested in increasing taxes for fire protection and emergency medical services. That being said, the continued burden of worsening fire seasons, coupled with an aging population could begin to persuade residents to consider such an increase in taxes; and given that a significant portion of the sales tax revenue would be generated by visitors and tourists to the County. Recommendation: Consultants recommend that further analysis of this financing option be considered including discussions with Amador County as to the success of Measure M. County fire chiefs would need to be included in discussions regarding how to ensure equitable distribution of the funds should the County choose to take up this option. Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-39 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 5.6 Determinations Based on the information included in this report, the following written determinations make statements involving each service factor which the Commission must consider as part of a municipal service review. The determinations listed below are based upon data presented in this Chapter for Countywide Finances and are recommended to the Commission for consideration. The Commission’s final MSR determinations will be part of a Resolution which the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting. 5.6.1 Funding Sources • Most of the fire agencies analyzed for this MSR/SOI Update are special districts that are primarily dependent on property taxes as the largest single, stable source of revenue. • The property tax revnue increases across the County are indicative of where, in general, new development is occuring. • Fire agencies may be able to renegotiate an increase in the property tax allocations they receive through consolidation or annexation efforts. This could be an avenue for underfunded agencies to increase available recurring revenue to meet increase costs for fire protection and emergency medical services. • A fire agency containing mostly large, rural parcels that rarely change ownership will generally have lower property tax allocation increases in any given fiscal year than an agency with smaller, urbanized parcels that frequently change ownership. This makes it possible for an agency to struggle even with a high property tax percentage. • There are two fire agencies in the County, EDH and LAV, that are not subject to Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) losses. This is because these two fire agencies’ boundaries span multiple counties. • Proposition 172 funds are allocated at the discretion of the County’s Board of Supervisors. Many of the fire chiefs in the County, through interviews with consultants, expressed frustration that none of the Proposition 172 funds are allocated for fire protection. • Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) revenues are allocated at the discretion of the County’s Board of Supervisors. According to conversations with fire chiefs throughout the County, none of the PILT funds are allocated to the fire service agencies. • All fire agencies have Development Impact Fees in place. • Most of the fire agencies in the County have at least one special tax and/or assessment for fire protection and emergency medical services. However, many of the fire agencies have been unsuccessful in increasing these additional revenue sources; in some cases relying on taxes approved over forty years ago. Many agencies are reluctant to pursue an increase in this revenue source out of fear it will be defeated at the ballot box, or the agencies do not have the resources to lobby voters. • Fire agency staff have expressed to consultants that they are subsidizing the ambulance service in the County on the West Slope. • Some fire agencies recover costs directly by charging fees for services rendered, although as a practice, most fire service providers are reluctant to charge fees for service and do not do so. Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-40 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • Grants from the California Office of Emergency Services, the Federal Department of Homeland Security, and FEMA have been successfully secured by local fire and emergency service agencies in the County of El Dorado, either as individual agencies or working in coordination through the County Office of Emergency Services. Many fire agencies also participate in fundraising as well as receive donations from the communities they serve. • Over half of the fire agencies in the County supplement and/or rely on strike team funds to cover revenue. • Fire agencies in the County have worked to foster other revenue streams. It should be noted that these other funding sources make up a very small percentage of overall revenue compared to the other funding sources available to the fire agencies. • Without revenue sources increasing to meet current inflation, many fire agencies are struggling to replace equipment, meet personnel needs, and/or maintain reserve funds. 5.6.2 Agency Recurrring Versus Non-Reccuring Revenue • Annual total revenue in FY 2018/2019 varies significantly between many of the fire agencies, ranging from a high in El Dorado Hills of $22 million to a low in Mosquito of $600,000. Further, the recurring and non-recurring revenue sources vary significantly among the fire agencies. • Five agencies have 30 percent or less of their revenue from “non-recurring” revenue sources in FY 2018/2019. In general, agencies with 30 percent or less of revenue from “non-recurring” revenue sources are in a stable condition. • Three agencies have 40 percent or less of revenue from “non-recurring” revenue sources in FY 2018/2019. These agencies are mostly stable, but have some room to improve. These agencies would most likely benefit from an increase in the existing special taxes and/or assessments to bring those revenue streams up to current standards. • The remaining five agencies have 40 percent or more of their revenue from unstable or one-time sources of revenue in FY 2018/2019. In many cases these agencies are relying heavily on Strike Team revenue which is not a stable source because the amount each agency receives is reliant upon demand for the service each fire season. • It should be noted that based on the strong and fierce California fire seasons that have been occurring in recent years, strike team revenue may be considered a source of “Recurring Revenue” in the future that can be counted on by the fire agencies in the County. For purposes of this report, strike team revenue is not considered a stable revenue source. 5.6.3 Agency Debts and Concerns • Eight fire-related agencies (CAM, EDH, ECF, LAV, MQT, PIO, RES, and SLT) within the County provided documents to consultants or summary information detailing current financial plans projecting future conditions over the next five or more years. • Each agency’s financial plans are unique, subject to the needs of that agency and may include anticipated staffing, equipment replacement planning, and upgrades to aging infrastructure. Recommendation: Consultants recommend that each fire agency in the County have current Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-41 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final financial plans that provide a timeline for facility improvements, anticipated future staffing needs, and apparatus replacement schedules with identified funding sources. • On behalf of its full-time employees, all but three of the fire agencies contribute pension payments to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). The agencies that participate in CalPERS are required to meet the UAL payments every fiscal year. • In conversations with consultants, some agencies expressed concern keeping pace with CalPERS UAL obligations year over year. • For all UAL plan payments, increases are anticipated up to 30-40 percent by FY 2024/2025. • It is not clear how agencies are planning to meet these increases in employer contributions 5.6.4 Agency Net Positions • Though the net positions appear to show the majority of the agencies in the County are in good financial position, this is only a snapshot of time that does not tell the whole story. • There is variability in the fiscal conditions of each agency based on revenues over/under expenditures for each fiscal year studied. Some agencies appear to be drawing down from reserves to cover expenditures over revenues, while others appear to have excess revenues available year over year. • Multiple factors affect an agency’s net position with some agencies covering a much higher UAL than others. 5.6.5 2020 Fiscal and Deployment Conditions • For 2020 Fiscal and Deployment Condition Estimates, a score for each fire agency was created based on specific MSR determinations within each agency MSR Chapter and two new criteria. • Overall, ten of the 13 agencies in the County are within “Limited” or “Fair” condition. Only two agencies are in “Great” condition, and one is in a “Deficient” condition. • The inability to directly compare the 2011 MSR to this MSR/SOI Update is due to the lack of criteria in the 2011 MSR and 2010 FESS that made it impossible to exactly replicate the rational for each agency’s 2011 condition. • The scoring for this MSR/SOI Update utilized 4 different conditions as opposed to the 2011 MSR and 2010 FESS in which only three were utilized. Consultants for this MSR/SOI Update specifically did not use the same language to identify agency conditions in order to avoid the appearance of trends being drawn between the two condition estimates. Recommendation: Consultants recommend that the next MSR/SOI Update utilize the same scoring criteria outlined in this section to determine trends in the fiscal and deployment conditions of the fire agencies. 5.6.6 Alternative Financing Options • 2011 MSR “Plan A” may relieve some of the funding constraints felt by many of the fire agencies in the County, however political will and community support would be necessary to begin the process of merging fire agencies. Recommendation: Consultants recommend that the 2011 MSR “Plan A” option be considered as a discussion item for the proposed Fire Summit. Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-42 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • 2011 MSR “Plan B” appears to be a more feasible option to Plan A because this option does not require agencies to consolidate, however consultants are not aware of any efforts made to further this option since the 2011 MSR. Recommendation: Consultants recommend that the 2011 MSR “Plan B” option be considered as a discussion item for the proposed Fire Summit. • The new Sales Tax Initiative option suggests that the County consider passing a sales tax initiative similar to what was passed as Measure M (a ½ cent sales tax measure) in neighboring Amador County. Recommendation: Consultants recommend that further analysis of a Sales Tax Initiative be considered including discussions with Amador County as to the success of Measure M. County fire chiefs would need to be included in discussions regarding how to ensure equitable distribution of the funds should the County choose to take up this option. Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-43 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume I of II Countywide Finances Page 5-44 of 5-44 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Chapter 6. Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH Act) requires that LAFCO review and update the Sphere of Influence (SOI or Sphere) for each of the cities and special districts within the county. El Dorado LAFCO is being asked to consider the Spheres of Influence for the 13 fire agencies and two County Service Areas (CSAs) within the County that provide fire protection and emergency medical services in conjunction with its review of the updated Municipal Service Reviews (MSRs) for each agency (as presented in Volume II – Agency MSRs of this report). Caldor Fire, El Dorado County August – October 2021 Table of Contents 6.1 Sphere of Influence Introduction ......................................................................................6-5 6.1.1 Summary of Sphere Update Process..................................................................................................... 6-5 6.1.2 Overview of Sphere of Influence Options Under CKH Act .................................................................... 6-5 6.2 Existing Spheres of Influence by Agency ............................................................................6-6 6.2.1 Cameron Park Community Services Disrict (CAM)................................................................................ 6-6 6.2.2 Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District (DSP)................................................................... 6-7 6.2.3 El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF).................................................................................... 6-7 6.2.4 El Dorado Hills County Water District (EDH) ......................................................................................... 6-7 6.2.5 Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District (FLL) .............................................................................. 6-8 6.2.6 Garden Valley Fire Protection District (GRV) ........................................................................................ 6-8 6.2.7 Georgetown Fire Protection District (GRV) ........................................................................................... 6-8 6.2.8 Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LAV) ............................................................................................. 6-8 6.2.9 Meeks Bay Fire Protection District (MEK) ............................................................................................. 6-9 6.2.10 Mosquito Fire Protection District (MQT) .............................................................................................. 6-9 6.2.11 Pioneer Fire Protection District (PIO).................................................................................................... 6-9 Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-1 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 6.2.12 Rescue Fire Protection District (RES) .................................................................................................... 6-9 6.2.13 City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department (SLT) ................................................................................ 6-10 6.2.14 Community Service Area 3 (CSA 3) ..................................................................................................... 6-10 6.2.15 Community Service Area 7 (CSA 7) ..................................................................................................... 6-10 6.3 Existing Services and Infrastructure ................................................................................ 6-11 6.3.1 Station Staffing .................................................................................................................................... 6-11 6.3.2 Staffing Levels ..................................................................................................................................... 6-14 6.3.3 Agency Services ................................................................................................................................... 6-17 6.3.4 Infrastructure & Equipment ................................................................................................................ 6-17 6.4 Sphere of Influence Update Options ............................................................................... 6-20 6.4.1 Option No. 1 – Maintian Existing SOI’s and Friendly SOI Changes ..................................................... 6-22 6.4.2 Option No. 2 – Establish a West Slope Fire Authority ........................................................................ 6-36 6.4.3 Option No. 3 – Boundary Adjustments ............................................................................................... 6-42 6.5 Determinations .............................................................................................................. 6-48 6.5.1 Cameron Park Community Serivces District ....................................................................................... 6-48 6.5.2 Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District .......................................................................... 6-50 6.5.3 El Dorado Country Fire Protection District ......................................................................................... 6-52 6.5.4 El Dorado Hills County Water District ................................................................................................. 6-54 6.5.5 Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District ..................................................................................... 6-56 6.5.6 Garden Valley Fire Protection District ................................................................................................ 6-58 6.5.7 Georgetown Fire Protection District ................................................................................................... 6-60 6.5.8 Lake Valley Fire Protection District ..................................................................................................... 6-62 6.5.9 Meeks Bay Fire Protection District ...................................................................................................... 6-64 6.5.10 Mosquito Fire Protection District........................................................................................................ 6-66 6.5.11 Pioneer Fire Protection District ........................................................................................................... 6-67 6.5.12 Rescue Fire Protection District ............................................................................................................ 6-70 6.5.13 City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department ......................................................................................... 6-72 6.5.14 County Service Area 3 ......................................................................................................................... 6-74 6.5.15 County Service Area 7 ......................................................................................................................... 6-75 Table of Tables Table 6-1: Agency and Staffing Model (2020) ......................................................................................... 6-15 Table 6-2: Services provided by Each Fire Agency within Their Jurisdictional Boundary (2020) ............ 6-18 Table 6-3: Consolidation Considerations Between Fire Agencies Since the 2011 MSR .......................... 6-21 Table 6-4: Proposed New Acreage and Number of Parcels in EDH SOI and RES SOI .............................. 6-24 Table 6-5: Dispatched Calls for 2019, Arrived vs. Canceled .................................................................... 6-38 Table 6-6: JPA Funded Staff per Agency as Percentage of Total FTE Staff (July, 1 2020) ....................... 6-39 Table of Figures Figure 6-1: Percent of Stations Staffed versus Not Staffed on the West Slope ...................................... 6-11 Figure 6-2: Station Locations and Staffing Status, 2020 .......................................................................... 6-13 Figure 6-3: Percent of Stations Staffed versus Not Staffed in the Tahoe Basin ...................................... 6-14 Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-2 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 6-4: Existing District Boundary and SOI for EDH and RES ............................................................. 6-23 Figure 6-5: RES Boundary and Proposed Zero SOI .................................................................................. 6-25 Figure 6-6: EDH Boundary and Proposed EDH SOI .................................................................................. 6-26 Figure 6-7: Existing District Boundary and SOI for MEK .......................................................................... 6-28 Figure 6-8: Proposed Zero Sphere of Influence for MEK ......................................................................... 6-31 Figure 6-9: Theoretical West Slope Fire Authority Revenues and Expenditures FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 ................................................................................................................................................ 6-41 Figure 6-10: Theoretical West Slope Fire Authority “Net Position” for FY 2018/2019 ........................... 6-41 Figure 6-11: Heat Map of CAM Aid Response Locations within the ECF District Boundary, 2019 ......... 6-44 Figure 6-12: Heat Map of DSP Aid Response Locations within the ECF District Boundary, 2019 ........... 6-45 Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-3 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-4 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 6.1 Sphere of Influence Introduction In determining the Sphere of Influence (SOI) for an agency, LAFCO must consider and prepare written determinations with respect to five factors as outlined in Government Code §56425(e). These factors are as follows: 1. The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands; 2. The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area; 3. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide; 4. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines that they are relevant to the agency; and 5. The present and probable need for public facilities and services (including sewers, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire protection) of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing Sphere of Influence. This chapter outlines the SOI process, provides an overview of SOI options, details the existing SOIs for each agency, discusses existing services and capacity in a Countywide approach, and provides the Commission with three SOI Update Options for consideration. Consultants and LAFCO staff recommend the Commission approve determinations for each agency as outlined under Option 1 and detailed in Section 6.5, Determinations. Commission policies require review of service capacity, level and types of services currently provided, the areas where these services are provided, topographic factors, financial capabilities, cost of service, and social and economic interdependencies to areas proposed for change of organization or reorganization (El Dorado LAFCO, 2019a). This information is detailed for each agency within their respective Municipal Service Review (MSR) chapters in Volume II – Agency Municipal Service Reviews. Option 1 proposes SOI changes for only three of the agencies studied in this report. 6.1.1 Summary of Sphere Update Process The process to update the Municipal Service Review (MSR) for each agency in the County of El Dorado providing fire protection and emergency medical services is presented in Volume II of this report. The updated MSRs serve as the foundation for consideration of the Sphere of Influence Updates detailed in Option 1. The information presented herein is designed to assist the Commission in considering next steps and recommends adoption of the determinations as presented for each agency. 6.1.2 Overview of Sphere of Influence Options Under CKH Act The intent of an SOI is to identify the most appropriate areas for an agency to provide services in the probable future. Pursuant to El Dorado LAFCO policies relating to SOIs, LAFCO must review the following factors before either approving an SOI, amending an SOI, or updating an SOI: • The service capacity, level and types of services currently provided by the agency and the areas where these services are provided, topographic factors, financial capabilities, costs of service, and social and economic interdependencies; Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-5 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • Existing and planned land uses, land use plans and policies; consistency with county and city General Plans; projected growth in the affected area, and potential effects on agricultural and open space lands; • A description of the services that will be provided to any areas which may be added to the sphere, the timing and method for funding expansion of facilities or services; and • An analysis of the effects a proposed Sphere of Influence has on other agencies and their service capabilities. Accordingly, territory included in an agency’s Sphere is an indication that the probable need for service has been established; and that the subject agency has been determined by LAFCO to be the most logical service provider for the area. There are a number of ways to look at Spheres of Influence. One option is to consider growth and development and the need for municipal services over time. Under El Dorado LAFCO policies, the Commission utilizes MSR data to evaluate proposals that may affect a fire agency within the next 10 to 20 years (El Dorado LAFCO, 2019b). A second option is to determine an agency’s ability to provide municipal services beyond its current boundary. For an agency that does not plan to provide municipal services beyond its present boundary, a Sphere boundary that is the same as the agency boundary is called a Coterminous Sphere of Influence. A third option is related to reducing the current Sphere of Influence of an agency by adopting a Reduced Sphere of Influence by excluding territory currently within an agency’s Sphere. A fourth option relates to Sphere areas for which municipal services are not intended to be provided; that is, areas within a Sphere which will remain undeveloped (such as open space or ‘protected lands’). Such an area is a special case and requires the agency to demonstrate why an area should be included within a Sphere for which no municipal services will be provided. LAFCO also has the ability to determine a Zero Sphere of Influence for a City or Special District; signaling that the City or District does not have the wherewithal, governance capability, financial means, and/or operational capabilities to provide the municipal services for which it was formed and should be dissolved, or its function(s) reallocated to another agency. 6.2 Existing Spheres of Influence by Agency This section provides a summary of the existing SOIs for each agency. Fire agency staff have identified some areas or concerns within their SOI in some cases. This information is also reflected below. Maps of each agency’s existing SOI can be found in the subsequent chapter for each agency in Volume II of this report. 6.2.1 Cameron Park Community Services Disrict (CAM) El Dorado LAFCO adopted the original Sphere of Influence (SOI) for Cameron Park Community Services District (CAM) in 1998. The SOI was amended in 2008 and again in 2012 with minor expansions to the “Limited Service Area” Sphere of Influence (LSA SOI). The 2012 MSR/SOI Update increased the District’s Limited Service Area SOI to align with the Community Region of Cameron Park as defined by the County of El Dorado 2004 General Plan Land Use Element. The CAM SOI includes areas outside of the District boundary that are designated LSA SOI. Within the CAM’s LSA SOI, all municipal-type services are provided Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-6 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final except for fire protection. In addition, there are two areas within the District SOI in which all services are provided, including fire protection. The LSA areas were created to defuse political conflict between fire protection districts. Fire services in the LSA are provided by Rescue Fire Protection District (RES) in the northwest, and El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF) to the east and south. The District boundary encompasses 4,178 acres and includes 7,250 parcels. 6.2.2 Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District (DSP) El Dorado LAFCO most recently affirmed the SOI for the Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District (DSP) via Resolution No. L-2011-09 adopted on August 24, 2011. The District’s SOI consists of 6 pockets (or islands) that are located inside the District’s boundary. These six SOI areas include 24 parcels and encompass 1,463 acres. District staff reports that much of the SOI area is under Williamson Act contracts, which promote the continuation of agricultural land-use. Furthermore, District staff indicates that they provide service to these SOI areas and will continue to do so in the future. 6.2.3 El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF) The El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF) was formed on March 1, 1991 through a reorganization of the Pleasant Valley, Shingle Springs, and Pollock Pines/Camino Fire Protection Districts and annexation of the City of Placerville. El Dorado LAFCO’s Resolution No. L-91-01 was adopted on January 3, 1991 supporting formation of the consolidated District. The ECF SOI includes significant acreage managed by the ElDorado National Forest, which is a federal response area. Although the U.S. Forest Services (USFS) has its own seasonal firefighters who focus on wildland fires, sometimes structural fires occur and ECF responds. To offset costs incurred by local fire districts who provide services to federal land, the federal government provides Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) funds to the County. However, the County of El Dorado does not distribute PILT funds to individual fire districts. Due to this funding gap, there is no guarantee that ECF will continue to provide service to its SOI areas. ECF retained Burr Consultants to develop a Service Plan for Island Annexations. The Board reviewed and approved this plan during their November 2020 Board meeting. The proposed conceptual plan is to annex 14 “islands” consisting of 159 parcels into the District. 6.2.4 El Dorado Hills County Water District (EDH) El Dorado LAFCO most recently updated the SOI for EDH on August 27, 2014 via Resolution No. L-2014- 07. The District’s SOI encompasses approximately 1,376 acres and includes 53 parcels. The SOI can be characterized as seven different pocket areas located either directly adjacent to the boundary or in the interior of the boundary. The SOI boundary area includes a 196-acre area that encompasses 24 assessor parcels in Sacramento County and are located on the west side of the District, just south of State Highway 50. When considering the existing viability of the SOI, EDH staff indicated that in the future the provision of service to the SOI areas could be possible as EDH already provides service to the existing SOI. EHD staff noted that there are no existing SOI areas where it is too expensive to provide services as long as the current EDH Fire Average Tax apportionment rate is at least 17.5 cents on the dollar. In addition, the District has a planned fire station in the Marble Valley Specific Plan Area that would be the closest responding emergency resource to the Lime Rock Valley Specific Plan Area. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-7 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 6.2.5 Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District (FLL) El Dorado LAFCO most recently affirmed the original SOI the Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District (FLL) in October 2013 via Resolution No. L-2013-15. The District’s SOI is coterminous with its boundary. Regarding the size of the existing SOI in relation to geographic areas that may need fire protection services in the future, FLL staff have indicated that they could foresee a possible need to construct a fire station in order to provide services to the “west-side” residences. The two potential locations for this fire station are along Cathedral Road on the west-side of Fallen Leaf Lake and the corner of State Route 89 and Fallen Leaf Road, outside of the current District boundaries. 6.2.6 Garden Valley Fire Protection District (GRV) El Dorado LAFCO updated the SOI for the Garden Valley Fire Protection District (GRV) on August 24, 2011 under Resolution No. L-2011-09. The District’s SOI contains 2,588 acres and includes 18 assessor parcels. District staff indicate that the SOI is adequate for future fire protection and emergency medical service needs. The staff also believe they can affordably provide service to all areas of the SOI in the future. However, the areas of the SOI where potential services will need to be extended in the next 20 years are not clear due to unpredictable factors such as the potential for new development in the area and future demand for service. 6.2.7 Georgetown Fire Protection District (GRV) El Dorado LAFCO’s most recent action on Georgetown Fire Protection District’s (GEO) SOI occurred August 24, 2011 via Resolution No. L-2011-09, which affirmed the existing SOI. GEO’s SOI encompasses one large swath of land located to the east, northeast, and southeast of the District’s boundary and also encompasses 11 pockets of land internal to the boundary. The District’s SOI totals 19,564 acres and 96 parcels. GEO’s SOI consists of rural areas with a very low permanent population. However, the SOI includes numerous campsites and other recreation areas that host temporary overnight and daytime visitors. GEO provides services to its SOI; however, their response time to these rural areas is very long. In 1996, then- Fire Chief Rick Todd approached LAFCO about conducting a mass annexation of many parcels into its SOI, totaling approximately 7,000 acres. The purpose of this request was to recognize that GEO does provide fire protection services to its SOI. The application process was never initiated because issues arose regarding the application processing costs and funding. 6.2.8 Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LAV) El Dorado LAFCO most recently reviewed and affirmed the District’s SOI through Resolution No. L-2011- 09 adopted on August 24, 2011. LAV’s SOI is coterminous with its boundary and encompasses 47,191 acres with 178 of these acres are located in Alpine County. District staff noted the area around Strawberry where services could be extended based on frequent responses. In order for the District to include these areas into the District SOI, El Dorado LAFCO would need to detach these areas from the El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF) and annex them into LAV. At this time, LAV finds that the mutual aid agreement between LAV and ECF is sufficient to provide mutual aid response to this area, and may consider discussions with ECF in the future. LAFCO’s 2016 City of South Lake Tahoe MSR/SOI Update and the City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan Background Report indicate that LAV serves areas within the Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-8 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final City boundary as well as the area within the City’s SOI. There appears to be some overlap between areas within the City Limits and the LAV service area. Future discussions between the agencies are encouraged to determine the appropriate service provider to these areas. 6.2.9 Meeks Bay Fire Protection District (MEK) El Dorado LAFCO adjusted the original SOI for the MEK in 2011 via Resolution No. L-2011-09. The District's SOI encompasses 1,864 acres and includes 33 parcels. The average parcel size within the SOI is 94 acres per parcel. The District’s southern boundary to the SOI terminates at Emerald Bay, where Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LAV) Boundary begins. LAFCO's 2011 MSR noted the following: "MEK has a long- standing mismatch between its boundary and its first response area, which is much larger than the district boundary. An area owned by USFS contains homes and year-round residents to the south of the district. During the winter months, no other emergency service provider can reach those residents. State park areas with campgrounds are outside the District but create a high demand for services. Following its request to amend its sphere of influence in 2006 to include the USFS Emerald Bay tracts, the District has applied to LAFCO to annex the area. LAFCO is set to hear the matter in February 2011." The Commission approved the annexation of 29 additional parcels in April 2011 via Resolution No. L-2011-06 as requested by MEK. 6.2.10 Mosquito Fire Protection District (MQT) El Dorado LAFCO most recently affirmed the existing SOI for the Mosquito Fire Protection District (MQT) in 2011 via Resolution No. L-2011-09. Currently, MQT’s SOI is coterminous with its boundary, meaning the SOI and the District boundary are one and the same. District staff indicates that overall, it would be difficult to expand the boundary or the SOI due to the mountainous terrain surrounding the District, consisting of steep slopes, which render it too expensive to extend services to these areas. However, District staff identified an area of the Garden Valley Fire Protection District (GRV) which is more efficiently served by MQT. This area is along Rock Creek Road from the District’s west boundary to Hwy 193. 6.2.11 Pioneer Fire Protection District (PIO) PIO’s SOI was most recently affirmed by El Dorado LAFCO under Resolution No. L-2011-09, on August 24, 2011. The District’s existing SOI encompasses approximately 7,103 acres and includes 57 parcels. The SOI consists of isolated pockets of land that are located in the interior of the District, but are not classified as part of the formal boundary area. PIO staff noted that the District has a large geographic size. The areas east of the District boundary include U.S. Forest Service managed land and this area has limited access. In general, as areas populate, and as commercial facilities develop, the PIO will need to expand facilities to provide more efficient response times. 6.2.12 Rescue Fire Protection District (RES) El Dorado LAFCO most recently affirmed the SOI for the RES on August 24, 2011 via Resolution No. L-2011- 09. The District’s SOI encompasses approximately 4,025 acres and includes 92 parcels. A significant area of the SOI to the west, generally described as the Salmon Falls area north of Green Valley Road, separates the District from the El Dorado Hills Fire Department and has been historically designated as part of Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-9 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Rescue’s Sphere of Influence. Though this area is included in the Rescue Fire Protection District’s SOI, EDH is the first responder for this area as there is no access for RES personnel without driving through a significant part of EDH’s Jurisdiction. 6.2.13 City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department (SLT) El Dorado LAFCO affirmed the SOI for the City in 2016 via Resolution No. L-2016-03. The City’s SOI surrounds its boundary area and extends from Lake Tahoe on the north to SR 89 south of Meyers on the south, and from Lake Tahoe Boulevard/North Upper Truckee Road on the west to the Nevada state line on the east. The City’s SOI is larger than its actual boundary and the SOI encompasses 13,956 acres and includes 11,391 parcels. LAFCO’s 2016 MSR/SOI Update and the City’s General Plan Background Report indicate that the Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LAV) services a few areas within the City boundary as well as the area within the City’s SOI. There appears to be overlap in services. 6.2.14 Community Service Area 3 (CSA 3) CSA 3 comprises approximately 161,007 acres or 251.57 square miles. CSA 3 was formed in 1963 by Resolution 9-63 of the County of El Dorado Board of Supervisors (County Board). El Dorado LAFCO last affirmed the Sphere of Influence (SOI) for CSA 3 in September 2011 via Resolution L-2011-09. The SOI for County Service Area 3 is coterminous with its current boundaries. The CSA serves all of the incorporated and unincorporated areas in the County of El Dorado on the east slope of the County, in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The area includes the communities of Meeks Bay, Fallen Leaf, South Lake Tahoe, Meyers, Phillips, Twin Bridges, and Kirkwood. The fire agencies located within this CSA include: • Lake Valley Fire Protection District • Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District • The City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department 6.2.15 Community Service Area 7 (CSA 7) CSA 7 comprises approximately 982,100 acres or 1,534.53 square miles. CSA 7 was formed in 1976 by Resolution No. 316-76 of the County Board. El Dorado LAFCO most recently affirmed the Sphere of Influence (SOI) for CSA 7 in September 2011 via Resolution No. L-2011-09. The SOI for CSA 7 is coterminous with its current boundaries. The CSA serves all of the incorporated and unincorporated areas in the County of El Dorado on the west slope of the County beginning from roughly Twin Bridges on Highway 50. The area includes the communities of Strawberry, Sciots Camp, Kyburz, White Hall, Pollock Pines, Camino, Quinlette, Volcanoville, Georgetown, Grizzly Flat, Omo Ranch, Mosquito, Smith Flat, Garden Valley, Spanish Flat, Kelsey, Cold Springs, Placerville, Happy Valley, Coloma, Lotus, Newtown, Pleasant Valley, Somerset, Fairplay, Outingdale, Mt. Aukum, Coyoteville, Nashville, Diamond Springs, El Dorado, Frenchtown, Latrobe, Shingle Springs, Rescue, Pilot Hill, Cool, El Dorado Hills, Cameron Park, and Greenwood. The fire agencies located within CSA 7 include: • Cameron Park Community Services District • El Dorado Hills County Water District (consolidated with Latrobe FPD in 2014) • El Dorado County Fire Protection District Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-10 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District • Georgetown Fire Protection District • Garden Valley Fire Protection District • Mosquito Fire Protection District • Pioneer Fire Protection District • Rescue Fire Protection District 6.3 Existing Services and Infrastructure A brief review of existing services and infrastructure for fire protection and emergency medical services agencies in the County will help to inform the Sphere of Influence (SOI) discussion including any proposed changes in SOI or boundary adjustments between fire agencies. This section details a countywide overview of staffing and infrastructure for fire agencies in the County divided into the West Slope and the Tahoe Basin geographic areas. A total of 55 fire stations are located throughout the County. Some stations have historically been solely volunteer stations while others have been consistently operated by full-time personnel. On the West Slope, there are 46 stations, while there are 9 stations in the Tahoe Basin side of the County. 6.3.1 Station Staffing West Slope Nine fire agencies provide fire protection and emergency medical services on the West Slope including seven fire protection districts, one county water district, and one community services district. All agencies own and staff at least one fire station. Appendix G lists the agency, station number, address, and staffing status for all fire stations in the County for 2020. Stations are staffed either full-time (24/7/365), part-time and/or seasonally, or not staffed at all. For this analysis, career versus volunteer staffing is not analyzed. Some of the stations that are not staffed as of 2020 were historically staffed by volunteers. As shown in Figure 6-1, based on information gathered by consultants from each fire agency in 2020, 19 stations are staffed full time, 18 are not staffed, and eight are staffed part-time or seasonally. Figure 6-1: Percent of Stations Staffed versus Not Staffed on the West Slope 18% 42% Staffed Full-time Not Staffed Staffed Part-time/Seasonally 40% Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-11 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Of the stations that are not staffed, nine (55 percent) were historically staffed by volunteers. In the 2010 Fire and Emergency Services Study (FESS) conducted by Citygate, it was determined that approximately 300 volunteers were available to the County for daily minimum staffing. It was also noted that all fire agencies reported active volunteer associations. For this MSR/SOI Update, consultants found that only the following agencies still utilize volunteers: • Cameron Park Community Services District (CAM) • Garden Valley Fire Protection District (GRV) • Georgetown Fire Protection District (GEO) • Mosquito Fire Protection District (MQT) • Pioneer Fire Protection District (PIO) • Rescue Fire Protection District (RES) Of the agencies that still utilize volunteers, it is estimated that approximately 150 volunteers are available countywide. This is significantly less than the roughly 300 volunteers that were available throughout the County in 2010. Though nine of the 18 stations were historically staffed by volunteers, they are no longer staffed. This lack of coverage may exacerbate the two points made by the 2010 FESS: 1) The resources for the most part are very widely spaced, meaning the initial crew is very limited in serious emergencies and has to wait for resources from a distance or for volunteers to arrive; and 2) Given the light staffing per resource and the wide station spacing, serious fires may not get enough total firefighters quickly enough, which means the fire grows to greater alarms. With the loss of volunteers at these nine stations, it is likely that the already identified “wide station spacing” is worsened by stations that are no longer staffed, even with volunteers. Figure 6-2 shows station locations and staffing status of each station in 2020. The stations that are “Staffed During Fire Season” are CAL FIRE or USFS stations, or they are staffed seasonally by these two entities through agreements with a fire agency in the County. Stations that are “Staffed Part Time” are staffed by that agency either with career firefighters or volunteers and are not staffed 24/7/365. Stations that are “Staffed” are staffed 24/7/365 by career firefighters and/or volunteers; and stations that are “Not Staffed” do not have any staff, either volunteers or paid personnel, deployed from the station. Many of the unstaffed stations are scattered throughout the West Slope and are used to house equipment and apparatus. The largest gap between staffed stations appears to be along the US Highway 50 Corridor from ECF Station No. 17 in Pollock Pines to LAV Station No. 7 in Meyers. Three agencies in the County own multiple stations within their boundaries, but only staff one station. Not only are 42 percent of County stations not staffed, most fire agencies within the County also do not meet minimum national standards for staffing levels on apparatus during shifts at the stations that are staffed. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-12 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 6-2: Station Locations and Staffing Status, 2020 * Historically Volunteer GIS Data from El Dorado LAFCO, property of the County of El Dorado Surveyor’s Office. Not to scale. t Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-13 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Tahoe Basin Three agencies provide fire and emergency medical services in the Tahoe Basin which is comprised of two fire protection districts and one City. All agencies in the Tahoe Basin own and staff at least one fire station as listed in Appendix G. Stations are staffed either full-time (24/7/365), Part-time and/or seasonally, or not staffed at all. For this analysis, career versus volunteer staffing is not analyzed. As shown in Figure 6- 3 based on information gathered by consultants from each fire agency, six stations are staffed full time, two are not staffed, and two are staffed part-time or seasonally. Figure 6-3: Percent of Stations Staffed versus Not Staffed in the Tahoe Basin 20% Staffed Full-time Not Staffed 60% Staffed Part-time/Seasonally 20% None of the fire agencies in the Tahoe Basin utilize volunteers. LAV is considering restarting its volunteer program within the next few years due to local citizens expressing an interest in volunteering. The distribution of stations and staffing status in the Tahoe Basin can be seen in Figure 6-2. Due to the high number of staffed stations, the Tahoe Basin appears to have adequate coverage, though it should be noted that the topography, seasonal variability of weather and visitor traffic, and narrow two-lane mountain roads can make access to areas challenging. 6.3.2 Staffing Levels As discussed in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire and Emergency Medical Services Agency MSR General Information, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1710 for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments recommends departments operate under a (4-0) staffing model, meaning four firefighters on an engine. Through conversations with the fire chiefs in the County as well as preliminary research into staffing statewide, consultants found that, though not ideal, many fire agencies throughout the State are only able to provide (3-0) staffing, meaning three firefighters on an engine. This loss of one firefighter per engine has become a minimum acceptable standard due to budgetary constraints for many rural and underfunded fire agencies. Research outlined in Volume II - Chapter 1, suggests that the safest option is for (4-0) staffing, which allows responding crews to immediately begin fire suppression tactics upon arrival and safely enter structure fires without needing to wait for assistance. Although a (3-0) staffing model is not acceptable by NFPA 1710, some fire suppression tactics are able to begin with this model when compared to even lower staffing models. In Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-14 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final addition, many fire chiefs in the County, through interviews with consultants, acknowledged that (3-0) staffing, though not meeting with the NFPA 1710 standards, has become the minimum acceptable level for many fire service providers throughout the state. Thus, consultants used (3-0) staffing as a minimum standard when reviewing staffing levels for fire agencies in the County. In addition, two agencies in the County have determined that the standard for NFPA 1720 as Combination Fire Departments is applicable to their district. NFPA 1720 is the Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Volunteer Fire Departments. This standard is also relevant to combination fire departments. Combination fire departments are defined by NFPA 1720 as departments which have emergency service personnel comprising less than 85 percent majority of either volunteer or career staff. Staffing requirements for NFPA 1720 can be found in Volume II - Chapter 1. These two agencies have indicated to consultants that minimum staffing in demand zones based on response times for these districts meet the objective standards outlined in NFPA 1720. As shown in Table 6-1, ten (77 percent) fire agencies in the County are not meeting the minimum standard of (3-0) staffing some or all of the time. Table 6-1: Agency and Staffing Model (2020) Agency Staffing Model West Slope CAM 2-0 DSP 3-0/4-0 ECF 2-0/3-0 EDH 3-0/4-0 GEO Combined* (1-0) GRV Volunteer* (1-0) MQT Combined* (2-0/3-0) PIO 1-0† RES 2-0 Tahoe Basin FLL 2-0 LAV 2-0 MEK 2-0 SLT 3-0/4-0 Source: Interviews with Fire Chiefs for each agency by consultants *GEO, GRV, and MQT each operate as a combination or volunteer fire department under NFPA 1720. More information can be found in the MSR Chapter for these Districts. † PIO does not meet NFPA 1710 or 1720 standards. On the West Slope, four fire agencies do not meet minimum staffing requirements for career fire departments under NFPA 1710 some or all of the time. Three fire agencies are operating at or above NFPA 1710 standards some or all of the time. Three agencies operate as combination or volunteer fire agencies under NFPA 1720. Those agencies that are combination or volunteer fire departments as defined under NFPA 1720 are operating at the NFPA 1720 standards but have expressed challenges retaining volunteers Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-15 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final over the long term. The Fire Chief for PIO informed consultants that it is not possible for the District to meet the staffing requirements of NFPA 1710 or 1720 (Chief Whitt, personal communication, April 11, 2022). In order to meet OSHA requirements as outlined Volume II - Chapter 1, the fire agencies operating with less than three firefighters to an engine would need to wait for aid or resources from another station when responding to structure fires before entering the building. As discussed in Volume I - Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure, dispatch will send out the closest resource based on the Response Plans regardless of agency and based on the location of resources at the time of the dispatch. Response Plans also set standards for the number of resources dispatched per incident type. This system leads to more resources being dispatched for certain calls for certain fire agencies when compared to others. If a fire agency has two personnel per engine, that agency’s Response Plan may require more engines dispatched from neighboring agencies to certain call types versus a fire agency that has four personnel per engine and would likely not require as many additional engines for the same call type. CAL FIRE Camino ECC staff acknowledges that if each fire agency within the County were staffed at the minimum standard (3-0) model (three firefighting personnel per engine) then fewer resources would need to be dispatched per incident. This would allow for more resources to be available for other incidents; increase the County fire agencies’ ability to respond to simultaneous incidents; reduce the amount of liability for the fire agencies responding; as well as minimize the wear and tear on equipment (CAL FIRE Assistant Chief Newman, personal communication, December 2020). In the Tahoe Basin, only SLT operates at the minimum standard (3-0) model and also provides some level of staffing at NFPA 1710 standards. The remaining three agencies operate below minimum standards and would need to wait for aid in order to meet OSHA requirements. Fire agencies in the Tahoe Basin operate together under the Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chiefs’ Association Agreement (LTRFCA) and through automatic dispatch. Member agencies in the LTRFCA provide support and aid for up to 24 hours to agencies within two hours distance at no charge. This allows for the three agencies with lower staffing to receive aid when needed through automatic aid or requested aid. As discussed in the 2010 FESS, though the Tahoe Basin was not analyzed in great detail for this report, it is likely that this area of the County has a “weight of attack” problem. Due to lack of available mutual aid data, consultants could not look further into this issue. According to research conducted by the California Office of Emergency Service Firefighting Resources of Southern California Organized for Potential Emergencies (Cal OES FIRESCOPE), agencies of medium to smaller size can be challenged to maintain geographical coverage at times of increased emergency activity. Even under normal threat levels, a fairly routine call for service can deplete the availability of their resources and result in a degree of drawdown. If an incident becomes prolonged or requires the commitment of resources beyond the initial response, the agencies capabilities can be affected. In the case of some smaller agencies, a single resource committed to an incident can result in extreme drawdown and challenge their ability to meet their basic jurisdictional coverage responsibilities (Cal OES, 2020). On the West Slope, this could account for the variations in the amount of automatic aid provided to some agencies when compared to others. As discussed within each agency MSR Chapter, due to the automatic aid system dispatching the closest available resource to any call, it is difficult to draw any specific conclusions from the amounts of aid provide and received between agencies. Consultants have found that a more detailed analysis of automatic aid is needed to determine the reasoning for variation Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-16 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final in aid received versus provided between fire agencies in the County, factoring in the location of calls in relation to available resources at the time for each agency. It is not clear how low staffing affects agencies in the Tahoe Basin as mutual aid request data was not available in any detail from South Lake Tahoe Dispatch as described in Volume I – Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. Recommendation: Consultants recommend an update to the 2010 Fire and Emergency Services Study be conducted to review possible reasons for the variations in automatic aid for the West Slope factoring in location of calls in relation to available resources at the time for each agency. 6.3.3 Agency Services The West Slope and Tahoe Basin fire agencies provide a wide range of services within their boundaries and for their communities. Table 6-2 on the next page shows the services provided by each agency or other agencies that provide those services. The table is based on the information each agency provided to consultants for their MSR Chapter. Some agencies have the capacity and training to handle all types of services, while others have formed partnerships or entered into contracts with neighboring agencies or other providers to assist with providing those services. For example, CAM has a “Schedule A” contract with CAL FIRE therefore, CAL FIRE provides all fire protection and emergency medical services within the CAM service area. Many agencies work with the El Dorado County HAZMAT team for hazardous materials and many agencies coordinate with each other to meet training requirements. For example, MQT, GRV, and GEO are sharing personnel and resources between agencies. In the Tahoe Basin MEK has two joint agreements with North Tahoe Fire Protection District (NTF) in which NTF provides all fire protection and emergency medical services within the MEK service area. Overall, agencies within the County collaborate with each other or work individually to provide all-risk emergency services to residents and visitors in the County. 6.3.4 Infrastructure & Equipment As mentioned previously in this MSR/SOI Update, there are 55 fire stations in the County of El Dorado operated by the 13 fire agencies. This number does not include CAL FIRE and USFS stations. Consultants are aware of 23 stations (approximately 42 percent) that were built during or before the 1980s. Many stations are not up to modern seismic standards, and some cannot house modern apparatus. Some fire agencies have infrastructure replacement and maintenance plans that include funding while others have not provided any information regarding infrastructure replacement or maintenance to consultants. It appears that the majority of fire agencies have at least one station; the fire agency main station that meets seismic codes and is adequate to house staff and equipment. Information on existing infrastructure and deficiencies per agency can be found in each agency’s MSR Chapter in Volume II of this report. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-17 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 6-2: Services provided by Each Fire Agency within Their Jurisdictional Boundary (2020) Service CAM DSP ECF EDH FLL GRV GEO LAV MEK MQT PIO RES SLT LAV, CAL Structural Fire CAL GRV, GEO, DSP ECF EDH JPA GEO FIRE, NTF MQT PIO RES JPA Protection FIRE MQT, ECF USFS GRV, GEO, ECF, GEO, Wildland Fire CAL MQT, ECF, MQT, CAL PIO, CAL DSP CAL EDH FLL CAL LAV NTF RES SLT Protection FIRE CALFIRE, FIRE FIRE FIRE FIRE USFS Emergency CAL Medical DSP ECF EDH FLL JPA GEO LAV NTF JPA JPA JPA SLT FIRE Response MQT, ECF, GRV, GEO, Rescue/ CAL DSP DSP ECF EDH FLL MQT, ECF, GEO LAV NTF PIO RES SLT Extrication FIRE (Technical USFS rescue) GRV, GEO, Hazardous CAL ECF, DSP EDH FLL MQT, ECF, GEO LAV NTF MQT, EDC PIO EDC SLT Materials FIRE Others USFS MQT and GRV, GEO, CAL FLL, LAV, jointly with RES, Training DSP ECF EDH MQT, GEO NTF PIO SLT FIRE Other TFFT other fire EDH CALFIRE districts Fire Safety CAL FLL, DSP ECF EDH GRV GEO LAV NTF MQT PIO EDH SLT Education FIRE Other MQT and EDSO/ Arson CAL FLL, Regional DSP ECF EDH None GEO LAV NTF County FPO EDH SLT Investigations FIRE Other Team Investigation Team Source: Responses from each agency to Requests for Information (RFIs) Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-18 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final There are approximately 204 apparatus and light vehicles in service with a status as either active, reserve, or surplus by the 13 fire agencies in the County based on agency responses to the Requests for Information sent by consultants in October 2020 (RFIs). Of those 204 apparatus, 22 apparatus and/or light vehicles (or 11 percent) are over 25 years of age as shown in Volume I - Appendix J. Any apparatus not manufactured to applicable NFPA standards or over 25 years of age, per NFPA 1911 Annex “D,” is recommended to be retired from service. It is recommended that apparatus more than 15 years old that have been properly maintained and are still in serviceable condition be placed in reserve status; be upgraded in accordance with NFPA 1912; and incorporate as many features as possible for the current fire apparatus standard (NFPA, 2017). There are 71 apparatus and/or light vehicles (35 percent) that are over 15 years old. Of those, 23 are identified as either “surplus” or “reserve” status suggesting that 48 pieces of equipment are still in active service beyond the acceptable standard recommended by the NFPA. All of the vehicles over 25 years of age are located on the West Slope and owned by ECF, RES, PIO and GEO. Many of the vehicles over 25 years of age for ECF are listed as “surplus” vehicles. Consultants were informed during interviews by multiple fire chiefs that the number of ladder trucks in the County may be insufficient. Three ladder trucks are in operation on the West Slope and one in the Tahoe Basin area of the County. When a fire breaks out in a multi-story building, a ladder truck is used to get firefighters to the higher floors. Insurance Services Office (ISO), Section 540 of the ISO Fire Suppression Rating Schedule specifically states, “Response areas with 5 buildings that are 3 stories or 35 feet or more in height, or [have] 5 buildings that have a Needed Fire Flow greater than 3,500 gpm, or any combination of these criteria, should have a ladder company" (ISO, 2012). In addition, the NFPA Handbook, 20th edition makes the following recommendations: • High-hazard occupancies (schools, hospitals, nursing homes, high-rise buildings): at least four pumpers, two ladder trucks, and other specialized apparatus as may be identified or available for the hazard. • Medium-hazard occupancies (apartments, offices, mercantile and industrial occupancies not normally requiring extensive rescue or firefighting capabilities): at least three pumpers, one ladder truck, and other specialized apparatus as may be identified or available. • Low-hazard occupancies (one-, two-, or three-family dwellings and scattered businesses and industrial occupancies): at least two pumpers, one ladder truck, and other specialized apparatus as may be identified or available. • Rural operations (scattered dwellings, small businesses, and farm buildings): at least one pumper with a large water tank (500 gallons or more), one mobile water supply apparatus (1,000-gallon or larger tank), and other specialized apparatus as may be necessary to perform effective initial firefighting operations (NFPA, 2021). The three ladder trucks on the West Slope are located at the following stations: • DSP Station No. 49 – 501 Pleasant Valley Road, Diamond Springs • ECF Station No. 26 – 730 Main Street, Placerville • EDH Station No. 85 – 1050 Wilson Boulevard, El Dorado Hills Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-19 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Of the three ladder trucks on the West Slope, one ladder truck is over 25 years old. The County of El Dorado single family residential zoning code allows single family structures in all zones of 40 feet to 50 feet in height (EDC, 2019). In addition, many communities throughout the County have buildings over one story and some were built during the Gold Rush era. With one major hospital, multiple nursing homes, and multiple schools, additional ladder trucks may be needed in the event of multi-story and high-hazard occupancy structure fires in the County, especially if more than one of these events were to occur at any one time. Overall, infrastructure and equipment countywide could use some improvement. It is important for staffed fire stations to be meet modern seismic standards so that first responders are safe during large seismic events and can respond to emergencies when those events subside. Equipment should be phased out according to NFPA standards and new or upgraded equipment be purchased for replacement. This ensures equipment is adequate and functional for personnel when responding to emergencies. In addition, the limited number of ladder trucks throughout the County may pose a risk for high-hazard and multi-story incidents. Recommendation: Consultants recommend that an update to the 2010 Fire and Emergency Services Study be conducted to determine if there is a need for additional ladder trucks in the County. 6.4 Sphere of Influence Update Options As part of the SOI Update, consultants were directed by LAFCO staff to provide analysis for three SOI options for the Commission to consider. These three options are: Option 1 – Maintain Existing SOIs and Friendly SOI Changes Option 2 – Establish a West Slope Fire Authority Option 3 – Boundary Adjustments Consultants and LAFCO staff are recommending the Commission consider approval of Option 1 – Maintain Existing SOIs and Friendly SOI Changes. Consultants have provided proposed determinations for this option. The two additional options are presented to the Commission for discussion purposes. These options offer possible avenues of study in future MSR/SOI Updates and future reports that could be commissioned by the County or LAFCO. Because the SOIs for the CSAs are coterminous with their current boundaries and encompass the entirety of the County of El Dorado, no further discussion of the CSA SOIs will be included in this analysis. Determinations for the CSAs will be provided following those for the fire agencies. Historical Consolidation Discussions It is important to consider past efforts by fire agencies to consolidate. Past MSR/SOI Updates by LAFCO have included details about discussions and actions taken by certain fire agencies in the consideration of consolidations or other reorganizations. Since the 2011 Countywide Fire Suppression and Emergency Services Municipal Service Review (2011 MSR), only one district has successfully merged into another – El Dorado Hills County Water District (EDH) annexed the Latrobe Fire Protection District in 2014. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-20 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final In the 2011 MSR, LAFCO discussed the financial impediments experienced by the fire agencies not only to provide adequate services into the future, but also as a barrier to consolidation or reorganization efforts. In the past, LAFCO identified the biggest impediment to some consolidation efforts as the “Skeleton Phenomenon.” This is defined as the lack of finances driving the need to consolidate, but there is nothing to suggest that the consolidated agency would be better off financially than its predecessors. LAFCO describes the best avenue for financial solvency through a consolidation is for the fire agencies to have the opportunity to negotiate a higher property tax increment during the AB-8 process when they apply to LAFCO to consolidate. However, this hinges on the County Board of Supervisors’ willingness to reallocate respective property tax increments for other property tax recipients to accommodate a higher rate for the fire agencies and “overcoming history.” As discussed in Volume I – Chapter 5, Countywide Finances, a majority of fire agencies throughout the County are in a “Limited” or “Deficient” position. Lack of financial stability for many of the fire agencies exacerbates consolidation discussions and has been seen as a barrier to consolidation in the past. While many agencies have taken some steps over the last ten years to share in services or resources, there has not been much meaningful action towards consolidations for the majority of the fire agencies. Table 6-3 below outlines which agencies have discussed consolidations with other agencies, which fire chiefs have contemplated consolidations, or which agencies have had discussions regarding Schedule A contracts with the CAL FIRE Amador-El Dorado Unit (CAL FIRE) over the last 10 years. It is important to note that this is not an exhaustive list, but represents a compilation of information provided to consultants through information requests, conversations with staff of individual agencies, and through research of past study sessions by LAFCO. Table 6-3: Consolidation Considerations Between Fire Agencies Since the 2011 MSR Agency Some discussions or in contemplation with… CAM CAL FIRE DSP EDH, ECF, RES, and CAL FIRE EDH DSP, ECF, and RES ECF DSP and GRV FLL LAV GRV ECF, GEO, CAL FIRE, and MQT GEO GRV and CAL FIRE LAV FLL and SLT MEK North Tahoe Fire Protection District (NTF) MQT GRV, ECF PIO Amador Fire Protection District (AMC) RES DSP and EDH SLT LAV All fire agencies in the County have had consolidation discussions or informally contemplated consolidation with neighboring agencies or CAL FIRE. In most cases, agencies have considered consolidation efforts with more than one neighbor. CAL FIRE represents another important player within the landscape of discussing SOIs and consolidation or reorganization efforts by County agencies. In the past, CAL FIRE has been approached by numerous fire agencies to discuss various levels of service agreements between these agencies and CAL FIRE. Currently, only CAM operates with a contract through Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-21 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final CAL FIRE. CAL FIRE has a prominent presence in the County as evidenced by the amount of automatic aid CAL FIRE provided to the fire agencies in 2019, and the large extent of the State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) within the County. CAL FIRE provided approximately 46 percent of all automatic aid tracked by the CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center in 2019. More information on CAL FIRE automatic aid can be found in Volume I – Appendix D. 6.4.1 Option No. 1 – Maintian Existing SOI’s and Friendly SOI Changes Option No. 1 recommends that the existing Sphere’s of Influence for CAM, DSP, ECF, FLL, GRV, GEO, LAV, MQT, PIO, and SLT remain unchanged. Discussions have progressed with EDH and RES to the point that both agencies are supportive of SOI changes towards reorganization efforts. MEK is currently in negotiations with NTF for a future consolidation and are supportive of SOI changes. For the remaining nine agencies, this option follows along a similar thought process for the 2011 MSR which can be summed up as “let the fire agencies find solutions together.” Zero Sphere for RES and Expansion of EDH’s SOI to Include RES District & SOI Area. Volume II – Agency MSRs, Chapters 5 and 13 are the MSRs for EDH and RES respectively and contain details as to district formation, boundary, government structure, population and land use, disadvantaged communities, finances, and the provision of fire protection and emergency medical facilities and services provided by each District. Figure 6-4 shows the existing district boundaries and SOIs for EDH and RES. Over the past several years, RES has experienced inadequate revenue and increasing costs associated with the provisions of fire protection and emergency medical services. In an effort to share resources and reduce costs, the District entered into a Shared Services Agreement with EDH in October 2013. This agreement was later revised to include the sharing of the EDH Fire Chief between the two districts. Today, RES receives the following services as part of the Shared Services Agreement: Fire Chief, Administrative support, Finance Director, Human Resources Director, Fire Marshal, Duty Battalion Chiefs, Backup Chief Officer coverage, and legal services support. This Agreement has provided for cost savings for RES, but has not provided for a more efficient service level for RES and EDH, in that two separate systems must still be maintained. The Rescue Professional Firefighters’ Association has agreed to a contract extension with no raises in an effort to assist with the impact on the budget for RES. This Shared Services Agreement was extended in 2019 for five additional years, at which time the decision to continue will be reevaluated (LAFCO, 2020a). Effectively, these agencies have been operating under what the 2010 FESS describes as a “functional consolidation.” Both agencies are proposing a reorganization to formalize the shared operations between EDH and RES into a single agency. A full annexation of RES into EDH would eliminate existing duplications between the two agencies and create more efficiency. As part of the proposed reorganization process, EDH would annex RES and assume the responsibility of providing fire protection and emergency medical services in Rescue’s service territory. EDH would also assume all of RES’s assets and financial obligations, and RES would cease to exist. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-22 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 6-4: Existing District Boundary and SOI for EDH and RES Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-23 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final EDH staff have expressed to consultants that this action will increase the level of service to the community of Rescue while providing for a more efficient and flexible operational deployment model overall (LAFCO, 2020a). In addition, those communities and areas currently serviced by RES would benefit from EDH’s regional and specialized resources, while EDH would benefit from the additional Advanced Life Support Engine Company that would be staffed within RES’s jurisdiction. A Feasibility Study and Proposal for Annexation was completed in April of 2019 to provide a comprehensive evaluation of both agencies, the communities served, fire service best practices, and long- term sustainability. The study found that annexation will maximize the efficient utilization of resources and ensure the highest possible level of emergency response services to the citizens of both Rescue and El Dorado Hills, now and well into the future (EDH, 2019a). One major benefit of annexation as compared to the existing Shared Services Agreement relates to control of future cost increases. After annexation, the EDH and RES will be one agency and all future decisions will be made looking at the financial realities of the newly combined agency. At the time of this report being submitted, both Boards have authorized the Fire Chief to file a Notice of Intent with LAFCO. As a first step towards the proposed reorganization, this MRS/SOI Update recommends the Commission adopt a Zero Sphere for RES’s SOI and expand EDH’s SOI to include the RES Boundary and SOI. Figure 6-5 and Figure 6-6 show the proposed changes to EDH’s SOI and RES’s SOI. RES would no longer have a sphere of influence and EDH’s existing SOI would be expanded to include those areas of the RES Boundary and SOI. Table 6-4 shows the changes in acreage and number of parcels in EDH and RES’s SOI. Through this action, the Commission would show support for the eventual annexation of RES into EDH when the two agencies file for reorganization in the immediate future. In order for the Commission to make changes to an agency’s SOI, specific determinations need to be made. Those determinations for RES and EDH can be found in Section 6.5, Determinations. Table 6-4: Proposed New Acreage and Number of Parcels in EDH SOI and RES SOI District Boundary District SOI Total Boundary and SOI El Dorado Hills County Water District Total Acres 50,798 26,786 77,584 Square Miles 79.4 41.9 121.3 Number of Assessor Parcels 20,704 2,997 23,701 Rescue Fire Protection District Total Acres 21,385 0 21,385 Square Miles 33.4 0 33.4 Number of Assessor Parcels 2,852 0 2,852 Source: EDC GIS Data, 2020 Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-24 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 6-5: RES Boundary and Proposed Zero SOI Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-25 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 6-6: EDH Boundary and Proposed EDH SOI Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-26 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Addendum – New Information from RES/EDH Consultants and LAFCO staff were informed by the EDH Fire Chief on April 11, 2022 that the EDH Board of Directors held a special meeting on April 4, 2022. The Board voted to take three actions regarding the RES Annex and Shared Services Agreement: 1. Rescind the Letter of Intent to Annex; 2. Notify RES of EDH’s intent to terminate the Shared Services Agreement; and 3. Meet with the RES Board of Directors to discuss the terms of a Transitional Services Agreement. The review conducted by consultants of Rescue Fire Protection District, as outlined in the MSR Chapter for the District, was based on the proposed annexation with EDH and the prior shared services agreement between the two agencies. As a result of this new information, consultants recommend that LAFCO conduct a Municipal Service Review of RES within 3 years of this report. In addition, based on the Feasibility Study and Proposal for Annexation completed in 2019, consultants recommend that the Commission approve the proposed SOI changes for both EDH and RES as detailed within this report to codify a future annexation between these two agencies. Zero Sphere for MEK for Future Annexation to NTF Volume II – Agency MSRs, Chapter 10 is the MSR for MEK and contains details as to the ability for MEK to provide services including district formation, boundary, government structure, population and land use, disadvantaged communities, finances, and the provision of fire protection and emergency medical facilities and services provided. Figure 6-7 on the next page shows the existing district boundary and SOI for MEK. MEK has two agreements with North Tahoe Fire Protection District (NTF). The first is an agreement between MEK and NTF for fire services management. The second is the employee unification agreement providing safety personnel and employee association unification between NTF and MEK. The entire staff for MEK is employed by NTF as of November 2021 when the former Clerk for MEK retired (LAFCO, 2020a). In the past several years, the District has taken several actions to save money, lower expenses or improve services at the same costs. Specifically, through service agreements with NTF, the District has adopted a priority driven budget process, and large capital purchases are conducted in concert with NTF and/or purchasing groups to achieve economy of scale savings (LAFCO, 2020a). MEK participates in automatic and mutual aid agreements through its contract with NTF. As indicated in the 2018 Performance Review and Examination of Alternative Governance Models Report conducted by Emergency Services Consulting International (ESCI), most economy of scale and efficiency savings have already been gained using the existing agreements with NTF (NTF and MEK, 2018). Aside from consolidation, there are no additional work tasks that could be further reduced as a cost savings measure (LAFCO, 2020a). Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-27 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 6-7: Existing District Boundary and SOI for MEK Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-28 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The 2018 Performance Review and Examination of Alternative Governance Models Report outlines potential actions by LAFCO or others that could assist in addressing challenges faced by MEK (NTF and MEK, 2018). One option described is the legal unification of MEK and NTF as a reorganization and annexation (LAFCO, 2020a). This proposed consolidation of administration and board governance through legal unification would further eliminate duplication of services, such as the cost of running a separate MEK Board of Directors, along with their associated election costs and health insurance costs. The following information was provided in the report to summarize the recommendations by ESCI, the consulting firm that created the study: • ESCI recommends that both Districts take the necessary steps to initiate the legal unification process. • The legal unification would eliminate duplication of governance and further enhance economy of scale. • The Districts should meet to negotiate all pertinent matters to be included in terms and conditions of the legal unification. • Formation of the new district would result in all employees starting over in their pension and benefit packages. Therefore, it is recommended the legal unification occur as a reorganization with one district annexing into the other. • Given the size and capabilities of the NTF, the logical approach is to achieve legal unification through a reorganization by annexing the MEK into NTF. • The Districts should pass substantially similar resolutions of application to LAFCO which include relevant terms and conditions. • The Districts should develop informational material regarding the benefits of legal unification and to answer questions. This material should be distributed both internally and externally. • The District should conduct informational public workshops. (NTF and MEK, 2018) Based on the data presented in the District’s MSR Chapter, MEK is able to provide adequate service to the residents of the District due to the existing agreements with NFT. It has been identified in the 2018 Performance Review and Examination of Alternative Governance Models Report that both MEK and NTF would benefit from consolidation by annexing MEK into NTF. NTF and MEK for all intents and purposes (with the exception of governance and budgets) are operating as one agency (NTF and MEK, 2018). As discussed in the 2018 Performance Review and Examination of Alternative Governance Models Report, the April 5, 2014 and December 16, 2015 agreements between MEK and NTF have resulted in enhanced service to the Meeks Bay community, with improved training and equipment, and a depth of resources not previously enjoyed. The prior agreements between the two Districts have produced significant cost savings through the reduction of duplicate command and administrative staff positions. MEK has an extremely low call volume, however the risk to life and assessed property valuation warrants a staffed station. Given the size, call volume, and budget of MEK, the possibility of the District remaining as a standalone entity does not seem to be justified (NTF and MEK, 2018). Consultants performed a preliminary analysis with broad assumptions in order to project when expenses might outpace revenues for the MEK as detailed in Volume II – Agency MSRs, Chapter 10. Assuming the Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-29 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final trends as described, the District will exhaust its reserve fund by FY 2023/2024 and will not be able to operate without additional external revenue. District expenses currently outpace revenues with the District running out of reserve funds available to cover revenue shortfalls within the next four years. The projections suggest an urgency for the District to consolidate with NTF as soon as possible. Through conversations between consultants, LAFCO, and the MEK Board, the District has agreed to LAFCO’s adoption of a zero sphere as a first step towards a proposed reorganization with NTF. This decision was relayed to LAFCO during the District’s Board Hearing on October 27, 2021. El Dorado LAFCO and Placer LAFCO have been in communication to ease the transition of MEK into NTF. This MRS/SOI Update recommends the Commission adopt a Zero Sphere for MEK’s SOI in anticipation of future annexation into NTF. Figure 6-8 on the next page shows the proposed change to MEK’s SOI to remove the Sphere of Influence. Through this action, the Commission would show support for the eventual annexation of MEK into NTF when the two agencies file for reorganization in the future. In order for the Commission to make changes to an agency’s SOI, specific determinations need to be made. Those determinations for MEK can be found in Section 6.5, Determinations. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-30 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 6-8: Proposed Zero Sphere of Influence for MEK Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-31 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Retain Existing SOIs for CAM, DSP, ECF, FLL, GRV, GEO, LAV, MEK, MQT, PIO and SLT The 2011 Countywide Fire Suppression and Emergency Services MSR (2011 MSR) discussed the potential mergers of fire agencies and the need for some agencies to readjust their boundaries to reflect the resources on the ground, and to reduce some current disparities in the mutual aid system. Though the SOI discussion considered “Plan A” and “Plan B” as discussed in Volume I – Chapter 5, Countywide Finances, ultimately it was determined that it would be better for LAFCO to reaffirm the Spheres of Influence of the agencies and encourage dialogue to continue rather than recommend vast changes to the SOIs that could undermine these discussions. Since the 2011 MSR, as mentioned previously, only one fire agency has successfully annexed into another – Latrobe Fire Protection District was annexed into the El Dorado Hills County Water District. With the eminent annexation of RES into EDH and MEK into NTF, it is likely that in the near future, the number of fire agencies operating in the County will be reduced from 13 to 11. The 2010 Fire and Emergency Services Study (2010 FESS) produced by CityGate discusses approaches to reorganization that are available to fire agencies apart from full consolidation. The report suggests consolidation can take three basic forms: 1) Full: In a full consolidation, two or more agencies combine either through annexation or consolidation into a single fire agency or create a new fire agency. In this case, the fire agency has a single budget, all personnel are employees of this agency, and operations are under a single payroll, finance, personnel, and purchasing support system; 2) Functional: In a functional consolidation, two or more agencies share functions such as having a combined volunteer pool, sharing administrative functions, sharing equipment and stations, and/or reporting to a single chief. These types of shared functions can take the form of Joint Agreements between agencies; and 3) Contract: Under contract for services, one agency contracts with another for full fire protection and emergency medical services and pays for these services based on contract terms. The 2010 FESS found that it is not uncommon for fire agencies to use functional consolidation as an interim step to full consolidation to assess the viability of consolidation and to provide time for financing and political maneuvering in favor of future consolidation discussions. Through the course of collecting information for this MRS/SOI Update, many fire chiefs interviewed by consultants expressed working toward this path to full consolidation through the use of functional and contract opportunities as described above. Some agencies have taken steps to move towards consolidation with one of the three basic forms as follows: • CAM: has a five-year Schedule A contract with CAL FIRE for full fire services. CAL FIRE personnel provide emergency fire protection, emergency response, and basic life support medical services; paramedic level Advanced Life Support (ALS) services; and extended fire protection service availability. • DSP: None. • ECF: None. • FLL: None. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-32 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • GRV: entered into a Joint Operations Agreement with GEO and MQT. This agreement allows the three districts to share volunteers, equipment as necessary, and assist each other with coverage on a day-to-day basis. • GEO: entered into a Joint Operations Agreement with GRV and MQT. This agreement allows the three districts to share volunteers, equipment as necessary, and assist each other with coverage on a day-to-day basis. • LAV: None. • MQT: entered into a Joint Operations Agreement with GRV and GEO. This agreement allows the three districts to share volunteers, equipment as necessary, and assist each other with coverage on a day-to-day basis. • PIO: entered into a Joint Operations Agreement with Amador County Fire Protection District (AMC) in Amador County to share resources in order to staff stations. • SLT: None. Of the 13 fire agencies in the County, only five agencies have not taken any steps to move towards consolidation with their neighbors. Most noticeably, three of the four fire agencies operating in the Tahoe Basin do not have any existing agreements with their neighbors beyond the Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chiefs’ Association for mutual aid and agreements for automatic aid through dispatch. The interim steps that the agencies have taken above could lead to the following consolidations or annexations in the future are as follows: • PIO consolidates or annexes with AMC. • MQT, GRV, and GEO consolidate or annex (though it is important to note that the geographic location of MQT may make this financially prohibitive). Were these agreements to lead to consolidations or annexations in the future, it is possible for the number of fire agencies in the County to be reduced from the anticipated 11 to seven. Given the political landscape of the fire agencies in the County, it is not likely that forced consolidations or large sweeping moves by LAFCO will be met with anything but hostility by existing fire agencies, their board members, and the communities they serve. Since the 2011 MSR took a “wait and see” approach, there appears to be more collaboration between agencies just by virtue of lack of financial resources. Agencies are seeing the benefits of sharing equipment and staffing in order to reduce overhead costs. This is evidenced by the successful moves towards annexation made between RES and EDH, and MEK and NTF. Both pairs of agencies operated under a “functional” consolidation model for many years culminating into the changes to the SOIs as discussed above. It is possible that the financial constraints faced by many of the smaller, rural agencies in the County will organically move these agencies into reorganization discussions. The 2011 MSR as well as the 2019 LAFCO study session, noted that the fire agencies in the County on the West Slope, and to a smaller extent in the Tahoe Basin, are functionally consolidated. On the West Slope, the fire agencies coordinate through the Fire Chiefs Association and seamlessly through the automatic/mutual aid, boundary drop, closest resource dispatch system. One great attribute for the fire agencies in the County of El Dorado is that they all have close working relationships, are respectful of each other, and communicated to consultants a sense of comradery between each fire agency with the common goal to provide the highest level of service to residents of the County. The majority of the fire Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-33 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final chiefs interviewed for the preparation of this MSR/SOI Update did not suggest that the variation in agency responses to automatic aid are a hindrance or concern. Even those agencies that provided more aid to their neighbors than they received in 2019 tout the system as a benefit to the County. These relationships and the close coordination between agencies are a benefit to the County as evidenced through the continued success of the automatic dispatch system even with the wide disparities in aid received and provided between agencies as shown in Volume I - Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. These relationships are likely to further agencies organically coming to decisions, such as consolidation, to benefit their communities. The concluding analysis from the 2011 MSR, the 2019 LAFCO study session, and the 2010 FESS outlines the revenue availability for some fire agencies over others as one of the major barriers to consolidation. This MSR/SOI Update finds that the majority of the fire agencies are taking full advantage of alternative funding opportunities, including attempts to increase special taxes or assessments, and applying for grant funds. Unfortunately, as evidenced by the low staffing levels shown in Table 6-1 and the failure of recent attempts to increase special taxes and/or assessments outlined in Volume I – Chapter 5, Countywide Finances, many agencies are struggling to bring in enough revenue to meet the demands of a modern fire agency. Chapter 5 outlines alternative financing options that fire agencies as a collective or individually may consider pursuing. Growth within the County has predominantly occurred in the El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park Community Regions while tourism and agritourism, important economic drivers for the County, have grown significantly in areas east of the City of Placerville. This has led to large property tax disparities between fire agencies throughout the County and an unequal cost burden from visitors to areas in the County that receive lower amounts in property taxes. In addition, the County Board of Supervisors has chosen to redistribute funds that could be allocated for fire protection services, such as PILT and Proposition 172 funds (detailed in Chapter 5, Countywide Finances), to other County services. Though the County Board of Supervisors has recently redistributed Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues towards tourism impacts, which have included fire protection agencies, actions to redistribute funds in the past have likely contributed to some of the financial instability currently felt by many of the fire agencies. The County is a necessary partner in working to solve the financial difficulties facing many of the fire agencies and will play a key role in the Fire Summits described below. Fire Summits With this option, consultants recommend that LAFCO, the County of El Dorado, and the fire protection agencies in the County work together to host two Fire Summits, one on the West Slope and one in the Tahoe Basin. There have been many study sessions at El Dorado LAFCO regarding what options are available to support fire services in the County (LAFCO, 2019; 2020b). These sessions have brought many options to the table to try to craft a path forward for the County. Examples from other counties throughout the State have been proposed including how those models might be deployed in the County of El Dorado. LAFCO has put a considerable amount of time and energy into reviewing the challenges faced by the fire agencies in the County that provide fire protection and emergency medical services. Consultants see that there is a need for collaboration between all relevant parties to discuss these opportunities moving forward. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-34 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Currently, fire agencies in the County work very closely together to provide collaborative fire protection and emergency medical services. However, many agencies are facing difficult financial challenges as outlined in Volume I - Chapter 5, Countywide Finances, due to historic property tax allocations and lack of alternative revenue streams, such as Proposition 172 funds and Federal Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) funds. Agencies are providing the best services they can with limited financial resources and are taking full advantage of alternative financing options available to them. Consultants hope that through a collaborative effort, alternative financial opportunities may become more viable, such as the sales tax initiative passed in Amador County. In addition, the proposed Fire Summits would provide opportunities for the public to get a holistic view of fire protection and emergency medical services in the County and a better understanding of the challenges fire agencies face. Because of the close working relationships the agencies have with each other, it is likely that Fire Summits that include the County of El Dorado as well as LAFCO would bring forth positive solutions that can be supported by all parties involved. Discussion Topics Topics to consider for inclusion in the Fire Summit: • ERAF Funds Retained (2011 MSR “Plan A”) – Details in Volume I, Chapter 5, Section 5.5.1 • Adjustment to the CSA 7 Ambulance Services West Slope Special Tax (2011 MSR “Plan B”) – Details in Volume I, Chapter 5, Section 5.5.2 • Sales Tax Initiative (similar to Amador County) – Details in Volume I, Chapter 5, Section 5.5.3 • Option No. 2 – Establish a West Slope Fire Authority (similar to other County models such as San Diego) – Details in Volume I, Chapter 6, Section 6.4.2 • Willingness for Proposition 172 funds and PILT funds to be allotted for fire services in the future – Discussion of these funds in Volume I, Chapter 5, Section 5.2 • County funding as mechanism to entice agencies to consolidate (similar to Sonoma County) These topics are starting points for framing the discussion for the summit. It is important for all parties to come to the table knowing that there is no clear answer and that the work involved is a collaborative effort to find solutions for the financial difficulties facing the majority of the agencies. Summit Framework In order to provide the greatest opportunity for collaboration, consultants recommend that at least two summits be held, one for the West Slope agencies and one for the Tahoe Basin to kickstart discussions. As there are specific geographic and population constraints facing agencies in the Tahoe Basin, it would be more beneficial for a separate summit to be held for these agencies. In addition, the Tahoe Basin summit could benefit by including other agencies in neighboring counties and the State of Nevada. It is anticipated that these summits would be the starting point for a set of stakeholder collaboration and negotiations between fire agencies, the County, and LAFCO. Consultants recommend both Fire Summits be facilitated by a neutral third party with a basic knowledge of fire protection and emergency medical service issues and a general understanding of the problems facing each fire agency in the County. Prior to the Summits, consultants recommend that a stakeholder assessment be conducted, a financial forecast of the agencies in the “fair,” “limited,” and “deficient” Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-35 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final categories be created looking forward 5-10 years, and that a cost benefit analysis be produced to assess the viability of the West Slope Fire Authority discussed under Option No. 2 in the following section. In addition, the creation of a Process Design to outline the scope of each summit and stakeholder collaboration would provide all parties with an agreed upon roadmap. Stakeholder Collaboration It is likely that the stakeholder meetings would need to be conducted on a monthly basis for at least 10 sessions in order to continue the dialogue between all parties. Following the framework outlined here, two stakeholder groups would be created, one out of each Fire Summit. A key component of the stakeholder collaboration and negotiation meetings would be the inclusion of an economic/financial advisor who could quickly produce alternative financial scenarios for the group when discussing possible solutions. This way, possible solutions can be seriously considered, and multiple solutions could be combined to attempt to find the best outcome. It is anticipated that a member of each district’s board, LAFCO, the County, and any support staff would participate in stakeholder collaboration discussions. Public Participation Public participation and transparency are important components to the anticipated overall success of this venture. Consultants recommend that an inside/outside approach to the process be followed in order to inform the public of the constraints facing the fire agencies and the solutions being explored by the stakeholder groups. Brochures, digital media, educational sessions, and tours of agency facilities are some examples of opportunities to include the public in the process. In addition, if solutions include a new tax or future attempts to increase special taxes and benefit assessments, a coordinated and well-funded campaign, either targeted or countywide, could be affective in garnering support. The framework outlined here is a rough idea of how the Fire Summits, stakeholder collaboration, and public participation could be designed to work towards solutions for the problems facing many of the fire agencies in the County. Consultants hope that the LAFCO Commission will seriously consider hosting or partnering with the County or the fire agencies to host a Fire Summit on the West Slope and in the Tahoe Basin within two years of the release of this report. Consultants recommend that both Fire Summits be held within the same year, no more than two weeks apart. 6.4.2 Option No. 2 – Establish a West Slope Fire Authority Option No. 2 reviews the opportunity for fire protection and emergency medical services to be funded and administered under a West Slope Fire Authority through the existing County Service Area 7 (CSA 7). This option has been discussed by the LAFCO Commission on multiple occasions with the most recent being a “Study Session on Options for Alternative Governance Models for Fire Service” which took place on January 23, 2019. This option has also been termed the “San Diego Model” by LAFCO staff and commissioners. The essence of this option is that the County Board of Supervisors would activate some or all of the latent CSA powers of: fire protection; fire suppression; vegetation management; search and rescue; hazardous materials emergency response; ambulances; and emergency medical services (California Government Code Sections 25213(b) and (t)) as services within CSA 7, and over time annex fire agencies into CSA 7 to Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-36 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final provide services in those areas. As noted in the January 2019 LAFCO Staff Report, through this option the County would apply to LAFCO to activate the specific latent powers of CSA 7 as enumerated above, and provide LAFCO with a map of the service area as well as a Service Plan. LAFCO discussions on this topic have included the need for the County of El Dorado to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of fire services and further explore the financials of this proposed fire authority. Assuming that all requirements under the law are met and LAFCO approves the activation of the specific powers, the County can do one of the following: 1. Create its own fire department/authority to provide services. This would entail the County being the direct employer and manager of services; or 2. Outsource the provision of services either to CAL FIRE, one of the larger fire agencies, or a JPA composed of the larger fire agencies in the County In the second case, the fire agencies on the West Slope could form a JPA for fire service. The proposed structure’s goal is for the consolidated West Slope Fire Authority to divide itself into Service Zones (SZ), as authorized under Health & Safety Code §13950, with each SZ having its own fire commission. This option is enticing for the County because: 1. State Law prevents two agencies from providing the same service in the same geographic area; therefore, the assumption of services by CSA 7 is not automatic and the option to be included in the CSA would be led by the agencies themselves; 2. This ensures a comprehensive transfer of assets, liabilities, and revenues from the fire agencies to CSA 7, as well as contracts that the parties desire to continue; and 3. It provides the option for some fire agencies to remain independent. (Source: LAFCO, 2019) The fire agencies that chose to “opt-in” over time would allow for a slow and methodical coordination to consolidate services and unify command. As discussed in the 2019 Study Session, this option for San Diego has taken a considerable amount of time (approximately 10 years) to begin to have agencies dissolving and consolidating into the larger structure (LAFCO, 2019). It should be noted, that the agencies in the County of El Dorado do work well together under the current unified dispatch system. The Response Plans ensure that the necessary staff and resources are deployed to each incident. As consultants have concluded, it is necessary for an update to the 2010 FESS to be conducted to determine just how affective the response plans are at ensuring weight of attack is provided to incidents in a timely manner. While the first unit deployed is likely to arrive within the recommended response time window due to dispatch sending the closest resource, the first unit to arrive may not be staffed at a high enough level to effectively begin addressing the incident. As LAFCO staff have suggested, a unified command has the opportunity to eliminate redundancies in the system and more easily control the distribution of resources throughout the West Slope to address this weight of attack issue. The following analysis of the viability of this option is included in this report for discussion purposes only. It includes a very rough financial analysis of a future West Slope Fire Authority to provide some context for discussions. Consultants recommend a true cost- benefit analysis be conducted by the County of El Dorado or LAFCO to determine the viability of this option. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-37 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Another alternative to establishing the Fire Authority could be through the use of zones of benefit under County Service Area law. A zone of benefit is a geographic area within a county service area formed to raise revenue and provide authorized service(s) to the property owners and residents within the boundaries of the identified area. The State Board of Equalization designates the zone of benefit as a specific tax rate area. Funds for the services provided by the zone of benefit are established as a special tax or as a benefit assessment. The creation of specific zones of benefit for existing fire agencies who opt into CSA 7 could allow for an increase in funding in districts of the County were fire services are currently underfunded. The County Board of Supervisors would be the governing body for all zones of benefit created within CSA 7. The Board of Supervisors may establish an advisory committee for each zone of benefit. The purpose of the advisory committee is to periodically meet with property owners and residents within the zone to establish an annual budget and discuss other issues pertaining to fire protection and emergency medical services. It is important to note that input from an advisory committee and its members is wholly advisory. This alternative would also allow agencies to “opt-in” as described above. West Slope Fire Authority (CSA 7) As mentioned in Option No. 1, the fire agencies on the West Slope are functionally consolidated. The existing dispatch system means that the closest resource responds to incidents. Although the system appears to be operating well, there are benefits to the consideration of fire services being consolidated into one single entity on the West Slope. In reviewing raw dispatch data from CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 37 percent of all calls in 2019 resulted in a cancelation with some agencies having a higher number of canceled calls than others. A larger analysis of canceled versus arrived calls can be found in Volume I – Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure with highlights repeated here for ease of reference. According to CAL FIRE Camino ECC a “canceled call” is one where a unit is canceled prior to arrival at an incident. In terms of the raw dispatch data, this was relayed to consultants as any incident without an “arrived” time (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). A breakdown in number of calls and arrived vs. canceled calls per fire agency can be seen in Table 6-5. Table 6-5: Dispatched Calls for 2019, Arrived vs. Canceled Agency Arrived Canceled Percent Canceled CAM 2,746 762 22% DSP 1,942 1,903 49% ECF 7,595 3,248 30% EDH 4,561 1,600 26% GEO 771 1,508 66% GRV 573 815 59% MQT 168 297 64% PIO 851 878 51% RES 799 721 47% Total 20,006 11,732 37% Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-38 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final As indicated above, some agencies in 2019 had more canceled dispatches than arrived. Specifically, PIO, GEO, GRV, and MQT had over half of all calls in 2019 canceled. RES and DSP had just under half of all calls canceled in 2019. It appears that CAM and EDH had the least number of canceled calls for service, most likely due to their locations within population centers in the County and along the Highway 50 Corridor. When agency resources are called then canceled, this may add more wear and tear on equipment, and increases fuel consumption. This also may delay an agency’s resources being able to respond elsewhere within that agency’s boundary depending on how quickly that call was canceled and the destination of that canceled call. It should be noted that some agencies may decline to respond to some calls for aid, which also count as a ‘canceled’ call. The dispatch system, though a benefit to the County, may not be operating as efficiently in the current model as it could under one Fire Authority. Staff at CAL FIRE Camino ECC indicated that higher staffing levels at the fire agency level have the potential to reduce the number of canceled calls (Assistant Chief Newman, personal communication, December 2020). Under one Fire Authority, it is possible that staffing levels could be maintained at the minimum standard described in Section 6.3.2, and be more evenly spread throughout the County. Also, there would no longer be the cost burden associated with responding to “out of agency” calls for automatic aid within the County. Other cost savings may include: a reduction in the number of fire chiefs and command level staff; the consolidation of administrative functions, infrastructure, and resources; as well as the consolidation of existing funding. In addition, it is likely that a Fire Authority would be better positioned with staff and resources to be competitive for grant funds. The LAFCO Ad Hoc Committee requested additional information regarding JPA funded staff compared to total staff for those agencies that receive revenue from CSA 7. Currently, 22 percent of uniform staff on the West Slope are funded through the West Slope JPA. This means that of the total firefighters available throughout the West Slope of the County to staff fire engines and vehicles, 22 percent are assigned to ambulances. When they are on EMS emergency incidents or hospital-to-hospital transfers, these personnel are not available for firefighting or technical rescue. The breakdown in staffing for those agencies on the West Slope who receive JPA funding can be found in Table 6-6 below. Table 6-6: JPA Funded Staff per Agency as Percentage of Total FTE Staff (March 2022) Total JPA Funded Total FTE Uniform Percent of Total Staff Agency Staff2 Staff3 Funded by JPA CAM 6 18 33% DSP 6 22 27% ECF 22 73 30% EDH 6 63 10% GEO 6 8 75% Other Agencies* N/A 25 N/A Total 46 2091 22% *Other agencies includes FTE Uniform Staff as of July 1, 2020 for GRV, MQT, PIO, and RES. 1This total does not include any identified volunteers, administrative, or support staff for each agency. Sources: 2RFI’s for each agency’s MSR Chapter 3West Slope JPA Director, personal communication, March 2022. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-39 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final CAM, ECF, and GEO have 30 percent or more of their total uniform staff assigned to ambulances. For GEO, 75 percent of staff are assigned to the ambulance. This leaves only two staff available for GEO, that are not assigned to the ambulance, that can be assigned to the fire station on shifts to respond to emergencies. If the 20 volunteer firefighters that are available for GEO were included in total staff, this would equate to 25 percent of staff assigned to ambulances, leaving 22 staff or 75 percent available to be assigned to the fire station on shifts. Consultants also reviewed ambulance responses by call type, looking specifically at fire call types. All ambulances on the West Slope range from 2.8 percent to 3.5 percent of fire call types compared to all calls for 2019 except for Medic 61. For Medic 61, the ambulance assigned to GEO, 5.3 percent of total calls were fire call types. This is over 2 percentage points higher than the other ambulances. GEO, compared to the other four agencies which receive JPA funding, responded to the lowest number of calls in 2019. Because 22 percent of uniform staff are funded through the JPA, a consolidated West Slope Authority through CSA 7 would likely better manage fire agency staffing and ambulance staffing, allowing for more firefighters to be available to be staffed on fire agency resources for those agencies that appear to rely heavily on JPA revenue for staffing. It is likely that a consolidated Fire Authority could better maintain equipment and infrastructure with consolidated funding sources as well as additional revenue that could be allocated to fire protection and emergency medical services by the County Board of Supervisors. A consolidated Fire Authority could also balance needed equipment in specific areas throughout the County and have a holistic view to ensure the right amount and type of equipment is available in the County, such as the need for additional ladder trucks. The holistic approach to fire protection and emergency medical services operations, beyond just dispatch, could provide greater benefit to the County by more equitably distributing resources among all of the communities served. A thorough analysis of what a Fire Authority for the West Slope would look like and how it would operate would need to be conducted through a Service Plan, including a detailed cost-benefit analysis, in order to determine if this model would provide the benefits described. To offer a very rough idea of the financing for a consolidated Fire Authority, consultants have combined the FY 2018/2019 audited financial information from all nine West Slope fire agency MSR chapters. The following analysis is hypothetical and assumes the following: • Property tax, special taxes, and assessments, as well as all other revenue streams enjoyed by each agency would be made available to the new Fire Authority; • All expenditures, debts, and liabilities would be absorbed by the new Fire Authority; and • Staffing and costs for staff are a combination of what all nine agencies paid in 2019. This analysis is painted in broad brush strokes to aid in discussions and in no way suggests that this is what financing would be for this option. If the West Slope Fire Authority model were to have existed in Fiscal Year (FY) 2018/2019, the Authority would have brought in approximately $58.7 million in revenues and had approximately $54.2 million in expenses as seen in Figure 6-9. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-40 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 6-9: Theoretical West Slope Fire Authority Revenues and Expenditures FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 The theoretical West Slope Fire Authority would have seen revenues over expenditures for all four fiscal years studied with approximately $5.04 million revenues over expenditures for FY 2018/2019. The Net Position for the Authority, if it existed in FY 2018/2019, would have been approximately $17.1 million. The Net Position is shown in Figure 6-10 below. Figure 6-10: Theoretical West Slope Fire Authority “Net Position” for FY 2018/2019 Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-41 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Based on the rough analysis here, it appears that with existing operational expenditures and revenue streams, the West Slope Fire Authority would have been at a net positive position for FY 2018/2019. It should also be noted that the proposed budgets for FY 2019/2020 and FY 2020/2021 suggest a continued positive financial position with approximately $2.17 million in revenues over expenditures for FY 2020/2021. However, existing staffing levels are generally below minimum and national standards, and less than half of stations are staffed full-time on the West Slope. It is likely that a consolidated agency would have increased costs for staffing and salaries as well as facilities and equipment. Because two agencies have identified as operating under NFPA 1720, and a hypothetical Fire Authority would likely operate under NFPA 1710, the number of paid career staff would likely increase, while the number of high-level staff would likely be reduced. As this option would likely require a phased approach, similar to the process taken by San Diego County, the financing suggested here would not be made available to the County immediately. That being said, as fire agencies are annexed into CSA 7, any additional financing that the County may have had to re-allocate to fire protection and emergency medical services would likely no longer be necessary with all West Slope fire agencies annexed into CSA 7. Consultants do not recommend that the Commission consider this option in this report, however this option should be included in discussions at the proposed Fire Summit under Option 1 to determine the viability of this option for the County of El Dorado and the fire agencies on the West Slope. Recommendation: Consultants recommend a true Cost-Benefit Analysis and Service Plan be conducted by the County or LAFCO to determine the viability of this option. 6.4.3 Option No. 3 – Boundary Adjustments The 2011 MSR suggests that if consolidation is not a feasible option, the readjustment of service boundaries is needed in the future to ensure the following: • Growing communities of interest are not split between service agencies. In other words, residents may have a community identity with one service provider while services are actually delivered by another. • Issues of fiscal inequity brought to the surface by mutual aid are removed. • Remove issues of increasing service demand upon districts that currently do not have the capacity or resources to address this increase. • Remove any issues of “free riders” through the annexation of service area holes. The 2011 MSR identified the following agencies as candidates for readjustment of their boundaries based on the concept of community identity, location of fire stations and mutual aid calls at the time: • EDH and RES • ECF and CAM • DSP and ECF • DSP and RES • RES and CAM Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-42 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Consultants found the majority of the parties involved in the automatic aid system tout its ability to ensure the closest resource arrives at an incident. Agencies in general do not appear to see inequities in the automatic aid system as a barrier, but as a successful system that services residents of the County. In addition, the moves of EDH and RES to consolidate in the immediate future, as evidenced by the proposed SOI changes in this report, will bolster the areas currently serviced by RES into a larger agency that will likely reduce those automatic aid inequities. This leaves two agency groups as possible candidates for readjustment of service boundaries based on automatic aid: 1) ECF and CAM, and 2) DSP and ECF. CAM provided aid to ECF 385 times in 2019 and received aid from ECF 126 times. DSP provided aid to ECF 852 times and received aid from ECF 380 times. In both instances, ECF received more aid from the CAM and DSP than what it provided. This could suggest a fiscal inequity exists between these two agencies and ECF in regard to automatic aid. Figure 6-11 and Figure 6-12 show the areas where automatic aid was provided to ECF from CAM and DSP respectively. Consultants utilized latitude and longitude data included in the raw dispatch data from CAL FIRE Camino ECC to produce the maps shown below. Areas where aid was provided to the ECF by CAM and DSP are shown in a heat map, or a gradation of color with relatively low amounts of aid in dark blue, more concentrated amounts of aid in red, and highly concentrated amounts of aid in a bright yellow or white. This data includes instances of “move up and cover,” where ECF’s resources are actively responding to calls leaving gaps in their response area, and DSP or CAM temporarily moves a resource to cover a station or intersection within ECF’s jurisdictional boundary. High amounts of aid from CAM to ECF can be seen along U.S. Highway 50 and ECF Station No. 28. For aid from DSP to ECF, high amounts of aid can be seen in the City of Placerville area as well as residential communities just south of Placerville along Cedar Ravine Road and Pleasant Valley Road within the ECF District boundary. While on the surface it could appear that one agency is relying on more aid from another agency, a deeper analysis may suggest a different story. For example, the areas where CAM is responding to a high number of calls in the ECF boundary could appear to suggest areas where ECF may not be able to provide adequate service. However, if aid calls where ECF also responded were removed, CAM only responded to 20 calls without ECF. This suggests that though the CAM is the first responder to these calls in ECF boundary, ECF is also responding to these calls, though not as the first responder. ECF has capacity for the majority of the calls, they are just not the closest resource dispatched for those calls. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-43 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 6-11: Heat Map of CAM Aid Response Locations within the ECF District Boundary, 2019 GIS Data from CAL FIRE Camino ECC Not to scale. Note: This map does not show the entire boundary of ECF in order to increase visual scale. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-44 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 6-12: Heat Map of DSP Aid Response Locations within the ECF District Boundary, 2019 GIS Data from CAL FIRE Camino ECC Not to scale. Note: This map does not show the entire boundary of ECF in order to increase visual scale. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-45 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-46 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final While it is feasible for LAFCO to consider boundary readjustments between agencies using a similar, limited analysis as shown here between DSP and ECF, and CAM and ECF, this would likely cause additional financial burden on the agency that is proposed for readjustment. Any readjustment of boundaries would remove those parcels from one agency and add them to another. This would remove that property tax revenue from the agency that is already receiving more automatic aid in a specific area based on certain staffing, equipment, facility challenges, or other factors unknown to consultants likely due to financial challenges. As the 2011 MSR states, the Commission will need to draw distinctions between: • Short-term allocation problems that should be addressed by the affected agencies themselves (with additional growth and investment) and long-term problems that require boundary changes; • The need for changes of organization that equitably re-allocate revenues and the simple need for increased revenues; and • The extent to which special district boundaries and jurisdictions can or should be used to define and reinforce the identities of the unincorporated communities and instances in which district boundaries must extend to wider areas. Consultants find that these distinctions from the 2011 MSR remain valid and that any movements for boundary adjustments such as described in this option are likely to cause additional friction between neighboring agencies. The success of the automatic aid system is dependent upon the agencies continued willingness to work together. Attempts to address inequity could collapse a system that appears to be working effectively for the County. In addition, those agencies that may find themselves unequally burdened by responses to another agency have the option to individually pursue a fee for service from that agency. A similar model for fees incurred to neighboring agencies can be found in the Tahoe Basin in which agencies respond at no charge within two hours distance for the first 24 hours to any aid request. Such individual agreements between agencies could begin to address the financial inequities that appear to exist in the current system. Consultants would not recommend the Commission consider this option based on the information provided above. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-47 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 6.5 Determinations Based on the information included in this report, the following written determinations required by Government Code §56425(e), make statements involving each of the five factors which the Commission must consider as part of a Sphere of Influence Update. The Commission's final SOI determinations will be part of a Resolution which the Commission formally adopts during a public meeting. This report recommends the following determinations under Option 1 – Maintain Existing SOIs and Friendly SOI Changes; to amend the SOI for three agencies and leave the SOIs for the remaining 10 agencies unchanged. This report also recommends that the Municipal Service Review (MSR) for five agencies be revisited within three years to evaluate District viability. These Districts are FLL, GRV, MQT, PIO, and RES. These determinations are presented in a format similar to the 2011 MSR to keep them succinct. LAFCO staff has reviewed the following determinations and recommends them for the Commission’s consideration. 6.5.1 Cameron Park Community Serivces District Determinations for the CAM SOI are limited to the Service Area Boundary for all services; and the SOI for all services as those are the areas within the CAM where the District provides fire protection and emergency medical services. This report only reviewed the fire protection and emergency medical services for the CAM. MSRs for CAM related to other services provided by the District can be found on LAFCO’s website at https://www.edlafco.us/cameron-park-csd-msr. (1) The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. The primary land uses within the service area for the CAM are residential, commercial, and open space. Most of the areas within the District are developed with high-density residential subdivisions and some commercial development along the Highway 50 Corridor. This has resulted in a high population density for this area relative to the undeveloped land surrounding the District as expected within a Community Region. There are no areas within the District that provide agricultural use. Future land uses are expected to remain relatively unchanged, with population growth likely to be consistent with the 2004 General Plan projections for the unincorporated portion of the County. (2) The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. Parcels within the District receive adequate fire protection and emergency medical services. Proposed and current projects include the development of approximately 138 new residential units and one commercial development. New development within the District is required to pay development impact fees to fund improvements and new facilities to serve the new development. Although development impact fees will assist the District in providing adequate services for new development, staffing challenges could remain a concern as these fees cannot be used for operating expenses. In addition, the District responds frequently to some specific properties within the District. As a result of these frequent responses to certain properties, the District is Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-48 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final currently looking at instituting a District wide first responder fee for fire protection resources responding to medical calls for service. (3) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. With the Schedule “A” agreement with CAL FIRE and the automatic dispatch system in place throughout the County, the District is able to provide adequate services to meet the needs of the service area and has the capacity to assist other fire agencies. In 2019, the District met its response time goals and provided automatic aid 331 more times than it received. The District is staffed below minimum national standards which can leave the community vulnerable to low frequency, high risk events, such as a working structure fire. While the District has a strong net financial position, this is largely due to Capital Assets. A budget forecast provided by the District to consultants estimates that the District will continue to operate with an average two percent deficit per year to FY 2024-2025 (the forecasting end date), continuing to draw down the reserve fund to cover the deficit. This suggests that the amount of revenues coming in and the expenditures incurred by the District are not sustainable or sufficient in the long term. The District is making strides to trim costs through more efficient operations in all Departments. However, in time, these efficiencies and new revenues may not be enough to compensate for increased costs and services will need to be reduced. Funding services in all areas will become increasingly challenging. (4) The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. The District is located within the unincorporated community of Cameron Park. No additional communities of interest are located within the District boundaries. Nearby economic communities of interest include Cameron Estates, El Dorado Hills, Rescue, and Shingle Springs. (5) The present and probable need for public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities. There are Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the CAM boundary and sphere of influence, including two census block groups. The DUCs within the service are do receive adequate water service from the El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) or private wells. Wastewater services are provided to DUC areas either by EID or by individual septic systems. Fire protection services to the DUCs are provided by the CAM, RES or ECF. No public health and safety issues have been identified. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-49 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Recommendation Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by the Cameron Park Community Services District as those specified in Community Services District Law, California Government Code Section 61000 et seq. Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that the Cameron Park Community Services District Service Area Boundary and SOI for all services remain unchanged as shown Volume I - Appendix L. 6.5.2 Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District (1) The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. Existing land uses within District boundaries include rural and high-density residential areas, senior citizen housing, mobile home parks, convalescent hospitals, a few light industrial establishments, commercial businesses, open space, and agriculture. In the adjacent area, outside of the District boundaries, land uses are primarily characterized by open space with limited rural residential uses. Along the Highway 50 Corridor, high-density residential subdivisions and some commercial development can be found. The designated Community Region contains a higher population density relative to the undeveloped land surrounding the District. Since the 2011 MSR was published, several new subdivisions, other residential projects, and new commercial projects have been built within the District boundaries. Future growth is expected to be consistent with the 2004 General Plan projects in unincorporated areas of the County. The District SOI consists of six pockets (or islands) that are located inside the District boundary. These six SOI areas include 24 parcels and encompass 1,463 acres. District staff reports that much of the SOI area is under Williamson Act contracts, which promote the continuation of agricultural land uses. Furthermore, District staff indicates that they provide service to these SOI areas and will continue to do so in the future. The 2011 MSR mentions one 160-acre parcel, outside of the district, but inside the current sphere, located between DSP and El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF) boundaries. No changes are proposed to the DSP sphere with this SOI Update. (2) The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. Future population growth within the DSP is dependent upon zoning, General Plan policies and land-use designations in the region. There are parcels within the DSP that do have some limited development potential. There are a few proposed or current development projects that could potentially impact District services, including a few housing developments, care facilities, and significant commercial growth on the Highway 50 Corridor. New development in the District is required to pay development impact fees to fund improvements and the new facilities needed to serve the new development. These fees may not be used for day-to-day operating expenses. Though development impact fees will assist the District in providing adequate services, staffing challenges could remain a concern as these fees cannot be used for operating expenses. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-50 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final (3) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. In 2019, the District met its response time goals and provided automatic aid 245 more times than it received from other fire agencies in the County, excluding CAL FIRE. Of all of the calls for service in 2019, the District required aid or was not first responder for 50 percent of all calls in their boundary when adding in CAL FIRE automatic aid. With CAL FIRE aid removed, the District required aid for two percent of all calls in 2019. The District is staffed at national standards, however, only one of the five stations in the District is staffed. The four unstaffed stations are used to store equipment. This could account for the high number of calls in which the District was not the first responder when factoring in CAL FIRE aid. Development impact fees associated with new development should offset the costs for new services and facilities for the District. With the existing staffing, facilities, and equipment coupled with the automatic dispatch system in place throughout the County, the District is able to provide adequate services to meet the needs of the service area and has the capacity to assist other fire agencies. The District is operating at a deficit and cannot sustain the current trajectory of expenditures over revenues long term. The District has taken several actions in recent years to save money, lower expenses, and/or improve services. One functional or structural reorganization that the District is evaluating is a “shared services agreement” with El Dorado County Fire Protection District intended to benefit recipients of fire protection services or improve the provision of fire protection services generally. The District’s revenue streams may be enough to keep the district viable and maintain service levels in the near term; however, a long term financial solution may be needed through new funding or a reorganization with a nearby fire protection district. (4) The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. DSP serves the communities of Diamond Springs, El Dorado, Sleepy Hollow, Logtown, Missouri Flat, Nashville, and Sandridge. Rancheria territory held in trust for the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians and the Red Hawk Casino are also within the DSP boundaries, although the Tribe has contracted with ECF for fire and emergency services. (5) The present and probable need for public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities. There are portions of Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) within the DSP boundary and Sphere of Influence, including three census block groups. The DUCs described in this report do receive adequate water service from EID or private wells. Wastewater services are provided to DUC areas either by EID or by individual septic systems. Fire protection services to the DUCs described in the District’s SOI are provided by the DSP. No public health and safety issues have been identified. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-51 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Recommendation Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District as those specified in California Health & Safety Code §13862. Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that the Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Sphere of Influence remain unchanged as shown Volume I - Appendix L. 6.5.3 El Dorado Country Fire Protection District (1) The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. Land uses within the ECF boundaries include both developed and undeveloped areas. Most of the higher density-type development occurs along the Highway 50 Corridor. This has resulted in a high population density for this area relative to the surrounding undeveloped land. Residential land use within the District includes single-family homes, multi-family units, and mobile homes; with a total of approximately 25,840 housing units. A portion of these housing units are not occupied on a permanent basis and are used as vacation homes or for other purposes. Non- residential land-use within the District includes approximately 8 million square feet of retail/commercial development, 3.7 million square feet of office space, 5.4 million square feet of industrial development, and 2.8 million square feet of warehouse/distribution development (ECF, 2020b). Additionally, within the ECF boundaries, there are 13,403 acres of open space, 16,081 acres of agricultural land, and 36,041 acres of natural resource areas. Together, these open space- type land uses comprise over 37 percent of the boundary area. (2) The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. Since the previous MSR was published in 2011, several new subdivisions, or other new commercial projects, have been built within the District boundaries. Many of these developments are within the City of Placerville. ECF recently approved a Nexus Fee Impact Study which establishes an impact fee charged to new development projects that create additional demands on the District’s fire protection and emergency medical response services, facilities, apparatus, and equipment. If new development is approved in the future, it is possible that the District will need expanded services or facilities to accommodate such new development. Emergency response within the Sphere of Influence areas is covered under the dispatch automatic aid system. The ECF SOI includes significant acreage managed by the ElDorado National Forest, which is a federal response area. Although the U.S. Forest Service has its own seasonal firefighters who focus on wildland fires, sometimes structural fires occur and the ECF responds. To offset costs incurred by local fire districts who provide services to federal land, the federal government provides Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) funds to the County. However, the County of El Dorado does not distribute PILT funds to individual fire districts. Due to this funding gap, there is no guarantee that ECF will continue to provide service to its SOI areas. ECF retained Burr Consultants to develop a Plan for Services for Island Annexations in the District’s SOI. The Board reviewed and Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-52 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final approved this plan during their November 2020 Board meeting. LAFCO approved the annexation of the 14 “islands” consisting of 159 parcels that are surrounded by the District into the District on March 24, 2021. The annexation of these islands could increase some revenue for the District for those land areas not managed by the ElDorado National Forest. (3) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. According to information provided by the District, fire engines out of Station No. 25 in Placerville and Station No. 28 in Shingle Springs are below response time goals. Given the large geographical layout of the District, ECF fire station distances to calls can provide for extended response times. Of all of the calls for service in 2019, the District required aid or was not first responder for 35 percent of all calls in their boundary when adding in CAL FIRE automatic aid. With CAL FIRE aid removed, the District required aid for 19 percent of all calls in 2019. The District operates with a mix of staffing that is sometimes below the minimum national standard. Based on the data presented in the Districts MSR Chapter and in the report, the El Dorado County Fire Protection District is able to provide limited service to the residents of ECF. With a mix of staffing levels, the District relies heavily on the mutual and automatic aid agreements with neighboring fire agencies to ensure enough resources are available at each incident in the District’s boundaries. The District’s financial position limits staffing opportunities and facilities upgrades or replacements. Of the District’s 14 fire stations, only six are staffed full time, leaving gaps of coverage in areas of the District. The District is operating at a deficit and was not successful in the latest attempt to increase the property assessments which would have allowed the District to increase staffing. The District adjusted the FY 2020/2021 budget to decrease spending by 26 percent. The District has identified and/or completed several actions that could potentially bring in additional funding to ECF including establishing a new fee structure for the Fire Prevention Bureau, expanding billable calls for the Fire Recovery Program, and identifying associated costs for calls that qualify for Payment In-Lieu of Taxes money with the ultimate goal of petitioning the County Board of Supervisors for funding. The District’s revenue streams may be enough to keep the District viable and maintain service levels in the near term; however, a long term financial solution may be needed through new funding or a reorganization with a nearby fire protection district. (4) The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. ECF serves the City of Placerville and the communities of Camino, Coloma, Cool, Gold Hill, Kyburz, Lotus, Oak Hill, Pacific House, Pilot Hill, Pleasant Valley, Pollock Pines, Shingle Springs, Sierra Springs, and Strawberry; as well as the surrounding rural areas. There are no other social or economic communities of interest in the area. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-53 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final (5) The present and probable need for public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities. There are portions of Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) within the ECF Boundary and Sphere of Influence, including five census block groups. The DUCs described in this report do receive adequate water service from EID or private wells. Wastewater services are provided to these DUC areas either by EID or by individual septic systems. Fire protection services to the DUCs are provided by the ECF and neighboring agencies through automatic dispatch. No public health and safety issues have been identified. Recommendation Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by El Dorado County Fire Protection District as those specified in California Health & Safety Code §13862. Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that the El Dorado County Fire Protection District Sphere of Influence remain unchanged as shown Volume I - Appendix L. 6.5.4 El Dorado Hills County Water District (1) The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. Currently, the primary land uses within the service area for the District are residential, commercial, and open space. Most of the areas within EDH are developed with residential subdivisions with some commercial development along the Highway 50 Corridor and El Dorado Hills Boulevard. Residential single-family homes in some areas of EDH are unique in that they tend to have a higher square footage on average than homes in other areas of the County. Larger homes can make firefighting challenging with firefighters having to extend hose lines significant distances to get to the location needed to fight the fire. Development in the District has resulted in a higher population density for this area relative to the land surrounding El Dorado Hills. This area in the County is the most rapidly growing portion and more residential development is expected to occur south of Highway 50. The District’s existing SOI encompasses approximately 1,376 acres and includes 53 parcels. Of these, approximately 455 acres are set aside for agricultural production, 361 acres near Folsom Lake are designated as permanent tourist recreational or open space lands. There is also a small 196-acre area in the City of Folsom. The 196 acre area encompasses 24 assessor parcels in Sacramento County and are located on the west side of the Department, just south of State Highway 50. The proposed expansion of EDH’s SOI to encompass Rescue Fire Protection District boundary and SOI would include approximately 25,410 acres (or 39.7 square miles). The new SOI would include 2,944 assessor parcels. Currently, the primary land uses within the service area are rural residential, agriculture and open space. The community of Rescue is a historic town site surrounded by low-density rural residential dwellings on larger sized lots. The RES District area also contains four schools, a cemetery, several wineries, and agricultural land-uses. Commercial Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-54 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final land-uses are limited to a commercial firewood business and a commercial storage facility. Several areas are primarily characterized as open space with limited rural residential uses. For example, the portions of the Pine Hill Ecological Reserve, as well as the adjacent Kanaka Valley are located in Rescue. The Pine Hill Reserve protects eight rare plants, four endemic species, and their gabbro soil habitat. Kanaka Valley is Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land with hiking trails and access to Pine Hill. (2) The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. Future population growth within EDH is likely to continue to accelerate based on existing development projects and those in process with the County. In general, the northern side of the District is built-out with some infill development areas available. New development is expected to the east with large-scale subdivisions and new retail/commercial development along Bass Lake Road. In addition, it is anticipated that large scale development will continue south of Highway 50 along Latrobe Road in the future. New development in the District is required to pay development impact fees to fund improvements and the new facilities to serve the new development. New development also provides an increased property tax base for the District and will augment the already robust financial position for the District. The Rescue Fire Protection District Boundary and SOI areas that are proposed to be included in EDH’s SOI are dependent upon Zoning and General Plan policies and land-use designations in the region. Consistent with the General Plan, the County of El Dorado has approved several new development projects in the area including four subdivisions concentrated in the southwest area of the District, adjacent to the CAM and EDH. Parcels currently within the RES District receive adequate fire protection and emergency response services due to the Shared Services Agreement with EDH and the automatic aid dispatch system. Upon district annexation the additional property tax, assessment and/or special tax, and development impact fee revenue to EDH would likely offset the increased costs and required resources to ensure the provision of services to the area. (3) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. The El Dorado Hills County Water District is able to provide adequate service to the residents of the El Dorado Hills area. In 2019, EDH met its response time goals and provided automatic aid 258 more times than it received from other fire agencies in the County, excluding CAL FIRE. Of all of the calls for service in 2019, the District required aid or was not first responder for eight percent of all calls in their boundary when adding in CAL FIRE automatic aid. With CAL FIRE aid removed, the District required aid for five percent of all calls in 2019. The District is staffed at or above national standards for all stations except one and all stations are staffed. The District has historically maintained healthy reserve balances by meeting its reserve policy requirement of keeping a minimum of 50 percent of total operating expense on hand in the General Reserve Fund. The 10-year historical trends for the District show total reserves holding steady at around $20 million from FY 2010/2011 to 2015/2016. From FY 2016/2017 on, reserve balances have steadily increased to $31.2 million at the end of FY 2018/2019. Balances are projected to rise further to $32.3 million by the end of FY 2019/2020. However, these increases are mostly due to Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-55 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final growth in the restricted Development Fee and Pension Reserve Funds. Unrestricted General and Capital Replacement Reserve Funds have stayed relatively consistent over the last 10 years. The Department continues to monitor these trends with an overall goal of preserving its unrestricted reserves and meeting the goals set forth in its Reserve Policy (EDH, 2019d). Parcels currently within the RES District boundary and SOI receive fire protection and emergency response services from RES that are supported by the automatic aid dispatch system in the County and the existing Shared Services agreement with EDH. The RES District staffing levels operate below the minimum national standard and the long-term fiscal sustainability of the District remains a challenge. RES is currently operating with positive revenues over expenditures. However, the District’s net position of a $1.6 million deficit leaves the District in jeopardy of long- term liabilities being unfunded. Upon RES annexation into EDH, the combining of the two agencies will result in a stronger, more efficient, and more robust organization that will lead to long term preservation of emergency service delivery levels for communities served by the combined district. (4) The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. EDH serves the communities of El Dorado Hills, Latrobe, and the surrounding rural residential neighborhoods. The proposed expansion of EDH’s SOI to encompass the RES District Boundary and SOI would include the community of Rescue as well as the areas west of the community of Cameron Park. The community of Rescue would not be divided in any way by this SOI Update. Other than Rescue, there is no social or economic community of interest that would require further Commission consideration of this issue for the sphere update. (5) The present and probable need for public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities. Within the boundaries of EDH and RES or the Districts’ SOI there are no areas that qualify as a disadvantaged unincorporated community. Therefore, no considerations for services are necessary. Recommendation Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by El Dorado Hills County Water District as those specified in California Health & Safety Code §13862. Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that the El Dorado Hills County Water District Sphere of Influence be updated to expand its original sphere to include the District Boundary and SOI of Rescue Fire Protection District, as shown in Volume I - Appendix L. 6.5.5 Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District This report only reviewed the fire protection and emergency medical services for FLL, therefore determinations for the FLL SOI are limited to fire protection and emergency medical services. The FLL Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-56 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final MSRs related to other services provided by the District can be found on LAFCO’s website at https://www.edlafco.us/fallen-leaf-lake-csd-msr. (1) The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. Present land use within the District is almost exclusively residential with some recreational facilities near the south shore of Fallen Leaf Lake. Growth and development for the District is limited largely by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) regulations as well as local topography. TRPA adopted the Lake Tahoe Regional Plan Update in December 2012 which identifies four planning areas within the District boundaries: Fallen Leaf North, Fallen Leaf Service Tracts, South Fallen Leaf Lake, and Lilly/Angora Lakes. Open space within the FLL boundary calculates to 3,151 acres and includes backcountry, conservation, and wilderness land use designations. There are agricultural lands for timber harvest within the District. There have been no new residential or commercial development within the District boundaries since the previous MSR. Also, future subdivisions in the area are not permitted by the County of El Dorado due to seismic hazards. This indicates the population within the District will remain stable. Of the 479 parcels within the District, 298 are taxable parcels while the remaining 181 parcels are exempt with the biggest majority of these owned by the USFS or government. Of the total parcels, 63 are vacant. Future population growth within the unincorporated Fallen Leaf Lake community is dependent upon the General Plan and zoning policies and land-use designations in the region in concert with the County of El Dorado General Plan. (2) The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. Parcels currently within the FLL district receive seasonal fire protection and emergency response services as needed. The District also provides occasional back country rescue services. During the winter months, Tahoe Mountain Road, Fallen Leaf Road, and Cathedral Road are not plowed by the County, making access to the District in the winter months nearly impossible. Present needs for fire protection and emergency medical services have been slowly increasing based on increases in calls for service. Probable needs for public facilities and services are not currently anticipated to vary from present needs, as future demands are expected to remain the same. As determined in the California State Auditor’s report detailed in the MSR chapter for FLL, past District billing and budgeting practices may jeopardize its ability to provide services in the future. (3) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. The District provides seasonal fire protection and emergency response services to parcels within its boundary. The District’s isolated location at the southern end of Fallen Leaf Lake and the one narrow road into and out of this area limits the fire personnel’s ability to respond to calls outside of the District and limits the ability for the District to receive aid from neighboring agencies. FLL participates in the Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chiefs’ Association for mutual aid requests. The District operates at staffing levels below national standards and the average for response times in 2019 was over the District’s response time goal. It is the belief of the Joint Legislative Audit Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-57 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Committee of the California State Auditor that FLL’s financial risks have put the District in significant financial jeopardy. Should these potential risks become actual financial liabilities and if their combined total exceeds the District’s reserve balance, the District may not have the ability to decrease its expenses or increase revenues from other sources, with the end result of the District going bankrupt. The District’s revenue streams may be enough to keep the district viable and maintain service levels in the near term; however, a long term financial solution may be needed through new funding, an agreement with CAL FIRE, or a reorganization with a nearby fire protection district. (4) The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. The District serves a single community, which is the area immediately surrounding Fallen Leaf Lake, and is entirely included within the District boundaries. (5) The present and probable need for public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities. Within the boundary and SOI of FLL there are no areas that qualify as a disadvantaged unincorporated community. Therefore, no considerations for services are necessary. Recommendation Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by the Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District as those specified in Community Services District Law, California Government Code Section 61000 et seq. Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that the Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Sphere of Influence remain unchanged as shown Volume I - Appendix L; and that the District Municipal Service Review be revisited within 3 years. 6.5.6 Garden Valley Fire Protection District (1) The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. The primary land uses within the District's service area are residential, agriculture, grazing, and crops. There are no major commercial land uses in the District. Single-family dwellings are the primary residential type. The Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service manage several parcels of land within the District boundaries for purposes of open space. Privately owned land within the boundaries contains several pockets of drought-induced tree mortality. About 35 new single-family structures were built in the District in 2019. The GRV includes the communities of Garden Valley, Greenwood, and Kelsey which have limited commercial and no industrial land uses. Outside of the District boundaries (and within the SOI), land is primarily characterized as open space with limited rural residential uses. The District’s SOI contains 2,588 acres and includes 18 assessor parcels. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-58 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final (2) The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. The District is able to provide limited service to the residents of GRV, relying on strike team reimbursement revenue. Approximately 75 new single-family homes have been constructed in the District between 2017 and 2019. Future population growth within the Garden Valley, Greenwood, and Kelsey communities are dependent upon zoning and General Plan policies and land-use designations in the region. The District has not identified any proposed and/or current projects that would impact the District. New development in the District is required to pay development impact fees to fund improvements and the new facilities to serve the new development. These fees may not be used for day-to-day operating expenses. Although development impact fees will assist the District in providing adequate services, staffing challenges could remain a concern as these fees cannot be used for operating expenses. (3) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. With the existing staffing, facilities, and equipment, coupled with the automatic dispatch system in place throughout the County, the District is able to provide limited services to meet the needs of the service area and has the capacity to assist other fire agencies. Currently the District operates at staffing below minimum national standards. Of all of the calls for service in 2019, the District required aid for 39 percent of all calls when adding in CAL FIRE automatic aid. With CAL FIRE aid removed, the District required aid for 18 percent of all calls in 2019. In addition, there is no consistency within the revenues or expenses of the financial statements provided to be able to adequately project a meaningful budget due to the District’s perceived dependence on carry over balances and dependence on strike team reimbursement. The District has operated with expenses exceeding revenues and the positive budget forecast for FY 2020/2021 comes as a result of significant layoffs. The District attempted to increase revenue with an additional benefit assessment that failed. Since the ballot measure failed, the District has sold all excess vehicles and equipment and entered into a Joint Operational Agreement with GEO and MQT. This agreement allows for the sharing of equipment, facilities, staff, and volunteers between the three districts. The District’s revenue streams may be enough to keep the district viable and maintain service levels in the near term; however, a long term financial solution may be needed through new funding or a reorganization with a nearby fire protection district. (4) The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. GRV serves the communities of Garden Valley, Kelsey and portions of Coloma and Greenwood. Other than Greenwood, there is no social or economic community of interest that would require further Commission consideration. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-59 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final (5) The present and probable need for public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities. There is one rural area partially within the District that qualifies as a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs). The DUC described in this report does receive adequate water service from Georgetown Divide Public Utility District or private wells. Wastewater services are provided to this DUC area by individual septic systems. Fire protection services to the DUC are provided by the GRV and neighboring agencies through automatic dispatch. Due to this area receiving the essential municipal services of water, wastewater, and structural fire protection, there are no communities within the existing GRV boundary or the District’s SOI that lack public services and no health or safety issues have been identified. Recommendation Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by Garden Valley Fire Protection District as those specified in California Health & Safety Code §13862. Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that the Garden Valley Fire Protection District Sphere of Influence remain unchanged as shown in Volume I - Appendix L; and that the District Municipal Service Review be revisited within 3 years. 6.5.7 Georgetown Fire Protection District (1) The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. Currently, the primary land uses within the service area for the District are rural and low density residential, commercial, and open space. There are 394 acres with agricultural land use. Most of the areas within the District are developed with residential homes. GEO’s topography includes mountainous, steep terrain. Dense conifer forests cover the mountains. Limited commercial development occurs within the Rural Centers and along major roadways. The District has one elementary school, an alternate education primary grade school facility, and a small K-4 schoolhouse within its boundaries. In addition, there is a general aviation airport, a water treatment facility, and two bulk propane plants that are known target hazards. Overall, the GEO has a low population density. Since the previous MSR was published in 2011, no major projects have been built within the District boundaries or SOI. The communities of Georgetown, Greenwood, and Quintette are designated as "Rural Centers" in the El Dorado County General Plan. In the adjacent area, outside of the District boundaries, land outside is primarily characterized by open space, designated as “Natural Resources” with limited rural residential uses. Open space designated within the GEO’s boundary calculates to 2,521 acres. Agricultural lands are calculated to be approximately 394 acres within the District. The total open space, agriculture, and natural resource areas in both the boundary and SOI calculates to 48,162 acres. The District’s provision of fire protection services to open space areas (i.e., non-structural) within its boundaries Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-60 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final occurs occasionally, but wildland fire suppression is the primary responsibility of CAL FIRE or the U.S. Forest Service. Due to the District’s location, personnel from GEO are the closest resource for wildland fire suppression for a vast area. There are times when the U.S. Forest Service has staff located closer to some areas, but GEO responds to all vegetation fires in the areas the District serves. (2) The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. Future population growth within the GEO is dependent upon zoning and General Plan policies and land use designations in the region. The District is not aware of any new major development projects under consideration within the District’s boundary or SOI. New development in the District is required to pay development impact fees to fund improvements and the new facilities to serve the new development. These fees may not be used for day-to-day operating expenses. Although development impact fees will assist the District in providing adequate services, staffing challenges could remain a concern as these fees cannot be used for operating expenses. (3) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. With the existing staffing, facilities, and equipment coupled with the automatic dispatch system in place throughout the County, the District is able to provide adequate services to meet the needs of the service area, and has the capacity to assist other fire agencies. Currently the District operates with staffing at national standards for a volunteer fire department. Of all of the calls for service in 2019, the District required aid for 12 percent of all calls when adding in CAL FIRE automatic aid. With CAL FIRE aid removed, the District required aid for nine percent of all calls in 2019. Revenues exceeded expenses for FY 2017/2018 by $508,137 and by $81,638 in FY 2018/2019. The District balanced their budget for FY 2019/2020 which included a fund balance transfer of $766,565 from the rollover funds in the general fund. It is unclear how the District would cover expenditures without the $766,565 fund transfer. GEO has undertaken numerous cost avoidance measures over the past several years to save money, lower expenses or improve services at the same costs. The District has entered into a Joint Operations Agreement with Garden Valley Fire and Mosquito Fire Protection Districts. GEO hopes this agreement will facilitate the continued cooperation of the three districts. The District’s revenue streams may be enough to keep the district viable and maintain service levels in the near term; however, a long term financial solution may be needed through new funding or a reorganization with a nearby fire protection district. (4) The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. GEO serves the communities of Georgetown, Quintette, Volcanoville and portions of Greenwood. Other than Greenwood, there is no social or economic community of interest that would require further consideration. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-61 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final (5) The present and probable need for public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities. Within the boundaries of GEO is located a portion of one census block group that qualifies as a disadvantaged unincorporated community. Water service to the DUC is provided by the Georgetown Divide Public Utility District (GDPUD) or by individual wells. Wastewater services are provided by individual septic systems. Fire protection services are provided by GEO or neighboring agencies through automatic dispatch. Due to this area receiving the essential municipal services of water, wastewater, and structural fire protection, there are no communities within the existing GEO boundary or the District’s SOI that lack public services and no health or safety issues have been identified. Recommendation Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by Georgetown Fire Protection District as those specified in California Health & Safety Code §13862. Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that the Georgetown Fire Protection District Sphere of Influence remain unchanged as shown Volume I - Appendix L. 6.5.8 Lake Valley Fire Protection District (1) The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. Major land uses in the District include recreation and tourism activities associated with Lake Tahoe. Skiing, snowboarding, camping, hiking, mountain biking, fishing, and summer water sports bring millions of tourists year-round. Residential and commercial areas are dispersed along the major corridors but are mostly concentrated around Meyers. The Tahoe Conservancy, along with federal or state agencies maintain permanent open space within the District boundaries. On average, approximately 65 residential permits are issued within LAV each year. New subdivisions are prohibited. In 2011, LAFCO found that LAV contained 1,700 buildable lots and this data has not been updated recently. These lots are expected to gradually develop over time. Since the previous MSR was published in 2011, one new project has been built within the District boundaries or SOI called the Lake Tahoe Hockey Academy/School. There are no other new projects currently proposed that the District is aware of within the District boundaries or SOI. Open space within the LAV’s boundary calculates to almost six acres. There are no agricultural lands within the District. Natural resource identified lands calculate to 7,439 acres within the District. The natural resource areas include coniferous forest habitats with Jeffrey pine and lodgepole pine, riparian streams, meadows, and alpine habitats. The District boundary is situated within the Upper Truckee River and Trout Creek watersheds which drain to Lake Tahoe. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-62 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final (2) The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. There are no new projects currently proposed that the District is aware of within the District boundaries or SOI. Future population growth is dependent upon zoning and General Plan policies and land use designations in the region including development limiting regulations administered through the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). District staff noted the area around Strawberry where services could be extended based on frequent responses. In order for the District to serve this area, the District SOI would need to be amended by LAFCO; and LAV would need to apply to detach these areas from the El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF) and annex them into LAV through El Dorado LAFCO. At this time, LAV finds that the mutual aid agreement between LAV and ECF is sufficient to provide mutual aid response to this area and may consider reorganization discussions with ECF in the future. Parcels currently within LAV receive limited fire protection and emergency medical services. LAV maintains automatic aid agreements with regard to fire protection or emergency services with the City of South Lake Tahoe Fire and Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District. LAV also participates in the Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chiefs’ Association for mutual aid requests. Present needs for fire protection and emergency medical services have been slowly increasing based on increases in calls for service. Probable needs for public facilities and services are not currently anticipated to vary from present needs for parcels in the District. Future demands may increase to accommodate increases in visitor populations. (3) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. The District is able to provide adequate fire protection and emergency medical services with existing facilities, equipment, and staffing supported by the mutual and automatic aid systems in place in the Tahoe Basin. The District operates with staffing levels below minimum national standards which can sometimes leave the community vulnerable. The District’s revenues currently exceed expenditures; however the deficit Net Position of $4.8 million leaves the District in jeopardy of unfunded long-term liabilities. The District needs additional funding for equipment and apparatus as evidenced by the attempted increase in the Fire/EMS Assessment that narrowly failed. With the failure of Measure B, the District is looking at ways to cut costs including reductions in staffing, changing apparatus purchasing plans, and refinancing the District's pension. The District’s revenue streams may be enough to keep the district viable and maintain service levels in the near term; however, a long term financial solution may be needed through new funding or renewed reorganization discussions with the City of South Lake Tahoe, perhaps as a Subsidiary District. (4) The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. LAV serves multiple communities including the Emerald Bay/Cascade Lake area, Echo Summit, Christmas Valley, Meyers, Sawmill and Pioneer, North Upper Truckee, Heavenly Valley, Phillips Tract, Twin Bridges, and Spring Creek (near Cascade Lake). However, there are no large, Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-63 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final concentrated, social or economic communities of interest that are relevant to the agency. Due to TRPA land use regulations, these communities’ populations are expected to remain relatively stable. (5) The present and probable need for public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities. Within the District boundary and SOI are located portions three census block groups that qualify as disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUC). These rural areas receive essential municipal services of water and wastewater services from South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) and structural fire protection from LAV and neighboring agencies through mutual aid agreements. There are no communities within the existing LAV boundary that lack public services, and no health or safety issues have been identified. In addition, there are three other census block groups within the LAV boundaries that may qualify as DUCs. However, no information is available for median household income for these areas. Therefore, it is not known whether there are additional disadvantaged unincorporated community within the District boundary. Recommendation Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by Lake Valley Fire Protection District as those specified in California Health & Safety Code §13862. Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that Lake Valley Fire Protection District Sphere of Influence remain unchanged as shown Volume I - Appendix L. 6.5.9 Meeks Bay Fire Protection District (1) The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. The present land use in the MEK area includes residential, recreational and tourist related uses. The residential areas are predominantly single-family homes. Recreational areas include several campgrounds, a State park, a community park, and a trail. Primary residential areas within MEK are concentrated along State Highway 89 and around the edge of Lake Tahoe. Open space within the MEK's boundary calculates to 2,029 acres with land use designations of backcountry and conservation from the TRPA. There are no agricultural lands within the District. The District's SOI contains state and federal lands, parks, and campgrounds totaling approximately 1,864 acres. Growth and development potential is limited largely by TRPA regulations. There are no proposed or current projects that would impact the District. The District’s southern boundary to the SOI terminates at Emerald Bay, where Lake Valley Fire Protection District Boundary begins. (2) The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. Parcels currently within the MEK district receive adequate fire protection and emergency response services due to the agreements with North Tahoe Fire Protection District (NTF) in Placer County. NTF and MEK for all intents and purposes (with the exception of governance and budgets) Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-64 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final are operating as one agency. MEK has an extremely low call volume, however the risk to life and assessed property valuation warrants a staffed station. Given the size, call volume, and budget of MEK, the possibility of the District remaining as a standalone entity does not seem to be justified. The proposed zero sphere for MEK’s SOI anticipates the eventual annexation of the District into NTF. Presently, areas within the District’s SOI receive fire protection services from MEK through agreements with NTF. As the closest responding District to this area, it is not anticipated for services to be reduced based on the actions proposed in this report. The eventual annexation of MEK into NFT would likely increase services to these areas through the increase in available staff to the District service area. With existing mutual aid agreements to areas of El Dorado County, services are anticipated to continue to be adequate to those areas proposed for removal through a zero sphere for MEK. (3) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. The District is able to provide adequate fire protection and emergency medical services with existing facilities, equipment, and staffing supported by the agreements with NTF and the mutual and automatic aid systems in place in the Tahoe Basin. The District operates with staffing levels below minimum national standards which can leave the community vulnerable. District expenses currently outpace revenues, with the District running out of reserve funds available to cover revenue shortfalls within the next four years. The projections suggest an urgency for the District to consolidate with NTF as soon as possible. The District entered into the existing agreements with NTF to maximize financial opportunities and reduce overhead costs. Through these agreements MEK has reached the peak of finding alternative ways to meet their needs and the next step would be consolidation. (4) The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. MEK serves the communities of Meeks Bay and Tahoma. No additional communities of interest are nearby on the El Dorado County side of the county line. No areas within the District are classified as disadvantaged unincorporated communities. (5) The present and probable need for public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities. Within the boundary and SOI of MEK there are no areas that qualify as a disadvantaged unincorporated community. Therefore, no considerations for services are necessary. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-65 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Recommendation Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by Meeks Bay Fire Protection District as those specified in California Health & Safety Code §13862. Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that the Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Sphere of Influence be reduced to zero as shown in Volume I - Appendix L in anticipation of future annexation into North Tahoe Fire Protection District in Placer County. 6.5.10 Mosquito Fire Protection District (1) The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. The present land use in the MQT area consists primarily of agricultural and rural residential uses, with a limited number of acres designated by the 2004 County General Plan as commercial. Single family homes on a minimum parcel size of two acres are concentrated on the east side of the District. Open space within the MQT’s boundary calculates to 221 acres. Natural resource lands, such as forests, comprise 3,496 acres. There are no designated agricultural lands within the MQT boundary. In the near future, several new development projects have been proposed within the MQT boundary including the replacement of the Mosquito Bridge by the El Dorado County Transportation Department. Specifically, the Transportation Department has committed to the construction of a new bridge replacing the existing single lane wooden swinging bridge, which is one of two access points into the Mosquito Fire Protection District service area. Improvements to this bridge will improve access to the lands contained within the MQT boundary, and could facilitate development of at least a portion of the currently vacant lots within the MQT boundaries. (2) The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. Presently, all developed and undeveloped areas within MQT receive limited fire protection and emergency response services supported by the automatic dispatch system in the County and existing agreements with neighboring agencies. Future population growth within the MQT is dependent upon zoning and General Plan policies and land-use designations in the region. New development in the District is required to pay development impact fees to fund improvements and the new facilities to serve the new development. These fees may not be used for day-to-day operating expenses. Though development impact fees will assist the District in providing adequate services, staffing challenges could remain a concern as these fees cannot be used for operating expenses. There are no areas outside of the current MQT service boundaries that require inclusion within its SOI or its service boundaries. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-66 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final (3) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. With the existing staffing, facilities, and equipment coupled with the automatic dispatch system in place throughout the County, the District is able to provide limited services to meet the needs of the service area and has the capacity to assist other fire agencies. Currently the District operates at staffing within national standards of a volunteer fire department. Of all the calls for service in 2019, the District required aid or was not first responder for approximately 10 percent of all calls in their boundary when adding in CAL FIRE automatic aid. With CAL FIRE aid removed, the District required aid for approximately seven percent of all calls in 2019. In addition, the District is operating at a deficit for the years studied in this report. Future plans are focused on maintaining low operational costs and requesting that the community endorse a new special tax. MQT has entered into a Joint Operational Agreement with GEO and GRV. This agreement allows for the sharing of equipment, facilities, staff, and volunteers between the three districts. The District’s revenue streams may be enough to keep the district viable and maintain service levels in the near term; however, a long term financial solution may be needed through new funding or a reorganization with a nearby fire protection district. (4) The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. MQT serves the communities of Mosquito and Swansboro Country. No additional communities of interest are nearby. (5) The present and probable need for public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities. Within the boundary and SOI of MQT there are no areas that qualify as a disadvantaged unincorporated community. Therefore, no considerations for services are necessary. Recommendation Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by Mosquito Fire Protection District as those specified in California Health & Safety Code §13862. Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that Mosquito Fire Protection District Sphere of Influence remain unchanged as shown Volume I - Appendix L; and that the District Municipal Service Review be revisited within 3 years. 6.5.11 Pioneer Fire Protection District (1) The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. Approximately 89 percent of the present land use in PIO is designated as open space, natural resources, or agriculture. Within the PIO SOI, all of the acreage is designated as natural resources Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-67 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final under the El Dorado County General Plan. Most of the territory within the PIO boundary is part of the ElDorado National Forest and is managed by the U.S. Forest Service. A significant amount of the private land use in the District boundary is agricultural, with 3,000 acres in Williamson Act contracts, and several thousand acres in designated Timber Preserve Zones. The remaining ten percent is composed of rural residential areas on the western side of the district in the communities of Grizzly Flat (burned in the Caldor Fire), Somerset, Outingdale, Fairplay, Mt. Aukum, and Omo Ranch. No new projects are currently proposed within the District boundary. In the adjacent area, outside of the District boundaries, land is primarily characterized by forests, managed by the ElDorado National Forest, with limited rural residential uses. (2) The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. Except in catastrophic situations (as was the case in the Caldor Fire), developed areas within PIO receive adequate fire protection and emergency response services from the District supported by the automatic dispatch system in the County and the existing Joint Operating Agreement (JOA) with Amador Fire Protection District (AMC). Areas located in the southern portion of the District have a low to moderate probability of developing over the next twenty years in a rural residential style on existing undeveloped private parcels, consistent with the County General Plan. Emergency response within the Sphere of Influence areas is covered under the dispatch automatic aid system. The PIO Boundary and SOI includes significant acreage managed by the Eldorado National Forest, which is a federal response area. Although the U.S. Forest Service has its own seasonal firefighters who focus on wildland fires, sometimes structural fires occur, and PIO responds. To offset costs incurred by local fire districts who provide services to federal land, the federal government provides Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) funds to the County. However, the County of El Dorado does not distribute PILT funds to individual fire districts. PIO staff noted that the District has a large geographic size. The areas east of the District boundary include U.S. Forest Service managed land and this area has limited access. In general, as areas grow, and as commercial facilities develop, the PIO will need to expand facilities to provide more efficient response times. (3) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. Overall, PIO utilizes a mix of full-time salaried staff, part-time hourly staff, and volunteers. Staffing for the PIO is limited, and the District is constantly recruiting for additional paid staff and volunteers. PIO also augments its staffing through its participation in a Joint Operating Agreement (JOA) with the Amador Fire Protection District (AMC). The District owns, leases, or operates a total of seven fire stations with various staffing levels. Staff reports that in the years 2018 to 2019, the PIO’s average response time was an average of five minutes and 35 seconds to the core response area. In the middle core spatial area, PIO’s average response time was 10 minutes and 35 seconds. Outside the core spatial area, the response time averaged over 15 minutes. PIO’s goal is to reduce these times by 20 percent by the year 2020, and an additional 10 percent by 2021. Of all of the calls for service in 2019, the District required aid for 22 percent of them when adding in CAL FIRE. With CAL FIRE aid removed, the District required aid for 13 percent of all calls in 2019 Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-68 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Based on the data presented in the District’s MSR Chapter, the Pioneer Fire Protection District is able to provide limited service to the residents of PIO. Currently the District operates at a (1-0) staffing model, meaning there is one staff person for every engine. With a mix of staffing levels, the District relies on the mutual and automatic aid agreements with neighboring fire agencies to ensure enough resources are available at each incident in the District’s boundaries. The District has positive revenues over expenditures and a positive net position; however, this position is threatened by a forecasted 40 percent increase in expenditures for FY 2020/2021. In FY 2017/2018, the District staffed two fire stations nine hours a day, seven days a week and had four unstaffed stations. As of 2020, two stations were staffed with one person 24 hours a day, seven days a week, four stations were staffed part-time, and one was unstaffed. The District has managed to increase the number of stations open from FY 2017/2018 to FY 2020/2021 as well as the length of time those stations are staffed. Currently, the District’s JOA agreement with Amador covers shared resources in per-diem for firefighters and training. The next phase for PIO to consider would be to add administrative functions to the JOA to reduce overhead and cut costs. The District’s revenue streams may be enough to keep the District viable and maintain service levels in the near term; however, a long term financial solution may be needed through new funding or a reorganization with a nearby fire protection district such as Amador Fire Protection District in Amador County. (4) The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. PIO provides fire protection and emergency response services to communities within the District boundary including Grizzly Flat, Somerset, Outingdale, Fairplay, Mt. Aukum, and Omo Ranch. The respective community populations within these areas are expected to remain relatively stable. The Somerset market area contains 48,733 acres and consists of low-density and rural residential development intermixed with vineyards and ranchlands. The Fairplay viticultural region lies in the center of the market area and is very important to the County of El Dorado wine industry. (5) The present and probable need for public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities. Within the District boundary and SOI are located portions two census block groups that qualify as disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs) and one census block group for which no income data was available. Water service to these DUCs is provided by the El Dorado Irrigation District (EID), the Grizzly Flats Community Services District (GFCSD) in Grizzly Flat, the River Pines Public Utility District (RPPUD) in the mutual aid area of River Pines, or by individual wells. Wastewater services are provided by EID or by individual septic systems. Fire protection services are provided by PIO or neighboring fire agencies through automatic dispatch. Due to this area receiving the essential municipal services of water, wastewater, and structural fire protection, there are no communities within the existing PIO service area or the District’s SOI that lack public services, and no public health or safety issues have been identified. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-69 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Recommendation Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by Pioneer Fire Protection District as those specified in California Health & Safety Code §13862. Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that Pioneer Fire Protection District Sphere of Influence remain unchanged as shown Volume I - Appendix L; and that the District Municipal Service Review be revisited within 3 years. 6.5.12 Rescue Fire Protection District (1) The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. The primary land uses within the service area are rural residential, agriculture and open space. The community of Rescue is a historic town site surrounded by low-density rural residential dwellings on larger sized lots. The District area also contains four schools, a cemetery, several wineries, and agricultural land-uses. Commercial land uses are limited to a commercial firewood business and a commercial storage facility. Several areas are primarily characterized by open space with limited rural residential uses. Future land uses are expected to remain relatively unchanged with population growth likely in the southwest area of the District, adjacent to the communities of Cameron Park and El Dorado Hills. The 2004 General Plan encourages future development within the community region of Rescue and the area west of Cameron Park. The current RES Sphere includes lands to its west and east; neither of these areas are within the boundaries of a fire agency. A significant area of the SOI to the west (generally described as the Salmon Falls Area north of Green Valley Road) separates the District from the El Dorado Hills Fire Department and has been historically designated as part of Rescue’s Sphere of Influence. Although this area is included in the RES’s SOI, EDH is the first responder for this area as there is no access for RES personnel without driving through a significant part of EDH’s jurisdiction. There are no plans to develop the parcels to the east beyond the current General Plan designation and most of the parcels in this area are vacant or designated as open space. Fire services are provided to these areas by the closest available resource through dispatch. (2) The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. Parcels currently within the RES district receive adequate fire protection and emergency response services supported by the Shared Services Agreement with EDH and automatic aid through dispatch. The Rescue community and surrounding SOI areas that are proposed to be included in EDH’s SOI are dependent upon zoning and General Plan policies and land-use designations in the region. Consistent with the General Plan, the County of El Dorado has approved several new development projects in the RES boundary area including four subdivisions concentrated in the southwest area of the District, adjacent to the CAM and EDH. Upon the District’s annexation into EDH the additional property tax, assessment and/or special tax, and development impact fee Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-70 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final revenue, would likely offset the increased costs and required resources to ensure the provision of services to the area. (3) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. Parcels currently within the RES District boundary and SOI receive fire protection and emergency response services from RES that are supported by the automatic aid dispatch system in the County and the existing Shared Services agreement with EDH. The RES received less aid than it provided in 2019, suggesting that District was able to provide adequate service to the communities within its boundaries and has the capacity to assist neighboring agencies in providing those services. The RES District staffing levels operate below the minimum national standard and the long-term fiscal sustainability of the District remains a challenge. Current tax revenues, assessments, and other funding is insufficient to sustainably deliver adequate fire protection services in the District. RES is currently operating with positive revenues over expenditures; however, the net position of a $1.6 million deficit leaves the District in jeopardy of long-term liabilities being unfunded. The proposed zero sphere for RES and expansion of EDH’s SOI to include the RES District Boundary and SOI would maintain existing services in the RES SOI areas. RES and EDH already operate under the existing Shared Services Agreement that provides for additional support to the RES District Boundary and SOI from EDH. Upon RES’s annexation into EDH, the combining of the two agencies will result in a stronger, more efficient and more robust organization that will led to long term preservation of emergency service delivery levels for communities served by the combined district. (4) The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. RES serves the community of Rescue as well as the areas west of Cameron Park. (5) The present and probable need for public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities. Within the boundaries of EDH and RES or the District’s SOI there are no areas that qualify as a disadvantaged unincorporated community. Therefore, no considerations for services are necessary. Recommendation Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by the Rescue Fire Protection District as those specified in California Health & Safety Code §13862. Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that the Rescue Fire Protection District Sphere of Influence be reduced to a zero sphere, as shown in Volume I - Appendix L; and that the District Municipal Service Review be revisited within 3 years. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-71 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 6.5.13 City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department (1) The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. The predominant land uses within the City include residential (single- and multi-family), commercial, recreational and conservation. Due to its location adjacent to Lake Tahoe, tourism and recreational uses are of economic importance. Commercial and industrial activities cover several economic sectors such as retail, health and social services, and arts and entertainment. The City is subject to the land planning oversight of the TRPA. TRPA limits development within the planning boundary and limits the ability for the City to make land use changes. Current land use designations are likely to remain unchanged. Since the previous MSR/SOI Update for the City was published in 2016, there has been one new residential development called The Aspens Apartments (47 units) located next to Station No. 1. The City’s most densely developed area is found along the corridors of State Highways 50 and 89 to the north, and Pioneer Trail along the southern edge. Land use within the City’s SOI is regulated by the County of El Dorado’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, since this area is unincorporated. The existing land uses within the SOI includes residential uses, open space, commercial, industrial, recreation and tourist facilities. TRPA limits development within the SOI and limits the ability for the County to make land use changes. The SOI appears to be adequate to meet present and future service needs. (2) The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. Parcels currently within the City receive moderate fire protection and emergency medical response services. Future population growth within the City is dependent upon zoning and City General Plan policies and land-use designations. There are several new developments proposed to be built in the near-term within the City, including affordable housing, hotels, condominiums and townhomes. New development in the City is required to pay development impact fees to fund improvements and the new facilities to serve the new development. Development impact fees would assist the City in providing adequate services. Future population growth in the City’s SOI is dependent upon County of El Dorado zoning and General Plan policies and land-use designations in the region including development limiting regulations administered through the TRPA. Parcels currently within the City’s SOI receive fire protection and emergency medical services from LAV and through mutual aid agreements with regard to fire protection or emergency services with the City of South Lake Tahoe Fire and Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District. The City also participates in the Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chiefs’ Association for mutual aid requests. Probable needs for public facilities and services are not currently anticipated to vary from present needs for parcels in the SOI. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-72 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final (3) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. The City provides adequate fire protection and emergency medical response services for residents and visitors to the City. The City Fire Department has a strong vehicle replacement plan and as a result, there are no pressing needs for new vehicles, apparatus, or equipment. The Department is staffed at minimum nationwide standards and meets NFPA 1710 for staffing in some cases. The City is well positioned to continue to adequately fund the SLT Fire Department with the staff and infrastructure required. LAV provides service to the City’s SOI and the City provides aid to those areas through agreements with LAV. A Shared Service Agreement with Lake Valley Fire Protection District is something both the City and LAV could consider in the future and would help clarify any ‘overlap’ issues between the agencies. Such an agreement has the potential to save costs for both organizations. It is recognized that such a proposal also poses many challenges. (4) The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. The City of South Lake Tahoe includes numerous residential communities and commercial areas including The Y, Tahoe Keys, Al Tahoe, Sierra Tract, Ski Run, and Stateline. Residential communities in the City’s SOI include Meyers, Sawmill and Pioneer, Christmas Valley, North Upper Truckee, and Heavenly Valley. (5) The present and probable need for public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities. Within the City’s SOI are located portions of three census block groups that qualify as disadvantaged unincorporated communities. In addition, there are three other Census Block Groups within the City SOI that may qualify as a DUC; however, no information is available for median household income for these areas. These rural areas receive essential municipal services of water and wastewater services from South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) or private wells and structural fire protection from LAV and neighboring agencies through mutual aid agreements. There are no communities within the City’s SOI that lack public services, and no health or safety issues have been identified. Recommendation Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by the City of South Lake Tahoe as specified under Government of Cities Law, California Government Code Section 34000 et seq. Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that the City of South Lake Tahoe Sphere of Influence remain unchanged, as shown in Volume I - Appendix L. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-73 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 6.5.14 County Service Area 3 (1) The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. Primary land uses within the service area for CSA 3 are residential, mixed-use residential, tourist- related, and major commercial/visitor centers. CSA 3 land uses are tightly controlled by the TRPA. In CSA 3 future population growth within the Lake Tahoe Region is dependent upon zoning and General Plan policies and land-use designations in the region. TRPA policies limit development throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) for the County are shared between CSA 3 and CSA 7, separated by extensive geographic and topographic features. The existing division of EMS is adequate for future service needs. (2) The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. All developed and undeveloped areas within the CSA 3 service area receive adequate emergency response services. Areas outside of the current CSA 3 service boundaries receive adequate emergency response services from CSA 7. New development within CSA 3 is limited based on TRPA regulations. (3) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. CSA 3 provides adequate emergency response services within its boundary and provides mutual aid responses to areas outside its boundaries within the County and in neighboring counties. The agency revenues are adequate to maintain existing services and fund future services. Existing revenue sources appear adequate to maintain and fund future service needs in CSA 3. (4) The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. CSA 3 includes the entire east side of the County from approximately Twin Bridges to the Tahoe Basin, therefore there are multiple communities of interest. No SOI changes for CSA 3 are recommended in this report. (5) The present and probable need for public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities. Within the boundaries of CSA 3 are located 16 Census Block Groups that qualify as disadvantaged unincorporated communities. These unincorporated areas receive public services from numerous local and state agencies. Water service to these DUCs is provided by the South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD), other small water service providers, or by individual wells. Wastewater services are provided by STPUD, other small wastewater service providers, or by individual septic systems. Fire protection services are provided by the three fire agencies within the area, as well as the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) in the wildland areas located within the State Responsibility Areas (SRAs), the US Forest Service Federal Responsibility Areas Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-74 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final (FRAs), and other agencies through mutual and automatic aid. Due to these areas receiving the essential municipal services of water, wastewater, and structural fire protection, there are no communities within the existing areas of CSA 3 that lack public services and no health or safety issues have been identified Recommendation Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by County Service Area No. 3 as Emergency Medical Services. All powers specified under Government Code §25213 are designated as latent powers with the exception of Government Code 25213(t). Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that the CSA 3 Sphere of Influence remain unchanged, as shown in Volume I - Appendix L. 6.5.15 County Service Area 7 (1) The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. Currently, the primary land uses within the service area for CSA 7 varies, from an urban area (City of Placerville) to suburban areas (El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park), to rural and semi-rural (Georgetown Divide or South County), to open space and natural areas (e.g., the Eldorado National Forest or the areas along the Cosumnes River and the North and South Forks of the American River). Development within CSA 7 continues to occur in the community centers with the greatest concentration in the El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park areas. Higher-density areas of residential, commercial, and industrial uses exist along the Highway 50 Corridor from El Dorado Hills through Placerville with areas of lower density residential, commercial, and some industrial to the north and south throughout the county clustered in rural community centers or scattered throughout as low-density residential development. Large areas of the County contain agricultural uses as well as open space as part of the national forest lands that make up much of the eastern portion of the County. EMS services for the county are shared between CSA 3 and CSA 7, separated by extensive geographic and topographic features. The existing division of EMS services is adequate for future service needs. (2) The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. All developed and undeveloped areas within the CSA 7 service area receive adequate emergency response services. Areas outside of the current CSA 7 service boundaries receive adequate emergency response services from CSA 3. New development within CSA 7 is anticipated to occur within the Community Regions and the City of Placerville with limited development anticipated in the more rural areas of the County due to limited services. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-75 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final (3) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. CSA 7 provides adequate emergency response services within its boundary and provides mutual aid responses to areas outside its boundaries within the County and in neighboring counties. The agency revenues are adequate to maintain existing services and fund future services. Existing revenue sources appear adequate to maintain and fund future service needs in CSA 7. Through interviews with the various fire chiefs throughout the County, consultants were made aware of the need for an additional ambulance on the West Slope to help offset the high volume of calls experienced by the four ambulances along the US Highway 50 Corridor. The County could consider adding a part-time ambulance to the area to assist during peak call times. (4) The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. CSA 7 includes the entire West Slope of the County, therefore there are multiple communities of interest. No SOI changes for CSA 7 are recommended in this report. (5) The present and probable need for public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities. Within the boundaries of CSA 7 are located 11 Census Block Groups that qualify as a disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs). These unincorporated areas receive public services from numerous local and state agencies. Water service to these DUCs is provided by the El Dorado Irrigation District (EID), Georgetown Divide Public Utility District (GDPUD), other small water service providers, or by individual wells. Wastewater services are provided by EID, other small wastewater service providers, or by individual septic systems. Fire protection services are provided by the nine fire agencies within the West Slope, as well as the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) in the wildland areas located within the State Responsibility Areas (SRAs), the US Forest Service Federal Responsibility Areas (FRAs), and other agencies through mutual and automatic aid. Due to these areas receiving the essential municipal services of water, wastewater, and structural fire protection, there are no communities within the existing areas of CSA 7 that lack public services and no health or safety issues have been identified. Recommendation Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by County Service Area No. 7 as Emergency Medical Services. All powers specified under Government Code §25213 are designated as latent powers with the exception of Government Code 25213(t). Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that the CSA 7 Sphere of Influence remain unchanged, as shown in Volume I - Appendix L. Volume I of II Sphere of Influence Study and Determinations Page 6-76 of 6-76 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Chapter 7. Comments Received This Chapter includes the comments from the LAFCO Commission, members of the public, as well as the LAFCO Ad Hoc committee offered on the Draft MSR/SOI Update. The consulting team and LAFCO staff have provided responses to the comments and have made minor refinements and added analysis to the text of the MSR/SOI document as appropriate to address those comments. Table of Contents 7.1 Overview of Comments Received on Draft MSR/SOI Update ............................................. 7-1 7.1.1 LAFCO Commission Hearing and Ad Hoc Committee Comments ........................................................ 7-2 7.1.2 Comment Letters and Responses ........................................................................................................ 7-9 Comment Letter A ...................................................................................................................................... 7-10 Comment Letter B ....................................................................................................................................... 7-12 Comment Letter C ....................................................................................................................................... 7-16 Comment Letter D ...................................................................................................................................... 7-35 Comment Letter E ....................................................................................................................................... 7-39 Comment Letter F ....................................................................................................................................... 7-55 Comment Letter G ...................................................................................................................................... 7-57 Comment Letter H ...................................................................................................................................... 7-59 Comment Letter I ........................................................................................................................................ 7-61 Comment Letter J ....................................................................................................................................... 7-63 Table of Tables Table 7-1: Comments/Edits Table for Commission Hearing on January 26, 2022 .................................... 7-3 Table 7-2: Comment Letters Received for Draft MSR/SOI Update ........................................................... 7-9 Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-1 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 7.1 Overview of Comments Received on Draft MSR/SOI Update El Dorado LAFCO prepared and circulated a public review Draft MSR/SOI Update for Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services. The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH Act) requires a minimum 21-day public review period for draft MSR’s. The LAFCO Commission formally opened the public comment period on the Draft MSR/SOI Update during their January 26, 2022, public hearing. The Draft MSR/SOI Update was posted on the El Dorado LAFCO website on January 19, 2022. Written public comments were requested to be submitted by March 2, 2022, although comments were accepted until April 27, 2022. This resulted in an overall public comment period on the Draft MSR/SOI Update of 13 weeks. 7.1.1 LAFCO Commission Hearing and Ad Hoc Committee Comments Comments were made by LAFCO Commission members and the public during the January 26, 2022, hearing. Following the hearing, consultants met with the LAFCO Ad Hoc Committee to discuss the Draft MSR/SOI Update three times; on March 1, 2022, April 5, 2022, and April 12, 2022. Table 7-1 below outlines the comments made during the January 26, 2022, LAFCO Hearing and the three meetings with the Ad Hoc Committee as well as details regarding any changes to the text of the MSR/SOI Update as appropriate. The table includes a summary of the comment; whether text was added, edited, or no change occurred; consultants’ response to the comment; a summary of the change that was made; and the location within the report where the change occurred. A total of 21 comments were made between all four meetings. Only three comments resulted in no change, 15 comments resulted in the addition of information, and five comments solicited edits to the report. Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-2 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 7-1: Comments/Edits Table for Commission Hearing on January 26, 2022 Add / Edit Comment Change No. Summary of Comment / No LAFCO/Consultant Response Summary of Changes Source Location Change Consultant proposes expanding The Fire Summit provides a information in the Fire Summit path forward for all parties section including topics to involved. Through consultation consider and suggested Concern that the report Commission with professional in highly framework for creating the Volume I – does not take significant Hearing sensitive stakeholder Summits broken into four Chapter 6, 1 action to address the Add (January 26, collaboration, consultant is subheadings: Section financial difficulties facing 2022) proposing further development • Discussion Topics 6.4.1 many of the districts. of the Fire Summit section to • Summit Framework include a framework for LAFCO • Stakeholder to consider. Collaboration • Public Participation Consultant proposes to strikethrough the following: It is not clear if a ladder truck is Commission There are no additional With one major hospital, Volume I – needed, therefore language Hearing ladder trucks needed in multiple nursing homes, and Chapter 6, 2 Edit has been removed that appears (January 26, the County on the West multiple schools, it is likely that Section to suggest this in the 2022) Slope. additional ladder trucks may be 6.3.4, affirmative needed in the event of multi- story and high-hazard… As a result of this comment, consultant suggests expanding Commission Consultant proposes the Volume I – Concern of lack of analysis one Fire Summit into two with Hearing following changes: Add language Chapter 6, 3 for the Tahoe Basin side in Add stakeholders from around the (January 26, to include a second fire summit Section the SOI Options Tahoe Basin involved in the 2022) to take place in the Tahoe Basin. 6.3.4 discussions for the Fire Summit to be held in the Basin. Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-3 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Add / Edit Comment Change No. Summary of Comment / No LAFCO/Consultant Response Summary of Changes Source Location Change Would like to see added Consultant reached out to the information for closer City to determine if this Consultant proposes adding all Commission Volume I – collaboration with opportunity for collaboration new information as an Hearing Chapter 4, 4 Sheriff’s Office for a better Add would be viable and received addendum to the end of the (January 26, Section repeater location for the an extensive response of future section. See Comment Letter G 2022) 4.1.3 City of South Lake Tahoe upgrades to the City’s dispatch below. (SLT). system LAFCO has determined that this Suggestion of further Commission analysis would be better served analysis for the City to Hearing No in the next round MSR/SOI No change 5 expand its services outside No change (January 26, Change Update for the City to provide a of the City of South Lake 2022) more focused analysis for this Tahoe (SLT) boundary. area. There is insufficient Concern that Option 1 information to suggest that the Commission leaves the County in the commission pursue Option 2 at Hearing same position with no No No change No change 6 this time. A cost benefit (January 26, change and Option 2 Change analysis and service plan are 2022) could provide the best needed to determine if Option solution. 2 is viable. Consultant does not recommend the Commission consider this as a viable option. Commission EDH and RES not included Once EDH and RES annex, a Hearing in SOI boundary No future report could look at No change No change 7 (January 26, adjustment Option 3 Change automatic aid disparities to 2022) scenarios and should be. determine if any exist and what boundary adjustments might alleviate those disparities, if any. Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-4 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Add / Edit Comment Change No. Summary of Comment / No LAFCO/Consultant Response Summary of Changes Source Location Change Consultant proposes additional Consultant was able to conduct information added to the an interview with personnel at Dispatch and Call Response Concern that consultants Commission Central Dispatch. This led to section and to the Volume I – did not receive any Hearing Add/ additional interviews with CAL Determinations section related Chapter 4, 8 response from the County (January 26, Edit FIRE Camino ECC Dispatch, the to the dispatch system Section Sheriff’s Office for 2022) West Slope JPA Director, and El infrastructure on the West 4.1.2 dispatch information. Dorado County Slope. All references to lack of Communications Manager. response by County Sheriff’s Office removed. Concern that the Consultant proposes to add that discussions around Option Commission staffing levels are generally Volume I – 2 do not consider that the The information provided in Hearing below minimum and national Chapter 6, 9 positive net position is Edit this section could be made (January 26, standards and that it is likely a Section based on existing level of clearer. 2022) consolidated agency would have 6.4.2, service which is below increased costs for staffing. standards. Add sentence about 1st Ad Hoc It is important for institutional Volume I – succession planning from Committee knowledge known by the Consultant proposes to add a Chapter 4, 10 Sheriff’s Office for the Add (March 1, Communication Manager be sentence to that affect. Section Communications Manager 2022) passed on to a successor. 4.1.2 future replacement Consultant proposes adding a 1st Ad Hoc Add sentence alluding to It is important for the agencies Volume I – sentence that the agencies Committee the ability for agencies to to work together in pursuit of Chapter 4, 11 Add would be more successful (March 1, pursue grants together for dispatch grants in order to Section winning grants for dispatch by 2022) dispatch upgrades. increase success. 4.1.2 pursuing grants together. Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-5 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Add / Edit Comment Change No. Summary of Comment / No LAFCO/Consultant Response Summary of Changes Source Location Change Reword sentence about ERAF that consultants are Consultant proposes to indicate 1st Ad Hoc aware of a legal precedent Consultant was informed by Volume I – that consultants are aware of Committee that suggests ERAF funds Commissioner Veerkamp that Chapter 5, 12 Edit legal precedent that may allow (March 1, can be retained with Sac Metro was successful in Section for the ERAF exemption to be 2022) mergers of multi-county retaining ERAF funds. 5.5.1 extended to merging districts. agencies and their neighbors. Consultant was informed by Add language regarding 1st Ad Hoc Commissioner Veerkamp that Consultant proposes to add a Volume II – West Slope JPA contract Committee the West Slope JPA is in the sentence regarding this new Chapter 15, 13 for a strategic review and Add (March 1, process of going through a information at the end of the Section the development of a 2022) strategic review and existing recommendation. 15.4.7 strategic plan. developing a strategic plan. Consultant proposes to add Chapter 5, Section 5.3.5, Removing the net pension 1st Ad Hoc another net position chart and Volume I – Figure 5-11, remove liabilities from the Net Position Committee descriptor language with net Chapter 5, 14 CalPERS unfunded Add would offer an alternative view (March 1, pension liabilities removed for Section liabilities from the Net of each agency’s liabilities and 2022) those agencies that participate 5.3.5 Position. debts. to provide a comparison. Consultant proposes to add a Add graphic that shows graphic that shows the total the agency’s revenues This additional information 1st Ad Hoc revenues and the percentage of Volume I – over/under expenditures would highlight what Committee those revenues that come from Chapter 5, 15 for FY 18/19 as if they had Add percentage of agency revenues (March 1, JPA reimbursements for those Section not received funding for come from JPA Reimbursement 2022) agencies within CSA 7 who 5.2.6 ambulance services through CSA 7. operate one or more through CSA 7. ambulances. Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-6 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Add / Edit Comment Change No. Summary of Comment / No LAFCO/Consultant Response Summary of Changes Source Location Change Adding another option for the Zones of benefit as Consultant proposes to add a 1st Ad Hoc agencies, LAFCO, and the Volume I – another reorganization paragraph summarizing how the Committee County to consider when Chapter 6, 16 option for the West Slope Add Fire Authority could be (March 1, looking at reorganization Section Fire Authority discussed in established using zones of 2022) options would expand 6.4.2 the SOI Chapter. benefit under CSA law. discussion. Additional information about Add sentence or two Consultant proposes to add to 1st Ad Hoc JPA funded staff as a Volume I – about CSA 7 and staffing the West Slope Fire Authority Committee percentage of agency staffing Chapter 6, 17 of Station 19 and Station Add analysis by including the number (March 1, for those agencies that operate Section 61 for ambulance staffing of FTE Uniform staff compared 2022) an ambulance for CSA 7 would 6.4.2 responding to calls. to JPA funded staff. provide further analysis. 1st Ad Hoc Consultant proposes that the Volume I – Defining the timing of the two Committee Add proposed timing for Fire Summits be held in the Chapter 6, 18 Add summits would assist with (March 1, fire summits. same year, no more than two Section planning and budgeting. 2022) weeks apart. 6.4.2 Add the County is responsible, in part, for solving this problem. The The County could take on a Consultant proposes adding General Plan dictates more active role in working language to the Retain Existing 1st Ad Hoc where growth is Volume I – through this problem and the SOIs option that summarizes Committee happening. Lack of Chapter 6, 19 Add lack of funding for the fire past funding decisions and how (March 1, available funding that Section agencies is exacerbating their the County continues to be an 2022) should be going to fire 6.4.1 ability to meet industry important partner in this agencies, and isn’t, has standards. discussion. caused additional financial constraints for some of these agencies. Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-7 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Add / Edit Comment Change No. Summary of Comment / No LAFCO/Consultant Response Summary of Changes Source Location Change At the direction of the Ad Hoc Committee, consultants Volume II – reached out to the Chiefs of Chapter 7 Reach out to Garden PIO and GRV. GRV confirmed 2nd Ad Hoc & Chapter Valley FPD and Pioneer that they operate under NFPA Committee See response to Comment 12, 20 FPD for a response to Add/ Edit 1720 and PIO informed (April 5, Letters H and I which NFPA standard they consultants that they do not 2022) Volume I – operate under. meet either NFPA 1720 or Chapters 1, NFPA 1710 standards. See 5, & 6 responses from agencies in Letter’s H and I below. An addendum was added to Based on letter received 3rd Ad Hoc At the direction of the Ad Hoc Chapter 6, Section 6.4.1 and Volume I – from EDH (Comment Committee Committee, consultants added Rescue Fire Protection District Chapter 6, 21 Letter J) move forward Add (April 12, an addendum summarizing the Recommended SOI was Section with Option 1 2022) information in the letter. amended to revisit the District 6.4.1 recommendation. MSR within 3 years. Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-8 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 7.1.2 Comment Letters and Responses A copy of all the comments received and LAFCO’s response to each comment is provided in this section. Comments and responses are numbered so that they correspond to each other. Many of the comments received were for various textual edits to MSR Chapters for agencies that provided comments. Two comment letters solicited additional information to be included in the report and are outlined below. Only one comment letter provided information that may substantially change the direction of the LAFCO Commission’s decision, which may be different than the recommendations outlined in this report. This letter, Comment Letter J, was received from EDH and details the termination of the Shared Services Agreement between RES and EDH and the rescinding of the Letter of Intent to Annex. This letter was received by LAFCO on April 11, 2022. Table 7-2 below lists the comment letters received for the Draft MSR/SOI Update. Table 7-2: Comment Letters Received for Draft MSR/SOI Update Comment Letter Agency/Group that Submitted Date Comment Author Identifier Comments Letter Received A County of El Dorado CAO’s Office Sue Hennike January 24, 2022 B Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Chief Steve Leighton March 24, 2022 Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire C Katrina Daniels March 22, 2022 Protection District D Georgetown Fire Protection District Chief Glenn Brown March 28, 2022 El Dorado County Fire Protection E Chief Tim Cordero March 28, 2022 District Board President F Mosquito Fire Protection District November 8, 2021 Connell Persico G City of South Lake Tahoe Chief Clive Savacool February 23, 2022 Garden Valley Fire Protection H Chief Wes Norman April 6, 2022 District I Pioneer Fire Protection District Chief Whitt April 7, 2022 J El Dorado Hills Fire Department Chief Mo Johnson April 11, 2022 Responses to comments may include changes to the report. For some responses, specific strikethroughs are in red and specific additions are red and underlined. All language taken directly from the report where applicable is shown in italics. Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-9 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Comment Letter A Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-10 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Response to Comment Letter A County of El Dorado CAO’s Office, Sue Hennike, January 24, 2022 A-1. Updates were made as suggested. Change Location: Volume II – Chapter 15, Section 15.5.3 A-2. Exemptions from the 1993/94 ERAF shift were given to multi-county districts according to California Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 97-97.77. Change Location: None. A-3. Consultants recommend adding a qualifier to the ERAF discussion for the 1993/94 ERAF shift and for the known legality of this option. Proposed change: Districts with “multi-county” agencies were made exempt from the 1993/94 ERAF shift…Consultants are aware of legal precedent that may allow for the ERAF exemption to be extended through the merging of districts. Change Location: Volume I – Chapter 5, Section 5.5.1 Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-11 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Comment Letter B Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-12 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-13 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Response to Comment Letter B Meeks Bay Fire Protection District, Chief Steve Leighton, March 24, 2022 B-1. Updates were made as suggested. Change Location: Volume II – Chapter 10, Section 10.1 B-2. Updates were made as suggested. Change Location: Volume II – Chapter 10, Section 10.3.2 B-3. Updates were made as suggested. Change Location: Volume II – Chapter 10, Section 10.3.2 Updates were also made to the Determinations Section as follows: MEK has a Conflict-of-Interest policy which is reviewed by the Board on a Biennial basis and was most recently Do elected Board members reaffirmed in July 2020. Compliance with the Political submit required forms and Reform Act requirements for district board members to receive required trainings as disclose all personal economic interests by filing a prescribed by the three state "Statement of Economic Interests" with the Fair Political laws regarding accountability ▲ Practices Commission (FPPC) was queried. Query results and ethics including: for the MEK found no complaints or cases, indicating that (1) the Political Reform Act; ▼ Board members are complying with the Political Reform (2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, Act. 2005); and MEK is not in compliance with Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, (3) Government Code 53237 et. 2005) and Government Code 53237 due to multiple board seq. members needing to complete training as of the creation of this report. B-4. Updates were made as suggested. Change Location: Volume II – Chapter 10, Section 10.3.5 B-5. Updates were made as suggested. Change Location: Volume II – Chapter 10, Section 10.3.5 B-6. Updates were made as suggested. Change Location: Volume II – Chapter 10, Section 10.4.1 B-7. Updates were made as suggested. Change Location: Volume II – Chapter 10, Section 10.5.2 Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-14 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final B-8. Updates were made as suggested. Change Location: Volume II – Chapter 10, Section 10.5.3 B-9. Updates were made as suggested. Change Location: Volume II – Chapter 10, Section 10.5.7 B-10. Updates were made as suggested. Change Location: Volume II – Chapter 10, Section 10.6.6 Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-15 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Comment Letter C Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-16 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-17 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-18 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-19 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-20 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-21 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-22 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-23 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-24 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-25 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-26 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-27 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-28 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-29 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-30 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-31 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-32 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-33 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Response to Comment Letter C Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District, Katrina Daniels, March 22, 2022 C-1. Updates were made as suggested. Change Location: Volume II – Chapter 3, Section 3.1 C-2. Updates were made as suggested. Change Location: Volume II – Chapter 3, Section 3.3.5 C-3. Updates were made as suggested Change Location: Volume II – Chapter 3, Section 3.4.4 C-4. Updates were made to the Potential Future Development Section to include the list of projects sent as an attachment to the comment letter. Change Location: Volume II – Chapter 3, Section 3.4.5 C-5. Updates were made as suggested. Change Location: Volume II – Chapter 3, Section 3.4.5 C-6. Updates were made as suggested. Change Location: Volume II – Chapter 3, Section 3.5.1 C-7. Updates were made as suggested. Change Location: Volume II – Chapter 3, Section 3.6.3 Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-34 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Comment Letter D Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-35 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-36 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Response to Comment Letter D Georgetown Fire Protection District, Chief Glenn Brown, March 28, 2022 D-1. NFPA 1720 standards require that the authority that has jurisdiction determine if this standard is applicable (NFPA 1720, 1.3.1). Only GEO and MQT communicated to consultants that they operate under the NFPA 1720. Consultants reached out to PIO and GRV to clarify which standard they operate under at the request of the Ad Hoc Committee during the April 5, 2022, meeting. For more information see response to Comment Letter H and I below. Change Location: See response to Comment Letter H and I below. D-2. Both GEO and MQT communicated to consultants that they meet staffing requirements under the NFPA 1720 standard. Consultants reached out to PIO and GRV at the request of the Ad Hoc Committee during the April 5, 2022, meeting. GRV confirmed that they meet staffing standards under NFPA 1720. PIO informed consultants that they do not meet either standard for NFPA 1710 or 1720. Change Location: See response to Comment Letter H and I below. D-3. This statement discusses the Grand Jury Report dated June 15, 2020, which the consultants had no association with. The metrics used to determine population are clearly defined throughout the MSR/SOI Update. Change Location: No change. D-4. Information in the Agency Profile has been updated as suggested. Change Location: Volume II – Chapter 8, Section 8.1 D-5. Updates were made as suggested. Change Location: Volume II – Chapter 8, Section 8.3.1 D-6. Updates were made as suggested. Change Location: Volume II – Chapter 8, Section 8.3.4 D-7. Updates were made as suggested. Change Location: Volume II – Chapter 8, Section 8.3.5 D-8. The growth rate calculated for the current average is based on historic population models while the future growth rate is based on future projected growth for the County as a whole from the Department of Finance as outlined in the report. Due to these data sources being different, it is not surprising that the average growth rate would also be different. A summary of the method to estimate future population projections produced by the Department of Finance is outlined in Volume II – Chapter 1. Change Location: No change. Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-37 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final D-9. The existing analysis highlighting calls for service for ambulances for each agency within the MSR provides the summary of information necessary to determine ambulance use. A more detailed analysis using Unit Hour Utilization is beyond the scope of this report and will be reviewed by the West Slope JPA in their review of the ambulance system for the West Slope. However, additional information has been added to provide a move-up-and-cover analysis under the Emergency Response Section 15.4.5, Calls for Service for CSA 7 Change Location: Volume II – Chapter 15, Section 15.4.5 D-10. The statement made that “rural agencies” receive more aid than they provide is a general statement. While GEO did provide more aid than received, all other rural agencies did not. Change Location: No change. D-11. As clearly stated throughout the report, a more detailed analysis of automatic aid through an update of the 2010 Fire and Emergency Services Study is needed for a clearer understanding of why there are disparities between aid provided and received between agencies. With no clear example provided in the comment, consultants cannot make a more specific response. Change Location: No change. D-12. Updates were made as suggested. Change Location: Volume II – Chapter 8, Section 8.5.7 D-13. This is a statement and no response is necessary. Change Location: No change. Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-38 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Comment Letter E Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-39 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-40 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-41 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-42 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-43 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-44 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-45 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-46 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-47 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-48 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-49 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-50 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-51 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-52 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Response to Comment Letter E El Dorado County Fire Protection District, Chief Tim Cordero, March 28, 2022 E-1. The necessity for each agency to expend time reviewing the Administrative Draft MSR Chapters for accuracy was dependent on the level of detailed information each agency provided consultants during the RFI process. Some agencies did need to expend more effort if the information provided was incomplete or inaccurate. Consultants appreciate the work and diligence of all agencies to ensure accurate information. Change Location: No change. E-2. As communicated to ECF and LAFCO Staff, the financial section utilized independent audited financial statements for review of each agency’s financials. Unfortunately, some agencies did not have completed audits and some had audits that did not provide financial detail for fire and emergency services. These instances are clearly outlined in the report. ECF requested consultants re-do the financials using the unaudited financial documents that could be provided by the County Auditor-Controller. It was determined during the joint meeting that this was not the route LAFCO or the other agencies wished to take. Change Location: No change. E-3. The historical perspective of the unstaffed stations is incorporated in Volume I – Chapter 6, Section 6.3.1. A column has been added to Volume I – Appendix G that shows which stations have been historically staffed by volunteers. In addition, stations shown in Volume I – Chapter 6, Section 6.3.1, Figure 6-2 will contain an asterisk to denote stations that were historically staffed by volunteers. Through the process of reviewing historically staffed stations, consultants noted an error. Stations in the Tahoe Basin were included in the West Slope analysis and the FLL station was omitted from the Tahoe Basin analysis. Edits were made to correctly state that on the West Slope 19 stations are staffed full time, 18 are not staffed, and eight are staffed part-time or seasonally. There are nine stations that were historically staffed by volunteers that are no longer staffed. In the Tahoe Basin, there are six stations staffed full time, two stations are not staffed, and two stations are staffed part-time or seasonally. Change Location: Volume I – Chapter 6, Section 6.3.1 and Volume I – Appendix G Edits were also made in the Executive Summary Chapter (Volume I – Chapter 1) to match the data shown above. E-4. At ECF’s request during the LAFCO and Fire Ad Hoc meeting, total calls are included in the analysis of auto-aid calls in Volume I – Chapter 4, Section 4.1.5. Change Location: No change. Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-53 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final E-5. Consultants utilized data provided by CAL FIRE Camino ECC. As described in the report, the data provided by Camino did not include the local fire agency’s responses to statewide fires managed by CAL FIRE. Change Location: No change. E-6. This is a statement and no response is necessary. Change Location: No change. E-7. The attachment is the previous review comments that were submitted by the District to consultants during the Administrative Draft MSR review process. All edits requested by the District were included unless discussed otherwise with the District during the administrative review process. Change Location: No change. Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-54 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Comment Letter F Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-55 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Response to Comment Letter F Mosquito Fire Protection District, Board President Connell Persico, November 8, 2021 South Fork Consulting, LLC (SFC) made every effort to include technical edits supplied by Mosquito Board President Persico and Chief Rosevear in the Mosquito Fire Protection District MSR. These can be seen in direct text edits and the addition of addendums throughout the Mosquito MSR Chapter. SFC is a woman-owned small business based in South Lake Tahoe, California, and our mission is to deliver high-quality plans, programs, and projects while maintaining high standards of ethics and professional conduct to ensure the services we provide our clients are of the highest quality. SFC was selected as the consultant for this MSR/SOI Update by LAFCO after a competitive bidding process and based on the SFC team’s significant experience in land-use planning and MSR/SOI preparation. SFC’s proposal to LAFCO included a statement that our firm does not have conflicts of interest. SFC is a member of the American Planning Association. As professional planners, SFC’s consultants adhere to a code of ethics and aim to provide timely, adequate, clear, and accurate information on planning issues to all affected persons, to governmental bodies, and to the public, to clients and decision makers. It is our goal to facilitate the exchange of ideas and ensure that people have the opportunity for meaningful, timely, and informed participation in the development of plans and programs that may affect them. Consultants strongly disagree with the accusation that there is any bias or predetermined judgement on the part of the consultants. We have made every effort to ensure a technically accurate report including providing ample time for each agency to review their chapter and provide feedback. Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-56 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Comment Letter G Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-57 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Response to Comment Letter G City of South Lake Tahoe, Fire Chief Clive Savacool, February 23, 2022 Information provided was incorporated into an addendum at the end of Volume I – Chapter 4, Section 4.1.3 Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-58 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Comment Letter H Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-59 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Response to Comment Letter H Garden Valley Fire Protection District, Chief Wes Norman, April 6, 2022 The Fire Chief for GRV identified that the District operates under NFPA 1720 and that they meet the staffing requirements as outlined under this standard. Based on staffing provided to consultants in the Districts RFI, it appears that GRV operates as a “Volunteer” agency as defined under NFPA 1720. Updates were made to the GRV MSR Chapter (Volume II – Chapter 7) in areas that discussed staffing and to the staffing determinations. Determinations related to staffing were re-scored from “Below Average” to “Average.” Based on these changes, 1 point was added to the score for GRV in the 2020 Fiscal and Deployment Condition Section of Volume I – Chapter 5, moving the District from “Deficient” to “Limited.” Updates were made to Volume I – Chapter 1, Chapter 5, and Chapter 6. Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-60 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Comment Letter I Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-61 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Response to Comment Letter I Pioneer Fire Protection District, Chief Whitt, April 7, 2022 The information provided by the Fire Chief is an update to the information received during the Administrative Draft process. Consultants recommend adding an addendum to the end of the Staffing and Training Section in Volume II – Chapter 12, Section 12.3.5 that summarizes the Chief’s response in Letter I above. Addendum – New Information from PIO The Fire Chief informed consultants that it is impossible for the District to meet NFPA 1710 and 1720 standards for staffing. The District has only six personnel (two personnel on the engine company per day), two part-time administrative staff, and two part-time clerical staff (Chief Whitt, personal communication, April 2022). Based on the response by PIO, consultants recommend that the District be included in the list of agencies to be revisited within 3 years. The SOI Recommendation in Volume I – Chapter 6, Section 6.5.11 has been edited as follows: Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by Pioneer Fire Protection District as those specified in California Health & Safety Code §13862. Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that Pioneer Fire Protection District Sphere of Influence remain unchanged as shown Volume I - Appendix L; and that the District Municipal Service Review be revisited within 3 years. No other changes are recommended. Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-62 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Comment Letter J Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-63 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Response to Comment Letter J El Dorado Hills Fire Department, Chief Johnson, April 11, 2022 Based on the letter received by LAFCO, consultants recommend the following: 1) LAFCO move forward with the recommendation for Option 1 as outlined in the report; 2) An addendum be added to the end of Volume I – Chapter 6, Section 6.4.1, Zero Sphere Analysis and to the RES MSR Chapter Volume II - Chapter 13, Section 13.5.9 as follows: Addendum – New Information from RES/EDH Consultants and LAFCO staff were informed by the EDH Fire Chief on April 5, 2022 that the EDH Board of Directors held a special meeting on April 4, 2022. The Board voted to take three actions regarding the RES Annex and Shared Services Agreement: 1. Rescind the Letter of Intent to Annex; 2. Notify RES of EDH’s intent to terminate the Shared Services Agreement; and 3. Meet with the RES Board of Directors to discuss the terms of a Transitional Services Agreement. The review conducted by consultants of Rescue Fire Protection District, as outlined in the MSR Chapter for the District, was based on the proposed annexation with EDH and the prior shared services agreement between the two agencies. As a result of this new information, consultants recommend that LAFCO conduct a Municipal Service Review of RES within 3 years of this report. In addition, based on the Feasibility Study and Proposal for Annexation completed in 2019, consultants recommend that the Commission approve the proposed SOI changes for both EDH and RES as detailed within this report to codify a future annexation between these two agencies. ; and 3) The Rescue Fire Protection District MSR Chapter be revisited within 3 years. The SOI Recommendation for the Rescue Fire Protection District in Volume I – Chapter 6, Section 6.5 be edited as follows: Pursuant to Government Code Section 56425(i)(2), the Commission does hereby establish the functions and classes of services provided by Rescue Fire Protection District as those specified in California Health & Safety Code §13862. Based upon the information contained in this report, it is recommended that the Rescue Fire Protection District Sphere of Influence be reduced to a zero sphere, as shown in Volume I - Appendix L; and that the District Municipal Service Review be revisited within 3 years. Volume I of II Comments Received Page 7-64 of 7-64 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Chapter 8. References Amador County. November 12, 2020. 2019-2020 Amador County Grand Jury Investigation. Available online at: https://www.amadorgov.org/home/showpublisheddocument/37957/637407906326330000. American Heart Association. 2013. Facts – Every Second Counts: Rural and Community Access to Emergency Devices. Available online at: https://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart- public/@wcm/@adv/documents/downloadable/ucm_472102.pdf. Assembly Committee on Local Government. November 2020. Guide to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/files/e91792e30/CKH+Guide+Update+2020.pdf. Best Best & Krieder Attornies at Law (BB&K). March 11, 2021. COVID-19 Relief Package Provides Substantial Aid to States, Counties, and Cities. Available online at: https://www.bbklaw.com/news-events/insights/2021/legal-alerts/03/covid-19-relief-package- provides-substantial-aid-t. California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit. May 1, 2020. Table E-1, Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, And the State January 1, 2019 and 2020. Sacramento, California. Available online at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/. California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit. May 2020. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark. Sacramento, California. Available online at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e- 4/2010-20/. California Department of Finance. Demographic Research Unit. January 2020. Table P-1: Total Estimated and Projected Population for California and Counties: July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2060 in 1- year Increments. Available online at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Projections/. CAL FIRE (formerly California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) Office of the State Fire Marshal. November 7, 2007. Map of Fire Hazard Severity Zones for El Dorado County. Available on-line at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6670/fhszs_map9.pdf. _____. May 2007. Fact Sheet: Fire Hazard Severity Zone Model A Non-Technical Primer. Available on- line at: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/FIreHazardZone_NonTechnical_Prim er.pdf. CAL FIRE (formerly California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). April 21, 2014. Unit Strategic Fire Plan Amador-El Dorado Unit. Available online at: https://www.edcfiresafe.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/10/2014-Unit-Strategic-Fire-Plan_CAL-FIRE-Amador-El-Dorado-Unit.pdf. Volume I of II References Page 8-1 of 8-8 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final _____. 2017. El Dorado County Communications Feasibility Study: Cal FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center. Received October 2020. _____. Fire and Resource Protection Program (FRAP). December 2019. Map of Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). MAPID: WUI_19DATA SOURCES:WUI_12_312TY_18. Available online at: https://frap.fire.ca.gov/media/10300/wui_19_ada.pdf. _____. Camino ECC. 2020a. Resource Activity Report by Agency and Station 2010-2019 (CAM, DSP, ECF, EDH, GEO, GRV, MQT, PIO, and RES). Received October 2020. _____. Camino ECC. 2020b. Mutual Aid 2010-2019. Received October 2020. _____. Camino ECC. 2020c. Engine Covers 2010-2019. Received October 2020. _____. Grass Valley ECC. 2020. Resource Response Report (MEK, 2009-2019). Received October 2020. _____. 2021a. Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) GIS Data. Available online at: https://frap.fire.ca.gov/mapping/gis-data/. _____. 2021b. Caldor Fire Incident. Available online at https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2021/8/14/caldor-fire/. _____. 2021c. Top 20 Most Destructive California Wildfires. Last updated October 25, 2021. Available online at: https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/t1rdhizr/top20_destruction.pdf. _____. 2021d. Top 20 Largest California Wildfires. Last updated October 25, 2021. Available online at: https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/4jandlhh/top20_acres.pdf. _____. 2021e. Caldor Fire Structure Status. Available online at: https://calfire- forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=366d1a3e25ce4a11a4c0846c3a33 7ce9&extent=-13464888.411%2C4646560.0626%2C- 13348704.128%2C4707786.1223%2C102100. _____. 2021f. FHSZ Viewer. Available online at: https://frap.fire.ca.gov/mapping/gis-data/. California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR). August 2003. Local Agency Formation Commission Municipal Service Review Guidelines Final. California Highway Patrol (CHP). 2020a. (241) Chico Communications Center. https://www.chp.ca.gov/find-an-office/valley-division/offices/(241)-chico-communications- center. _____. 2020b. Discussions with dispatch staff, October 28, 2020. California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), Firefighting Resources of Southern California Organized for Potential Emergencies (FIRESCOPE). April 8, 2020. Incident Command System Publication: Drawdown Consideration for Fire Agencies. Available online at: https://firescope.caloes.ca.gov/ICS%20Documents/MACS%20408.pdf. Volume I of II References Page 8-2 of 8-8 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS). January 2017. Securing CalPERS Future: Ensuring the Long-Term Sustainability of the Fund. League of California Cities Presentation. Available online at: https://www.calcities.org/docs/default-source/pensions/securing-calpers- future-(presentation-to-cal-cities).pptx. _____. January 2018a. A Guide to CalPERS Amortization Policy. Available online at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjZpvNskksI. _____. June 2018b. Proactively Managing Your Pension Plan’s Unfunded Liability. YouTube. Available online at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhPxGjreVrI. _____. 2019. CalPERS Public Agency Pooled Plans-Funded Status as of June 30, 2019. Available online at: https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/public-agency-pooled-plans.pdf. _____. 2021a. List of Public Agency Employer Contribution Requirements - Fiscal Year 2021-22. Available online at: https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/public-agency-required-employer-contributions.pdf. _____. 2021b. Public Agency Required Employer Contributions. Available online at: https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/employers/actuarial-resources/employer- contributions/public-agency-contributions. California State Controller. December 2019. El Dorado County Audit Report: Apportionment and Allocation of Property Tax Revenues – July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2019. Available online at: https://www.edcgov.us/Government/Auditor- Controller/Documents/SCO%20Property%20Tax%20Audit%2012-23-19.pdf. Chu, Carolyn. January 27, 2016. “Why the Mid-1970s Play a Large Role in Property Taxes Today.” Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), the California Legislature’s Nonpartisan Fiscal and Policy Advisor. Available online at: https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/166. City of Placerville. 2020. Dispatch. Available online at: https://www.cityofplacerville.org/dispatch. City of South Lake Tahoe. 2020. City website. Available online at: https://cityofslt.us/. _____. 2020b. Crystal Reports – FLFD & Brush Stats 2010-2019.rpt; ITEM 1-2.rpt; ITEM 3.rpt; ITEM 5.rpt; ITEM 6.rpt. Received November 2020. Colman Advisory Services. October 2006. Proposition 172 Facts: A Primer on the Public Safety Augmentation Fund. Available online at: http://www.californiacityfinance.com/Prop172facts.pdf. County of El Dorado (EDC), Chief Administrative Office. 2018a. 2018-19 Recommended Budget El Dorado County. Available online at: https://www.edcgov.us/Government/CAO/Documents/2018- 2019%20Budget/Complete%20Budget%20Book%2018-19.pdf. _____. Auditor-Controller. 2018b. County of El Dorado Auditor Certified Values by Tax Base, Model Num: Final, Tax Year: 2018, Aircraft Values Excluded. Available online at: https://www.edcgov.us/Government/Auditor- Controller/proptaxreports/Documents/EqualizedAssessedValuesSummary2018-19.pdf. Volume I of II References Page 8-3 of 8-8 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final _____. October 2019a. “Guest Column: Addressing funding challenges for fire districts.” Mountain Democrat. Available online at: https://www.mtdemocrat.com/opinion/guest-column- addressing-funding-challenges-for-firedistricts/?fbclid=IwAR25lfIIZP0_G_QI7G7xeAMgGgyfGrs1- eGTMeXs7ZlhijnMSfUFmY_AqV0. _____. Registrar of Voters. March 2019b. Mosquito Fire Protection District Special Mail Ballot Election, March 5, 2019. Available online at: https://www.edcgov.us/Government/Elections/Documents/VIP.Complete.11x17.pdf. _____. Auditor-Controller’s Office. 2019c. AB-8 Assessed Value and Increment Percentages for Those TRA’s that Include: County General Fund for Years 2018/2019 to 2018/2019. Available online at: https://www.edcgov.us/Government/Auditor-Controller/proptaxreports/Documents/2018- 19HistoryPercentIncrementTRA.pdf. _____. Auditor-Controller’s Office. 2021a. Distribution of Proposition 13’s 1% General Property Tax. Available online at: https://www.edcgov.us/Government/AuditorController/PropTax/pages/distribution_of_proposi tion_13_s_1__general_property_tax.aspx. _____. Auditor-Controller’s Office. 2021b. FY 2018/2019 Allocation Factor by Agency. Available from LAFCO files upon request. County of El Dorado (EDC), Department of Transportation. August 31 2020. Interoffice Memorandum: Roadside Vegetation Removal. Received September 2020. County of El Dorado (EDC), Sheriff’s Office. 2016. 2016 Annual Report. Available online at: https://www.edcgov.us/Government/sheriff/Documents/edsoannualreport2016.pdf. _____. July 2018. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available online at: https://eldorado.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3923674&GUID=C562ECEB-7E9F-446D- AE6B-3AC56E13F465. _____. June 2019. 2019-20 Recommended Budget El Dorado county. Available online at: https://edcgov.us/Government/CAO/fiscal-year-2019-2020-recommended-budget. _____. 2019b. 2019 Annual Report. Available online at: https://view.joomag.com/el-dorado-county- sheriffs-office-2019-annual-report/0281334001576531196?short&. _____. May 14, 2020. Town Hall Meeting: Vegetation Management & Defensible Space Ordinance in El Dorado County. Available online at: https://www.edcgov.us/Government/CAO/VegetationManagement/Documents/Vegetation%20 Management%20Presentation%20-%205-14-2020%20Final.pdf. _____. 2021. About Us. Available online at: https://www.edcgov.us/Government/Pages/About_Us.aspx. County of El Dorado (EDC). August 2019. El Dorado County General Plan. Available online at: https://edcgov.us/Government/Planning/pages/Adopted_General_Plan.aspx Volume I of II References Page 8-4 of 8-8 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final _____. January 2019. Title 30-Article 2: Zoning Ordinance Zones, Allowed Uses, and Zoning Standards – Chapter 130.24 – Residential Zones. Available online at: https://www.edcgov.us/Government/planning/Documents/TITLE%20130%20Master%20Compl ete%20Adopted%2008-14-18%20AMD%2012-2-20.pdf. El Dorado County Emergency Services Authority (West Slope JPA). 2016. EDC JPA 2017 Strategic Plan. Available online at: http://edcjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/EDC-JPA-Strategic-Plan- 2017-Master.pdf. Educate Our State (EOS-LC). “The history behind current school property tax allocation and ERAF.” Available online at: https://www.educateourstate.org/the_history_behind_current_school_property_tax_allocation _eraf. El Dorado Hills Water District (EDH). April 28, 2019a. Feasibility Study and Proposal for Annexation of Rescue Fire Protection District. Available online at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/589a3e8d46c3c43e71818b08/t/5d85619cd4e8684cb869 243c/1569022390016/RES-Proposal-Final-merged-5.6.19.pdf. _____. April 2020. Needs Assessment and System Issues Executive Summary Report. Received July 2021. El Dorado Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). September 2018. Study Session on the State of Fire Districts in the County and Options for Finances and Alternative Governance Models. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/2018-09-26-commission-meeting. _____. January 23, 2019. Study Session on the State of Fire Districts in the County and Options for Finances and Alternative Governance Models. Available online at: http://www.edlafco.us/files/833fd1b5f/19+Jan_Item+12+Staff+Memo+%28Fire+Study+II%29.pd f. _____. September 2020a. Response to LAFCO’s Request for Information. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. July 22, 2020b. Staff Report from José C. Henríquez, Executive Officer Regarding Consider Grand Jury Final Report on Fire District Consolidation and Consider Response to Grand Jury Case 19-06. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/. _____. 2021. Commissioners. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/commissioners. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). November 3, 2021. Fire Service Grants and Funding. Available online at: https://www.usfa.fema.gov/grants/. Holmen, J., Hertliz., J., et. all. 27 October 2020. Shortening Ambulance Response Time Increases Survival in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2020;9. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.017048. Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO). Fire Suppression Rating Schedule. Available online at: https://firesprinklerassoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/FSRS2013.pdf. Volume I of II References Page 8-5 of 8-8 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Kasler, Dale and Pohl, Jason. September 12, 2021. ‘It was a firefight.’ How a vulnerable Tahoe neighborhood was saved from the Caldor Fire. The Sacramento Bee. Available online at: https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/fires/article254003398.html. Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LAV). 2019. Measure B. Available online at: https://www.lakevalleyfire.org/measure-b. Meek's Bay Fire Protection District (MEK). September 2020a. MEK staff response to LAFCO's Request for Information. Available upon request from LAFCO's files. Meek's Bay Fire Protection District (MEK). September 30, 2020b. Meeting Agenda for Board of Directors Special Meeting at MBFPD Station #618041 Emerald Bay Road (Highway 89) Meeks Bay, California. Available online at: https://www.meeksbayfire.com/files/3f391b29f/Agenda+2020- 09.pdf. Meek's Bay Fire Protection District (MEK). December 2, 2020c. Memorandum to the Board of Directors from Michael Schwartz, Fire Chief regarding Fire District Long-term Planning with North Tahoe Fire. Exhibit6F to Agenda dated December 16, 2020. Available online at: https://www.meeksbayfire.com/files/78df0abd2/Exhibit+6F+2020-12.pdf McGough, Michael. October 21, 2021. Caldor Fire 100% contained, nearly two months after South Lake Tahoe evacuations. The Sacramento Bee. Available online at: https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/fires/article255173052.html. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). 2011. Fire Service Deployment: Assessing Community Vulnerability. Available online at: https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/Membership/member- sections/Metro-Chiefs/UrbanFireVulnerability.ashx. _____. 2017. NFPA 1911: Standard for the Inspection, Maintenance, Testing, and Retirement of In- Service Emergency Vehicles. Available online at: https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all- codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and-standards/detail?code=1911. _____. 2021. FireWise USA: Residents Reducing Wildfire Risks. Available online at: https://www.nfpa.org/Public-Education/Fire-causes-and-risks/Wildfire/Firewise-USA. North Tahoe Fire Protection District (NTFPD) and Meeks Bay Fire Protection District (MEK). 2018a. Standards of Coverage and Deployment Plan. Prepared by Emergency Services Consulting International. Available online at: https://meeksbayfire.specialdistrict.org/files/a0f2a9894/Standards+of+Coverage+2018.pdf. _____. 2018b. Performance Review and Examination of Alternative Governance Models. Prepared by Emergency Services Consulting International. Available upon request from LAFCO’s files. Peterson, Paula. January 29, 2020. “Tax measure on March ballot to fund snow removal equipment on South Shore.” South Tahoe Now. Available online at: https://southtahoenow.com/story/01/29/2020/tax-measure-march-ballot-fund-snow-removal- equipment-south-shore Volume I of II References Page 8-6 of 8-8 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Ryan Sabalow; Phillip Reese; Dale Kasler. April 14, 2019. "A real life gamble: California races to predict which town could be the next victim". Destined to Burn. Reno Gazette Journal. The Sacramento Bee. p. 1A. Stockwell, Kellene. July 2, 2007. U.S. Forest Service: Illegal Campfire Sparked Angora Fire. KTVN – Channel 2 News. Available online at: https://www.ktvn.com/story/6729050/story?S=6729050. Tahoe Prosperity Center (TPC). 2017. Measuring for Prosperity: Community and Economic Indicators for the Lake Tahoe Basin. Available online at: https://tahoeprosperity.org/wp- content/uploads/measuring-for-prosperity-community-and-economic-indicators-for-the-lake- tahoe-basin-2018.pdf. Transparent California and Nevada Policy Research Institute. 2020. Wage data download for the year 2018. Available online at: https://transparentcalifornia.com/. USAspending.gov. March 2021. The Federal Response to COVID-19. Available online at: https://www.usaspending.gov/disaster/covid-19. U.S. Census. 2019. Table Survey/Program; Table DP03; 2019 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. Available online at: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=0400000US06. United States Census Bureau (US Census). 2019. QuickFacts: El Dorado County, California. Available online at: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/chart/CA,eldoradocountycalifornia/PST120219. University of California, Hastings College of the Law. 1993. Local Public Safety Protection and Improvement Act of 1993. California Proposition 172 (1993). Available online at: http://repository.uchastings.edu/ca_ballot_props/1087. Visit El Dorado. 2021. Places to Go. Available online at: https://visit-eldorado.com/#. Wong, Lonnie. August 29, 2019. “El Dorado County Votes Down Measure B.” Fox40 News, Local News. Available online at: https://fox40.com/news/local-news/el-dorado-county-votes-down- measure-b/. Volume I of II References Page 8-7 of 8-8 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume I of II References Page 8-8 of 8-8 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Chapter 9. Glossary of Terms Advanced Life Support (ALS): Emergency medical treatment beyond basic life support that provides for advanced airway management including intubation, advanced cardiac monitoring, defibrillation, establishment and maintenance of intravenous access, and drug therapy. Alarm: A signal or message from a person or device indicating the existence of an emergency or other situation that requires action by an emergency response agency. Annexation: The annexation, inclusion, attachment, or addition of territory to a city or district. Automatic Aid: A plan developed between two or more fire agencies for immediate joint response on first alarms through dispatch. Basic Life Support: A specific level of prehospital medical care provided by trained responders, focused on rapidly evaluating a patient's condition; maintaining a patient's airway, breathing, and circulation; controlling external bleeding; preventing shock; and preventing further injury or disability by immobilizing potential spinal or other bone fractures. Board of Directors: The legislative body or governing board of a district. Board of Supervisors: The elected board of supervisors of a county. Bond: An interest-bearing promise to pay a stipulated sum of money, with the principal amount due on a specific date. Funds raised through the sale of bonds can be used for various public purposes. Buildout: The maximum development potential when all lands within an area have been converted to the maximum density allowed under the General Plan. Career Fire Department: A fire department that utilizes full-time or full-time-equivalent (FTE) station- based personnel immediately available to comprise at least 50 percent of an initial full alarm assignment. City: Any charter or general law city. Community Services District (CSD): An independent special district formed to provide services and facilities as authorized in California Government Code Sections 61100- 61107. A CSD has the ability to tax, charge fees, and deliver a variety of public services such as parks, recreation, and other human services within a defined geographic area. Community Risk Assessment: A systematic approach that identifies, assesses, categorizes, and classifies the probabilities and consequences of a community’s fire and non-fire hazards and threats, considering all pertinent facts that increase or decrease risks in each first-due response zone. Consolidation: The uniting or joining of two or more districts into a single new successor district. In the case of consolidation of special districts, all of those districts shall have been formed pursuant to the same principal act. Volume I of II Glossary of Terms Page 9-1 of 9-6 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Contiguous: In the case of annexation, territory adjacent to an agency to which annexation is proposed. Territory is not contiguous if the only contiguity is based upon a strip of land more than 300 feet long and less than 200 feet wide. Cost avoidance: Actions to eliminate unnecessary costs derived from, but not limited to, duplication of service efforts, higher than necessary administration/operation cost ratios, use of outdated or deteriorating infrastructure and equipment, underutilized equipment or buildings or facilities, overlapping/inefficient service boundaries, inefficient purchasing or budgeting practices, and lack of economies of scale. Detachment: The detachment, deannexation, exclusion, deletion, or removal from a city or district of any portion of the territory of that city or district. Development Fee: A fee charged to the developer of a project by a county, or other public agency as compensation for otherwise-unmitigated impacts the project will produce. California Government Code Section 66000, et seq., specifies that development fees shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged. To lawfully impose a development fee, the public agency must verify its method of calculation and document proper restrictions on use of the fund. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs): Inhabited territory that constitutes all or a portion of a community with an annual median household income that is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual household income (MHI). Dissolution: The dissolution, disincorporation, extinguishment, and termination of the existence of a district and the cessation of all its corporate powers, except for the purpose of winding up the affairs of the district. District of limited Powers: An airport district, community services district, municipal utility district, public utilities district, fire protection district, harbor district, port district, recreational harbor district, small craft harbor district, resort improvement district, library district, local hospital district, local health district, municipal improvement district formed pursuant to any special act, municipal water district, police protection district, recreation and park district, garbage disposal district, garbage and refuse disposal district, sanitary district, or county sanitation district. District or special District: An agency of the state, formed pursuant to general law or special act, for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions within limited boundaries. "District" or "special district" includes a county service area. Drawdown: the term drawdown is generally used to describe the level of commitment of an agency’s resources at a certain point in time. Most importantly, it defines the agency’s ability to perform its basic service levels. Drawdown levels are a major factor in the ability of an agency to offer mutual aid assistance during periods of increased emergency activity in an area or region. Drawdown should be considered a measurement of the degree of resource exhaustion that an agency is experiencing at a given point in time. Volume I of II Glossary of Terms Page 9-2 of 9-6 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Emergency Medical Care: The treatment of patients using first aid, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, basic life support, advanced life support, and other medical procedures prior to arrival at a hospital or other healthcare facility. Fire Apparatus: A vehicle designed to be used under emergency conditions to transport personnel and equipment, and to support the suppression of fires and mitigation of other hazardous situations. Fire Protection: Methods of providing fire detection, control, and extinguishment. Fire Suppression: The activities involved in controlling and extinguishing fires. Full-Time Equivalent (FTE): The hours worked by one employee on a full-time basis or a conversion of the hours worked by several part-time employees into the hours worked by full-time employees. Hazard: A condition that presents the potential for harm or damage to people, property, or the environment. High-Hazard Occupancy: An occupancy that presents a high life hazard or large fire potential due to its construction, configuration, or the presence of specific materials, processes, or contents. Incident: Any situation to which an emergency services organization responds to deliver emergency services including rescue, fire suppression, emergency medical care, special operations, law enforcement, and other forms of hazard control and mitigation. Incorporation: The incorporation, formation, creation, and establishment of a city with corporate powers. Any area proposed for incorporation as a new city must have at least 500 registered voters residing within the affected area at the time commission proceedings are initiated. Independent Special District: Any special district having a legislative body all of whose members are elected by registered voters or landowners within the district, or whose members are appointed to fixed terms, and excludes any special district having a legislative body consisting, in whole or in part, of ex officio members who are officers of a county or another local agency or who are appointees of those officers other than those who are appointed to fixed terms. "Independent special district" does not include any district excluded from the definition of district contained in §56036. Infrastructure: Public services and facilities, such as fire stations, water-supply systems, other utility, dispatch systems, and roads. Intergovernmental Agreement: A written formal authorization for services between two or more jurisdictions. Joint Operations Agreement: When local agencies operate fire services within proximity to one another, joint operating agreements can often provide opportunities for achieving greater administrative and operational efficiencies in delivering fire services. LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission. Local accountability and governance: A style of public agency decision making, operation and management that includes an accessible staff, elected or appointed decision-making body and decision Volume I of II Glossary of Terms Page 9-3 of 9-6 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final making process, advertisement of, and public participation in, elections, publicly disclosed budgets, programs, and plans, solicited public participation in the consideration of work and infrastructure plans; and regularly evaluated or measured outcomes of plans, programs or operations and disclosure of results to the public. Local agency: A city, county, or special district or other public entity, which provides public services. Management Efficiency: The organized provision of the highest quality public services with the lowest necessary expenditure of public funds. An efficiently managed entity (1) promotes and demonstrates implementation of continuous improvement plans and strategies for budgeting, managing costs, training and utilizing personnel, and customer service and involvement, (2) has the ability to provide service over the short and long term, (3) has the resources (fiscal, manpower, equipment, adopted service or work plans) to provide adequate service, (4) meets or exceeds environmental and industry service standards, as feasible considering local conditions or circumstances, (5) and maintains adequate contingency reserves. Move up and Cover: refers to instances where an agency’s resources (personnel and equipment) are actively responding to calls leaving gaps in their response area and another agency temporarily moves a resource to cover a station or intersection within that agency’s jurisdictional boundary. Municipal services: The full range of services that a public agency provides, or is authorized to provide, except general county government functions such as courts, special services and tax collection. As understood under the CKH Act, this includes all services provided by Special Districts under California law. Municipal Service Review (MSR): A study designed to determine the adequacy of governmental services being provided in the region or sub-region. Performing service reviews for each city and special district within the county may be used by LAFCO, other governmental agencies, and the public to better understand and improve service conditions. Mutual Aid: A written intergovernmental agreement between agencies and/or jurisdictions that they will assist one another on request by furnishing personnel, equipment, and/or expertise in a specified manner (NFPA 1710). On Scene: A resource arriving to the location of the incident. Ordinance: A law or regulation set forth and adopted by a governmental authority. Plan of reorganization: A plan or program for effecting reorganization and which contains a description of all changes of organization included in the reorganization and setting forth all terms, conditions, and matters necessary or incidental to the effectuation of that reorganization. Principal act: In the case of a district, the law under which the district was formed and, in the case of a city, the general laws or a charter, as the case may be. Principal LAFCO for municipal service review: The LAFCO with the lead responsibility for a municipal service review. Lead responsibility can be determined pursuant to the CKH Act definition of a Principal Volume I of II Glossary of Terms Page 9-4 of 9-6 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final LAFCO as it applies to government organization or reorganization actions, by negotiation, or by agreement among two or more LAFCOs. Public agency: The state or any state agency, board, or commission, any city, county, city and county, special district, or other political subdivision, or any agency, board, or commission of the city, county, city and county, special district, or other political subdivision. Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP): A facility in which 9-1-1 calls are answered. Quint Apparatus: A fire apparatus with a permanently mounted fire pump, a water tank, a hose storage area, an aerial device with a permanently mounted waterway, and a complement of ground ladders. Reorganization: Two or more changes of organization initiated in a single proposal. Rescue: Those activities directed at locating endangered persons at an emergency incident, removing those persons from danger, treating the injured, and providing for transport to an appropriate healthcare facility. Reserve: (1) For governmental type funds, an account used to earmark a portion of fund balance, which is legally or contractually restricted for a specific use or not appropriable for expenditure. (2) For proprietary type/enterprise funds, the portion of retained earnings set aside for specific purposes. Unnecessary reserves are those set aside for purposes that are not well defined or adopted or retained earnings that are not reasonably proportional to annual gross revenues. Resources: Resources refers to any equipment or apparatus utilized by an agency to respond to calls for services. Response Plan: Response plans consist of a preidentified number of resources to be dispatched to each specific type of incident for a given response area agreed upon by the ECC and the agency jurisdictionally responsible for the response area. These response plans are the default suggestion that can be modified based on caller interrogation. Each response area is identified by the fire station number within the geographic area. Responsible LAFCO: The LAFCO of a county other than the Principal County that may be impacted by recommendations, determinations or subsequent proposals elicited during a municipal service review being initiated or considered by the Lead LAFCO. Service review: A study and evaluation of municipal service(s) by specific area, subregion or region culminating in written determinations regarding seven specific evaluation categories. Skeleton Phenomenon: A term defined as the lack of finances driving the need to for fire agencies to consolidate, but there is nothing to suggest that the consolidated agency would be better off financially than its predecessors. In other words, putting two skeletons together do not create a whole body. Special Reorganization: A reorganization that includes the detachment of territory from a city or city and county and the incorporation of that entire detached territory as a city. Sphere of influence (SOI): A plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the LAFCO. Volume I of II Glossary of Terms Page 9-5 of 9-6 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Sphere of influence determinations: In establishing a sphere of influence, the Commission must consider and prepare written determinations related to present and planned land uses, need and capacity of public facilities, and existence of social and economic communities of interest. Structural Firefighting: The activities of rescue, fire suppression, and property conservation in buildings or other structures, vehicles, rail cars, marine vessels, aircraft, or like properties. Water Tender (Tanker): A vehicle designed primarily for transporting (pickup, transporting, and delivering) water to fire emergency scenes to be applied by other vehicles or pumping equipment. Weight of Attack: The ability to assemble a sufficient number of firefighters in a reasonable period of time to control the emergency safely before it escalates to greater alarms. Wildland: An area in which development is essentially nonexistent except for roads, railroads, powerlines, and similar transportation facilities with structures widely scattered. Wildland Urban Interface: The line or zone where structures and other development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels and the area within or adjacent to private and public property where mitigation actions can prevent damage or loss from wildfire. Volume I of II Glossary of Terms Page 9-6 of 9-6 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Chapter 10. Acknowledgements Several individuals contributed information that was utilized in this Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update. 10.1.1 El Dorado LAFCO Staff • Jose Henriquez, Former Executive Officer • Erica Sanchez, Interim Executive Officer • Malathy Subramanian, Legal Counsel 10.1.2 El Dorado County Staff • Don Ashton, MPA, Chief Administrative Officer • Sue Hennike, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer • Jeremy Apodaca, Sr. Administrative Analyst Chief Administrative Office • Joe Harn, Auditor-Controller • Bob Toscano, Assistant Auditor-Controller • Sally Zutter, CPA, Accounting Divisions Manager Property Tax Division • Brain Mullens, Deputy Director Maintenance & Operations • Michelle Patterson, MPH, Manager/EMS Agency Administrator • Rob Peters, Deputy Director of Planning • Efren Sanchez, MPA, Associate Planner • Kim Smith, Project Manager Elections Department 10.1.3 Fire and Emergency Medical Services Agency Staff CAL FIRE • Brain Newman, Assistant Chief Amador-El Dorado Unit • Scott Lindgren, Former Unit Chief Amador-El Dorado Unit • Tony Peard, Communications Operator Nevada-Yuba-Placer Unit California Tahoe Emergency Services Operations Authority • Ryan Wagoner, Executive Director • Kayla Galvan, Office Administrator Cameron Park Community Services District • Sherry Moranz, Assistant Chief • Jill Ritzman, General Manager • Kamiko Tsuchida, CPA, EideBaily Volume I of II Acknowledgements Page 10-1 of 10-4 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District • Bryan Ransdell, Former Fire Chief • Matthew Gallagher, Fire Chief • Lori Tuthill, Administrative Assistant El Dorado County Emergency Services Authority • Cristy Jorgensen, Deputy Director El Dorado County Fire Protection District • Tim Cordero, Fire Chief • Paul Dutch, Division Chief El Dorado Hills County Water District/Rescue Fire Protection District • Maurice “Mo” Johnson, Fire Chief • Michael Lilienthal, Deputy Chief • Jessica Braddock, Director of Finance Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District • Gary Gerren, General Manager/Fire Chief Garden Valley Fire Protection District • Linda Szczepanik, Former Interim Fire Chief • Wes Norman, Fire Chief • Lisa Howard, Administrative Assistant Georgetown Fire Protection District • Glenn Brown, Fire Chief • Diana Sampson, Former Administrative Assistant • Kelly Molloy, Administrative Assistant Lake Valley Fire Protection District • Brad Zlendick, Fire Chief • Kileigh Labrado, Administrative Manager Meeks Bay Fire Protection District • Mike Schwartz, Former Fire Chief for North Tahoe Fire • Steve Leighton, Fire Chief for North Tahoe Fire • Steve McNamara, Division Chief for North Tahoe Fire • Shawn Crawford, Former Office Manager Volume I of II Acknowledgements Page 10-2 of 10-4 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • Eric Horntvedt, Forest Fuels Coordinator for North Tahoe Fire Mosquito Fire Protection District • Jack Rosevear, Fire Chief • Barbara Mikel, Former Board President • Connell Persico, Board President Pioneer Fire Protection District • Mark Matthews, Fire Chief City of South Lake Tahoe • Clive Savacool, Fire Chief • Sallie Ross, Administrative Assistant to the Fire Chief • Melissa Dube, Public Safety Dispatch Supervisor • Olga Tikhomirova, CPA, Financial Services Manager 10.1.4 Report Preparers A team of consultants authored this MSR/SOI Update and provided an independent analysis. Name, Title Project Role Amanda Ross, Principal Project/Contract Manager, Co-Author South Fork Consulting, LLC Judy Stolen, GIS GIS Data Manager SWALE Inc. Kateri Harrison, CEO Co-Author, Project Advisor Baracco & Associates Bruce Baracco, Principal Editor, Project Advisor Pomegranate Consulting Tawni Janvrin, CEO Co-Author, Financial Specialist MPE Inc. Mary Ann Mix, CEO Technical Writer Volume I of II Acknowledgements Page 10-3 of 10-4 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume I of II Acknowledgements Page 10-4 of 10-4 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Appendix A County of El Dorado Profile and Demographic Data (2019-2020) Volume I of II Appendix A A-1 of 8 PROFILE & DEMOGRAPHIC DATA El Dorado County is one of the original 27 counties into which the state of California was divided at its organization and admission to the union in 1850. Under the California state constitution, counties are required to provide health care, welfare, and criminal justice programs, and enforce state and federal laws as applicable. These services are provided to all residents within the county’s jurisdiction. In addition, El Dorado County provides regional services such as libraries, parks and recreation, performing arts facilities, weights and measures inspection, and pesticide regulation. Two incorporated cities are located within El Dorado County: Placerville and South Lake Tahoe. The County also provides municipal services such building inspection and road maintenance for residents of unincorporated areas. COUNTY ORGANIZATION The organization is divided into four functional service areas that represent categories of services to residents. El Dorado is one of 14 California counties that operate under a charter, allowing the County a limited degree of control over the number and duties of the governing board and some officials. A majority of the department directors are appointed by the Board of Supervisors, while other officials are elected to serve a four-year term. CITIZENS OF EL DORADO COUNTY County Counsel Board of Su pervisors Chief Administrative Officer General Government Law & Justice Land Use & Development Health & Human Services Services Assessor District Attorney Agricultural Commissioner Child Support Services Auditor Controller Grand Jury Environmental Health & Human Services Management Agency Human Resources/ Risk Mgmnt Probation Planning & Building Library Information Technologies Public Defender Surveyor Veterans Affairs Recorder Clerk Registrar of Voters Sheriff Transportation Gray = Treasurer/Tax Collector Elected Official A-2 of 8 xvii EL DORADO COUNTY PROFILE & DEMOGRAPHICS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Board of Supervisors has authority to perform all the duties vested in it by the Constitution, general law, and the charter. The Board of Supervisors appoints the Chief Administrative Officer, members of boards and commissions, and nonelected department heads. The Board of Supervisors is comprised of five members, one elected from each County district. 1 - John Hidahl 2 - Shiva Frentzen 3 - Brian Veerkamp 4 - Lori Parlin 5 - Sue Novasel TOTAL POPULATION Over the last 10-year period, El Dorado County grew 6 percent. The majority of El Dorado County citizens (158,131) reside outside of the two incorporated cities of Placerville and South Lake Tahoe. 2019 191,848 2018 188,993 2017 186,123 82.4% UN- 2016 184,085 INCORPORATED COUNTY 2015 183,147 2014 182,578 2013 182,348 2012 181,157 2011 180,917 5.7% 11.9% 2010 181,008 PLACERVILLE SOUTH 172,000 177,000 182,000 187,000 192,000 LAKE TAHOE Source: State of California, Department of Finance, 2018-19 E-1 and E-2 Population Estimates. A-3 of 8 xviii EL DORADO COUNTY PROFILE & DEMOGRAPHICS POPULATION BY AGE GROUP 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-59 60-64 65-74 75-84 85+ El Dorado County California PERCENT OF POPULATION 45 YEARS AND OVER 60% 55% 58% 51% 50% 46% 44% 42% 39% 38% 40% 33% 30% Yolo Sutter Sacramento Butte San Luis Placer El Dorado Nevada Amador Obispo Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates HOUSING In El Dorado County there are approximately 90,315 housing units. For the County as a whole, 76.3% of homes in the County are occupied by the owner. However, this number is 55% in South Lake Tahoe, as many in that area of the County are second homes and not the primary residence of the owner. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates SINGLE-FAMILY MEDIAN HOME SALE PRICES 700 El Dorado County home values have increased 12.7% over the 600 past year. 500 The median home value of owner- 400 occupied housing is $489,000. 300 The median list price per square foot in 200 El Dorado County is $254, which is lower than the State of California 100 average of $290. The median price of 0 homes sold in El Dorado County is 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 $524,000. Source: California Association of Realtors, April 2019 sdnasuohT El Dorado County California A-4 of 8 xix EL DORADO COUNTY PROFILE & DEMOGRAPHICS ECONOMY El Dorado County enjoys a diverse economy. The largest employment sectors are Education and Health Care with 15,787 employed, Arts, Leisure & Recreation Education & Health Care 11% and Arts, Leisure, and 19% Education Services with Information 9,052 persons. 2% Business and Science 14% Ag, Forestry, & Mining The Business and Science and Wholesale trade 1% 2% Retail Trade sectors each employ over 8,000 workers. Other Services 5% The average per capita income is Retail trade 10% Estimated at $38,156, which is 13% Transport,Warehouse & higher than the state average of Utilities $33,128, and the median household 5% Construction income was $74,885 (compared to 8% $67,169 state average). Manufacturing 7% The County poverty rate is 8.3%, Finance, Insurance, & Real approximately three-fifths the rate Estate 8% Public Administration in California as a whole (13.3%). 8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates JOBS AND WORKFORCE Employment in El Dorado County decreased gradually between 2007 and 2011, before entering a period of steady growth from 2012-2016. Overall, the number of employed individuals in El Dorado County decreased by 500 by 2016. COUNTY EMPLOYEES PLACE OF WORK PATTERNS (per 1,000 residents; excluding city populations) 50,000 11.9 El Dorado 40,000 12.0 Nevada 30,000 17.2 Amador 21.5 Sacramento 20,000 22.9 San Luis Obispo 25.0 Placer 10,000 29.9 Butte 47.5 Sutter 0 51.1 Yolo 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 A-5 of 8 Source: Recommended budgets, FY 2017-18 Commuting In Commuting Out xx EL DORADO COUNTY PROFILE & DEMOGRAPHICS PROPERTY TAX All real and some personal property (unless exempted), is assessed and taxed under the State Constitution and Revenue & Taxation Code. Property taxes are a $72 major source of $70 Budget unrestricted revenue $68 for the County general $66 fund, schools, cities, and special districts. Proposition $64 13 establishes the current method of assessment. $62 Property owners may also $60 vote to include certain types of additional special $58 Actual assessments along with Budget property taxes. The County $56 Assessor maintains the inventory of assessable $54 property and prepares the $52 assessment rolls. The Auditor maintains the tax rates, $50 calculates the taxes due and 2011-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 adds any special assessments. How is property tax revenue distributed? Property taxes are allocated within a county based upon the historical share of property tax received by local agencies prior to Proposition 13. Under certain conditions, taxes may be reallocated. Schools (K-12, Community College & Office of Ed) – 40.8 % County in Lieu Vehicle Licensing Fee – 6.3% Special Districts – 24.7 % *Cities – 4.7% County– 23.5% Graphic developed by the Treasurer-Tax Collector Department. (Source El Dorado County Auditor-Controller’s Office) *includes the Cities of Placerville and South Lake Tahoe (2.5%), Cities in Lieu Vehicle Licensing fees (.9%) and City of So. Lake Tahoe Redevelopment Successor Agency (1.3%) snoilliM A-6 of 8 xxi EL DORADO COUNTY PROFILE & DEMOGRAPHICS SALES TAX The Bradley-Burns Uniform Sales and Use Tax Law provides for a city/county rate of 1.25%. One-quarter cent of the levy is sent to the county-wide regional transportation fund. The balance goes to support local government general funds. $13 Budget $12 Actual Budget $11 $10 $9 $8 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 (Proj.) 19-20 (Rec.) Source: El Dorado County Final Budget, 2010-11 through 2018-19 How is Sales Tax Allocated? El Dorado County receives 1% of the 7.25% statewide sales tax rate for general County operations. The City of South Lake Tahoe imposes an additional 0.50% tax over the state rate, and Placerville imposes an additional 1%. Data source: California State Board of Equalization, Detailed Description of the Sales & Use Tax Rate, 2017 snoilliM TAXES COLLECTED (Total FY 2017-18, in millions) $565.3 Sacramento $226.8 Placer $204.3 San Luis Obispo City or County Operations, 1% $117.5 El Dorado $68.5 Butte County $59.6 Yolo Transportation Funds, 0.25% $49.2 Nevada* $30.3 Sutter Local Revenue $24.8 Amador Fund 2011 (State), 1.0625% (FY 2017-18, Per Resident, excludes cities) $2,106 Yolo $2,035 Placer Local Revenue Fund 1991 $1,694 San Luis Obispo Realignment $1,094 Amador (State), 0.5% $957 Sacramento Local Public $924 Sutter Safety Fund, 0.5% $870 Butte State General $757 El Dorado Fund, 3.9375% $736 Nevada* Source: FY 2018-19 adopted budgets, Summary Schedule 5 A-7 of 8 *Estimate only. xxii Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume I of II Appendix A A-8 of 8 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Appendix B County of El Dorado Economic and Demographic Profile (2018) Volume I of II Appendix B B-1 of 64 2018 EL DORADO COUNTY Economic & Demographic Profile B-2 of 64 Acknowledgments Rural County Representatives of California Economic Development Unit In partnership with Golden State Finance Authority (916) 447-4806 info@rcrcnet.org • www.rcrcnet.org Document Production Peter Owens, Senior Analyst Ryan Miller, Senior Analyst Jose T. Valdovinos, Project Analyst Amanda Kabisch-Herzog, Senior Research Assistant Karen C. Hernandez, Senior Research Assistant Wyatt Caldeira, Senior Research Assistant Emilio T. Hernandez, Research Assistant Mizan Shaikh, Research Assistant Stephen Butler, Research Assistant Luke T. Scholl, Technical Writer We would also like to thank the photo contributors. A full list of photo contributors can be found on page 57. Center for Economic Development California State University, Chico (530)898-4598 www.cedcal.com B-3 of 64 Page i Introduction Welcome to the 2018 El Dorado County Economic and Can I copy the tables and charts in this report and insert Demographic Profile. This profile is designed to give community them in my own documents? members access to economic and demographic data that are Adobe Acrobat allows you to copy images and paste them into relevant to their county and local community. The data provided your own documents. If you are using Acrobat Reader version 10, in this document can be used for grant writing, market analysis, go to the edit menu and select “Take a Snapshot.” Click and drag promotional purposes, business planning, community planning, or to create a box around the graphic you wish to copy. Reader will simply to satisfy general curiosity. copy the image in the box automatically. Simply paste the graphic in your word processor or graphic design software. If you want This profile is organized to reflect five core sets of community to improve the quality of the image, zoom in to the document in characteristics: population, environment, economy, society, and Acrobat a level of at least 100 percent. industry. The data and information provided are the latest available as of April 1, 2018 and provide a ten-year history of change If you copy and paste images from this document, please be sure wherever data are available. to include or cite the source of the data as indicated in the data tables. We also request that you credit the Center for Economic The document was produced by the Center for Economic Development at CSU, Chico for providing the research and Development, (CED) at California State University, Chico, with formatting, and our sponsor, Rural County Representatives of funding provided by Rural County Representatives of California California, for making the document available to the public. (RCRC). The CED specializes in providing the most recent, reliable, and relevant information for communities and businesses. For more information about the CED, please visit our website at www. cedcal.com. The indicators in this document provide insights into different aspects of community social and economic well-being. While each indicator is presented individually in this document, it is important to note that most indicators share substantive connections with other reported data. We encourage readers to think about indicator linkages and how improvements in one indicator can have a positive or negative effect on others. By doing this, we can more effectively work to improve the quality of a community’s environment, economy, and society. The data selected for presentation in this year were based on sponsor requests and feedback, the availability of new data from the U.S. Census Bureau and other data providers of interest to the general public, and the availability of annual data for every county in California. If you are looking for a specific piece of data on the county or any of its communities, please feel free to contact the Center for Economic Development at (530) 898-4598 and our research staff will gladly direct you to the most recent and reliable measure. B-4 of 64 Page ii B-5 of 64 Page iii Table of Contents 1 Demographic Indicators ����������������������������� 1 4 Social Indicators ������������������������������������������29 Total Population 2 Leading Causes of Death 30 TANF-CalWORKS Caseload 31 Components of Population Change 3 Medi-Cal Caseload 32 Migration Patterns 4 School Free and Reduced Age Distribution 5 Meal Program 33 Population by Race and Ethnicity 6 Educational Attainment 34 High School Dropout Rate 35 Graduates Eligible For UC & CSU Systems 36 Average SAT Scores 37 English Learners Enrollment 38 2 Environmental Indicators ��������������������������� 8 Crime Rates 39 Land Area & Population Density 9 Voter Registration and Participation 41 Harvested Acreage 10 Commute Patterns 11 Travel Time to Work 12 Means of Transportation to Work 13 5 Industry Indicators ��������������������������������������42 Agricultural Including Forestry and Fishing 43 3 Economic Indicators ������������������������������������14 Energy and Utilities 45 Labor Force 15 Construction 47 Employment 16 Manufacturing 49 Unemployment 17 Travel and Recreation 51 Seasonal Employment 18 Retail 53 Jobs By Industry 19 Government 55 Total Personal Income 21 Components of Personal Income 22 Per Capita Income 24 Earnings By Industry 25 Median Household Income 26 Poverty Rates 27 Fair Market Rent 28 B-6 of 64 Page iv DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS This section presents basic demographic characteristics such as population, age, and ethnicity, which provide a framework from which most other community indicators are based. El Dorado County’s population increased steadily from 2008-2017 with the exception of 2011 and 2016 when El Dorado County experienced slight reductions in population. El Dorado County has experienced a natural increase in population in every year between 2008 and 2017, although the magnitude of these increases has lessened during this period. Net migration into the county has generally been positive with the exception of 2011, the one year in which El Dorado County experienced negative population change. Between 2015 and 2016, the vast majority of El Dorado County’s in- migration came from nearby Sacramento County. A large amount of in-migration to El Dorado County also came from Bay Area counties like Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa. As with in-migration, the vast majority of El Dorado’s County’s out-migration involved Sacramento County. A significant amount of El Dorado County’s out-migrants moved out of state to the nearby Douglas and Washoe Counties in Nevada. Between 2007 and 2016, El Dorado County experienced its largest proportional population increases in those aged 85 years and older (98 percent), those aged 65 to 74 years old (97 percent), and those aged 55 to 64 years old (39 percent). In contrast, El Dorado saw its largest proportional population decreases in those aged 18 to 24 years old (23 percent), those aged 40 to 54 years old (15 percent), and those under 5 years of age (13 percent). In 2016, the largest proportion of the El Dorado County population by age were those aged 40 to 54 years old (26 percent). El Dorado County experienced its greatest proportional population gains in its Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander, Asian American, and Black/African American populations (117 percent, 49 percent, and 40 percent, respectively). In contrast, the county experienced population declines in its White and Other/Multiracial populations (1 percent and 7 percent, respectively). In 2016, the greatest proportion of El Dorado County’s population by race/ethnicity were those identifying as White alone (78 percent). In This Section: Total Population ...........................................................2 Components of Population Change ......................3 Migration Patterns ........................................................4 Age Distribution ............................................................5 Population by Race and Ethnicity ...........................6 B-7 of 64 Page 1 Total Population What is it? Total population measures the number of people who consider the county to be their primary residence, and does not include those who reside in the county as a result of incarceration, or persons who reside in the county but do not consider it their primary residence. The data are estimated annually by the California Department of Finance and provide a point-in-time estimate for January 1 of each year. How is it used? Population represents a cumulative measurement of the size of the county’s consumer market, labor availability, and the potential impact of human habitation on the environment. Population data provide the basis for many of the other indicators in this report. El Dorado County’s population increased steadily from 2008-2017 with the exception of 2011 and 2016 when El Dorado County experienced slight reductions in population. With a few brief and minor exceptions, the population growth of El Dorado County has consistently been less than that of California as a whole. South Lake Tahoe and Placerville are the county’s two largest cities. 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% -0.5% -1.0% Page 2 8002 9002 0102 1102 2102 3102 4102 5102 6102 7102 Non-Incarcerated Population Annual El Dorado County Percent Change California 186,000 184,000 182,000 180,000 178,000 176,000 174,000 8002 9002 0102 1102 2102 3102 4102 5102 6102 7102 Non-Incarcerated Population, El Dorado County El Dorado 1-year CA 1-year Year County change change 2008 177,897 0.95% 0.85% 2009 179,150 0.70% 0.73% 2010 180,682 0.86% 0.79% 2011 180,483 -0.11% 0.78% 2012 181,711 0.68% 0.95% 2013 181,997 0.16% 0.99% 2014 182,404 0.22% 0.86% 2015 184,917 1.38% 0.89% 2016 183,750 -0.63% 0.90% 2017 185,062 0.71% 0.68% Source: California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit County Non-Incarcerated Population El Dorado County City Population, El Dorado County City 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Placerville 10,275 10,324 10,365 10,352 10,441 10,488 10,648 10,684 10,702 10,743 South Lake Tahoe 21,737 21,517 21,407 21,377 21,166 20,822 20,795 20,827 20,807 21,024 Source: California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit B-8 of 64 Components of Population Change What is it? Components of population change measure natural sources of population increase and decrease (i.e., births and deaths) as well as changes due to in-migration and out-migration. The California Department of Finance releases annual estimates on the number of births, deaths, and net migration both into and out of each county. The natural change in population is calculated by subtracting deaths from births. Any remaining change in population is due to net migration, which is calculated by subtracting the number of out- migrants from the number of in-migrants. How is it used? If population growth is primarily due to natural increase, then the county may be a place where many younger families are residing. If natural rate of change is negative (more deaths than births), then the population’s age composition may be older. There are many potential motivations for people to move into or out of a county, such as employment opportunities, housing prices, and general quality of life. It should be noted that the components of population change data represent annual totals, while the total population data in section 1.1 are a point-in-time measurement of population taken on January 1st of each calendar year. Because of this difference, the data reported in this section are not directly comparable to the population data presented on page two. El Dorado County has experienced a natural increase in population in every year between 2008 and 2017, although the magnitude of these increases has lessened during this period. Net migration into the county has generally been positive with the exception of 2011, the one year in which El Dorado County experienced negative population change. In 2016 and 2017, the vast share of population change was attributable to positive net migration. Components of Population Change, El Dorado County Natural Net Total Components of Population Change Natural Increase Year Births Deaths Increase Migration Change Net Migration Total Change 2008 1,902 1,283 619 785 1,404 2,500 2009 1,738 1,245 493 609 1,102 2,000 2010 1,613 1,246 367 1,115 1,482 1,500 2011 1,629 1,307 322 -413 -91 1,000 2012 1,597 1,420 177 63 240 2013 1,494 1,326 168 1,023 1,191 500 2014 1,609 1,396 213 17 230 0 2015 1,609 1,542 67 502 569 -500 2016 1,547 1,546 1 937 938 -1,000 2017 1,597 1,575 22 2,016 2,038 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Source: California Department of Public Health and California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit B-9 of 64 Page 3 Migration Patterns What is it? How is it used? This indicator includes migration patterns between El Dorado Migration can indicate positive or negative changes in the County and the ten counties with the highest numbers of economic, political, and social structure of an area, based on the in- and out-migrants. Data are collected from the Internal characteristics of the area from which the migrants originate. Revenue Service (IRS), and are based on income tax records For example, some migration from urban to rural areas may be for all available households. Migrations to and from group based upon the lower cost of housing outside of major urban living quarters, such as college dormitories, nursing homes, or centers, while rural to urban migrants are often seeking better correctional institutions, are not included. job opportunities. Neighboring counties, as well as those with higher population totals, generally show the largest amount of migration activity. Migration between non-neighboring counties, particularly those that are geographically distant and/ or socioeconomically quite distinct, may thus be worthy of further investigation. Between 2015 and 2016, the vast majority of El Dorado County’s in-migration came from nearby Sacramento County. A large amount of in-migration to El Dorado County also came from Bay Area counties like Santa Clara, Alameda, and Contra Costa. As with in-migration, the vast majority of El Dorado’s County’s out-migration involved Sacramento County. A significant amount of El Dorado County’s out-migrants moved out of state to the nearby Douglas and Washoe Counties in Nevada. A surprisingly large number of El Dorado County’s out-migrants moved to distant Southern California counties like San Diego and Los Angeles. Top 10 In-Migration Counties, 2015-16, El Dorado County Top 10 Out-Migration Counties, 2015-16, El Dorado County County Number of In-Migrants County Number of Out-Migrants Sacramento County 3,200 Sacramento County 2,287 Placer County 555 Placer County 630 Santa Clara County 498 Douglas County 307 Alameda County 438 Washoe County 236 Contra Costa County 430 San Diego County 163 Los Angeles County 255 Los Angeles County 149 Solano County 199 Santa Clara County 144 San Mateo County 199 Contra Costa County 133 Douglas County 197 Amador County 124 San Diego County 193 Clark County 118 Source: Internal Revenue Service Source: Internal Revenue Service B-10 of 64 Page 4 Age Distribution What is it? How is it used? Age distribution data provide the number of permanent residents Age distribution information is valuable to companies that who fall into a given age range, and are measured on April 1 for target their marketing efforts on specific age groups. Age each recorded year. Data are provided by American Community distribution data can be used to estimate school attendance, Survey one-year estimates. The earliest one-year estimates that are need for public services, and workforce projections. A growing available are the 2006 estimates. Therefore, all analysis of change young adult population, for instance, could indicate greater need will be over the ten-year period from 2007 to 2016. These data for higher education and vocational training facilities, while a include incarcerated individuals in total population counts. growing middle-aged population may signal the need for greater employment opportunities. An area with a significant proportion of population that is past retirement age will typically have less Population by Age employment concerns, but a greater need for medical and social 2007 2016 service provision. Age distribution data can also be used in 50,000 conjunction with the components of population change in order 45,000 to create projections of future population growth. Between 2007 40,000 and 2016, El Dorado County experienced its largest proportional 35,000 30,000 population increases in those aged 85 years and older (98 percent), 25,000 those aged 65 to 74 years old (97 percent), and those aged 55 to 20,000 15,000 64 years old (39 percent). In contrast, El Dorado saw its largest 10,000 proportional population decreases in those aged 18 to 24 years old 5,000 (23 percent), those aged 40 to 54 years old (15 percent), and those 0 Under 5 to 17 18 to 25 to 40 to 55 to 65 to 75 to 85 under 5 years of age (13 percent). In 2016, the largest proportion of 5 years years 24 39 54 64 74 84 years the El Dorado County population by age were those aged 40 to 54 years years years years years years and years old (26 percent). over Population by Age, El Dorado County Percent of Population by Age, 2016 El Dorado County Age Range 2007 2016 California Under 5 years 9,827 8,523 25% 5 to 17 years 28,473 29,418 20% 18 to 24 years 17,355 13,415 25 to 39 years 31,755 27,754 15% 40 to 54 years 45,153 38,608 10% 55 to 64 years 23,232 32,278 5% 65 to 74 years 11,199 22,049 0% 75 to 84 years 6,046 8,337 Under 5 to 17 18 to 25 to 40 to 55 to 65 to 75 to 85 85 years and over 2,649 5,243 5 years years 24 39 54 64 74 84 years years years years years years years and Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 1-year Estimates over Population by Age Compared to California, El Dorado County Percent of Total, 2007 to 2016 Population Change by Age, 2007-2016 El Dorado County California 2016 10-year Change California 120% Age Range County California County California 100% Under 5 years 5.6 % 6.5 % -13.3% - 5.1 % 80% 60% 5 to 17 Years 16.2 % 17.2 % 3.3% - 0.0 % 40% 18 to 24 Years 9.9 % 10.2 % -22.7% 4.5 % 20% 25 to 39 Years 18.1 % 21.4 % -12.6% 5.8 % 0% 40 to 54 Years 25.7 % 20.2 % -14.5% 0.8 % -20% 55 to 64 Years 13.2 % 11.6 % 38.9% 28.7 % -40% Under 5 to 17 18 to 25 to 40 to 55 to 65 to 75 to 85 65 to 74 Years 6.4 % 7.3 % 96.9% 40.6 % 5 years years 24 39 54 64 74 84 years 75 to 84 Years 3.4 % 3.8 % B-1317 o.9f %64 6.9 % years years years years years years and over 85 years and over 1.5 % 1.8 % 97.9% 27.0 % Page 5 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS, 1-year Estimates Population by Race and Ethnicity What is it? Racial and ethnic identification is frequently a product of both collective assignment by others and individual assertion of a felt or claimed identity. It is important to note that both the Census and the American Community Survey measure an individual’s race and ethnicity through self-identification, rather than assignment by the interviewer. There are seven major racial/ethnic categories provided: American Indian, Asian, Black, Hispanic/Latino, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, White, and Other/Multiracial. These data include incarcerated individuals in total population counts. How is it used? Data on population within racial and ethnic categories are often used by advertisers to target their marketing efforts towards particular groups and to estimate how profitable these efforts might be. Grant writers frequently use population data on racial and ethnic groups to secure funding for programs meant to address group-specific social conditions or inequalities. Government officials and political candidates also use population data on race and ethnicity in order to tailor their campaign messages to people who make claims to particular racial and ethnic identities. Between 2010 and 2016, El Dorado County experienced its greatest proportional population gains in its Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Asian American, and Black/African American populations (117 percent, 49 percent, and 40 percent, respectively). In contrast, the county experienced population declines in its White and Other/Multiracial populations (1 percent and 7 percent, respectively). In 2016, the greatest proportion of El Dorado County’s population by race/ethnicity were those identifying as White alone (78 percent). Population by Race/Ethnicity, El Dorado County Percent of Total in 2016 2010 to 2016 7-year Change Race/Ethnicity 2010 2016 County California County California White alone 145,003 144,295 77.7% 37.5% -0.5% -1.7% Hispanic or Latino 22,065 23,699 12.8% 38.9% 7.4% 8.5% American Indian alone 1,639 1,825 1.0% 0.3% 11.3% -11.4% Black or African American alone 1,281 1,787 1.0% 5.5% 39.5% 0.3% Asian alone 5,969 8,904 4.8% 14.1% 49.2% 14.1% Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander 181 393 0.2% 0.3% 117.1% 2.5% Other/Multiple 5,056 4,722 2.5% 3.3% -6.6% 42.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 and 2016, ACS 1-Year Estimates B-12 of 64 Page 6 Population by Race/Ethnicity as a Percent of Total, 2016 El Dorado County California 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% White alone Hispanic or Latino American Indian Black or African Asian alone Native Hawaiian and Other/Multiple alone American alone Pacific Islander Population by Race/Ethnicity as a Percent of Total 2010 2016 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% White alone Hispanic or Latino American Indian Black or African Asian alone Native Hawaiian and Other/Multiple alone American alone Pacific Islander Population by Race/Ethnicity 2010 2016 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 White alone Hispanic or Latino American Indian Black or African Asian alone Native Hawaiian and Other/Multiple alone American alone Pacific Islander B-13 of 64 Page 7 ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS Environmental indicators describe the quality of the physical places with which humans interact, and focus in particular on land, air, and water resources. These indicators are useful in identifying the potential impacts that a regional population may be having on the natural environment around them. The bulk of El Dorado County’s population is clustered along the Highway 50 corridor between El Dorado Hills, Placerville, and Pollock Pines, with a significant secondary clustering in the South Lake Tahoe region. The amount of harvested acreage in El Dorado County remained extremely consistent between 2007 and 2016. El Dorado County saw its greatest increase in harvested acreage in 2016. Travel times to work in El Dorado County seem to have decreased in frequency across all time ranges between 2010 and 2016 except for those between 25 and 44 minutes long, which increased marginally. In 2016, the largest proportion of county residents (26 percent) took between 15 and 24 minutes to commute to work. A majority of El Dorado County residents (79 percent) drove alone to work in 2016, and a further 10 percent carpooled with others and 6 percent worked from home. The greatest proportional increase in frequency between 2010 and 2016 was for those bicycling to work (218 percent), while the greatest proportional decrease was for those utilizing public transportation (53 percent). Between 2006 and 2015, the percent of local jobs held by those commuting into El Dorado County has fluctuated somewhat but generally increased. The percent of the employed local workforce that commutes outside of El Dorado County, in contrast, increased relatively steadily during this same period, although this proportion declined somewhat in in 2014 and 2015. In This Section: Land Area & Population Density ..................................9 Harvested Acreage .........................................................10 Commute Patterns .........................................................11 Travel Time to Work ........................................................12 Means of Transportation to Work .............................13 B-14 of 64 Page 8 Land Area & Population Density What is it? How is it used? Population density is determined by dividing a county’s total non- Population density data can be useful for municipal and regional incarcerated population by its land area in square miles. Population planners who are developing infrastructural projects and wish density data indicate how closely or loosely county residents are to benefit from economies of scale. For example, areas with high grouped together, and are often functions of both total population population density would likely exhibit more frequent utilization and the characteristics of the built environment, such as the relative of public transportation resources than areas with lower density, proportion of single- vs. multiple-family housing in a county. and are also frequently more energy efficient. Population density data can be useful for businesses seeking to open a new location, as greater density generally implies greater demand for labor. Changes in population density can also help in the interpretation of migration patterns as people move into and out of particular cities and neighborhoods. As can be seen from the map below, the bulk of El Dorado County’s population is clustered along the Highway 50 corridor between El Dorado Hills, Placerville, and Pollock Pines, with Land Area and Population Density, El Dorado County a significant secondary clustering in the South Lake Tahoe region. Population Density Land Area Total (per sq. mile) California Population Density (per sq. mile) Year (sq. miles) Population County State El Dorado County 2008 1,711 177,897 104.0 235.3 300 2009 1,711 179,150 104.7 237.0 250 2010 1,711 180,682 105.6 238.7 2011 1,711 180,483 105.5 240.0 200 2012 1,711 181,711 106.2 241.5 150 2013 1,711 182,286 106.6 243.4 100 2014 1,711 182,404 106.6 245.8 2015 1,711 184,917 108.1 248.2 50 2016 1,711 184,371 107.8 251.3 0 2017 1,711 185,062 108.2 253.4 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Source: California Department of Finance B-15 of 64 Page 9 Harvested Acreage What is it? How is it used? Harvested acreage reports the total amount of land that is used Agriculture is often a dominant land use in rural counties, and in any aspect of agricultural production as a proportion of a harvested acreage as a proportion of total land area can indicate county’s total land area. Data on harvested acreage are reported the relative importance of agriculture to a local economy. In annually by individual County Agricultural Commissioners addition to being a major economic factor, agriculture can also to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Unfortunately, there is form the basis for community and regional identity, as well as no consistent method for estimating harvested acreage from factor when determining use policies for areas surrounding county to county or from year to year. However, commissioners farmland. The amount of harvested acreage in El Dorado County are required to base their estimate on a local survey that is remained extremely consistent between 2007 and 2016. El statistically representative of all agricultural producers in an area. Dorado County saw its greatest increase in harvested acreage in 2016. The vast majority of El Dorado County’s harvested acreage is used for animal pastures. Total Harvested Acreage, El Dorado County Top 10 Crops Harvested Acreage, El Dorado County Total Acres Percent of Total Percent of Year Harvested Land Area Crop 2016 Total 2007 237,226 21.7% Pasture, Range 233,000 97.7% 2008 237,399 21.7% Grapes, Wine 2,340 1.0% 2009 237,303 21.7% Pasture, Irrigated 1,580 0.7% 2010 237,492 21.7% Apples, All 852 0.4% 2011 237,546 21.7% Hay, Other, Unspecified 225 0.1% 2012 237,546 21.7% Walnuts, English 126 0.1% 2013 237,613 21.7% Peaches, Unspecified 110 0.0% 2014 237,636 21.7% Pears, Bartlett 65 0.0% 2015 237,763 21.7% Olives 62 0.0% 2016 238,538 21.8% Plums 52 0.0% Source: California Agricultural Statistics Service, California Source: California Agricultural Statistics Service, California Department of Finance Department of Finance Top 5 Crops by Harvested Acreage, El Dorado County Total Harvested Acreage El Dorado County Pasture, 239,000 Irr 0 ig .7 a % te d App 0 l . e 4 s % , All Hay, Other, Unspecified Grapes, Wine 0.1% 238,500 1.0% 238,000 237,500 237,000 236,500 Pasture, 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Range 97.7% B-16 of 64 Page 10 Commute Patterns What is it? How is it used? Commute patterns data assess the number of jobs in a county Commute pattern data are useful for estimating the ability relative to its total labor force, as well as the proportion of workers of a county economy to meet the employment needs of its who commute either into or out of the county for work. The U.S. workforce. A larger proportion of workers commuting into the Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Employment and Household Dynamics county from outside is indicative of a job surplus relative to data include all jobs reported to the IRS by businesses, with social labor force size, while a larger proportion of workers commuting security numbers matched to the locations of residential tax returns out may indicate that there are not enough jobs relative to determine a worker’s location. to labor force size. These data can also be used to estimate daytime population, which is the number of people present in the county during normal business hours compared to the total (resident) population, and are often used by businesses in designing their marketing strategy for various products. Between 2006 and 2015, the percent of local jobs held by those commuting into El Dorado County has fluctuated somewhat but generally increased. The percent of the employed local workforce that commutes outside of El Dorado County, in contrast, increased relatively steadily during this same period, although this proportion declined somewhat in in 2014 and 2015. The size of the commuting-out workforce has remained much larger than the size of the commuting-in workforce between 2006 and 2015. Place of Work Patterns, El Dorado County Jobs in Employed Local Local Workforce Workforce Percent Workforce Percent Year County Workforce Employed in County Commuting In Commuting In Commuting Out Commuting Out 2006 47,231 65,519 28,347 18,515 39.2% 37,172 56.7% 2007 49,258 66,943 28,958 21,135 42.9% 37,985 56.7% 2008 49,006 66,211 28,716 21,635 44.1% 37,495 56.6% 2009 46,254 69,297 28,123 19,424 42.0% 41,174 59.4% 2010 44,484 70,311 27,371 18,994 42.7% 42,940 61.1% 2011 44,819 69,545 26,830 20,560 45.9% 42,715 61.4% 2012 45,015 69,815 24,181 20,834 46.3% 45,634 65.4% 2013 50,223 71,825 24,862 25,361 50.5% 46,963 65.4% 2014 52,622 73,540 25,723 26,899 51.1% 47,817 65.0% 2015 49,992 73,073 26,334 23,658 47.3% 46,739 64.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Employment Data County Workforce Commute Patterns Commuting in Commuting Out 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 B-17 of 64 Page 11 Travel Time to Work What is it? How is it used? Travel time to work is the amount of time, in minutes, that a Increasing commute times often capture the push-pull dynamic worker estimates it takes them to get to work on a normal between wages and housing costs, as well-paying jobs become workday. Travel time can be influenced by distance to work, increasingly concentrated in urban centers that also frequently have traffic volume, and the means of transportation utilized higher costs of living. Workers who wish to earn higher wages but want (evaluated in the following indicator). Data are taken from the to maintain a lower cost of living may therefore choose to commute 2010-2016 American Community Survey and are reported as longer distances. Longer commute times may also indicate the need for five-year estimates. improvements to transportation infrastructure, such as more accessible public transportation resources or expansion of roads to reduce highway traffic. Conversely, shorter commute times may indicate that wages and housing costs are in better alignment or that transportation Travel Time to Work (Minutes) El Dorado County infrastructure is sufficient for the local labor force. Travel times to work Percent Change, 2010-2016 California in El Dorado County seem to have decreased in frequency across all 25.0% time ranges between 2010 and 2016 except for those between 25 20.0% and 44 minutes long, which increased marginally. In 2016, the largest 15.0% 10.0% proportion of county residents (26 percent) took between 15 and 24 5.0% minutes to commute to work. 0.0% -5.0% -10.0% -15.0% -20.0% -25.0% 0-5 5-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-59 60-89 90+ Travel Time to Work (Minutes) El Dorado County Percent of Total, 2016 California 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0-5 5-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-59 60-89 90+ Travel Time to Work, El Dorado County Percent of Total in 2016 Change from 2010 to 2016 Travel Time to Work 2010 2016 County California County California Less than 5 minutes 2,932 2,733 3.8% 1.9% -6.8% -19.5% 5 to 14 minutes 18,774 17,580 24.4% 20.8% -6.4% -5.1% 15 to 24 minutes 19,316 18,542 25.8% 29.7% -4.0% 2.4% 25 to 34 minutes 12,044 12,054 16.8% 20.9% 0.1% 7.5% 35 to 44 minutes 5,631 5,656 7.9% 6.8% 0.4% 9.5% 45 to 59 minutes 7,462 6,971 9.7% 8.5% -6.6% 12.6% 60 to 89 minutes 6,037 5,454 7.6% 7.8% -9.7% 16.8% 90 or more minutes 3,366 2,958 4.1% 3.6% -12.1% 21.7% Total not working at home 75,562 71,948 100.0% 100.0% -4.8% 4.0% B-18 of 64 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2016, ACS 5- year estimates Page 12 Means of Transportation to Work What is it? Means of transportation to work is the type of vehicle or mode of transportation most frequently used to get from home to work in an average workday. As with travel time, this indicator is measured through individual self-reports in the American Community Survey, and workers are asked to report the mode of travel most frequently used in the previous week. The data reported here are one-year estimates. How is it used? The most frequently utilized means of transportation to work may indicate how accessible or feasible certain modes of transportation are for a county’s labor force. This indicator is especially useful when assessed alongside travel times to work (indicator 2.6 above), and can be helpful for county and municipal planners in the development of public transportation resources, bike paths, and other transportation infrastructure. A majority of El Dorado County residents (79 percent) drove alone to work in 2016, and a further 10 percent carpooled with others and 6 percent worked from home. The proportion of workers who drove alone (79 percent) was somewhat higher than that for the rest of the state of California in 2016. The greatest proportional increase in frequency between 2010 and 2016 was for those bicycling to work (218 percent), while the greatest proportional decrease was for those utilizing public transportation (53 percent). Means of Transportation to Work, El Dorado County El Dorado County Percent of Total in 2016 Change from 2010 to 2016 Means of Transportation 2010 2016 County California County California Drove Alone 60,721 62,998 78.9% 73.5% 3.7% 12.6% Carpooled 7,392 6,509 9.6% 10.3% -11.9% 0.3% Public transportation 1,580 743 2.1% 5.1% -53.0% 10.7% Bicycle 250 796 0.3% 1.0% 218.4% 14.7% Walked 1,422 1,926 1.8% 2.7% 35.4% 11.7% Taxicab, motorcycle, or other means 763 455 1.0% 1.5% -40.4% 31.8% Worked at Home 4,787 6,351 6.2% 5.8% 32.7% 26.6% Total 76,915 79,778 100.0% 100.0% 3.7% 12.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 and 2016, ACS 1-year estimates Means of Transportation to Work, Percent of Total El Dorado County California 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% B-19 of 64 Drove Alone Carpooled Public transportation Bicycle Walked Taxicab, motorcycle, Worked at Home or other means Page 13 ECONOMIC INDICATORS Economic indicators provide valuable insight into the relative availability of financial and employment resources for a county population, as well as the growth or decline of wages in particular industries and the average cost of housing. El Dorado County’s labor force fluctuated between 2007 and 2016, but ultimately only fell by roughly 0.8% by 2016. Employment in El Dorado County decreased gradually between 2007 and 2011, before entering a period of steady growth from 2012-2016, while unemployment experienced opposite trends during these periods. Between 2007 and 2016, El Dorado County experienced only small seasonal changes in employment. Employment levels were generally at their highest in July, August and September, and at their lowest levels in December, January and February. Average unemployment was highest in January at 9 percent, and at a low of 7.9 percent in September. Total personal income in El Dorado County fluctuated between 2007-2016, similarly to the rest of California. Overall, once adjusted for inflation, total personal income in El Dorado County increased by nearly a million dollars between 2007 and 2016. The primary components of personal income in El Dorado County are work earnings, commuter income, dividends, interest, and rent. Per capita income in El Dorado County grew steadily between 2007 and 2016, with the exception of 2009 and 2014 when it experienced slight declines. El Dorado County maintained an inflation-adjusted per capita income roughly $5,000-$10,000 lower than the statewide average. Median household income in El Dorado County fluctuated but ultimately grew between 2007 and 2016. Overall, median household income in El Dorado County increased by nearly 17 percent between 2007 and 2016. Poverty rates in El Dorado County experienced little change and consistently remained lower than the statewide average between 2007 and 2016. In 2016, El Dorado County’s construction and finance/insurance sectors were disproportionately larger than the statewide average. Conversely, EL Dorado County’s manufacturing, information, and transportation/warehousing sectors were disproportionately smaller than the statewide average. The largest industry by employment in 2016 was government and government enterprises (12.5 percent), followed by health care (9.9) and retail trade (9.8). In 2016, the largest contributors to total earnings in El Dorado County were the In This Section: government, construction, health care, and finance/insurance sectors. Labor Force .....................................................................15 In the case of both the construction and finance/insurance sectors, the percentage of El Dorado County’s total earnings derived from Employment ...................................................................16 these sectors were all significantly larger than the statewide average. Unemployment .............................................................17 Seasonal Employment ................................................18 Jobs By Industry ............................................................19 Total Personal Income .................................................21 Components of Personal Income ...........................22 Per Capita Income ........................................................24 Earnings By Industry ....................................................25 Median Household Income .......................................26 Poverty Rates ..................................................................27 Fair Market Rent ............................................................28 B-20 of 64 Page 14 Labor Force What is it? Total Labor Force, El Dorado County The labor force is the number of people living in the Labor Force 1-Year Change county who are considered willing and able to work. This Year County State County State is operationally defined by the California Employment Development Department as all individuals over the age of 2007 90,400 17,893,100 -1.3% 1.4% 16 who are either currently working or currently receiving 2008 90,600 18,178,100 0.2% 1.6% unemployment benefits (which requires one to be actively 2009 91,700 18,215,100 1.2% 0.2% seeking work). Therefore, changes in both employment and 2010 91,100 18,336,300 -0.7% 0.7% unemployment levels affect labor force size. Individuals who 2011 89,700 18,415,100 -1.5% 0.4% are unemployed and are no longer actively seeking work 2012 89,100 18,523,800 -0.7% 0.6% are considered discouraged workers, and are not included in labor force estimates. The data are provided as annual 2013 88,600 18,624,300 -0.6% 0.5% averages of monthly estimates from the California Employment 2014 88,100 18,755,000 -0.6% 0.7% Development Department. 2015 88,300 18,893,200 0.2% 0.7% 2016 89,700 19,102,700 1.6% 1.1% How is it used? Source: California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Labor force size is a useful indicator of the overall employment Information Division potential for a county. However, because labor force is an aggregate measure of both employment and unemployment, it is often necessary to interpret increases or declines in labor Labor Force El Dorado County force size alongside these constitutive measures. Because 92,000 discouraged workers are not included in labor force counts, these data can also be compared to the distribution of a county 91,000 population by age, in order to identify the number of people of working age (16-65) who are not in a county’s workforce. 90,000 89,000 El Dorado County’s labor force fluctuated between 2007 and 2016, but ultimately only fell by roughly 0.8 percent by 2016. El 88,000 Dorado County’s labor force was at its highest in 2009, and its lowest in 2014. 87,000 86,000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 El Dorado County Labor Force Annual Percent Change California 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% -0.5% -1.0% -1.5% -2.0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 B-21 of 64 Page 15 Employment What is it? Total Employment, El Dorado County Employment data are reported by the California Employed 1-Year Change Employment Development Department, and represent a count of all individuals who either worked at least one hour Year County State County State for a wage or salary, were self-employed, or worked at least 2007 85,700 16,931,600 -1.8% 0.8% 15 unpaid hours in a family business or on a family farm, 2008 84,300 16,854,500 -1.6% -0.5% during the reference week of the previous month in the 2009 81,700 16,182,600 -3.1% -4.0% survey questionnaire. The reference week is usually the week 2010 80,000 16,091,900 -2.1% -0.6% containing the 12th day of the previous month. Annual 2011 79,200 16,258,100 -1.0% 1.0% employment data are the averages of these monthly survey 2012 80,000 16,602,700 1.0% 2.1% totals. Individuals who were on vacation, on other kinds of leave, or involved in a labor dispute are also counted as 2013 81,100 16,958,700 1.4% 2.1% employed. 2014 81,900 17,348,600 1.0% 2.3% 2015 83,300 17,723,300 1.7% 2.2% How is it used? 2016 85,200 18,065,000 2.3% 1.9% Employment is a primary indicator of the economic situation Source: California Employment Development Department, Labor Market for workers in a county. Increasing employment means Information Division more potential jobs for workers, and workers will generally have an easier time finding work in counties with higher employment totals. This is a primary indicator of the health Employment El Dorado County of the economy as the unemployment rate is affected by 88,000 labor force shifts. 86,000 Employment in El Dorado County decreased gradually 84,000 between 2007 and 2011, before entering a period of steady growth from 2012-2016. Overall, the number of employed 82,000 individuals in El Dorado County decreased by only 500 80,000 individuals by 2016. 78,000 76,000 74,000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Employment Annual Percent Change El Dorado County California 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% -1.0% -2.0% -3.0% -4.0% -5.0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 B-22 of 64 Page 16 Unemployment What is it? Unemployment data are a count of the estimated number Unemployment El Dorado County of people who are actively seeking work, are not working 12,000 at least one hour per week for pay, and who are not self- employed. The data are reported by the California Employment 10,000 Development Department (EDD) from data collected by the U.S. Current Population Survey (CPS). It is important to note 8,000 that unemployment data do not include individuals who 6,000 are not actively seeking work and thus no longer qualify for unemployment benefits, and thus represent an inexact 4,000 estimation of the total unemployed population. 2,000 How is it used? 0 Although unemployment levels are often used as a primary 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 measure of economic health, it is perhaps more accurate to view them as an indicator of recent economic disruptions than a holistic indicator of growth or decline, due to its direct El Dorado County Unemployment Rate connection to unemployment benefits provision. Sustained California high unemployment rates typically indicate the presence of 14.0% structural economic and/or social issues within the community, 12.0% although what is considered “high” may vary from one community to the next. 10.0% 8.0% Unemployment in El Dorado County increased gradually between 2007 and 2010, before entering a period of steady 6.0% decline from 2011-2016. Overall, the number of unemployed 4.0% individuals in El Dorado County decreased by only 200 individuals by 2016. 2.0% 0.0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Unemployment, El Dorado County County Unemployment Rate 1-Year Change Year Unemployed County State County State 2007 4,700 5.2% 5.4% 11.9% 11.2% 2008 6,300 7.0% 7.3% 34.0% 37.7% 2009 10,000 10.9% 11.2% 58.7% 53.6% 2010 11,100 12.2% 12.2% 11.0% 10.4% 2011 10,500 11.7% 11.7% -5.4% -3.9% 2012 9,100 10.2% 10.4% -13.3% -10.9% 2013 7,500 8.5% 8.9% -17.6% -13.3% 2014 6,100 7.0% 7.5% -18.7% -15.6% 2015 5,000 5.7% 6.2% -18.0% -16.8% 2016 4,500 5.1% 5.4% -10.0% -11.3% Source: California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division B-23 of 64 Page 17 Seasonal Employment What is it? How is it used? Seasonal employment data are calculated using the monthly Average monthly labor statistics are used to evaluate seasonal employment counts provided by the California Employment trends in employment, and can be used by area business Development Department, as discussed in indicator 3.2, but instead associations and chambers of commerce to coordinate local events of calculating average employment for each year, the average and business marketing campaigns. Areas that are economically for each month in the range of years is calculated. As with the dependent on agriculture, forestry, or seasonal recreation tend to previous employment indicator, employment status is determined experience greater fluctuations in employment over the course of by whether or not one is employed during the week that includes the year that are obscured by annual averages. The employment the 12th day of the previous month. The mid-month period is differential between low- and high-employment months can used because it is less sensitive to changes in the overall business be used to evaluate the relative degree to which an economy is climate and thus more representative of average month-to-month dependent upon seasonal employment. Many seasonal employees conditions. locate temporarily and leave during the off-season, but some remain year-round and are unemployed during this period. Between 2007 and 2016, El Dorado County experienced only small seasonal changes in employment. Employment levels were generally at their highest in July, August and September, and at their lowest levels in December, January and February. Average unemployment was highest in January at 9 percent, and at a low of Average Monthly Labor Statistics, El Dorado County, 2007- 7.9 percent in September. 2016 Month Labor Force Employed Unemployed Unemp. Rate Average Monthly Labor Force, Jan 90,490 82,320 8,170 9.0% El Dorado County 2007-2016 Feb 90,540 82,480 8,070 8.9% 91,000 Mar 90,750 82,640 8,100 8.9% 90,800 April 90,130 82,620 7,490 8.3% 90,600 May 90,320 82,660 7,640 8.5% 90,400 Jun 90,480 82,790 7,670 8.5% 90,200 Jul 90,610 82,900 7,710 8.5% 90,000 Aug 90,190 82,830 7,350 8.2% 89,800 Sep 89,930 82,860 7,080 7.9% 89,600 Oct 90,000 82,800 7,210 8.0% 89,400 Nov 90,050 82,630 7,440 8.3% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Dec 90,040 82,550 7,490 8.3% Source: California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division Average Monthly Unemployment El Dorado County Average Monthly Employment, El Dorado County Rate, 2007-2016 California 2007-2016 10.0% 83,000 82,900 9.5% 82,800 9.0% 82,700 82,600 8.5% 82,500 82,400 8.0% 82,300 7.5% 82,200 82,100 7.0% 82,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec B-24 of 64 Page 18 Jobs By Industry What is it? Published by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), this indicator measures the number of jobs in a county within major industry sectors, regardless of whether or not the workers are themselves county residents. Because the BEA uses business tax returns to identify jobs within each industry, a worker who changed their workplace over the course of the year would be counted twice, once for each business’s tax return. Self-employed proprietors and members of business partnerships are also included in jobs by industry data, meaning that someone who owns their own business but also works for another employer would also be counted twice. Unpaid family care workers and volunteers are not included. How is it used? Jobs by industry is a useful measure of the economic diversity and potential resilience of the local economy, and is thus of great utility to local chambers of commerce and economic development organizations. A county with a large proportion of its jobs concentrated in a few industry sectors may be more susceptible to a recession or economic downturn than one with a more diversified economy. In 2016, El Dorado County’s construction and finance/ insurance sectors were disproportionately larger than the statewide average. Conversely, El Dorado County’s manufacturing, information, and transportation/ warehousing sectors were disproportionately smaller than the statewide average. The largest industry by employment in 2016 was government and government enterprises (12.5 percent), followed by health care (9.9) and retail trade (9.8). 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Page 19 tpecxe ,secivres rehtO noitartsinimda cilbup laicos dna erac htlaeH ecnatsissa gnirutcafunaM dna tnemnrevoG sesirpretne tnemnrevog secivres lanoitacudE edart liateR noitcurtsnoC doof dna noitadommoccA secivres dna latner dna etatse laeR gnisael tnemyolpme mraF Jobs by Industry, El Dorado County, 2016 County California El Dorado Percent of Percent of Industry County Total Total Farm employment 1,331 1.5% 1.0% Forestry, fishing, and related 432 0.5% 1.1% activities Mining 344 0.4% 0.3% Utilities 189 0.2% 0.3% Construction 7,351 8.3% 4.7% Manufacturing 3,443 3.9% 6.1% Wholesale trade 1,753 2.0% 3.8% Retail trade 8,698 9.8% 9.1% Transportation and warehousing 1,118 1.3% 3.8% Information 1,063 1.2% 2.6% Finance and insurance 5,910 6.7% 4.4% Real estate and rental and leasing 5,938 6.7% 5.0% Professional, scientific, and 6,722 7.6% 8.6% technical services Management of companies and 382 0.4% 1.1% enterprises Administrative and waste 5,199 5.9% 6.4% services Educational services 1,300 1.5% 2.3% Health care and social assistance 8,797 9.9% 11.2% Arts, entertainment, and 3,583 4.0% 2.8% recreation Accommodation and food 8,105 9.1% 7.5% services Other services, except public 6,121 6.9% 6.2% administration Government and government 11,088 12.5% 11.8% enterprises Sum of withheld "(D)" values (D) 0.0% n/a Total Jobs 88,867 100.0% 100.0% Source: California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division Jobs by Industry Sector, 2016 El Dorado County California B-25 of 64 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Page 20 tpecxe ,secivres rehtO noitartsinimda cilbup laicos dna erac htlaeH ecnatsissa gnirutcafunaM dna tnemnrevoG sesirpretne tnemnrevog secivres lanoitacudE edart liateR noitcurtsnoC doof dna noitadommoccA secivres dna latner dna etatse laeR gnisael tnemyolpme mraF Jobs by Industry, El Dorado County, 2007 County California El Dorado Percent of Percent of Industry County Total Total Farm employment 1,376 1.4% 1.1% Forestry, fishing, and related 515 0.5% 1.0% activities Mining 220 n/a 0.2% Utilities 140 0.1% 0.3% Construction 10,239 10.5% 5.9% Manufacturing 2,400 2.5% 7.4% Wholesale trade 1,727 1.8% 3.8% Retail trade 9,841 10.1% 10.1% Transportation and warehousing 1,206 1.2% 2.9% Information 1,363 1.4% 2.7% Finance and insurance 5,931 6.1% 4.6% Real estate and rental and leasing 9,976 10.3% 5.7% Professional, scientific, and 10,131 10.4% 8.3% technical services Management of companies and 273 0.3% 1.0% enterprises Administrative and waste 6,007 6.2% 6.4% services Educational services 1,582 1.6% 1.9% Health care and social assistance 7,662 7.9% 8.4% Arts, entertainment, and 3,213 3.3% 2.5% recreation Accommodation and food 6,988 7.2% 6.8% services Other services, except public 6,736 6.9% 6.0% administration Government and government 9,689 10.0% 12.9% enterprises Sum of withheld "(D)" values (D) 0.0% n/a Total Jobs 97,215 100.0% 100.0% Source: California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division Jobs by Industry Sector, 2007 El Dorado County California B-26 of 64 Total Personal Income What is it? Total personal income data are provided by the U.S. Department Inflation-Adjusted Total El Dorado County Personal Income (in Millions) of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. The indicator represents the sum of all income collected by individuals over $12,000 the course of each year, including but not limited to earned $10,000 income, government payments, and returns on investment. The $8,000 data do not include personal contributions for social insurance (such as payments to Social Security or Medicare). The indicator $6,000 is tabulated using individual and corporate tax returns from the $4,000 Internal Revenue Service. $2,000 How is it used? $0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total personal income is the basis for several other income indicators in this section. Growing personal income generally indicates a growing economy, as long as the growth is greater than the annual average inflation rate. Increases or decreases Inflation-Adjusted Total El Dorado County in total personal income are most frequently due to changes in Personal Income, 1-Year Change California worker’s earnings, population changes, or both. 8.0% Total personal income in El Dorado County fluctuated between 6.0% 2007-2016, similarly to the rest of California. It saw its most 4.0% significant growth in 2011 and 2012. Overall, once adjusted for 2.0% inflation, total personal income in El Dorado County increased by 0.0% nearly a billion dollars between 2007 and 2016. -2.0% -4.0% -6.0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Personal Income, El Dorado County El Dorado County California Nominal Personal Income 1-Year Inflation Adjusted Personal Income 1-Year 1-Year Year in Millions of Dollars Change in Millions of Dollars (2016) Change Change 2007 $8,734 4.2% $10,416 4.2% 2.1% 2008 $9,040 3.5% $10,339 -0.7% -1.8% 2009 $8,752 -3.2% $10,006 -3.2% -4.1% 2010 $8,996 2.8% $10,022 0.2% 0.4% 2011 $9,632 7.1% $10,558 5.4% 5.1% 2012 $10,263 6.6% $10,930 3.5% 4.1% 2013 $10,454 1.9% $10,958 0.3% 0.5% 2014 $10,430 -0.2% $10,763 -1.8% 3.2% 2015 $10,909 4.6% $11,107 3.2% 7.0% 2016 $11,361 4.1% $11,361 2.3% 3.3% Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis B-27 of 64 Page 21 Components of Personal Income What is it? Components of Total Personal Income, El Dorado County, This indicator disaggregates personal income totals by 2016 the sources of personal income, including work earnings, Percent of total in 2007 to 2016 Average retirement or disability benefits, returns on investment, or 2016 Annual Change transfer payments from sources such as supplemental social Component County California County California security, medical benefits, and unemployment insurance. The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Work Earnings 39.0% 71.6% 2.0% 3.5% Analysis provides these county-level data. Contributions to SSI, etc. -4.3% -7.4% 2.4% 3.3% Commuter Income 31.3% -0.1% 2.0% 73.5% How is it used? Dividends, Interest, & Rent 19.3% 20.8% 4.0% 4.3% Understanding how income is earned in a county can Retirement / Disability Benefits 6.2% 4.2% 6.9% 5.3% provide important insights into the structure of a county’s Medical Benefits 6.1% 7.5% 9.7% 9.1% economy. If the largest proportion of income is from work Income Maintenance Benefits 0.8% 1.6% 4.4% 3.4% earnings, then industry performance is likely to be driving economic growth. In contrast, if a high proportion of total Unemployment Benefits 0.2% 0.2% -0.4% 0.4% personal income is derived from transfer payments through Veterans benefits 0.5% 0.4% 12.4% 14.8% government benefit programs, this may indicate an elderly Education and training assistance 0.2% 0.4% 11.9% 13.8% or infirm population. Other Government Benefits 0.3% 0.3% 308.8% 343.2% Nonprofit Institutions 0.2% 0.2% 2.6% 3.1% The primary components of personal income in El Dorado County are work earnings, commuter income, dividends, Private Personal Injury Liability 0.2% 0.2% 13.1% 14.0% interest, and rent. While California witnessed a massive Total Personal Income 100.0% 100.0% 3.0% 4.1% 73.5 percent increase in commuter income between 2007 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis and 2016, El Dorado County experienced only a 2 percent increase in commuter income. Work Earnings Top Three Components of Personal Income, El Dorado County, (in Millions) Commuter Income Dividends, Interest, and Rent $5,000 $4,500 $4,000 $3,500 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 B-28 of 64 Page 22 Components of Total Personal Income (Millions of Dollars), El Dorado County Component 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Work Earnings $3,676.6 $3,635.3 $3,410.6 $3,377.9 $3,476.6 $3,778.0 $3,987.1 $4,038.9 $4,130.9 $4,428.2 Contributions to SSI, etc. -$391.4 -$393.7 -$377.4 -$370.6 -$346.1 -$358.9 -$424.9 -$438.9 -$446.7 -$483.7 Commuter Income $2,965.1 $3,066.9 $2,997.4 $3,146.3 $3,408.0 $3,533.1 $3,464.5 $3,517.0 $3,604.4 $3,558.4 Dividends, Interest, and Rent $1,564.7 $1,720.0 $1,552.8 $1,572.0 $1,809.2 $1,978.0 $2,034.2 $1,855.4 $2,021.7 $2,194.6 Retirement/ Disability Benefits $416.1 $441.7 $489.6 $513.4 $533.2 $573.9 $607.6 $640.3 $675.1 $702.3 Medical Benefits $350.1 $377.6 $403.3 $450.3 $467.0 $499.2 $532.5 $598.6 $659.8 $689.0 Income Maintenance Benefits $61.5 $67.1 $76.1 $81.9 $83.8 $84.5 $87.1 $88.8 $89.1 $88.8 Unemployment Benefits $24.6 $43.9 $99.7 $115.4 $91.3 $68.4 $49.4 $29.1 $23.1 $23.6 Veterans benefits $24.8 $27.7 $31.8 $36.0 $38.4 $41.6 $47.4 $49.9 $54.3 $55.7 Education and training assistance $12.0 $13.2 $16.7 $20.0 $21.7 $23.1 $23.3 $24.1 $24.5 $26.2 Other Government Benefits $1.0 $51.6 $19.4 $46.4 $41.8 $7.2 $6.2 $22.9 $29.9 $31.3 Nonprofit Institutions $19.1 $18.7 $19.9 $22.3 $21.4 $22.6 $22.9 $23.6 $23.6 $24.1 Private Personal Injury Liability $9.8 $14.5 $15.3 $15.5 $20.6 $15.4 $14.3 $16.3 $19.5 $22.8 Total Personal Income $8,734.2 $9,084.6 $8,755.3 $9,026.6 $9,666.7 $10,265.8 $10,451.5 $10,466.1 $10,909.3 $11,361.3 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis Components of Total Personal Income, Percent of Total Income in 2016 El Dorado County California 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% -10.0% -20.0% Work Earnings Contributions Commuter Dividends, Retirement/ Medical Income Unemployment Veterans Education and Other Nonprofit Private to SSI, etc. Income Interest, and Disability Benefits Maintenance Benefits benefits training Government Institutions Personal Injury Rent Benefits Benefits assistance Benefits Liability Components of Total Personal Income, Change from 2007 to 2016 El Dorado County California 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% -10.0% Work EarningsContributions to Commuter Dividends, Retirement/ Medical Income Unemployment Veterans Education and Nonprofit Private Personal SSI, etc. Income Interest, and Disability Benefits Maintenance Benefits benefits training Institutions Injury Liability Rent Benefits Benefits assistance Note: Other government benefits is not included for components of total personal income in this figure due to large fluctuations in its 10-year average percent change. B-29 of 64 Page 23 Per Capita Income What is it? Per capita income is calculated by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis by dividing its estimate of total personal income by the U.S. Census Bureau’s estimate of total population. How is it used? Per capita income is one of the most commonly used indicators of the general economic well-being of a county. Changes in this variable may indicate changes in a county’s standard of living or the availability of resources to individuals and families. Per capita income also tends to follow long-term business cycles, rising during expansions and falling during recessions. Income influences individual buying power and therefore affects consumer choices and local retail sales. Per capita income in El Dorado County grew steadily between 2007 and 2016, with the exception of 2009 and 2014 when it experienced slight declines. Per capita income in El Dorado County experienced its most significant growth in 2011. Between 2007 and 2016 El Dorado County maintained an inflation-adjusted per capita income roughly $5,000-$10,000 higher than the statewide average. Per Capita Income, El Dorado County El Dorado County Inflation-adjusted Inflation-adjusted Nominal El Dorado County Per Capita Income (2016) 1-Year Change Year Per Capita Income 1-Year Change El Dorado County California El Dorado County California 2007 $ 49,563 3.0% $ 56,642 $ 49,366 3.0% 3.4% 2008 $ 50,817 2.5% $ 55,917 $ 48,255 -1.3% -2.2% 2009 $ 48,853 -3.9% $ 53,957 $ 46,117 -3.5% -4.4% 2010 $ 49,788 1.9% $ 54,082 $ 46,395 0.2% 0.6% 2011 $ 53,368 7.2% $ 56,218 $ 47,775 4.0% 3.0% 2012 $ 56,480 5.8% $ 58,279 $ 49,819 3.7% 4.3% 2013 $ 57,438 1.7% $ 58,414 $ 49,674 0.2% -0.3% 2014 $ 57,179 -0.5% $ 57,229 $ 50,790 -2.0% 2.2% 2015 $ 59,698 4.4% $ 59,796 $ 54,318 4.5% 6.9% 2016 $ 61,830 3.6% $ 61,830 $ 56,532 3.4% 4.1% Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis Annual Change in Inflation- El Dorado County Inflation-Adjusted Per Capita Income El Dorado County Adjusted Per Capita Income California (in 2016 Dollars) California 8.0% $70,000 6.0% $60,000 4.0% $50,000 2.0% $40,000 0.0% $30,000 -2.0% $20,000 -4.0% $10,000 -6.0% $0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012B-230013 of2 60144 2015 2016 Page 24 Earnings By Industry What is it? Earnings by industry data represent the total personal Earnings by Industry, El Dorado County, 2016 (in Millions) earnings for workers within individual industry sectors, California and should not be confused with total business revenues El Dorado County Percent Percent of within industries. The total earnings of an industry are Industry County of Total Total calculated by taking the sum of three components: wage Farm employment $ 6.1 0.1% 1.0% and salary disbursements, supplements to wages and Forestry, fishing, and related salaries, and proprietor’s income. Earnings by industry are $ 21.4 0.5% 0.6% activities the components of earnings by place of work from the Mining $ 6.0 0.1% 0.3% section on components of personal income. The symbol “(D)” is used for information withheld to avoid disclosing Utilities $ 27.0 0.6% 0.6% data for individual companies. The symbol “(L)” is used when Construction $ 519.7 11.7% 5.3% reported values are less than $50,000. Values for both (D) Manufacturing $ 214.0 4.8% 9.2% and (L) are included in aggregate totals. Wholesale trade $ 97.3 2.2% 4.4% Retail trade $ 286.5 6.5% 5.5% How is it used? Transportation and warehousing $ 34.8 0.8% 2.9% Earning levels by industry are important indicators of the overall economic contributions of particular industries to Information $ 90.8 2.1% 6.5% a local economy. Similar to the previous Jobs by Industry Finance and insurance $ 416.3 9.4% 5.1% indicator, these data can also provide important insights Real Estate, rental, and leasing $ 127.1 2.9% 3.2% into the relative diversification of a county’s economy, and thus how resilient an economy is to economic downturns or Professional, scientific, and $ 325.9 7.4% 12.2% technical services recessions. Management of companies and $ 29.9 0.7% 2.1% In 2016, the largest contributors to total earnings in El enterprices Dorado County were the government, construction, health Administrative and waste services $ 242.0 5.5% 4.0% care, and finance/insurance sectors. In the case of both the construction and finance/insurance sectors, the percentage Educational services $ 24.9 0.6% 1.5% of El Dorado County’s total earnings derived from these Health care and social assistance $ 511.0 11.5% 9.5% sectors were all significantly larger than the statewide average. Arts, entertainment and recreation $ 90.6 2.0% 1.7% Accommodation and food services $ 222.4 5.0% 3.5% Other services, except public $ 214.5 4.8% 3.6% administration Government and government $ 920.1 20.8% 17.1% enterprises Sum of withheld “(D)” values n/a 0.0% n/a Total Earnings $ 4,428.2 100.0% 100.0% Source: California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Page 25 dna tnemnrevoG tnemnrevog sesirpretne noitcurtsnoC dna erac htlaeH ecnatsissa laicos dna ecnaniF ecnarusni ,lanoisseforP dna ,cifitneics secivres lacinhcet edart liateR evitartsinimdA etsaw dna secivres noitadommoccA secivres doof dna ,secivres rehtO cilbup tpecxe noitartsinimda gnirutcafunaM Earnings by Industry, 2016 El Dorado California B-31 of 64 Median Household Income What is it? How is it used? Household income includes the incomes of the householder Median household income is a more useful measure of (i.e. renter or title holder) and all other people 15 year of age collective economic well-being than per capita income because and older in the household, regardless of their relation to it aggregates income levels within a basic unit of economic the householder. Once income totals for all households are collaboration and decision making. Median income values are gathered, the median value is the data point at which exactly also less sensitive to fluctuations at the extreme high and low one-half of households have greater income and one-half of ends of a county’s earnings spectrum, and changes in median households have less income. The median value is based on the household income therefore signal changes within a wide range income distribution of all households, including those with no of earnings in a regional economy. income. Median household income in El Dorado County fluctuated but ultimately grew between 2007 and 2016. Overall, median household income in El Dorado County increased by nearly 17 percent between 2007 and 2016. El Dorado County consistently maintained a median household income roughly $5,000-$10,000 greater than California as a whole. Median Household Income (Nominal), El Dorado County Year County California 2007 $64,256 $59,928 2008 $67,019 $61,017 2009 $68,778 $58,925 2010 $65,201 $57,664 2011 $61,970 $57,275 2012 $68,446 $58,322 2013 $63,002 $60,185 2014 $70,235 $61,927 2015 $75,575 $64,483 2016 $75,100 $67,715 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates Percent Change in Median El Dorado County Median Household Income El Dorado County Household Income California California 15.0% $80,000 $70,000 10.0% $60,000 5.0% $50,000 $40,000 0.0% $30,000 -5.0% $20,000 $10,000 -10.0% 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- $0 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 B-32 of 64 Page 26 Poverty Rates What is it? The Census Bureau determines whether or not a family is in poverty using a series of income thresholds that vary by family size and composition. If a family’s total income is less than that family’s poverty threshold, then every person in that household is considered to be in poverty. Official poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, but are updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index. Income thresholds are based on pre-tax earnings and do not include capital gains or noncash benefits such as Medicaid. How is it used? The poverty rate is a very commonly used indicator of the overall economic health and well-being of a region. Despite their wide use, official poverty rates have notable shortcomings. For instance, because the thresholds that define poverty status only vary by family size and composition, and not by the underlying cost of living in a particular neighborhood or community (e.g., housing and insurance costs), they tend to either over- or underestimate the real level of economic hardship in a region. Poverty rates in El Dorado County experienced little overall change between 2007 and 2016, though they did rise temporarily between 2009 and 2014. El Dorado County’s poverty rate was at its lowest of 7.6 percent in 2009 and its highest of 11.4 percent in 2013 and 2014. El Dorado County’s poverty rates consistently remained lower than the statewide average between 2007 and 2016. Poverty Rates, El Dorado County El Dorado County Poverty Rates Year County California California 2007 8.2% 12.4% 18.0% 2008 7.8% 13.3% 16.0% 2009 7.6% 14.2% 14.0% 2010 9.4% 15.8% 12.0% 2011 10.3% 16.6% 10.0% 2012 9.3% 17.0% 8.0% 2013 11.4% 16.8% 6.0% 2014 11.4% 16.4% 4.0% 2015 9.1% 15.4% 2.0% 2016 8.7% 14.4% 0.0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates B-33 of 64 Page 27 Fair Market Rent What is it? How is it used? Fair market rent is defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Fair market rent is an indicator of housing costs for poorer Urban Development as the price point where 40 percent of gross households in a county, and is used to determine whether families rents for typical, non-substandard housing units are below it and or individuals qualify for federal housing certificate and voucher 60 percent of gross rents are above it. Gross rent is the sum of the programs and the amount of compensation they would receive. rent paid to a landlord plus any utility costs incurred by the tenant. Because calculation of fair market rents incorporates the total Fair market rent calculations typically exclude rents paid for public distribution of gross rents within a region, it can also be a helpful housing units, rental units built in the last 2 years, rental units indicator of overall housing costs, and, by extension, the general considered substandard in quality, seasonal rentals, and rental cost of living for that region. units on 10 or more acres of land. Fair market rent does not include public housing costs to avoid skewing the distribution of rents Fair market rent in El Dorado County rose slightly between downward. 2009 and 2018. Fair market rent in El Dorado County remained consistently 10-20 percent lower than the statewide average. Fair Market Rent, El Dorado County Year 0-Bedroom 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom 4-Bedroom 2009 $737 $838 $1,022 $1,475 $1,690 2010 $749 $852 $1,039 $1,499 $1,719 2011 $757 $861 $1,050 $1,515 $1,737 2012 $736 $837 $1,021 $1,473 $1,689 2013 $717 $855 $1,073 $1,581 $1,900 2014 $717 $854 $1,072 $1,580 $1,899 2015 $676 $806 $1,012 $1,491 $1,792 2016 $707 $815 $1,026 $1,495 $1,791 2017 $720 $821 $1,036 $1,508 $1,825 2018 $757 $860 $1,086 $1,580 $1,913 Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development El Dorado County El Dorado County Fair Market Rent, 2-Bedroom Units Fair Market Rent, 4-Bedroom Units California California $1,800 $3,000 $1,600 $2,500 $1,400 $1,200 $2,000 $1,000 $1,500 $800 $600 $1,000 $400 $500 $200 $0 $0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 B-34 of 64 Page 28 SOCIAL INDICATORS Social indicators explain the capacity of community institutions and organizations to provide for adequate human health, education, safety and social participation. Effective social systems intensify human capacities for collective growth and improvement. Many of the included indicators are often referred to as “quality-of-life” measures because they include non-economic attributes that reflect the general health and well-being of community members. El Dorado County crime rates fluctuated between 2007 and 2016, but ultimately rose by 2016, though El Dorado County’s crime rates still consistently remained lower than statewide crime rates. Voter registration rates in El Dorado County rose gradually from 2002- 2016. El Dorado County experienced a greater percentage of voter participation every year between 2002 and 2016 when compared to the statewide average. Causes of death in El Dorado County differed very little from the statewide averages except for slightly higher rates of cirrhosis and suicide. The number of TANF/CalWORKS recipients in El Dorado County experienced little change between 2007 and 2016. Recipients of TANF/CalWorks per capita in El Dorado County remained roughly 2 percent lower than the statewide average. El Dorado County’s increase in Medi-Cal beneficiaries mirrors statewide changes throughout California; however, Medi-Cal beneficiaries have consistently made up a significantly smaller percentage of El Dorado County’s population when compared to California as a whole. When compared to the statewide average in 2016, El Dorado County residents of the age of 18 or over generally reached higher levels of educational attainment. El Dorado County consistently maintained a lower percentage of high school dropouts and a higher percentage of graduates eligible for the UC or CSU systems than California as a whole. SAT scores in El Dorado County were also consistently two or more deviations above the statewide average. Conversely, El Dorado County maintained a significantly lower percentage of students enrolled in free and reduced meal programs and English Language Learner (ELL) programs than the statewide average between 2008 and 2017. In This Section: Leading Causes of Death .............................................30 TANF-CalWORKS Caseload ..........................................31 Medi-Cal Caseload ..........................................................32 School Free and Reduced Meal Program ...............33 Educational Attainment ...............................................34 High School Dropout Rate ..........................................35 Graduates Eligible For UC & CSU Systems .............36 Average SAT Scores ........................................................37 English Learners Enrollment .......................................38 Crime Rates .......................................................................39 B-35 of 64 Voter Registration and Participation .......................41 Page 29 Leading Causes of Death What is it? Cause of Death as a Percentage of Total Deaths, 2016 This indicator lists the top ten most frequent causes of Cause of Death El Dorado County California death for all county residents in 2016, and is derived from vital records data provided by the California Department of Heart Disease 23.3% 23.5% Public Health. Cancer 24.3% 22.7% Stroke 4.9% 6.0% How is it used? Pulmonary Disease 5.7% 5.2% Cause of death statistics provide important insights into Accidents 5.1% 5.0% the overall health of a region, and can be used by health Alzheimer’s 4.1% 5.9% care practitioners and social service providers to coordinate Diabetes 2.0% 3.5% disease prevention and educational efforts. If death rates for preventable causes are greater than those for other counties Pneumonia & Influenza 1.8% 2.3% in a region, this is indicative of a greater need for community Cirrhosis 3.0% 2.0% health education. If death rates for environmentally Suicide 2.8% 1.6% influenced factors, such as cancer and influenza, are high, All other causes 23.0% 22.2% this may indicate the presence of systemic factors that need Source: California Department of Public Health to be addressed. Like the rest of California in 2016, El Dorado County’s leading causes of death were heart disease and cancer. Causes of death in El Dorado County differed very little from the statewide averages except for slightly higher rates of cirrhosis and suicide, and slightly lower rates for Alzheimer’s and diabetes. 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Page 30 esaesiD traeH recnaC ekortS yranomluP esaesiD stnediccA sremiehzlA setebaiD & ainomuenP azneulfnI sisohrriC ediciuS rehto llA sesuac Leading Causes of Death as Percent of Total, 2016 El Dorado County California Leading Causes of Death, El Dorado County Causes of Death 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 All Causes 1,275 1,227 1,336 1,294 1,351 1,403 1,334 1,452 1,585 1,520 Heart Disease 298 301 313 281 285 340 296 338 349 354 Cancer 319 333 350 324 347 325 335 355 400 370 Stroke 56 56 49 54 52 50 49 61 63 75 Pulmonary Disease 79 76 80 88 82 92 82 83 104 86 Accidents 96 70 79 74 73 81 89 100 104 78 Alzheimer’s 48 59 64 68 65 56 50 73 70 63 Diabetes 29 20 27 24 34 19 16 18 31 30 Pneumonia & Influenza 18 23 28 28 28 26 28 30 38 27 Cirrhosis 23 16 25 17 19 43 33 35 33 46 Suicide 21 16 36 42 36 38 21 34 32 42 B-36 of 64 All other causes 288 257 285 294 330 333 335 325 361 349 Source: California Department of Public Health TANF-CalWORKS Caseload What is it? TANF/CalWORKs Caseloads, El Dorado County The California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids Average Number Percent of Percent of (CalWORKs) is California’s federal Temporary Assistance Year of recipients County Population State Population for Needy Families (TANF) program, which gives cash aid and services to eligible needy California families. If a 2007 2,149 1.2% 3.1% family has little or no cash and is in need of housing, food, 2008 2,316 1.3% 3.3% utilities, clothing, or medical care, they may be eligible to 2009 2,562 1.4% 3.6% receive immediate short-term help through CalWORKS. The 2010 2,959 1.6% 3.8% program also provides access to education, employment, 2011 2,956 1.6% 3.9% and workforce training programs to assist a family’s 2012 2,618 1.4% 3.6% move toward self-sufficiency. The CalWORKS program is administered by each county’s welfare department. 2013 2,350 1.3% 3.5% 2014 2,286 1.3% 3.4% How is it used? 2015 2,292 1.3% 3.2% Data on the number of families that qualify for economic 2016 2,138 1.2% 2.9% assistance through CalWORKS and similar programs can Source: California Department of Social Services be important supplements to the official poverty rate, as families experiencing sufficient economic hardship to qualify for CalWORKS may not necessarily also be below official Average Number of Recipients El Dorado County poverty thresholds. Such data are therefore important for county and municipal planners and policymakers in 3,500 understanding the overall level of economic hardship in a 3,000 county or region. 2,500 The number of TANF/CalWORKS recipients in El Dorado 2,000 County experienced little overall change between 2007 and 2016. Recipients of TANF/CalWorks per capita in El 1,500 Dorado County remained roughly 2 percent lower than the 1,000 statewide average. 500 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Average Recipients as a El Dorado County Percent of Total Population California 4.5% 4.0% 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 B-37 of 64 Page 31 Medi-Cal Caseload What is it? Medi-Cal is California’s version for the federal Medicaid program, and offers access free or low-cost health insurance for children and adults with limited resources or income. Common Medi-Cal recipients include low-income adults, families with children, seniors, persons with disabilities, pregnant women, children in foster care and former foster youth up to age 26. How is it used? Data on Medi-Cal program recipients is helpful in determining the need for public medical assistance in a county. Similar to the CalWORKS caseload data (4.6), this indicator can also provide important insights into general economic hardship in a region by identifying needy individuals and families who may not be below official poverty thresholds. Between 2007 and 2016, the number of Medi-Cal beneficiaries in El Dorado County increased to over double its 2007 total, and saw its greatest increase of over 7 percent in 2014. El Dorado County’s increase in Medi-Cal beneficiaries mirrored statewide changes throughout California; however, Medi-Cal beneficiaries Medi-Cal Beneficiaries as Percent El Dorado County have consistently made up a significantly smaller percentage of Non-Incarcerated Population California of El Dorado County’s population when compared to the statewide average. 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Medi-Cal Users, El Dorado County County Percentage of County California Percentage of California Year Beneficiaries Non-Incarcerated Population Beneficiaries Population 2007 14,917 8.5% 6,553,258 18.0% 2008 15,687 8.8% 6,721,003 18.3% 2009 17,192 9.6% 7,094,877 19.2% 2010 18,648 10.3% 7,397,748 19.9% 2011 19,109 10.6% 7,594,640 20.4% 2012 19,049 10.5% 7,619,341 20.3% 2013 19,999 11.0% 7,280,074 19.0% 2014 33,247 18.2% 11,522,700 30.1% 2015 37,403 20.5% 12,834,234 33.0% 2016 38,306 20.8% 13,542,960 34.6% Source: California Department of Healthcare Services B-38 of 64 Page 32 School Free and Reduced Meal Program What is it? This indicator provides data on the number and proportion of K-12 students who are enrolled in a free or reduced-price school meal program. Families only have to claim a household income level that is below the given threshold to enroll their children in the program, and no evidence or auditing of family income is required. Thus, the indicator is an effective proxy for student poverty but does not necessarily reflect the true economic status of enrolled families. Students enrolled in this program are counted on Fall Census Day, which is the first Wednesday in October for each academic year. How is it used? Enrollment data on free and reduced meal programs aid in the estimation of family economic assistance needs in a county. Enrollment totals and proportions can also be used to determine a school’s eligibility for receiving funding from official programs and grants intended to alleviate student poverty. The percentage of El Dorado County students enrolled in free County Percent of Students Using El Dorado County and reduced meal programs experienced minor fluctuations Free and Reduced Meals Program California and slight overall growth between 2008 and 2017. El Dorado 70.0% County maintained a significantly lower percentage of students enrolled in free and reduced meal programs than 60.0% the statewide average between 2008 and 2017. In 2013, 50.0% when California witnessed a 10 percent drop in enrollment, 40.0% enrollment in El Dorado County increased slightly. 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 School Free and Reduced Meals, El Dorado County Percent of Students Total Free and Total Year Reduced Meals Enrollment County California 2008 6,826 28,950 23.6% 51.2% 2009 5,804 28,686 20.2% 44.0% 2010 8,983 29,022 31.0% 55.9% 2011 9,679 29,026 33.3% 56.7% 2012 9,892 29,084 34.0% 57.5% 2013 10,126 29,449 34.4% 45.5% 2014 8,536 27,237 31.3% 59.4% 2015 8,408 26,960 31.2% 58.6% 2016 8,040 26,989 29.8% 58.9% 2017 8,075 27,022 29.9% 58.1% Source: California Department of Education B-39 of 64 Page 33 Educational Attainment What is it? Educational attainment is the highest degree earned or amount of schooling completed for all county residents aged 25 and older. Schooling completed in foreign countries or ungraded school systems are reported as the equivalent level of schooling in the regular American educational system. How is it used? Educational attainment is a good general indicator of the skill level of a county’s workforce. County populations that are more educated are generally more likely to be employed and stay out of poverty. In addition, educational attainment data can be useful for businesses that are considering opening a new location or relocating and want to identify areas with a sufficiently skilled and educated workforce. When compared to the statewide average in 2016, El Dorado County residents of the age of 18 or over generally reached higher levels of educational attainment. A far smaller percentage of El Dorado County residents were without high school degrees when compared to the statewide average. Education Attainment, El Dorado County Percent of Total in 2016 2007 to 2016 10-year Change Educational Attainment 2007 2016 County California County California Less than 9th grade 3,043 3,676 2.5% 8.7% 20.8% 0.3% 9th to 12th grade, no diploma 7,865 6,480 4.4% 8.1% -17.6% -8.9% High school graduate or equivalent 36,346 35,158 23.8% 21.6% -3.3% -1.8% Some college, no degree 38,498 40,802 27.6% 24.1% 6.0% 21.0% Associate's degree 13,414 14,949 10.1% 7.3% 11.4% 12.6% Bachelor's degree 27,053 29,313 19.8% 19.3% 8.4% 22.8% Graduate or professional degree 11,170 17,306 11.7% 10.9% 54.9% 32.0% Total Persons Age 18 and Over 137,389 147,684 100.0% 100.0% 7.5% 11.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 1-Year Estimates Educational Attainment as a Percent of El Dorado County Percent Change in Educational El Dorado County Population, Persons 18 and Over California Attainment, Persons 18 and Over California 30.0% 60.0% 50.0% 25.0% 40.0% 20.0% 30.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 10.0% 0.0% -10.0% 5.0% -20.0% 0.0% -30.0% < 9th 9-12th H.S. Some Assoc. Bachelors Grad. < 9th 9-12th H.S. Some Assoc. Bachelors Grad. Grade Grade Grad college Degree Degree Degree Grade Grade Grad college Degree Degree Degree B-40 of 64 Page 34 High School Dropout Rate High School Dropouts, El Dorado County What is it? High school dropout rate data are calculated by the Number of 1-year CA 1-year California Department of Education by adding each school’s Year dropouts dropout rate dropout rate number of dropouts from the 12th grade for the current 2006-07 289 2.8% 5.5% year, from the 11th grade the previous year, from the 10th 2007-08 373 3.7% 4.9% grade two years previous, and from the 9th grade three years previous, and then dividing by the total number of 2008-09 290 2.9% 5.7% high school graduates for the current year. 2009-10 266 2.8% 4.6% 2010-11 168 1.8% 4.2% How is it used? 2011-12 133 1.4% 4.0% Data on high school dropouts indicate the capacity of 2012-13 162 1.8% 3.9% county school systems to provide youth with a basic level 2013-14 156 1.7% 3.1% of education and workforce training. Lower dropout rates 2014-15 101 1.1% 2.8% are generally correlated with lower poverty rates and higher 2015-16 97 1.1% 2.6% income levels, as employers frequently require a high school degree for most jobs. Source: California Department of Education El Dorado County consistently maintained a lower percentage of high school dropouts than the rest of Number of High School Dropouts El Dorado County California between 2006 and 2016. Overall, dropout rates 400 in El Dorado County declined between 2006 and 2016. El 350 Dorado County saw its lowest high school dropout rates of 1.1 percent in the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years. 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 High School Dropout Rate El Dorado County California 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 B-41 of 64 Page 35 Graduates Eligible For UC & CSU Systems What is it? This indicator provides data on the number of high school graduates who completed coursework that is required for admission by either the California State University or the University of California postsecondary education systems. These data were reported by individual public schools to the California Department of Education, and do not include information on other common requirements for college admission such as standardized test scores. How is it used? These data are an important indicator of how well a county school system is preparing its students for higher-wage employment, as a college education is generally correlated with higher earnings from employment. Counties with a low proportion of eligible high school graduates may therefore exhibit greater competition for jobs in lower-wage sectors of the regional economy. Between 2006 and 2016, the percentage of El Dorado County graduates eligible for the UC or CSU systems experienced significant fluctuations. The percentage of El Dorado County graduates eligible for the UC or CSU systems remained slightly greater than or roughly equivalent to the percentage of eligible graduates statewide. Graduates Eligible for UC or CSU System, El Dorado County County Graduates CA Graduates Year Number El Dorado County California 2006-07 821 39.2% 35.5% 2007-08 860 38.5% 33.9% 2008-09 965 43.0% 35.3% 2009-10 909 41.9% 36.3% 2010-11 869 41.7% 40.3% 2011-12 992 43.2% 38.3% 2012-13 925 43.1% 39.4% 2013-14 1010 47.0% 39.1% 2014-15 943 44.3% 43.4% 2015-16 926 44.7% 45.4% Source: California Department of Education Percentage of County Graduates El Dorado County Graduates Eligible for El Dorado County Eligible for UC or CSU System California UC or CSU System 50.0% 1,200 1,000 40.0% 800 30.0% 600 20.0% 400 10.0% 200 0.0% 0 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 B-42 of 64 Page 36 Average SAT Scores What is it? How is it used? The SAT is designed to measure verbal and mathematical SAT scores are usually treated as an indicator of academic reasoning abilities that are related to successful performance performance and college readiness for children in local schools, in college. Like many standardized tests, however, SAT scores except where an exceptionally low or high percentage of are most strongly correlated with socioeconomic status, since students took the test. Because scores are standardized, test better-resourced students will generally have more preparatory results provide a baseline for comparing student performance options and resources. Sufficiently high SAT scores are a across all regions of the country. However, their utility has been requirement for admission to most American colleges and challenged due to the strong correlation between scores and universities, although the strong correlation with economic socioeconomic status. status has generated challenges to these requirements from many educators. The average SAT scores in El Dorado County experienced very little change between 2006 and 2016. SAT scores in El Dorado County have consistently been above the statewide average. Average SAT Scores (out of 2,400), El Dorado County El Dorado County California Percent of Students Average Percent of Students Average Year who took SAT SAT Scores who took SAT SAT Scores 2006-07 34.7% 1,601 36.9% 1,497 2007-08 35.4% 1,610 35.9% 1,500 2008-09 37.2% 1,614 34.7% 1,502 2009-10 36.8% 1,640 33.3% 1,521 2010-11 41.1% 1,626 37.9% 1,502 2011-12 43.9% 1,610 39.3% 1,492 2012-13 42.9% 1,612 40.4% 1,489 2013-14 45.2% 1,625 41.1% 1,487 2014-15 41.8% 1,611 42.4% 1,473 2015-16 42.4% 1,627 43.5% 1,455 Source: California Department of Education *In newly released 2016 data, the method used to calculate average SAT scores has changed, and therefore is not directly comparable to previous year’s data. Average SAT Scores (out of 2,400) El Dorado County California 1,700 1,650 1,600 1,550 1,500 1,450 1,400 1,350 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 B-43 of 64 Page 37 English Learners Enrollment What is it? This indicator provides data on the number of K-12 students enrolled in English language learning (ELL) programs, Percent of Students Enrolled El Dorado County California which were previously referred to as “English as a second in English Language Learning language” (ESL) programs. The California Department of Program Education tabulates enrollment based on annual reports 30.0% from individual school districts. 25.0% How is it used? 20.0% ELL enrollment data can be an important indicator of 15.0% international migration or internal migration of non- 10.0% English speaking populations into an area. The ability and 5.0% willingness of non-English-speakers to learn and use English is also commonly seen as indicative of their willingness to 0.0% “assimilate” into the English-speaking community, and can 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 2016- 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 therefore influence their access to jobs and community resources. Overall, ELL enrollment in El Dorado county rose by 224 students between 2007 and 2017. ELL enrollment in El Dorado was at its highest in the 2012-2013 school year, and its lowest in the 2007-2008 school year. Throughout the period spanning 2007-2017 the percentage of El Dorado County students enrolled in ELL programs was less than half that of the rest of California. English Language Learning Program Enrollment, El Dorado County El Dorado County California Enrolled E.L.L. Percentage Change Total Enrolled Percent of Enrolled Percent of Enrolled Year Students in E.L.L. Enrollment Students K-12 Students in E.L.L. E.L.L Students 2007-08 1,814 15.9% 28,950 6.3% 25.2% 2008-09 1,854 2.2% 28,686 6.5% 24.7% 2009-10 2,222 19.8% 29,022 7.7% 23.9% 2010-11 2,352 5.9% 29,026 8.1% 24.0% 2011-12 2,272 -3.4% 29,294 7.8% 22.6% 2012-13 2,446 7.7% 29,441 8.3% 21.7% 2013-14 2,094 -14.4% 27,237 7.7% 22.7% 2014-15 2,005 -4.3% 26,960 7.4% 21.5% 2015-16 2,065 3.0% 26,987 7.7% 21.3% 2016-17 2,038 -1.3% 27,021 7.5% 21.4% Source: California Department of Education Percentage Change in English El Dorado County English Language Learning El Dorado County Language Learning Program Enrollment Program Enrollment California 3,000 25.0% 20.0% 2,500 15.0% 2,000 10.0% 5.0% 1,500 0.0% -5.0% 1,000 -10.0% 500 -15.0% B-44 of 64 -20.0% 0 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 2016- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 2016- Page 38 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Crime Rates What is it? How is it used? This indicator provides data on property, violent, and total crime The relative level of criminal activity in a county is a major factor rates for El Dorado county. A county’s crime rate is the number of in how residents perceive their quality of life. An area with a high reported crimes per 1,000 residents. These data are reported by the crime rate is often seen as a much less attractive place to live than California Department of Justice and reflect all misdemeanor and one with a low rate. However, crime rates are also dependent on felony reports, but do not include reports for minor violations and other factors besides the actual incidence of criminal activity, such infractions. as the willingness of residents to report crimes to police and overall population density. Crime rates are also generally correlated with the spatial concentration of disadvantage, such as poverty and unemployment. El Dorado County’s total crime rates fluctuated between 2007 and 2016, but ultimately rose by 2016. El Dorado County’s total crime rate was its highest in 2013 when both El Dorado County and California crime rates increased significantly. El Dorado County’s crime rates consistently remained lower than statewide crime rates from 2007-2016. Crime Rate per 1,000 Population, El Dorado County Property Crime Rate Violent Crime Rate Total Crime Rate Year County California County California County California 2007 11.5 18.8 2.7 5.3 14.2 24.1 2008 11.4 18.0 2.5 5.1 13.9 23.0 2009 9.7 16.2 2.9 4.7 12.6 20.9 2010 10.4 15.8 2.7 4.4 13.1 20.2 2011 11.5 15.9 2.1 4.2 13.6 20.0 2012 10.5 17.2 2.5 4.3 13.0 21.5 2013 17.9 26.8 2.1 4.0 20.1 30.8 2014 17.2 24.8 2.2 4.0 19.4 28.7 2015 17.2 26.3 1.8 4.3 19.1 30.6 2016 16.6 25.5 2.1 4.2 18.7 29.7 Source: California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center Total Crime Rate El Dorado County per 1,000 Population California 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 B-45 of 64 Page 39 Property Crimes, El Dorado County Violent Crimes, El Dorado County Motor Vehicle Larceny Forcible Aggravated Year Burglary Theft Over $400 Total Year Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Total 2007 958 297 774 2,029 2007 4 38 55 373 470 2008 1,086 244 697 2,027 2008 8 23 60 354 445 2009 932 178 626 1,736 2009 3 44 71 396 514 2010 1,112 174 589 1,875 2010 3 31 66 382 482 2011 1,234 181 678 2,093 2011 4 26 53 303 386 2012 983 209 714 1,906 2012 3 25 57 358 443 2013 1,012 301 758 2,071 2013 5 35 39 309 388 2014 830 300 711 1,841 2014 3 44 51 307 405 2015 735 240 833 1,808 2015 9 50 53 222 334 2016 680 205 892 1,777 2016 2 68 69 247 386 Source: California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center Source: California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center Property Crime Rate El Dorado County Violent Crime Rate El Dorado County per 1,000 Population California per 1,000 Population California 30 6 25 5 20 4 15 3 10 2 5 1 0 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 B-46 of 64 Page 40 Voter Registration and Participation What is it? This indicator provides data on the number of individuals who registered to vote and who participated in state and Voter Registration Rate El Dorado County federal elections during major election years. Data for the California previous (even) election year are collected and reported by 100.0% the California Secretary of State every two (odd) years on 90.0% February 10th. 80.0% 70.0% How is it used? 60.0% 50.0% Voter registration in California is now built into many 40.0% other social service processes, such as receiving a state 30.0% driver’s license or identification, in order to promote 20.0% enfranchisement and electoral participation. The differential 10.0% between voter registration and participation is therefore a 0.0% good indicator of how engaged a county population is with 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 the overall electoral process. Large differences between the voting-age population and the number of registered/ participating individuals may also indicate potential issues El Dorado County Voter Participation Rate in accessing electoral resources and reaching local voting California centers. 90.0% 80.0% Voter registration rates in El Dorado County rose gradually 70.0% from 2002-2016. El Dorado County experienced a greater 60.0% percentage of voter participation every year between 2002 50.0% and 2016 when compared to the statewide average. Both 40.0% El Dorado County and California as a whole experienced 30.0% sizeable decreases in voter participation in 2014, though El 20.0% Dorado County’s was less severe than California’s. 10.0% 0.0% 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Voter Participation in General Elections, El Dorado County Eligible to Registered Total Registration Participation Year Register Voters Voters Rate Rate 2002 116,640 89,640 57,060 76.9% 63.7% 2004 119,947 105,687 87,314 88.1% 82.6% 2006 126,002 101,036 68,840 80.2% 68.1% 2008 127,969 111,325 93,890 87.0% 84.3% 2010 129,238 107,925 78,610 83.5% 72.8% 2012 134,289 110,634 89,601 82.4% 81.0% 2014 135,707 106,931 62,973 78.8% 58.9% 2016 137,103 116,459 97,024 84.9% 83.3% Source: California Secretary of State, Elections Divisions B-47 of 64 Page 41 INDUSTRY INDICATORS Industry indicators show the status and growth of key industries linked to economic growth. Most economic development efforts in rural California focus on some, if not all, of these industries. Their growth is linked with the environmental, economic, and social improvement of many Northern California communities. Despite increasing urbanization in El Dorado County, agriculture remains an important source of jobs, with the sector consistently employing over 1.4 percent of all workers in the county over the past ten years. The county also has a small but notable energy and utilities sector. El Dorado County has a relatively large construction sector when compared to other counties in California, owing in part to its location on the edge of the Sacramento area. Along with the rest of the state, the sector contracted following the 2008 recession, and has been slowly rebounding since. Conversely, the number of manufacturing jobs in El Dorado County experienced a slight decrease in 2009, before nearly doubling in 2015. El Dorado County also experienced a steady increase in the number of travel/recreation jobs which made up a moderately larger percent of the total number jobs in El Dorado County when compared to the statewide average. Unlike the other industrial sectors in El Dorado County, the retail sector experienced a gradual decline in jobs numbers. Lastly, El Dorado County experienced an overall increase in the number of government jobs. Earnings from the El Dorado County’s timber, orchard crop, and wine grape production sector have fluctuated but generally grown over the past ten years, with earnings hovering near $14 million in through the recession but bouncing upwards of $40 million after 2013. Earnings in the energy and utility sector have remained relatively stable as a percentage of the county’s economy over the past ten years, growing along with the county from $13 million in 2007 to $27 million by 2016. As with construction jobs, construction earnings have also declined over the past ten years, from a high of $693 million in 2007 to $519 million in 2016, a decrease of 25.1 percent. Changes in manufacturing earnings in El Dorado County appear to correlate to changes in the number of manufacturing jobs. Travel/recreation, government and retail earnings in El Dorado County also all grew steadily between 2007 and 2016. In This Section: Agricultural Including Forestry and Fishing .................43 Energy and Utilities ...............................................................45 Construction ............................................................................47 Manufacturing ........................................................................49 Travel and Recreation ...........................................................51 Retail ...........................................................................................53 B-48 of 64 Government ............................................................................55 Page 42 Agricultural Jobs What is it? Agricultural Jobs, El Dorado County The agricultural sector of the economy has a vast effect on Percent of Total 1-Year Change the economy of many rural areas. When there is a change Year Jobs County California County California in agricultural production in such areas, it can often lead to subsequent changes in overall jobs and income. Data 2007 1,374 1.4% 1.1% 6.8% 5.7% on agricultural jobs and income are provided to show how 2008 1,337 1.4% 1.1% -2.7% -4.9% county residents benefit from agriculture when compared to 2009 1,344 1.5% 1.1% 0.5% 2.2% other industries. 2010 1,349 1.5% 1.2% 0.4% 3.7% 2011 1,322 1.5% 1.1% -2.0% -2.5% How is it used? 2012 1,305 1.5% 1.1% -1.3% -2.6% Agriculture is typically a base industry: one that is responsible 2013 1,299 1.4% 1.1% -0.5% 3.2% for bringing in revenue from outside the county to support 2014 1,355 1.4% 1.1% 4.3% 4.6% the local economy. Changes to agricultural employment and earnings can therefore indicate the potential for further 2015 1,336 1.6% 1.1% -1.4% 0.6% changes in other industry sectors where agriculture comprises 2016 1,331 1.5% 1.0% -0.4% -1.4% a major portion of the local economy. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis Despite increasing urbanization in El Dorado County, agriculture remains an important source of jobs, with the sector consistently employing over 1.4 percent of all workers Agriculture Jobs, Percent of Total El Dorado County in the county over the past ten years. Earnings from the California county’s agricultural production have fluctuated but generally 1.8% grown over the past ten years, with earnings hovering near 1.6% $14 million in through the recession but bouncing upwards of 1.4% $40 million after 2013. 1.2% 1.0% 0.8% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Agriculture Jobs, 1-Year Change El Dorado County California 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% -2.0% -4.0% -6.0% 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 B-49 of 64 Page 43 Agricultural Earnings Agricultural Earnings (in Thousands), El Dorado County County Percent of Total 1-Year Change Year Earnings County California County California 2007 $ 25,255 0.7 % 2.5% 0.8% 12.1% 2008 $ 15,690 0.4 % 2.4% -37.9% -6.4% 2009 $ 14,268 0.4 % 2.6% -9.1% 3.4% 2010 $ 14,020 0.4 % 2.6% -1.7% 3.1% 2011 $ 14,804 0.4 % 2.6% 5.6% 8.1% 2012 $ 26,922 0.8 % 2.7% 81.9% 9.9% 2013 $ 41,231 1.1 % 2.9% 53.1% 9.5% 2014 $ 41,391 1.1 % 2.8% 0.4% 2.0% 2015 $ 48,328 1.2 % 2.8% 16.8% 4.6% 2016 $ 42,114 1.0 % 2.6% -12.9% -0.7% Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis *Revised estimates for 2001-2014 were recently released by the BEA, therefore data may not be directly comparable to previous years. Agriculture Earnings, El Dorado County Percent of Total California 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Agriculture Earnings, El Dorado County 1-Year Change California 100.0% 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% -20.0% -40.0% -60.0% 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2016- 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 B-50 of 64 Page 44 Energy and Utilities Jobs What is it? Energy and Utilities Jobs, El Dorado County Energy and utilities jobs and earnings data are provided to demonstrate the degree to which county residents rely on County Percent of Total 1-Year Change and benefit from this industry. Year Jobs County California County California 2007 347 0.4% 0.5% 16.8% 5.0% How is it used? 2008 474 0.5% 0.5% 36.6% 12.6% Like agriculture, energy and utilities often comprise a base 2009 426 0.5% 0.6% -10.1% -1.8% industry in rural counties and are thus a valuable indicator of 2010 450 0.5% 0.6% 5.6% 0.4% broader potential changes to a county economy. 2011 462 0.5% 0.6% 2.7% 0.1% El Dorado County has a small but notable energy and utilities 2012 385 0.4% 0.6% -16.7% 13.5% sector. The sector employs a similar portion of El Dorado 2013 584 0.7% 0.6% 51.7% 1.3% county’s residents as the sector does in other counties: 2014 636 0.7% 0.6% 8.9% 1.7% between .05 and .6 percent of the workforce in 2016; a slight 2015 499 0.5% 0.6% -21.5% -9.3% upward trend from 2007. Earnings in the industry have 2016 533 0.6% 0.5% 6.8% 0.0% remained relatively stable as a percentage of the county’s economy over the past ten years, growing along with the Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis county from $13 million in 2007 to $27 million by 2016. *Note: (D) Withheld disclosure of confidential business data Energy and Utilities Jobs, El Dorado County Percent of Total California 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Energy and Utilities Jobs, El Dorado County 1-Year Change California 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% -10.0% -20.0% -30.0% 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 B-51 of 64 Page 45 Energy and Utilities Earnings Energy and Utilities Earnings (in Thousands), El Dorado County County Percent of Total 1-Year Change Year Earnings County California County California 2007 $13,845 0.2% 0.7% n/a -3.2% 2008 $16,057 0.2% 0.8% 16.0% 13.0% 2009 $13,432 0.2% 0.7% n/a -19.3% 2010 $15,949 0.2% 0.7% 18.7% 3.9% 2011 $21,751 0.2% 0.7% 36.4% 10.5% 2012 $1,085 0.0% 0.7% n/a 4.8% 2013 $25,458 0.3% 0.8% n/a 8.7% 2014 $27,766 0.3% 0.7% 9.1% 1.5% 2015 $26,943 0.2% 0.7% -3.0% 1.5% 2016 $27,233 0.2% 0.6% 1.1% -6.8% Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis Energy and Utilities Earnings, El Dorado County Percent of Total California 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Energy and Utilities Earnings, El Dorado County 1-Year Change California 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% -10.0% -20.0% -30.0% 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2013- 2014- 2015- 07 08 09 10 11 14 15 16 B-52 of 64 Page 46 Construction Jobs What is it? Construction Jobs, El Dorado County Construction jobs and earnings data are provided to demonstrate the degree to which county residents rely on County Percent of Total 1-Year Change and benefit from this industry. Year Jobs County California County California 2007 10,239 10.6% 6.0% -0.8% -3.2% How is it used? 2008 8,873 9.4% 5.5% -13.3% -9.6% Construction is often a leading indicator of economic 2009 7,351 8.1% 4.8% -17.2% -15.6% growth, as the industry creates new and improved 2010 6,706 7.5% 4.4% -8.8% -8.1% infrastructure for homes, businesses, and community and government institutions. Furthermore, the construction 2011 6,398 7.2% 4.3% -4.6% -0.6% industry provides employment for a large number of 2012 6,623 7.4% 4.4% 3.5% 4.9% blue-collar workers and generally does not require high 2013 6,909 7.5% 4.5% 4.3% 6.0% educational attainment for entry-level employment. 2014 7,061 7.5% 4.6% 2.2% 4.4% 2015 6,952 8.1% 4.7% -1.5% 5.8% El Dorado County has a relatively large construction sector 2016 7,351 8.3% 4.7% 5.7% 3.3% when compared to other counties in California, owing in part to its location on the edge of the Sacramento area. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis Along with the rest of the state, the sector contracted following the 2008 recession, and has been slowly rebounding since. Construction jobs have declined overall from 10,239 in 2007 to 7,351 in 2016, but the 2016 numbers Construction Jobs, El Dorado County are up 14 percent from their low of 6,623 million in 2012. Percent of Total California Construction earnings have also declined over the past ten 12.0% years, from a high of $693 million in 2007 to $519 million in 2016, a decrease of 25.1 percent. 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Construction Jobs, El Dorado County 1-Year Change California 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% -5.0% -10.0% -15.0% -20.0% 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 B-53 of 64 Page 47 Construction Earnings Construction Earnings (in Thousands), El Dorado County County Percent of Total 1-Year Change Year Earnings County California County California 2007 $693,014 18.8% 6.8% -6.9% -7.7% 2008 $607,768 16.6% 5.6% -12.3% -16.7% 2009 $482,913 14.0% 5.0% -20.5% -15.5% 2010 $490,029 14.4% 4.6% 1.5% -4.5% 2011 $429,079 12.6% 4.2% -12.4% -3.0% 2012 $406,698 11.6% 4.4% -5.2% 9.3% 2013 $413,230 11.3% 4.7% 1.6% 11.2% 2014 $440,991 11.5% 4.9% 6.7% 7.8% 2015 $479,521 11.6% 5.1% 8.7% 11.8% 2016 $519,657 11.7% 5.3% 8.4% 8.6% Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis Construction Earnings, El Dorado County Percent of Total California 20.0% 18.0% 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Construction Earnings, El Dorado County 1-Year Change California 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% -5.0% -10.0% -15.0% -20.0% -25.0% 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 B-54 of 64 Page 48 Manufacturing Jobs What is it? Manufacturing is the mechanical, physical, or chemical transformation of materials, substances, or components into Manufacturing Jobs, El Dorado County new products, and encompasses a wide variety of specific Percent of Total California processes and inputs. Manufacturing jobs and earnings data are provided to demonstrate the degree to which county 8.0% residents rely on and benefit from this industry. 7.0% 6.0% How is it used? 5.0% Manufacturing is usually an economic base industry, 4.0% making it an important indicator of changes to a county’s 3.0% economy. Counties that have a solid manufacturing base 2.0% of export goods benefit from the outside revenue that 1.0% these businesses bring into the county. The number of 0.0% manufacturing jobs in El Dorado County experienced a 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 slight decrease in 2009, before nearly doubling in 2015. Throughout the period spanning 2007-2016, manufacturing jobs in El Dorado County made up a smaller portion of the county’s jobs when compared to the statewide Manufacturing Jobs, El Dorado County average. Changes in manufacturing earnings in El Dorado 1-Year Change California County appear to correlate to changes in the number of manufacturing jobs. 120.0% 100.0% 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% -20.0% -40.0% 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Manufacturing Jobs, El Dorado County County Percent of Total 1-Year Change Year Jobs County California County California 2007 2400 2.5% 7.4% 1.0% -0.4% 2008 2260 2.4% 7.3% -5.8% -1.8% 2009 1729 1.9% 6.9% -23.5% -3.0% 2010 1654 1.9% 6.8% -4.3% -8.4% 2011 1604 1.8% 6.6% -3.0% -2.7% 2012 1549 1.7% 6.5% -3.4% -0.3% 2013 1681 1.8% 6.3% 8.5% 0.8% 2014 1745 1.8% 6.3% 3.8% 0.6% 2015 3442 4.0% 6.2% 97.2% 2.3% 2016 3443 3.9% 6.1% 0.0% 1.1% Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis B-55 of 64 Page 49 Manufacturing Earnings Manufacturing Earnings (in Thousands), El Dorado County County Percent of Total 1-Year Change Year Earnings County California County California 2007 $153,231 4.2% 10.5% 4.5% 2.0% 2008 $150,619 4.1% 10.3% -1.7% -1.6% 2009 $113,584 3.3% 9.9% -24.6% -7.9% 2010 $107,555 3.2% 9.8% -5.3% 1.9% 2011 $106,960 3.1% 9.6% -0.6% 3.8% 2012 $104,999 3.0% 9.5% -1.8% 4.0% 2013 $119,801 3.3% 9.3% 14.1% 1.1% 2014 $124,264 3.2% 9.4% 3.7% 5.7% 2015 $204,535 5.0% 9.2% 64.6% 4.6% 2016 $214,028 4.8% 9.2% 4.6% 4.0% Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis Manufacturing Earnings, El Dorado County Percent of Total California 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Manufacturing Earnings, El Dorado County 1-Year Change California 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% -10.0% -20.0% -30.0% 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 B-56 of 64 Page 50 Travel and Recreation Jobs What is it? Travel and Recreation Jobs, El Dorado County This indicator presents data on jobs and earnings within the travel and recreation industry provided by the U.S. County Percent of Total 1-Year Change Department of Commerce. Year Jobs County California County California How is it used? 2007 10,205 10.6% 9.3% -2.7% 2.8% Visitor-serving industries are often an important economic 2008 9,975 10.6% 9.5% -2.3% 0.9% base industry because they attract spending from outside 2009 9,511 10.5% 9.6% -4.7% -3.6% of the area. This makes travel and recreation industry 2010 9,730 10.9% 9.7% 2.3% 0.5% performance an important local economic indicator. 2011 10,056 11.3% 9.7% 3.4% 2.5% Because the industry is generally dependent on others’ 2012 10,135 11.3% 9.9% 0.8% 3.4% discretionary income levels, travel and recreation jobs and 2013 10,856 11.8% 9.9% 7.1% 4.5% earnings are often more sensitive to economic downturns or recessions than those in other base industries. 2014 11,268 11.9% 10.0% 3.8% 4.0% 2015 11,360 13.2% 10.2% 0.8% 4.9% Between 2007 and 2016, El Dorado County experienced 2016 11,688 13.2% 10.3% 2.9% 3.1% a steady increase in the number of travel/recreation Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis jobs. Travel/recreation jobs made up a moderately larger percent of the total number jobs in El Dorado County when compared to the statewide average. Travel/recreation earnings in El Dorado County also grew steadily between 2007 and 2016. Travel and Recreation Jobs, El Dorado County Percent of Total California 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Travel and Recreation Jobs, El Dorado County 1-Year Change California 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% -2.0% -4.0% -6.0% 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- B-57 of 64 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Page 51 Travel and Recreation Earnings Travel and Recreation Earnings (in Thousands), El Dorado County County Percent of Total 1-Year Change Year Earnings County California County California 2007 $ 186,071 5.1% 5.0% 4.0% 2.5% 2008 $ 200,083 5.5% 5.0% 7.5% 0.4% 2009 $ 178,178 5.2% 4.8% -10.9% -7.2% 2010 $ 180,649 5.3% 4.8% 1.4% 2.1% 2011 $ 190,969 5.6% 4.8% 5.7% 6.4% 2012 $ 209,321 6.0% 5.0% 9.6% 8.8% 2013 $ 239,951 6.6% 5.0% 14.6% 4.3% 2014 $ 269,189 7.0% 5.3% 12.2% 10.6% 2015 $ 294,796 7.1% 5.4% 9.5% 8.5% 2016 $ 312,995 7.1% 5.5% 6.2% 7.0% Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis Travel and Recreation Earnings, El Dorado County Percent of Total California 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Travel and Recreation Earnings, El Dorado County 1-Year Change California 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% -5.0% -10.0% -15.0% 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 B-58 of 64 Page 52 Retail Jobs What is it? Retail jobs and earnings data are provided to demonstrate the degree to which county residents rely on and benefit from this industry. Retail Jobs, El Dorado County How is it used? County Percent of Total 1-Year Change The bulk of most retail sales are made to individuals who Year Jobs County California County California are living within the local area, as opposed to those visiting 2007 9,847 10.2% 10.1% 0.4% 0.5% from outside the area. Retail activity is traditionally most 2008 9,711 10.3% 9.9% -1.4% -3.3% impacted by changes in base industries like agriculture and 2009 9,156 10.1% 9.6% -5.7% -6.1% manufacturing, and can thus serve as an indicator of change in 2010 9,096 10.2% 9.6% -0.7% -0.8% these sectors. Retail is also one of the largest industry sectors in many local economies. 2011 8,934 10.0% 9.5% -1.8% 1.0% 2012 8,826 9.8% 9.5% -1.2% 1.6% Between 2007 and 2016, El Dorado County experienced a 2013 8,885 9.6% 9.3% 0.7% 2.1% gradual decline in the number of retail jobs. Retail jobs made 2014 9,014 9.5% 9.2% 1.5% 2.1% up a slightly larger percent of the total number jobs in El 2015 8,404 9.8% 9.2% -6.8% 2.4% Dorado County when compared to the statewide average. 2016 8,698 9.8% 9.1% 3.5% 1.0% Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis Retail Jobs, El Dorado County Percent of Total California 10.4% 10.2% 10.0% 9.8% 9.6% 9.4% 9.2% 9.0% 8.8% 8.6% 8.4% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Retail Jobs, El Dorado County 1-Year Change California 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% -2.0% -4.0% -6.0% -8.0% 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 B-59 of 64 Page 53 Retail Earnings Retail Earnings (in Thousands), El Dorado County County Percent of Total 1-Year Change Year Earnings County California County California 2007 $ 269,393 7.3 % 6.8 % - 5.4 % - 0.9 % 2008 $ 244,208 6.7 % 6.1 % - 9.3 % - 9.7 % 2009 $ 222,338 6.5 % 6.0 % - 9.0 % - 5.8 % 2010 $ 221,634 6.5 % 5.9 % - 0.3 % 1.8 % 2011 $ 235,864 6.9 % 5.9 % 6.4 % 4.4 % 2012 $ 241,735 6.9 % 5.9 % 2.5 % 5.6 % 2013 $ 248,532 6.8 % 5.8 % 2.8 % 2.4 % 2014 $ 255,707 6.6 % 5.8 % 2.9 % 4.1 % 2015 $ 273,236 6.6 % 5.7 % 6.9 % 4.8 % 2016 $ 286,460 6.5 % 5.5 % 4.8 % 1.5 % Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis Retail Earnings, El Dorado County Percent of Total California 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Retail Earnings, El Dorado County 1-Year Change California 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% -2.0% -4.0% -6.0% -8.0% -10.0% -12.0% 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 B-60 of 64 Page 54 Government Jobs What is it? All Government Worker Jobs, El Dorado County Government jobs and income are provided to demonstrate the degree to which county residents rely on and benefit County Percent of Total 1-Year Change from this industry. Year Jobs County California County California 2007 9,680 10.1% 13.0% 1.4% 1.7% How is it used? 2008 10,384 11.0% 13.0% 7.3% 1.5% Because government institutions often comprise a large 2009 11,620 12.8% 13.3% 11.9% -0.9% portion of the local economy, especially in rural counties, 2010 11,199 12.5% 13.7% -3.6% -1.6% increases or decreases in government spending can have a 2011 10,295 11.6% 13.6% -8.1% -2.7% direct impact on the county economy. 2012 10,223 11.4% 13.0% -0.7% -1.0% Between 2007 and 2016, El Dorado County experienced 2013 10,106 10.9% 12.6% -1.1% -0.1% an overall increase in the number of government jobs. 2014 10,313 10.9% 12.1% 2.0% 1.1% Government jobs made up a similar percent of the total 2015 10,629 12.4% 11.9% 3.1% 2.6% number jobs in El Dorado County when compared to the 2016 11,088 12.5% 11.9% 4.3% 2.5% statewide average. Government worker earnings in El Dorado County increased significantly between 2007 and Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 2016. All Government Jobs, El Dorado County Percent of Total California 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 All Government Jobs, El Dorado County 1-Year Change California 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% -5.0% -10.0% 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 B-61 of 64 Page 55 Government Earnings All Government Worker El Dorado County All Government Worker El Dorado County Earnings, Percent of Total California Earnings, 1-Year Change California 25.0% 10.0% 8.0% 20.0% 6.0% 15.0% 4.0% 2.0% 10.0% 0.0% 5.0% -2.0% -4.0% 0.0% 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Government Worker Earnings (in Thousands), El Dorado County County Percent of Total 1-Year Change Year Earnings County California County California 2007 $675,686 18.4% 17.8% 6.6% 6.8% 2008 $738,173 20.1% 18.6% 9.2% 4.9% 2009 $784,318 22.8% 19.4% 6.3% 0.5% 2010 $759,686 22.3% 19.2% -3.1% 2.0% 2011 $757,635 22.2% 18.6% -0.3% 2.0% 2012 $743,571 21.2% 17.6% -1.9% -0.3% 2013 $779,442 21.4% 17.4% 4.8% 1.9% 2014 $829,791 21.6% 17.3% 6.5% 4.4% 2015 $867,697 21.0% 17.0% 4.6% 4.9% 2016 $920,086 20.8% 17.1% 6.0% 4.7% Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis B-62 of 64 Page 56 PHOTO CREDITS The Center for Economic Development would like to thank the contributors of the photos. Many of the photos were cropped in the making of this booklet. If you would like to find out where the photos originated, please contact the Center for Economic Development at 530-898-4598. Bottom photo, Tiago Muraro, Page 1 Top middle, Matthew Hamilton, bottom middle, Helen Gordon, Page 3 David Noe, Page 48 Arkansas Highways, Page 4 Igor Ovsyannykov, Page 50 Ray Bouknight, Page 6 Middle photo, Ray Bouknight, Page 52 Middle photo, mookitty, bottom photo, Nick Ares, Tom Hilton, Page 53 Page 8 Middle photo, Tom Hilton, Page 54 Ken Lund, Page 12 Back cover photo, Eugene_o Jesse Richmond, Page 13 Top photo, Blogs Mcgill, middle photo, Ian Muttoo, bottom photo, Sharon McCutcheon, Page 14 Don Graham, Page 15 Don Graham, Page 16 Sharon McCutcheon, Page 24 Clark Weber, Page 27 Top photo, Becca Tapert, bottom photo, Becca Tarter, Page 29 Ilya_ktsn, Page 31 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Page 33 Cole Keister, Page 34 J Brew, Page 35 Jessica Ruscello, Page 36 Mitch Lorens, Page 39 Miguel Vieira, Page 40 Jan Hrdina, Page 42 Mitch Lorens, Page 43 Clark Weber, Page 45 Igor Ovsyannykov, Page 47 B-63 of 64 Page 57 B-64 of 64 Page 58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Appendix C IAFF Local 3556 How Many Firefighters? Volume I of II Appendix C C-1 of 6 6/25/2021 IAFF Local 3556 | How Many Firefighters?     ☰  Member Login MembersHow Many Fireghters?News FeedsGuest BookContact Us IAFF Local 3556 El Dorado County Fire Engines Don't Have Enough Fireghters The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) state that for safety eciency, all re engines should be staed with a minimum of four reghters. In fact, a basic safety requirement is that no reghters may enter a burning building unless four reghters are "on-scene," the so-called "two-in, two- out" rule. Odds are, the closest re engine to your home in El Dorado County right now has only two reghters, and at most three. In many emergencies, this is simply not enough to rescue your family or quickly extinguish a re... The national standard, set by the NFPA for public safety, is a minimum of FOUR firefighters. In the El Dorado County Fire Protection District, many fire engines have only two firefighters. Of the fire engines on duty daily in the El Dorado County Fire Protection District, not one meets the NFPA minimum of four firefighters, and only two have three firefighters at any given time. Although El Dorado County firefighters are highly trained and extremely capable, a fire engine with only two firefighters is measurably less effective that the three-person standard that is considered the absolute minimum in most of the US. Having too few firefighters places the public anCd-2 of 6 iaff3556.org/index.cfm?zone=/unionactive/view_page.cfm&page=How20Many20Firefighters3F 1/5 6/25/2021 IAFF Local 3556 | How Many Firefighters? firefighters at risk by increasing response times and reducing firefighter's ability to rescue, fight fires, and save lives. Every day when firefighters respond to emergencies in El Dorado County, they and the public face an unnecessary risk due to inadequate staffing. While firefighters and the fire service in general understand the complex budgetary issues that face local government during an economic crisis, the current staffing levels are historical, and carry over from times when cities and districts were much more financially stable. NIST Federal Study Shows Eects of Crew Size on Fire Fighting Operations A landmark study released by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in 2010 shows that the size of firefighting crews has a substantial effect on the fire service's ability to protect lives and property in residential fires. Click here to read the study. Conducted by a broad coalition in the scientific, firefighting and public safety communities, the study results found that four-person firefighting crews were able to complete 22 essential firefighting and rescue tasks in a typical residential structure 30 percent faster than two-person crews and 25 percent faster than three-person crews. 3-0 vs. 2-0 engine companies: C-3 of 6 iaff3556.org/index.cfm?zone=/unionactive/view_page.cfm&page=How20Many20Firefighters3F 2/5 6/25/2021 IAFF Local 3556 | How Many Firefighters? Got water to the fire 10% faster Conducted a primary search for victims 25% faster Stretched the initial hose line 57 seconds faster The fire modeling during these simulations showed clearly that two-person crews cannot complete essential fireground tasks in time to rescue occupants without subjecting them to an increasingly toxic atmosphere, measured in Fractional Effective Dose (FED). For a slow-growth rate fire with two-person crews, the FED was approaching the level at which sensitive populations, such as children and the elderly are threatened. For a medium-growth rate fire with two-person crews, the FED was far above that threshold and approached the level affecting the general population. For a fast-growth rate fire with two-person crews, the FED was well above the median level at which 50 % of the general population would be incapacitated. The report is the first to quantify the effects of crew sizes and arrival times on the fire service's lifesaving and firefighting operations. This and other scientific data in the report will help educate public officials, fire chiefs and other decision-makers on the importance of adequate staffing and deployment with respect to fire fighter and public safety. Study investigators from NIST and the IAFF announced the results of the study at a press conference at the Hilton Washington in Washington, DC, before the start of the annual Congressional Fire Services Institute meeting of top fire safety officials from the across the nation. The study is funded by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Assistance to Firefighters grant program. Read International Association of Fire Fighters General President Harold Schaitberger's blog, "Fire Fighter Staffing and Deployment Study Released" Three-Person Staffing Stymies Firefighters In the El Dorado County Fire Protection District, your elected Board of Directors has to choose to save money by sending only two firefighters when your life is in danger - a dangerous and ineffective cost- cutting measure. A two-person fire engine (known to firefighters as a "company") is measurably less effective and less safe than a fire engine with three - or the national standard of FOUR - firefighters. During a fire, a second fire engine is required to begin interior firefighting operations in order to meet the OSHA "2-in-2-out" standard. Adding additional personnel to existing engines adds resilience to the 9-1-1 system by not requiring as many fire engines to respond to fires simply to get enough personnel at scene. This leaves some fire engines to move-up and cover an area or be ready if another 9-1-1 emergency were to come in at a time when the other fire engines are committed to a fire call. Even during routine medical calls, it often requires a second fire engine just have enough personnel to perform basic medical care like CPR or carrying a victim down stairs. This current practice takes a fire engine out of a neighboring community just to have adequate numbers of personnel on scene. By increasing staffing by only ONE firefighter, other fire engines can remain available for other 9-1-1 emergencies such as fires and reduces delays in response to additional emergencies occurring at that same time. When El Dorado County firefighters explain to their colleagues in other counties that they only have two firefighters per engine, the other firefighters typically react with shock. While many locales C-4 of 6 iaff3556.org/index.cfm?zone=/unionactive/view_page.cfm&page=How20Many20Firefighters3F 3/5 6/25/2021 IAFF Local 3556 | How Many Firefighters? have struggled with the economic decision to reduce fire engine staffing to three firefighters, in El Dorado County we continue to work with just two. When the El Dorado County Fire Protection District responds Mutual Aid engines at the request of CalOES to large disasters (Such as the Carr Fire, Mendocino Complex or Camp Fire in 2018) we have to ADD up to 2 firefighters to a structural fire engine or 1 firefighter on a wildland engine JUST TO MEET MINIMUM REQUIRED STAFFING for deployments to other communities in need. When these same engines return to service in our own community stations, we DOWN STAFF them and return to protecting our own communities with less staffing. Click here to see the CalOES requirements. Even CalFire seasonal engines have a minimum of 3 personnel to respond to wildfires. In many of our areas, getting personnel to the fire quickly and providing them the staffing and tools necessary to attack a wildfire effectively will help keep fires smaller, lessening the threat to nearby homes. A 2010 study on wildland firefighter effectiveness concluded that by increasing the number of personnel on an individual hose lay, the efficiency, effectiveness and overall ability to potentially control a wildfire are significantly increased. Changing the staffing from two to just three firefighters on an attack can increase efficiency by as much as 50 percent and is the most cost-effective and beneficial change recommended. Click here to see the San Diego State University study. And we face more challenges each day: In the past 10 years, 2008-2018, we have gone from running 6714 calls a year to 9472 calls, a 41% INCREASE in call volume and demand for 9-1-1 services in our community. In 2018 we had $2.3 million dollars in property loss due to wildfires in areas that are directly protected by 2-person engine companies. In 2008 we had 89 uniformed personnel; now we have 73, nearly an 18% decrease in staffing over the past decade. In 2018 this was actually a 21% decrease in staffing due to decreased staffing on Engine 25. In this timeframe we have also had a 66% decrease in support staff, shifting many responsibilities to the already busy engine companies. In 2008 we staffed 7 Companies and 4.5 Medic Units. Now we staff 6 Companies and 4 Medic Units; a 14% decrease in fire services capability and an 11% decrease in EMS transporting capability. 5 of our 6 stations are located directly in areas currently designated as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, along with our neighbors in those communities. Only the Cool fire station is not but has a tremendous wildland urban interface mission in the area it serves. El Dorado County firefighters are highly trained, professional and aggressive. They accomplish tremendous feats through training, resourcefulness and ingenuity. It's just a matter of time before that's not enough. C-5 of 6 iaff3556.org/index.cfm?zone=/unionactive/view_page.cfm&page=How20Many20Firefighters3F 4/5 6/25/2021 IAFF Local 3556 | How Many Firefighters? More Research and Information on Firefighter Staffing NIST Residential Study NIST High Rise Study NIST EMS Staffing NFPA 1710 2 In/2 Out - IAFF Local 3556 Copyright © 2021. All Rights Reserved. Powered By UnionActive C-6 of 6 iaff3556.org/index.cfm?zone=/unionactive/view_page.cfm&page=How20Many20Firefighters3F 5/5 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Appendix D Other Agencies Providing Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services in the County of El Dorado Volume I of II Appendix D Page D-1 of D-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table of Contents 1. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) ............................................ D-3 2. The United States Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service (USFS) ............................... D-10 3. City of Folsom ...................................................................................................................... D-14 4. Amador Fire Protection District (Amador FPD) ...................................................................... D-16 5. North Tahoe Fire .................................................................................................................. D-17 6. References ........................................................................................................................... D-18 Volume I of II Appendix D Page D-2 of D-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 1. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) The CAL FIRE Amador-El Dorado Unit works with local and federal partners to provide service to the communities within the Amador-El Dorado Unit area. This area includes El Dorado County, as well as the Counties of San Joaquin, Amador, Sacramento, and Alpine. Though CAL FIRE is not a local entity within El Dorado County, the activities and coordination of CAL FIRE with local agencies as well as strong presence in the County make CAL FIRE an integral part of fire protection and emergency services in the County. 1.1. Background CAL FIRE protects the people, property, and natural resources of California. As a primarily wildland fire agency that began expanding to an all-risk emergency response agency in 1933, CAL FIRE contracts with hundreds of contracts throughout the State. The Department administers diverse programs which work together to plan protection strategies for over 31 million acres of privately-owned wildlands, and to provide emergency services of all kind throughout California. CAL FIRE’s jurisdiction extends the entire State and employs approximately 6,100 full-time fire professionals, foresters and administrative employees; 2,600 seasonal firefighters; 105 California Conservation Corps (CCC) firefighters; 600 Volunteers in Prevention (VIP); and 3,500 inmates and wards. Generally, CAL FIRE responds to roughly 6,000 wildland fires that burn on average over 260,000 acres each year. Through cooperative agreements, mutual aid, and the State’s emergency plan, CAL FIRE personnel respond to more than 450,000 incidents annually, including structure fires, automobile accidents, medical emergencies, swift water rescues, civil disturbances, search and rescues, hazardous material spills, train wrecks, floods, and earthquakes. The cost of fighting fires is wholly borne by the state in areas designated as State Responsibility Areas (SRAs), regardless of whether these areas are also included within the service boundary of another fire suppression agency (the United States Forest Service (USFS) is responsible for those lands deemed as Federal Responsibility Areas (FRAs) and local agencies are responsible for those remaining lands deemed as Local Responsibility Area (LRA)). The Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) routinely tasks CAL FIRE to manage and supplement the fire suppression capacities of other agencies during disasters by responding to emergencies in all 58 counties and 482 cities in California. It also regularly responds to jurisdictions outside its normal boundaries and occasionally outside the state. In addition to its fire suppression duties, it regulates and inspects timber harvesting on private lands (CAL FIRE, 2020; US Census, 2017). Mission The mission for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection serves and safeguards the people and protects the property and resources of California. CAL FIRE’s Vision is: To be the leader in providing fire prevention and protection, emergency response, and enhancement of natural resource systems. Volume I of II Appendix D Page D-3 of D-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Departmental employees and equipment provide emergency response services for floods earthquakes, and hazardous material spills, and other non-fire emergencies as part of the California Emergency Plan (last updated in 2019). Fire Protection Program The Fire Protection Program protects California’s forest, brush, and grass covered wildlands from potential damages resulting from uncontrolled fire on private and state-owned lands and enhances the quality and usefulness of these resources. The program provides ‘‘basic fire protection’’ to SRA and other wildland areas; seeks to hold fire damage at or below the five-year average and minimize the impairment of economic, social and environmental benefits. As noted above, CAL FIRE also provides fire protection services for some local governments on a cost reimbursement basis (referred to as “Schedule A” agreements). There are approximately 400 “Schedule A” agreements statewide, including the contract CAL FIRE has with Cameron Park CSD. These Schedule A contracts are tailored to the needs of the jurisdictions being served with CAL FIRE able to provide any and all of the services CAL FIRE can provide in part or in whole. “Schedule B” services for wildland fire are the backbone of the CAL FIRE and the work for which the department is most recognized (LAFCO, 2011; Chief Lindgren, personal communication, December 2020). Resource Management Program California’s state and private forest, range, watershed lands and urban forests provide multiple human and environmental benefits. The objective of the Resource Management Program is to maintain and enhance those benefits and to minimize damage to these resources from natural catastrophe and human misuse. Objectives are met by regulation of timber harvesting, technical assistance to non-industrial landowners, operation of state demonstration forests, operation of forest nurseries, vegetation management projects, and administration of federal forestry. Approximately 10% of the agency’s efforts are spent on range, watersheds, vegetation management, and fuels reduction. CAL FIRE uses prescribed fires and the chipper program to reduce fuels in the forest. CAL FIRE is responsible for law enforcement of timber-harvesting practices on private lands. CAL FIRE requires an approved Timber Harvesting Plan (THP) to outline tree harvest procedures on Timber Production Zone (TPZ) designated lands. Registered Professional Foresters (RPFs) are licensed to prepare the plans. To further CAL FIRE’s mission with resource management, it works with local resource conservation districts. Over the last 5 years, CAL FIRE has annually treated 20,000 acres under the Vegetation Management Plan (VMP). VMP projects have been concentrated within urban interface areas due to land use patterns and increasing population densities (LAFCO, 2011; Chief Lindgren, personal communication, December 2020). 1.2. Amador-El Dorado Unit (AEU) CAL FIRE is divided into two regions and 21 operational units and the Amador-El Dorado Unit (AEU) includes the counties of Amador, El Dorado, Alpine, Sacramento and the northern portion of San Joaquin County. The entire AEU encompasses over 2.6 million acres of which 1.05 million acres are classified SRA Volume I of II Appendix D Page D-4 of D-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final by the legislature. Under a Cooperative Fire Protection Agreement between CAL FIRE and USFS, the AEU has responsibility for 941,110 acres of Direct Protection Area (DPA) in all five counties. CAL FIRE’s AEU DPA ranges from low-lying areas of Sacramento and San Joaquin counties to well above the 4,500-foot elevation in Amador and El Dorado Counties. The approximate resident population in this area is 2.5 million people. Within El Dorado County, approximately 565,087 acres have an SRA designation. As noted earlier, the designation is important because the agency having jurisdiction for wildland fires is fiscally and operationally responsible for fires on its lands. Although the bulk of El Dorado County is either SRA or FRA, all fire agencies in El Dorado County work cooperatively together to suppress wildland fires. Reciprocal assistance provided by CAL FIRE would be to respond to non-wildland emergencies such as auto accidents, medical emergencies, rescues, hazardous materials emergencies, and structure fires (LAFCO, 2011; Chief Lindgren, personal communication, December 2020). Infrastructure and Facilities The Amador-El Dorado Unit manages nine State fire stations, the Cameron Park Fire Department, the Buena Vista Rancheria Fire Department, the Lockwood Fire Department, two conservation camps, four lookouts and one Amador Plan stations (during winter months) for the Lockwood Fire Protection District. During the peak fire season, CAL FIRE staffs 15 State funded fire engines, two Cameron Park Advanced Life Support (ALS) fire engines with one ALS Medic Unit, two Lockwood Volunteer Fire Stations, 2 Buena Vista Rancheria ALS Fire Engines, two fire-dozers, which require specially trained operators, nine inmate fire crews, one California Conservation Corps (CCC) hand crew, and two Firefighter I fire crews (LAFCO, 2011; Chief Lindgren, personal communication, December 2020). CAL FIRE Amador-El Dorado Unit existing facilities and their locations can be found in Table 1-1. Table 1-1: CAL FIRE Amador-El Dorado Unit Existing Facilities and Location Existing Facilities Address Characteristics/County 2840 Mt. Danaher Rd. Headquarters and Dispatch Mt. Danaher Station Camino, CA 95709 El Dorado County Pleasant Valley Rd. near Mother Station and Auto Shop/ El Dorado Station Lode Dr. El Dorado County 15061 Marshall Road Garden Valley Station El Dorado County Garden Valley, CA 95663 4731 Pedro Hill Road Pilot Hill Station Amador County Pilot Hill, CA 95665 19597 Highway 88 Zion Station Amador County Pine Grove, CA 95665 Dew Drop Station Amador County 11600 Highway 49 Warehouse and Service Sutter Hill Station Sutter Creek, CA 95685 Center/Amador County 15035 Highway E-16 (Mt. Aukum Road) Pine Lodge Station El Dorado County River Pines, CA 95675 South Lake Tahoe Station Meyers, CA El Dorado County Volume I of II Appendix D Page D-5 of D-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Existing Facilities Address Characteristics/County 2961 Alhambra Drive Cameron Park CSD/El Dorado Station 89 Cameron Park, CA 95682 County 3200 Country Club Drive Cameron Park CSD/El Dorado Station 88 Cameron Park, CA 95682 County Buena Vista Station 181 Coal Mine Road, Ione CA Amador Count 15440 Longview Lane Growlersburg Camp El Dorado County Georgetown, CA 95634 13630 Aqueduct-Volcano Road, Pine Grove Camp Amador County Pine Grove, CA 95665 2840 Mt. Danaher Rd. Emergency Command Center El Dorado County Camino, CA 95709 Source: LAFCO, 2011; Chief Lindgren, personal communication, December 2020 Most CAL FIRE stations in El Dorado County are closed in winter. There are two stations that remain open year-round with state funding, with the primary purpose of performing fuel reduction work and defensible space inspections. These stations do respond to emergencies within the county when they are available to do so. If funding was allocated by local agencies or the County, additional CAL FIRE stations could remain open all year. The statewide CAL FIRE training academy is located in Ione. The CAL FIRE State Fire Training and Education Program is a statewide training program that emphasizes basic fire control, search and rescue, driving and engine maintenance, structure firefighting, auto extrication, communication and problem solving. Additional training for battalion chiefs, fire captains, fire apparatus engineers and fire fighters is also performed in-house. CAL FIRE also participates in collaborative training efforts inside and outside the State. CAL FIRE and the Eldorado National Forest operate a joint agency command center located at AEU’s Camino Headquarters. In addition to dispatching all CAL FIRE, Eldorado National Forest and Tahoe Management Unit emergency incidents, this center provides emergency dispatch services to six local fire agencies in Amador County and ten of the west slope fire agencies and medic units in El Dorado County (LAFCO, 2011; Chief Lindgren, personal communication, December 2020). Equipment and Vehicles CAL FIRE operates 15 engine companies, two “fire dozers,” nine fire crews, a mobile kitchen unit (MKU) and one mobile communications unit within AEU. Engines are staffed during fire season with a minimum of three firefighters. This is an increase of two engine companies since 2011 (LAFCO, 2011; Chief Lindgren, personal communication, December 2020). Personnel and Staffing The Amador-El Dorado Unit consists of 182 permanent and 102 seasonal employees. All stations are staffed with firefighters with a minimum EMT certification. The unit is further divided into three division and nine battalions. Compared with available resources in 2011, CAL FIRE has increased permanent staff by 44 personnel and added 54 seasonal employees. In addition, the unit is divided into one more division than was available in 2011 (LAFCO, 2011; Chief Lindgren, personal communication, December 2020). Volume I of II Appendix D Page D-6 of D-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Administration, Management, and Operations The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection is a state-appointed body within the Department of Natural Resources. The Board is generally composed of nine members: five from the general public, three from the forest products industry, and one from the range-livestock industry. The Governor appoints all Board Members and selects a Chairman. All appointments are subject to State Senate confirmation. Members generally serve four-year staggered terms. The Board is responsible for developing the general forest policy of the State, determining the guidance policies of the Division of Forestry and Fire Protection, and representing the State's interest in federal forestland in California. The “California State Firefighters Association” union represents most CAL FIRE employees (LAFCO, 2011; Chief Lindgren, personal communication, December 2020). Funding and Budget The Amador-El Dorado Unit receives approximately $35 million in state funds for normal operating expenditures and no additional funding due to emergencies. CAL FIRE is principally funded by the Legislature through the State’s General Fund and partially funded through grants. This is an increase of $17 million since 2011, or 94 percent. Budget increases and an increase of CAL FIRE firefighting resources have had a positive impact on CAL FIRE services which thus impact local fire protection districts, especially local fire agencies that rely on CAL FIRE support services and equipment. While these increases are for the state fire mission, the increases in number of engines staffed and duration of staffing due to the increase in the fire season length, have increased the availability of these engines locally. CAL FIRE is the only state agency which has an emergency fund that is controlled by the State Department of Finance. The fund pays for extraordinary costs for wildland fire control such as aircraft costs, rental of private equipment and charges submitted to CAL FIRE by local fire protection agencies for providing firefighting resources. Reimbursement to local agencies is made under the California Fire Assistance Agreement (LAFCO, 2011; Chief Lindgren, personal communication, December 2020). Cooperative Agreements The California Master Mutual Aid Agreement and the California Master Mutual Aid Agreement Addendum outline the local mutual aid agreement in Amador and El Dorado Counties. Mutual aid includes CAL FIRE requesting resource and overhead assistance from other agencies during the initial period of any incident or CAL FIRE providing such assistance to another agency. There is no exchange of funds between departments. A local agreement with AEU and local agencies allows for a 6-hour free service period on wildland fires. This is a one-way agreement where CAL FIRE promises to pay local government fire agencies for their services. This is not normal procedure statewide as CAL FIRE would not normally pay for resources and overhead from the local agency having jurisdiction when used on wildfires within their district. In addition, while Placerville would normally be an LRA, AEU has agreed to treat it as SRA since any fires within the city limits that gets out of control would threaten the surrounding wildland. Volume I of II Appendix D Page D-7 of D-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The California Fire Assistance Agreement (CFAA) specifies reimbursement for personnel, apparatus, and support equipment used for fire suppression assistance. The agreement includes CAL FIRE; OES; USFS, Pacific Southwest Region; United States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of Land Management, California State Office; USDI National Park Service, Pacific West Region; and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, California-Nevada Operations. CAL FIRE has the ability, through Public Resources Code §§4142 and 4144 to contract with a local entity to provide their full fire, emergency medical services (EMS) and rescue services. CAL FIRE has several hundred of these cooperative agreements statewide. A local example of such an agreement is the Cameron Park Community Services District (CAM), the Buena Vista Fire Department, and the dispatch contracts for both El Dorado and Amador Counties where CAL FIRE provides a full range of services. CAL FIRE, as a division of the State, does not solicit “Schedule A” contracts, but responds to local agencies’ request for services. Cooperative agreements in which CAL FIRE decides to participate must be found to benefit CAL FIRE and meet their wildland fire protection mission standards. CAL FIRE evaluates fire suppression capabilities, equipment, and efficacy before entering into an agreement with another agency (LAFCO, 2011; Chief Lindgren, personal communication, December 2020). Community Outreach CAL FIRE participates in numerous local community groups and organizations as detailed above, including El Dorado County Fire Chiefs’ Association, and its subcommittees, Tahoe Chief’s Association, the various fire safe councils, TRPA, the EMS JPA for the Western Slope along with California Forest Stewardship Program CAL FIRE and UC Cooperative Extension (LAFCO, 2011; Chief Lindgren, personal communication, December 2020). 1.3. CAL FIRE Automatic Aid in the County of El Dorado CAL FIRE operates with automatic, boundary drop, and closest resource agreements within the County of El Dorado in conjunction with the other fire service providers in the County. This system allows for the closest resource to respond to any incident automatically, without requiring a request for aid. Communities in the County benefit from this system which allows all of the fire agencies to operate as one. CAL FIRE provides mutual aid through automatic/closest resource agreements for all incident types in the County of El Dorado on the west slope, including medical calls, vehicle accidents, structure fires, etc. CAL FIRE Amador-El Dorado Unit provided automatic aid 3,908 times to the nine agencies on the West Slope of the County in 2019. Table 1-2 shows the amount of aid received by each agency from CAL FIRE and provides the percentage of that aid when compared to all other aid received by that agency. Figure 1-1 shows the amount of automatic aid each West Slope agency received from CAL FIRE compared to all other aid those agencies received in 2019. Table 1-2: Aid Received by Agency from CAL FIRE Amador-El Dorado Unit, 2019 Amount of Mutual Aid All Other Mutual Aid Percent of Mutual Agency Received from CAL FIRE Received Aid from CAL FIRE CAM 158 451 26% Volume I of II Appendix D Page D-8 of D-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Amount of Mutual Aid All Other Mutual Aid Percent of Mutual Agency Received from CAL FIRE Received Aid from CAL FIRE DSP 1,256 682 65% ECF 1,706 2,055 45% EDH 172 319 35% GEO 93 195 32% GRV 288 249 54% MQT 16 36 31% PIO 157 227 41% RES 62 423 13% Figure 1-1: Aid Received by Fire Agency from CAL FIRE Amador-El Dorado Unit Compared to All Other Aid, 2019 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 CAM DSP ECF EDH GEO GRV MQT PIO RES Amount of Mutual Aid Received from CAL FIRE All Other Mutual Aid Received CAL FIRE provided the most aid to ECF followed by DSP. When comparing CAL FIRE aid to all other aid, CAL FIRE provided the bulk of the aid (65 percent) to DSP followed by GRV (54 percent). CAL FIRE provides mutual aid through automatic/closest resource agreements for all incident types in the County of El Dorado on the west slope, including medical calls, vehicle accidents, structure fires, etc. Overall, CAL FIRE provided approximately 46 percent of all automatic aid in 2019 (CAL FIRE, 2020). Volume I of II Appendix D Page D-9 of D-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 2. The United States Forest Service (USFS) The United States Forest Service (U.S. Forest Service or USFS) has been managing wildland fire on National Forests and Grasslands for more than 100 years working closely with other federal, tribal, state, and local partners. USFS acknowledges that over the last few decades, the wildland fire management environment has profoundly changed. Longer fire seasons, bigger fires, more acres burned on average each year, more extreme fire behavior, and wildfire suppression operations in the wildland urban interface (WUI) have become the norm. To address these challenges, the USFS along with its partners have developed and are implementing a National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy that has three key components: 1) Resilient Landscapes, 2) Fire Adapted Communities, and 3) Safe and Effective Wildfire Response. To coordinate the regional assessments and strategies, the Wildland Fire Executive Council chartered three Regional Strategy Committees (USFS, 2020a). El Dorado County falls into the Western Region Committee that includes North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Hawaii, Alaska, and California. The Western Region Committee has a current Program of Work and Strategic Communications Plan accessible on their website at: http://wildfireinthewest.org/about/. 2.1. Natural Resource Management Act The John D. Dingell Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act of 2019, formally called the Natural Resource Management Act, was signed into law on March 12, 2019. The law sets provisions for various programs, projects, activities and studies for the management and conservation of natural resources on federal lands. The law addresses matters such as: • land conveyances • exchanges • acquisitions • withdrawals and transfers • monuments • memorials • wilderness areas • wild and scenic rivers • historic and heritage sites • wildland fire operations • continuation of the Land and Water Conservation Fund • recreational activities on federal lands Volume I of II Appendix D Page D-10 of D-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The law establishes timelines for completing projects with updates provided on a regular basis. USDA Forest Service Fire and Aviation Management is working closely with the Department of Interior to meet the law requirements (USFS, 2020b). 2.2. Managing Fire For decades, the USFS would work to put out all wildfires that occurred in their jurisdiction. However, current science has changed the way USFS manages fire. Fires that threaten people and communities are still suppressed, however the USFS looks for ways to manage fire instead with the goal of fostering healthy ecosystems (USFS, 2020c). Staff and Equipment The USFS has more than 10,000 professional firefighters that respond to thousands of wildfires each year on National Forest System land as well as on land under the jurisdiction of other Federal, tribal, state, and local agencies. U.S. Forest Service firefighters also conduct prescribed fires to help accomplish other natural resource management missions. The USFS utilizes planes and helicopters as critical tools in managing wildland fire. Although aircraft are often used to fight wildfires, aircraft alone cannot put them out. Firefighters rely on planes and helicopters to: • Deliver equipment and supplies. • Deploy smokejumpers and rappelers to a fire. • Transport firefighters. • Provide reconnaissance of new fires, fire locations, and fire behavior. • Drop fire retardant or water to slow down a fire so firefighters can contain it. • Ignite prescribed fires. USFS firefighters are properly trained and equipped to respond to wildfires safely and effectively. Firefighters on the ground include handcrews, hotshots, and engine crews. Firefighters in the air include smokejumpers and helitack crews. These different jobs entail the following: • Handcrews – 20 person teams construct firelines around wildfires to control them, burnout fire areas, and mop up after fires. • Hotshots – the most highly skilled type of handcrews and are typically assigned to work on the most challenging parts of wildfires. They are called “hotshots” because they work on the hottest part of wildfires. • Engine crews – Teams of two to ten firefighters working with specialized wildland fire engines that carry special equipment to spray water and foam. • Smokejumpers – Highly trained, experienced firefighters that parachute from airplanes to provide quick initial attack on wildland fires in remote areas. Volume I of II Appendix D Page D-11 of D-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • Helitack crews – Firefighters transported by helicopters to wildfires. They may land near them or, if equipped and trained, may rappel from a hovering helicopter. (USFS, 2020d) Forecasting In addition to the personnel and equipment, the USFS conducts fire forecasting using the Predictive Services Program which provides information about fire weather, fire danger/fuels, and intelligence/resource status information that fire managers need to anticipate significant wildfire activity and determine where to position firefighters, engines, aircraft, and other wildfire suppression assets. This program produces weekly and monthly significant wildland fire potential outlooks, intelligence reports that are produced daily or weekly depending on wildfire activity and annual reports (NICC, 2020). More information about the Predictive Services Program can be found here: https://www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/predictive.htm. Prescribed Burns & Mechanical Treatment As part of the Resilient Landscapes component, the USFS operates prescribed burns and mechanical treatment. According to the USFS, prescribed fire is a planned fire used to meet management objectives. After many years of fire exclusion, an ecosystem that needs periodic fire becomes unhealthy. Trees are stressed by overcrowding; fire-dependent species disappear; and flammable fuels build up and become hazardous. The right fire at the right place at the right time: • Reduces hazardous fuels, protecting human communities from extreme fires; • Minimizes the spread of pest insects and disease; • Removes unwanted species that threaten species native to an ecosystem; • Provides forage for game; • Improves habitat for threatened and endangered species; • Recycles nutrients back to the soil; and • Promotes the growth of trees, wildflowers, and other plants; The Forest Service manages prescribed fires and even some wildfires to benefit natural resources and reduce the risk of unwanted wildfires in the future. The agency also uses hand tools and machines to thin overgrown sites in preparation for the eventual return of fire. Specialists write burn plans for prescribed fires. Burn plans identify – or prescribe – the best conditions under which trees and other plants will burn to get the best results safely. Burn plans consider temperature, humidity, wind, moisture of the vegetation, and conditions for the dispersal of smoke. Prescribed fire specialists compare conditions on the ground to those outlined in burn plans before deciding whether to burn on a given day (USFS, 2020e). In certain areas, under some conditions, it may be too difficult for the USFS to utilize prescribed burning and will turn to mechanical treatment. Mechanical treatment of hazardous fuels means reducing the Volume I of II Appendix D Page D-12 of D-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final amount of vegetation which has built up to dangerous levels, or changing the arrangement of these fuels in the environment. Mechanical treatments can benefit ecosystems and people by: • Reducing the probability of catastrophic fires; • Helping maintain and restore healthy and resilient ecosystems; • Protecting human communities. Examples of mechanical treatment include the thinning of dense stands of trees, or other fuel treatments that make an area better able to withstand fire. Such treatments might be piling brush, pruning lower branches of trees, or creating fuel breaks to encourage the right kind of fire. Tools that are used to carry out the mechanical treatment of hazardous fuels range from hand tools such as chainsaws and rakes, to large machines like bulldozers and woodchippers. Mechanical treatment can be used on its own or with prescribed burning to change how wildfire behaves, with the hope that when a fire does burn through a treated area, it is less destructive, less costly, and easier to control. Often, mechanical fuels treatments are followed by prescribed fire to create effective hazard reduction (USFS, 2020f). 2.3. Operations in the County of El Dorado The USFS operates within El Dorado County alongside County fire agencies and CAL FIRE. The USFS maintains the Eldorado National Forest. Much of the eastside of the County includes the Eldorado National Forest which spans portions of Alpine, Amador, El Dorado and Placer counties. The gross acreage for the forest is 793,652 acres with 178,615 acres owned by private or other agencies which are mostly isolated and surrounded by government land on all sides. The Eldorado has a high-density transportation system containing 2,367 miles of roads and 349 miles of trails. Roads under Forest Service jurisdiction total 2,158 miles. There are 209 miles of county roads and another 400 miles of private roads within the Forest boundary (USFS, 2020g). Volume I of II Appendix D Page D-13 of D-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 3. City of Folsom The City of Folsom Fire Department (FOL or Department) offers a wide range of emergency services for the City of Folsom located within Sacramento County. The City boarders the northwest side of the El Dorado County boundary line and is adjacent to El Dorado Hills Fire Department along the entire west side. The Department operates with 77 personnel to provide fire suppression, rescue, prevention, public education, hazardous materials response and emergency medical services to the community. The department serves a population of roughly 81,600 people as of January 2020 and covers roughly 30 square miles. The Department manages 5 fire stations within the City of Folsom boundary. Within those stations, there are four engine companies, one ladder truck company, three medic ambulances, and one chief officer providing fire services to the City (City of Folsom, 2020). A breakdown in staff can be seen in Table 3-1 below. Table 3-1: City of Folsom Fire Department Staff Breakdown by Type Staff Career/Paid Fire Chief 1 Deputy Fire Marshal 1 Fire Prevention Officer 2 Division Chief – in Training 1 Battalion Chief 3 Fire Engines (4) 36 Fire Truck (1) 12 Medic Ambulance (3) 18 Source: City of Folsom, 2019 Like the County of El Dorado fire agencies, the City is continuing to see increases in emergency incidents and ambulance transports. Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2 show the number of emergency incidents and ambulance transports from 2015 to 2019 (City of Folsom, 2019). Figure 3-1: Emergency Incidents 2015-2019 Volume I of II Appendix D Page D-14 of D-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 3-2: Ambulance Transports 2015-2019 Source: City of Folsom, 2019 3.1. Operations in the County of El Dorado The El Dorado Hills County Water District (EDH) has an automatic aid agreement with the City of Folsom Fire Department (FOL). Any resource provided by EDH is available to the City and vice versa under this agreement. The City of Folsom Fire Department responded to 16 calls out of Station 38 to EDH in 2019. Of those, six calls were for fire, three were medical calls, and seven were engine cover assignments to cover EDH areas. From 2016 to 2019, the City of Folsom Fire Department has averaged 33.3 calls for service to EDH. Conversely, EDH responded to 61 calls for service within the City of Folsom in 2019. Of those calls, 24 were for fire, 34 were for medical incidents, and seven were for engine cover assignments to cover FOL areas. From 2016 to 2019, EDH has averaged 75 calls for service to the City of Folsom per year. EDH responded, on average, double the number of times to the City of Folsom for calls for service than the City responded to EDH from 2016 to 2019. EDH responded to the City of Folsom 45 times more to the City than the City did to EDH in 2019. In addition, Cameron Park Community Services District (CAM) also responded to the City of Folsom in 2019 one time. From 2016 to 2019, other County of El Dorado fire agencies have responded to the City of Folsom including El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF) and Rescue Fire Protection District (RES) (CAL FIRE, 2020). Volume I of II Appendix D Page D-15 of D-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 4. Amador Fire Protection District (AMC) The Amador Fire Protection District (AMC) is located within Amador County, adjacent to the County of El Dorado to the south. The District is responsible for emergency, fire rescue, and medical aid service to approximately 85 percent of the unincorporated area of Amador County. This area equates to roughly 491 square miles within Amador County. The District has 30 paid staff and approximately 20 volunteer firefighters providing emergency fire, rescue, and medical aid services to Amador Pines, Pioneer, Pine Grove, Pine Acres, Volcano, Martell, Drytown, Willow Springs, Fiddletown, River Pines, and the City of Plymouth. Within the District boundary are seven fire stations; three stations are staffed full time by paid staff and volunteers, one is staffed by the Jackson Rancheria Band of Miwuk Indians under contract with AMC, and three are staffed by volunteers only. A breakdown in staff can be seen in Table 4-1 below. Table 4-1: AMC Staff Breakdown by Type Staff Career/Paid Fire Chief 1 Battalion Chief 3 Operations Staff 26 Source: Amador FPD, 2020 To respond to calls for service, the District apparatus includes twelve engines, four water tenders, and two squad cars. 4.1. Operations in the County of El Dorado The El Dorado Hills County Water District (EDH) and Pioneer Fire Protection District (PIO) have an automatic aid agreement with the AMC. This means that any resource provided by the EDH or PIO is available to AMC and vice versa under this agreement. AMC responded to five calls for service to the EDH in 2019. Of those, two calls were for fire, two were medical calls, and one was an assist. From 2016 to 2019, AMC has averaged 7 calls for service to EDH. In 2019, AMC responded to 21 calls for service to PIO. Of those, 11 were for fire and 10 were medical calls. On average, AMC responded to 19.5 calls for service to PIO from 2016 to 2019. Conversely, EDH responded to eight and PIO responded to 28 calls for service within AMC. For the EDH calls, one was for fire and seven were medical calls. Of those calls PIO responded to, six were for fire, two were for hazards, 19 were for medical calls and one was to provide assistance. On average EDH responded to 8.5 calls for service to AMC from 2016 to 2019 and PIO responded to 22.5 calls for service on average during that same time frame. In addition, Cameron Park Community Services District (CAM) responded to AMC three times and El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF) responded once to AMC in 2019. From 2016 to 2019, other County of El Dorado fire agencies have responded to AMC including Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LAV), Meeks Bay Fire Protection District (MEK) and Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District (DSP) (CAL FIRE, 2020). Volume I of II Appendix D Page D-16 of D-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Appendix E Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chiefs’ Association Members Volume I of II Appendix E Page E-1 of E-2 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final California Regional/Federal • CAL FIRE – Amador-El Dorado Unit • Eastern Alpine Volunteer Fire/Rescue • Bureau of Land Management - Carson City • Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District District • CALSTAR • Kirkwood Volunteer Fire Department • Care Flight/REMSA • Lake Valley Fire Protection District • US Forest Service - Lake Tahoe Basin • Meeks Bay Fire Protection District • North Tahoe Fire Protection District • Northstar Fire Department • City of South Lake Tahoe • Squaw Valley Fire Department • City of Truckee • Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District Nevada • Airport Authority of Washoe County • City of Carson • Central Lyon County Fire Protection District • East Fork Fire Protection District • Nevada Division of Forestry • Nevada State Fire Marshal • North Lake Tahoe Fire Protection District • City of Reno • City of Sparks • Storey County Fire Protection District • Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District Volume I of II Appendix E Page E-2 of E-2 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Appendix F Ember Awareness Volume I of II Appendix F F-1 of 10 Protect Your Home from Post fire investigation and Wildfire: Ember Awareness research tells us that most home ignitions during Checklist wildfires are caused by embers. The checklist provided in this factsheet By: Kent G. Apostol1, Darren J. McAvoy2, Aaron Sparks3, pinpoints places and Mike Kuhns2, Chris Jones4, Diomy Zamora5 situations around the home where embers can pose a This fact sheet was adapted from Be Ember Aware! UNCE threat. By attending to the publication #FS-09-05, with permission from University of checklist items, several of Nevada Cooperative Extension and the Living with Fire which are simple fixes, Program. homeowners can reduce the Introduction risk of home ignition. Many communities in the western U.S. are fire-prone, as are many other areas in the world. These areas will always face wildfire, and will likely experience an increased number of extreme wildfire events in the future, resulting in substantial economic, social, and environmental impacts. Over the last 10 years, 3.4 to 10.1 million acres have burned annually in the U.S. In terms of area burned, 2017 has been one of the largest fire years in the last decade, with over 8.5 million acres burned across the U.S. (NIFC). Figure 1 shows the distribution of wildfires in the western U.S. in 2017. Graphic: University of Nevada Cooperative Extension and Unprecedented amounts of live and the Living With Fire Program. dead fuel, combined with warmer 1Environmental Review, Inc. P.O. Box 2756, Berkeley, California 94702 2Forestry Extension, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-5230 3Department of Forest, Rangeland, and Fire Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844 4Gila County Cooperative Extension, University of Arizona, Globe, AZ 85501 F-2 of 10 5University of Minnesota Extension, St. Paul, MN 55108 University of Arizona Cooperative Extension has also produced fire mitigation education materials to help communities understand how to coexist with wildfire. Please visit https:// extension.arizona.edu/pubs and type “wildfire” in the search box for specific Firewise® defensible space materials. This fact sheet was developed to help you and members of your community understand the danger of embers during a wildfire and take proactive steps to reduce the risk. What are Embers? During a wildfire, thousands of burning embers, or “firebrands”, can be carried by the wind and can rain down on your home (Figure 1). These embers can be parts of twigs or branches, pine cones, or wood shingles torn from burning roofs. Such embers are not just an interesting but unusual occurrence with wildfires; they are the leading cause of home ignitions during wildfires. Most (at least 50%) home ignitions in Figure 1. Distribution of wildfires in the western U.S. in wildfires are started by burning embers that 2017. In the western U.S. alone, nearly 1,000 wildfires have been transported through the air from an have occurred, mainly from April to October. Wildfire active wildfire (Mell et al. 2010). spatial data (fire perimeters) were acquired from the Geospatial Multi-Agency Coordination (GeoMAC), How do Embers Spread Fires? which uses a combination of aerial and satellite fire detection methods to map wildfires. Fire perimeters When embers land on or become lodged in are enlarged for visibility purposes. easily ignited materials on or near your house, they ignite those materials. This means that temperatures, decreased snowpack, and most fires start from embers that are thrown earlier snowmelt, will likely lead to drier some distances from the flames. Then these conditions and increased fire activity in the next spots burn and the small fires coalesce and few years. In fact, over the coming decades, then burn across the landscape. The classic the number of days conducive to extreme image people have of a fire spreading across a wildfires is predicted to increase by 25-50% in landscape as flames leap from tree to tree the western U.S., with larger increases in the happens, but fires spotting ahead of the main southwest U.S. (50-75%). fire is also very common. There are several resources available on how During wind-driven or very intense fires, so to enhance the protection of communities from many embers are produced and transported wildfires. For example, visit Utah State that they are often called ember showers, University Forestry Extension web pages on storms, red snow or blizzards and they can wildland fire safety: http://forestry.usu.edu/ ignite spot fires far from the active front of a forest-fire/wildland-urban-interface. The F-3 of 10 2 wildfire. Embers present hazards because they Carolina. Their main research objective is to can either directly ignite components of reduce the likelihood of wildfire-caused building vulnerable structures or they can ignite nearby ignitions in communities located in wildfire- vegetation and other combustibles. These prone areas. Based on their demonstration small fires can subsequently ignite the structure trials, the IBHS shows how important embers via radiant heating or direct flame contact are for igniting homes (Figures 2 and 3). (Quarles 2012). Consequently, even homes located many blocks and up to a mile away Ignition Prevention Comes from the main fire are vulnerable to ignition and Down to Managing Fuel destruction. If there is no organic surface debris, such as With a large fire in the vicinity, you will not be needle litter adjacent to walls, in the rain able to prevent burning embers from landing on gutters, or next to the roof dormer, embers are your landscape and your home. If the wind typically not sufficient to ignite a structure, blows toward your property from the direction of according to research conducted by the the main fire, you will get embers. Whether they Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety will become a large fire that will seriously (IBHS) (https://disastersafety.org/wildfire/). A threaten your home depends on what you do to dormer is an additional roofed structure manage fuels on your property. Embers that protruding outward from of a sloping roof land on non-flammable surfaces like pavement surface. IBHS has developed the capability of or bare soil will burn out and will not threaten simulating ember and radiant heat exposures your home. Embers that land on small, on building components and assemblies at localized fuel accumulations and start small their research facility in Richburg, South fires, will use up that fuel and then burn out, but Figure 2. Ember storm produced in the IBHS research facility. Photo: Jack Cohen, USDA Forest Service and IBHS. F-4 of 10 3 Landscape plants should be chosen for small size, moistness, and low flammability. For a list of firewise plants for Utah see http:// forestry.usu.edu/files-ou/UFF002F.pdf. The landscape should be designed to isolate clumps of fuel (plants) with less flammable surroundings. The landscape must be maintained through mowing, pruning, and deadheading, and debris must be removed from roofs and gutters (Figures 3 and 4). Wood roofs and decks should not be used. The building also should be designed and Graphic: University of Nevada Cooperative maintained to prevent embers from entering Extension and the Living With Fire Program. through openings (an open window or vent for example) and ignite furnishings in the building or debris in the attic. “...the key to preventing Ember Awareness Checklist home ignition is to If an ember landed next to your home or in your manage the available rain gutters (Figures 3 and 4), would there be fuel – the landscape “fuel” for it to ignite? The Ember Awareness plants, attached Checklist (Figures 5a and 5b) identifies 20 points on or near your house that are structures like decks vulnerable to embers and provides steps that and fences, and the can be taken to help prepare homes for embers and reduce the risk of ignition. In addition to the home itself.” checklist in Figure 5A, a couple of steps are worth considering. Close heat resistant drapes they will not threaten your home because of their isolation. The embers that will threaten your home are those that land on larger, continuous accumulations of fuel that can burn up to the home or that will land on fuel adjacent to the home itself. Whether a fire is sweeping across the landscape with dramatic flames or spotting from firebrands, the key to preventing home ignition is to manage the available fuel – the Figure 3. Pine needles burning in a rain gutter. landscape plants, attached structures like Photo: Jack Cohen, USDA Forest Service and IBHS. decks and fences, and the home itself. F-5 of 10 4 Figure 4. Burning pine needles in the rain gutters and burning pine needle debris on the roof against the dormer (on the right). This dormer is representative of vulnerability to embers that occurs on a “complex” roof, particularly at roof-to-siding intersections. Photo: Jack Cohen, USDA Forest Service and IBHS. or curtains and non-combustible shutters of windows if wildfire is threatening. Parking away from the house is recommended but the chance of vehicle burning if adjacent to flammable materials increases. Most of these steps amount to managing fuels. The Insurance Information Institute sees that fewer houses were lost to wildfire in recent years particularly as homeowners took steps such as clearing trees/brush away from buildings, keeping firewood stacks and propane tanks at least 30 feet from the home and installing screens over dwelling openings to keep embers out (Ruiz, Janet, personal communication). So the future looks bright if we do the right things. F-6 of 10 5 F-7 of 10 Figure 5a. Ember Awareness Checklist. Graphic: University of Nevada Cooperative Extension and the Living With Fire Program. 6 F-8 of 10 Figure 5b. Locations around the home showing vulnerabilities to embers. Graphic: University of Nevada Cooperative Extension and the Living With Fire Program. 7 References Acknowledgement and additional information Geospatial Multi-Agency Coordination (GeoMAC). https://www.geomac.gov/ We thank the Washington State Conservation index.shtml. Accessed 9/11/2017. Commission (16-34-FW) Firewise funding to the Mell, W.E., Manzello, S.L., Maranghides, A., Central Klickitat Conservation District (KGA). Butry, D., and R.G. Rehm. 2010. The wildland– Firewise, Fire Adapted Communities, Ready urban interface fire problem – current Set, Go (www.wildlandfirersg.org), Firewise, Fire approaches and research needs. International Journal of Wildland Fire 19, 238–251. Adapted Communities seek to share information doi:10.1071/WF07131 with residents on what you can do to successsfully prepare for a wildland fire. Please National Interagency Fire Center. https:// contact your local fire department, Forestry, Fire www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_statistics.html. Accessed 9/19/2017. and State Lands, Bureau of Land Management, or US Forest Service office Quarles S.L. 2012. Vulnerabilities of buildings or www.utahfireinfo.gov to learn about your to wildfire exposures. pp 1–13. http:// area’s threat for wildland fire and the wildland- articles.extension.org/pages/63495/ vulnerabilities-of-buildings-to-wildfire- urban interface. exposures. [Last Accessed May 01, 2016] Ruiz, Janet. 2017. Personal Communication. September 15, 2017. Smith, E.G. and S. A. Sistare. 2009. Be Ember Aware! University of Nevada Cooperative Extension. FS-09-05. 6p. Utah State University is committed to providing an environment free from harassment and other forms of illegal discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age (40 and older), disability, and veteran’s status. USU’s policy also prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment and academic related practices and decisions. Utah State University employees and students cannot, because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or veteran’s status, refuse to hire; discharge; promote; demote; terminate; discriminate in compensation; or discriminate regarding terms, privileges, or conditions of employment, against any person otherwise qualified. Employees and students also cannot discriminate in the classroom, residence halls, or in on/ off campus, USU-sponsored events and activities. This publication is issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension Work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Kenneth L. White, Vice President for Extension and Agriculture, Utah State University. Published August 2018. F-9 of 10 6 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume I of II Appendix F F-10 of 10 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Appendix G Fire Agency Stations by Number, Address, and Staffing Volume I of II Appendix G Page G-1 of G-4 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Historically Station Volunteer Staffing Agency Address Number Station (♦ (2020) ) CAM 88 2961 Alhambra Drive, Cameron Park, CA 24/7/365 3200 Country Club Drive, Cameron Park, CAM 89 24/7/365 CA DSP 44 6109 Quartz Dr., El Dorado None DSP 46 6170 Pleasant Valley Rd., El Dorado None DSP 47 2312 Oakvale Dr., Shingle Springs None DSP 48 3840 Missouri Flat Rd., Placerville None DSP 49 501 Pleasant Valley Rd., Diamond Springs 24/7/365 ECF 15 16211 U.S. Highway 50, Strawberry ♦ None ECF 16 13275 U.S. Highway 50, Kyburz ♦ During Fire Season ECF 17 6430 Pony Express Trail, Pollock Pines 24/7/365 ECF 18 5785 Sly Park Rd., Pollock Pines ♦ None ECF 19 4429 Pleasant Valley Rd., Placerville 24/7/365 ECF 21 4040 Carson Rd., Camino 24/7/365 ECF 23 1834 Pleasant Valley Rd., Placerville None ECF 25 3034 Sacramento St., Placerville 24/7/365 ECF 26 730 Main St., Placerville ♦ None ECF 27 6051 Gold Hill Rd., Placerville ♦ Part-time/Seasonally ECF 28 3860 Ponderosa Rd., Shingle Springs 24/7/365 ECF 72 7200 St. Florian Ct., Cool 24/7/365 ECF 73 4202 State Highway 49, Pilot Hill ♦ None ECF 74 5122 Firehouse Rd., Lotus Part-time/Seasonally EDH 84 2180 Francisco Drive, El Dorado Hills 24/7/365 EDH 85 1050 Wilson Boulevard, El Dorado Hills 24/7/365 EDH 86 3670 Bass Lake Road, El Dorado Hills 24/7/365 4680 Golden Foothill Parkway, El Dorado EDH 87 24/7/365 Hills EDH 91 7660 South Shingle Road, Shingle Springs 24/7/365 EDH 92 7470 Ryan Ranch Road, El Dorado Hills None FLL 9 241 Fallen Leaf Road, South Lake Tahoe Part-time/Seasonally GEO 61 6281 Main St., Georgetown 24/7/365 7331 Wentworth Springs, Georgetown GEO 62 ♦ None (Training yard) GEO 63 4900 Volcanoville Rd., Georgetown ♦ None GEO 64 2065 Sliger Mine Rd, Greenwood ♦ None GEO 65 10561 Sand Mountain Blvd, Georgetown ♦ None GRV 51 4680 Marshall Rd., Garden Valley 24/7/365 Volume I of II Appendix G Page G-2 of G-4 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Historically Station Volunteer Staffing Agency Address Number Station (♦ (2020) ) GRV 52 9751 Hwy 193, Kelsey None GRV 53 3813 Hwy 193, Greenwood None MQT 75 8801 Rock Creek Rd., Placerville ♦ Part-time/Seasonally PIO 31 7960 Grizzly Flat Rd., Somerset 24/7/365 PIO 32 4770 Sandridge Rd., Placerville ♦ Part-time/Seasonally PIO 34 2400 Omo Ranch Rd., Placerville ♦ Part-time/Seasonally PIO 35 4837 Sciarioni Rd., Grizzly Flats ♦ Part-time/Seasonally PIO 36 6100 Leoni Rd., Grizzly Flats ♦ None PIO 37 6021 Omo Ranch Rd., Somerset ♦ Part-time/Seasonally PIO 38 7061 Mt. Aukum Rd., Somerset 24/7/365 RES 81 1722 Lotus Rd., Placerville None RES 83 5221 Deer Valley Rd., Rescue 24/7/365 Source: Agency Response to LAFCO’s Request for Information; Personal communication per agency, Volume I of II Appendix G Page G-3 of G-4 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume I of II Appendix G Page G-4 of G-4 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Appendix H 2020 Fiscal and Deployment Conditions Scores by Fire Agency Volume I of II Appendix H Page H-1 of H-2 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The Agency provides sufficient services to The Agency meet Evaluation meets current and of infrastructure future agency's needs for: 1) 30% or demands capacity facilities less of with: 1) to assist (stations); 2) calls for recruitment; with rolling stock; Staffing service 2) mutual and/or 3) dispatch Meets or Revenues Preventative were aid; and 3) assume systems; and Exceeds Exceed Maintenance 70% of answered water services 4) roadways Minimum Positive Expenditures Measures District by supply for provided for National Net in 17/18 & and Planned Recurring another fire by other emergency Agency Standards Position 18/19 Replacement Revenue agency protection; agencies access Total Score CAM 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 9 Fair DSP 2 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 7 Limited ECF 1 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 8 Limited EDH 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 17 Great GRV 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 Limited GEO 1 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 8 Limited MQT 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 7 Limited PIO 0 1 2 0 2 1 1 1 1 9 Fair RES 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 5 Limited FLL 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 1 0 0 1 Deficient LAV 0 0 2 2 1 N/A 1 1 1 8 Fair MEK 0 0 0 1 2 N/A 1 0 2 6 Limited SLT 2 2 2 1 1 N/A 1 2 1 12 Great Volume I of II Appendix H Page H-2 of H-2 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Appendix I CalPERS Pooled Plans-Funded Status By Applicable Fire Agency June 30, 2019 Volume I of II Appendix I Page I-1 of I-4 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Agency Rate Plan Name Total UAL As of June 30, 2019 Total UAL as of June 30, 2018 Percent Change 2018 - 2019 Miscellaneous $961,336.00 $954,300.00 Safety $1,380,267.00 $1,272,424.00 CAM 5% PEPRA Miscellaneous $13,188.00 $7,389.00 TOTAL $2,354,791.00 $2,234,113.00 Miscellaneous $417,614.00 $402,463.00 Safety $7,473,604.00 $7,196,988.00 PEPRA Safety Fire $64,673.00 $37,391.00 DSP 4% PEPRA Miscellaneous $30.00 $404.00 Safety Fire Second Tier $3,089.00 $2,806.00 TOTAL $7,959,010.00 $7,640,052.00 Miscellaneous $746,194.00 $734,315.00 Safety First Tier $28,289,880.00 $27,266,560.00 Safety Second Tier $89,905.00 $66,604.00 ECF Miscellaneous Third Tier $2,199.00 $2,493.00 4% PEPRA Safety Fire $150,134.00 $86,784.00 PEPRA Miscellaneous $773.00 $1,420.00 TOTAL $29,279,085.00 $28,158,176.00 Miscellaneous $957,832.00 $911,241.00 Safety $20,518,836.00 $19,233,234.00 PEPRA Safety Fire $106,697.00 $66,361.00 PEPRA Miscellaneous $16,910.00 $10,741.00 EDH 7% Safety Second Tier $9,239.00 $42,244.00 Miscellaneous Second $12,964.00 $8,088.00 Tier TOTAL $21,682,478.00 $20,271,909.00 Volume I of II Appendix I Page I-2 of I-4 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Agency Rate Plan Name Total UAL As of June 30, 2019 Total UAL as of June 30, 2018 Percent Change 2018 - 2019 Safety $754,014.00 $718,205.00 Miscellaneous $25,651.00 $25,416.00 GRV PEPRA Safety Fire $31,521.00 $21,434.00 6% PEPRA Miscellaneous $1,069.00 $719.00 TOTAL $812,255.00 $765,774.00 Miscellaneous $276,858.00 $288,576.00 Safety $2,759,480.00 $2,613,498.00 GEO PEPRA Safety Fire $12,237.00 $8,894.00 5% PEPRA Miscellaneous $2,067.00 $1,740.00 TOTAL $3,050,642.00 $2,912,708.00 Miscellaneous $329,168.00 $313,212.00 Safety $10,490,228.00 $9,875,307.00 LAV PEPRA Safety Fire $83,915.00 $54,323.00 6% PEPRA Miscellaneous $4,984.00 $3,967.00 TOTAL $10,908,295.00 $10,246,809.00 Safety $1,986,952.00 $1,885,151.00 Miscellaneous $127,567.00 $121,247.00 PEPRA Safety Fire $9,022.00 $8,058.00 MEK 5% PEPRA Miscellaneous $1.00 $8.00 Safety Fire Second Tier $3,802.00 $3,605.00 TOTAL $2,127,344.00 $2,018,069.00 Miscellaneous $(5,839.00) $(7,783.00) Safety $2,035,321.00 $1,914,747.00 RES 6% Safety Second Tier $(1,017.00) $(955.00) PEPRA Safety Fire $3,882.00 $2,831.00 Volume I of II Appendix I Page I-3 of I-4 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Agency Rate Plan Name Total UAL As of June 30, 2019 Total UAL as of June 30, 2018 Percent Change 2018 - 2019 TOTAL $2,032,347.00 $1,908,840.00 Safety Fire Second Tier $334,642.00 $984,451.00 Safety Fire First Tier $9,092,862.00 $18,279,338.00 SLT Safety Fire Third Tier $31,050.00 $26,520.00 1% PEPRA Safety Fire $36,154.00 $58,558.00 TOTAL $19,494,708.00 $19,348,867.00 Volume I of II Appendix I Page I-4 of I-4 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Appendix J Rolling Stock Resources by Fire Agency Volume I of II Appendix J Page J-1 of J-8 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Water Agency Resource Type Identifier Year Make Capacity Fire Engine – Type 3 CAM E389 2002 NAV/Master 500 Reserve Fire Engine – Type 1 CAM E289 2006 SmealSPARTAN 500 Reserve Fire Engine – Type 1 CAM E288 2006 SmealSPARTAN 500 Reserve CAM Pickup Truck U88 2010 Ford F-150 N/A CAM Pickup Truck U89 2010 Ford F-150 N/A CAM Pickup Truck U289 2010 Ford F-150 N/A Fire Engine – Type 3 CAM E388 2011 NAV/HME 500 Reserve CAM Fire Engine – Type 1 E89 2015 Smeal/SPARTAN 750 CAM Pickup Truck B2715 2019 Ford F-250 N/A CAM Pickup Truck B2705 2019 Ford F-250 N/A CAM Fire Engine – Type 1 E88 2020 Smeal/SPARTAN 750 DSP Type 2 RES 49 2003 HME/1871-SFO N/A DSP Type 2 E-249 2004 International/7400 4x2 500 DSP Type 1 E-46 2006 HEM/Rosenbauer 500 DSP Patrol Vehicle P-44 2008 Ford/F-550 300 KME/Predator Extreme DSP Type 1 E-49 2015 500 Duty DSP Water Tender WT-49 2018 Rosenbauer 2,100 DSP Type 3 E349 2019 Rosenbauer 500 Spartan Quint/105’ DSP Type 1 T-49 N/A Straight Stick Ladder 500 Truck ECF Type 1 (Surplus) WT72 1973 Ford/L 9000 500 Utility Trailer ECF TR27 1973 DAILY/DAILY N/A (Surplus) ECF Breathing Support A72 1980 Ford/F350 2X N/A ECF Type 2 (Surplus) E74 1980 Ford/LN9000 1500 ECF Type 6 (Surplus) P15 1982 GMC/3500 4X4 250 ECF Air Unit (Surplus) A23 1983 Ford/C700 N/A ECF Type 1 (Surplus) E272 1984 Ford/C8000 1250/300 Foam Tender ECF F24 1984 GMS/7000 1000 (Surplus) Water Tender ECF WT72 1984 GMC/BRIGADEER 500 (Surplus) Water Tender ECF WT19 1984 GMC/BRIGADEER 500 (Surplus) Volume I of II Appendix J Page J-2 of J-8 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Water Agency Resource Type Identifier Year Make Capacity ECF Ladder L26 1988 MACK/LTI/ F688FCS N/A ECF Type 1 (Surplus) E228 1989 Ford/C8000 1250/300 ECF Type 6 (Surplus) S15 1989 Ford/Super Duty E-1 250 ECF Water Tender WT28 1990 WTGM/AUTOCAR 1000 ECF Utility Transport U72 1990 Chevrolet/C1500 4X4 N/A Utility Transport ECF U23 1994 Ford/Ranger 4X4 N/A (Surplus) ECF Type 2 (Surplus) E219 1994 FRTLNR/FL80 4X4 1000 ECF Type 6 (Surplus) P21/74 1995 Chevrolet/K3500 4X4 250 Utility Transport ECF U74 1996 Jeep/Cherokee 4X4 N/A (Surplus) ECF Type 1 E23 1999 HME/ 1871 SFO 1250/300 ECF Type 1 (Surplus) E219 1999 HME/1871 SFO 1250 ECF Utility Transport U19 2000 Ford/Expedition 4X4 N/A ECF Utility Trailer TR72 2000 BIG TEX/ATV 5X10 2000 ECF Type 1 E72 2002 HME /1871 SFO 1250/300 ECF Type 1 E74 2002 HME /1871 SFO 1250/300 ECF Type 1 E19 2002 HME/Weststates 1250/300 Utility Transport ECF U28 2002 Ford/Expedition 4X4 N/A (Surplus) Utility Transport ECF U25 2002 Ford/Expedition 4X4 N/A (Surplus) ECF Utility Transport U23 2004 Ford/F350 SD N/A Utility Transport ECF B7706 2004 Ford/Expedition 4X4 N/A (Surplus) ECF Type 1 (Surplus) E17 2004 HME/1871 SFO 4X4 1250/300 ECF Type 1 (Surplus) E74 2004 HME/1871 SFO 1250/300 Utility Transport ECF P7720 2005 Ford/Expedition 4X4 N/A (Surplus) ECF Utility Transport U28 2006 Ford/Expedition 4X4 N/A ECF Type 1 E17 2007 HME /1871 SFO 1500/300 ECF Utility Transport D9 2007 Ford/Expedition 4X4 N/A ECF Utility Transport U21 2007 Ford/F150 4X4 N/A ECF Type 3 E328 2008 IH/SFA 4X4 7400 500/300 ECF Utility Transport U25 2008 Ford/Expedition 4X4 N/A ECF Utility Transport S21 2008 Toyota/Corolla N/A Utility Transport ECF U17 2008 Ford/F450 4X4 N/A (Surplus) ECF Utility Transport 7703 2009 Ford/Expedition 4X4 N/A Volume I of II Appendix J Page J-3 of J-8 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Water Agency Resource Type Identifier Year Make Capacity ECF Type 1 OES 4103 2012 HME/Ahrens-Fox 1250/300 ECF ATV Polaris U228 2013 Polaris/Ranger 800 6X6 120 ECF Type 3 E272 2015 IH/SFA 4X4 7400 500/180 ECF Type 3 E317 2015 IH/SFA 4X4 7400 500/180 ECF Utility Transport U17 2015 Dodge/RAM 4500 4X4 N/A ECF ATV Polaris U272 2015 Polaris/Ranger 570 4X4 N/A ECF Type 1 E26 2016 Pierce/Enforcer 1500 ECF Type 1 E28 2016 Pierce/Enforcer 1500 ECF Type 1 E25 2016 Pierce/Enforcer 1500 ECF Type 6 S21 2016 Ford/F550 4X4 250 ECF Water Tender WT28 2016 FRTLNR/Rosenbauer 500 ECF Utility Transport D2 2016 Chevrolet/Silverado 4X4 N/A ECF Utility Transport D3 2016 Chevrolet/Silverado 4X4 N/A ECF Utility Transport D4 2016 Chevrolet/Silverado 4X4 N/A ECF Utility Transport C7700 2017 Chevrolet/Tahoe 4X4 N/A ECF Utility Transport P7720 2017 Chevrolet/Tahoe 4X4 N/A ECF Breathing Support ATR-23 2018 PACE N/A ECF Utility Trailer FRT23 2018 PACE/Foam 6X10 N/A ECF Utility Transport D5 2019 Chevrolet/Tahoe 4X4 N/A ECF Type 3 E319 Unknown Unknown Unknown HME/Hi-Tech Class “A” EDH Type 1 (Santa Engine) Unknown 1996 600 Pumper HME/Westates Class “A” EDH Type 1 (Reserve) Unknown 2001 500 Pumper EDH Type 1 E-91 2001 HME/Class “A” Pumper 800 EDH Air/Light Support Air-85 2002 International/Hackney N/A Spartan/Ferrara Class “A” EDH Type 1 (Reserve) Unknown 2003 500 Pumper EDH Water Tender WT-41 2003 Frieghtliner/Westates 2,000 EDH Type 3 E-387 2004 International/West-Mark 500 EDH Type 3 E-386 2007 International/West-Mark 500 Spartan/Ferrara Class “A” EDH Type 1 E-86 2007 500 Pumper EDH Water Rescue WR-84 2008 Ford/F-350 N/A Igniter/Ferrara Class “A” EDH Type 1 E-87 2010 500 Pumper Sutphen/100’ Aerial EDH Ladder Truck T-85 2012 300 Platform Volume I of II Appendix J Page J-4 of J-8 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Water Agency Resource Type Identifier Year Make Capacity EDH Type 1 OES-384 2013 HME/Ahrens-Fox 800 EDH Type 1 E-84 2013 KME/Class “A” Pumper 500 EDH Type 6 (Reserve) P-92 2015 Ford/F-550 400 EDH Type 6 P-91 2015 Ford/F-550 400 EDH Ambulance (Reserve) M-285 2015 Ford/Arrow N/A EDH Ambulance M-85 2017 Dodge/Arrow N/A EDH Type 1 E-85 2018 Pierce/Class “A” Pumper 500 FLL Type 1 Engine Unknown 1996 HME/18 Unknown FLL Mini Pumper Unknown 1997 FORD/E-One 300 FLL Type 3 Engine Unknown 2001 BME Unknown FLL Ford Patrol Unknown 2001 PAT9 N/A FLL Fire Boat Unknown 2013 Lake Assault N/A FLL Type 1 Engine Unknown 2015 HME/18 1,250 FLL Type 3 Engine Unknown 2020 BME Unknown FLL Type 3 Engine Unknown 2020 International Unknown GEO Spare/Training Engine Unknown 1991 Hitech 750 GEO Type 6 Brush Truck P61 1999 Chevy /K3500 250 GEO Type 1 Engine E61 2000 HME 800 GEO Utility Vehicle Repair 61 2002 Chevy/K3500 N/A GEO Type 2 Engine E264 2003 Freightliner 500 GEO Type 3 Engine E363 2004 International 500 GEO Type 3 Engine E265 2004 International 500 GEO Type 1 Engine OES4101 2005 HME 800 GEO Converted Ambulance S62 2006 Ford/350 N/A Body for Type 6 GEO B7 2006 Ford/F450 N/A Engine GEO Utility Vehicle U61 2011 Ford/F150 N/A GEO Water Tender WT62 2015 Kenworth 2000 GEO Water Tender WT63 2015 Kenworth 2000 GEO Utility Vehicle C7100 2015 Ford/F250 N/A GEO Type 3 Engine E361 2017 International 500 GRV Type 6 Unknown 1998 GMC 3500 N/A GRV Type 2 Unknown 2003 Ferrerra N/A GRV Pickup Truck Unknown 2005 Chevy N/A GRV Pickup Truck Unknown 2006 Chevy 1500 N/A GRV Pickup Truck Unknown 2006 F-550 N/A Volume I of II Appendix J Page J-5 of J-8 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Water Agency Resource Type Identifier Year Make Capacity GRV Utility Vehicle Unknown 2009 Ford Expedition N/A GRV Utility Vehicle Unknown 2009 Ford Crown Victorian N/A GRV Type 1 Unknown 2011 Ferrera N/A GRV Pickup Truck Unknown 2018 Chevy 2500 HD N/A GRV Type 3 Unknown 2019 BME N/A GRV Utility Vehicle Unknown 2019 Chevy Tahoe N/A LAV Pickup Truck Utility 75 1996 Ford F-350 N/A LAV Type 3 B6 1997 International 500 LAV Type 1 E5 1998 HME/Ferrara 750 LAV Type 6 Squad 7 1999 Ford F-550 300 LAV Pickup Truck Mech 7 1999 Ford F-350 N/A LAV Pickup Truck Plow 7 1999 Ford F-350 N/A LAV Type 3 B7 2003 International 500 LAV Type 1 E6 2005 Ferrara 750 Reserve LAV Pickup Truck 2005 Dodge Dakota N/A BC LAV Pickup Truck Utility 72 2008 Ford F-350 N/A LAV Pickup Truck BC 703 2009 Ford F-350 N/A LAV Type 1 E7 2011 Ferrara 750 LAV Utility Vehicle Chief 2014 Chevy Tahoe N/A LAV Water Tender WT 7 2015 Kenworth 3000 LAV Pickup Truck BC 701 2019 Ford F-250 N/A LAV Pickup Truck BC 702 2019 Ford F-250 N/A MEK Type 1 M-1501 1999 Engine 1000 MEK Utility M-1510 1999 Unknown N/A MEK Utility M-1504 2000 Unknown N/A MEK Utility M-1505 2002 Unknown N/A MEK Type 1 M-1503 2003 Tender 2600 MEK Type 1 M-1512 2017 Unknown 750 MQT Engine E75 Unknown Unknown N/A MQT Engine E275 Unknown Unknown N/A Chief MQT Vehicle Unknown Unknown N/A 7500 MQT Vehicle Command Unknown Unknown N/A MQT Water Tender WT 75 Unknown Unknown N/A MQT Utility Vehicle S75 Unknown Unknown N/A Volume I of II Appendix J Page J-6 of J-8 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Water Agency Resource Type Identifier Year Make Capacity MQT Utility Vehicle U75 Unknown Unknown N/A PIO Water Tender Unknown 1989 Tender 3000 Mini Pumper/Engine PIO N/A Unknown 1992 300 Rescue Squad PIO Type 3 Unknown 1997 Unknown 600 PIO N/A Unknown 1997 Mini Pumper/Engine 300 PIO N/A Unknown 2003 Mini Pumper/Engine 300 PIO Pickup Truck Unknown 2004 Unknown 100 PIO Pickup Truck Unknown 2005 Unknown 100 PIO Type 1 Unknown 2005 Unknown 650 PIO Utility Vehicle Unknown 2006 SUV N/A PIO Pickup Truck Unknown 2010 Unknown N/A PIO Type 1 Unknown 2016 Unknown 650 PIO Type 3 Unknown 2017 Unknown 600 PIO UTV Unknown 2018 Unknown N/A PIO Pickup Truck Unknown 2019 Unknown N/A PIO Water Tender Unknown 2021 Unknown 2400 PIO Pickup Truck Unknown 2021 Unknown N/A RES Type 6 S83 1984 Ford/F-350 (Surplus) N/A RES Dump Truck 78 1987 Ford/F-8000 (Surplus) 1000 Freightliner (Rural fire RES Semi-Truck WT-83 1995 3100 support) RES Type 3 E-381 1999 Westmark/Hale (Reserve) 550 RES Type 1 E-83 2001 HME 800 RES Type 3 E-383 2007 Pierce 542 RES Type 1 N/A 2007 Pierce (Out of Service) N/A RES Utility Vehicle U-83 2007 Chevy/Vortex N/A HME/Central States SLT Type 1 (Unstaffed) E2 1999 750 Pumper, 1500 GPM pump SLT Type 1 (Reserve) E203 2003 HME/Ferrara Pumper 750 SLT Utility Vehicle P1 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe N/A SLT Utility Vehicle U3 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe N/A SLT Pickup Truck S3 2008 Ford 350 N/A International Wildland SLT Type 3 B1 2009 500 Engine International Wildland SLT Type 3 B3 2009 500 Engine Volume I of II Appendix J Page J-7 of J-8 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Water Agency Resource Type Identifier Year Make Capacity Utility Vehicle SLT B3 2011 Chevrolet Tahoe N/A (Reserve) Ferrara Pumper, 1500 SLT Type 1 E1 2014 750 GPM pump SLT Type 1 E3 2017 Pierce, 1500 GPM pump 500 SLT Rescue Boat Marine 17 2018 SAFE Boat 27-foot N/A SLT Utility Vehicle BC 303 2018 Chevrolet Tahoe N/A SLT Utility Vehicle Chief 303 2018 Chevrolet 2500 N/A Pierce 107-foot, 250 GPM SLT Ladder Truck T2 2020 200 pump SLT Utility Vehicle BC 301 2020 Chevrolet 2500 N/A SLT Utility Vehicle BC 302 2020 Chevrolet 2500 N/A Source: Agency’s response to LAFCO’s Request for Information Volume I of II Appendix J Page J-8 of J-8 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Appendix K CEQA Notice of Exemption Volume I of II Appendix K Page K-1 of K-2 Page K-1 of K-2 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update - Final Appendix L Boundary and Sphere of Influence Maps By Agency Volume I of II Appendix L Page L-1 of L-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update - Final Cameron Park Community Services District Boundary for Fire Services Only S t a r b u c k R d . GreenValleyRd. d. R e C k a a m s s L C a e r o B a m n b P r a id r g k e D R d . r . er R d. d Rd. Me d or xf O P a lm e ClubDr. rDr. ntry u o C 50 Rd. Durock Location in County Legend Minor Roads Cameron Park CSD, Fire Services Boundary 0 0.5 1 Miles Service Layer Credits: ESRI, USGS National Map District Boundaries, Roads and Fire Stations from El Dorado County LAFCo. Volume I of II Appendix L Page L-2 of L-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update - Final Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Boundary and Sphere of Influence L o t u s 50 R d GreenValleyRd d R N o r th S h in g le R d S h in g le S p r in g s D r d El M D o or t h a d e o r Lo de Dr F o r ni R d M is V s a o l u le r y i F R la d t R d 49 R nt e s a n a t o Pl e s n e e r G 50 49 d R e n Mi n o i n U Rd Ridge d n a S Legend Minor Roads Diamond Springs FPD Diamond Springs FPD SOI County Boundary Location in County 0 1 2 Miles Service Layer Credits: ESRI, USGS National Map District Boundaries, Roads and Fire Stations from El Dorado County LAFCo. Volume I of II Appendix L Page L-3 of L-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update - Final El Dorado County Fire Protection District 80 Boundary and Sphere of Influence 193 49 50 50 50 88 49 88 Location in County Legend El Dorado County FPD 16 El Dorad oCounty FPD SOI 0 2 4 County Boundary Miles Service Layer Credits: ESRI, USGS National Map District Boundaries, Roads and Fire Stations from El Dorado County LAFCo. Volume I of II Appendix L Page L-4 of L-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update - Final El Dorado Hills County Water District Boundary and SOI 49 LunemanRoad R d. alley Rd. s V F L a k e o n F all D e er D ee r ra n c is c o D r. h ills D r. Mal S c al m omDixonRd. k R d. V a lle y R d . c u GreenValleyRd. b r a tS GreenValleyRd. S E ilv l a D V o a r a lle d y o R H d ills P k . SerranoPrkwy. w y . d. R e k a L s s a B Location in County 50 50 d. R k c o R e hit W L a tro b e R d . BrandonRd. SSAACCRRAAMMEENNTTOO CCOOUUNNTTYY SouthShingleRd. El Dorado Hills CWD El Dorado Hills CWD SOI County AAMMAADDOORR CCOOUUNNTTYY Boundary 0 1 2 Miles 16 Service Layer Credits: ESRI, USGS National Map District Boundaries and Roads from El Dorado County LAFCo. Volume I of II Appendix L Page L-5 of L-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update - Final Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Boundary d R f a e L n e lla F d R al r d e h Fallen Leaf t a C Lake d R R d a f e e g L d n Ri e all o r a F g n A Location in County Legend Roads Fallen Leaf CSD 0 0.5 1 Miles Service Layer Credits: ESRI, USGS National Map District Boundaries, Roads and Fire Stations from El Dorado County LAFCo. Volume I of II Appendix L Page L-6 of L-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update - Final Garden Valley Fire Protection District Boundary and Sphere of Influence dd.. RR ee nn MMii eerr gg SSllii . dd. GG RR rree ee nnwwooooddRRdd.. ee nn b i b i MM aarr 193 yy aa GGrr dd.. MMaarr ss hh aallll RR GG aa rr dd ee nn VV aa ll ll ee yy RR 49 dd .. 49 RRoocckkCCrreeeekkRRdd.. Location in County Legend 50 Minor Roads Garden Valley FPD Garden Valley FPD SOI 0 1 2 County Boundary Miles Service Layer Credits: ESRI, USGS National Map District Boundaries, Roads and Fire Stations from El Dorado County LAFCo. Volume I of II Appendix L Page L-7 of L-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update - Final Location in County Georgetown Fire Protection District Boundary and Sphere of Influence VolcanovilleRd. SS li l g ig ee rr MM ii nn ee RRdd.. R d. d. S panish D ry D ig g in s M a m el u k e Hill G e o rgia S lid e B r e e dl o v e R Went w ort h S prin gs Rd. W e n tw o rth S p rin gs R d . R R d . d . R o c k C re e k R d . 193 Legend Minor Roads Georgetown FPD Georgetown FPD SOI County Boundary 0 1 2 Miles Service Layer Credits: ESRI, USGS National Map District Boundaries, Roads and Fire Stations from El Dorado County LAFCo. Volume I of II Appendix L Page L-8 of L-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update - Final Lake Valley Fire Protection District Boundary 89 d Blv oe h a T e k a L Trail er e S a w m Pi o n illRd 50 89 yy tt nn uu CC oo tt yy nn oo uu dd oo aa CC oo rr ee DD nn Location in County EE ll ll pp ii AA Legend Minor Roads Lake Valley FPD 0 1 2 County Boundary Miles Service Layer Credits: ESRI, USGS National Map District Boundaries, Roads and Fire Stations from El Dorado County LAFCo. Volume I of II Appendix L Page L-9 of L-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update - Final Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Boundary 89 Lake Tahoe 89 Location in County Legend Minor Roads Meeks Bay FPD 0 0.5 1 County Boundary Miles Service Layer Credits: ESRI, USGS National Map District Boundaries, Roads and Fire Stations from El Dorado County LAFCo. Volume I of II Appendix L Page L-10 of L-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update - Final M o s Mosquito Fire Protectionq District u ito MosquitoRd Bounda M o r sq yuito Rd R d R o c k C reekRd squitoR d o M Rd RockCreek d R o uit q Mo s Legend Minor Roads Mosquito FPD d R k e e r C Location in County k c o R Rd o uit q s o M 0 0.5 1 Miles Service Layer Credits: ESRI, USGS National Map District Boundaries, Roads and Fire Stations from El Dorado County LAFCo Volume I of II Appendix L Page L-11 of L-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update - Final 50 Pioneer Fire Protection District 50 EELL DDOORRAADDOO CCOOUUNNTTYY Boundary and Sphere of Influence G d rizzlyFlatRd R d Sand RidgeRd A u k u m R o rt h S o ut h Mt PerryCreekRd N FairplayRd Slug G u lc h Rd O 49 m o R a n c h Rd AAMMAADDOORR CCOOUUNNTTYY Location in County 88 Legend Minor Roads Pioneer FPD Pioneer FPD SOI CCAALLAAVVEERRAASS CCOOUUNNTTYY 0 2 4 County Boundary Miles Service Layer Credits: ESRI, USGS National Map District Boundaries, Roads and Fire Stations from El Dorado County LAFCo. Volume I of II Appendix L Page L-12 of L-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update - Final Rescue Fire Protection District Boundary man Rd. G o Lune ld H iill d. R d R . s ll a F n J u o rg m e n al s R S d . .d R s u t o L d. R y Valle eer D D ee r V a lle y R d . .d R N k c o r t u h b r a tS GreenValleyRd. S h in g P le o n R d d G e . reenValleyRd. r o s a R d . d. R C am a k e C e ro L a n s m P s b a B a rid g e rk D r. R d . Location in County 50 Legend Minor Roads Rescue FPD 0 1 2 Miles Service Layer Credits: ESRI, USGS National Map District Boundaries, Roads and Fire Stations from El Dorado County LAFCo. Volume I of II Appendix L Page L-13 of L-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update - Final City of South Lake Tahoe Boundary and Sphere of Lake Tahoe Influence 50 89 d v Bl e o h a T e k a L ail Tr er e S n a w P i o m illRd 89 Legend SLT Boundary SLT SOI Minor Roads County Boundary 50 Location in County 89 0 1 2 Miles Service Layer Credits: ESRI, USGS National Map District Boundaries, Roads and Fire Stations from El Dorado County LAFCo. Volume I of II Appendix L Page L-14 of L-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update - Final County Service Area 3 Boundary 80 89 49 50 193 49 El Dorado County FPD 89 50 89 50 49 Legend 88 CSA 3 Boundary County Boundaries 0 2 4 8 Boundaries from El Dorado County LAFCo. 16 Miles Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, DeLorme, USGS, NPS Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA Volume I of II Appendix L Page L-15 of L-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update - Final County Service Area 7 Boundary 80 89 49 50 193 49 El Dorado County FPD 89 50 89 50 49 Legend 88 CSA 7 Boundary County Boundaries 0 2 4 8 Boundaries from El Dorado County LAFCo. 16 Miles Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, DeLorme, USGS, NPS Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA Volume I of II Appendix L Page L-16 of L-16