Volume II - Agency MSRs

El Dorado Local Agency Formation Commission FINAL Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update Agency Municipal Service Reviews Volume II of II Approved April 27, 2022 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page left intentionally blank. Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table of Contents Volume II of II – (this volume) Chapter 1: Fire and Emergency Medical Services Agency MSR General Information ............................... 1-1 Chapter 2: Cameron Park Community Services District (CAM) .................................................................. 2-1 Chapter 3: Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District (DSP) ...................................................... 3-1 Chapter 4: El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF) ...................................................................... .4-1 Chapter 5: El Dorado Hills County Water District (EDH)............................................................................. 5-1 Chapter 6: Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District (FLL) .................................................................. 6-1 Chapter 7: Garden Valley Fire Protection District (GRV) ............................................................................ 7-1 Chapter 8: Georgetown Fire Protection District (GEO) .............................................................................. 8-1 Chapter 9: Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LAV) ................................................................................. 9-1 Chapter 10: Meeks Bay Fire Protection District (MEK)............................................................................. 10-1 Chapter 11: Mosquito Fire Protection District (MQT) .............................................................................. 11-1 Chapter 12: Pioneer Fire Protection District (PIO) ................................................................................... 12-1 Chapter 13: Rescue Fire Protection District (RES) .................................................................................... 13-1 Chapter 14: City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue (SLT)...........................................................................14-1 Chapter 15: County Service Area (CSA) 3 and CSA 7 ................................................................................ 15-1 Appendices Appendix A: Financial Tables by Agency .................................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B: Dispatch Call Types ................................................................................................................ B-1 Volume I of II – Main Report (separately bound) Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page left intentionally blank. Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Chapter 1. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Agency MSR General Information In order to reduce duplicative information in each agency Municipal Service Review (MSR) Chapter, summary information pertinent to specific sections within each MSR are detailed here. Information presented in this chapter is in the same organizational structure as the MSR Chapters for each agency with corresponding headings and subheadings for ease of reference in those sections in which additional information is needed. Therefore, not every corresponding heading and subheading can be found in this chapter. For information on the MSR/SOI Update process and an introduction to the County of El Dorado fire protection and emergency medical services agencies and El Dorado LAFCO, please refer to Volume I – Chapter 3, Introduction. Table of Contents Chapter 1. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Agency MSR General Information .......... 1-1 1.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................1-3 1.2 Governance and Accountability .......................................................................................1-3 1.2.1 Special District Board ..............................................................................................1-3 Political Reform Act ....................................................................................................................... 1-3 Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005)................................................................................................. 1-4 Government Code 53237 et. seq. .................................................................................................. 1-4 1.2.2 Accountability and Transparency .............................................................................1-4 Brown Act ...................................................................................................................................... 1-4 Special District Transparency Act (SB 929) .................................................................................... 1-5 1.2.3 Staffing and Training ...............................................................................................1-5 National Fire Protection Association ............................................................................................. 1-5 NFPA 1710 Standard ...................................................................................................................... 1-5 NFPA 1720 Standard ...................................................................................................................... 1-6 California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal OSHA) ............................................... 1-7 Wages ............................................................................................................................................ 1-8 1.3 Growth and Population Forecasts ....................................................................................1-8 1.3.1 General Information for the County of El Dorado .....................................................1-9 1.3.2 Open Space and Wildland Fires ...............................................................................1-9 Fire Hazard Severity Zones ............................................................................................................ 1-9 Wildland Urban Interface ............................................................................................................ 1-10 1.3.3 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ........................................................ 1-12 1.4 Public Services and Infrastructure.................................................................................. 1-12 1.4.1 Dispatch Data ....................................................................................................... 1-12 CAL FIRE Camino ECC Data Analysis ............................................................................................ 1-13 Volume II of II Fire Agency MSR General Information Page 1-1 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final South Lake Tahoe Dispatch Center Data Analysis ....................................................................... 1-13 CAL FIRE Grass Valley ECC Data Analysis ..................................................................................... 1-14 1.4.2 Response Time Data.............................................................................................. 1-14 1.5 References .................................................................................................................... 1-16 Volume II of II Fire Agency MSR General Information Page 1-2 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 1.1 Overview The Municipal Service Review Chapters for each agency discusses the service delivery and efficiency, including an analysis and a written statement of conclusions, 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 and Research (OPR) as set forth in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH Act), and they fall into seven categories as listed below: 1. Growth and population projections for the fire agency service area; 2. Disadvantaged unincorporated communities; 3. Present and planned capacity of public facilities; 4. Financial ability of the agency to provide services; 5. Opportunities for shared facilities; 6. Accountability for government service needs; and 7. Any other matter related to service delivery as required by policy of El Dorado LAFCO. El Dorado LAFCO has added: ‘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. The specific determinations for each fire agency and the key facts that support each determination are discussed within the subsequent sections of each agency’s MSR Chapter. The majority of information included in each agency’s MSR chapter was provided to consultants by personnel for each agency in response to consultant’s Request for Information (RFI) in September 2020 and through interviews conducted with agency staff between September and December 2020. District boundary and Sphere of Influence (SOI) information were calculated using GIS data provided to consultants from El Dorado LAFCO. All GIS data provided by LAFCO is the property of, and maintained by, the County of El Dorado Surveyor’s Office. Total acres, square miles, and number of assessors parcels were calculated using GIS data from the County of El Dorado Surveyor’s Office. 1.2 Governance and Accountability 1.2.1 Special District Board In California, elected members of special district boards of directors are required to comply with the Political Reform Act, Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005), and Government Code 53237 et. seq. In addition to the required trainings listed below, elected board members should develop competency in the following: Governance Foundations; Setting Direction/Community Leadership; Board’s Role in Human Resources; and Board’s Role in Finance and Fiscal Accountability. Political Reform Act This Act applies to financial conflicts of interest. Public officials must disclose all personal economic interests. Special district officials are affected through their respective district’s conflict of interest Volume II of II Fire Agency MSR General Information Page 1-3 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final code/policies that a district is required to have by law. Therefore, public officials are required to file a “Statement of Economic Interests” with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC, 2021). Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005) Local government officials are required to take ethics training every two years, with a requirement that they take their first training no later than one year after they start their first day of service with the district. Government Code Section 53235 et. seq., states that ethics trainings must cover laws related to conflicts of interest, gifts, reimbursements, government transparency, and fair processes, including but not limited to incompatible offices and competitive bidding practices. The requirements of AB 1234 apply to elected or appointed officials who are compensated for their service or reimbursed for their expenses (Institute for Local Government, 2012). Government Code 53237 et. seq. Sexual harassment prevention training is mandated by Government Code 53237 et. seq., which was enacted by AB 1661 (McCarty) in 2016. Special district board members must receive the required two- hour training within the first six months of taking office, and then at least once every two years thereafter. All sexual harassment prevention trainings must include practical guidance regarding the federal and state statutory provisions concerning the prohibition against, and the prevention and correction of, sexual harassment and the remedies available to victims. The training includes practical examples aimed at instructing the board member in the prevention of sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation (California Legislative Information, 2016). 1.2.2 Accountability and Transparency Brown Act The State Legislature updated the Brown Act in 2016 as described in Government Code §54954.2 (See also Assembly Bill 2257). These new Brown Act requirements prescribe the methods and location by which an agenda must be accessible on an agency’s website for all meetings. The law allows two options for compliance: 1) an agency that maintains a website must post a direct link to the current agenda on its primary homepage. The link may not be placed in a “contextual menu,” such as a drop-down tab, that would require a user to perform an action to reveal the agenda link. Additionally, the agenda must be downloadable and electronically searchable by common internet browsers. Agendas must also be available to the public free of charge and without restrictions. 2) an agency may implement an “integrated agenda management platform,” providing a dedicated webpage that provides the necessary agenda information. The most current agenda must be located at the top of the page. Although the agenda does not need to be posted on the homepage, there must be a link to the webpage containing the agenda information. Again, this link may not be hidden in a contextual menu. Volume II of II Fire Agency MSR General Information Page 1-4 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Gavin Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency for California on March 4, 2020. On March 17, 2020, Governor Newsome issued Executive Order N-29-20 suspending parts of the Brown Act that require in-person attendance of Board members and citizens at public meetings provided that notice and accessibility requirements are met; the public members are allowed to observe and address the legislative body at the meeting; and that a legislative body of a local agency has a procedure for receiving and swiftly resolving requests for reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities; as specified. Effective October 1, 2021, AB 361 allows local legislative bodies to continue to allow remote meetings during a proclaimed state of emergency, if “state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing.” Each agency’s decision to allow for teleconferencing during the COVID 19 pandemic is detailed in the Brown Act section of each agency’s MSR Chapter. Special District Transparency Act (SB 929) A new state law called the Special District Transparency Act (SB 929 or California Government Code, §6270.6 and 53087.8) aims to improve information transparency by local government agencies by requiring that special districts have a functional website prior to January 1st, 2020. The Act requires a district website to list contact information and also suggests that agendas and minutes, budgets and financial statements, compensation reports, and other relevant public information and documents be posted to the website. A district may exempt itself from the law by adopting a resolution by a majority vote of its governing body including findings regarding any hardships that prevents the district from establishing or maintaining a website. Such resolution must be adopted annually as long as the hardship exists. 1.2.3 Staffing and Training National Fire Protection Association The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is a global self-funded non-profit organization, established in 1896, devoted to eliminating death, injury, property and economic loss due to fire, electrical and related hazards. NFPA delivers information and knowledge through more than 300 consensus codes and standards, research, training, education, outreach and advocacy; and by partnering with others who share an interest in furthering their mission to help save lives and reduce loss with information, knowledge and passion. The NFPA codes and standards are designed to minimize the risk and effects of fire by establishing criteria for building, processing, design, service, and installation around the world. The more than 250 technical committees, comprised of approximately 9,000 volunteers, review public inputs and vote on the revisions in a process that is accredited by the American National Standards Institute (NFPA, 2021). NFPA 1710 Standard The NFPA 1710 Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments, 2020 was used by consultants to review staffing levels for 10 of the 13 fire agencies in in the County. This document provides recommendations for the minimum requirements that career fire departments should meet, including their organizational structure and how they operate. The NFPA 1710 Annex C, C.5 recommends Company Staffing (Crew Size) On Duty as follows: Volume II of II Fire Agency MSR General Information Page 1-5 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • Engine: 4 minimum • High-volume/geographic restrictions: 5 minimum • Tactical hazard dense urban area: 6 minimum • Truck: 4 minimum • High-volume/geographic restrictions: 5 minimum • Tactical hazard dense urban area: 6 minimum (Source: NFPA, 2020a) Consultants considered standard staffing for agencies in the County at 4 firefighters on an engine or truck company as the (4-0) staffing model in each MSR Chapter (NFPA, 2020a). Additional discussions of lower staffing levels are indicated as (3-0) staffing model, 3 firefighters on an engine or truck company; (2-0) staffing model, 2 firefighters on an engine or truck company; and (1-0) staffing model, 1 firefighter on an engine or truck company. According to California Division of Occupational Health and Safety (Cal OSHA) requirements, the U.S. Department of Commerce: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), and research conducted at San Diego State University, lower staffing levels are dangerous for firefighting personnel as well as residents. Having fewer firefighters on an engine reduces the ability for the unit to respond and requires waiting for mutual or automatic aid in order to meet Cal OSHA standards. In general, 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. For example, a (4-0) staffing model operating on a low-hazard structure fire completed laddering and ventilation (for life safety and rescue) 30 percent faster than the (2-0) staffing model and 25 percent faster than the (3-0) staffing model. The (3-0) staffing model started and completed a primary search and rescue 25 percent faster than the (2-0) model. The (4-0) and (5-0) model started and completed a primary search six percent faster than the (3-0) model and 30 percent faster than the (2-0) model. For this research, a 10 percent difference was equivalent to just over one minute of time for primary search and rescue operations. The (2-0) staffing took 57 seconds longer than (3-0) staffing models to stretch hose line and took 87 seconds longer than (4-0) staffing models (Rahn, Ph.D., 2010; NIST, 2010; Cal OES, 2020; Cal OSHA, 2021). These studies and research demonstrate that, though (3-0) staffing is less efficient and less safe for firefighters than (4-0) or (5-0) staffing models, it is more efficient and safer for firefighters than a (2-0) staffing model. It is very difficult for fire agencies in the County of El Dorado to meet NFPA 1710 standard recommendations due to limited revenue. Through research outlined above 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. An article written by IAFF Local 3556 in June 2021 can be found in Volume I – Appendix C. This article details the difficulties firefighting personnel in the County face with limited staffing levels. NFPA 1720 Standard Three fire agencies operating in the County identify as meeting the NFPA definition of a Volunteer and Combination Fire Department as outlined in NFPA Standard 1720, a different designation than a career fire department under NFPA 1710. NFPA 1720 sets standards for the minimum number of firefighters to Volume II of II Fire Agency MSR General Information Page 1-6 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final respond based on population for combination fire departments, meaning a combination of career and volunteer personnel. Staffing and response time under NFPA 1720 is based on demographics and the minimum number of staff to respond within a specified number of minutes a certain percentage of the time. Figure 1-1 is an image of the table shown in NFPA 1720 (NFPA, 2020b). Figure 1-1: Staffing and Response Time for NFPA Standard 1720 Though the three agencies identified under NFPA 1720 are recommended to meet those benchmarks listed in Figure 1-1, staff or board members of these agencies provided to consultants the staffing models employed by these agencies. Consultants provided the staffing model as well as the information relevant to NFPA 1720 in those three agency’s MSR Chapters. California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal OSHA) The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal OSHA), protects and improves the health and safety of working men and women in California, and the safety of passengers riding on elevators, amusement rides, and tramways – through the following activities: • Setting and enforcing standards; • Providing outreach, education, and assistance; and • Issuing permits, licenses, certifications, registrations, and approvals. California OSHA sets requirements for interior structural firefighting as described under §5144(g)(4): (A) At least two employees enter the IDLH1 atmosphere and remain in visual or voice contact with one another at all times; (B) At least two employees are located outside the IDLH atmosphere; and 1 Under §5144(b): Immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH) means an atmosphere that poses an immediate threat to life, would cause irreversible adverse health effects, or would impair an individual's ability to escape from a dangerous atmosphere. Volume II of II Fire Agency MSR General Information Page 1-7 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final (C) All employees engaged in interior structural firefighting use SCBAs2. Under OSHA requirements, at least 4 employees are needed to engage in interior structural firefighting. It is noted that firefighters can perform emergency rescue activities before the required number of employees is available (OSHA, 2021). Wages Salaries and other payments to agency staff and board members were queried from the Transparent California database or from the California State Controllers website. Transparent California is provided by the Nevada Policy Research Institute as a public service and is dedicated to providing accurate, comprehensive, and easily searchable information on the compensation of public employees in California. Complete and accurate information is necessary to increase public understanding of government and help decision makers, including elected officials and voters, make informed decisions (Transparent California, 2021). In 2010, the State Controller's Office (SCO) created the Government Compensation in California (GCC) website to enhance government transparency and provide a single statewide database that is accessible by anyone at any time. At first, the SCO collected government compensation data as a component of the financial transaction reports from cities, counties, and special districts under the authority of Government Code Sections 53891 and 53892. In 2015, the Legislature explicitly authorized SCO to collect compensation data. The SCO is required to publish the information on its website under the authority of Government Code Section 12463. The GCC website contains pay and benefit information for positions in cities, counties, special districts, and state government, including California State University (CSU). SCO posts the information as it was reported by each public employer, and does not audit for accuracy (SCO, 2021). 1.3 Growth and Population Forecasts Existing population for each agency was estimated using population data from the California Department of Finance (DOF). An average number of persons per parcel for the County of El Dorado was determined. Using an average number of persons per parcel of 1.67, the estimated number of persons per fire agency was calculated using this average multiplied by the number of parcels in the agency’s boundary. Consultants also provided a calculation for the SOI if applicable and the percentage of the agency’s population in relation to the total County population in 2019. In addition, the number of registered voters was provided if available from the El Dorado LAFCO website under each agencies page, “More Details,” found here: https://www.edlafco.us/special-districts-info. Projecting future population for a fire agency is complicated due to census tracts that do not match agency boundaries. There are multiple ways to calculate population estimates. For purposes of the MSR Chapters, consultants utilized data from the DOF. The DOF provides population projections at the County level. The DOF Demographic Research Unit is responsible by statute for maintaining population projections which are calculated using the demographic balancing equation: 2 Under §5144(b): Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) means an atmosphere-supplying respirator for which the breathing air source is designed to be carried by the user. Volume II of II Fire Agency MSR General Information Page 1-8 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Current Population = Previous Population + (Births - Deaths) + Net Migration This method calculates the population in the target year by starting with the population from the previous year, adding natural increase (births minus deaths) and net migration that occurred between the two years. It should be noted that these projections were published before the COVID-19 pandemic and do not reflect any possible effects on future economic and demographic trends. More information on DOF’s population project methodology can be found at the DOF website: https://www.dof.ca.gov/forecasting /demographics/projections/documents/Projections_Methodology.pdf. Consultants used the estimated growth rate for the County of El Dorado to extrapolate population growth rates for each agency. Consultants divided the existing population in each agency by the population in the County of 193,227 persons from DOF. This provided the estimated percentage of the population of the County that is in the fire agency. Using the estimated percentage of the existing population for the agency in the County, consultants multiplied this percentage by the estimated growth rate projections for the County as a whole. This produced the estimated population increase for each fire agency from 2020 to 2040 in five-year increments. 1.3.1 General Information for the County of El Dorado The County of El Dorado was one of the original 27 California counties, created on February 18, 1850, some two years after gold was discovered at Sutter’s Mill on the South Fork of the American River. Within the County of El Dorado, the median age in 2018 was 46.6 years, placing the County in the category of one of the oldest counties in the United States. As people age, medical and physical related complications rise, leading to increased levels of service for ambulances and fire responses to medical emergencies. 1.3.2 Open Space and Wildland Fires The protection of agricultural resources and open space is one of LAFCO’s key purposes as noted in the CKH Act. This section provides information relevant to open space areas throughout the County and their relationship to the potential for wildland fires. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Under California State Law, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is the emergency response and resource protection department for the State. CAL FIRE protects lives, property, and natural resources from fire, responds to emergencies of all types and protects and preserves timberlands, wildlands, and urban forests throughout the State. CAL FIRE is mandated to identify the severity of fire hazard statewide through the use of Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) based on factors such as fuel, slope of the land and fire weather. There are three levels of Fire Hazard Severity Zones based on increasing fire hazard: Moderate, High, and Very High. Each parcel is assigned a specific FHSZ through computer modeling that evaluates land area using characteristics that affect the probability the area will burn and the potential fire behavior that could be expected should the area burn in a wildfire. Some characteristics considered include: fire history; existing and potential fuel; flame length; blowing embers; terrain; and typical weather for the area. The modeling evaluates the “hazard” and not the “risk.” Hazard reflects the physical conditions that cause damage and is calculated based on the physical conditions and likelihood that an area will burn in the future, the heat produced when it does burn, and a prediction of Volume II of II Fire Agency MSR General Information Page 1-9 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final the embers that spread the fire. CAL FIRE uses this model to create a spatial map identifying areas of each FHSZ (CAL FIRE, 2021). For purposes of this MSR, each fire service agency section includes a map depicting the extent of the FHSZ within each agency’s boundary from GIS data available to the public through CAL FIRE’s website. Wildland Urban Interface The Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) is a term used by CAL FIRE to qualitatively describe an area where human made structures and infrastructure are in or adjacent to areas prone to wildfire. WUI areas are of interest to fire protection agencies because these types of areas often see higher fire protection costs. CAL FIRE has mapped the WUI for the entire State. The map below is an excerpt from the statewide map showing three WUI Categories: 1) Intermix, 2) Interface and 3) Influence Zone. The WUI uses housing density classes as part of the designations. Housing Density Classes for WUI definitions are described below. Housing density class 1 would be considered the most rural while class 4 would be the most urban. • Housing Density Class definitions: o 1 – Less than one house per 20 acres. o 2 – One house per 20 acres to one house per 5 acres. o 3 – More than one house per 5 acres to 1 house per acre. o 4 – More than 1 house per acre. In order to be placed within one of the three WUI categories, parcels must meet specific criteria as described below. • Intermix: is housing development interspersed in an area dominated by wildland vegetation subject to wildfire and must meet these criteria: o Not in the Interface category; o Housing density class 2; o Housing density class 3, or 4 dominated by wildland vegetation; o In Moderate, High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone; o Improved parcels only; and o Spatially contiguous groups of 30m cells 25 acres and larger • Interface: is dense housing adjacent to vegetation that can burn in a wildfire and must meet these criteria: o Housing density class 2, 3 or 4; o In Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone; o Not dominated by wildland vegetation (i.e., lifeform not herbaceous, hardwood, conifer, or shrub); and o Spatially contiguous groups of 30m cells that are 10 acres and larger. • Influence Zone: is wildfire susceptible vegetation up to 1.5 miles from Wildland Urban Interface or Wildland Urban Intermix and must meet these criteria: o Wildland vegetation up to 1.5 miles from Interface or Intermix. The west slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains (including the western portion of the County of El Dorado) is significantly covered by the WUI designation as shown in Figure 1-2. The County of El Dorado contains Volume II of II Fire Agency MSR General Information Page 1-10 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final a total of 83,563 dwelling units. Of those, 47,715 dwelling units (57.1%) are located in a “Very High” or “High” fire risk area (CA DOI, 2017). CAL FIRE also produced a Communities at Risk dataset to identify communities which have some lands at high risk of house/structure damage from wildfire. These high-risk communities are within the wildland- urban interface, that is, the area where homes are close enough to wildland vegetation to be within fire’s reach, defined here as within 0.5 to 1.5 miles of areas of High or Very High wildfire threat (determined from CDF-FRAP fuels and hazard data). There are several communities in El Dorado County that are identified as being at risk. Figure 1-3 shows the approximate locations of those communities throughout the County identified with black location dots. The communities are: • Cameron Park • Omo Ranch • Cool • Outingdale • Coloma • Pilot Hill Estates • Diamond Springs • Placerville • El Dorado Hills • Pleasant Valley • Georgetown • Pollock Pines • Glenridge • Rubicon • Grizzly Flat • Shingle Springs • Kelsey • South Lake Tahoe • Latrobe • Tahoma • Meeks Bay/Tahoe Hills Figure 1-2: Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) for the County of El Dorado Volume II of II Fire Agency MSR General Information Page 1-11 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 1-3: Approximate Locations for Communities at Risk 1.3.3 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities A Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) is an unincorporated area of a County in which the annual median household income (MHI) is less than 80 percent of the statewide MHI. The statewide annual median household income (MHI) in California for the year 2018 was $71,228 (U.S. Census, 2018). The year 2018 is utilized as the baseline year because it is the most recent year for which numerical and spatial (GIS) data is available. Eighty percent of the statewide MHI (2018) equals $56,982, the threshold used to determine which geographic areas qualify for classification as disadvantaged communities in each MSR Chapter. The DUC analysis used Census Block Groups to determine DUCs because this level of analysis provides the most uniform income data available statewide. Data for this report was taken from the 2014- 2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates at the census block group level from the Department of Water Resources Disadvantaged Communities Mapping Tool (DWR, 2021). 1.4 Public Services and Infrastructure 1.4.1 Dispatch Data LAFCO staff directed consultants to request dispatch data for all fire agencies analyzed in this report directly from each dispatch center: CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center (Camino ECC) for the West Slope agencies; South Lake Tahoe Dispatch Center for the agencies in the Tahoe Basin; and CAL FIRE Grass Valley Emergency Command Center (Grass Valley ECC) for Meeks Bay Fire Protection District. Volume II of II Fire Agency MSR General Information Page 1-12 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final CAL FIRE Camino ECC Data Analysis For the West Slope fire agencies and JPA medic units, consultants received raw dispatch data from CAL FIRE Camino ECC (Camino ECC) for the years 2010 to 2019 in the form of reports named Agency Report by Unit and by Station and Ambulance Responses, 2010-2019. Camino ECC informed consultants that the data for each agency included responses by all apparatus or vehicles at all stations for the years requested and agency requested, except for the ambulances. They also include incidents occurring both within and outside of each agency boundary that the agency resources responded to. The ambulance response information was provided to consultants in a separate report (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020a). In order to determine the number of unique incidents per agency in 2019, consultants removed duplicated incident numbers as directed by Camino ECC. Because the data included all apparatus or vehicles responding to incidents, there were duplicates of incident numbers depending on the number of resources that responded. With duplicated incident numbers removed, consultants then categorized the incidents by type within each agency’s report based on the Camino Interagency Command Center Approved Call Types. The Camino Interagency Command Center Approved Call Types can be found in Appendix K. Appendix B shows the corresponding categories for the grouped call types. Consultants also categorized the ambulances using the same method. Consultants grouped these call types into eight categories: 1) Assistance, 2) Other, 3) Medical, 4) Fire, 5) Hazard, and 6) Traffic Collision. The “Other” incident type includes mutual or automatic aid engine coverage for other fire agencies, aircraft down, arson, investigations, rescues, extractions, medical transfers, miscellaneous, radio and phone system failures, staffing pattern, call transfers, as well as other similar service types. The “Assistance” incident type includes public agency work such as protests and demonstrations, assisting with a water leak, assisting with an animal, assisting with an alarm or lockout, elevator rescue, physically assisting in lifting a person, and assisting with search and rescue. Some agency’s incident numbers that are published in annual reports do not directly match those provided by consultants in this report. This may be due to a number of factors. It is likely that agencies with ambulances include those incidents in their overall agency incident numbers. For this report, ambulances were separately analyzed, which could account for discrepancies. Also, data that consultants received from CAL FIRE Camino ECC included incidents occurring both within and outside of each agency’s jurisdiction that the agency resources responded to. Consultants used the data set with duplicated incidents removed and incident types categorized as described above to produce data tables that allowed for the creation of the graphs and pie charts seen in each agency’s MSR Chapter. All West Slope agency’s dispatch reports from CAL FIRE Camino ECC were analyzed the same by consultants. South Lake Tahoe Dispatch Center Data Analysis Dispatch data from the South Lake Tahoe Dispatch Center (SLT Dispatch) was sent to consultants in the form of Crystal Reports files. These files were not immediately useable by consultants and had to be exported into a usable data format. Once each Crystal Report file was converted, the data was combined into one file for all three fire agencies (SLT, LAV, and FLL). Call type reference codes were provided to consultants by the dispatch center via email. The data included all call types, including call types for law enforcement. Consultants removed law enforcement call types for the incident analysis for 2019. Appendix B shows the corresponding call type categorize with law enforcement call types removed. Volume II of II Fire Agency MSR General Information Page 1-13 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Consultants grouped the call types into nine categories: 1) Assistance, 2) Fire, 3) Hazard, 4) Medical, 5) Mutual Aid, 6) Other, 7) Rescue, 8) Traffic Collision, and 9) Transfer. These categories are the same as the West Slope, except Mutual Aid is added. All agencies utilizing SLT Dispatch were analyzed the same by consultants. CAL FIRE Grass Valley ECC Data Analysis For Meeks Bay Fire Protection District, consultants received raw dispatch data from CAL FIRE Grass Valley ECC (Grass Valley ECC) for the years 2010 to 2019 in the form of Incident Report by Agency & Final Type (MEK, 2009-2019) and Resource Activity Report (MEKM61) (Grass Valley ECC, 2020). Consultants combined the data from the two reports into one Excel document. This combined data included responses by all apparatus or vehicles at the MEK Fire Station for the years requested including the medic unit for MEK. The medic unit was included in the analysis for MEK because the ambulance service MEK provides is through North Tahoe Fire Protection District in Placer County and was not analyzed separately as part of this MSR/SOI Update. Consultants categorized the incidents by type based on the Camino Interagency Command Center Approved Call Types and the additional call types provided by Grass Valley ECC. The Camino Interagency Command Center Approved Call Types can be found in Appendix K. Appendix B shows the corresponding categories for the grouped call types from Grass Valley and Camino ECC. 1.4.2 Response Time Data The County of El Dorado does not have response time standards for existing fire protection services. The County does however, 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 General Plan Policy 5.1.2.4 explains that service standards are different between Rural Centers and Rural Regions and Community Regions based on the lower intensity and density of land use in Rural Centers and Rural Regions when compared to Community Regions. 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. 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. In addition, multiple agency fire chiefs informed consultants that Camino ECC does not have the ability to Volume II of II Fire Agency MSR General Information Page 1-14 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final track turnout time and other needed elements to define definitive numbers to measure true response times. Therefore, consultants reviewed average response times per year for each fire agency within each agency’s MSR Chapter. The response time data did not include inter-facility transfer (IFT), auto/mutual aid, and strike team/overhead. A more detailed analysis of response time data for the County overall can be found in Volume I – Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. Volume II of II Fire Agency MSR General Information Page 1-15 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 1.5 References California Department of Industrial Relations – Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal OSHA). §5144. respiratory protection. California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 5144. Respiratory Protective Equipment. Available online at https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/5144.html. California Department of Insurance (CA DOI). December 2017. The Availability and Affordability of Coverage for Wildfire Loss in Residential Property Insurance in the Wildland-Urban Interface and Other High-Risk Areas of California: CDI Summary and Proposed Solutions. Available online at: https://www.ccfd.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/CA-Availability-and-Affordability-of-WUI- Coverage.pdf. California Department of Water Resources (DWR). Disadvantaged Communities Mapping Tool. Available online at: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/dacs/. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2021. Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Available online at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planning-engineering/wildfire- prevention-engineering/fire-hazard-severity-zones/. CAL FIRE Camino ECC. October 2020a. CAL FIRE Camino ECC Dispatch Data. Received October 2020. CAL FIRE Grass Valley ECC. 2020. CAL FIRE Grass Valley ECC Dispatch Data. Received November 2020. California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). The Political Reform Act. Available online at: https://www.fppc.ca.gov/the-law/the-political-reform-act.html. California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) FIRESCOPE. April 2020. Drawdown Consideration for Fire Agencies. Incident Command System Publication - MACS 408. Available online at: https://firescope.caloes.ca.gov/ICS%20Documents/MACS%20408.pdf. California Legislative Information. 2021. Assembly Bill No. 1661, Government Code Section §53237 et seq. Available online at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVersionsCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1 661. California State Controller – State Controller’s Office. 2021. Government Compensation in California. Available online at: https://publicpay.ca.gov/. El Dorado County. July 2004. 2004 General Plan – Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element (Amended August 2019). Available online at: https://www.edcgov.us/Government/planning/adoptedgeneralplan/Documents/6_health- safety.pdf. Institute for Local Government (ILG). 2012. State Ethics Training Requirements For Local Officials: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). Available online at: https://www.ca- ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/state_ethics_training_faqs_10-4.pdf?1461786305. Volume II of II Fire Agency MSR General Information Page 1-16 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final National Fire Protection Association. 2021. NFPA overview. Available online at: https://www.nfpa.org/overview. ____. 2020a. 1710: Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. Retrieved January 2021. ____. 2020b. 1720: Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations by Volunteer Fire Departments. Retrieved January 2021. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). April 2010. Report on Residential Fireground Field Experiments. NIST Technical Note 1661. Available online at: https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/el/fire_research/Report-on-Residential- Fireground-Field-Experiments.pdf. Transparent California. 2021. Special Districts - 2019. Available online at: https://transparentcalifornia.com/. Rahn, Matt, Ph.D. (2010). 2010 California Wildfire Staffing Study - Wildfire Research Report No. 2. San Diego State University. Montezuma Publishing. Available online at https://wildfirescience.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/6-2010-StaffingStudy1.pdf. Volume II of II Fire Agency MSR General Information Page 1-17 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Fire Agency MSR General Information Page 1-18 of 1-18 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Chapter 2. Cameron Park Community Services District This chapter details the district formation, boundary, government structure, population and land use, disadvantaged communities, finances, and the provision of fire protection facilities and services provided by the Cameron Park Community Services District (CAM or District) as well as the MSR determinations for this District. Table of Contents 2.1 Agency Profile ..................................................................................................................2-5 2.1.1 Agency Overview ................................................................................................................................... 2-5 2.2 Agency Formation and Boundary ......................................................................................2-6 2.2.1 Formation .............................................................................................................................................. 2-6 2.2.2 District Boundary................................................................................................................................... 2-6 2.2.3 Existing Sphere of Influence .................................................................................................................. 2-8 2.2.4 Extra-Territorial Services ....................................................................................................................... 2-8 2.3 District Governance and Accountability ............................................................................2-8 2.3.1 Government Structure .......................................................................................................................... 2-9 2.3.2 District Board......................................................................................................................................... 2-9 2.3.3 Accountability and Transparency ........................................................................................................ 2-10 2.3.4 Management Efficiencies and Staffing ............................................................................................... 2-12 2.3.5 Staffing and Training ........................................................................................................................... 2-12 2.4 Growth and Population Forecasts ................................................................................... 2-13 2.4.1 Existing Population .............................................................................................................................. 2-14 2.4.2 Existing Population in SOI ................................................................................................................... 2-14 Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-1 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 2.4.3 Projected Population Growth ............................................................................................................. 2-14 2.4.4 Existing Land Use ................................................................................................................................. 2-15 2.4.5 Potential Future Development ........................................................................................................... 2-16 2.4.6 Open Space and Agriculture ............................................................................................................... 2-16 2.4.7 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities.................................................................................... 2-17 2.5 Public Services and Infrastructure ................................................................................... 2-17 2.5.1 Service Overview ................................................................................................................................. 2-17 2.5.2 Fire and Emergency Response ............................................................................................................ 2-18 2.5.3 Mutual Aid, Automatic Aid, Other Agreements .................................................................................. 2-22 2.5.4 Dispatch ............................................................................................................................................... 2-25 2.5.5 Emergency Access ............................................................................................................................... 2-25 2.5.6 Fire Hazard Zones ................................................................................................................................ 2-25 2.5.7 Infrastructure ...................................................................................................................................... 2-27 2.5.8 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies ................................................................................................ 2-29 2.5.9 Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing ................................................................................................. 2-29 2.6 Financial Ability to Provide Services ................................................................................ 2-29 2.6.1 Financial Policies and Transparency ................................................................................................... 2-30 2.6.2 District Revenues and Expenditures ................................................................................................... 2-30 2.6.3 District Assets and Liabilities ............................................................................................................... 2-35 2.6.4 Net Position ......................................................................................................................................... 2-37 2.6.5 Asset Maintenance and Replacement ................................................................................................ 2-37 2.6.6 Cost Avoidance .................................................................................................................................... 2-38 2.6.7 Financial Summary and Ability to Provide Services ............................................................................ 2-38 2.7 Determinations .............................................................................................................. 2-41 2.8 References ..................................................................................................................... 2-49 Table of Tables Table 2-1: Geographic Summary of CAM Boundary and SOI (2020) ......................................................... 2-8 Table 2-2: Cameron Park Community Services District Board of Directors .............................................. 2-9 Table 2-3: Current Staffing Levels for the CAM by Type and Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) ....................... 2-12 Table 2-4: CAM Existing Population (2020) ............................................................................................. 2-14 Table 2-5: Total Estimated and Projected Population (2020 – 2040) .................................................... 2-14 Table 2-6: Acreage Designated in the General Plan as Open Space, Agriculture, and Natural Resources within the CAM Boundary and SOI .......................................................................................................... 2-16 Table 2-7: MHI in Census Block Group for Cameron Park Community Services District........................ 2-17 Table 2-8: List of Services Provided by CAM or Other Provider .............................................................. 2-18 Table 2-9: Average Response Times for CAM from 2010 to 2019 .......................................................... 2-22 Table 2-10: Mutual Aid Provided and Received from the CAM, 2019 .................................................... 2-23 Table 2-11: CAM Fire Hazard Severity Zone Acreage and Percentage .................................................... 2-25 Table 2-12: CAM Local, State and Federal Responsibility Area Acreage and Percentage ...................... 2-27 Table 2-13: CAM Fire Stations Detail ....................................................................................................... 2-27 Table 2-14: Apparatus and Light Vehicles, 2020 ..................................................................................... 2-28 Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-2 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 2-15: MPCIP Apparatus & Light Vehicle Replacement Schedule, 2015 ......................................... 2-37 Table 2-16: Development Impact Fees by Development Type (2018) .................................................... 2-39 Table 2-17: Summary of MSR Determinations for the Cameron Park Community Services District ...... 2-41 Table of Figures Figure 2-1: Cameron Park Community Services District Service Area and SOI ......................................... 2-7 Figure 2-2: CAM Medic 89 Calls for Service by Type, 2019 ..................................................................... 2-19 Figure 2-3: District Calls for Service from 2010 – 2019 ........................................................................... 2-20 Figure 2-4: CAM Calls for Service by Type, 2019 ..................................................................................... 2-20 Figure 2-5: CAM Number of Calls by Station 2015-2019 ......................................................................... 2-21 Figure 2-6: Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Responsibility Areas for CAM ............................................. 2-26 Figure 2-7: CAM Total Revenues & Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 to FY 2020/2021 ........................... 2-31 Figure 2-8: CAM Budgeted Expenditures by Department for FY 2020-2021 .......................................... 2-34 Figure 2-9: CAM Net Revenues Over/Under Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 ... 2-35 Figure 2-10: District Assets as of June 30, 2019 ...................................................................................... 2-35 Figure 2-11: District Liabilities and Debt as of June 30, 2019.................................................................. 2-36 Figure 2-12: District Net Position as of June 30, 2019 ............................................................................. 2-37 Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-3 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-4 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 2.1 Agency Profile 2.1.1 Agency Overview The CAM is located within the west side of the County of El Dorado and generally encompasses the areas that make up most of the community of Cameron Park, with the majority of the District encompassing areas to the north of US Highway 50 and a small portion south of US Highway 50. The District provides services for: fire suppression and emergency medical services; parks and facility reservations; recreation; covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs); lighting and landscaping; solid waste collection and recycling; and weed abatement (CAM, 2020a). Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-5 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Special districts are limited-purpose local governments providing only the services their constituents want and need. Generally, special districts fill gaps in county services and aim to meet the level of services desired by their constituencies. As a Community Services District, the CAM is empowered to provide additional services including water, wastewater, refuse collection, mosquito abatement, law enforcement, library services, road maintenance, and drainage, however these services are provided by other agencies (El Dorado County LAFCO, 2012). Though the District provides services beyond just fire and emergency medical services, only fire and emergency medical services are analyzed in this MSR/SOI document. Fire protection services provided by the District generally include: fire prevention inspections and code enforcement; fire response and suppression; fire investigation; emergency medical services (EMS); special operations (such as rescue, vehicle extrication, and hazardous materials response); fire department administration and staff training; public safety education, including Community Emergency Response Training (CERT); and responses to other public emergencies. Fire protection services have been provided by the District through an agreement with CAL FIRE Amador-El Dorado Unit since 1996 for emergency fire protection, emergency response, and basic life support medical services including paramedic level Advanced Life Support (ALS) services, and extended fire protection service availability. Dispatch is through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the multiagency Camino Emergency Command Center (CAM, 2015a). 2.2 Agency Formation and Boundary 2.2.1 Formation The District was organized in June of 1961 through El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 97-61, which established the District services including fire protection services (El Dorado County, 1961). The District was formed for the purpose of providing water services, wastewater services, refuse collection, fire protection, public recreation, street lighting, mosquito abatement, law enforcement, library services, road maintenance, and drainage. 2.2.2 District Boundary The CAM service area comprises 5,312 acres or 8.3 square miles as seen in Figure 2-1 below. The District serves several neighborhoods including Cameron Airpark Estates, Eastwood Park, and Cameron Park Country Club, as well as service areas around US Highway 50. The District annexed nine parcels since the last Municipal Service review in 2012 (El Dorado County LAFCO, 2012). The CAM boundary shown in Figure 2-1 shows only those areas that receive fire services from the CAM. There is a larger boundary for the Cameron Park Community Services District that encompass parks and recreation services in which fire service is provided by adjacent fire districts. This larger boundary is not depicted in Figure 4-1. Most of the District’s existing territory is built-out while the vast majority of available open space is protected under the Pine Hill Preserve (El Dorado County, 2016). Adjacent to the CAM are the fire protection districts of Rescue Fire Protection District (RES), El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF), and El Dorado Hills County Water District (EDH). Fire services in this area are also provided by CAL FIRE and the United States Forest Service (USFS) in coordination with the CAM and other surrounding fire protection districts. Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-6 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 2-1: Cameron Park Community Services District Service Area and SOI Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-7 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 2.2.3 Existing Sphere of Influence El Dorado LAFCO adopted the original Sphere of Influence (SOI) for 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). Within the CAM’s LSA SOI, all services are provided by the CAM except for fire protection. The 2012 MSR/SOI Update increased the District’s LSA 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. In addition, there are two areas within the District SOI in which all services are provided. The LSA areas were created to defuse political conflict between fire protection districts (LAFCO, 2012). 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 4,178.4 acres and includes 7,250 parcels as shown in Table 2-1, below. Table 2-1: Geographic Summary of CAM Boundary and SOI (2020) District Area SOI Total Boundary (All Services) (All Services) and SOI Total Acres 4,178 1,583 5,761 Square Miles 6.5 2.5 9 Number of Assessor Parcels 7,250 894 2,072 Source: EDC GIS Data, 2020 The 2011 MSR/SOI Update for the District notes that, as population growth and call volumes in the Cameron Park area continue to increase, the boundary and service area mismatch may increase, with the District providing automatic/mutual aid as the nearest available unit to growing areas outside its boundaries for fire protection (LAFCO, 2011). This could have significant financial effects on the District. 2.2.4 Extra-Territorial Services The CAM does provide extra-territorial services outside of its district boundary in response to mutual and automatic aid agreements with every fire agency in El Dorado County for both fire protection and emergency services. These services are not considered to be Out-of-Agency Services as described in Government Code Section 56134 due to responses being under existing agreements. 2.3 District Governance and Accountability This section describes how performance, accountability, transparency, and public engagement relate to the public’s trust in local government. LAFCO is required by the CKH Act to make specific determinations regarding a municipality’s government structure and accountability. Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-8 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 2.3.1 Government Structure The CAM is a local government agency structured as a Community Services District consistent with its Principal Act: Community Services District Law, Government Code 61000, et seq. The District is classified as an independent special district and has five elected Board Members who reside within the District. All registered voters, who reside within the District are eligible to vote for and/or run for a seat on the District Board of Directors. The District Board appoints the General Manager (GM). Department heads are appointed by the GM (CAM, 2015b). The District is organized into the following five departments: Finance/Human Resources, CC&R Compliance, Parks and Facilities, Recreation, and Fire and Emergency Services (CAM, 2020b). 2.3.2 District Board The District operates under the direction of the elected District Board. Each Director is elected for a term of four years with two director seats running two years apart from the remaining three seats. A new Board President is selected by the Directors each year. The Board President assigns two directors to each of the District’s standing committees, plus one alternate (CAM, 2020c). The District’s standing committees include the Architectural Review Committee; the Budget and Administration Committee; the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R) Committee; the Fire and Emergency Services Committee; and the Parks and Recreation Committee. The current members of the Board of Directors, their committee appointments and the expiration dates of their terms are shown in Table 2-2 below. Table 2-2: Cameron Park Community Services District Board of Directors Name Title Term End Committee Appointments Eric Aiston President 2024 Budget and Admin. Monique Scobey Vice President 2020 CC&Rs, Fire and Emergency Services Ellie Wooten Director 2022 CC&Rs Felicity Carlson Director 2022 Budget and Admin., Parks and Recreation Sidney Bazett Director 2024 Fire and Emergency Services, Parks and Recreation Source: CAM, 2020c The District holds regular public meetings on the third Wednesday of each month at 6:30 PM at the Cameron Park Community Center, 2502 Country Club Drive (CAM, 2020d). The Fire and Emergency Services Committee meets on the first Tuesday of the month at 5:30 PM, also at the Cameron Park Community Center (CAM, 2020e). Board members received a stipend of $100 for attendance at regular and special Board meetings as well as Board committee meetings with a cap of $600 per month. Payments made to CAM’s board members was researched on an on-line database1. Query results for 2019 did not 1 Transparent California is a non-profit organization and is California's largest public pay and pension database. The pay and pension associated with most special districts up to the year 2019 are provided in this database. The on-line database is available at: https://transparentcalifornia.com/agencies/salaries/special-districts/#fire-protection. Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-9 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final show the amounts received by each Board member in 2019. It is not clear if this is because no Board members received a stipend or if the information was not available. In California, elected members of special district boards are required to comply with three laws regarding accountability and ethics including 1) the Political Reform Act; 2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005), which requires ethics training; and 3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. which mandates sexual harassment prevention training. A description of each of these three state laws is provided in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Political Reform Act Each district is required to have ethics and conflict of interest code/policies. CAM does have an adopted Ethics Policy, Policy No. 4010 of the District’s Policy Handbook available on the District’s website. CAM also has a Conflict-of-Interest policy, which is reviewed by the Board on a biennial basis and was most recently reaffirmed in September 2018. The conflict-of-interest policy is Policy 1020 and is also available on the District’s website. The Political Reform Act requires special district board members to disclose all personal economic interests by filing a "Statement of Economic Interests" with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). Information available from the FPPC indicates that Board members are complying with the Political Reform Act. Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005) Local government officials are required to take ethics training every two years. Compliance with this law was assessed for each of the fire agencies studied in this MSR by asking staff for the dates and other documentation of training events. The District’s website posts the certificates for completion of ethics training for each Board member. All Board members have completed trainings as required by AB 1234. Government Code 53237 et. seq. Special district board members must receive required sexual harassment prevention, two-hour training, every two years. Compliance with this law was assessed for each of the fire agencies studied in this MSR by asking staff for the dates and other documentation of training events. Board members participated in a sexual harassment prevention training webinar in January 2021. Therefore, the District Board is in compliance with Gov. Code 53237 et. seq. 2.3.3 Accountability and Transparency Brown Act The Brown Act is described in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. All meetings of the District Board and committees are open to the public in accordance with the Brown Act. The agenda for each meeting includes a public comment period and agendas are made available 72 hours before meetings. Any written document that relates to an agenda item is available for public inspection at the same time the agenda packet is distributed to the members of the Board of Directors. Written documents are made available at the District Office and on the District website at: www.cameronpark.org. Agendas Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-10 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final are also distributed via email upon request (CAM, 2020d). The District and its representatives have a solid record of adherence to the requirements of the Brown Act, the Political Reform Act, and similar laws. New Brown Act requirements prescribe the methods and location by which an agenda must be accessible on an agency's website for all meetings. The CAM makes the current agenda available on the primary homepage of its website (CAM, 2020b). Additionally, the meeting agenda is downloadable and electronically searchable by common internet browsers. CAM provides meeting agendas to the public free of charge, without restrictions and complies with the requirements of the Brown Act 2016 Updates described in AB2257. Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-29-20 suspended parts of the Brown Act that require in-person attendance of Board members and citizens at public meetings as described in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. In response to these events, the District implemented Teleconference/Electronic Meeting Protocols effective April 2, 2020 which allow for public participation through video conferencing and by telephone. All meetings are streamed live via Zoom, a video conferencing platform, that is accessible by the public for free. Public comments can be emailed to admin@cameronpark.org and have the option of having the comments read aloud at the meeting (not to exceed 3 minutes at staff’s cadence) (CAM, 2020b). Under the Brown Act closed sessions of Board meetings are not encouraged, however the Act does provide guidance about exceptions when closed sessions can be held under special circumstances. Commonly, LAFCO utilizes the number of closed sessions a Board holds during a year as in indicator of transparency since fewer closed sessions indicates better levels of transparency. For the CAM, the number of closes sessions was evaluated. In the year 2019, the CAM held 11 closed sessions (CAM, 2021). Special District Transparency Act (SB 929) The Special District Transparency Act (SB 929 or California Government Code, §6270.6 and 53087.8) requires that special districts have a functional website, and the requirements of this Act are described in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. The Districts website is kept updated and is easily navigable with current and past agenda packets available for download. The District’s Policy Handbook requires that the CAM website be user friendly and contain accurate and up-to-date information, as well as requiring advanced notice of meetings posted in a timely manner and in compliance with the Brown Act. The website is consistently maintained with specific and detailed information including meeting agendas, clear information on the District’s budget and expenditures, compensation reports, information on how to contact District representatives, and more (CAM, 2020d). Therefore, the CAM complies with the requirements of the Special District Transparency Act. General Accountability The CAM demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with El Dorado LAFCO. The District cooperated with LAFCO’s requests for information and participated in an interview with the MSR consultants (LAFCO, 2020a). The CAM along with all the fire protection districts in El Dorado County have been the subject of multiple grand jury reports with the most recent report completed in June of 2020 (El Dorado County, 2020). The Grand Jury posits in Case No. 19-06 that, while it made sense historically, the only reason there are multiple fire agencies in El Dorado County is because Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-11 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final of “strong loyalty to a local home district,” coming “at the expense of the County as a whole.” The Grand Jury concludes that the insufficient revenues afforded to rural districts puts a strain on the mutual and automatic aid system as a whole; forcing more financially stable districts to “subsidize” the rural ones by having the former respond to calls when the latter is unable to do so. The issues raised in the grand jury report remain valid (LAFCO, 2020c). Changes to the governmental structure of some fire protection districts are needed to address these issues. The CAM responded to the El Dorado County 2020 Grand Jury Report and agreed with the grand jury’s findings and suggested that Recommendation 1 requires further analysis. 2.3.4 Management Efficiencies and Staffing An important part of management effectiveness for a District includes adoption of a District-wide mission and vision statement. The CAM Mission statement is: It is the Mission of the Cameron Park Community Services District to preserve and enhance the quality of life and to safeguard the health, safety, and welfare of our community (CAM 2020a). The CAM Fire Department mission as presented on the District’s website is: The mission of the Cameron Park Fire Department is to preserve and enhance the quality of life and to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of the community through effective fire prevention, fire control, emergency medical, and public education programs; to provide a highly trained and properly equipped emergency response team and to mitigate the effects of disasters and all hazards to life and property for which the organization is charged (CAM, 2020f). The Fire and Emergency Services for the District are contracted out to CAL FIRE. CAL FIRE’s mission is also posted on the District website and states: The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection serves and safeguards the people and protects the property and resources of California. CAL FIRE coverage for the District includes 18 staff members (CAM, 2020f). 2.3.5 Staffing and Training Professional CAL FIRE personnel work full-time for the District through the Schedule A contract between the District and CAL FIRE. CAL FIRE staff assigned to the District includes paramedic firefighters and emergency medical technicians. Detailed full-time personnel information can be seen in Table 2-3 below. The CAM fire department staffs two fire stations, Station No. 88 and Station No. 89. Currently, the CAM operates both stations with two staff per engine (2-0) model on duty 24/7 (LAFCO, 2020a). Table 2-3: Current Staffing Levels for the CAM by Type and Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Position FTE Count as of July 1, 2020 Battalion Chief 1 Fire Marshall/Battalion Chief 1 Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) 1 Firefighter/Paramedic 15 Total 18 Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-12 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The CAM also runs a Resident/Intern Firefighter program of volunteer firefighters who act as a third member of an engine company for the District when available. Resident/Intern Firefighters participate as a crew member on an engine company, work closely with ambulance personnel, staff community events, and receive considerable training. Generally, 10-20 resident firefighters participate in the program each year (LAFCO, 2020f). The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) calls for a standard of four staff per engine (4-0) model (NFPA, 2020). A three staff per engine (3-0) model is acceptable as a minimum standard for this MSR/SOI Update. More information on staffing levels can be found in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. The staffing levels shown in Table 2-3 for the CAM do not meet the minimum standard, a common difficulty with other fire agencies in the County. Lower staffing levels leave the community vulnerable to low frequency, high risk events, such as a working structure fire. The Assistant Chief for the CAM expressed that the District should be staffing engines at the (3-0) model at a minimum to provide adequate and safe response for the District’s firefighters. As of 2020, the CAM had two interns through the Resident Firefighter program who were paid when they were available to bolster the existing (2-0) staffing model but were intermittent and constrained by a limited budget for employment (LAFCO, 2020a). Staffing for the CAM are augmented by its participation in the automatic aid, boundary drop, and closest resource system that automatically deploys the closest available resource to respond to any calls for service regardless of agency boundaries in the County of El Dorado (LAFCO, 2020a). The CAM receives advantages from participating in this network of collaborating fire agencies, which increases resource deployment and the ability to respond to calls. Training Staff conduct 80 hours of annual training per year; training daily for an hour and a half. Additionally, CAM personnel participate in 40-hour refresher training (LAFCO, 2020a). Firefighters employed by the CAM are certified in Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) training to fight wildland fires burning adjacent neighborhoods. All CAL FIRE firefighting personnel are trained to meet NFPA professional qualification standards and certification requirements (CAL FIRE 2020). Complaints During the years 2018 and 2019, the District did not receive any complaints regarding its service (LAFCO, 2020a). 2.4 Growth and Population Forecasts The growth and population projection for the affected area is a determination which LAFCO is required to describe, consistent with the MSR Guidelines from the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) as set forth in the CKH Act. This section provides information on the existing population and future growth projections for the CAM. Historical and anticipated population growth is a factor which affects service demand. Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-13 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 2.4.1 Existing Population There are approximately 19,697 residents within the District boundaries as of 2020, based on District estimates (LAFCO, 2020a). The District mostly includes areas considered to be within the Cameron Park Community, which is a ‘census designated place’ as defined by the U.S. Census. According to 2018 Census data, there were 19,902 people residing in the Cameron Park Community (US Census Bureau, 2018). It should be noted that census tracts designated by the U.S. Census for the Cameron Park Community do not directly correspond with CAM boundaries, however the data provides a close approximation to the existing population for the District. Detailed information regarding population demographics and socio- economic indicators in El Dorado County is provided in Volume I - Appendix A and Appendix B. Within the CAM’s boundaries there are approximately 19,697 residents as of 2020, as shown in Table 2-4 below. Table 2-4: CAM Existing Population (2020) Population existing Population in SOI No. of Registered boundary area only1 area only Voters2 Cameron Park Community 19,697 N/A 8,678 Services District Sources: 1LAFCO, 2020a 2LAFCO, 2019a In addition to the permanent population, the CAM area also sees an increase of about 1,000 people during the Summer Spectacular in June. The event includes live music, activities for kids, and finishes with a firework show over Cameron Park Lake. 2.4.2 Existing Population in SOI The SOI for fire protection and emergency medical services is coterminous with its boundary (EDC GIS Data, 2020). 2.4.3 Projected Population Growth Projecting future population for a District is complicated due to unknown factors associated with the annexation rate and census tracts that do not match with District boundaries. For purposes of this MSR, data from the California Department of Finance (DOF) was used to project population growth as shown in Table 2-5 below. The DOF provides population projections at the County level and the growth rate for the County of El Dorado is utilized to extrapolate population growth rates for the CAM. By the year 2040, it is estimated that CAM’s existing boundary will encompass a population of 23,168 persons. This represents an average annual growth rate of 0.5 percent between the years of 2020 and 2040. Table 2-5: Total Estimated and Projected Population (2020 – 2040) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 The County of El Dorado1 193,227 201,041 207,496 211,537 213,033 Cameron Park Community2 20,721 21,573 22,266 22,699 22,860 Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-14 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Cameron Park Community 19,697 20,494 21,152 21,563 21,716 Services District Sources: 1California DOF, 2019 2Estimated population based on the Growth Rate for the County of El Dorado from the DOF Though the growth rate for the County of El Dorado anticipates development throughout the entire county, the addition of 2,019 more people to the CAM by 2040 is possible as the CSD has undeveloped areas within existing boundaries that are available for more intensive residential development. Areas to the western portion of the District have a high probability of developing over the next twenty years as they abut areas of El Dorado Hills where large-scale single-family subdivision development continues to occur and expand. 2.4.4 Existing Land Use Land-use is a factor that affects population growth and therefore demand for public services. However, the CAM is not a land use authority. Currently, the primary land uses within the service area for the District 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. Some industrial uses may be found along Cameron Park Drive and include the Cameron Park Airport. There is also a golf course and several community neighborhood parks. Open space areas make up roughly 300 acres within the Pine Hill Preserve as well as Cameron Park Lake (El Dorado County 2020). The Pine Hill Preserve is a cooperative conservation effort to protect the habitat of eight rare plant species. The Preserve consists of 4,790 acres, about 70 percent of which has dense clusters of rare plants and is within an area designated for the recovery of five federally listed rare plants. Four of the plant species in the preserve are endemic, meaning they grow nowhere else in the world. Areas in the CAM designated as the Pine Hill Preserve also include areas designated for recovery (BLM 2020). County General Plan The District’s boundary area is entirely unincorporated and subject to the land use policies and regulations of El Dorado County. Most land-use decisions, initiated by private property owners over the last decade, are secured via entitlements and land-use permits from El Dorado County and other agencies. The County plans for its future growth through its General Plan, which is a long-term comprehensive framework to guide physical, social, and economic development within the community’s planning area. The County of El Dorado’s General Plan was adopted in 2004. Individual elements for the General Plan have since been updated separately. The 2013-2021 Housing Element was adopted in October 2013, with the most recent update occurring to the Land Use Element in August 2019. Within the General Plan, Community Regions establish urban limit lines and provide those areas which are appropriate for highest intensity of self- sustaining compact urban-type development or suburban type development. The CAM is located within Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-15 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final the Cameron Park Community Region as designated by the El Dorado County General Plan Land Use Element (EDC, 2019). 2.4.5 Potential Future Development Primary land uses within the service area for the District are residential, commercial, and open space. There are some proposed and current projects that would impact the District. The following new major projects are in the planning stages within the District: • Campobello Project – 32 acres – 45 lots – 45 units • Mira Loma Multi-Family Development – 2.248 acres – Construction of a two-building multi-family apartment complex, a fitness center, and an office/model unit – 46 rental units • Creekside Mixed Use Development – 4 acres – Apartment complex made up of two bed, two bath and one bed, one bath units and two commercial buildings – 36 units • Sunahara Triplex Residences – 0.49 acres – Development of a two story, three residential unit – 3 units • Grocery Outlet Green Valley Station – 5.37 acres – Development of a 16,061 square foot Grocery Outlet – No units • Sierra Sunrise – 10 acres – Creation of eight single-family lots – No units 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 for new development, staffing challenges could remain a concern as these fees cannot be used for operating expenses. 2.4.6 Open Space and Agriculture El Dorado LAFCO’s policies require that an MSR/SOI offer a determination about the effect that a district’s service provision will have on open space and agricultural lands (El Dorado LAFCO, 2019). For purposes of this MSR analysis, open space data was derived from the County General Plan land-use data. There are a handful of lands designated as open space within the fire services boundary, but no agricultural lands. Open Space within the CAM fire services boundary calculates to about 524 acres within the District (El Dorado County, 2019). A breakdown of open space, natural resources, and agricultural land located within the District boundary and Sphere of Influence (SOI) can be seen in Table 2-6 below. Table 2-6: Acreage Designated in the General Plan as Open Space, Agriculture, and Natural Resources within the CAM Boundary and SOI Boundary Only (in acres) Open space Agriculture Natural Resources 524 0 0 Source: EDC GIS, 2019 Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-16 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final As a fire district, CAM’s effect on open space lands is minimal. The District does provide fire protection services to open space areas within its boundaries, such as the Pine Hill Preserve. Natural habitat areas are adapted to a historical fire regime and generally do not require fire protection services. However, infrastructure to serve human visitors to natural areas (trails, parking, restrooms) may benefit from fire protection services. Ecologists sometimes suggest prescribed burning to maintain vegetation in open space areas. LAFCO has an interest in documenting the conversion of agricultural and open space lands to other land use types, such as residential use. The CAM fire protection services do not play a role in these types of land-use conversions. 2.4.7 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities A Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) is an unincorporated area of a County in which the annual median household income (MHI) is less than 80 percent of the statewide MHI. More information on DUCs can be found in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Within the boundaries of CAM are located one Census Block Group that meets the DUC threshold and is therefore classified as disadvantaged unincorporated community as listed in in Table 2-7 below. Census Block Group 030810 is located wholly within the CAM fire protection area. Table 2-7: MHI in Census Block Group for Cameron Park Community Services District Identification Census Block Group Number of Median Household Population Number Number Number Households Income (2018) 308101 030810 1 2,622 969 $46,146 Source: US Census, 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates This unincorporated area is provided numerous public services. Water service to the DUC is provided by the El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) or by individual wells. Wastewater services are provided by EID or by individual septic systems. Fire protection services are provided by CAM. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) also provides fire protection services in the wildland areas located within the State Responsibility areas. Due to this area receiving the essential municipal services of water, wastewater, and structural fire protection, there are no communities within the existing CAM boundary or adjacent to the District’s SOI that lack these three public services, and no health or safety issues have been identified. 2.5 Public Services and Infrastructure 2.5.1 Service Overview The District provides fire and emergency services to residents through a five-year “Schedule A” contract with CAL FIRE for fire and ambulance personnel. District services include fire prevention inspections and code enforcement; fire response and suppression; fire investigation; emergency medical services (EMS); special operations, such as rescue, vehicle extraction, and hazardous materials response; fire department administration and staff training; public safety education, including Community Emergency Response Training (CERT); and response to other public emergencies. These activities are governed by the Safety Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-17 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Element of the County of El Dorado’s General Plan, state laws and regulations exercised through the District’s cooperative agreement with CAL FIRE, and other County requirements and regulations. The contract between CAL FIRE and the District states that CAL FIRE will provide emergency fire protection, emergency response, and basic life support medical services (BLS); paramedic level Advanced Life Support (ALS) services; and extended fire protection service availability (LAFCO, 2020a). A list of services and providers in the District is shown in Table 2-8. Table 2-8: List of Services Provided by CAM or Other Provider Service Provider Structural Fire Protection CAL FIRE Wildland Fire Protection CAL FIRE Emergency Medical Response CAL FIRE Rescue/Extrication CAL FIRE Hazardous Materials CAL FIRE Water Supply/hydrants EID Training CAL FIRE Fire Safety Education CAL FIRE Arson Investigations CAL FIRE Source: LAFCO, 2020a Structural Fire Protection The suppression of fires in local structures is the primary focus of CAM’s work. Post-fire investigation and research indicates that flying embers cause most home ignitions during wildfires. Individual homeowners can protect their property from the financial risk associated with structural fire by purchasing homeowner’s insurance with fire coverage. Purchasing this homeowner’s insurance has become more difficult in recent years. For example, in the County of El Dorado, during the year 2016, over 1,000 homeowners lost access to their homeowner’s insurance policy due to non-renewal by the insurance company (California Department of Insurance, 2018). 2.5.2 Fire and Emergency Response The District maintains automatic aid agreements with all fire service agencies located in El Dorado County for fire suppression and emergency medical services. Under this system, the District responds to close proximity calls within adjacent fire jurisdictions, as well as receives assistance from neighboring agencies automatically (LAFCO, 2020a). This type of agreement ensures the best possible emergency service is delivered by the most efficient means possible. The District also participates in a mutual aid system that responds to requests for aid from throughout the County and State. Because of these agreements, all firefighters within each fire agency in the County must be prepared for any type of emergency in any setting at all times. Every fire agency within the United States is rated by an independent risk assessment and standards authority for the purposes of establishing insurance policy premiums for homeowners and businesses. California uses an independent national company called the Insurance Services Office (ISO) for this purpose. The ISO evaluates four broad categories of fire suppression when establishing a Public Protection Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-18 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Classification (PPC). These categories include: 1) Fire Department; 2) Emergency Communications; 3) Water Supply; and 4) Community Risk Reduction. ISO routinely conducts assessments of each fire agency in the United States. The rating scale from best to worse is One (1) — Ten (10). There is a possible score of 105.5 points from the total of the four categories listed above. An agency needs a score of 90-105.5 to receive a PPC of Class 1. The CAM received an ISO rating of 3 (LAFCO, 2020a). To meet the emergency response needs within the District, firefighting personnel are proficient in wildland and structural firefighting, back country/technical rescue, hazardous materials mitigation, and emergency medical services (CAL FIRE, 2020c). Emergency Medical Services The CAM ambulance is located at Station No. 89 and is numbered Medic 89 (M89). Medic 89 was the third busiest medical unit in the County in 2019 with 2,684 responses to calls for service. A breakdown in percent of incident response categories can be seen in Figure 2-2 below. Of those responses, the greatest type of incident was medical (81 percent or 2,183 calls) followed by medical transfer (9 percent or 236 calls) and fire (6 percent or 75 calls). Medical calls include medical aid, falls, CPR, rescue, and acute but non-time critical responses to medical calls. For medical transfer calls for service, the ambulance transfers patients from local area hospitals to other hospitals in the County or regionally. The “Other” category is made up of Extractions, Hazard calls, Traffic Collisions, Remote Area rescues, and other category types (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Additional information regarding emergency medical services can be found in Volume II - Chapter 15, County Service Area (CSA) 3 and CSA 7 MSR. CAM is contracted by the West Slope JPA to operate the ambulance and is reimbursed at not-to-exceed contractual cap through the JPA. These costs include personnel, operating expenses, and equipment. The District has an annual contract with the JPA to provide one ambulance and six employees who provide 24/7 coverage for that ambulance (LAFCO, 2020a). Figure 2-2: CAM Medic 89 Calls for Service by Type, 2019 3% 1% 6% 9% Assistance Fire Medical Transfer Other 81% LAFCO’s 2012 MSR/SOI Update for the CAM found that the District is usually the first responder for fire and emergency medical services in the immediately surrounding areas, breaching the incongruence between service capacity and service areas which has proven to be politically sensitive (LAFCO, 2012). Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-19 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Calls for Service According to CAL FIRE Camino ECC dispatch, the District responded to 3,106 unique incidents in 2019. Those incidents translated to 3,508 calls for service. A call for service refers to any apparatus or vehicle for the agency which responded to a unique incident, and each apparatus or vehicle is counted as one “call for service” (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). The information provided in this section does not include ambulance calls for service. The data includes incidents occurring both within and outside of the agency’s jurisdiction that the agency resources responded to. For more information on how consultants analyzed the dispatch data, refer to Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. A breakdown of calls for service from 2010 to 2019 can be seen in Figure 2-3. Figure 2-3: District Calls for Service from 2010 – 2019 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 From 2010 to 2019, calls for service have continued to trend upward with a small decrease in calls in 2017 and 2018. The total calls for service in 2019 represent the highest number of calls for service the District has received since 2010 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). This is roughly a five percent increase from 2018. The majority of the calls to which CAM responded were for medical at 1,992 incidents. A break down in incidents by category type for 2019 can be seen in Figure 2-4 below. Figure 2-4: CAM Calls for Service by Type, 2019 3% 8% 11% Assistance Fire 13% Hazard 1% Medical Other 64% Traffic Collision Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-20 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The “Other” incident type includes mutual or automatic aid engine coverage for other fire agencies, aircraft down, arson, investigations, medical transfers, rescues, extractions, miscellaneous, radio and phone system failures, staffing pattern, call transfers, as well as other similar service types. The “Assistance” incident type includes public agency work such as demonstrations, assisting with a water leak, assisting with an animal, assisting with an alarm or lockout, elevator rescue, physically assisting in lifting a person, and assisting with search and rescue (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). More information on incident categories can be found in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Station No. 89 is the busiest station in the District, averaging a little less than 2,000 calls per year from 2015 to 2019 as shown in Figure 2-5 below. Station No. 88 averages about 1,200 calls per year (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Figure 2-5: CAM Number of Calls by Station 2015-2019 2,500 2,000 2015 1,500 2016 2017 1,000 2018 2019 500 89 88 Response Time El Dorado County’s General Plan (2004 as amended through 2019) Public Services and Utilities Element has several policies related to goals for average response time for new development as described in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Consultants do not have the capability to break response time data out by County of El Dorado defined Community Region, Rural Center, or Rural Region standards. CAM informed consultants that response time goals for the District are to meet industry standards for response times. In the year 2019, the District’s average response time was 5 minutes and 44 seconds based on available data from CAL FIRE Camino ECC dispatch and calculated by the consultants. The response time data does not cover interfacility transfer (IFT), automatic/mutual aid, and strike team/overhead. However, a handful of calls include renting of equipment by CAL FIRE for incidents throughout the state (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). CAM average for 2019 appears to meet County response time goals for new discretionary projects in all County community types. CAM contains the Community Region of Cameron Park. Average response times for the District from 2010 to 2019 can be seen in Table 2-9 below. Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-21 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 2-9: Average Response Times for CAM from 2010 to 2019 Average Response Time Year (Hr : Min : Sec) 2010 0:05:03 2011 0:05:26 2012 0:05:32 2013 0:05:52 2014 0:05:47 2015 0:05:57 2016 0:05:57 2017 0:06:04 2018 0:05:50 2019 0:05:36 Source: CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020 Consultants were informed by staff from multiple fire agencies in the County that CAL FIRE Camino ECC does not have the ability to track turnout time and other needed elements to define definitive numbers to measure true response times. Other Industry Standards In general, other industry standards applicable to the CAM are established by the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA), the Insurance Services Office, Cal OSHA, and other CAM ordinances. All of these agencies, as well as many others, directly and/or indirectly affect the type of services, the quality and development of those services, expansion, reliability, facility design, and construction and environmental issues that the District provides. 2.5.3 Mutual Aid, Automatic Aid, Other Agreements Mutual Aid The Cameron Park Community Services District provides resources to all fire agencies in the County of El Dorado through mutual aid agreements. These agreements allow for giving and receiving of emergency resources (LAFCO, 2020a). Ideally, agreements for mutual aid or any other appropriate agreement (i.e., Tax Sharing Agreement) are periodically reviewed to ensure fiscal neutrality. All agreements for CAM are reviewed and approved by the District Board. Automatic Aid The Cameron Park Community Services District Fire Department maintains automatic aid, boundary drop, and closest resource agreements with all fire protection providers operating in the County of El Dorado including the U.S. Forest Service and CAL FIRE. Any resource provided by CAM is available under these agreements (LAFCO, 2020a). Through the current automatic aid system, all fire agencies in the County along with CAL FIRE are dispatched automatically as the closest resource to any calls for service, regardless Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-22 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final of agency boundaries. For this MSR/SOI Update, LAFCO requested an analysis of automatic aid provided to and received from each agency that provided and/or received aid. Consultants received a breakdown in automatic aid data directly from CAL FIRE Camino ECC dispatch in order to provide the following analysis. This data shows who the first responder to the call was within another agency’s service area boundary. In the context of this analysis, automatic aid specifically refers to instances where an agency was first responder to a call within another agency’s jurisdictional boundary. CAL FIRE is a statewide organization that operates throughout the County of El Dorado. CAL FIRE ‘s jurisdiction encompasses all the State Responsibility areas within the County (unincorporated areas of private lands excluding the national forests) for wildland fires, essentially overlapping the jurisdictions of the local fire agencies. As mentioned previously, CAL FIRE operates within the County under the same automatic aid system as the other local fire agencies. As a result of CAL FIRE’s expansive service area in El Dorado County, the agency responds to a significant number of calls for service throughout the County for the local fire agencies. CAL FIRE automatic aid for each local fire agency is included in the following analysis because CAL FIRE operates within the automatic aid system and was first responder to calls for all of the local fire agencies in the study year 2019. It is important to note that the automatic aid data that was analyzed only included the first responder data and did not include the local fire agencies responses to statewide fires managed by CAL FIRE. Thus, it is not surprising that almost none of the agencies were first responders to CAL FIRE calls aiding CAL FIRE; which are handled through the assignment of strike teams by CAL FIRE. In 2019, the County of El Dorado experienced 151 wildland fires with a total of 266 acres burned (CAL FIRE, 2019). Only three local agencies provided first response aid to one of those incidents for CAL FIRE in 2019. It should be noted that a response by an agency resource to another agencies jurisdiction for a wildland fire could be considered automatic aid to both the fire agency and CAL FIRE. More information on the State Responsibility Areas can be found in Section 2.5.6. Information about CAL FIRE operations in the County can be found in Volume I - Appendix D. Through consultation with the ad hoc Fire Chiefs MSR group and LAFCO, consultants agreed to exclude the CAL FIRE automatic aid numbers from Table 2-10 below, due to the reasons stated above. However, the study cannot ignore the CAL FIRE automatic aid data as part of the contextual analysis. Doing so would make it appear that local agencies received less aid than they actually did in 2019 and paint an inaccurate picture of the amount of aid received and provided between fire agencies operating in the County in 2019. Thus, the following analysis and determinations include CAL FIRE aid in the contextual details while removing the numbers from Table 2-10 below. CAL FIRE automatic aid numbers are described countywide in greater detail in Volume I - Appendix D, Other Agencies Providing Services in the County of El Dorado. CAM received automatic aid 451 times and provided automatic aid 782 times in 2019. Table 2-10 below shows the individual agencies that provided aid to CAM and those that received aid from CAM in 2019, excluding CAL FIRE. The CAL FIRE Amador-El Dorado Unit provided automatic aid to CAM 158 times and received aid from CAM one time in 2019 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Table 2-10: Automatic Aid Provided and Received from the CAM, 2019 Agency Providing/Receiving Amount of Aid Amount of Aid Aid to/from CAM Provided to CAM Received from CAM DSP 14 71 Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-23 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Agency Providing/Receiving Amount of Aid Amount of Aid Aid to/from CAM Provided to CAM Received from CAM ECF 126 385 EDH 171 132 GEO 0 8 GRV 1 3 LAV 0 1 MQT 0 1 RES 130 167 Other Agencies2 9 14 Total 451 782 Source: CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020 1AEU is the CAL FIRE – Amador-El Dorado Unit 2Other Agencies include City of Folsom, fire agencies in Amador County, the City of Ione, and the USFS. The CAL FIRE – Amador-El Dorado Unit aid provided to CAM is described in Volume I - Appendix D. The CAM provided more aid than the District received from other fire agencies for 2019. The District provided roughly three times more aid to ECF than it received from ECF and five times more aid to DSP than it received from DSP. The CAM also provided aid to MQT, LAV, and GEO without receiving any aid in return during 2019. Overall, the CAM provided aid 331 more times than it received in 2019 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). This high amount in aid provided vs. received suggests that the District is able to provide adequate service to the communities within its boundaries and has the capacity to assist neighboring agencies in providing those services. 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. A more detailed analysis of automatic aid is needed to determine the reasoning for variation in aid received versus provided for CAM and other fire agencies in the County, factoring in the location of calls in relation to available resources for each agency. Of all of the calls for service in 2019, the District required aid for 17 percent of all calls when adding in CAL FIRE. With CAL FIRE aid removed, the District required aid for 12 percent of all calls in 2019 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Joint Agreements A Joint Agreement is one where a District may jointly own or share fire protection services, capital facilities, or services with other agencies. CAM does have a five-year “Schedule A” contract with CAL FIRE. The contract between CAL FIRE and the District states that CAL FIRE personnel will 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 (LAFCO, 2020a). Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-24 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 2.5.4 Dispatch Fire and emergency medical dispatching is through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the multiagency CAL FIRE Camino ECC, providing a single dispatch system for the entire Western Slope of the County. Additional details on County wide dispatch can be found in Volume I - Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. 2.5.5 Emergency Access Major access roads to the CAM include US Highway 50, Cameron Park Drive, Cambridge Road, Green Valley Road, and Country Club Drive. All major access roads are maintained by the County of El Dorado Maintenance and Operations Division through the County’s Department of Transportation. More information on county wide maintenance operations can be found in Volume I - Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. 2.5.6 Fire Hazard Zones The Fire Hazard Severity Zones, WUI, and Community Risk Fire Map in which CAL Fire categorizes spatial areas into different risk areas are described in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Within the CAM’s boundaries, 1,178.5 acres are in Fire Hazard Severity zone “Very High” and 2,544.7 acres are in “High” based on GIS data provided by CAL FIRE as detailed in Table 2-11 below. The CAM is located within an identified WUI Interface and Influence Zone (CAL FIRE 2019). Roughly 89 percent of the District is located within a “Very High” or “High” Fire Hazard Severity Zone. See Figure 2-6 for a map of those areas. Table 2-11: CAM Fire Hazard Severity Zone Acreage and Percentage Acreage in Very % in Very Acreage in % in High Total % in Very High High fire risk High High fire risk Fire risk and High fire risk 1,178.48 28.2% 2,544.71 60.9% 89.1% Source: EDC GIS Data, 2020 derived from CalFire data Areas of land within the District boundary are considered “Local Responsibility Area” (LRA), “State Responsibility Area” (SRA), and “Federal Responsibility Area” (FRA) for fire protection services. See Figure 2-6 for a map of those areas. About 66 percent of the District is within the LRA, with 26 percent in the SRA and about seven percent in the FRA. The majority of the District is within the LRA or areas that the District is responsible for. A breakdown in acreage can be seen in Table 2-12. Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-25 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 2-6: Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Responsibility Areas for CAM Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-26 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 2-12: CAM Local, State and Federal Responsibility Area Acreage and Percentage Boundary Only (in acres) LRA SRA FRA 2,777.41 1,087.07 314.35 Source: GIS data from CAL FIRE About 27 percent of the District is within a State Responsibility Area (SRA) with CAL FIRE as the primary wildland fire response agency. CAL FIRE is legally and financially responsible to provide fire protection in all State Responsibility Areas (SRA). The majority of the District is located in the LRA, where the CAM has fire protection responsibility as neither the state nor the federal government has any legal responsibility for providing fire protection to those areas. 2.5.7 Infrastructure The CAM maintains infrastructure to support its fire protection services. This infrastructure includes fire stations, fire hydrants, fire trucks and other vehicles, water hoses, and other equipment. Fire Stations CAM owns two fire stations within the District including the buildings and the underlying land as listed in Table 2-13, below. Table 2-13: CAM Fire Stations Detail Station Number Address Staffing 2961 Alhambra Drive, 88 24/7/365 Cameron Park, CA 3200 Country Club Drive, 89 24/7/365 Cameron Park, CA Station 88 is located at the northern end of the District and is home to one full-time staffed Advanced Life Support Fire Engine (Engine 88), one reserve fire engine (Engine 288), and one utility vehicle (Utility 88). This station is staffed with a two-person engine crew (CAM, 2020f). Station 88 was constructed in the 1980s for part-time volunteer staffing and is thus undersized and not conductive to full-time staffing due to limitations in space and amenities. In February 2020, the District Board of Directors approved the use of Capital Asset Reserves to fund Station 88 remodel start-up costs through Fire Development Impact Fees available to the District (LAFCO, 2020a). Station 89 is located in the southern end of the district and is the primary business offices for the CAM. The station is home to one full-time staffed Advanced Life Support Engine (Engine 89), one full-time staffed Advanced Life Support ambulance (Medic 89), three reserve fire engines (Engine 288, Engine 289, and Engine 389), one reserve ambulance (Medic 289), two command vehicles (Battalion 2715 and Battalion 2705), and two utility vehicles (Utility 89 and Utility 289) (CAM, 2020f). The District is working Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-27 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final on improvements to Station 89. These include new carpeting and new bay doors. The County Board of Supervisors also allocated $577,000 for construction of a Fire Training Tower at Station 89 through Fire Development Impact Fees available to the District (LAFCO, 2020a). Equipment and Apparatus The CAM’s vehicle inventory includes five light-duty trucks and six fire engines. Table 2-14 below shows the list of vehicles and apparatus currently utilized by the District. Table 2-14: Apparatus and Light Vehicles, 2020 Equipment Type Identifier Year Make Water Capacity Pickup Truck U88 2010 Ford F-150 N/A Pickup Truck B2715 2019 Ford F-250 N/A Pickup Truck B2705 2019 Ford F-250 N/A Pickup Truck U89 2010 Ford F-150 N/A Pickup Truck U289 2010 Ford F-150 N/A Fire Engine – Type 3 Reserve E389 2002 NAV/Master 500 Fire Engine – Type 1 Reserve E289 2006 SmealSPARTAN 500 Fire Engine – Type 1 Reserve E288 2006 SmealSPARTAN 500 Fire Engine – Type 3 Reserve E388 2011 NAV/HME 500 Fire Engine – Type 1 E89 2015 Smeal/SPARTAN 750 Fire Engine – Type 1 E88 2020 Smeal/SPARTAN 750 Source: LAFCO, 2020a Technical and Specialty Equipment located on Engine 88 and Engine 89 include extraction equipment, stabilizing and lifting equipment, water rescue complement equipment, and additional miscellaneous equipment including thermal imaging cameras, generators, saws and blades, and GPA equipment. Engine 388 and Engine 389 also include technical and specialty equipment such as hydraulic power units and equipment for low angle rope rescue. District fire apparatus (with and without personnel) is rented to CAL FIRE and CA Office of Emergency Services for state-wide fire incidents. The District is reimbursed for fire personnel and equipment hours to offset costs related to the rental of equipment and personnel (LAFCO, 2020a). Water 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. In the CAM, water service is provided by the El Dorado Irrigation District. Water can also be obtained from local natural or neighborhood sources such as Cameron Park Lake, rivers, ponds and/or swimming pools. Specifically, the CAM has the ability to draft from Cameron Park Lake if necessary (LAFCO, 2020a). The District's fire engines may also contain water storage. Fire hoses are used to connect to fire hydrants, which allow the District to tap into the local water supply. The CAM indicated that the fire hydrant capacity/rating system is sufficient (LAFCO, 2020a). Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-28 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 2.5.8 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The District prepared a Master Plan and Capital Improvement Plan (MPCIP) for 2015-2020 in 2015 and describes planned facility and equipment upgrades. As part of the analysis, the District looked at station location and facility sufficiency. The 2015-2020 MPCIP reviewed three alternatives for increasing facility sufficiency: 1) relocating Station No. 88, 2) establishing a third fire station, and 3) refurbishing Station No. 88. The MPCIP concluded that the most practical, efficient, and cost-effective action for the CAM would be to renovate and remodel Station No. 88. The report recommends development of an addition to the existing facility to modernize the on-duty staff’s living quarters and improve the working environment (CAM, 2015a). 2.5.9 Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing The CAM, and its adjoining fire districts, Rescue Fire Protection District (RES), El Dorado Hills County Water District (EDH), and El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF), provide automatic and mutual aid fire and paramedic ambulance services to one another. The closest neighboring stations to the CAM are ECF Station No. 28 to the east and EDH Station No. 86 to the west. Automatic aid, mutual aid, boundary drop, and closest resource agreements exist for all fire agencies in the West Slope of the County of El Dorado. Further, the California Master mutual aid agreement has the ability to commit CAM resources anywhere in the state. According to the CAM, the District disproportionally arrives as first responder to emergency calls within the Rescue community area and in areas of ECF to the south of the District. ECF funding deficits have reduced staffing for the fire station to the south of the District. Thus, the District is the closest first responder to that area (LAFCO, 2020a). 2.6 Financial Ability to Provide Services LAFCO is required to make determinations regarding the financial ability of the Cameron Park Community Services District (CAM) to provide public services. This section provides an overview of the financial health of the District and a context for LAFCO’s financial determinations. For the fire agencies analyzed in this MSR/SOI Update, the audited financial statements for the fiscal years (FY) 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 were used as the primary source of all information for this section of each chapter as well as the final budget for FY 2019/2020 and preliminary budget for FY 2020/2021 (CAM, 2018; 2019a; 2019b; 2020h). In California, special districts are classified as either enterprise or non-enterprise based on their source of revenue. The CAM generally operates as an enterprise district, charging fees for recreation services. However, the District also collects and utilizes property tax revenue to fund parks and recreation services, street lighting and landscaping services, solid waste collection, weed abatement service, fire suppression and emergency medical services. Since the CAM operates as a Community Service District, the audited financial statements for the District are not easily broken down by each service area; therefore, the financial information for the District will be analyzed as a whole, including all services the CAM provides instead of focusing only on fire protection and emergency medical services. This is a deviation from the financial analysis completed for other fire agencies within the County and may affect the ability to fairly Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-29 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final compare this fire agency to the others. More information regarding the financial status for the fire agencies throughout the County can be found in Volume I - Chapter 5, Countywide Finances. 2.6.1 Financial Policies and Transparency The primary policy document for CAM which provides the rules for the District’s business operations including budget, procurement, and financial policies is the Cameron Park Community Services District Policy Guide Series 3000-Operation. The District’s reserves are discussed in a 5-year forecast and assessment replacement plan and individual accounts are outlined in the Fire and Emergency Service Capital Asset Reserve document. The District adopts a FY budget and conducts an annual cycle review to determine any changes that might be needed. The FY 2020/2021 budget was adopted by the Board on September 19, 2020 (CAM, 2020g). The District publishes an audited financial statement every year for the Community Service District, which includes the Fire Department for the District. Government Code and District policy require an annual independent audit of the District’s financial records by a certified public accountant. The independent audits on FY 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 were performed by R.J. Ricciardi Inc., independent auditors. The auditors judge whether the District’s financial statements are presented in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is responsible for establishing GAAP for state and local governments through its statements and interpretations. The District uses modified accrual basis of accounting, where revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recorded when liabilities are incurred. Property taxes are recognized as revenues in the year for which they are levied. Grants and similar items are recognized as revenue when reimbursable costs are incurred. 2.6.2 District Revenues and Expenditures For the Cameron Park Community Services District, property taxes account for 67 and 66 percent of the Districts Total Revenues in FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019. The largest expense for the District was the Schedule “A” Agreement with CAL FIRE as shown in Figure 2-7 on the next page. A breakdown of revenues and expenditures is also available in table format in in Volume II - Appendix A, Financial Tables by Agency. Revenues Property Taxes is the primary revenue source for CAM. Property Taxes accounts for 67 percent of revenue in FY 2017/2018 and 66 percent in FY 2018/2019. On average the District received about $4.33 million in Property Taxes each year according to the FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 fiscal and budget statements. For FY 2019/2020, 67.5 percent of property taxes was allocated for the operating budget for the Fire Department, or about $2.92 million. The remaining $2.37 million was divided between administration, parks, recreation, the community center, the weed abatement ordinance, and other fixed costs. The District property tax allocation approximated 3.6 percent of total property taxes collected for FY 2019/2020. Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-30 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 2-7: CAM Total Revenues & Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 to FY 2020/2021 Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-31 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-32 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final A second source of recurring revenue for the District is “Operating Contributions and Grants.” “Operating Contributions and Grants” includes District wide revenue generated by all departments, annual pass/pool pass sales, parks and recreation revenue, fees for services, facilities rentals, and fire apparatus equipment rentals to CAL FIRE. In addition, this line item includes the following awarded grants and additional revenue streams: California Climate Investments (CCI) Fire Prevention Grant, sponsorships, interest, reimbursements, and income through the weed abatement program. A third source of recurring for the District is “JPA Reimbursement” which is made up of the Advanced Life Support (ALS) Ambulance Agreement with the El Dorado County Emergency Services Authority (West Slope JPA) Reimbursement for operation of Medic Unit 89 out of Station No. 89. The District manages and staffs this ambulance on behalf of the JPA and is reimbursed for staff and maintenance expenses through the current contract which will expire in 2023. The JPA Reimbursement accounted for 14 percent or approximately $1.18 million in FY 2017/2018 and 15 percent or approximately $1.15 million in FY 2018/2019. The District submitted for the California Climate Investments (CCI) Fire Prevention Grant in December of 2019. The District was awarded $336,000 over three years (2019-2022) and budgeted for the grant in FY 2020/2021 for $71,120. Through the CCI Fire Prevention Grant Program, CAL FIRE provides funding for local projects and activities that address the risk of wildfire and reduce wildfire potential to forested and forest adjacent communities. Funded activities include hazardous fuel reduction, fire prevention planning, and fire prevention education with an emphasis on improving public health and safety while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Expenditures CAM provides fire protection and emergency response services through a Schedule “A” Agreement with CAL FIRE. The District is currently in year three of the five-year contract. The largest expenditure for the District was this contract, itemized as “Public Safety - Fire Protection,” in FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 it accounted for 56 percent and 61 percent of the budget expenditures respectively. The District estimated roughly the same percentage of budget for Fire Safety in their FY 2019/2020 and FY 2020/2021 Final and Preliminary Budgets; 54 percent or approximately $3.70 million for FY 2019/2020 and 61 percent or approximately $4.06 million for FY 2020/2021. An estimated breakdown in Expenditures by Department for FY 2020/2021 can be seen in Figure 2-8 below. Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-33 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 2-8: CAM Budgeted Expenditures by Department for FY 2020-2021 Source: CAM, 2020h The District confirmed that this has been roughly the same breakdown of Expenditures for the previous four fiscal years. The District anticipates that Fire and Emergency Services will make up 61.7 percent of all expenses for FY 2020/2021, the bulk of expenses for the District. Generally, the amount of expenditures related to the Fire Department varies year over year, primarily due to additional revenues the District has been able to capture, such as grant funding, as well as fluctuations in salaries for CAL FIRE employees based on the State of California salary changes. Through the Schedule “A” Agreement, the District is currently staffed at (2-0) model, meaning there are two firefighting personnel for every engine. As of July 1, 2020, the District had 18 full-time employees staffed to the District through CAL FIRE. This includes: one battalion chief, one fire marshal/battalion chief, two fire captain/paramedics, two fire captain/EMTs, nine fire apparatus engineer paramedics and three fire apparatus engineer EMTs (LAFCO, 2020a). Every year, 10-20 Resident Firefighters help to staff both fire stations and act as a third member of an engine company. Resident Firefighters work closely with ambulance personnel, staff community events, and receive considerable training. Qualifications for a Resident Firefighter is 18 years of age, successfully completed an accredited California State Fire Marshal Firefighter Academy, and must be an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) (LAFCO, 2020a). Resident Firefighters are considered interns by the District and are paid a daily stipend as employees of the District, not as employees with CAL FIRE (Jill Ritzman, personal communication, April 12, 2021). The District is a transporting agency for the West Slope JPA for emergency medical services, meaning that the District receives revenue from the JPA to operate one ambulance for the County of El Dorado. Revenue received covers all operating expenses associated with operating one ambulance. The District has an annual contract with the JPA to operate one ALS ambulance and six employees who provide 24/7 coverage (LAFCO, 2020a). Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-34 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Revenues (over / under) Expenditures The District operated with Expenditures outpacing Revenues by $302,619 in FY 2017/2018 and revenues over expenditures by $544,588 in FY 2018/2019 as shown in Figure 2-9. The Final Budget for FY 2019/2020 indicated another negative year (by $224,400) while the Final budget for FY 2020/2021 indicates a positive year. FY 2019/2020 saw a large decrease (approximately $500,000 less than FY 2018/2019) in “Charges for Services” revenue due to COVID-19 closures which accounts for the large drop in revenue between FY 2019/2020 and FY 2018/2019. The District hopes to have a return to similar revenue in FY 2020/2021. These types of fluctuations in revenues over/under expenditures as shown below are not common when compared with other fire service agencies in the County. Figure 2-9: CAM Net Revenues Over/Under Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 2.6.3 District Assets and Liabilities District Assets As of June 30th, 2019, the District had $28.39 million invested in assets as shown in Figure 2-10 below. Figure 2-10: District Assets as of June 30, 2019 Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-35 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The largest asset holdings are from the Capital Assets which include land; buildings and structures; and furniture and equipment. It was noted in the FY 2018/2019 Financial Audit that Capital Assets are not current assets or financial resources and are not able to be spent for budgeting purposes. Of the $8.77 million in Cash and Investments, or Total Government Funds, $1.38 million, or 15 percent, was allocated to the Fire Department. There was $111,341.19 in capital asset expenditures from the Fire and Emergency Service Capital Asset Reserve in FY 2018/2019. On February 19, 2020 the Board of Directors approved funding of $928,000 in Capital Equipment expense for the Fire & Emergency Services, Capital Asset Reserves to be used to fund repairs, maintenance, and replacement of existing capital assets, and fund acquisition of new assets. Liabilities and Debt As of June 30th, 2019 the District had approximately $12.84 million in liabilities as shown in Figure 2-11. below. The majority of the District’s long-term obligations consist of Refunding bonds. On August 24, 2005, the District issued approximately $8.69 million in general obligation bonds. The bonds were issued at a premium of $274,347 for the purpose of constructing a new community center. The general obligation bonds are payable solely from ad valorem property taxes. The bonds were fully refunded with proceeds from Umpqua Bank at an interest rate of three percent through August 1, 2030. The Districts second largest liability is the Other Post-Employment Benefits of approximately $2.22 million followed by the Net Pension liability of approximately $1.87 million. Figure 2-11: District Liabilities and Debt as of June 30, 2019 The District also leases two fire engines through two 7-year lease agreements with Umpqua Bank with one beginning in January 2016 and the other beginning in April 2021. Engine lease payments were expected to be approximately $175,150.02 in FY 2020/2021. There is an additional $13,000 in payments on two utility trucks. Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-36 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 2.6.4 Net Position Figure 2-12 below shows net position for FY 2018/2019 at approximately $15.5 million. The Net Position includes about $8.77 million in cash and investments and $18.7 million in capital assets. Between FY 2017/2018 and 2018/2019, the District increased its Net Position by less than a 3 percent. Figure 2-12: District Net Position as of June 30, 2019 2.6.5 Asset Maintenance and Replacement The 2015-2020 Fire Department Master Plan and Capital Improvement Plan (MPCIP) analyzed recommended apparatus/vehicle replacement schedules for existing equipment. Table 2-15 below shows the replacement schedule for the Districts vehicles. Table 2-15: MPCIP Apparatus & Light Vehicle Replacement Schedule, 2015 Equipment Type Purchase Year Refurbish or Replacement Year De-commission Year Engine 89 2006 2015 2020 Engine 88 2006 2021 2026 Engine 289 2001 2006 2021 Engine 288 2012 2027 2032 Engine 389 1990 2015 2020 Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-37 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Equipment Type Purchase Year Refurbish or Replacement Year De-commission Year Battalion 2715 2010 2016 2016 Battalion 2716 2010 2016 2016 Utility 89 2001 2016 2016 Utility 88 2010 2025 2025 Utility 289 1999 2019 Source: CAM, 2015a Current vehicle and apparatus listed in Table 4-1 above show that the District has placed Engines 288, 289, 388, and 389 in reserve while Engines 88 and 89 have been refurbished or replaced in line with the MPCIP schedule (CAM, 2015a). Both Battalion 2716 and 2715 were replaced in 2020. It is recommended that the District update the MPCIP for another five years as the current plan ended in 2020. 2.6.6 Cost Avoidance The District has attempted to cover costs by obtaining grants, including the CCI Grant awarded in September 1, 2019 and will expire in March 15, 2022 for $336,000; a California Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA) Grant awarded in August 2020 for $18,989; and a regional grant for medical equipment. The current weed abatement program allows costs to be expended by the fire department and recovered through a payment or lien process (LAFCO, 2020a). Districtwide, cost avoidance measures include use of Growlersburg inmate crews for fire fuel reduction and park maintenance projects, volunteer workdays, donations, sponsorships, partnering with community groups to expand program opportunities, implementing technological efficiencies, upgrading to energy efficient mechanisms, and installing a solar system. 2.6.7 Financial Summary and Ability to Provide Services Based on the data presented above, the District currently provides limited service to the residents of the CAM. 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 position, this is largely due to Capital Assets. Without the $18.6 million in Capital Assets, the District would be at a net negative position of approximately $3.1 million. 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 expenditures incurred by the District are not sustainable or sufficient in the long term (CAM, 2020i). To sum up the District Financial status (perspective of the current General Manager), the District’s highest priority is to fund Fire Protection Services to an appropriate service level. When the District’s costs for Fire Protection Services increases, the budget for the remaining services shrinks. The District is making strides Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-38 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final to trim costs through more efficient operations in all Departments. In February 2021, the Board of Directors entered into a Power Purchase Agreement with a solar energy company which will save the District $1.73 million in utility costs over the next 25 years. In addition, the District is maximizing revenues with service feeds and initiating new fees such as a first responder fee for ALS services. 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 (J. Ritzman, personal communication, February 16, 2021). Alternative Financing The 2015-2020 Fire Department Master Plan and Capital Improvement Plan (MPCIP) discussed long-term financial strategies for the District to meet the ongoing staffing and infrastructure needs to sustain the Fire Department at the current level of community fire and emergency services as well as in the future. The District’s developer impact fee schedule has been a source of one-time revenue to compensate the fire department for initial impacts. However, with the District approaching build-out, this revenue source is rapidly coming to an end. In order to meet the staffing shortfalls currently experienced by the District, the MPCIP recommends a benefit assessment measure to provide reliable on-going revenue to adequately staff apparatus with a third person, bringing the District up to the minimum national standard. The District has discussed putting a benefit assessment measure on the ballot. Currently, the District is pursuing other avenues of funding sources, such as a first responder fee as described in the next paragraph (Jill Ritzman, personal communication, April 12, 2021). In addition, the MPCIP found that the District responds frequently to some specific properties within the District. To remedy this, the MPCIP recommends administering a fee for service agreement with these properties. The District is currently looking at going a step further and instituting a District wide first responder fee for fire protection resources responding to medical calls for service. A consultant has been hired to create a nexus study and provide recommendations to the District Board (Jill Ritzman, personal communication, April 12, 2021). In addition to those recommendations in the MPCIP, on May 22, 2018, the Board of Supervisors approved a fee for fire services that applies to all new development within the district. See Table 2-16 below. Table 2-16: Development Impact Fees by Development Type (2018) Development Type Fee Single Family Housing $0.54 per living area Sq. Ft. Multi Family Housing $0.91 per living area Sq. Ft. Mobile Home $0.80 per living area Sq. Ft. Retail/Commercial $0.78 per living area Sq. Ft. Office $0.96 per living area Sq. Ft. Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-39 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Development Type Fee Industrial $0.72 per living area Sq. Ft. Agriculture $0.33 per living area Sq. Ft. Warehouse/Distribution $0.52 per living area Sq. Ft. Source: EDC, 2018 The fees collected from development projects are limited to only be used to expand the District’s facilities, apparatus, and equipment to meet the additional demand generated by new residents and employees and new structural areas created by these projects. As mentioned above, the District is approaching build- out, and this revenue source is rapidly coming to an end. Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-40 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 2.7 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 the Cameron Park Community Services District 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. Scoring for the determinations in Table 2-17 below are as follows: ▲ ● ▼ ◆ Above Average (compared to similar Districts), Average, Below Average, Statement of Fact (not rated). Table 2-17: Summary of MSR Determinations for the Cameron Park Community Services District Indicator Score Determination Population and Growth The CAM’s 5,762-acre boundary is located in unincorporated County of El ◆ Existing Boundary. Dorado and includes most of the community of Cameron Park as well as portions of the Pine Hill Preserve. ◆ Existing Sphere of Influence. The fire protection services for the District do not have any SOI areas. The CAM provides extra-territorial services outside of its district boundary in response to mutual and automatic aid agreements with every fire agency Extra-territorial Services the Agency provides as described in ◆ in El Dorado County for both fire protection and emergency services. These Government Code Section 56134. services are not considered to be Out-of-Agency Services as described in Government Code Section 56134 due to responses being under existing agreements. From 2020 to 2040, it is anticipated that an additional 2,168 persons are expected to reside within Cameron Park CSD boundaries. This represents ◆ Projected population in years 2020 through 2040. an overall 10.3 percent increase in projected future population (or 0.5 percent per year). This will bring the total population within the District’s service area to approximately 22,860 persons by the year 2040. Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-41 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination Currently, the District’s boundary area supports an average of 5 persons per acre which is considered to be low population density. The County District boundaries contain sufficient land area to accommodate ◆ General Plan suggests that growth may occur in the western portions of the projected growth. CAM boundary as well as in larger developments to the southwest of the District. Government Structure and Accountability There is no current litigation within the CAM as it relates to fire protection services. The CAM, along with all the fire protection agencies in the County, Is the District involved in current litigation and/or has the District ▼ have recently been the subject of a grand jury report, Case No. 19-06. The been the subject of a recent grand jury inquiry. District responded to grand jury report and agreed with the grand jury’s findings and suggested that Recommendation 1 requires further analysis. The CAM website maintains a page dedicated to the District’s Board Terms of office and next election date are disclosed for District Board ▲ members. Committee appointments are not listed here, however the members and committee appointments are online. “Committee Meetings” page lists committee appointments. The CAM’s Fire Prevention Bureau is located at Station 89 and available to assist the community. The CAM’s website provides information on Does the District work to inform and educate homeowners regarding ▲ minimum horizontal and vertical clearance, defensible space, and the fire safety and prevention consistent with General Plan Objective CAM’s adopted weed and rubbish abatement ordinance. The website also 6.2.5? links to the CAL FIRE guide to help prepare for a wildfire called “Wildfire is Coming. Are You…Set?” The CAM website complies with the 2016 updates to the Brown Act by Does the District’s website comply with the 2016 updates to the ▲ posting a direct link to the current agenda on its primary homepage. The Brown Act described in Government Code §54954.2 and enacted by CAM also provides links to the current agenda for its subcommittees in the Assembly Bill 2257? same area of the homepage. Does the District comply with the Special District Transparency Act (SB 929 or California Government Code, §6270.6 and 53087.8) which The CAM website is a comprehensive collection of information that ▲ requires special districts to have a functional website that lists complies with SB 929 providing contact information, financial statements, contact information and contains financial statements, compensation reports, and other relevant public information. compensation reports, and other relevant public information. Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-42 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination CAM’s elected Board members submit required forms and receive required trainings as prescribed by the three state laws regarding accountability and ethics including: 1) the Political Reform Act; 2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005) which requires ethics training; and 3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. Do elected Board members submit required forms and receive CAM does have a conflict-of-interest code most recently reaffirmed in required trainings as prescribed by the three state laws regarding September 2018. The conflict of interest policy is available to the public on accountability and ethics including: the District’s website. There have been no complaints to the CA FPPC ▲ regarding filing of Economic Statements of Interest required under the (1) the Political Reform Act; Political Reform Act. (2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005); and (3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. The District’s website posts the certificates for completion of ethics training for each Board member. All Board members have completed trainings as required by AB 1234. Board members participated in a sexual harassment prevention training webinar in January 2021. Therefore, the District Board is in compliance with Gov. Code 53237 et. seq. Disadvantage Communities California’s median household income was $71,228 in 2018. This yields a The median household income is identified. The DUC threshold MHI ◆ DUC threshold MHI of less than $56,982. Within the boundaries of CAM (80 percent of the statewide MHI) is clearly stated. The MHI in the are located one Census Block Group that meets the DUC threshold and is District’s boundary is described. therefore classified as disadvantaged unincorporated community. There are Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within or contiguous to the CAM boundary and sphere of influence, including two census block groups. The DUCs described in this chapter do receive Potential DUCs are considered. The provision of adequate water, ◆ adequate water service from EID or private wells. Wastewater services are wastewater, and structural fire protection services to DUCs is provided to DUC areas either by EID or by small septic systems. Fire considered. protection services to the DUCs described in this chapter are provided by the CAM, RES or ECF. No public health and safety issues have been identified. Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-43 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination Shared Facilities and Services The CAM works with all other fire agencies within the County of El Dorado to maintain current mutual aid, automatic aid, and boundary drop Agreements for mutual aid or any other appropriate agreement (i.e., ● agreements. The CIP 2015-2020 identified that the CAM routinely responds Tax Sharing Agreement) are periodically reviewed by the District to automatic-aid alarms twice as often as it receives automatic aid. It is not Board to ensure fiscal neutrality. clear whether the District reviews mutual or automatic aid agreements for fiscal neutrality. Other practices and opportunities that may reduce or eliminate In accordance with the CAM’s 2015-2020 MP and CIP, the District unnecessary costs are examined by the District periodically. Ideally, ▲ periodically reviews costs and budgeting strategies to effectively plan, there is a balance between cost efficiency and risk reduction approve, and implement a sustained and continuous effort to operate a strategies. modern suburban fire protection service delivery system. The CAM works with neighboring fire agencies as well as fire agencies throughout the County of El Dorado to provide adequate, timely fire The District collaborates with multiple other fire and emergency ▲ protection and emergency medical services to residents of the District as medical agencies for the delivery of services within its boundary. well as residents throughout the County of El Dorado. The District provided more aid than it received from partner fire agencies in 2019. Public Services and Infrastructure In the year 2019, the District’s average response time was 5 minutes and 44 seconds. CAM average for 2019 appears to meet response time goals for Does the District comply with County General Plan policies in new discretionary projects in all County community types. CAM contains relation to response times. Does the District meet the minimum ▼ the Community Region of Cameron Park. standard for staffing. CAM is staffed on a ratio with two staff per engine (2-0) model, below the minimum standard. Lower staffing levels leave the community vulnerable to low frequency, high-risk events, such as a working structure fire. Has the District has been diligent in developing plans to The CAM’s 2015-2020 Master Plan and Capital Improvement Plan (MPCIP) accommodate the infrastructure and service needs of current and ● is outdated as of fiscal year 2020/2021. In addition, the report calls for a future constituents? District regularly reviews and updates its service strategic financial plan as a companion to this report. This strategic plans to ensure that infrastructure needs, and deficiencies are financial plan never materialized. addressed in a timely manner. The CAM’s 2015-2020 CIP plans for major expenditures and replacement of The District has preventative maintenance measures and has ● apparatus, equipment, and facilities. However, as of 2020, the report is planned for replacement of aging infrastructure. outdated and needs to be replaced to continue the process. Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-44 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination The District generally provides sufficient services to meet the following criteria for current and future needs: Does the District provide sufficient services to meet current and (1) The CAM currently operates below the minimum standard 3-0 future demands with: staffing model; ● (2) CAM participates in automatic/mutual aid agreements with all (1) recruitment; West Slope agencies in the County of El Dorado. The District (2) mutual aid; and provided aid to partner agencies 331 more times than the District (3) water supply for fire protection. received in 2019, one of only two agencies to do so; and (3) In the CAM, water service is provided by the El Dorado Irrigation District. The CAM maintains infrastructure to support its fire protection services. This infrastructure includes fire stations, fire hydrants, fire trucks, and other vehicles, water hoses and other equipment. (1) The CAM owns two fire stations which have received funding for The District meets infrastructure needs for improvements; (2) District rolling stock have been updated as recommended in the 2015- (1) facilities (stations); 2020 MPCIP. Recommendation: Consultants recommend the District (2) rolling stock (engines, apparatus, and emergency medical ▲ updated the 2020 MPCIP. response units;) (3) The CAM contracts with CAL FIRE through the JPA for the provision of (3) dispatch systems; and fire department 9-1-1 emergency dispatch services through the (4) roadways for emergency access. Fire/Emergency Command Center. (4) CAM staff work with the County to mitigate any ingress and egress issues that may arise. In addition, the 2015-2020 MP and CIP identified updates needed to Station 88 in order to bring this station into modern standards for 24/7 fire protection services. CAM does have capacity to assist with and/or assume services provided by other fire protection agencies, based on the following factors: (1) overall, CAM fire services operate efficiently through the Schedule “A” Evaluation of the District’s capacity to assist with and/or assume fire ▲ Agreement with CAL FIRE; and emergency medical services provided by other agencies. (2) CAM currently provides automatic/mutual aid services to other fire agencies in the County, providing more aid than receiving in 2019; and (3) CAM has a sufficient number of fire stations and equipment to serve both its own needs and to potentially collaborate with other agencies. Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-45 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination Rating for the District from the neutral third-party Insurance Services ▲ Office (ISO) where the rating scale from best to worse is One (1) to CAM received an ISO rating of 3. Ten (10). CAL FIRE’s Station 43 is staffed on a seasonal basis and is located to the ◆ east of CAM. Although there is some limited overlap between CAM and CAL Is there duplicate infrastructure by other fire agencies nearby. FIRE services, it is not considered an exact duplication of services because the CAM focuses on structural fire protection services. Financial Accountability The District operated with negative $302,619 in revenues over District Revenues exceed expenditures in FY 2017/2018 and FY ▼ expenditures in FY 2017/2018 and positive $544,588 in revenues over 2018/2019 expenditures in 2018/2019. District finances are sufficient to apply a staffing model that meets or ▼ District operates at a (2-0) staffing model through a Schedule “A” exceeds the minimum standard of three staff per engine and truck Agreement with CAL FIRE. company (3-0) model (or at NFPA 1720 standards if applicable). The financial information available in the District Comprehensive Audited Financial Reports were presented for the Community Services District as a Summary financial information presented in a standard format and ▼ whole, without a detailed breakdown for fire services only. It was simple language. determined that Fire Department financials were not able to be separated from other services provided by the CAM to complete a fire specific financial assessment. The CAM’s 2015-2020 Fire Department Master Plan and Capital ● Improvement Plan (MPCIP) is outdated as of fiscal year 2020/2021. The District has an updated Strategic Plan that addresses financial goals. District is expecting to approve a new 2021-2026 Strategic Plan in May 2021. The primary policy document for CAM is the Cameron Park Community Services District Policy Guide Series 3000-Operation. It describes the rules The District has a published policy for reserve funds, including the ▲ for the District’s business operations including budget, procurement, and size and purpose of reserves and how they are invested. financial policies. District reserves are discussed in a 5-year forecast and assessment replacement plan and individual accounts are outlined in the Fire and Emergency Service Capital Asset Reserve PDF. Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-46 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination The District had a $15.5 million Positive Net Position in FY 2018/2019 ▲ however, the Fire Department Net Position for the CAM could not be The District had a positive Net Position for FY 2018/2019. determined based on the Fire Department financials not being separate from the other services provided by the CAM in the District’s CAFRs. A minimum of 50% total operating expense is kept on hand in the ◆ This metric could not be evaluated for the CAM due to the financial analysis General Reserve Fund in FY 2018/2019. including the District as a whole. Alternative financing opportunities were explored and pursued by ◆ The Board of Directors approved a fee for all new developments in 2018. the District. They have not put a measure on the ballot for a special tax. Effect on Agriculture and Open Space Open space totals roughly 523.92 acres within the fire service boundaries Effect that the District’s service provision will have on open space ◆ for the CAM and no agricultural lands. Fire Protection Services and and agricultural lands. Emergency Medical Services generally have minimal effects on agricultural land and open space. ▲ ● ▼ ◆ Key Score: Above Average (compared to similar Districts), Average, Below Average, Statement of Fact (not rated) Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-47 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-48 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 2.8 References Cameron Park Community Services District. August 19, 2015. Fire Department Master Plan and Capital Improvement Plan 2015-2020 – Administrative Review Final. Available from LAFCO files upon request. _____. 2018. Basic Financial Statements – June 30, 2018. Available from LAFCO files upon request. _____. 2019a. Basic Financial Statements – June 30, 2019. Available from LAFCO files upon request. _____. 2019b. Agenda Item #8: Fiscal Year 2019-20 Final Budget, Public Hearing to Approve Resolution 2019-18. Available from LAFCO files upon request. _____. 2020a. About Us. Web. Available online at: https://www.cameronpark.org/about-us. _____. 2020b. Home. Web. Available online at: https://www.cameronpark.org/. _____. 2020c. Committee Meetings. Web. Available online at: https://www.cameronpark.org/committee-meetings. _____. 2020d. Public Meetings. Web. Available online at: https://www.cameronpark.org/public- meetings. _____. 2020e. Committee Meetings. Web. Available online at: https://www.cameronpark.org/committee-meetings. _____. 2020f. Fire and Emergency. Web. Available online at: https://www.cameronpark.org/fire- emergency. _____. August 2015g. Fire Department Master Plan and Capital Improvement Plan, 2015-2020. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. July 2020h. Statement of Revenues and Expenditures – Unposted Transactions Included in Report, 01-General Fund from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. Available from LAFCO files upon request. _____. June 2020i. Cameron Park Community Services District Funding Sources Fiscal Year 2020-21. Available from LAFCO files upon request. _____. March 3, 2020j. Board of Directors Agenda Transmittal – Item 4: Five Year Budget Projection. Available from LAFCO files upon request. 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/. _____. 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/. Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-49 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final _____. 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/. California Department of Insurance. 2018. The Availability and Affordability of Coverage for Wildfire Loss in Residential Property Insurance in the Wildland-Urban Interface and Other High-Risk Areas of California: CDI Summary and Proposed Solutions. 44-pages. Sacramento, California. Retrieved on November 9, 2020 from: http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0100-press- releases/2018/upload/nr002-2018AvailabilityandAffordabilityofWildfireCoverage.pdf CAL FIRE (formerly California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) Office of the State Fire Marshal. May 2007. Fact Sheet: Fire Hazard Severity Zone Model A Non-Technical Primer. Available online at: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/FIreHazardZone_NonTechnical_Prim er.pdf. _____. December 2019. Fire and Resource Protection Program (FRAP). Map of Wildland Urban Interface(WUI). MAPID: WUI_19DATA SOURCES:WUI_12_3CNTY_18. Available online at: https://frap.fire.ca.gov/media/10300/wui_19_ada.pdf. _____. 2020a. Fire Fighter 1 (2019) – Fire Fighter 1C: Wildland Update. Available online at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/state-fire-training/cfstes-professional-certification/fire- fighter-1-2019/. _____. 2020b. Communities at Risk. Available online at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire- planning-engineering/fire-plan/communities-at-risk/. _____. October 2020c. Interview with Camino Division Fire Chief. CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center (ECC). 2020. CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center Dispatch Data. Received October 2020. California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). August 2003. Local Agency Formation Commission Municipal Service Review Guidelines Final. California Department of Finance (CDF). July 2019. E-2. California County Population Estimates a Components of Change by Year – July 1, 2000-2010. Available online at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-2/. County of El Dorado, Recorder’s Office. June 1961. Resolution No. 97-61: Resolution and Order Canvassing Vote of Election, Declaring Establishment of Cameron Park Community Services District, Setting Forth the Boundaries of Said District, the Names of the Persons Elected Directors Thereof, and the Purposes for Which Said District is Formed. Available online at: https://www.cameronpark.org/files/82c7c2119/EDC-BOS-Resolution-97-61.pdf. County of El Dorado (EDC). August 2016. Pine Hill Preserve (Protected Lands) Cameron Park Area County of El Dorado State of California. Available online at: https://edcapps.edcgov.us/maplibrary/html/ImageFiles/gi0072589.pdf. Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-50 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final _____. May 22, 2018. Resolution No. 098-2018 of the Board of Supervisors of the County of El Dorado – Resolution establishing Development Impact Fees on behalf of Cameron Park Community Services District for the Cameron Park Fire Department. Available from LAFCO files upon request. _____. Amended 2019. El Dorado County General Plan: Land Use Element, July 2004. Available online at: https://www.edcgov.us/Government/planning/adoptedgeneralplan/Documents/2_landuse.pdf. _____. 2020. GotNet. Available online at: https://see-eldorado.edcgov.us/ugotnet/. El Dorado County Local Agency Formation Commission (El Dorado LAFCO). May 2012. Countywide Fire Suppression and Emergency Services Municipal Service Review. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/files/62a46c645/2008-2013+Cameron+Park+CSD+Final+MSR.pdf. _____. Revised April 2019. El Dorado LAFCO Policies and Guidelines, Adopted November 1988. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/files/bfdbebe86/El+Dorado+LAFCO+Policies+%26+Guidelines.pdf. _____. September 2020a. Response to LAFCO’s Request for Information. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. July 2020b. Agenda Item #7: 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/files/6c3cc2643/20_July_22_Item_7_Staff_Memo_%28Consider_Respo nse_to_Grand_Jury%29.pdf. CityGate Associates, LLC. May 2010. Fire and Emergency Services Study for the El Dorado LAFCO. Volumes 1-3 – Main Report. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/citygate-fire-study. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). 2020. NFPA 1710: Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. US Bureau of Land Management. 2020. Pine Hill Preserve Area of Critical Environmental Concern. Available online at: https://www.blm.gov/visit/pine-hill-preserve. U.S. Census Bureau. 2019. American Community Survey, 2010: ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables and 2019: ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables. Available online at: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?t=Populations%20and%20Peopleandg=1600000US061025 6andtid=ACSST5Y2018.S0101andhidePreview=false. Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-51 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Cameron Park Community Services District Page 2-52 of 2-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Chapter 3. Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District This chapter details the district formation, boundary, government structure, population and land use, disadvantaged communities, finances, and the provision of fire protection facilities and services provided by the Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District (DSP) as well as the MSR determinations for this district. Table of Contents 3.1 Agency Profile ..................................................................................................................3-5 3.1.1 Agency Overview ................................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.2 Agency Formation and Boundary ......................................................................................3-6 3.2.1 Formation .............................................................................................................................................. 3-6 3.2.2 District Boundary................................................................................................................................... 3-6 3.2.3 Existing Sphere of Influence .................................................................................................................. 3-8 3.2.4 Extra-Territorial Services ....................................................................................................................... 3-8 3.3 District Governance and Accountability ............................................................................3-8 3.3.1 Government Structure .......................................................................................................................... 3-9 3.3.2 District Board......................................................................................................................................... 3-9 3.3.3 Accountability and Transparency ........................................................................................................ 3-11 3.3.4 Management Efficiencies and Staffing ............................................................................................... 3-12 3.3.5 Staffing and Training ........................................................................................................................... 3-12 3.4 Growth and Population Forecasts ................................................................................... 3-15 3.4.1 Existing Population .............................................................................................................................. 3-15 3.4.2 Existing Population in SOI ................................................................................................................... 3-16 3.4.3 Projected Population Growth ............................................................................................................. 3-16 Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-1 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 3.4.4 Existing Land Use ................................................................................................................................. 3-17 3.4.5 Potential Future Development ........................................................................................................... 3-18 3.4.6 Open Space and Agriculture ............................................................................................................... 3-18 3.4.7 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities.................................................................................... 3-19 3.5 Public Services and Infrastructure ................................................................................... 3-20 3.5.1 Service Overview ................................................................................................................................. 3-20 3.5.2 Fire and Emergency Response ............................................................................................................ 3-21 3.5.3 Mutual Aid, Automatic Aid, Other Agreements .................................................................................. 3-25 3.5.4 Dispatch ............................................................................................................................................... 3-28 3.5.5 Emergency Access ............................................................................................................................... 3-28 3.5.6 Fire Hazard Zones ................................................................................................................................ 3-29 3.5.7 Infrastructure ...................................................................................................................................... 3-31 3.5.8 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies ................................................................................................ 3-33 3.5.9 Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing ................................................................................................. 3-33 3.6 Financial Ability to Provide Services ................................................................................ 3-34 3.6.1 Financial Policies and Transparency ................................................................................................... 3-34 3.6.2 District Revenues and Expenditures ................................................................................................... 3-35 3.6.3 District Assets and Liabilities ............................................................................................................... 3-38 3.6.4 Net Position ......................................................................................................................................... 3-39 3.6.5 Asset Maintenance and Replacement ................................................................................................ 3-40 3.6.6 Cost Avoidance .................................................................................................................................... 3-40 3.6.7 Financial Summary and Ability to Provide Services ............................................................................ 3-41 3.7 Determinations .............................................................................................................. 3-42 3.8 References ..................................................................................................................... 3-49 Table of Tables Table 3-1: Geographic Summary of DSP Boundary and SOI (2020) .......................................................... 3-8 Table 3-2: Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Board of Directors ................................. 3-9 Table 3-3: Current Staffing Levels for the DSP by Type and Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) ......................... 3-13 Table 3-4: DSP Existing Population .......................................................................................................... 3-15 Table 3-5: Total Estimated and Projected Population (2020 – 2040) .................................................... 3-16 Table 3-6: Acreage Designated as Open Space, Agriculture, and Natural Resources within the DSP Boundary/SOI ........................................................................................................................................... 3-19 Table 3-7: MHI in Census Block Groups for Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District ......... 3-19 Table 3-8: DSP Public Services ................................................................................................................. 3-20 Table 3-9: Average Response Times for DSP from 2010 to 2019 ............................................................ 3-24 Table 3-10: Aid Given and Received from the DSP, 2019 ........................................................................ 3-27 Table 3-11: DSP Fire Hazard Severity Zone Acreage and Percentage ..................................................... 3-29 Table 3-12: DSP Local, State and Federal Responsibility Area Acreage and Percentage ........................ 3-29 Table 3-13: DSP Fire Stations Detail ........................................................................................................ 3-31 Table 3-14: Apparatus and Light Vehicles, 2020 ..................................................................................... 3-32 Table 3-15: Mello-Roos CDF Act Special Tax Rates by Property Type ..................................................... 3-35 Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-2 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 3-16: Summary of MSR Determinations for the DSP ..................................................................... 3-42 Table of Figures Figure 3-1: Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Service Area and SOI ......................... 3-7 Figure 3-2: Stipend for DSP Directors and Extra Help, 2018 ................................................................... 3-10 Figure 3-3: Wages and Benefits, DSP Staff, 2018 .................................................................................... 3-14 Figure 3-4: Peak Population in DSP Boundary ......................................................................................... 3-16 Figure 3-5: DSP Medic 49 Calls for Service by Type, 2019 ..................................................................... 3-22 Figure 3-6: District Calls for Service from 2010 – 2019 ........................................................................... 3-23 Figure 3-7: DSP Calls for Service by Type, 2019 ..................................................................................... 3-23 Figure 3-8: DSP Number of Calls by Station 2015-2019 .......................................................................... 3-24 Figure 3-9: Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Responsibility Areas for DSP ............................................ 3-30 Figure 3-10: DSP Total Revenues & Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 to FY 2020/2021 .......................... 3-36 Figure 3-11: DSP Net Revenues Over/Under Expenditures for for FY 2017-2021 .................................. 3-38 Figure 3-12: District Assets as of June 30, 2019 ...................................................................................... 3-39 Figure 3-13: District Liabilities and Debt as of June 30, 2019.................................................................. 3-39 Figure 3-14: District Net Position as of June 30, 2019 ............................................................................. 3-40 Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-3 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-4 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 3.1 Agency Profile 3.1.1 Agency Overview The Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District (DSP) is located just southwest of Placerville and is centered around the communities of Diamond Springs and El Dorado. The majority of the District encompasses areas that are north and south of US Highway 50, extending south along the Highway 49 corridor to the El Dorado-Amador County Line. As a Fire Protection District, the Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District is empowered to provide emergency medical services and fire protection services. Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-5 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 3.2 Agency Formation and Boundary 3.2.1 Formation The Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District was organized in 1979 through the consolidation of the Diamond Springs Fire Protection District and the El Dorado Fire Protection District. The County Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 136-79 on June 12, 1979, as amended by Resolution No. 183-79 adopted on August 7, 1979. These resolutions established the District services, including fire protection services and emergency medical services. LAFCO approved Resolution No. 16-79 on March 21, 1979. The enabling legislation supporting DSP is the California Health and Safety Code §13800, et seq. 3.2.2 District Boundary The Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District geographic boundary encompasses roughly 41,951 acres or 65.5 square miles, as seen in Figure 3-1. The boundary includes 7,956 assessor parcels (EDC GIS, 2020). All areas within the boundary receive service from the DSP. Occasionally, nearby fire districts might respond to an emergency within the DSP boundaries through existing mutual aid agreements as detailed in Section 3.5.2 below. DSP staff has indicated that there are no areas the District currently serves that might be served more efficiently by another agency (LAFCO, 2020a). This indicates that the existing DSP boundary area is suitable for the public services provided. The DSP is located within the west side of the County of El Dorado and generally encompasses the communities of Diamond Springs, El Dorado, Sleepy Hollow, Logtown, Missouri Flat, Nashville, and Sandridge. Two major highways transect the District: US Highway 50, which runs east/west; and CA State Highway 49, which runs north/south. DSP is bounded by several neighboring fire agencies including Rescue and El Dorado County Fire Protection Districts as well as the El Dorado Hills County Water District to the west; the El Dorado County Fire Protection District to the north and northeast; the Pioneer Fire Protection District to the east; and the Amador Fire Protection District in Amador County to the south. 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 LAFCO’s 2011 MSR reported that DSP was “consistently the first responder in areas outside its boundaries in the southwest area of the City of Placerville, near the Weber Creek Bridge. Isolated areas, such as the southeast portion of the District make some parts of the District difficult to serve. Pioneer Fire Protection District has been the first responder in those areas". District staff have confirmed that comments from the 2011 MSR remain valid (LAFCO, 2011; Chief Gallagher, personal communication, May 13, 2021). Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-6 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 3-1: Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Service Area and SOI Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-7 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 3.2.3 Existing Sphere of Influence This section briefly describes the existing Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District. Additional details can be found in Chapter 20, SOI Analysis, in this document. El Dorado LAFCO adopted the original SOI for the 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 1,462.6 acres and as shown in Table 3-1, below. Table 3-1: Geographic Summary of DSP Boundary and SOI (2020) Boundary Area SOI Total Boundary (All Services) (All Services) & SOI Total Acres 41,951 1,462.6 43,413 Square Miles 65.5 2.29 67.79 Number of Assessor Parcels 7,956 24 7,980 Source: EDC GIS, 2020 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 (LAFCO, 2020a). As outlined in the 2011 MSR, this creates an issue of fiscal inequity to DSP, because it does not receive revenue from these parcels to offset the potential costs of service. 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. 3.2.4 Extra-Territorial Services The DSP provides extra-territorial services outside of its District boundary, primarily to those within its SOI. Additionally, since the DSP is the only entity that responds to the medium (Type 2) rescues throughout the County, personnel for DSP will be called to respond to locations outside its boundary (LAFCO, 2020a). This type of extra territorial services is consistent with its mutual and automatic aid agreements described in Section 3.5.3 below. Therefore, these services provided outside the boundary are not considered to be Out-of-Agency Services as described in Government Code Section 56134. The District maintains automatic and mutual aid agreements with all fire service agencies located in El Dorado County for fire suppression and emergency management services. 3.3 District Governance and Accountability This section describes how performance, accountability, transparency, and public engagement relate to the public’s trust in local government. LAFCO is required by the CKH Act to make specific determinations regarding a municipality’s government structure and accountability. Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-8 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 3.3.1 Government Structure The DSP is a local government agency structured as a Fire Protection District consistent with its Principal Act, the CA Health and Safety Code. The District is an Independent Special District with five elected Board Members who reside within the community. All registered voters who reside within the District boundaries are eligible to vote for and run for a seat on the District Board of Directors. The District Board appoints the General Manager (GM), and DSP's Fire Chief is the GM. 3.3.2 District Board The District operates under the direction of the elected District Board. Each elected Board Member serves for a term of four years, with two Board Member seats running two years apart from the remaining three seats. A new Board President is selected by the Board Members each year. The District’s active committees include Personnel and Negotiations. The current Board of Directors members, their committee appointments, and their terms' expiration dates are shown in Table 3-2 below. Table 3-2: Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Board of Directors Name Title Term End Committee Appointments Patrick Williams President Dec. 2022 Personnel Gary Cooper Vice President Dec. 2024 Personnel Richard Boylan Director Dec. 2022 None Peter Moffett Director Dec. 2024 Negotiations David Phillips Director Dec. 2024 Negotiations Source: LAFCO, 2020a; Chief Gallagher, personal communication, May 13, 2021 The District holds regular public meetings on the Second Tuesday of each month at 3:00 PM at the Diamond Springs Fire Station located at 501 Pleasant Valley Road. DSP’s five board members are eligible to receive compensation for meeting attendance in the amount of a $100 stipend. Board members are not eligible to receive health benefits, retirement, or mileage (LAFCO, 2019). Payments made to DSP’s board members was researched on an on-line database1. Query results showed that each of the five board members received a small stipend in 2018, the highest stipend was $900 and the lowest was $375 for that year as shown in Figure 3-2 below. Extra help was also hired and received approximately $800. In 2018 the average board member stipend was $660. Although there is no reported difficulty in attracting candidates to run for the Board of Directors, the elections are typically unopposed (LAFCO, 2019). 1 Transparent California is a non-profit organization and is California's largest public pay and pension database. The pay and pension associated with most fire districts up to the year 2018 are provided in this database. The on-line database is available at: https://transparentcalifornia.com/agencies/salaries/special-districts/#fire-protection. Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-9 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 3-2: Stipend for DSP Directors and Extra Help, 2018 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 Director Director Director Director Director Extra Help In California, elected members of special district boards are required to comply with three laws regarding accountability and ethics including 1) the Political Reform Act; 2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005), which requires ethics training; and 3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. which mandates sexual harassment prevention training. A description of each of these three state laws is provided in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Political Reform Act Each Special District in California is required to have ethics and conflict of interest code/policies. DSP does have a conflict-of-interest code adopted on August 11, 2020, via Resolution 2020-05. DSP’s conflict of interest policies are available to the public on its website. This law also requires Special District Board Members to disclose all personal economic interests by filing a “Statement of Economic Interests” with their District or the County Board of Supervisors consistent with requirements of the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). Information available from the FPPC indicates that Board members are complying with the Political Reform Act. Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005) Local government officials are required to take ethics training every two years. Compliance with this law was assessed for each of the fourteen fire agencies studied in this MSR by asking the Clerk of the Board for the dates and other documentation of training events. DSP's Acting Fire Chief reports that training has been conducted on a regular basis however no records could be found. The District is assigning these records to the District’s software for record keeping purposes moving forward. Based on confirmation by the Acting Fire Chief, DSP’s Board is in compliance with AB 1234. Government Code 53237 et. seq. Special district board members must receive required sexual harassment prevention, two-hour training, every two years. Compliance with this law was assessed for each of the fourteen fire agencies studied in this MSR by asking the Clerk of the Board for the dates and other documentation of training events. DSP informed consultants that each Board member’s current employer require ethics and sexual harassment annually. Only one Director receives training through the District which was completed on May 2, 2021. Therefore, DSP’s Board complies with Gov. Code 53237 et. seq. Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-10 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 3.3.3 Accountability and Transparency Brown Act The Brown Act is described in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. All meetings of the District Board and Committees are open to the public in accordance with the Brown Act. The agenda for each meeting includes a public comment period and agendas are made available 72 hours before meetings. Any written document that relates to an agenda item is available for public inspection at the same time the agenda packet is distributed to the members of the Board of Directors. Written documents are made available at the District Office and on the District website at: http://www.diamondfire.org/. Agendas are also distributed via email upon request. District staff has verified that all public notices, agendas, public hearings are all in compliance with the Brown Act. All District Board Meetings are run in compliance with the Brown Act (LAFCO, 2020a). The State Legislature updated the Brown Act in 2016 as codified in Government Code §54954.2 (see also Assembly Bill 2257). These new Brown Act requirements are detailed in the Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. DSP makes its current meeting agenda and meeting agendas and minutes for the past year available on its website. A link to the webpage containing the most current agenda is provided on the home page and listed at the top of the page containing the agendas for the past year. Full annual agendas and minutes are posted on the District website for one year, while archived agendas and minutes from previous years are available upon request by emailing the Board Secretary. The District website complies with Brown Act updates under Assembly Bill 2257. Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20 suspended parts of the Brown Act that require in-person attendance of Board members and citizens at public meetings as described in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. In response to these events, the District implemented Teleconference/Electronic meeting protocols effective April 8, 2020, which allow for public participation through video conferencing and by telephone. All meetings are streamed live via Zoom, a video conferencing platform accessible by the public for free. The public can also participate via telephone dial- in number. Individuals with questions about the Board agendas may contact the District at (530) 626- 3190 (DSP, 2021). Special District Transparency Act (SB 929) The District's website is kept updated and is easily navigable with current and past agendas and minutes available for download. The DSP website contains financial statements, the District’s budget and expenditures, and compensation reports. The terms of office are disclosed for District Board members online as well as committee appointments. Contact information for Board Members is available on the District’s website. The District website contains the key information required; therefore, Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District does meet the Special District Transparency Act requirements (DSP, 2021). More information on the SB 929 can be found in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-11 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final General Accountability There are several laws, regulations, and guidelines which prescribe safety features associated with fire protection services, including state laws and regulations exercised through the District's cooperative agreement with CAL FIRE, the Safety Element of the County of El Dorado's General Plan, and other County requirements and regulations. DSP, along with all the fire protection districts in El Dorado County, has recently been the subject of a grand jury report (CED, 2020a). The Grand Jury posits in Case 19-06 that, while it made sense historically, the only reason there are multiple fire agencies in El Dorado County is because of "strong loyalty to a local home district”, “coming at the expense of the County as a whole." The Grand Jury concludes that the insufficient revenues afforded to rural districts puts a strain on the mutual and automatic aid system as a whole, forcing more financially stable districts to "subsidize" the rural ones by having the former respond to calls when the latter is unable to do so. The issues raised in the grand jury report remain valid (LAFCO, 2020b). Changes to the governmental structure of some fire protection districts are needed to address these issues. 3.3.4 Management Efficiencies and Staffing The Fire Chief is appointed by and reports to the Board and is responsible for directing District operations and overseeing and implementing policies on behalf of the Board. An important part of management effectiveness includes the District adopting a District-wide mission statement. The DSP Mission statement is: To respond quickly and to provide the services of an all-risk fire agency while being the guardians of the public funds that you entrust to us. 3.3.5 Staffing and Training DSP staff includes paramedic firefighters and emergency medical technicians. Detailed full-time personnel information can be seen in Table 3-3 below. The DSP fire department is only able to staff one of the District’s five fire stations, Station No. 49, which is located in the geographic and population center of the District. However, three stations in the outlying areas of the District are not staffed (Sleep Hollow No. 47, Missouri Flat No. 48, and Logtown No. 44), as well as the El Dorado Station (No. 46). CAL FIRE owns and operates El Dorado Fire Station No. 43, which is staffed seasonally by CAL FIRE (Refer to Figure 5-1). Currently, the DSP operates Station No. 49 with three staff per engine or truck company (3-0) model on duty 24/7 (LAFCO, 2020a). By having all personnel in one station, the District is also able to staff ladder truck calls with four staff per engine or truck company (4-0) model as needed. Therefore, the staffing levels for the DSP does meet the NFPA standard and standard practice as outlined in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. The Fire Chief indicates that it is important to have an adequate number of trained firefighters on the fire engine to create safer conditions for both the firefighters and the people being saved/protected (Chief Ransdell, personal communication, Dec 3, 2020). Meeting these staffing standards reduces community vulnerability to low frequency, high-risk events, such as a working structure fire. Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-12 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 3-3: Current Staffing Levels for the DSP by Type and Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Position FTE Count as of July 1, 2020 Compared to 2018 Fire Chief 1 1 Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshall 1 1 Firefighter/EMT 8 8 Firefighter/Paramedic 10 9 Fire Prevention Officer 2 3 Admin Assistant 2 2 Total 24 24 Source: LAFCO, 2020a; 2019 Table 3-3 above presents a summary of personnel listing positions that manage the fire and emergency medical services provided by the District. The number of full-time equivalent (FTE) positions at the beginning of the fiscal year are listed. Fire District personnel are made up of career and limited-term employees. Volunteer firefighters are not currently utilized since the paid staff is sufficient. The District retains four full-time administrative staff, which includes two Chiefs and two Administrative Assistants (LAFCO, 2020a; 2019). There are seven staff operationally on duty every 24 hours (LAFCO, 2019). All DSP firefighters work full-time and are paid by the hour (LAFCO, 2019). Salaries and other payments to staff were queried using the Transparent California database, which was previously referenced and described. The year 2018 is the most recent yearly data available. In 2018, DSP had a total of 25 staff (non-board members) who received payments. Five full-time staff received wages, benefits, and/or overtime pay, which exceeded $225,000. Five full-time employees received wages, benefits, and/or overtime pay which exceeded $150,000 but was less than $200,000. Payments to six employees were more than $100,000 but less than $150,000. Four part-time employees received annual pay that was more than $50,000 but less than $100,000. The remaining five part-time employees received less than $50,000 in annual wages, benefits, and/or overtime pay (Transparent California, 2020) as shown in Figure 3-3 below. A union, IAFF Local 4972, represents District personnel. The union functions as a bargaining unit and dues are required. Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-13 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 3-3: Wages and Benefits, DSP Staff, 2018 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 Benefits $150,000 Other Pay Overtime Pay $100,000 Base Pay $50,000 $0 Individual Employees DSP relies upon the West Slope JPA to provide funding for six DSP positions (as of 2018) to staff the one ambulance managed by the District. If this EMS funding were to somehow disappear, then DSP would need to find an additional $1.2 million to retain these positions (LAFCO, 2019). These six funded positions have allowed DSP to avoid potential staffing bottlenecks (LAFCO, 2019). In addition to its direct employees, DSP retains General Counsel through a three-year revocable contract. Radio service and some specific maintenance are also retained through contract (LAFCO, 2011). Given the staffing limitations and the station situation, DSP does not have the operational capacity to respond to more than one emergency at a time. Since there are not enough staff, DSP relies on mutual/automatic aid to handle any potential second call situations (Chief Ransdell, personal communication, Dec 3, 2020). The District’s participation in these agreements, augment existing District staff by automatically deploying the closest available resource to respond to request for aid from other fire agencies in the County of El Dorado. The DSP receives advantages from participating in this network of collaborating fire districts, which increases resource deployment and the ability to respond to calls. The DSP meets the minimum 3-0 staffing model, allowing companies to immediately begin fire suppression tactics without waiting for additional resources to arrive at the call (LAFCO, 2020a). Training DSP personnel train regularly with two hours of training per 24-hour shift available. All DSP firefighters are State Certified (LAFCO, 2019). All federal and state-mandated training is accomplished. Additional training includes: confined space, low and high angle rescue, trench, and swift-water training. It is noted that Diamond Springs-El Dorado FPD is the only entity that responds to Medium (type 2) rescue in the County. Other technical and focused training is truck training through the Rio Hondo Truck Academy. Diamond Springs-El Dorado is one of only 3 cross staffed trucks in the County. All other training meets or exceeds NFPA Standards (LAFCO, 2020a). Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-14 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final DSP's Assistant Chief/Training Officer interprets Federal and State training mandates for the District. DSP's training enterprise and onsite training facility enables the District to provide training to firefighters inside and outside of the District. In the past, DSP offered specialized training classes, which attracted people from other parts of the state (LAFCO, 2020a). Complaints During the years 2018 and 2019, the District received two complaints for service unrelated to DSP operations. These complaints were resolved (LAFCO, 2020a). 3.4 Growth and Population Forecasts The growth and population projection for the affected area is a determination which LAFCO is required to describe, consistent with the MSR Guidelines from the Office of Planning & Research (OPR) as set forth in the CKH Act. This section provides information on the existing population and future growth projections for the DSP. Historical and anticipated population growth is a factor which affects service demand. 3.4.1 Existing Population There are approximately 13,286 residents within the District boundaries as of 2020, as shown in Table 3-4, below. The U.S. Census provides population estimates for communities. The historic community of Diamond Springs is a 'census-designated place' as defined by the U.S. Census. According to the U.S. Census Bureau estimates, the population was 11,731 for the 16.7 square mile area of the census-designated place (US Census, 2019). However, this does not include the entire 65.5 square mile District boundary area and does not include population growth that has occurred since the 2010 census. This is because census tracts do not directly correspond with district boundaries, and data from the 2020 census is not yet available. Detailed information regarding population demographics and socio-economic indicators in El Dorado County is provided in Volume I - Appendix A and Appendix B. Consultants adjusted for these factors to arrive at an estimated population calculated at 13,286 permanent residents. Table 3-4: DSP Existing Population Population existing Population in SOI Number of boundary area only2 area only3 Registered Voters1 Diamond Springs/El Dorado 13,286 40 10,068 Fire Protection District Sources: 1 Data source for number of voters is LAFCO, 2018 2Calculated estimate based on an average of 1.67 persons per parcel in El Dorado County and 7,956 parcels within the DSP boundary. 3Calculated estimate based on an average of 1.67 persons per parcel in El Dorado County and 24 parcels within DSP SOI. In addition to the permanent residents listed in Table 3-4, the area receives many temporary overnight visitors who may own vacation homes or stay in other accommodations. The community has several Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-15 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final features that attract visitors, including several breweries, churches, recreational trails, historic landmarks, and the Diamond Springs Hotel. There is limited data on visitation to the area. However, for purposes of calculation, it is estimated that overnight visitors comprise approximately ten percent of the overall peak population (i.e., 2,657 visitors). Additionally, there are several employers in the local industrial areas and business park, and workers commute to the District to participate in regular employment activities. DSP estimates the daytime work population is approx. 10,000 persons (LAFCO, 2020a). This brings the total maximum (i.e., peak) population served to 25,943 as shown in Figure 3-4. Figure 3-4: Peak Population in DSP Boundary 39% Permanent 51% Overnight Visitors Daytime Workers 10% 3.4.2 Existing Population in SOI The population in DSP’s SOI and outside the District Boundary is estimated to be 40 people based upon an average number of 1.67 persons per Assessor’s Parcel (El Dorado County GIS Data, 2020). 3.4.3 Projected Population Growth Projecting future population for a District is complicated due to unknown factors associated with the annexation rate and census tracts that do not match with District boundaries. For purposes of this MSR, data from the California Department of Finance (DOF) was used to project population growth as shown in Table 3-5. The DOF provides population projections at the County level and the growth rate for the County of El Dorado is utilized to extrapolate population growth rates for the Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District. By the year 2040, it is estimated that DSP’s existing boundary will encompass a population of 14,658 persons. This represents a projected average annual growth rate of 0.38 percent between the years of 2020 and 2040. Table 3-5: Total Estimated and Projected Population (2020 – 2040) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 The County of El Dorado1 193,227 201,041 207,496 211,537 213,033 Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-16 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire 13,286 13,833 14,277 14,555 14,658 Protection District2 Sources: 1 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. 2 Population projection for DSP calculated as a percentage (0.068807134) of The County of El Dorado. The projected growth rate for the County of El Dorado anticipates development throughout the entire County. The addition of 1,372 more people a to the DSP by 2040 is possible as the District has undeveloped areas within existing boundaries that could potentially be available for more intensive residential development. 3.4.4 Existing Land Use Land-use is a factor that affects population growth and therefore demand for public services. However, the DSP is not a land-use authority. 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. 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. LAFCO’s 2011 MSR contains a detailed description of land use within the District. Since the previous MSR was published in 2011, several new subdivisions, other residential projects, and new commercial projects have been built within the District boundaries (LAFCO, 2020a). County General Plan The District's boundary area is entirely unincorporated and subject to the land-use policies and regulations of El Dorado County. Most land-use decisions, initiated by private property owners over the last decade, are secured via entitlements and land-use permits from El Dorado County and other agencies. The County plans for its future growth through its General Plan, a long-term comprehensive framework to guide physical, social, and economic development within the community’s planning area. The County of El Dorado’s General Plan was adopted in July 2004. Individual elements have since been updated on an individual basis. The 2013-2021 Housing Element was adopted in October 2013, with the most recent update occurring to the Land Use Element in August 2019. The County of El Dorado General Plan serves as the County’s vision for long-term land use development and conservation. The communities of Diamond Springs and El Dorado are recognized as “Community Regions.” Within the General Plan, Community Regions establish urban limit lines and provide appropriate areas for the highest intensity of self-sustaining compact urban-type development or suburban-type development. Land uses within the District boundaries are single-family residential, rural residential, agricultural, and open space. The District also has a large commercial area on Missouri Flat Road and an industrial park on Enterprise Drive. In the adjacent area, outside of the District boundaries, land outside is primarily characterized by open space with limited rural residential uses (County of El Dorado, 2019). Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-17 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 3.4.5 Potential Future Development Future population growth within the DSP is dependent upon zoning and general plan policies and land- use designations in the region. The Land Use Element identifies goals and policies to guide development throughout unincorporated areas of the County. There are parcels within the DSP that do have development potential. DSP staff has noted a few proposed or current development projects that could impact District services, including a few housing developments, care facilities, and significant commercial growth on the Highway 50 corridor. A list of known future projects provided by the District on March 22, 2022 is as follows: • Courtside Drive to Black Rice Road AB 35 project (low income) – 80 apartments in 9 buildings; • Diamond View Estates AB 35 project (low income) – 26 single-family homes located between Forni Road and north of Grace Drive near El Dorado Irrigation District property; • Dorado Oaks – 156 single-family homes and 225 multifamily residents located at Faith Lane, Tullis Mine, and Folwer Lane; • Indian Creek Ranch – 75 custom homes located at Echo Lane; • Piedmont Oaks – 75 homes and possible commercial on a total of 97 lots located at Black Rice Road and April Lane; • Shinn Ranch – 140 to 169 homes located at Kingvale Road and Motherlode Drive; • El Dorado Ranch – 19 homes located at Eldorado Road and Pleasant Valley Road west toward El Dorado Café; • El Dorado Senior Village from Snowline Hospice AB 35 (low income) – 149 apartments located at Koki Lane; • The Crossings – multiple small commercial projects in process located at Missouri Flat Road north of Prospector Plaza; • El Dorado Community Center – 33,000 square feet ongoing at Missouri Flat Road • Creekside Plaza – AM/PM and other commercial development located at Forni Road across from Herbert Green School; • Prospector Plaza – commercial development; and • Multiple requests for small parcel splits for “minor subdivisions” of 5 homes or less, other residential development, tenant improvements, and business license inspections. 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, the District has an annual Mello-Roos Tax on new development that can be used for day-to-day operations. 3.4.6 Open Space and Agriculture El Dorado LAFCO’s policies require that an MSR/SOI offer a determination about the effect that a district’s service provision will have on open space and agricultural lands. For purposes of this MSR analysis, open space data was derived from the County General Plan land-use data. Open space within the DSP’s Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-18 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final boundary calculates to 234 acres. A breakdown of open space, natural resources, and agricultural land located within the District boundary and Sphere of Influence (SOI) can be seen in Table 3-6 below. Table 3-6: Acreage Designated as Open Space, Agriculture, and Natural Resources within the DSP Boundary/SOI Boundary Only (in acres) SOI Only (by itself) (in acres) Open space Agriculture Natural Resources Open space Agriculture Natural Resources 234 3,002 3,633 1,081 1,001 0.1 Source: EDC GIS, 2019 Agricultural lands are calculated to be approximately 3,000 acres within the District. DSP’s effect on open space lands is minimal. The District’s provision of fire protection services to open space areas (i.e., non- structural) within its boundaries occurs occasionally, but is the primary responsibility of CAL FIRE or the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). LAFCO has an interest in documenting the conversion of agricultural and open space lands to other land use types, such as residential use. The DSP fire protection services do not play a role in these types of land-use conversions. 3.4.7 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities A Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) is an unincorporated area of a County in which the annual median household income (MHI) is less than 80 percent of the statewide MHI. More information on DUCs can be found in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Within the boundaries of DSP are located portions three Census Block Groups that meets the DUC threshold and is therefore classified as disadvantaged unincorporated communities as listed in Table 3-7 below. Table 3-7: MHI in Census Block Groups for Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Identification Census Block Group No. of Median Household Population No. No. No. Households Income (2018) 315022 032502 2 2,570 1,173 $49,653 315041 031504 1 1,496 666 $44,231 314021 031502 1 2,518 889 $53,828 Source: US Census, 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates These unincorporated areas are provided numerous public services from local and state agencies. Water service to these DUCs is provided by the El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) or by individual wells. Wastewater services are provided by EID or by individual septic systems. Fire protection services are provided by DSP or neighboring El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF) and Pioneer Fire Protection District (PIO). The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) also provides fire protection services in the wildland areas located within the State Responsibility areas. Due to this area receiving the essential municipal services of water, wastewater, and structural fire protection, there are no communities within the existing DSP boundary or adjacent to the District’s SOI that lack public services and no health or safety issues have been identified. Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-19 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 3.5 Public Services and Infrastructure 3.5.1 Service Overview The Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District is an established Fire Protection District and is the primary service provider for fire protection services within the District boundaries. The District provides comprehensive fire and emergency medical services as detailed in Table 3-8, below. Table 3-8: DSP Public Services Service Provider Structural Fire Protection DSP Wildland Fire Protection DSP* Emergency Medical Response El Dorado Joint Power Authority (JPA) Rescue/Extrication DSP Hazardous Materials DSP Water Supply El Dorado Irrigation District Dispatch Contract w/ CAL FIRE ECC Training DSP Fire Safety Education DSP Arson Investigations DSP Code Enforcement DSP Plan Review DSP Source: LAFCO, 2020a * DSP staff noted that they do sometimes respond to wildland fires within their boundaries. Although DSP staff noted that they respond to all wildland fires within their boundaries as shown in Table 5-8, above, most of the District (38,334.98 acres) is in a state responsibility area, meaning that CalFire is responsible for responding to wildland fires. DSP’s website details the additional services provided by the District including: • Apprentice Firefighter Program • Explorer Program • Vegetation Management and Defensible Space • Provision of information related to burn days and insurance The Diamond Springs-El Dorado Firefighters Association rents out the Firefighters’ Memorial Hall to host community events. Structural Fire Protection One of DSP’s primary aims is to protect existing structures from fires. Post-fire investigation and research indicates that flying embers cause most home ignitions during wildfires. Individual homeowners can protect their property from the financial risk associated with structural fire by purchasing homeowner’s insurance with fire coverage. Purchasing this homeowner’s insurance has gotten more difficult in recent Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-20 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final years. For example, in the County of El Dorado, during the year 2016, over 1,000 homeowners lost access to their homeowner’s insurance policy due to non-renewal by the insurance company (California Department of Insurance, 2018). Fire Protection Codes and Ordinances To promote public safety and to minimize risk from structural fires to the extent possible, the District has adopted several codes and ordinances as listed here: • Ordinance No. 5101 -El Dorado County Vegetation Management and Defensible Space • Addressing of Buildings – Ordinance No. B-001 (Revised 2018) • State Responsibility Area Title 14 • No Parking Fire Lane Standard Ordinance No. B-004 • Fire Safe Driveway Standard • Rural Water Tank Residential & Commercial Standard • Automatic Gates on Fire Access Roads Ordinance No. B-002 2018 • Setback Reductions • Ordinance Adopting 2019.01 Fire Code & Amendments 3.5.2 Fire and Emergency Response The District maintains automatic aid agreements with all fire service agencies located in El Dorado County for fire suppression and emergency management services. Under this system, the District responds to close proximity calls within adjacent fire jurisdictions, as well as receives assistance from neighboring agencies automatically (LAFCO, 2020a). This type of agreement ensures the best possible emergency service is delivered by the most efficient means possible. The District also participates in a mutual aid system that responds to requests for aid from throughout the County and State. Because of these agreements, all firefighters within each fire agency in the County must be prepared for any type of emergency in any setting at all times. Every Fire Agency within the United States is rated by an independent risk assessment and standards authority for the purposes of establishing insurance policy premiums for homeowners and businesses. California uses an independent national company called the Insurance Services Office, or ISO, for this purpose. The Insurance Services Office evaluates four broad categories of fire suppression when establishing a Public Protection Classification (PPC). These categories include: 1) Fire Department; 2) Emergency Communications; 3) Water Supply; and 4) Community Risk Reduction. ISO routinely conducts assessments of each fire agency in the United States. The rating scale from best to worse is One (1) — Ten (10). The DSP received an ISO rating of 4/4Y, however the District did not provide consultants with the date this ISO rating was completed (LAFCO, 2020a). Emergency Medical Services Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District operates a full-time paramedic ambulance as one of the sub-contracting fire agencies to the JPA, providing basic and advanced life support services to the community 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. DSP’s paramedic firefighters provide extensive pre-hospital care, including the administration of drugs orally and intravenously, interpretation of electrocardiograms (EKGs), performance of endotracheal intubations, and the use of monitors and other complex equipment. Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-21 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The Agreement with the JPA was most recently reviewed during the DSP Board meeting on May 13, 2020. More information on the JPA can be found in Volume II - Chapter 15, County Service Area (CSA) 3 and CSA 7 MSR. The DSP ambulance is located at Station 49 and is numbered Medic 49 (M49). Medic 49 was the second busiest ambulance in the County in 2019 with 2,789 responses to incidents (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). A breakdown of incident response types can be seen in Figure 3-5. Figure 3-5: DSP Medic 49 Calls for Service by Type, 2019 1% 3% 12% Assistance 7% Fire Medical Other Transfer 77% Of those responses, the greatest type of incident was medical followed by medical transfer and fire. Medical calls include medical aid, falls, CPR, rescue, and acute but non-time critical responses to medical calls. For medical transfer calls for service, the ambulance transfers patients from local area hospitals to other hospitals in the County or regionally (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Additional information regarding emergency medical services can be found in Volume II - Chapter 15, County Service Area (CSA) 3 and CSA 7 MSR. Calls for Service According to Camino Dispatch, the District responded to 2,846 unique incidents in 2019. The following data analysis does not include the ambulance for DSP. The data includes incidents occurring both within and outside of the agency’s jurisdiction that the agency resources responded to. For more information on how consultants analyzed the dispatch data, refer to Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Those incidents translated to 3,845 calls for service. A call for service refers to any apparatus or vehicle for the agency which responded to a unique incident, and each apparatus or vehicle is counted as one “call for service.” This is roughly a three percent decrease from 2018 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). A breakdown of calls for service from 2010 to 2019 can be seen in Figure 3-6 below. Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-22 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 3-6: District Calls for Service from 2010 – 2019 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 From 2010 to 2019, calls for service have continued to trend slightly downward with slight increases in calls in 2017 and 2018. There were 4,885 calls for service in 2018, representing the highest number of calls since 2010. There was a decline in calls in 2019, roughly 697 less calls in 2019 than the average over the last eight years of 4,542 calls (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). The majority of the unique incidents were for medical at 1,858 incidents. A break down in incidents by type for 2019 can be seen in Figure 3-7 below. Figure 3-7: DSP Calls for Service by Type, 2019 2% 11% 7% Assistance 12% 3% Fire Hazard Medical Other Traffic Collision 65% The “Other” incident type includes mutual or automatic aid engine coverage for other fire agencies, aircraft down, arson, investigations, medical transfers, rescues, extractions, miscellaneous, radio and phone system failures, staffing pattern, call transfers, as well as other similar service types. The “Assistance” incident type includes public agency work such as demonstrations, assisting with a water leak, assisting with an animal, assisting with an alarm or lockout, elevator rescue, physically assisting in lifting a person, and assisting with search and rescue (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). More information on incident types can be found in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Station 49 averaged over 3,400 calls per year from 2015 to 2019 as shown in Figure 3-8 below. Station 46 is the next busiest station with an average of 500 calls per year (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Station 49 Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-23 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final is the only station in the District staffed 24/7, therefore it is not surprising that the most responses to calls originated from this station over the last 5 years. More information on District stations can be found in Section 3.5.7. Figure 3-8: DSP Number of Calls by Station 2015-2019 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2015 2,000 2016 1,500 2017 1,000 2018 500 2019 0 43 44 46 47 48 49 Station Numbers Response Time El Dorado County’s General Plan (2004 as amended through 2019) Public Services and Utilities Element has several policies related to goals for average response time for new development as described in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Consultants do not have the capability to break response time data out by County of El Dorado defined Community Region, Rural Center, or Rural Region standards. In the year 2019, the District’s average response time was 7 minutes 27 seconds based on available data from CAL FIRE Camino Dispatch and calculated by the consultants (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Average response times for the District from 2010 to 2019 can be seen in Table 3-9 below. Table 3-9: Average Response Times for DSP from 2010 to 2019 Average Response Time Year (Hr : Min : Sec) 2010 0:07:08 2011 0:07:32 2012 0:07:35 2013 0:07:53 2014 0:09:02 2015 0:07:00 2016 0:07:29 2017 0:07:17 2018 0:06:50 2019 0:07:27 Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-24 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Average Response Time Year (Hr : Min : Sec) Source: CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020 Average response times for the District have remained generally steady between seven and eight minutes except for an increase to approximately nine minutes in 2014 and a decrease to less than seven minutes in 2018. The response time data does not cover inter-facility transfer (IFT), auto/mutual aid, and strike team/overhead (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Consultants were informed by staff from multiple fire agencies in the County that CAL FIRE Camino ECC does not have the ability to track turnout time and other needed elements to define definitive numbers to measure true response times. DSP average response time for 2019 appears to meet County response time goals for new discretionary projects in all County community types. DSP contains the Community Region of Diamond Springs. Other Industry Standards In general, other industry standards applicable to DSP are established by the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA), the Insurance Services Office, Cal OSHA, and District ordinances. All of these agencies, as well as many others, directly and/or indirectly affect the type of services, the quality and development of those services, expansion, reliability, facility design, and construction and environmental issues that the District provides. Forest Fuel Treatment Forest fuel treatment typically relates to wildland fires, rather than the structural fires which are the focus on the DSP. However, topography within the DSP includes rolling hills of grass and oak woodland in the west to oak-timber in the steep drainages in the east. Multiple privately owned parcels contain native vegetation. Although the DSP is not directly responsible for forest fuel treatments, a community approach to safety that considers house-to-house transmission, structural safety, and forest fuel treatments is important. There are four Fire Safe Councils (FSC) which overlap with the DSP boundaries, including Logtown FSC, Oak Hill FSC, Diamond Springs FSC, and Patterson Ranch FSC. The Logtown FSC has completed several fuel mitigation treatments in recent years along roadways and behind subdivisions. Patterson Ranch FSC has several planned fuel mitigation treatments scheduled to occur along major roadways such as Patterson Drive and along Martinez Creek (FSC-EDC, 2016). DSP’s website outlines the significant work that the agency performs to inform and educate homeowners regarding fire safety and prevention consistent with the El Dorado County General Plan Objective 6.2.5. However, DSP’s participation with the local fire safe council is not clear due to insufficient information. 3.5.3 Mutual Aid, Automatic Aid, Other Agreements Mutual Aid The Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District maintains mutual aid, automatic aid, boundary drop, and closest resource agreements with all fire protection providers operating in the County of El Dorado including the United States Forest Service (USFS) and CAL FIRE (LAFCO, 2020a). These agreements Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-25 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final allow for giving and receiving of emergency resources (LAFCO, 2020a). Ideally, agreements for mutual aid or any other appropriate agreement (i.e., Tax Sharing Agreement) are periodically reviewed to ensure fiscal neutrality. It is not known when DSP conducted its most recent review of the mutual aid agreements, due to insufficient information. Automatic Aid The Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District maintains automatic aid, boundary drop, and closest resource agreements with all fire protection providers operating in the County of El Dorado including the USFS and CAL FIRE. Any resource provided by ECF is available under these agreements (LAFCO, 2020a). Through the current automatic aid 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. For this MSR/SOI Update, LAFCO requested an analysis of automatic aid provided to and received from each agency that provided and/or received aid. Consultants received a breakdown in automatic aid data directly from CAL FIRE Camino ECC dispatch in order to provide the following analysis. This data shows who the first responder to the call was within another agency’s service area boundary. In the context of this analysis, automatic aid specifically refers to instances where an agency was first responder to a call within another agency’s jurisdictional boundary. CAL FIRE is a statewide organization that operates throughout the County of El Dorado. CAL FIRE ‘s jurisdiction encompasses all the State Responsibility areas within the County (unincorporated areas of private lands excluding the national forests) for wildland fires, essentially overlapping the jurisdictions of the local fire agencies. As mentioned previously, CAL FIRE operates within the County under the same automatic aid system as the other local fire agencies. As a result of CAL FIRE’s expansive service area in El Dorado County, the agency responds to a significant number of calls for service throughout the County for the local fire agencies. CAL FIRE automatic aid for each local fire agency is included in the following analysis because CAL FIRE operates within the automatic aid system and was first responder to calls for all of the local fire agencies in the study year 2019. It is important to note that the automatic aid data that was analyzed only included the first responder data and did not include the local fire agencies responses to statewide fires managed by CAL FIRE. Thus, it is not surprising that almost none of the agencies were first responders to CAL FIRE calls aiding CAL FIRE; which are handled through the assignment of strike teams by CAL FIRE. CAL FIRE does not have a designated jurisdictional boundary within the automatic aid system, but is tasked with responding to wildfires within State Responsibility Areas, much of which is within other fire agency boundaries. In 2019, the County of El Dorado experienced 151 wildland fires with a total of 266 acres burned (CAL FIRE, 2019). Only three local agencies provided first response aid to one of those incidents for CAL FIRE in 2019. It should be noted that a response by an agency resource to another agencies jurisdiction for a wildland fire could be considered automatic aid to both the fire agency and CAL FIRE. More information on the State Responsibility Areas can be found in Section 3.5.6. Information about CAL FIRE operations in the County can be found in Volume I - Appendix D, Other Agencies Providing Fire Suppression and Emergency Services in the County of El Dorado. Through consultation with the ad hoc Fire Chiefs MSR group and LAFCO, consultants agreed to exclude the CAL FIRE automatic aid numbers from Table 3-10 below, due to the reasons stated above. However, the study cannot ignore the CAL FIRE automatic aid data as part of the contextual analysis. Doing so would make it appear that local agencies received less aid than they actually did in 2019 and paint an inaccurate Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-26 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final picture of the amount of aid received and provided between fire agencies operating in the County in 2019. Thus, the following analysis and determinations include CAL FIRE aid in the contextual details while removing the numbers from Table 3-10 below. CAL FIRE automatic aid numbers are described countywide in greater detail in Volume I - Appendix D, Other Agencies Providing Fire Suppression and Emergency Services in the County of El Dorado. DSP received automatic aid 682 times and provided automatic aid 927 times in 2019. Table 3-10 below shows the individual agencies that provided aid to DSP and those that received aid from DSP in 2019, excluding CAL FIRE. The CAL FIRE Amador-El Dorado Unit provided automatic aid to DSP 1,256 times and received aid from DSP one time in 2019 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Table 3-10: Aid Given and Received from the DSP, 2019 Agency Providing/Receiving Amount of Aid Amount of Aid Aid to/from DSP Provided to DSP Received from DSP CAM 71 14 ECF 380 852 EDH 9 9 GEO 1 1 GRV 1 8 MQT 2 3 PIO 7 34 RES 134 3 SLT 1 0 Other Agencies1 167 3 Total 682 927 Source: CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020 1Other Agencies include the fire agencies of Amador Fire Protection District, the City of Ione, Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, CAL FIRE - Nevada-Yuba-Placer Unit, the El Dorado National Forest Unit, and the USFS. DSP provided aid 245 more times than it received in 2019 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). This high amount in aid provided vs. received suggests that the District is able to provide adequate service to the communities within its boundaries and has the capacity to assist neighboring agencies in providing those services. The District received the majority of aid from ECF at about 56 percent of aid received followed by Other Agencies at 25 percent. Of the Other Agencies, the highest amount of aid received was from Amador Fire Protection District at 52 times in 2019. DSP provided the most aid to ECF at 92 percent of aid provided and provided over twice as much aid to ECF than it received (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). 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. A more detailed analysis of automatic aid is needed to determine the reasoning for variation in aid received versus provided for DSP and other fire agencies in the County, factoring in the location of calls in relation to available resources for each agency. Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-27 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 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. With CAL FIRE aid removed, the District required aid for two percent of all calls in 2019 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Joint Agreements A Joint Agreement is one where districts jointly own or share fire protection services capital facilities or services with other agencies. Examples include joint purchasing agreements, common maintenance, sharing staff, sharing facilities or equipment. DSP occasionally participates in Joint Agreements, for apparatus or grant allocation of equipment (LAFCO, 2020a). Volunteer Fire Assistance Program (VFA) The VFA is a program operated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and funded by the Federal government. The VFA Program offers grants program that allows California to provide local and rural fire departments with minor firefighting, training, communications, and safety equipment for their volunteer firefighters. During their September 8, 2020 Board meeting, the DSP approved a VFA Agreement through Resolution No. 2020-06 authorizing the District to enter into a contract with the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and to receive $17,615.00 in funding. CAL FIRE Agreement DSP once had an Amador Plan Contract with CAL FIRE, but this contract was dropped due to the high cost. The contract was in place for one year and six months and cost the District $516,774.34. During that time CAL FIRE responded to calls for service that the District would have otherwise been responsible for responding to. Since the cancelation of the contract, the District continues to respond to these calls. 3.5.4 Dispatch Fire and emergency medical dispatching is through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the multiagency Camino Emergency Command Center, providing a single dispatch system for the entire Western Slope of the County. Additional details on County wide dispatch can be found in Volume I - Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. 3.5.5 Emergency Access Emergency access has two components, ingress and egress as described in Chapter 3, Introduction. Major access roads to the Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District include Missouri Flat Road, Green Valley Road, Mother Lode Drive, El Dorado Road, Green Stone Road, Pleasant Valley Road. U.S. Highway 50 and State Highway 49 are regional thoroughfares. The DSP's boundary area does include ingress and egress challenges identified in the County's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. For example, access to the smaller rural roads, such as Taicite Street or Moabite Court could potentially be limited due to a lack of cross-connecting roads. District staff does work with community stakeholders to remediate these ingress/egress issues as they are identified. An emergency access plan for the DSP area was not available at the time of this MSR’s writing and was therefore not evaluated. All major access roads are maintained by the County of El Dorado Maintenance and Operations Division through the County’s Department of Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-28 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Transportation. More information on county wide maintenance operations can be found in Volume I - Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. 3.5.6 Fire Hazard Zones The Fire Hazard Severity Zones, Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), and Community Risk Fire Map in which CAL FIRE categorizes spatial areas into different risk areas are described in Chapter 3, Introduction, of this MSR. Areas of land within the District boundary are considered “Local Responsibility Area” (LRA), “State Responsibility Area” (SRA), and “Federal Responsibility Area” (FRA) for fire protection services. Areas are also identified from Moderate to Very High fire hazard risk as seen in Table 3-11. See Figure 3-9 for a map of those areas on the next page and a breakdown in acreage for responsibility areas in Table 3-12. Table 3-11: DSP Fire Hazard Severity Zone Acreage and Percentage Acreage in Very High % in Very High Acreage in High % in High Fire Total % in Very High Fire Risk Fire Risk Risk and High Fire Risk 1,873 4.5% 18,333 43.7% 48.2% Source: County GIS Data, 2020 derived from CalFire data Within the DSP’s boundaries, 1,872 acres are in Fire Hazard Severity zone “Very High” and 18,333 acres are in “High” based on GIS data provided by CAL FIRE as detailed in Table 3-11 above. Almost half of the District’s geography is located in either a “High” or “Very High” zone, which is a significant percentage of the area. See Figure 3-9 for a map of those areas. CAL FIRE has mapped the WUI in El Dorado County and the DSP is located within an identified WUI. Table 3-12 below shows acreages of land within the District boundary designated as LRA, SRA, and FRA. Table 3-12: DSP Local, State and Federal Responsibility Area Acreage and Percentage Boundary Only (in acres) SOI Only (by itself) (in acres) LRA SRA FRA LRA SRA FRA 0 39,770 2,178 0 1,463 0 Source: GIS data from CAL FIRE Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-29 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 3-9: Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Responsibility Areas for DSP Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-30 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Over 95 percent of the District is within a State Responsibility Area (SRA) with CAL FIRE as the primary wildland fire response agency. CAL FIRE is legally and financially responsible to provide fire protection in all State Responsibility Areas. Approximately five percent is within a designated Federal Responsibility Area. Areas under the FRA are managed by a federal agency, such as the USFS. No part of the District is located within a Local Responsibility Area, meaning that there is no area within the District that does not have fire protection responsibility by either the state or federal government. The SOI is made up of areas located only within the SRA. 3.5.7 Infrastructure The Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District maintains infrastructure to support its fire protection services. This infrastructure includes fire stations, fire hydrants, fire apparatus, and other vehicles, water hoses, and other equipment. Fire Stations DSP has a total of five fire stations. The primary station (Station No. 49) is staffed 24 hours per day, seven days per week (24/7/365). The remaining four fire stations are not staffed (DSP, 2021). Station No. 49 is commonly referred to as the Training Facility and Station and is the Administration Headquarters for the District. Station No. 49 is leased for $1 per year to DSP by the Firefighters Association. The remaining four fire stations are owned directly by DSP. A list of fire stations is provided in Table 3-13, below. Table 3-13: DSP Fire Stations Detail Station No. Address Staffing Main Station, 501 Pleasant 49 24/7/365 Valley Rd., Diamond Springs Missouri Flat Station, 3840 48 None Missouri Flat Rd., Placerville Sleepy Hollow Station, 2312 47 None Oakvale Dr., Shingle Springs El Dorado Station, 6170 Pleasant 46 None Valley Rd., El Dorado Logtown Station, 6109 Quartz 44 None Dr., El Dorado Source: LAFCO, 2020a The four unstaffed stations are used to store equipment. All staff operate out of Station No. 49, the primary station location, which allows staff to take the equipment needed immediately (Chief Ransdell, personal communication, Dec 3, 2020). Station No. 49 was recently renovated. The fire stations’ bays are large enough to house the District's engines (LAFCO, 2019). This station currently meets the requirements of the seismic code. However, the other four stations do not meet the seismic code requirements (LAFCO, 2019). Unstaffed stations leave gaps in coverage for the District causing increased response times and lower levels of service for residents in those areas. The District relies on neighboring agencies to respond to calls within its boundaries as detailed in Section 3.5.3 above. Multiple gaps in the system, from many Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-31 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final agencies leaving stations vacant, provides added burden to the mutual and automatic aid system and can reduce the ability of fire agencies in the County to respond to multiple incidents simultaneously. CALFIRE operates one fire station within the DSP boundary and this station is commonly referred to as Station No. 43 as shown in Figure 3-1 at the beginning of this chapter. This CALFIRE station is operated and staffed on a seasonal basis only. Equipment and Apparatus The firefighting and rescue inventory of the Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District includes four Type 1 fire engines (structure fire engines), one Type 2 truck (105-foot aerial ladder), one 2,100-gallon water tender, one Type 2 (medium duty) Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) vehicle and two Type 3 fire engines (limited structure/Wildland engines). The District maintains an investigation unit, pool vehicle, three staff vehicles and a mechanic's vehicle. The District has added an equipment trailer, small tractor, and an enclosed utility trailer to its inventory since the last long-range plan was completed. DSP owns and maintains a wide variety of apparatus, vehicles, and specialty equipment as listed in Table 3-14 below. Table 3-14: Apparatus and Light Vehicles, 2020 Water Capacity Equipment Type Identifier Year Make/Model (gallons) Type 1 E-49 2015 KME/Predator Extreme Duty 500 Type 2 E-249 2004 International/7400 4x2 500 Type 2 RES 49 2003 HME/1871-SFO N/A Spartan Quint/105’ Straight Type 1 T-49 N/A 500 Stick Ladder Truck Type 1 E-46 2006 HEM/Rosenbauer 500 Water Tender WT-49 2018 Rosenbauer 2,100 Patrol Vehicle P-44 2008 Ford/F-550 300 Type 3 E349 2019 Rosenbauer 500 Source: LAFCO, 2020a DSP completes a quarterly assessment of facilities indicating necessary maintenance and upgrades such as major repairs, seismic retrofit, and ADA access compliance (2019a). The District’s deferred maintenance strategy is to utilize the quarterly assessment process and budgeting principles to save money for future improvements or upgrades (LAFCO, 2019). Standard depreciation and replacement of infrastructure and equipment is completed by utilizing a capital facility plan and apparatus replacement plan, which projects over a 30-year time period (LAFCO, 2019). New or upgraded infrastructure and deferred maintenance is financed by following the budgeting principles set by the District, which allocates two percent (2%) of received revenue to be allocated to infrastructure and maintenance each fiscal year (LAFCO, 2019). The District funds facility and equipment costs from general reserves. For example, the District hopes to soon purchase a ladder truck. Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-32 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Water 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. In DSP, water service is provided by the El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) (LAFCO, 2020a). This water district is described in LAFCO’s 2020 MSR/SOI Update on EID. Water can also be obtained from local natural or neighborhood sources such as rivers, lakes, ponds, and/or swimming pools. Several of the District’s fire engines also contain water storage. Fire hoses are used to connect to fire hydrants, which are the above-ground metal pillars that tap into the local water supply. There are approximately 900 hydrants within DSP (LAFCO, 2011). The southern portion of the District (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 (LAFCO, 2020a). 3.5.8 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies DSP staff did not identify any infrastructure, facilities, and equipment needs or deficiencies (LAFCO, 2020a). The only complaints DSP received in the years 2018 and 2019 were regarding weed abatement issues. Two other complaint related phone calls were intended for other agencies and the calls were redirected as appropriate (LAFCO, 2020a). Potential future challenges related to regulatory issues, infrastructure, or equipment were queried. DSP staff notes that most potential future challenges it may face relate to increasing costs associated with staffing, such as retirement through CalPERS, medical benefits, and the CalPERS unfunded accrued liability (UAL) (LAFCO, 2020a). On-going response to emergencies related to the Covid-19 pandemic has been a challenge for the years 2020 and 2021. DSP staff indicate that LAFCO or others could assist with addressing the challenges related to adjusting the property tax apportionment for the District under AB 8 as part of Proposition 13. DSP says LAFCO should “do a better job than looking at the state as the best option for fire services in the County” (LAFCO, 2020a). 3.5.9 Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing The District has taken several actions in recent years to save money, lower expenses, and/or improve services. For example, DSP once utilized another agency’s competitive bid to purchase new equipment. DSP staff has also secured grants to fund equipment purchases (LAFCO, 2020a). Additionally, the DSP provides automatic and mutual aid fire and paramedic ambulance services to other agencies. Automatic aid and/or mutual aid agreements exist for all fire agencies in the West Slope of the County of El Dorado. Further, the California Master mutual aid agreement has the ability to commit DSP resources anywhere in the state. Overall, these mutual aid agreements do avoid costs associated with meeting peak emergency needs. Jurisdictional reorganizations, such as consolidations or mergers, are sometimes utilized to achieve a reduction in duplication of efforts and operating cost; administrative and operational continuity, or cost Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-33 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final savings as a result of reduction in administrative staff as attrition occurs. A secondary benefit of a jurisdictional reorganization could be that a larger community that shares common community risk reduction efforts and common operational procedures could see health and safety improvement for citizens and firefighters. There may also be added opportunities for personnel to have exposure to other assigned stations, increased promotional opportunities, and different diverse experiences working throughout the County (LAFCO, 2019). When considering potential future concepts or opportunities for the District to reduce overhead and operational costs, DSP’s ideas include merging or consolidation with a nearby agency, provided that such an endeavor results in reduce costs. Alternatively, shared services agreement could meet this objective, such that operational cost could be reduced. Overall, DSP's Board would like to ensure that any future cost-saving measure retain the current good level of service (LAFCO, 2020a). One functional or structural reorganizations that 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 (LAFCO, 2020a). Past discussions of possible coordination/consolidation with Rescue Fire Protection District and El Dorado County Fire Protection District have subsided (LAFCO, 2019). An alternative idea is to consider a Fire Authority model with El Dorado Hills County Water District and El Dorado County Fire Protection District. This idea remains at the conceptual, exploratory phase and will only progress if issues and concerns such as fair payment for services with no subsidies by one district for another, community representation on a new Board of Directors, and collaboration among employee groups regarding disproportionate wages, benefits and working conditions are addressed (LAFCO, 2019). 3.6 Financial Ability to Provide Services LAFCO is required to make determinations regarding the financial ability of the Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District (DSP) to provide public services. This section provides an overview of the financial health of the District and a context for LAFCO’s financial determinations. The audited financial statement from the District for the fiscal years (FY) 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 are the primary source of all information for this section. The Preliminary and Final Budgets for the FY 2019/2020 and FY 2020/2021 are also used in order to provide the most recent context to the analysis. In California, special districts are classified as either enterprise or non-enterprise based on their source of revenue. The DSP operates as a non-enterprise district, collecting and utilizing property tax revenue to fund fire and emergency services (DSP, 2018; 2019; 2020a; 2020b). 3.6.1 Financial Policies and Transparency The primary policy document that describes the rules for the District’s business operations including budget, procurement, and financial policies was not found on the agency’s website nor was it provided to the consultants. The DSP does not have a 5-Year Strategic Plan that includes financial goals. The District adopts a 1-year budget and conducts an annual cycle review to determine any changes that might be needed. The FY 2020/2021 Financial Plan was adopted by the Board on Sept. 8, 2020. The District publishes an audited financial statement every year. Government Code and District policy require an annual independent audit of the District’s financial records by a certified public accountant. The Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-34 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final independent audit on FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 were performed by R.J. RICCIARDI INC., independent auditors. The auditors judge whether the District’s financial statements are presented in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is responsible for establishing GAAP for state and local governments through its statements and interpretations. The District uses the accrual basis of accounting, where revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recorded when liabilities are incurred (DSP, 2018; 2019; 2020a; 2020b). 3.6.2 District Revenues and Expenditures For the Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District, property taxes account for between 81 and 88 percent of the Districts Total Revenues, the largest amount of recurring revenue. District expenditures average approximately $4.61 million annually based on the Audited Financial Statement and Preliminary and Final budgets provided. A breakdown in revenues and expenditures can be seen in Figure 3-10 on the next page. A breakdown of revenues and expenditures is also available in table format in Volume II - Appendix A, Financial Tables by Agency. Revenues The District’s largest revenue source is property taxes, as well as a voter-approved special tax, the Mello- Roos Community Facilities District (CDF) Act Special Tax No. 2006-01 (County of El Dorado, 2020). As mentioned previously, property taxes account for between 81 and 88 percent of the Districts Total Revenues, the largest amount of recurring revenue. In 2006, the Mello-Roos Community Facility Districts (CDF) Act Special Tax was passed to levy a Tax on all Assessor's Parcels in the Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District in an amount determined by the District through the application of the rate and method of apportionment as shown in Table 3-15. Table 3-15: Mello-Roos CDF Act Special Tax Rates by Property Type 2006 Rate FY 2019/2020 FY 2020/2021 Property Type Increment (Formation) Tax Rate Tax Rate Developed Single Family $493 $649.09 $651.02 per lot Residential Vacant Single-Family Lot $15.50 $20.53 $20.59 per lot Developed Multi-Family $395 $520.30 $521.86 per unit Residential Vacant Multi-Family Lot $15.50 $20.53 $20.59 per lot Non-Residential Property $0.13 $0.16 $0.16 per square foot The Special Tax continues to increase since its formation, with a 32 percent increase over a 15-year period (from 2006 to FY 2020/2021) for developed Single Family and Multi-Family residential; a 33 percent increase in vacant Single Family and Multi-Family lots; and a 23 percent increase in non-residential property. Per the Audited Financial Statements, the revenue collected as part of this Special Tax appears to contribute an insignificant amount to the overall revenues. Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-35 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 3-10: DSP Total Revenues & Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 to FY 2020/2021 Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-36 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The Districts recurring property tax revenues have steadily increased year over year. Other revenues available to the District include “Charges for Services,” as well as grant funding, and rental income from a cell tower located on one of the District’s properties which are listed as “Misc.” “Charges for Services” are charges to the West Slope JPA for ambulance employee Unfunded Accrued Liabilities (UAL) and Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB). Strike team reimbursement, identified as “Other Government Agency” in the District’s audit, made up 7.14 percent of the total budget for FY 2018/2019, or $308,217 out of the $4.3 million (Acting Chief Gallagher, personal communication, June 15, 2021). As mentioned in Section 3.5.2, the District operates one ambulance for the West Slope JPA. Reimbursement amounts from the JPA were not included in the audited financial statements for the District and are therefore not included in Figure 3-10. However, amounts for FY 2018/2019 were provided to consultants upon request. The District received approximately $1.15 million from the JPA. Expenses for the ambulance totaled $1.25 that same year, equating to a loss of approximately $100,000. District staff indicate that the loss was made up for in FY 2019/2020 and the District is hoping to break even for FY 2020/2021. Staff also informed consultants that the JPA funds will be included in the FY 2019/2020 audit currently in process as of June 14, 2021 (Acting Chief Gallagher, personal communication, June 15, 2021). Expenditures The District’s FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 Audited Financial Statements do not itemize expenditures on the Statement of Activities, instead lumping all expenditures into a “Public Safety” category. This is not common with other fire agencies within the County and makes a breakdown of expenditures unknown. However, it may be presumed based on the Preliminary and Final Budgets provided for FY 2019/2020 and FY 2020/2021, that Salaries & Benefits are the largest expense incurred by the District. A note from the Auditor states that the General Fund expenditures were $4.2 million in FY 2018/2019, which is a decrease of about $200,000 from FY 2017/2018. District expenditures average approximately $4.61 million annually based on the Audited Financial Statement and Preliminary and Final budgets provided. The District anticipates a decrease in expenditures of $202,182 from FY 2019/2020 to FY 2020/2021 based primarily on a reduction of fixed asset expenses. The District purchased a Type 3 engine in FY 2019/2020 and does not anticipate purchasing apparatus in FY 2020/2021 (Chief Gallagher, personal communication, May 13, 2021). Currently, the DSP operates one station with three staff per engine or truck company (3-0) model on duty 24/7 (LAFCO, 2020a). By having all personnel in one station, the District is also able to staff ladder truck calls with four staff per engine or truck company (4-0) model as needed. As of July 1, 2020, the District had 24 full-time employees. The District is a transporting agency for the West Slope JPA for emergency medical services, meaning that the District receives revenue from the JPA to operate one ambulance for the County of El Dorado. Revenue received covers all operating expenses associated with operating one ambulance. In 2018, the District had six Emergency Services Authority Funding positions, funded through the JPA. If the EMS funding was lost, the District would need an additional $1.2 million to cover these positions. The District staffs one fire station 24/7 and has four unstaffed stations. The District did not use any volunteer firefighters in 2020. Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-37 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Revenues (over / under) Expenditures Revenues for the FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 have not been able to cover the expenditures as shown in Figure 3-11. This is in contrast to projected revenues over expenditures for FY 2019/2020 and FY 2020/2021. Figure 3-11: DSP Net Revenues Over/Under Expenditures for for FY 2017-2021 Between FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/019, Revenues decreased by $71,613. During that same period, Property Taxes increased by $205,518, Charges for Services decreased by $218,525 and Strike Team Revenue decreased by $82,970. These revenue shortages combined with a five percent increase in expenditures, or $248,412, generated the Net Revenue Over / Under Expenditures of a negative $385,656 for FY 2017/2018 as shown in Figure 3-11. In the FY 2019/2020 and FY 2020/2021 budgets provided by the District, a fund balance transfer of $100,000 each year appears to bring the District into a positive position. It should be noted that fund balance transfers are not a recurring revenue source. Drawing down the District’s General Fund to cover operational expenses is not sustainable in the long term. 3.6.3 District Assets and Liabilities District Assets On June 30, 2019, the District had approximately $5.13 million in Assets and Deferred Outflows with 48 percent of assets derived from Deferred Outflows. This is an increase from the $2.4 million, or 107 percent from FY 2017/2018 to FY 2018/2019. The District has a strong cash and investment position of $1,529,595 million. A breakdown in District assets as shown in Figure 3-12 below. Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-38 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 3-12: District Assets as of June 30, 2019 Liabilities and Debt As of June 30th, 2019, the District had $13.8 million in liabilities as shown in Figure 3-13. Liabilities include $13.2 million in Long Term Liabilities which primarily consists of $6.9 million for the District’s Net Pension Liability and another $5.9 million for “Other Post-Employment Benefits” OPEB. Figure 3-13: District Liabilities and Debt as of June 30, 2019 In February 2017, the District entered into a lease purchase agreement for three years of self-contained breathing apparatuses, with an interest rate of three percent. The total lease obligation is $164,527 with annual payments made in September of each year. For the year 2020, the annual payment was $58,154 and completed payment for the loan. 3.6.4 Net Position The Net Position includes a summation of the District’s assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities, and deferred inflows of resources, which provide information about the nature, and amounts of investments in assets and obligations to District creditors. It also provides the basis for computing rates Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-39 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final of return, evaluating the capital structure of the District, and assessing financial flexibility of the District. The Net Position of the District as of June 30, 2019 is provided in Figure 3-14 below. Figure 3-14: District Net Position as of June 30, 2019 The District operated at a deficit Net Position of $8.6 million. This is an increase of 4 percent from the previous year, at $8.2 million. The majority of the Net Position is made up of a deficit in the “Unrestricted” account which includes the District’s unfunded liabilities. 3.6.5 Asset Maintenance and Replacement The District did not provide an updated plan for renovating aging infrastructure. The Resources and Equipment document provided to the consultants for this analysis has not been updated since 2005 and has no future dates for replacing equipment listed. The District conducts quarterly assessments of facilities to determine funds needed for future improvements and upgrades. The District also has a capital facilities plan and apparatus replacement plan which projects replacements for aging apparatus and infrastructure over a 30-year period. The District identified the need for a new ladder truck in 2019 (LAFCO, 2020a). For apparatus and equipment, the District has four Type I engines, two Type II engines, two water tenders and one Type III water tender. For infrastructure, the District has five fire stations. One of the stations is leased for $1 per year and is the newest station for the District. This station is also the administrative headquarters for the District, meets the building code for an essential services facility, and houses the District training center. 3.6.6 Cost Avoidance The District works with neighboring agencies through automatic aid, mutual aid, and boundary drop agreements. The District is also one of the transporting districts for Advanced Life Support (ALS) ambulance service through the West Slope JPA. The District has discussed possible consolidation with Rescue Fire Protection District (RES) and El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF). However, RES is in discussions with El Dorado Hills Fire Department (EDH) for annexation and ECF has moved to looking at the fire agencies on the Divide for possible consolidations. The fire agencies on the Divide include Mosquito Fire Protection District, Garden Valley Fire Protection District, and Georgetown Fire Protection District. Talks with DSP regarding consolidation with other neighboring districts subsided as of September 2019. The District is currently working with ECF on a shared services agreement. A shared services agreement opens up the possibility for future mergers or consolidations and can reduce overhead costs for the District (LAFCO, 2020a). Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-40 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 3.6.7 Financial Summary and Ability to Provide Services Based on the data presented above, the District is able to provide adequate service to the residents of the District. Currently the Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District operates at a 3-0 staffing model which is the minimum standard to provide adequate services. However, expenditures have exceeded revenues for the FY 2017/2018 and FY 2019/2020. The District is operating at a deficit and cannot sustain the current trajectory of expenditures over revenues long term. The District’s negative net position, due to the unfunded liability and the financial constrains from revenues under expenditures, severely jeopardizes the District's ability to provide adequate services unless alternative financing can be procured or consolidation with another District occurs. Alternative Financing The District is looking into implementing a 1st responder fee to capture some revenue from responding to calls for incidents related to people who do not reside within the County of El Dorado. Additionally, the District is looking at entering into a shared services agreement with ECF to reduce costs. Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-41 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 3.7 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 the DSP 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. Scoring for the determinations in Table 3-16 below are as follows: ▲ ● ▼ ◆ Above Average (compared to similar Districts), Average, Below Average, Statement of Fact (not rated). Table 3-16: Summary of MSR Determinations for the DSP Indicator Score Determination Population and Growth DSP’s 41,951-acre boundary area is located in unincorporated County of El ◆ Dorado and encompasses the communities of Diamond Springs, El Dorado, Existing Boundary. Sleepy Hollow, Logtown, Missouri Flat, Nashville and Sandridge. The boundary includes 7,956 assessor parcels. El Dorado LAFCO adopted the original SOI for the DSP via Resolution No. L- ◆ 2011-09 on August 24, 2011. The District’s SOI consists of 6 pockets or Existing Sphere of Influence. islands that are wholly within the District boundary. These six SOI areas include 24 parcels and encompass a total of 1,462.6 acres. The DSP provides extra-territorial services outside of its District boundary, primarily to those within its SOI. The District maintains automatic aid agreements with all fire service agencies located in El Dorado County for Extra-territorial Services the District provides as described in ◆ fire suppression and emergency management services. This type of extra Government Code Section 56134. territorial services is consistent with its mutual and automatic aid agreements. Therefore, these services provided outside the boundary are not considered to be Out-of-Agency Services. By the year 2040, it is estimated that DSP’s existing boundary will ◆ encompass a population of 14,658 persons. This represents a projected Projected population in years 2020 through 2040. average annual growth rate of 0.38 percent between the years 2020 and 2040. Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-42 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination DSP’s boundaries contain sufficient land area to accommodate projected growth based on the following factors: 1) Currently, the District’s boundary area supports an average of 0.3 persons per acre which is considered to be District boundaries contain sufficient land area to accommodate ◆ a low population density, and 2) the County General Plan land use projected growth. designations suggest that there are parcels within the DSP that do have some limited development potential, such as a few housing developments, care facilities, and commercial growth on the Highway 50 corridor. Government Structure and Accountability DSP, along with all the fire protection districts in El Dorado County, have Is the District involved in current litigation and/or has the District ▼ recently been the subject of grand jury report, Case 19-06. been the subject of a recent grand jury inquiry. DSP has been free of litigation and censure, indicating its responsiveness and a solid record of accountability. The terms of office and committee appointments are disclosed for District Terms of office and next election date are disclosed for District Board ● Board members online. However, the DPS website does not list the next members and committee appointments are online. election date for Board members. DSP’s website outlines the significant work that the agency performs to Does the District work to inform and educate homeowners regarding ● inform and educate homeowners regarding fire safety and prevention fire safety and prevention consistent with General Plan Objective consistent with General Plan Objective 6.2.5. However, DSP’s participation 6.2.5? with the local fire safe council is not clear due to insufficient information. Does the agency’s website comply with the 2016 updates to the The DSP website complies with the Brown Act 2016 Updates' technical ▲ Brown Act described in Government Code §54954.2 and enacted by requirements described in AB2257. Assembly Bill 2257? Does the District comply with the Special District Transparency Act Compliance with the Special District Transparency Act (Gov. Code, §6270.6 (SB 929 or California Government Code, §6270.6 and 53087.8) which and 53087.8) was evaluated in this MSR. The DSP does currently maintain ▲ requires special districts to have a functional website that lists a functional website which contains financial statements, compensation contact information and contains financial statements, reports, and other relevant public information. Therefore the District does compensation reports, and other relevant public information. comply with the Special District Transparency Act. Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-43 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination DSP’s elected Board members submit required forms and receive required trainings as prescribed by the three state laws regarding accountability and ethics including: 1) the Political Reform Act; 2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005) which requires ethics training; and 3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. Do elected Board members submit required forms and receive required trainings as prescribed by the three state laws regarding DSP does have a conflict-of-interest code adopted on August 11, 2020 via accountability and ethics including: Resolution 2020-05. DSP’s conflict of interest policies available to the ▲ public by request by calling DSP offices at (530) 626-3190. It is (1) the Political Reform Act; recommended that DSP post its conflict-of-interest code on its website. (2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005); and (3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. There have been no complaints to the CA FPPC regarding filing of Economic Statements of Interest required under the Political Reform Act. The Acting Fire Chief confirmed that Board members receive required ethics and sexual harassment training under Assembly Bill 1234 and and Government Code 53237 et. seq. Disadvantage Communities California’s median household income was $71,228 in 2018. This yields a The median household income is identified. The DUC threshold MHI ◆ DUC threshold MHI of less than $56,982. Within the boundaries of DSP are (80 percent of the statewide MHI) is clearly stated. The MHI in the located portions three Census Block Groups that meets the DUC threshold District’s boundary is described. and are therefore classified as disadvantaged unincorporated communities. There are portions of Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within the DSP boundary and sphere of influence, including three census block Potential DUCs are considered. The provision of adequate water, groups. The DUCs described in this chapter do receive adequate water ◆ wastewater, and structural fire protection services to DUCs is service from EID or private wells. Wastewater services are provided to DUC considered. areas either by EID or by small septic systems. Fire protection services to the DUCs described in this chapter are provided by the DSP, ECF, or PIO. No public health and safety issues have been identified. Shared Facilities and Services Agreements for mutual aid or any other appropriate agreement (i.e., Tax Sharing Agreement) are periodically reviewed to ensure fiscal neutrality. Agreements for mutual aid or any other appropriate agreement (i.e., ● The Agreement with the JPA for emergency medical service was most Tax Sharing Agreement) are periodically reviewed by the District recently reviewed during the DSP Board meeting on May 13, 2020. Board to ensure fiscal neutrality. However, it is not known when the DSP conducted its most recent review of the mutual aid agreements, due to insufficient information. Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-44 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination Other practices and opportunities that may reduce or eliminate As in independent fire protection district, DSP does consider practices and unnecessary costs are examined by the District periodically. Ideally, ● opportunities that may help to reduce or eliminate unnecessary costs. there is a balance between cost efficiency and risk reduction However, progress towards executing actual agreements that could result strategies. in jurisdictional reorganization has been slow. DSP collaborates with multiple other agencies for the delivery of services within its boundary. Specifically, DSP provides mutual aid for fire, rescue, The District collaborates with multiple other fire and emergency ● and EMS emergencies to twelve other fire districts in the County of El medical agencies for the delivery of services within its boundary. Dorado. The District relies on neighboring agencies for mutual aid receiving mutual aid 1,010 more times than it provided in 2019. Public Services and Infrastructure Although DSP currently meets its infrastructure needs, there is room for improvement as follows: The District meets infrastructure needs for (1) Four of the District's five stations are unstaffed and do not meet (1) facilities (stations); seismic codes; (2) rolling stock (engines, apparatus, and emergency medical ● (2) Rolling stock [engines, apparatus, and emergency medical response response units;) units] are sufficient; (3) dispatch systems; and (3) Dispatch is provided by the ECC operated by CAL FIRE; and (4) roadways for emergency access. (4) Roadways for emergency access appear to be sufficient, however an emergency access plan was not provided. The District does provide sufficient services to meet current and future demands in two of the three factors: Does the District provide sufficient services to meet current and (1) Recruitment of employees is sufficient since wages attract job future demands with: applicants and the employee association is viewed as beneficial. (1) recruitment; ● (2) DSP is an active participant in mutual aid with other fire service (2) mutual aid; and providers throughout the County. (3) water supply for fire protection. (3) Water supplies and hydrants are plentiful in the developed portions of the District; however, the rural areas rely on well water which is sometimes insufficient. Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-45 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination DSP does have limited capacity to assist with and/or assume services provided by other fire protection agencies, based on the following factors: (1) overall, the DSP is a well-run organization; (2) DSP currently provides automatic and mutual aid services to other fire Evaluation of the District’s capacity to assist with and/or assume fire ● agencies in the County; and and emergency medical services provided by other agencies. (3) DSP has a sufficient number of fire stations and equipment to serve both its own needs and to potentially collaborate with other agencies. However, the District is understaffed as evidenced by the four stations, out of five, that remain unstaffed. DSP completes a quarterly assessment of facilities indicating necessary maintenance and upgrades such as major repairs, seismic retrofit, ADA access compliance The District’s deferred maintenance strategy is to utilize Has the District has been diligent in developing plans to the quarterly assessment process and budgeting principles to save money accommodate the infrastructure and service needs of current and for future improvements or upgrades. Standard depreciation and ● future constituents? District regularly reviews and updates its service replacement of infrastructure and equipment is completed by utilizing a plans to ensure that infrastructure needs, and deficiencies are capital facility plan and apparatus replacement plan, which projects over a addressed in a timely manner. 30-year time period. New or upgraded infrastructure and deferred maintenance is financed by following the budgeting principles set by the District, which allocates 2 percent of received revenue to be allocated to infrastructure and maintenance each fiscal year. The District’s deferred maintenance strategy is to utilize the quarterly The District has preventative maintenance measures and has ● assessment process and budgeting principles to save money for future planned for replacement of aging infrastructure. improvements or upgrades. Rating for the District from the neutral third-party Insurance Services ● Office (ISO) where the rating scale from best to worse is One (1) to DSP received an ISO rating of 4 and 4Y. Ten (10). Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-46 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination In the year 2019, the District’s average response time was 7 minutes 27 seconds. DSP average for 2019 appears to meet response time goals for new discretionary projects in all County community types. DSP contains the Does the District comply with County General Plan policies in Community Region of Diamond Springs. ▲ relation to response times. Does the District meet the minimum DSP staff have indicated that the District’s staffing level is generally at 3-0, standard for staffing. with a 4-0 model on ladder trucks. Therefore, the staffing levels for the DSP does meet the NFPA standard and standard practice. Meeting these staffing standards reduces community vulnerability to low frequency, high risk events, such as a working structure fire. CAL FIRE’s Station 43 is staffed on a seasonal basis and is located within the ◆ DSP boundaries. Although there is some limited overlap between DSP and Is there duplicate infrastructure by other agencies nearby. CAL FIRE services, it is not considered an exact duplication of services because the DSP focuses on structural fire protection services. Financial Accountability The primary policy document for DSP was not found on the agency’s website. A document was not provided that describes the rules for the The District has a published policy for reserve funds, including the ▼ District’s business operations including budget, procurement, and financial size and purpose of reserves and how they are invested. policies, however it was noted those items are in the Policies and Procedures Manual. A policy for reserves was not published. District had a $8,601,813 million Negative Net Position in FY 2018/2019. ▼ The unfunded liabilities put the District in a precarious financial position The District had a positive Net Position for FY 2018/2019. that jeopardizes the ability of the District to continue to provide services without additional revenue. ▼ The Strategic Plan for DSP was not provided. District has an updated Strategic Plan that addresses financial goals. District Revenues exceed expenditures in FY 2017/2018 and FY ▼ District operated with a deficit of $65,631 and $385,656 of expenditures 2018/2019. over revenues for FY 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 respectively. District finances are sufficient to apply a staffing model that meets or exceeds the generally accepted minimum standard of three staff per ▲ District operates at a minimum 3-0 staffing model with 4-0 staffing on the engine and truck company (3-0) model (or at NFPA 1720 standards if ladder truck. applicable). Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-47 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination A minimum of 50% total operating expense is kept on hand in the ◆ This indicator could not be rated by consultants. District staff did not General Reserve Fund in FY 2018/2019. provide this information. Government Code and District policy require an annual independent audit Summary financial information presented in a standard format and ◆ of the District’s financial records by a certified public accountant. The simple language. independent audits on FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 were performed by R.J. RICCIARDI INC., independent auditors. Alternative financing opportunities were explored and pursued by ◆ The District is working to enter into a shared services agreement with ECF the District. and is looking to implement a 1st responder fee for calls assisting persons who are not residents of El Dorado County. Effect on Agriculture and Open Space There are 6,869 acres of land that is classified as open space, agricultural, Effect that the District’s service provision will have on open space ◆ or natural resource lands within the DSP boundaries. Fire Protection and agricultural lands. Services and Emergency Medical Services generally have minimal effects on agricultural land and open space. ▲ ● ▼ ◆ Key Score: Above Average (compared to similar Districts), Average, Below Average, Statement of Fact (not rated) Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-48 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 3.8 References 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/. _____. 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/. _____. 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/. California Department of Insurance. 2018. The Availability and Affordability of Coverage for Wildfire Loss in Residential Property Insurance in the Wildland-Urban Interface and Other High-Risk Areas of California: CDI Summary and Proposed Solutions. 44-pages. Sacramento, California. Retrieved on November 9, 2020 from: http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0100-press- releases/2018/upload/nr002-2018AvailabilityandAffordabilityofWildfireCoverage.pdf CAL FIRE (formerly California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). November 7, 2007a. Map of Fire Hazard Severity Zones for El Dorado County. Available online at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6670/fhszs_map9.pdf. _____. May 2007b. Fact Sheet: Fire Hazard Severity Zone Model A Non-Technical Primer. 4-pages. Available online at: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/FIreHazardZone_NonTechnical_Prim er.pdf. _____. April 21, 2014. Unit Strategic Fire Plan Amador-El Dorado Unit. 57-pages. Available online at: https://www.edcfiresafe.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2014-Unit-Strategic-Fire-Plan_CAL- FIRE-Amador-El-Dorado-Unit.pdf. _____. Fire and Resource Protection Program (FRAP). December 2019. Map of Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) – Map ID: WUI_19DATA SOURCES: WUI_12_35TY_18. Available online at: https://frap.fire.ca.gov/media/10300/wui_19_ada.pdf. CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center (ECC). 2020. CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center Dispatch Data. Received October 2020. California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). August 2003. Local Agency Formation Commission Municipal Service Review Guidelines Final. 107-pages. County of El Dorado (CED). Grand Jury. June 8, 2020. West Slope Fire Protection Update. Case 19-06. Available online at: https://edcgov.us/Government/GrandJury/Documents/2019- 2020%20Reports/West%20Slope%20Fire%20Protection%20Update.pdf. Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-49 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final _____. Sherriff’s Department Office of Emergency Services. July 2018. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. 256-pages. Available online at: https://eldorado.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3923674&GUID=C562ECEB-7E9F-446D- AE6B-3AC56E13F465. CityGate Associates, LLC. May 2010. Fire and Emergency Services Study for the El Dorado LAFCO. Volumes 1-3 – Main Report. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/citygate-fire-study. Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District. 2018. Basic Financial Statements for Year Ended June 30, 2018. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. 2019. Basic Financial Statements for Year Ended June 30, 2019. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. 2020a. Final Budget Fiscal Year 2019/2020. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. 2020b. Preliminary Budget Fiscal Year 2020/2021. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. 2020c. DSP website. Available online at: http://www.diamondfire.org/. _____. January 10, 2021. Excerpts from website. Available online at: http://www.diamondfire.org/. El Dorado County Emergency Services Authority. 2017. Strategic Plan 2017 – 2022. 21-pages. Available online at: http://edcjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/EDC-JPA-Strategic-Plan-2017- Master.pdf. El Dorado Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). August 2011. Countywide Fire Suppression and Emergency Services Municipal Service Review. 253-pages. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/municipal-service-reviews-and-spheres-of-influence. _____. 2019. Response to LAFCO’s Request for Information. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. September 2020a. Response to LAFCO’s and South Fork Consulting’s Request for Information. 14-pages. 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 . 2-pages. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/. Fire Safe Council for El Dorado County (FSC-EDC). 2016. Map of Garden Valley Fuel Mitigation. Available online at: https://www.edcfiresafe.org/cwpp/maps/. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). 2020. NFPA 1710: Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. Transparent California and Nevada Policy Research Institute. 2020. Wage data download for the year 2018. Available online at: https://transparentcalifornia.com/. Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-50 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final U.S. Census Bureau. 2019. American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles as of 2019. TableID: DP05. Queried for the Diamond Springs Census Designated Place. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=diamond%20springs&tid=ACSDP5Y2019.DP05&hidePr eview=false. Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-51 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Page 3-52 of 3-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Chapter 4. El Dorado County Fire Protection District This chapter details the district formation, boundary, government structure, population and land use, disadvantaged communities, finances, and the provision of fire protection facilities and services provided by the El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF or District) as well as the MSR determinations for this district. Table of Contents 4.1 Agency Profile ..................................................................................................................4-5 4.1.1 Agency Overview ................................................................................................................................... 4-5 4.2 Agency Formation and Boundary ......................................................................................4-6 4.2.1 Formation .............................................................................................................................................. 4-6 4.2.2 District Boundary................................................................................................................................... 4-6 4.2.3 Existing Sphere of Influence .................................................................................................................. 4-6 4.2.4 Extra-Territorial Services ....................................................................................................................... 4-9 4.3 District Governance and Accountability ............................................................................4-9 4.3.1 Government Structure ........................................................................................................................ 4-10 4.3.2 District Board....................................................................................................................................... 4-10 4.3.3 Accountability ..................................................................................................................................... 4-11 4.3.4 Management Efficiencies and Staffing ............................................................................................... 4-13 4.3.5 Staffing and Training ........................................................................................................................... 4-13 4.4 Growth and Population Forecasts ................................................................................... 4-16 4.4.1 Existing Population .............................................................................................................................. 4-16 4.4.1 Existing Population in SOI ................................................................................................................... 4-17 4.4.2 Projected Population Growth ............................................................................................................. 4-18 4.4.3 Existing Land Use ................................................................................................................................. 4-18 Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-1 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 4.4.4 Potential Future Development ........................................................................................................... 4-20 4.4.5 Open Space and Agriculture ............................................................................................................... 4-20 4.4.6 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities.................................................................................... 4-21 4.5 Public Services and Infrastructure ................................................................................... 4-22 4.5.1 Service Overview ................................................................................................................................. 4-22 4.5.2 Fire and Emergency Response ............................................................................................................ 4-22 4.5.3 Mutual Aid, Automatic Aid, Other Agreements .................................................................................. 4-27 4.5.4 Dispatch ............................................................................................................................................... 4-32 4.5.5 Emergency Access ............................................................................................................................... 4-32 4.5.6 Fire Hazard Zones ................................................................................................................................ 4-32 4.5.7 Infrastructure ...................................................................................................................................... 4-35 4.5.8 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies ................................................................................................ 4-44 4.5.9 Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing ................................................................................................. 4-44 4.6 Financial Ability to Provide Services ................................................................................ 4-45 4.6.1 Financial Policies & Transparency ....................................................................................................... 4-45 4.6.2 District Revenues and Expenditures ................................................................................................... 4-46 4.6.3 District Assets and Liabilities ............................................................................................................... 4-53 4.6.4 Net Position ......................................................................................................................................... 4-54 4.6.5 Asset Maintenance and Replacement ................................................................................................ 4-55 4.6.6 Cost Avoidance .................................................................................................................................... 4-55 4.6.7 Financial Summary and Ability to Provide Services ............................................................................ 4-56 4.7 Determinations .............................................................................................................. 4-57 4.8 References ..................................................................................................................... 4-65 Table of Tables Table 4-1: Geographic Summary (2020) of Fire Protection Services for ECF ............................................ 4-9 Table 4-2: El Dorado County Fire Protection District Board of Directors ................................................ 4-10 Table 4-3: Current Staffing Levels for the ECF by Type and Full-time Equivalent (FTE) .......................... 4-13 Table 4-4: ECF Existing Population (2020) ............................................................................................... 4-16 Table 4-5: Total Estimated & Projected Population (2020 – 2040) ......................................................... 4-18 Table 4-6: Acreage Designated in the General Plan as Open Space, Agriculture, and Natural Resources within the ECF Boundary and SOI ............................................................................................................ 4-21 Table 4-7: MHI in Census Block Groups for El Dorado County Fire Protection District .......................... 4-21 Table 4-8: ECF Public Services .................................................................................................................. 4-22 Table 4-9: ECF Ambulance Units Number and Station Location ............................................................. 4-23 Table 4-10: ECF Ambulance Calls for Service by Type, 2019 ................................................................... 4-24 Table 4-11: ECF Response Time Data by Engine Company, 2019 ........................................................... 4-26 Table 4-12: Mutual Aid Given & Received from the ECF, 2019 ............................................................... 4-29 Table 4-13: ECF Fire Hazard Severity Zone Acreage and Percentage ...................................................... 4-32 Table 4-14: ECF Local, State and Federal Responsibility Area Acreage and Percentage ...................... 4-35 Table 4-15: ECF Fire Stations Detail ......................................................................................................... 4-37 Table 4-16: ECF Fire Station Needs .......................................................................................................... 4-38 Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-2 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 4-17: Apparatus and Light Vehicles, 2019 ..................................................................................... 4-41 Table 4-18: ECF Direct Assessments and Special Taxes Detailed Information ........................................ 4-49 Table 4-19: Increase/Decrease in Salaries/Benefits from FY 2016/2017 to FY 2020/2021 .................... 4-51 Table 4-20: Total Revenue for ECF from FY 2015/2016 to FY 2020/2021 ............................................... 4-53 Table 4-21: El Dorado County Fire Protection District capital assets and cash, minus long-term pension and other post-employment benefits (OPEB). ............................................................................................... 4-55 Table 4-22: Summary of MSR Determinations for the ECF ..................................................................... 4-57 Table of Figures Figure 4-1: El Dorado County Fire Protection District Service Area & SOI ................................................ 4-7 Figure 4-2: Wages and Benefits for ECF Employees, 2018 ...................................................................... 4-14 Figure 4-3: Peak Population in ECF Boundary, 2020 ............................................................................... 4-17 Figure 4-4: ECF Ambulance Calls for Service by Type, 2019 .................................................................... 4-24 Figure 4-5: Calls for Service from 2010-2019 .......................................................................................... 4-25 Figure 4-6: ECF Incidents by Type, 2019 .................................................................................................. 4-25 Figure 4-7: ECF Calls Per Station, 2015-2019 ........................................................................................... 4-26 Figure 4-8: Aid Received vs. Provided for ECF, 2019 ............................................................................... 4-30 Figure 4-9: Fire Hazard Severity Zones & Responsibility Areas for ECF................................................... 4-33 Figure 4-10: ECF Total Revenues and Expenditures from FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 ........... 4-47 Figure 4-11: ECF Net Revenues Over/Under Expenditures 2017-2021 ................................................... 4-52 Figure 4-12: District Assets as of June 30, 2019 ...................................................................................... 4-53 Figure 4-13: District Liabilities and Debt as of June 30, 2019.................................................................. 4-54 Figure 4-14: District Net Position as of June 30, 2019 ............................................................................. 4-54 Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-3 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-4 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 4.1 Agency Profile 4.1.1 Agency Overview As a Fire Protection District, the El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF) is empowered to provide fire and emergency medical services to a large segment of the County of El Dorado. The ECF extends from the County of El Dorado – Sacramento County line on the west, along the US Highway 50 Corridor easterly to Twin Bridges. The District encompasses the larger communities of Placerville and Shingle Springs; along with smaller communities including Coloma, Lotus, Pilot Hill, Oak Hill, Camino, Pleasant Valley, Pollock Pines, Kyburz, and Strawberry. ECF also serves numerous enclaves includes Apple Hill, Gold Hill, Pacific House, Salmon Falls, Sierra Springs, Silver Fork, Texas Hill, and Twin Bridges. Topographic elevations range from a low of 500 feet above mean sea level (msl) at the lower foothills to a high of 6,000 feet msl at Twin Bridges along US Highway 50, near the mid-slope of the Sierra. Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-5 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 4.2 Agency Formation and Boundary 4.2.1 Formation 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 to the reorganized District. El Dorado LAFCO’s Resolution No. L-91-01 was adopted on January 3, 1991 supporting formation of the District. Subsequent to its formation, ECF annexed the Strawberry area and the US Highway 50 corridor. The Coloma-Lotus and Northside Fire Protection Districts were reorganized into the ECF in 1993. The District’s authorized services include fire suppression and emergency medical services (LAFCO, 2019b). ECF’s enabling legislation is the California Health and Safety Code §13800, et seq. 4.2.2 District Boundary The El Dorado County Fire Protection District geographic boundary encompasses approximately 176,304 acres or 275 square miles as depicted in Figure 4-1. The boundary includes 29,545 assessor parcels, several unincorporated communities, and the City of Placerville (EDC GIS, 2020). A narrow corridor of the District extends to the eastern portion of El Dorado County along Highway 50 to the boundary of Lake Valley Fire Protection District. The ECF boundary is not a single contiguous area. The southwesterly area of ECF is separated from the majority portion of the District by the Rescue Fire Protection District and Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District. Since the previous MSR was adopted in 2011, the District has annexed one parcel and has one project initiated as detailed below: • AT&T/Bloxom Annexation (LAFCO Project No. 2019-04): Annexation of one parcel consisting of 50 acres for a new cell tower, effective November 24, 2020; and • EDCFPD Island Annexation (LAFCO Project No. 2020-01): ECF initiated annexation of 14 separate island areas totaling 159 parcels made up of 5,439 acres, conditionally approved by LAFCO March 24, 2021 and expected to be completed summer 2021. District staff indicated that there were no areas within its boundary that might be served more efficiently by another agency (LAFCO, 2020a). This indicates that the ECF boundary line is drawn sufficiently to accommodate the spatial distribution of existing demands for service. 4.2.3 Existing Sphere of Influence This section briefly describes the existing Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the El Dorado County Fire Protection District. El Dorado LAFCO most recently updated the SOI for the ECF on August 24, 2011 via Resolution No. L-2011-09. The District’s SOI encompasses approximately 13,363 acres and includes 265 parcels as shown in Table 4-1 below. The SOI can be characterized as 12 different pocket areas located either directly adjacent to the boundary or in the interior of the boundary as shown in Figure 4-1. Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-6 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 4-1: El Dorado County Fire Protection District Service Area & SOI Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-7 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page left intentionally blank Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-8 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 4-1: Geographic Summary (2020) of Fire Protection Services for ECF Boundary Area SOI Total Boundary (All Services) (All Services) & SOI Total Acres 176,304.5 13,363 189,667.5 Square Miles 275.5 20.9 296.4 Number of Assessor Parcels 29,545 265 29,810 Source: El Dorado County GIS Data, 2020 Emergency response within the Sphere of Influence areas shown on Figure 6-1 is covered under the automatic-aid system agreed upon by all fire districts in the County. The ECF SOI includes significant acreage managed by the El Dorado National Forest, which is a federal response area. Although the U.S. Forest Services 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 (LAFCO, 2020a). ECF retained Burr Consultants to develop a Plan for Services 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 that are surrounded by the District into the District. 4.2.4 Extra-Territorial Services The ECF does provide extra-territorial services outside of its District boundary. Specifically, ECF provides fire suppression and emergency medical services to its SOI areas, including both privately owned land and federally managed land. Additionally, ECF participates in the County Wide “boundary drop” automatic aid system where it may be called to any location in the County as described in Section 4.5.3, below (LAFCO, 2020a). ECF’s participation in the mutual and automatic aid agreements are not considered to be Out-of-Agency Services. The District maintains automatic aid agreements with all fire service agencies located in the County of El Dorado for fire suppression and emergency medical services. However, ECF’s regular service to its SOI is an Out-of-Agency Service and does have an associated funding challenge. Additionally, ECF does provide fire protection services to other agencies by contract. Specifically, the District has a contract for fire protection services with the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians and the Red Hawk Casino. The Red Hawk Casino is located in Shingle Springs (LAFCO, 2020a). The District entered into the contract in July 2008 under Section 13863 of the California Health and Safety Code (Chief Cordero, personal communication, July 21, 2021). 4.3 District Governance and Accountability This section describes how performance, accountability, transparency, and public engagement relate to the public’s trust in local government. LAFCO is required by the CKH Act to make specific determinations regarding a special district’s government structure and accountability. Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-9 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 4.3.1 Government Structure The ECF is a local government agency structured as a Fire Protection District consistent with its Principal Act: California Health and Safety Code §13800, et seq. The District has five elected Board Members who reside within the community. All registered voters, who reside within the District boundaries are eligible to vote for and/or run for a seat on the District Board of Directors. The District Board hires and/or appoints the Fire Chief (Chief Cordero, personal communication, July 21, 2021). 4.3.2 District Board The District operates under the direction of the elected District Board of Directors who are elected by district areas and not at-large. Each elected Board Member serves for a term of four years with two Board Member seats running two years apart from the remaining three seats. A new Board President is selected by the Board Members each year. The Board has three standing committees, Finance, Communications, and Strategic Planning. The Board also has three ad-hoc committees including Facilities, Human Resources, and Operational Planning. The Board President assigns Directors to the District’s committees. The current Board of Directors members, their committee appointments and the expiration dates of their terms are shown in Table 4-2 below. Table 4-2: El Dorado County Fire Protection District Board of Directors Name Title Term End Committee Appointments Mark Brunton Director Dec. 2024 Communications, Facilities Paul Gilchrest Director Dec. 2024 Finance and Communications Ken Harper Director Dec. 2024 Human Resources Mickey Kaiserman Director Dec. 2022 Finance, Facilities, Operational Planning Chris Swarbrick Chair Dec. 2022 Human Resources, Operational Planning Source: ECF Board Agendas, 2021 The District holds regular public meetings on the third Thursday of each month at 1:00 PM at a County building located at 2850 Fairlane Court, Building C, Placerville CA 95667. The Communications Committee meets on the first Thursday of the month at 9:00 AM. The Finance Committee meets on the third Tuesday at 1:00 PM. ECF Board members are eligible to receive a $100 stipend for each meeting they attend as well as dental insurance and vision insurance paid by the District. Board members do not receive healthcare benefits, retirement, or mileage payments (LAFCO, 2020a). In 2018, three of the five Board members chose to receive a stipend/benefit payment. The average payment totaled approximately $2,440 per year. The remaining two Board members chose not to receive any payment (Transparent California, 2021). There has not been any difficulty in attracting candidates to run for the District. Although, board positions are typically elected as unopposed (LAFCO, 2020a). In California, elected members of special district boards are required to comply with three laws regarding accountability and ethics including 1) the Political Reform Act; 2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005), which requires ethics training; and 3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. which mandates sexual harassment Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-10 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final prevention training. A description of each of these three state laws is provided in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Political Reform Act Each district is required to have conflict of interest code/policies. ECF does have adopted conflict of interest policy (Number 1020) which is available to the public at its website. The Political Reform Act also requires special district board members to disclose all personal economic interests by filing a “Statement of Economic Interests” with the District or the County consistent with the practices of the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). Query results for the ECF found one case (# 2019-00609) and one complaint (#COM-04292019-00896) regarding Director Mark Burton. Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005) Local government officials are required to take ethics training every two years. Compliance with this law was assessed for each of the fourteen fire agencies studied in this MSR by asking the Clerk of the District for the dates and other documentation of training events. ECF’s Fire Chief reports that training has conducted on a regular basis through Target Solutions, though dates of specific trainings were not provided to consultants. Therefore, ECF’s Board is in compliance with AB 1234. Government Code 53237 et. seq. Special district board members must receive required sexual harassment prevention, two-hour training, every two years. Compliance with this law was assessed for each of the fourteen fire agencies studied in this MSR by asking the Clerk of the District Board for the dates and other documentation of training events. ECF’s Fire Chief reports that training has been conducted on a regular basis through Target Solutions, though dates of specific trainings were not provided to consultants. Therefore, ECF’s Board is in compliance with Gov. Code 53237 et. seq. 4.3.3 Accountability Brown Act The details of the Brown Act are described in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. All meetings of the District Board and committees are open to the public in accordance with the Brown Act. The agenda for each meeting includes a public comment period and agendas are made available 72 hours before meetings. District staff states that ECF complies with the Brown Act requirements of posting and noticing of Board meetings, both regular and special, to ensure the public receives notice and the ability to attend. Any committees or ad hoc groups are limited to 1-2 members to remain in compliance (LAFCO, 2020a). Any written document that relates to an agenda item is available for public inspection at the same time the agenda is distributed to the members of the Board of Directors. Written documents are made available at the District Office and on the District website at: https://www.eldoradocountyfire.com. Agendas are also distributed via email upon request (LAFCO, 2020a). Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-11 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The State Legislature updated the Brown Act in 2016 as codified in Government Code §54954.2 (see also Assembly Bill 2257). These new Brown Act requirements are detailed in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. El Dorado County Fire Protection District makes its agenda, as well as agenda packets, available on its website at: https://www.eldoradocountyfire.com/. Current Board agendas are posted to the homepage under “Breaking News & Info.” Therefore, the District website agenda distribution does comply with the requirements of the Brown Act 2016 Updates described in AB2257. Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20 suspended parts of the Brown Act that require in-person attendance of Board members and citizens at public meetings as described in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. In response to these events, the District implemented Teleconference/Electronic Meeting Protocols effective April 2020 which allow for public participation through video conferencing and by telephone. All meetings are streamed live via Zoom, a video conferencing platform, that is accessible by the public for free. Public comments can be made during the Zoom meeting by utilizing the platform’s “raise a hand” button or press *9 if dialing in by phone (LAFCO, 2020a). Special District Transparency Act (SB 929 and SB 272) The Special District Transparency Act (SB 929 or California Government Code, §6270.6 and 53087.8) requires that special districts have a functional website, and the requirements of this Act are described in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. The Districts website is kept updated and is easily navigable with current and past agenda packets available for download. The District website lists Board members and their current term, but does not list committee appointments. Contact information is listed at the top of the home page. Financial statements (independent audits) through the year 2019 are listed on the Services tab of the webpage. Compensation reports are not provided. A District Enterprise System Catalog (as required by Senate Bill 272) is not on the ECF website. The District has entered into a contract with Streamline to update and reformat the website. The new site should be online by September 2021 and will feature the Enterprise System Catalog and be ADA compliant. Currently, El Dorado County Fire Protection District partially complies with the requirements of the Special District Transparency Act. General Accountability There are several laws, regulations, and guidelines which prescribe safety features associated with fire protection services, including state laws and regulations exercised through the District's cooperative agreement with CAL FIRE, the Safety Element of the County of El Dorado's General Plan, and other County requirements and regulations. ECF, along with all the fire protection districts in El Dorado County, have recently been the subject of a grand jury report (CED, 2020a). The Grand Jury posits in Case No. 19-06 that, while it made sense historically, the only reason there are multiple fire agencies in El Dorado County is because of “strong loyalty to a local home district, coming at the expense of the County as a whole.” The Grand Jury concludes that the insufficient revenues afforded to rural districts puts a strain on the mutual and automatic aid system as a whole; forcing more financially stable districts to “subsidize” the rural ones by having the former respond to calls when the latter is unable to do so. The issues raised in the grand jury report remain valid (LAFCO, 2020b). Changes to the governmental structure of some fire protection districts may be needed to address these issues. Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-12 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 4.3.4 Management Efficiencies and Staffing The Fire Chief is appointed by and reports to the Board of Directors and is responsible for directing District operations and overseeing and implementing policies on behalf of the Board. An important part of management effectiveness includes the District adopting a District-wide mission and vision statement. The ECF Mission statement is: We are dedicated to providing professional and courteous service to our citizens and communities with Pride, Trust & Integrity. ECF’s employees are organized into several operational and administrative divisions including: • Fire Prevention and Investigations • Training Division • Emergency Medical Services (EMS) • Fleet • Facilities • Operations • Financial / Risk Analysis • Human Resources (Source: ECF, 2020c) 4.3.5 Staffing and Training ECF staff includes paramedic firefighters and emergency medical technicians (EMT). The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) calls for a standard of four staff per engine and truck company (4-0) model (NFPA, 2020). A three staff per engine and truck company (3-0) model is acceptable as the minimum standard for this MSR/SOI Update. More information on staffing levels can be found in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. One of ECF’s five fire engines only have 2-person staffing (i.e., 2- 0 Model). The remaining four engines are staffed with three firefighters (i.e., 3-0 model). The sixth engine is staffed by CAL FIRE through an Amador Plan as described in Section 4.5.3 below. Staffing levels are within budget constraints (Chief Cordero, personal communication with consultants, September 2020). The staffing levels shown in Table 4-3 below for the ECF partially meet these standards. Lower staffing levels leave the community vulnerable to low frequency, high risk events, such as a working structure fire. Table 4-3: Current Staffing Levels for the ECF by Type and Full-time Equivalent (FTE) Position FTE Count as of July 1, 2020 Compared to 2018 Fire Chief 1 1 Battalion Chief/Division Chiefs 4 4 Fire Marshal 1 0 Captains 19 0 Firefighter/EMT 17 21 Firefighter/Paramedic 31 51 Engineer/Paramedic 0 1 Administrative Staff 3 2 Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-13 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Position FTE Count as of July 1, 2020 Compared to 2018 Apprentice 0 3 Receptionist 0 2 Total 76 85 Source: LAFCO, 2020a; 2019a Twenty-four of the paid firefighter positions are funded by the County’s Emergency Services Authority Funding (LAFCO, 2020a). If this funding source were to end, ECF would not be able to absorb the costs for these positions (LAFCO, 2019a). ECF adapts to funding limitations by consistently considering methods to increase efficiency. For example, the engine company previously located at Station 23 was relocated to Station 19, which is more centrally located in Pleasant Valley. This relocation also benefits the communities of Pollock Pines, Camino, and South County residents, as the engine is better positioned for backup and/or additional responses to those areas (Chief Cordero, personal communication, July 21, 2021.) The District’s volunteer firefighter program was eliminated five years ago due to changes in the State of California mandated training requirements for volunteers. ECF found that on an annual basis, it was cost prohibitive to bring in 10-12 volunteers to train every year. For example, workers compensation insurance charges for volunteers remains expensive. Most of the volunteers had full time jobs, which further complicated the training schedule. In summary, the District no longer utilizes volunteer firefighters (El Dorado LAFCO, 2019a). All District firefighters are full-time, career, hourly employees consistent with FSLA requirements. Hourly pay varies by rank, seniority, qualifications, and educational incentives (LAFCO, 2019a). ECF had 85 employees (not including Board members) in the year 2018 In 2018, thirty employees earned more than $150,000 in pay and benefits (total). Twenty-eight employees earned more than $100,00 but less than $150,000 in pay and benefits in 2018 (Transparent California, 2018). Twenty-seven employees earned less than $100,000 in 2018 as shown in Figure 4-2 below. Figure 4-2: Wages and Benefits for ECF Employees, 2018 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 Total Pay Benefits $100,000 $50,000 $0 Individual Employees Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-14 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The job titles for 2018 are listed below in alphabetical order. The District staffing level is 76 personnel, any additional personnel shown on Transparent California would reflect retirement or resignations with replacement personnel. The District is not authorized above 76 personnel by the Board (Chief Cordero, personal communication, August 2021). • Administrative Asst (2) • Apprentice (3) • Captain/Paramedic (16) • Division Chief (4) • Engineer/Paramedic (1) • Fire Chief (1) • Firefighter/EMT (21) • Firefighter/Paramedic (35) • Receptionist (2) The El Dorado County Fire Protection District currently participates in the CalPERS retirement system. The District makes all “normal cost” contributions and all Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) amortization payments on a regular basis, as required by the participation agreement with CalPERS (LAFCO, 2019a). Staffing for the ECF are augmented by its participation in a boundary drop, mutual aid system that automatically deploys the closest available resource to respond to requests for aid from other fire agencies within the County of El Dorado (LAFCO, 2020a). The ECF receives advantages from participating in this network of collaborating fire districts which decreases response times and increases resource deployment. The ECF partially meets minimum the 3-0 staffing model, which allows for companies to immediately begin fire suppression tactics without waiting for additional resources to arrive to the call. Training All firefighters are State certified Firefighter 1 as minimum qualifications (LAFCO, 2019a). Firefighters employed by the El Dorado County Fire Protection District train regularly as follows: • 5 (8) Week State Mandated Training Modules for a total of 250 Hours annually; • Each company is required to conduct 2 hours of training daily including night drills; • Probationary Firefighter Training Requirements occur outside of required training module standards; and • The District provides training funds per the employee’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) of up to $800 reimbursed per year. (Source: LAFCO, 2020a) All personnel participate in six annual manipulative exercises, as follows: • Live Fire Operations • Auto Extrication • High/Low Angle Rescue Operations • Swift/Flat Water Rescue Operations Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-15 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • RT-130 Wildland Operations • USAR/Heavy Rescue Operations (Source: LAFCO, 2020a). The District also conducts, on average, three new hire entry level orientation academies of 120 hours over three weeks (annually) (LAFCO, 2020a). Complaints During the years 2018 and 2019, ECF received fewer than six complaints per year (They also receive numerous “thank you” calls and cards monthly). Complaints are reviewed by the Duty Chief who then conducts fact finding and follow-up with the complainant. Complaints are typically handled by a phone conversation (LAFCO, 2020a). ECF’s Board has an adopted policy about the handling of public complaints. 4.4 Growth and Population Forecasts The growth and population projection for the affected area is a determination which LAFCO is required to describe, consistent with the MSR Guidelines from the Office of Planning & Research (OPR) as set forth in the CKH Act. This section provides information on the existing population and future growth projections for the ECF. Historical and anticipated population growth is a factor which affects service demand. 4.4.1 Existing Population There are approximately 49,340 permanent residents within the District boundaries as of 2020, based on the number of parcels in the District and the average number of persons per parcel of 1.67. There are 30,299 Registered Voters within the ECF boundaries (LAFCO, 2019a). The U.S. Census and the California Department of Finance provides population estimates for communities. Although census tracts do not directly correspond with district boundaries, community demographics include: • Camino; census designated place, 1,903 residents • City of Placerville; 10,980 residents • Coloma; census designated place, 529 residents • Pollock Pines, census designated place, 7,156 residents • Shingle Springs; census designated place, 3,846 residents (Source: U.S. Census, 2019) Table 4-4 shows current population data for the ECF boundary area and Sphere of Influence (SOI). Detailed information regarding population demographics and socio-economic indicators in El Dorado County is provided in Volume I – Appendix A and Appendix B. Table 4-4: ECF Existing Population (2020) Population in Existing Population in SOI Boundary Area Only1, 2, 3 Area Only1, 2, 3 El Dorado County Fire Protection District 49,340 443 Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-16 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Sources: 1: California Department of Finance. May 2020. E-2. California County Population Estimates a Components of Change by Year – July 1, 2000-2010. Sacramento, California. 2: California Department of Finance. May 2020. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark. Sacramento, California. 3: Calculated estimate based a total of 115,412 parcels in the County of El Dorado with an average of 1.67 persons per parcel in El Dorado County and 29,545 parcels within the ECF boundary. In addition to permanent residents, the ECF service area also sees many overnight visitors who stay in vacation homes, hotels, campsites, or other accommodations. It is estimated that overnight visitors calculate to approximately 13 percent of the total population (9,865 persons) as shown in Figure 4-3. Figure 4-3: Peak Population in ECF Boundary, 2020 13% 21% Overnight Permanent Daytime 66% The ECF area also has a daytime population of workers who commute into the area for jobs calculated at 21 percent of the total population. A recent study states that the District has 16,923 workers within its boundaries (ECF, 2020b). However, for this MSR, consultants estimated that approximately 15,790 of these workers live outside the ECF boundaries and commute into the District during work hours. The remaining workers were assumed to reside within the ECF boundaries. The permanent residents, average overnight visitors, and daytime work commuters adds up to a total average daily population (estimated) of 75,000 persons. Special events that can add to the peak population in ECF are as follows: • Apple Hill, annual visitors of 1.2 million – mainly August thru October on weekends; and • El Dorado County Fair- 65,000 visitors over 4 days in September. (Source: LAFCO, 2020a) 4.4.1 Existing Population in SOI The permanent population in ECF’s SOI and outside the District Boundary is estimated to be 443 people based upon an average number of 1.67 persons per Assessor’s Parcel (El Dorado County GIS Data, 2020). Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-17 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 4.4.2 Projected Population Growth Projecting future population for a Special District is complicated due to varying annexation rates and census tracts that do not match with District boundaries. For purposes of this MSR, data from the California Department of Finance (DOF) was used to project population growth as shown in Table 4-5 below. The DOF provides population projections at the County level and the growth rate for the County of El Dorado is utilized to extrapolate population growth rates for the El Dorado County Fire Protection District. By the year 2040, it is estimated that ECF’s existing boundary will encompass a population of 54,433 persons. This represents an average annual growth rate of 0.38 percent between the years of 2020 and 2040. Table 4-5: Total Estimated & Projected Population (2020 – 2040) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 The County of El Dorado1 193,227 201,041 207,496 211,537 213,033 ECF Permanent Population2 49,340 51,369 53,019 54,051 54,433 Sources: 1: 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. 2: Population projection for DSP calculated as a percentage (0.068807134) of The County of El Dorado. Though the projected growth rate for the County of El Dorado anticipates development throughout the entire County; the addition of 382 more people to the ECF by 2040 is possible as the District has undeveloped areas within existing boundaries that could be available for more intensive residential development as described in the following sections. 4.4.3 Existing Land Use Land-use is a factor that affects population growth and therefore demand for public services. However, the ECF is not a land use authority. Land uses within the ECF boundaries include both developed and undeveloped areas. Most of the higher density-type developments 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. Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-18 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Recent Development Projects Since the previous MSR was published in 2011, several new subdivisions, or other new commercial projects been built within the District boundaries as follows: • Campobello Subdivision –Cameron Park area • Blackhawk Estates – Pleasant Valley area • La Caille Estates – Shingle Springs area • Winesap Subdivision – Placerville area • Eskaton Homes and Cottages – Placerville area • Boys and Girls Club – Placerville area • El Dorado County Food Bank – Placerville area • Pleasant Valley Veterinary Hospital – Placerville area • Trailside Terrace Apartments – Shingle Springs area • Sky View Terrace Apartments – Shingle Springs area • Dillion Building – Placerville area • Handler Building – Shingle Springs area • Red Hawk Casino – between Shingle Springs and Placerville • Dollar Store – Placerville area (Source: LAFCO, 2020a) County of El Dorado General Plan The District’s boundary area is entirely unincorporated and subject to the land use policies and regulations of El Dorado County. Most land-use decisions, initiated by private property owners over the last decade, are secured via entitlements and land-use permits from El Dorado County and other agencies. The County plans for its future growth through its General Plan, which is a long-term comprehensive framework to guide physical, social, and economic development within the community’s planning area. The General Plan Land Use Element provides four generic land-use categories, including rural/open-space, commercial/industrial, residential, and other. There are several Community Regions within the District’s boundary and SOI. Within the General Plan, Community Regions establish urban limit lines and provide those areas which are appropriate for highest intensity of self-sustaining compact urban-type development or suburban type development. City of Placerville General Plan The City of Placerville General Plan was adopted in January 1990 via Resolution No. 5133. The Land Use and Housing Elements were subsequently amended, most recently in October 2016. The City’s General Plan serves as the overall guiding policy document for land use, development, and environmental quality for the City. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the general distribution and intensity of all present and future uses of land in the community. As part of the General Plan, the General Plan Diagram is the site-specific map that illustrates the desired arrangement and location of land uses. The City’s updated General Plan contains a number of policies that serve to promote development on vacant and underdeveloped properties. Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-19 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 4.4.4 Potential Future Development Future population growth within the District is dependent upon zoning and general plan policies and land- use designations in the region. The County of El Dorado General Plan serves as the County’s vision for long-term land use development and conservation. The County’s General Plan, adopted in July 2004 and amended in 2019, provides a series of goals, policies, standards, and implementation programs to guide land use, development, and environmental quality in the County. In August 2019, the County of El Dorado Board of Supervisors adopted the General Plan Land Use Element amendment. The Land Use Element identifies goals and policies to guide development throughout unincorporated areas of the County. There are proposed and current projects that would impact the District. The following new major projects are in the planning stages within the District: • Hampton Inn – City of Placerville - 90,000 square feet • Dollar Store1 – Cool ECF recently approved a Nexus Fee Impact Study (ECF, 2020b) and Resolution No. 2021-01 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 to approved in the future, it is possible that the District will need expanded services or facilities to accommodate such new development. The Fire Impact Fee Study provides details on the financial analysis used to determine the costs of new development in relation to ECF services and the related fee. 4.4.5 Open Space and Agriculture El Dorado LAFCO’s policies require that an MSR/SOI offer a determination about the effect that a district’s service provision will have on open space and agricultural lands. For purposes of this MSR analysis, open space data was derived from the County General Plan land-use data. Within the ECF’s boundary, this calculates to Open Space totals of 13,403 acres, agricultural land totals of 16,081 acres, and natural resource area totals of 36,041 as shown in Table 4-6. These open space type land uses comprise 37 percent of the District boundary area and 84.5 percent of the SOI. ECF’s effect on open space lands is minimal. The District’s provision of fire protection services to open space areas (i.e., non-structural) within its boundaries occurs occasionally, but is the primary responsibility of CAL FIRE and/or the U.S. Forest Service. LAFCO has an interest in documenting the conversion of agricultural and open space lands to other land use types, such as residential use. The ECF fire protection services do not play a role in these types of land-use conversions. 1 Dollar Store – Cool, See CEQA NOP at https://www.edcgov.us/Government/planning/public%20notices/Documents/2020/20200923_CoolGeneralRet ail_NOP.pdf Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-20 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 4-6: Acreage Designated in the General Plan as Open Space, Agriculture, and Natural Resources within the ECF Boundary and SOI Boundary Only (in acres) SOI Only (in acres) Open Space Agriculture Natural Resources Open Space Agriculture Natural Resources 13,404 16,081 36,041 796 7,564 2,932 Source: EDC GIS, 2019 4.4.6 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities As detailed in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information, a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) is an unincorporated area of a County in which the annual median household income (MHI) is less than 80 percent of the statewide MHI. Within the boundaries of ECF are located portions five Census Block Groups that meets the DUC threshold and are therefore classified as disadvantaged unincorporated communities as listed in Table 4-7 below. One Census Block Group (0314061) located within Pleasant Valley does not have any data. Therefore, it is not clear if this Census Block Group is classified as a DUC. Table 4-7: MHI in Census Block Groups for El Dorado County Fire Protection District Identification Census Block Group Number of Median Household Population Number Number Number Households Income (2018) 313023 031302 3 1,961 904 $23,712 313022 031302 2 2,315 736 $50,357 312002 031200 2 2,012 828 $56,737 311002 031100 2 903 389 $56,625 310004 031000 4 1,040 515 $50,707 Source: US Census, 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates These unincorporated areas are provided numerous public services from local and state agencies. Water service to these DUCs is provided by the El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) or by individual wells. Wastewater services are provided by EID or by individual septic systems. Fire protection services are provided by ECF or neighboring fire agencies. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) also provides fire protection services in the wildland areas located within the State Responsibility Areas. Due to these DUC areas receiving the essential municipal services of water, wastewater, and structural fire protection, there are no communities within the existing ECF boundary or adjacent to the District’s SOI that lack public services and no health or safety issues have been identified. Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-21 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 4.5 Public Services and Infrastructure 4.5.1 Service Overview The El Dorado County Fire Protection District provides fire suppression, fire prevention, hazardous materials response, rescue; and emergency and non-emergency medical services, including transport. The ECF is an established Fire Protection District, and it is the primary service provider for fire protection services within the District boundaries. A list of services provided by ECF can be seen in Table 4-8. Table 4-8: ECF Public Services Service Provider Structural Fire Protection ECF Wildland Fire Protection ECF and CAL FIRE Emergency Medical Response ECF Rescue/Extrication ECF Hazardous Materials ECF and other: First Responder Operations Water Supply EID, City of Placerville, GPUD Dispatch Cal Fire Training ECF Fire Safety Education ECF Arson Investigations ECF Source: LAFCO, 2020a Structural Fire Protection Post fire investigation and research demonstrates that most home ignitions during wildfires are caused by flying embers. Individual homeowners can protect their property from the financial risk associated with structural fire by purchasing homeowner’s insurance with fire coverage. Purchasing this homeowner’s insurance has gotten more difficult in recent years. For example, in the County of El Dorado, during the year 2016, over 1,000 homeowners lost access to their homeowner’s insurance policy due to non-renewal by insurance companies (California Department of Insurance, 2018). 4.5.2 Fire and Emergency Response The District maintains automatic aid agreements with all fire service agencies located in El Dorado County for fire suppression and emergency medical services. Under this system, the District responds to close proximity calls within adjacent fire jurisdictions, as well as receives assistance from neighboring agencies automatically through dispatch. This type of agreement ensures the best possible emergency service is delivered by the most efficient means possible. The District also participates in a mutual aid system that responds to requests for aid from throughout the County and State. Because of these agreements, all firefighters within each fire agency in the County must be prepared for any type of emergency in any setting at all times. Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-22 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Every fire agency within the United States is rated by an independent risk assessment and standards authority for the purposes of establishing insurance policy premiums for homeowners and businesses. California uses an independent national company called the Insurance Services Office, or ISO, for this purpose. The Insurance Services Office evaluates four broad categories of fire suppression when establishing a Public Protection Classification (PPC). These categories include: 1) Fire Department; 2) Emergency Communications; 3) Water Supply; and 4) Community Risk Reduction. ISO routinely conducts assessments of each fire agency in the United States. The rating scale from best to worse is One (1) — Ten (10). There is a possible score of 105.5 points from the total of the four categories listed above. An agency needs a score of 90-105.5 to receive a PPC of Class 1. The El Dorado County Fire Protection District received an ISO rating of 04 / 4X (LAFCO, 2020a). The ISO (PPC) rating is from 10 – 1, and the lower the ISO number, the better the grade. ECF’s rating is in the middle of this scale. ECF’s last ISO rating was effective June 1, 2015. The District is in the process of going through an ISO rating. Emergency Medical Services ECF is a member agency of the El Dorado County Regional Emergency Medical Authority (West Slope JPA) that was formed in 1997, for the purpose of providing pre-hospital emergency medical service and emergency dispatch service for the west-slop of El Dorado County. Ambulance service can deliver patients to Marshall Hospital, at 1100 Marshall Way, Placerville, CA 95667 or to other hospitals in the greater Sacramento region such as UC Davis, Dignity Health, and Sutter Health in Sacramento. More information on the JPA can be found in Volume II - Chapter 15, County Service Area (CSA) 3 and CSA 7 MSR. The ECF operates four ambulances for the West Slope JPA. Details for the ambulances are listed in Table 4-9 below. The ambulances are distributed throughout the District along the US Highway 50 corridor. Table 4-9: ECF Ambulance Units Number and Station Location Ambulance Station Name Address 6430 Pony Express Trail, Medic 17 (M17) Pollock Pines Station Pollock Pines 4429 Pleasant Valley Medic 19 (M19) Pleasant Valley Station Road, Placerville 3034 Sacramento Street, Medic 25 (M25) Placerville Station Placerville 3860 Ponderosa Road, Medic 28 (M28) Shingle Springs Station Shingle Springs Source: EDC, 2021 Medic 25 was the busiest ambulance in the County in 2019 with 3,197 responses to incidents (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Medic 28 was the second busiest ambulance for ECF with 2,214 responses to incidents. As expected, medical calls represent the highest number of calls for service by type for all four ambulances. A breakdown of incident response types can be seen in Figure 4-4 and Table 4-10 below. Across all four ambulances, personnel responded to a total of 8,692 calls for service. Of the total, 14.5 percent are made up of transfers and seven percent are traffic collisions. Medic 25 completed the most transfers, almost double the amount compared to the other three ambulances. Medic 25 also completed almost double the number of medical related calls when compared to the other three ambulances (CAL Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-23 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Additional information regarding emergency medical services can be found in Volume II - Chapter 15, County Service Area (CSA) 3 and CSA 7 MSR. Table 4-10: ECF Ambulance Calls for Service by Type, 2019 Call Types M17 M19 M25 M28 Fire 57 55 97 77 Medical 1,214 1,052 2,429 1,638 *Other 39 37 64 45 Traffic Collision 143 135 173 179 Transfer 275 274 434 275 Total Calls 1,728 1,553 3,197 2,214 Source: CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020 Figure 4-4: ECF Ambulance Calls for Service by Type, 2019 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 M17 M19 M25 M28 Fire Medical *Other Traffic Collision Transfer *Other: This call type for Figure 6-4 above and Table 6-10 below for all four medical units includes Hazards (12), Extrication (55), Aircraft down (2), Assistance (82), Rescues including water rescue (29), and Other (5). Other includes engine covers for other fire agencies, arson, investigations, medical transfers that are classified as other, miscellaneous, radio and phone system failures, staffing patterns, call transfers, as well as other similar service types. The Assistance includes public agency work such as demonstrations, assisting with a water leak, assisting with an animal, assisting with an alarm or lockout, elevator rescue, physically assisting in lifting a person, and assisting with search and rescue (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). ECF’s SWAT-Medic program operates under an inter-agency program where ECF’s qualified Paramedics train with and respond with the El Dorado County Sheriff- SWAT Team to incidents. ECF’s staff also received training to become qualified to both perform rapid COVID-19 testing and to administer Moderna COVID-19 vaccinations. This was done through inter-agency training with the Emergency Medical Services Agency of El Dorado County (ECF, 2020c). Calls for Service According to Camino Dispatch, the District responded to 8,120 incidents in 2019. Those incidents translated to 10,843 calls for service that year. A call for service refers to any apparatus or vehicle for the Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-24 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final agency which responded to a call, and each apparatus or vehicle is counted as one “call for service.” The information provided in this section does not include ambulance calls for service. The data includes incidents occurring both within and outside of the agency’s jurisdiction that the agency resources responded to. For more information on how consultants analyzed the dispatch data, refer to Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire and Emergency Medical Services Agency MSR General Information. The distribution of calls for service per year for ECF is shown in Figure 4-5 below (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Figure 4-5: Calls for Service from 2010-2019 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 From 2010 to 2019, calls for service have continued to trend slightly downward with increases in calls from 2011 to 2013 following a decline and slow rise to 2019. There was a decline in calls in 2015, amounting to 1,356 less calls in 2015 than the average over the last nine years of 11,079 calls. In 2019, the majority of incidents that the District responded to were for medical at 5,270 incidents (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). A break down in incident types for 2019 can be seen in Figure 4-6 below. Figure 4-6: ECF Incidents by Type, 2019 8% 7% Assistance 9% 11% Fire 4% Hazard Medical Other Traffic Collision 61% The “Other” incident category includes mutual or automatic aid engine coverage for other fire agencies, aircraft down, arson, investigations, medical transfers, rescues, extractions, miscellaneous, radio and phone system failures, staffing pattern, call transfers, as well as other similar service types. The Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-25 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final “Assistance” incident category includes public agency work such as demonstrations, assisting with a water leak, assisting with an animal, assisting with an alarm or lockout, elevator rescue, physically assisting in lifting a person, and assisting with search and rescue (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Figure 4-7 below shows that Station No. 25 is the busiest fire station, averaging 4,597 calls for service from 2015 to 2019. Station No. 17 is the next busiest station with an average of 1,690 calls for service per year. Station No.’s 15, 16, 18, 26, 27, and 73 are not staffed (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). More information on District stations can be found in Section 0. Figure 4-7: ECF Calls Per Station, 2015-2019 5,000 4,000 2015 3,000 2016 2,000 2017 2018 1,000 2019 0 15 16 17 21 23 18 19 25 26 27 28 72 73 74 Station Numbers Response Time El Dorado County’s General Plan (2004 as amended through 2019) Public Services and Utilities Element has several policies related to goals for average response time for new development as described in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Consultants do not have the capability to break response time data out by County of El Dorado defined Community Region, Rural Center, or Rural Region standards. ECF informed consultants that response time goals for the District are Urban – 11; Semi- Rural – 16 minutes; Rural – 24 minutes; Wilderness – 90 minutes. In the year 2019, the District’s average response time was 8 minutes and 20 seconds based on available data from CAL FIRE Camino Dispatch and calculated by the consultants. The response time data does not cover interfacility transfer (IFT), automatic/mutual aid, and strike team/overhead (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). The average response time for an incident response by ECF by engine company for 2019 was provided to consultants by ECF and is shown in Table 4-11, below. Table 4-11: ECF Response Time Data by Engine Company, 2019 Engine Number Average Response Time Engine 17 09:57 Engine 19 12:07 Engine 21 09:51 Engine 25 06:41 Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-26 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Engine Number Average Response Time Engine 28 07:30 Engine 72 10:43 Source: LAFCO, 2020a Engines 25 and 28 appear to meet the County’s goals as outlined in the Public Services and Utilities Element for less than 8 minutes in Community Regions for new development. The remaining stations appear to meet the County’s goals for response time to Rural Centers and Rural Regions. Given the geographical layout of the District, ECF fire stations are not in a typical urban environment, which relates to extended response times. Also, the response times listed in Table 4-11 above reflect an average for all responses per engine in 2019. If Engine 25 responds to a fire in Pollock Pines, that could easily be a 15- to-20-minute response which would impact the average response time for calls for that engine within the City of Placerville. The response time to wilderness areas can take 90 minutes, depending on location (EDC, 2004; LAFCO, 2020a). Other Industry Standards In general, other industry standards applicable to the EDH are established by the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA), the Insurance Services Office, Cal OSHA, and Department ordinances. All of these agencies, as well as many others, directly and/or indirectly affect the type of services, the quality and development of those services, expansion, reliability, facility design, and construction and environmental issues that the Department provides. Forest Fuel Treatment Forest fuel treatment typically relates to wildland fires, rather than the structural fires which are the focus on the ECF. However, within the ECF’s boundaries there are multiple privately owned parcels which contain native vegetation. Also within District boundaries are several pockets of land that have undergone fuel treatments including both privately owned land and federally managed land (FSC-EDC, 2016). Although the ECF is not directly responsible for forest fuel treatments, a community approach to safety that considers house-to-house transmission, structural safety, and forest fuel treatments is important. Collaboration with the local fire safe councils can avoid costs over the long run through the prevention of wildfires and through improved public education (EDC-FSC, 2017). Within the District are several active Fire Safe Councils (FSCs) including Pollock Pines/Camino FSC, Gold Ridge Forest FSC, Sierra Springs Regional FSC, Rancho Del Sol FSC, Texas Hill FSC, Pleasant Valley FSC, Oak Hill FSC, Royal Equestrian FSC, Coloma Lotus FSC, Gold Hill FSC, Auburn Lake Trails FSC, Gallagher FSC, and Placerville FSC. Each FSC has their own fuel treatments map that is accessible on the El Dorado County Fire Safe Council website at: https://www.edcfiresafe.org/cwpp/maps/. 4.5.3 Mutual Aid, Automatic Aid, Other Agreements Mutual Aid Agreements for mutual aid, JPA, or any other appropriate agreement (i.e., Tax Sharing Agreement) are periodically reviewed by the District’s Board of Directors. ECF renews local agreements with both CAL FIRE Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-27 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) on an annual basis. These agreements cover a multitude of items, one of which is reimbursement to the District for extended incidents. The premise for these agreements is centered on operational needs and functionality, not fiscal neutrality. The USFS will respond calls other than fires on a request if resources are available. Both agreements with CAL FIRE and USFS have components related to “initial attack” and extended commitments which are reimbursable per the agreement (Chief Cordero, personal communication, July 21, 2021). The Federal Government does provide Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) funding to the County, however these funds are not allocated to the fire agencies to offset calls within the Federal Responsibility Areas as described in Section 4.5.6 below. The proposed contract with the USFS is under review and will be presented to the Board in July 2021. Based on changes with the current proposal, as of this writing, staff’s recommendation to the Board is not to sign the agreement (Chief Cordero, personal communication, July 21, 2021). Automatic Aid The El Dorado County Fire Protection District maintains automatic aid, boundary drop, and closest resource agreements with all fire protection providers operating in the County of El Dorado including the U.S. Forest Service and CAL FIRE. Any resource provided by ECF is available under these agreements (LAFCO, 2020a). Through the current automatic aid 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. For this MSR/SOI Update, LAFCO requested an analysis of automatic aid provided to and received from each agency that provided and/or received aid. Consultants received a breakdown in automatic aid data directly from CAL FIRE Camino ECC dispatch in order to provide the following analysis. This data shows who the first responder to the call was within another agency’s service area boundary. In the context of this analysis, automatic aid specifically refers to instances where an agency was first responder to a call within another agency’s jurisdictional boundary. CAL FIRE is a statewide organization that operates throughout the County of El Dorado. CAL FIRE ‘s jurisdiction encompasses all the State Responsibility areas within the County (unincorporated areas of private lands excluding the national forests) for wildland fires, essentially overlapping the jurisdictions of the local fire agencies. As mentioned previously, CAL FIRE operates within the County under the same automatic aid system as the other local fire agencies. As a result of CAL FIRE’s expansive service area in El Dorado County, the agency responds to a significant number of calls for service throughout the County for the local fire agencies. CAL FIRE automatic aid for each local fire agency is included in the following analysis because CAL FIRE operates within the automatic aid system and was first responder to calls for all of the local fire agencies in the study year 2019. It is important to note that the automatic aid data that was analyzed only included the first responder data and did not include the local fire agencies responses to statewide fires managed by CAL FIRE. Thus, it is not surprising that almost none of the agencies were first responders to CAL FIRE calls aiding CAL FIRE; which are handled through the assignment of strike teams by CAL FIRE. CAL FIRE does not have a designated jurisdictional boundary within the automatic aid system, but is tasked with responding to wildfires within State Responsibility Areas, much of which is within other fire agency boundaries. In 2019, the County of El Dorado experienced 151 wildland fires with a total of 266 acres burned (CAL FIRE, 2019). Only three local agencies provided first response aid to one of those incidents for CAL FIRE in 2019. It should be noted that a response by an agency resource to Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-28 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final another agencies jurisdiction for a wildland fire could be considered automatic aid to both the fire agency and CAL FIRE. More information on the State Responsibility Areas can be found in Section 4.5.6. Information about CAL FIRE operations in the County can be found in Volume I - Appendix D, Other Agencies Providing Fire Suppression and Emergency Services in the County of El Dorado. Through consultation with the ad hoc Fire Chiefs MSR group and LAFCO, consultants agreed to exclude the CAL FIRE automatic aid numbers from Table 4-12 below, due to the reasons stated above. However, the study cannot ignore the CAL FIRE automatic aid data as part of the contextual analysis. Doing so would make it appear that local agencies received less aid than they actually did in 2019 and paint an inaccurate picture of the amount of aid received and provided between fire agencies operating in the County in 2019. Thus, the following analysis and determinations include CAL FIRE aid in the contextual details while removing the numbers from Table 4-12 below. CAL FIRE automatic aid numbers are described countywide in greater detail in Volume I - Appendix D, Other Agencies Providing Fire Suppression and Emergency Services in the County of El Dorado. EDH received automatic aid 2,016 times and provided automatic aid 866 times in 2019. Table 4-12 below shows the individual agencies that provided aid to ECF and those that received aid from ECF in 2019, excluding CAL FIRE. The CAL FIRE Amador-El Dorado Unit provided automatic aid to ECF 1,706 times and received aid from ECF one time in 2019. The CAL FIRE Nevada-Yuba-Placer Unit provided aid to ECF 39 times in 2019 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LAV) is automatically dispatched to calls at the far eastern end of ECF (Strawberry area). This falls under the “closest resource” concept; however, LAV does not typically get dispatched automatically if calls are farther west of Strawberry due to the geography of the area. Table 4-12: Mutual Aid Given & Received from the ECF, 2019 Agency Providing/Receiving Aid Amount of Aid Amount of Aid to/from ECF Provided to ECF Received from ECF CAM 385 126 DSP 852 380 EDH 129 41 GEO 47 16 GRV 97 37 LAV 68 0 MQT 4 25 PIO 172 154 RES 139 58 SLT 1 0 Other Agencies2 122 29 Total 2,016 866 Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-29 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Agency Providing/Receiving Aid Amount of Aid Amount of Aid to/from ECF Provided to ECF Received from ECF Source: CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020 2Other Agencies include the fire agencies of Amador Fire Protection District (Amador County), Buena Vista Rancheria Fire Department (Amador County), USFS – Eldorado National Forest, Bureau of Land Management – Central California District, City of Ione Fire Department (Amador County), Jackson Valley Fire Protection District (Amador County), City of Jackson Fire Department (Amador County), Lockwood Fire Protection District (Amador County), City of Sacramento Metropolitan Fire Department (Sacramento County), Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Sutter Creek Fire Protection District (Amador County), California Department of Forestry – Tuolumne-Calaveras Unit, and the USFS – Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. The ECF received aid over twice as many times than it provided to other fire agencies for 2019 as shown in Table 4-12. The District received the majority of aid from DSP at about 42 percent of aid received followed by CAM at 19 percent of aid received. The ECF gave the most aid to DSP, however it was less than half of the aid received from DSP (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Figure 4-8 shows the amount of aid provided vs. received for the ECF by fire agency in graphical format from Table 4-12. Figure 4-8: Aid Received vs. Provided for ECF, 2019 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 CAM DSP EDH GEO GRV LAV MQT PIO RES SLT Other Amount of Aid Provided to ECF Amount of Aid Received from ECF For the “Other Agencies” category, the ECF received the most mutual aid from the U.S. Forest Service Eldorado National Forest Unit with 28 mutual aid calls received (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). The District did not provide more aid to a fire agency within the County than it received from that same agency in 2019. This may suggest that the District may not have adequate capacity to assist with services provided by other agencies. 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. A more detailed analysis of automatic aid is needed to determine the reasoning for variation in aid received versus provided for ECF and other fire agencies in the County, factoring in the location of calls in relation to available resources for each agency. The Fire Chief notes that, with the closest resource agreement, by Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-30 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final pure geographic location there may be incidents which are closer to a CAL FIRE Station than an ECF station and this may account for a percentage of these calls. A more detailed analysis of automatic aid is needed to determine the reasoning for variation in aid received versus provided for ECF and other fire agencies in the County. 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. With CAL FIRE aid removed, the District required aid for 19 percent of all calls in 2019 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). The Fire Chief notes that automatic aid agreements across all the fire agencies enhances the weight of response, while ensuring the appropriate number of resources are being sent to emergencies. Absent of this robust system, each agency would either need a significant increase in revenues to provide adequate staffing for all emergencies or there would be delayed responses going through the “request for aid” process (Chief Cordero, personal communication, July 21, 2021). A countywide review of aid provided and received by fire agencies on the West Slope, including total calls for service by agency and a discussion regarding automatic aid can be found in Volume I - Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. Joint Powers Authorities ECF is a member agency of the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) called the El Dorado County Emergency Medical Authority that was formed in 1997 for the purpose of providing pre-hospital emergency medical service and emergency dispatch service for the west-slope of El Dorado County. Other member agencies are Cameron Park Community Services District/Fire Department, Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District, El Dorado Hills County Water District/Fire Department, Garden Valley Fire Protection District, Georgetown Fire Protection District, Latrobe Fire Protection District, Mosquito Fire Protection District, Pioneer Fire Protection District, and Rescue Fire Protection District. The District is fully reimbursed for all authorized costs incurred in the furtherance of the contract. In addition, the District realizes revenue as the result of administering the twenty-eight employees who operate the ambulances for the JPA (ECF, CAFR, 2019). Joint Agreements A joint agreement is when a district jointly owns or shares fire protection services capital facilities or services with other agencies. ECF does not participate in any joint agreements (LAFCO, 2020a). CAL FIRE Agreement ECF is in the process of completing an Amador Plan contract with CAL FIRE. As part of the District’s “Business Model Change” approved by the Board of Directors in December, 2020, the District requested an Amador Plan for Station 20 in Camino. The CAL FIRE Station 20 and ECF Station 21 are located within 0.4 miles of each other in Camino. Both fire stations were staffed year-round with engine companies, with the CAL FIRE Station having two engines during fire season. As noted earlier in the report, Station 21 was staffed with two personnel, below national standards. The Amador Plan with CAL FIRE allows, via contract, for CAL FIRE to provide year-round “all-risk” coverage to the Camino area. Personnel from ECF Station No. 21 were reallocated to Station No. 17 and Station No. 19, bringing those engines to 3-0 staffing, enhancing both firefighter safety and effectiveness. This type of partnership and working relationship eliminates Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-31 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final duplication of resources in an area, and increases staffing levels in other areas with no additional costs to taxpayers (Chief Cordero, personal communication, July 21, 2021). 4.5.4 Dispatch Fire and emergency medical dispatching is through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the multiagency CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center, providing a single dispatch system for the entire Western Slope of the County. CAL FIRE operates the dispatch command center. The County provides funding to the JPA. Additional details on County wide dispatch can be found in Volume I - Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. 4.5.5 Emergency Access Emergency access has two components, ingress and egress. Major access roads to the El Dorado County Fire Protection District include State Routes 49 and 193, and U.S. Highway 50. The ECF's boundary area does include ingress and egress challenges identified in the County's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. For example, access to smaller rural roads can sometimes limited due to fallen trees or other road obstructions. District staff works with community stakeholders to remediate these ingress/egress issues as they are identified. Residents of the City of Placerville can sign up for emergency notification programs called Nixle or CodeRED, which warn local residents and businesses of emergencies by telephone, cell phone, text message, email, and social media when an emergency arises and to aid in safe evacuation. All major access roads are maintained by the County of El Dorado Maintenance and Operations Division through the County’s Department of Transportation. More information on county wide maintenance operations can be found in Volume I - Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. 4.5.6 Fire Hazard Zones The Fire Hazard Severity Zones, Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), and Community Risk Fire Map in which CAL FIRE categorizes spatial areas into different risk areas are described in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. See Figure 4-9 for a map of those areas on the next page and a breakdown in acreage in Table 4-13 and Table 4-14 below. Within the ECF’s boundaries, 86,127 acres are in Fire Hazard Severity zone “Very High” and 51,487 acres are in “High” based on GIS data provided by CAL FIRE as detailed in Table 4-13 below. Almost 80 percent of the District’s geography is located in either a “High” or “Very High” zone, which is a significant percentage of the area. See Figure 4-9 for a map of those areas. Table 4-13: ECF Fire Hazard Severity Zone Acreage and Percentage Total % in Very Acreage in Very High Acreage in High % in High Fire % in Very High High and High Fire Fire Risk Fire Risk Risk Risk 86,127.46 48.9% 51,487.59 29.2% 78.1% Source: County GIS Data, 2020 derived from CalFire data Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-32 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 4-9: Fire Hazard Severity Zones & Responsibility Areas for ECF Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-33 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page left intentionally blank. Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-34 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Areas of land within the District boundary are considered “Local Responsibility Area” (LRA), “State Responsibility Area” (SRA), and “Federal Responsibility Area” (FRA) for fire protection services. CAL FIRE will typically respond to wildland fires within the SRA, and a federal agency, such as the U.S. Forest Service will respond to wildland fires within the FRA. Within ECF's boundary, most of the land (140,016 acres) is in the State Responsibility Area with an additional 31,887 acres in a Federal Responsibility Area for wildland fires. Within the ECF SOI, 11,321 acres are in the SRA and an additional 2,043 are in the FRA as shown in Table 4-14, below. See Figure 4-9 for a map of these areas. Table 4-14: ECF Local, State and Federal Responsibility Area Acreage and Percentage Boundary Only (in acres) SOI Only (by itself) (in acres) LRA SRA FRA LRA SRA FRA 3,755.57 137,292.82 35,263.74 0.00 11,396.40 1,968.39 Data Source: GIS data from CAL FIRE Almost 80 percent of the District is within a State Responsibility Area (SRA) with CAL FIRE as the primary wildland fire response agency. CAL FIRE is legally and financially responsible to provide fire protection in all State Responsibility Areas. An additional 20 percent is within a designated Federal Responsibility Area. Areas under the FRA are managed by a federal agency, such as the U.S. Forest Service. Only two percent of the District is located within a Local Responsibility Area, meaning that the District has fire protection responsibility for that area which is the City of Placerville. 4.5.7 Infrastructure The El Dorado County Fire Protection District maintains infrastructure to support its fire protection services. This infrastructure includes fire stations, fire hydrants, fire trucks and other vehicles, water hoses, and other equipment as detailed in the following paragraphs. The fire hydrants within the District are managed, inspected, and maintained by El Dorado Irrigation District. The District does not maintain or service the fire hydrants. Fire Stations The El Dorado County Fire Protection District has 14 fire stations as listed in Table 4-15, below. Seven of the fire stations are staffed with District employees, two are occupied under rental agreements, and one station is shared. Six of the ECF fire stations are staffed full time (24/7/365). One station is staffed part- time or seasonally. The seven remaining stations are unstaffed as shown in Table 4-15. Two of ECF fire stations are leased for fire protection services to other agencies: Station No. 16 in Kyburz is leased by the USFS for seasonal crews and Station No. 27 in Gold Hill is leased year-round by BLM for a hand crew (LAFCO, 2020a). As mentioned previously, ECF is seeking an Amador Plan with CALFIRE for Station No. 20, as noted in Section 4.5.3 above. Of the seven unstaffed stations, all have historically been staffed by volunteers with the exception of Station No. 23. As mentioned previously, the staff for Station No. 23 were relocated to Station No. 19 for a more centralized response location. Unstaffed stations may appear to indicate the District does not have the financial resources necessary to maintain services in those areas. However, stations which were historically staffed by volunteers typically Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-35 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final came into existence when a local community, such as Texas Hill, approached the existing fire agency at the time with the request that a certain number of residents would commit to volunteer and a parcel of land could be used to create a new fire station. This occurred for many of the stations within ECF. As the volunteer programs have ceased over the years for these stations, the District has not added paid staff. While the District would agree that if additional funding were available, these areas with unstaffed stations (that were historically volunteer stations) would benefit from additional engine companies, there has been no service reduction (Chief Cordero, personal communication, July 7, 2021). ECF firefighters generally perform station repairs within their scope of knowledge and abilities. Performing repair tasks in-house serves to reduce costs. For example, in 2020, repairs that were performed in-house include replacing doors and windows; painting stations; fixing plumbing leaks; and repairing refrigerators, station generators, lawn mowers, and much more. Large projects that were contracted out in 2020 include: the replacement of a station generator; the replacement of water damaged flooring at Station No. 72; asphalt replacement to keep the office from flooding during heavy rains; and hazardous tree removal from around stations. The overall condition of the ECF fire stations can be described as “Fair,” with the age of these buildings ranging from 10 to over 70 years old as shown in Table 4-16. The District recently received Cares Act funding to help fight Covid-19, which was partially used to support several building repairs and to purchase specialized equipment (ECF, 2020c). Any deficiencies in the fire stations relate only to age and subsequent changes to the building code. ECF fire stations met the building code standards in place at the time they were constructed and do not have any code violations (ECF, 2020). As outlined in Table 4-16, the District is planning for significant remodeling and additions to all but one of the fire stations, with a total cost for all work estimated at $62.71 million. In addition, planned new development or additions to existing stations include: • Rebuild/Replace Station No. 25 – Estimated cost $5.5 million; • Training Center – Estimated cost $3 million; • Training Tower – Estimated cost $2 million; and • New Administration Building – Estimated cost $5.5 million. All but two the District stations have repair and replacement needs as outlined in Table 4-16. The District did not provide consultants with any timeline as to when these repairs/replacements would take place, the associated costs, or how the District plans to pay for these station needs. Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-36 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 4-15: ECF Fire Stations Detail Station Communities Served Address Staffing Notes No. 16211 U.S. Highway None The station was built with funds from a Benefit 15 Strawberry 50, Strawberry (Historically Volunteer) Assessment approved by the community. During fire season the USFS -Eldorado National Forest 13275 U.S. Highway None 16 Kyburz & Silverfork Unit, has an agreement with ECF to use Station No. 16 as 50, Kyburz (Historically Volunteer) a base for Engine 64. 6430 Pony Express 17 Pollock Pines 24/7/365 Staffed by an engine company and an ambulance. Trail, Pollock Pines Sierra Springs & Sly 5785 Sly Park Road, None 18 None Park Hills Pollock Pines (Historically Volunteer) 4429 Pleasant 19 Pleasant Valley Valley Road, 24/7/365 Staffed with an engine company and an ambulance. Placerville Staffed by a Squad. Houses an engine and water tender Camino & Cedar 4040 Carson Road, 21 24/7/365 for cross-staffing by the duty crew. Station No. 21 is the Grove Camino Administrative Headquarters for El Dorado County Fire. 1834 Pleasant Pleasant Valley & Oak 23 Valley Road, None None Hill Placerville 3034 Sacramento 25 Placerville 24/7/365 Staffed by an engine company and an ambulance. Street, Placerville Station No. 26 was designed to be a public safety building, housing both the Placerville Fire Department and the Placerville Police Department. The Fire 730 Main Street, None 26 Placerville Department outgrew their space in the station and Placerville (Historically Volunteer) relocated to Station No. 25. The Police Department now occupies the building with the exception of the engine bays. Station No. 26 houses the aerial ladder. 6051 Gold Hill Road, None A BLM Hand Crew is staffed out of this station through a 27 Gold Hill Placerville (Historically Volunteer) lease agreement. Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-37 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Station Communities Served Address Staffing Notes No. Shingle Springs, South 3860 Ponderosa Staffed with an engine company and an ambulance. Cameron Estates, 28 Road, 24/7/365 Station No. 28 also houses the Districts’ OES engine, Crazy Horse & Red Shingle Springs which is staffed when requested by Cal OES. Hawk Casino 7200 St. Florian Cool, Auburn Lake 72 Court, 24/7/365 Staffed by an engine company. Trails & Pilot Hill Cool 4302 State Highway None 73 Pilot Hill None 49, Pilot Hill (Historically Volunteer) Staffed part-time with a Division 5122 Firehouse Chief/Paramedic. Houses the Districts’ Swift Water 74 Coloma & Lotus Road, Part-time Rescue boat and vehicle and is a “move-up and cover” Lotus location for ambulances. Table 4-16: ECF Fire Station Needs Total Estimated Estimated Station Building Replacement Cost of Age Additional Repair/Replacement Needs No. Square Square feet - Replacing (Years) Feet Total Building 15 2,065 5,500 $3.03 million 34 Replace siding, new asphalt, finish upstairs 16 2,600 10,050 $5.50 million 60 Replace roof, new asphalt Replace electrical system, replace plumbing, asphalt in front, fence in back, 17 4,950 10,050 $5.50 million 64 install second shower 18 3,009 5,500 $3.03 million 53 New bay doors 19 5,460 10,050 $5.50 million 43 New flooring, asphalt front/rear, paint interior/exterior 21 6,131 10,050 $5.50 million 44 Asphalt for crew parking, new flooring, paint interior, replace shower 23 3,077 5,500 $3.03 million 73 New asphalt 25 5,358 10,050 $5.50 million 70 Repair foundation issues, new bay doors, new flooring 26 1,975 N/A $1.09 million 41 None Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-38 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Total Estimated Estimated Station Building Replacement Cost of Age Additional Repair/Replacement Needs No. Square Square feet - Replacing (Years) Feet Total Building 27 4,500 10,050 $5.50 million 31 None 28 10,049 10,050 $5.50 million 9 Fix foundation issues, cracks in stucco, leaking windows 72 5,501 10,050 $5.50 million 36 Update internet connection 73 1,680 5,500 $3.03 million 41 New roof, paint exterior 74 8,648 10,050 $5.50 million 34 Sheet rock repair, update downstairs bathroom Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-39 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page left intentionally blank. Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-40 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Equipment and Apparatus ECF follows NFPA standards and guidelines for the type and amount of necessary equipment. The District also complies with NFPA guidelines for testing the viability of fire hoses and related equipment. ECF supplies all firefighters with personal protective equipment (PPE) as required by Federal, State, and local laws and standards, including those established by OSHA and NFPA (LAFCO, 2011). ECF maintains several major pieces of equipment in relation to fire protection, rescue, and emergency medical services. There are two inflatable rescue boats stationed in the District: one boat is motorized and the other is not motorized. Station No. 72 houses a Polaris 4-wheel utility vehicle (UTV) for back country rescues. Station No. 28 houses a Polaris 6-wheel UTV with a pump at the Red Hawk Casino. Station No. 17 houses a Light Rescue apparatus with low angle and high angle rope equipment. Station No. 21 houses an Air trailer for refilling self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) on scene. Station No. 28 houses a Foam trailer with Class B foam (LAFCO, 2020a). The “first out” apparatus for the District includes the following specialized equipment above the standard hose compliment on a pump engine: • E-Hurst tool spreader, cutter, ram with spare batteries. • 2 Rescue 42 vehicle stabilization struts. • 4 Maxi Force air bags. • Swift water rescue equipment. • Stihl Chain saw and Circular saw. • Honda portable pump. • Low angle rope rescue compliment. • RIT pack portable air supply. • Thermal imaging camera. • Advanced Life Support (ALS) medical equipment. (Source: LAFCO, 2020a) District apparatus includes nine Type 1 Engines, four Type 3 Engines, one Type 6 Engine, one ladder truck, two water tenders, two breathing support apparatus, 16 utility transport apparatus, two utility trailer apparatus, and two ATV Polaris as detailed in Table 4-17 below. Twenty-three surplus pieces of apparatus and equipment were sold/auctioned and are no longer with the District. Table 4-17: Apparatus and Light Vehicles, 2019 Equipment Type Identifier Year Make/Model Pump(s) (gallons per minute) Type 1 E72 2002 HME /1871 SFO 1250/300 Type 1 E74 2002 HME /1871 SFO 1250/300 Type 1 E17 2007 HME /1871 SFO 1500/300 Type 1 OES 4103 2012 HME/Ahrens-Fox 1250/300 Type 1 E26 2016 Pierce/Enforcer 1500 Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-41 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Equipment Type Identifier Year Make/Model Pump(s) (gallons per minute) Type 1 E28 2016 Pierce/Enforcer 1500 Type 1 E25 2016 Pierce/Enforcer 1500 Type 1 E23 1999 HME/ 1871 SFO 1250/300 Type 1 E19 2002 HME/Weststates 1250/300 Type 3 E328 2008 IH/SFA 4X4 7400 500/300 Type 3 E272 2015 IH/SFA 4X4 7400 500/180 Type 3 E317 2015 IH/SFA 4X4 7400 500/180 Type 3 E319 Unknown Unknown Unknown Type 6 S21 2016 Ford/F550 4X4 250 Ladder L26 1988 MACK/LTI/ F688FCS N/A Water Tender WT28 1990 WTGM/AUTOCAR 1000 Water Tender WT28 2016 FRTLNR/Rosenbauer 500 Breathing Support A72 1980 Ford/F350 2X N/A Breathing Support ATR-23 2018 PACE N/A Utility Transport 7703 2009 Ford/Expedition 4X4 N/A Utility Transport U25 2008 Ford/Expedition 4X4 N/A Utility Transport D9 2007 Ford/Expedition 4X4 N/A Utility Transport U28 2006 Ford/Expedition 4X4 N/A Utility Transport U17 2015 Dodge/RAM 4500 4X4 N/A Utility Transport U19 2000 Ford/Expedition 4X4 N/A Utility Transport U21 2007 Ford/F150 4X4 N/A Utility Transport U23 2004 Ford/F350 SD N/A Utility Transport U72 1990 Chevrolet/C1500 4X4 N/A Utility Transport S21 2008 Toyota/Corolla N/A Utility Transport D2 2016 Chevrolet/Silverado N/A 4X4 Utility Transport D3 2016 Chevrolet/Silverado N/A 4X4 Utility Transport D4 2016 Chevrolet/Silverado N/A 4X4 Utility Transport C7700 2017 Chevrolet/Tahoe 4X4 N/A Utility Transport P7720 2017 Chevrolet/Tahoe 4X4 N/A Utility Transport D5 2019 Chevrolet/Tahoe 4X4 N/A Utility Trailer TR72 2000 BIG TEX/ATV 5X10 2000 Utility Trailer FRT23 2018 PACE/Foam 6X10 N/A ATV Polaris U228 2013 Polaris/Ranger 800 6X6 120 Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-42 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Equipment Type Identifier Year Make/Model Pump(s) (gallons per minute) ATV Polaris U272 2015 Polaris/Ranger 570 4X4 N/A Surplus Type 1 E272 1984 Ford/C8000 1250/300 Type 1 E228 1989 Ford/C8000 1250/300 Type 1 WT72 1973 Ford/L 9000 500 Type 6 S15 1989 Ford/Super Duty E-1 250 Utility Transport B7706 2004 Ford/Expedition 4X4 N/A Utility Transport U23 1994 Ford/Ranger 4X4 N/A Utility Transport U74 1996 Jeep/Cherokee 4X4 N/A Utility Transport U28 2002 Ford/Expedition 4X4 N/A Type 1 E17 2004 HME/1871 SFO 4X4 1250/300 Type 2 E74 1980 Ford/LN9000 1500 Type 2 E219 1994 FRTLNR/FL80 4X4 1000 Utility Transport P7720 2005 Ford/Expedition 4X4 N/A Utility Transport U25 2002 Ford/Expedition 4X4 N/A Type 6 P15 1982 GMC/3500 4X4 250 Type 6 P21/74 1995 Chevrolet/K3500 4X4 250 Utility Trailer TR27 1973 DAILY/DAILY N/A Foam Tender F24 1984 GMS/7000 1000 Water Tender WT72 1984 GMC/BRIGADEER 500 Water Tender WT19 1984 GMC/BRIGADEER 500 Air Unit A23 1983 Ford/C700 N/A Utility Transport U17 2008 Ford/F450 4X4 N/A Type 1 E74 2004 HME/1871 SFO 1250/300 Type 1 E219 1999 HME/1871 SFO 1250 Source: LAFCO, 2019a Water and Hydrants Within ECF, water service is provided by El Dorado Irrigation District (EID), the City of Placerville, and the Georgetown Public Utility District (GDPUD) (LAFCO, 2020a). EID supplies water to many of the inhabited areas of the District south of the South Fork of the American River and to the City of Placerville. GDPUD provides water to Cool, Pilot Hill and surrounding communities north of the American River. Water and hydrants within ECF are maintained, serviced, and inspected by EID or the water purveyor, not the District. Water storage tanks that belong to homeowner’s associations are scattered throughout the District (Chief Cordero, personal communication, July 7, 2021). There are also privately owned water tanks throughout the District owned by individuals. In addition, the District employs a “water shuttle” system to provide an unlimited water supply for fire suppression in areas without hydrants. Water is transferred to the principal Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-43 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final engine/fire tender at the scene from later arriving engines. Those engines then drive to the nearest hydrant and refill, ferrying water as needed to the principal engine/fire tender. All District apparatus carry Honda submersible portable pumps to draft water out of rivers, lakes, ponds, and pools (LAFCO, 2011). ECF staff indicates that hydrant capacities vary, and water supplies are generally adequate (LAFCO, 2020a). 4.5.8 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies ECF has taken proactive measures to ensure that it has the ability to deploy functional and modern firefighting equipment for the public’s emergency needs. Funds are “earmarked” on an annual basis and are part of the adopted budget. These funds either transfer into an apparatus reserve fund at the end of the fiscal year or are utilized to replace apparatus as needed during that fiscal year. The District’s annual deferred maintenance strategy consist of an annual review by the Facilities Division Chief where repairs and upgrades are identified and prioritized for budgeting. Annual monies are allocated to address needs and repairs (LAFCO, 2019a). On-going maintenance is addressed during annual budget development. For replacement of infrastructure, such as a fire station, additional revenue streams have to be identified and obtained. For example, there is a benefit assessment in the Shingle Springs area for the replacement of Station No. 28. The existing fire stations have bays large enough to house the District’s fire engines. ECF does not have any current plans to replace structures (LAFCO, 2019a). Deficiencies in infrastructure or equipment are identified by ECF staff and listed above (LAFCO, 2020a). Potential future challenges identified by staff over the next five years are financial, including CalPERs obligations, coupled with limited economic growth and rising costs. Given the limited growth ECF experiences within its boundaries, keeping pace with the CalPERs UAL costs, while preserving service levels will be challenging absent of additional revenue streams (LAFCO, 2020a). Refer to the financial section below for more details. LAFCO’s consultants asked ECF staff if there is anything LAFCO could do to assist in addressing potential future challenges. ECF staff indicated that there appears to be a desire and/or belief that consolidations will be the solution to the funding issues that most local fire districts are experiencing. ECF feels that bringing two districts together with limited to insufficient revenues only makes for a larger problem. Meaningful pension reform and restoration of revenues that have been removed from local districts are necessary to ensure a secure level of service (LAFCO, 2020a). 4.5.9 Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing ECF has taken several actions in the last five years to save money, lower expenses and/or improve services at the same costs, including: • Structural changes in employee benefits and costs to reduce increases; • Reduced administrative staff; • Funding generational apparatus replacement by allowing for cash purchases of apparatus to eliminate finance charges; • Multi-year budget forecasting to plan and prepare for potential increases; and Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-44 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • Exploring shared services with neighboring agencies. (Source: LAFCO, 2020a). To further reduce overhead and operational costs, ECF is currently involved in strategic planning to evaluate the District’s business model and potential changes to enhance service levels (LAFCO, 2019a). During past District Board meeting(s), the pros and cons associated with the conceptual ideas regarding consolidation, annexation, and/or contracting out services were discussed (ECF, 2019). An identified “pro” by the Board included the potential to increase efficiency and economies of scale for the public. Identified “cons” included current deficit spending, inadequate cost-containment measures, and inadequate financial reserves. ECF noted that unless additional revenue streams are found, structural reorganization such as regionalization or disincorporation efforts will not increase levels of services as long as there are unfunded pension obligations and Other Postemployment Benefits (OPEB) contingent liabilities (LAFCO, 2019a). ECF has noted they are not in the position to financially subsidize any other fire district that has current deficit spending, or has an insufficient reserve fund (LAFCO, 2019a). ECF notes that “economic factors continue to drive conceptual conversations about structural reorganization. While the economic question has always been part and parcel for consolidation discussions, what has recently been introduced with the amortization of liabilities on a ‘fixed’ bases, has never been a consideration in the past. Ignoring this paradigm shift within municipal finance would likely have unintended consequences that would likely reflect service insolvency post- annexation/consolidation” (LAFCO, 2019a). 4.6 Financial Ability to Provide Services LAFCO is required to make determinations regarding the financial ability of the El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF) to provide public services. This section provides an overview of the financial health of the District and a context for LAFCO’s financial determinations. The audited financial reports from the District for the fiscal years (FY) 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 are the primary source of all information for this section (ECF, 2017; ECF, 2018a). The Preliminary and Final Budgets for FY 2019/2020 and FY 2020/2021 are also used in order to provide the most recent context to the analysis (ECF, 2019b; ECF, 2020a). In California, special districts are classified as either enterprise or non-enterprise based on their source of revenue. ECF generally operates as a non-enterprise district, collecting and utilizing property tax revenue to fund a majority of its fire and emergency service operations. 4.6.1 Financial Policies & Transparency The primary policy document for the ECF is the El Dorado County Fire Board Policies. Each policy is updated separately. Policies 3000-3030 describe the rules for the District’s business operations including budget, procurement, and financial policies. The FY 2020/2021 Budget was adopted by the Board on September 17, 2020. The District adopts a budget every fiscal year and conducts an annual cycle review to determine any changes that might be needed. The District publishes an audited financial statement every year. Government Code and District policy require an annual independent audit of the District’s financial records by a certified public accountant. The independent audits for the District for FY 2017/2018 and FY Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-45 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 2018/2019 were performed by Fechter and Company, independent auditors. Auditors judge whether the District’s financial statements are presented in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), as established by the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB). The District uses the accrual basis of accounting, where revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when a liability is incurred, regardless of the timing of related cash flows. Property taxes are recognized as revenues in the year for which they are levied. Grants and similar items are recognized as revenue when reimbursable costs are incurred under the accrual basis of accounting. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the District’s policy to use restricted resources first, then unrestricted resources as they are needed. 4.6.2 District Revenues and Expenditures The District’s largest revenue source and recurring revenue source is Property Taxes, accounting for over 57 percent of the total revenue received by the District. A breakdown in revenues and expenditures for the District can be seen in Figure 4-10 on the next page. A breakdown of revenues and expenditures is also available in table format in Volume II - Appendix A, Financial Tables by Agency. Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-46 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 4-10: ECF Total Revenues and Expenditures from FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-47 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page intentionally left blank. Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-48 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Revenues In addition to property taxes, the District also receives some recurring revenue through direct assessments and special taxes in certain areas of the District. These direct assessments and special taxes were transferred to the District when the District was formed in 1991 through a consolidation of seven smaller fire districts. Those districts which consolidated into ECF were Placerville Fire Department, Shingle Springs Fire District, Pleasant Valley Fire District, Pollock Pines/Camino Fire Department, Coloma/Lotus Fire District and Northside Fire Protection District (ECF, 2016). A breakdown in the different direct assessments and special taxes that are collected from certain areas of the District can be seen in Table 4-18 as follows: Table 4-18: ECF Direct Assessments and Special Taxes Detailed Information Area of District Adoption Date Tax Type Assessment Amount Northside February 1987 Special Tax $35.00 per parcel Pleasant Valley March 1981 Special Tax $42.00 per parcel Coloma/Lotus June 1981 Special Tax $60.00 per parcel Mobile Home Park $60 per dwelling pad Pollock Pines/Camino June 1981 Special Tax Single Family $30.00 per parcel Multi-family, Commercial, Industrial & Mobile Home $60.00 per parcel Strawberry June 1981 Assessment Single Family $30.00 per parcel Multi-family and Commercial $60.00 per parcel Source: LAFCO, 2019a In FY 2018/2019 all Fire-based EMS transporting agencies on the West Slope of El Dorado County entered into “fixed-rate” contract with the JPA. Within this fixed-rate contract, all provider agencies received $1,150,000 per year, per ambulance. The El Dorado County Fire Protection District staffs 4 of the 8 ambulances on the West Slope of El Dorado County. This contractual arrangement currently provides $4.6M per year to the El Dorado County Fire Protection District. This fiscal arrangement is intended to cover salaries and benefits only, for the personnel assigned to the ambulances. Under the current contractual arrangement, if a provider agency exceeds the $1,150,000 fixed-rate cap, then that agency will have to absorb any overages. Prior to the “fixed- rate” contract, provider agencies submitted annual costs to the JPA, without being subject to any type of fiscal ceiling provisions. All costs incurred under the “fixed-rate” contract are segregated from the El Dorado County Fire Protection District’s operating budget. The El Dorado County Fire Protection District maintains two separate budgets for “District” costs, and “JPA” costs. The El Dorado County Fire Protection District does not co-mingle any revenue from the “fixed-rate” contract into the Fire District operating budget. Any “carry-over” or “surplus” funds from the “fixed-rate” contract at the end of a fiscal year are identified as “JPA” reserves, not “District” reserves. The Direct Assessment for the District decreased by about $12,600 between FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019. Currently, for limited calls centered around vehicle accidents, the District will charge a fee if Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-49 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final the injured party is not a resident of the County of El Dorado. In FY 2018/2019, the District generated $591,916 in “Charges for Services” revenue, making up 8 percent of District revenue not including Property Taxes. This is only $73,980 more than the District received in FY 2017/2018. In 2016, ECF sent out a survey to collect feedback from voters regarding a possible ballot measure to repeal the direct tax assessments currently in place and replace them with an equivalent direct tax assessment for every parcel throughout the District. The argument was that having the same special assessment across the entire District would make the situation more equitable and bring in additional recurring revenue for the District in addition to property taxes (Hodson, 2016). In 2019, the District brought Measure B before the voters of the District. The ballot measure intended to levee a direct assessment of $96 for all parcels within the District in addition to the direct tax assessments already in place for the five areas shown in Table 6-18. Measure B would have added $2.6 million in recurring revenue to the District and would have been used to: • Restore critical firefighting and emergency response positions; • Equipped firefighters to better respond to wildfires; • Kept firefighting and lifesaving equipment and facilities up to date; • Maintained rapid response times for fire protection and 9-1-1 emergency services by preventing further cuts to first responders; and • Maintained emergency rescue and fire prevention services. The goals of the measure were to maintain fast 9-1-1 response times, protect the community from wildfires, and restore needed firefighter positions (ECF, 2019c). The measure failed by a large margin with only 37.7 percent of District residents voting in favor, with the District needing a two-thirds majority to pass (El Dorado County, 2019). Of the 36,396 registered voters in the District only 12,673 voted (34.8 percent) in the August 2019 special election. According to the Fire Chief at the time, Chief Lloyd Ogan, the vote did not affect the financial status of the district, but the staffing continuing with only two firefighters on an engine could affect how quickly fires are dealt with (Wong, 2019). Expenditures As seen in Figure 4-10, Salaries & Benefits represents the Districts largest expense year over year, accounting for between 81 percent to 90 percent of the Budget since FY 2017/2018. As mentioned in Section 4.3.5 above, there are two engine companies staffed at the 3-0 model, while the other four engine companies have only two-person staffing. This means that four engine companies for the District are staffed below minimum national standards. As of July 1, 2020, the District had 76 full-time employees. In FY 2018/2019 the District had 85 full-time employees. The District is a participating agency and operates three ambulances for County Service Area No. 7 (CSA 7) under contract as part of the West Slope Joint Powers Agency (JPA). The revenue received from the JPA is collected based on a fixed rate contract to operate an ambulance. In FY 2017/2018, the District had 24 Emergency Services Authority Funding positions and staffed six fire stations 24 hours a day, seven days a week; had six unstaffed stations; and two stations staffed part time by the U.S. Forest Services (USFS) at Station No. 16 and Bureau of Land Management (BLS) handcrews at Station No. 27 during daytime hours only. Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-50 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Although the FY 2020/2021 budget indicated an anticipated decrease in Salaries and Benefits, Paul Dutch, the Division Chief states that, annual budgetary statements provided by the El Dorado County Auditor- Controller reflects the information found in Table 4-19 regarding the El Dorado County Fire Protection District’s financial status during the period discussed. Table 4-19: Increase/Decrease in Salaries/Benefits from FY 2016/2017 to FY 2020/2021 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 Salaries/ $8,342,730 $8,637,933 $9,586,927 $8,974,489 $9,475,762 Benefits Increase/ 4.9% 3.5% 11% 6.3% 5.5% Decrease from Increase Increase Increase Decrease Increase Previous FY Employee Employee Additional Employee Employee step step staffing added attrition. wage increases, increases, through District Decrease in increases, healthcare healthcare reorganizing overtime step cost cost process. costs from increases, Comments increases, increases, Employee step previous CalPERs CalPERs CalPERs increases, years increases increases increases healthcare cost increases, CalPERs increases Source: Division Chief Dutch, personal communication, July 2021 The District developed a Reorganization Plan due to the District exhausting its undesignated reserve fund, post-great financial recession. As described within the MSR analysis, a large part of the District’s revenue stream is derived from secured property taxes. Like many sectors in the economy post-great financial recession, true “growth” is measured qualitatively from “peak to peak revenue” v. “peak to trough to peak”. It took nearly seven fiscal years for the El Dorado County Fire Protection District to recover true “peak to peak” revenues that were last achieved in FY 2008/2009. Revenue streams within Special Districts are not as dynamic as other forms of government that receive sales tax. If the federal government elects to engage in monetary policy during an economic downturn, the economy can be stimulated in ways that benefit a city, county, or state through increased consumption of goods, increased demand on equity acquisitions which in turn increase capital gains taxes for State revenue, and/or increased inflation on the goods due to extra dollars chasing the same amount of goods, which would in turn increase tax revenue for each respective government entity. This practice will initiate economic activity in a city, county, or state much sooner than a Special District that is primarily reliant on home purchases within their respective jurisdiction to stimulate economic growth. Due to the slow recovery that was experienced within the El Dorado County Fire Protection District, it was necessary for the District to not only reorganize its financial business model, but it’s organizational model as well. This was conducted by a systematic reintroduction of personnel into the District’s workforce during experienced attrition models, which allowed the District to rebuild its reserve fund, purchase new fire apparatus, and also pay off outstanding debt obligations. This Reorganization Plan allowed for Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-51 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final flexibility, if needed. During the phase-in approach, it was decided that Engine 21 would receive full staffing restoration, rather than adding a 3rd firefighter to Engine 17. Aside from this alteration, all previous staffing goals and financial goals have been achieved within the District reorganization plan as follows: • Station No. 72 – staffing was upgraded from an Apprentice Firefighter/Captain model to a career Firefighter EMT or Paramedic/Captain model several years ago. • Station No. 21 – was previously staffed with a Firefighter EMT or Paramedic and a Captain, until the recent business model change in January 2021. Those personnel have been reallocated to Station No.’s 17 and 19 to upstaff those engines to a (3-0) model. • EMT Upgrade Sponsorship Program - in an effort to maintain Paramedic levels within the District, the District has created an in-house sponsorship program for current Firefighter EMT’s who wish to upgrade to Paramedic. The program remains in place and, to-date, a total of four EMT’s have used the program (Source: ECF, 2018b). Revenues (Over/Under) Expenditures Revenues (Over/Under) expenditures can be seen in Figure 4-11 below. The District anticipates revenues continuing to exceed expenditures through FY 2020/2021. Figure 4-11: ECF Net Revenues Over/Under Expenditures 2017-2021 According to Division Chief, Dutch, the Annual budgetary statements provided by the El Dorado County Auditor-Controller reflect a slow revenue increase as shown in Table 4-20 below, which shows the El Dorado County Fire Protection District’s financial status during the period discussed. Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-52 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 4-20: Total Revenue for ECF from FY 2015/2016 to FY 2020/2021 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 Revenue $10.7M $10.79M $11.6M $11.70M $11.98M $12.68M (Millions) Source: Division Chief Dutch, personal communication, July 2021 4.6.3 District Assets and Liabilities District Assets As of June 30, 2019, the District had roughly $21.7 million in Total Assets as shown in Figure 4-12 below. Total Assets for the District include about $8.2 million in cash, approximately $5.7 million in capital assets and about $7.3 millions in deferred outflow from deferred pension payments. The Districts capital assets (net of depreciation) amounted to about $5.7 million which represents a decrease of about $300,000 from June 30, 2018. Figure 4-12: District Assets as of June 30, 2019 Liabilities and Debt The District has Long-Term Liabilities of $38 million, accounting for 97 percent of total Liabilities as of June 30th, 2019. District liabilities and debts as of June 30, 2019 are shown in Figure 4-13 below. The District’s Long-Term Liabilities is made up of a $25 million net pension liability and another $10 million in annual Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) liabilities. In FY 2018/2019 the District was able to reduce their OPEB liabilities by $3.9 million. The District anticipates this liability will continue to grow. This is because the liability growth is outpacing the asset growth. This is true for all public agencies that participate in the California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) throughout the State of California. Absent of meaningful pension reform, these unfunded pension liabilities will only grow larger. Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-53 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 4-13: District Liabilities and Debt as of June 30, 2019 The District entered into a Capital Lease agreement dated September 1, 2010 with the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (CIEDB), to provide funds for the acquisition and construction of major capital facilities in an amount totaling $2.5 million. The balance of the long-term debt as of June 30, 2019 was $2.04 million. The annual portion of $65,222 for FY 2018/2019 was for this long-term debt. 4.6.4 Net Position The District ended FY 2018/2019 in a deficit, with a negative Net Position of roughly $25.2 million. The Statement of Net Position is shown in Figure 4-14 below and includes a summary of the District’s assets, deferred outflows of resources, and liabilities, which provide information about the nature, and amounts of investments in assets and obligations to the District’s creditors. It also provides the basis for computing rates of return, evaluating the capital structure of the District and assessing the financial flexibility of the District. Figure 4-14: District Net Position as of June 30, 2019 District staff have indicated that the General Reserve Fund carries above 50% of Annual Operating Expenses. Annual independent audits provided to the El Dorado County Fire Protection District and Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-54 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final conducted by Fechter & Company certified public accountants reflect the net positions stated in Table 4-21 below. Table 4-21: El Dorado County Fire Protection District capital assets and cash, minus long-term pension and other post-employment benefits (OPEB). 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Net Position ($18,046,640) ($26,595,995) ($25,232,988) ($25,788,762) Source: Division Chief Dutch, personal communication, July 2021 4.6.5 Asset Maintenance and Replacement As a result of the fiscal condition of the El Dorado County Fire Protection District in 2012 and the subsequent economic recession, Fire Chiefs’ McVay and Dutch created a Strategic Plan outlining a path to restore the District to a positive financial position. The plan works to secure funding for generational fire apparatus replacement and facilities maintenance and upgrades. The El Dorado County Fire Protection District Five Year Strategic Plan was last updated in 2018. This plan includes an apparatus replacement fund at $350,000 annually and a station/facilities budget of $150,00 to $175,000 annually. As of 2018, the District apparatus fund balance was at $700,000. The District anticipates this fund to increase to $450,477 by 2025. The Strategic Plan anticipates apparatus purchases and replacements for 2018, 2019, 2022, 2023, and 2025. Chief Cordero indicates that that replacement plan is current and on schedule (Chief Cordero, personal communication, July 2021). According to the Strategic Plan, the District utilizes an annual station inspection program to identify facility needs structurally, functionally, and operationally. These needs are included in an annual plan to prioritize and fund repairs. During the years 2008 thru 2013, many of the repairs and preventive measures were deferred as a cost savings which resulted in many stations needing substantial and costly repairs. The District anticipates maintenance and upgrade projects at all stations except for Station No. 18, 26 and 73 with some stations needing multiple years of work. The District has also identified station replacement and or significant remodel needs based on the age, condition, and operational functionality. Currently, the District is not in a financial position to begin funding these projects including replacement of Station No. 25, and significant remodels of Station No. 19 and 17 (ECF, 2018b). 4.6.6 Cost Avoidance To maintain a balanced budget and avoid deficit spending that inevitably leads to service insolvency, the District has implemented several measures to protect against as many high-risk fiscal practices as possible. These measures include: • Transitioning all employees to an annual vacation stipend to avoid unfunded vacation bank accruals. • Reduction of annual sick leave accrual to discourage misuse. Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-55 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • Reduction of Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) to $625/month for all active and retired employees, and a transition to the minimum Public Employees’ Medical & Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) for all retired employees 65+. • Annual allocation of $350,000/year towards fire apparatus replacement to avoid debt financing. • Multi-year budget forecasts that include revenue reduction scenarios to hedge against the amortization of the CalPERS pension unfunded actuarial liability. • Advocacy towards maintaining a minimum reserve equal to 50% of the annual derived revenue. • Explored shared service with neighboring agencies. In addition, the District has a competitive bid policy, Policy 3000, which provides for uniform procedures and notice to prospective suppliers to assure the acquisition of supplies and equipment at the lowest cost to the District and allows the District to have positive financial control over purchases (LAFCO, 2020a). 4.6.7 Financial Summary and Ability to Provide Services Based on the data presented above, the El Dorado County Fire Protection District is able to provide limited service to the residents of ECF. With a mix of staffing at 3-0 and 2-0 models, the District relies heavily on the mutual and automatic aid agreements with neighboring fire agencies to ensure enough resources available at each incident in the District’s boundaries. The District’s financial position limits staffing opportunities and facilities upgrades or replacements. Of the Districts 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. Alternative Financing As mentioned previously, the District has attempted to increase the property assessments for the District in August 2019 without success. The assessment would have generated an estimated $2.6 million annually to fund additional firefighting positions in communities such as Apple Hill, Coloma, Placerville, Pollock Pines and Shingle Springs. The FY 2017/2018 Five Year Strategic Plan recognized that the District continues to face economic challenges due to rising day-to-day operational costs, increased apparatus and facility costs and the significant increases to CalPERS obligations. 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. Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-56 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 4.7 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 the ECF 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. Scoring for the determinations in Table 4-22 below are as follows: ▲ ● ▼ ◆ Above Average (compared to similar Districts), Average, Below Average, Statement of Fact (not rated). Table 4-22: Summary of MSR Determinations for the ECF Indicator Score Determination Population & Growth ECF’s boundary encompasses 176,304 acres. The boundary includes several unincorporated communities and the City of Placerville. A small corridor of ◆ the District extends to the eastern portion of El Dorado County along US Existing Boundary. Highway 50 to the Lake Valley Fire Protection District boundary. The District’s boundary is not coterminous, with an area around Shingle Springs separated from the main boundary area. ECF’s SOI encompasses 13,363 acres and includes 265 parcels. LAFCO’s ◆ Existing Sphere of Influence most recent SOI Resolution L-2011-09 for ECF was adopted August 24, 2011. ECF does provide extra-territorial services outside of its District boundary to both privately owned land and federally managed land located in its SOI. ◆ Extra-territorial Services Additionally, ECF does provide fire protection services to other agencies by contract. Specifically, the District has a contract for fire protection services with the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians and the Red Hawk Casino. By the year 2040, it is estimated that ECF’s existing boundary will ◆ Projected population in years 2020 through 2040. encompass a population of 54,433 persons. This represents an average annual growth rate of 0.38 percent between the years of 2020 and 2045. Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-57 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination Currently, the District’s boundary area supports an average of 0.28 persons per acre which is considered to be low population density. The County District boundaries contain sufficient land area to accommodate ◆ General Plan suggests that growth may occur in community regions and projected growth. other portions of the ECF boundary located along US Highway 50. District boundaries contain sufficient land area to accommodate projected growth. Government Structure & Accountability ECF is not currently involved in litigation per RFI response (LAFCO, 2020a). Is the District involved in current litigation and/or has the District ▼ ECF, along with all the fire protection districts in El Dorado County, have been the subject of a recent grand jury inquiry. recently been the subject of a grand jury report (Case 19-06) and the issues raised therein continue to be relevant. While ECF’s website does disclose terms of office for Board members, Terms of office and next election date are disclosed for District Board ● board committee appointments are not listed on the website. There is members and committee appointments are online. room for improvement. The District’s website is kept updated and is easily navigable with current and past agenda packets available for download. Contact information is Does the District comply with the Special District Transparency Act listed at the top of the home page. Financial statements (independent (SB 929 or California Government Code, §6270.6 and 53087.8) which ● audits) through the year 2019 are listed on the “Services” webpage. requires special districts to have a functional website that lists Compensation reports are not provided. The Enterprise System Catalog is contact information and contains financial statements, not on the ECF website. Therefore, additional improvements are needed compensation reports, and other relevant public information. for the El Dorado County Fire Protection District to comply fully with the requirements of the Special District Transparency Act. Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-58 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination ECF’s elected Board members have submitted required forms and have received required trainings for the three state laws as described below: (1) ECF does have adopted conflict of interest policy (Number 1020) in compliance with the Political Reform Act. However, there is an open Do elected Board members submit required forms and receive complaint against one board member regarding disclosure of personal required trainings as prescribed by the three state laws regarding economic interests listed with the FPPC Complaint and Case accountability and ethics including: Information Portal. ▲ (2) ECF’s Fire Chief reports that training has conducted on a regular basis (1) the Political Reform Act; through Target Solutions, though dates of specific trainings were not (2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005); and provided to consultants. Therefore, ECF’s Board is in compliance with (3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. AB 1234. (3) ECF’s Fire Chief reports that training has conducted on a regular basis through Target Solutions, though dates of specific trainings were not provided to consultants. Therefore, ECF’s Board is in compliance with Government Code 53237 et. seq. ECF makes its agenda available on its homepage with a link to the current Does the District’s website comply with the 2016 updates to the ▲ agenda. Therefore, the District website agenda distribution does comply Brown Act described in Government Code §54954.2 and enacted by with the requirements of the Brown Act 2016 Updates described in Assembly Bill 2257? AB2257. Does the District work to inform and educate homeowners regarding LAFCO’s 2011 MSR describes how ECF works to inform and educate ▲ fire safety and prevention consistent with General Plan Objective homeowners regarding fire safety and prevention consistent with General 6.2.5? Plan Objective 6.2.5. Disadvantage Communities California’s median household income was $71,228 in 2018. This yields a The median household income is identified. The DUC threshold MHI ◆ DUC threshold MHI of less than $56,982. Within the boundaries of ECF are (80 percent of the statewide MHI) is clearly stated. The MHI in the located portions five Census Block Groups that meets the DUC threshold District’s boundary is described. and are therefore classified as disadvantaged unincorporated communities. Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-59 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination There are portions of Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within the ECF Boundary and Sphere of Influence, including five census block groups. The DUCs described in this chapter do receive adequate water Potential DUCs are considered. The provision of adequate water, ◆ service from EID or private wells. Wastewater services are provided to wastewater, and structural fire protection services to DUCs is these DUC areas either by EID or by small septic systems. Fire protection considered. services to the DUCs described in this chapter are provided by the ECF and neighboring agencies. No public health and safety issues have been identified. Shared Facilities & Services Agreements for mutual aid, JPA, or any other appropriate agreement (i.e., Agreements for mutual aid or any other appropriate agreement (i.e., ▼ Tax Sharing Agreement) are periodically reviewed by the District’s Board of Tax Sharing Agreement) are periodically reviewed to ensure fiscal Directors. The premise for these agreements is centered on operational neutrality. needs and functionality, not fiscal neutrality. ECF collaborates with multiple other agencies for the delivery of services within its boundary through its participation in the countywide boundary The District collaborates with multiple other fire and emergency ▲ drop, closest resource, automatic aid system and through working medical agencies for the delivery of services within its boundary. agreements with the U.S Forest Service. The District is working with CAL FIRE to reduce duplicative services and save taxpayer money through an Amador Plan at CAL FIRE Station No. 20 in Camino. Other practices and opportunities that may reduce or eliminate ECF has taken several actions in the last five years to save money, lower unnecessary costs are examined by the District periodically. Ideally, ▲ expenses and/or improve services at the same costs, including structural there is a balance between cost efficiency and risk reduction changes in employee benefits, and multi-year budget forecasting to plan strategies. and prepare for potential increases. Public Services & Infrastructure Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-60 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination ECF may have a capacity to assist with and/or assume services provided by other fire protection agencies, based on the following factors: (1) ECF’s majority 3-0 staffing model meets NFPA minimum standards. Recent staffing improvements provide a higher level of service to communities while improving firefighter safety. However, the one fire station with 2-0 staffing can sometimes leave the community vulnerable; Evaluation of District’s capacity to assist with and/or assume services ● (2) With fourteen fire stations, there is capacity to serve both its own provided by other agencies. needs and to potentially collaborate with other agencies. Seven of the 14 stations are vacant due to loss of volunteer programs. With seven stations vacant, these areas of the District may be more vulnerable; and (3) The District receives a large amount of automatic aid from partner agencies when compared to aid provided to surrounding districts. The District does not provide the same amount of aid for other fire agencies that it receives from those fire agencies. The District does provide sufficient services to meet current and future demands for the following two indicators: (1) ECF recruits Board members and paid staff, as the needs arise; and (2) Water service is provided through hydrants from EID and GDPUD. Does the District provides sufficient services to meet current and Private water sources (tanks, ponds, lakes) are also located future demands with: throughout the District. ● (1) recruitment; The District does not provide sufficient services to meet current and future (2) mutual aid; and demands for the following one indicator: (3) water supply for fire protection (3) ECF participates in the countywide mutual aid and automatic aid program, however the District relies on neighboring agencies to respond to calls within its boundaries with other agencies responding to District calls for service 35 percent of the time for all calls for service in 2019. Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-61 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination Although ECF currently meets its infrastructure needs, there is room for The District meets infrastructure needs for: improvement as follows: (1) facilities (stations); (1) seven of the District's 14 stations are unstaffed; (2) rolling stock (engines, apparatus, and emergency medical ● (2) rolling stock [engines, apparatus, and emergency medical response response units;) units] is sufficient; (3) dispatch systems; and (3) dispatch is provided by the ECC operated by CAL FIRE; and (4) roadways for emergency access. (4) roadways for emergency access appear to be sufficient; however, an emergency access plan was not provided. ECF has taken proactive measures to ensure that it has the ability to deploy Has the District has been diligent in developing plans to functional and modern firefighting equipment for the public’s emergency accommodate the infrastructure and service needs of current and needs. The District’s annual deferred maintenance strategy consist of an ● future constituents? District regularly reviews and updates its service annual review by the Facilities Division Chief where repairs and upgrades plans to ensure that infrastructure needs, and deficiencies are are identified and prioritized for budgeting. However, a plan of what addressed in a timely manner. repairs/replacements need to be made when and at what cost was not provided to consultants. The District’s maintenance strategy is to complete work using in-house The District has preventative maintenance measures and has ● staff to the extent possible. ECF does budget money for future planned for replacement of aging infrastructure. maintenance, improvements, or upgrades. In the year 2019, the District’s average response time was 8 minutes 20 seconds. ECF average for 2019 appears to meet response time goals for new discretionary projects in Rural Centers and Rural Regions. ECF partially meets NFPA staffing standards with four stations staffed at (3- Does the District comply with County General Plan policies in 0) model and one station staffed at (2-0) model. Recent staffing relation to response times. Does the District meet the minimum ● improvements provide a higher level of service to communities while standard for staffing. improving firefighter safety. However, the one fire station with 2-0 staffing can sometimes leave the community vulnerable. Staffing levels are within budget constraints. Lower staffing levels leave the community vulnerable to low frequency, high risk events, such as a working structure fire. Given the geographical layout of the District, ECF fire stations are not in a typical city grid type environment, which can provide for extended response times. Rating for the District from the neutral third-party Insurance Services ● Office (ISO) where the rating scale from best to worse is One (1) to ECF received an ISO rating of 04 / 4X. Ten (10). Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-62 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination CAL FIRE’s Station 20 is staffed on a seasonal basis and is located within the ◆ ECF boundaries. The Amador Plan for Station No. 20 between ECF and CAL Is there duplicate infrastructure by other agencies nearby? FIRE will eliminate duplication of resources in the area, and increase staffing levels in other areas with no additional costs to taxpayers . Financial Ability to Provide Services The primary policy document for the ECF is the El Dorado County Fire Board The District has a published policy for reserve funds, including the ▼ Policies. Each policy is updated separately. Policies on reserve funds are not size and purpose of reserves and how they are invested. included. ▼ The District operated at a deficit of $25 million negative Net Position in FY The District had a positive Net Position for FY 2018/2019. 2018/2019. District finances are sufficient to apply a staffing model that meets or exceeds the generally accepted minimum standard of three staff per ● ECF operates with a blended model of majority (3-0) staffing and (2-0) engine and truck company (3-0) model (or at NFPA 1720 standards if staffing at one station. applicable). The 5-Year Strategic Plan for ECF was updated in 2018 and plans out to the year 2023. The Plan addresses financial planning goals for apparatus ▲ District has an updated Strategic Plan that addresses financial goals. replacement; facilities upgrades, repairs, and enhancements; training; revenue streams; operational staffing goals; and fiscal policies and procedures. District Revenues exceed expenditures in FY 2017/2018 and FY ▲ The District operated with $1.9 million and $1.6 million revenues over 2018/2019. expenditures in FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 respectively. A minimum of 50% total operating expense is kept on hand in the ▲ The General Reserve Fund carries above 50% of Annual Operating General Reserve Fund. Expenses. The District publishes an audited financial report every year. Government Summary financial information presented in a standard format and ◆ Code and District policy require an annual independent audit of the District’s financial records by a certified public accountant. The simple language. independent audits on FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 were performed by Fechter and Company, independent auditors. The District pursued increases to the direct tax assessment in 2019. The Alternative financing opportunities were explored and pursued by ◆ measure was defeated. As a result, the District executed several measures the District. to cut costs and reduce overhead. Ballot proposals for increased funding have not been successful. Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-63 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination Effect on Agriculture and Open Space 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 Effect that the District’s service provision will have on open space ◆ Together, these open space type land uses comprise over 37 percent of the and agricultural lands. boundary area. Fire Protection Services and Emergency Medical Services generally have minimal effects on agricultural land and open space. ▲ ● ▼ ◆ Key Score: Above Average (compared to similar Districts), Average, Below Average, Statement of Fact (not rated) Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-64 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 4.8 References 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/. _____. 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/. _____. 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). November 7, 2007a. Map of Fire Hazard Severity Zones for El Dorado County. Available online at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6670/fhszs_map9.pdf. _____. May 2007b. Fact Sheet: Fire Hazard Severity Zone Model A Non-Technical Primer. 4-pages. Available online at: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/FIreHazardZone_NonTechnical_Prim er.pdf. _____. April 21, 2014. Unit Strategic Fire Plan Amador-El Dorado Unit. 57-pages. Available online at: https://www.edcfiresafe.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2014-Unit-Strategic-Fire-Plan_CAL- FIRE-Amador-El-Dorado-Unit.pdf. _____. Fire and Resource Protection Program (FRAP). December 2019. Map of Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) – Map ID: WUI_19DATA SOURCES: WUI_12_35TY_18. Available online at: https://frap.fire.ca.gov/media/10300/wui_19_ada.pdf. CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center (ECC). 2020. CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center Dispatch Data. Received October 2020. California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). August 2003. Local Agency Formation Commission Municipal Service Review Guidelines Final. 107-pages. County of El Dorado (EDC). July 2004. El Dorado County General Plan: Public Services and Utilities Element (Amended December 2015). Available online at: https://www.edcgov.us/government/planning/adoptedgeneralplan/documents/5_services- utilities.pdf. _____. Sherriff’s Department Office of Emergency Services. July 2018. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. 256-pages. Available online at: https://eldorado.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3923674&GUID=C562ECEB-7E9F-446D- AE6B-3AC56E13F465. Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-65 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final _____. 2019. Special Mail Ballot Election Update Report #1. Available online at: https://edcgov.us/Government/Elections/Documents/20190827.3.pdf. _____. Grand Jury. June 8, 2020. West Slope Fire Protection Update. Case 19-06. Available online at: https://edcgov.us/Government/GrandJury/Documents/2019- 2020%20Reports/West%20Slope%20Fire%20Protection%20Update.pdf. El Dorado County Emergency Services Authority. 2017. Strategic Plan 2017 – 2022. 21-pages. Available online at: http://edcjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/EDC-JPA-Strategic-Plan-2017- Master.pdf. El Dorado County Fire Safe Council (EDC-FSC). January 2017. El Dorado County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Sub-Section for Pollock Pines Fire Safe Council Activities. Diamond Springs, CA. 32 pages. Available online at: https://www.edcfiresafe.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/02/PollockPines-Fire-Safe-Council-Activities.pdf. El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF). 2016. El Dorado County Fire Protection District Presentation. Available online at: https://evogov.s3.amazonaws.com/media/17/media/22671.pdf. _____. 2017. Financial Statements – June 30, 2017. Received August 2020. _____. 2018a. Management Report For Year Ended June 30, 2018. Received August 2020. _____. 2018b. Five Year Strategic Plan. Available online at: https://www.eldoradocountyfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ECF-Stragtic-Plan- 2018.pdf. _____. June 30, 2019a. Financial Report with Independent Auditor’s Report Theron. Contributions form Fechter & Company, Certified Public Accountants. 40 pages. Available online at: https://www.eldoradocountyfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/2019-ECF-FPD-FS- FINAL.pdf. _____. 2019b. Financial Report With Independent Auditor’s Report Thereon – June 30, 2019. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. 2019c. Notice of All-Mail Election on August 27, 2019. Available online at: https://www.eldoradocountyfire.com/wp- content/uploads/2019/06/ElDoradoFD1_TBWB_Notice_2a.pdf. _____. 2020. ECF Preliminary Budget 2020-21. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. January 29, 2020b. Fire Development Impact Fee Justification Study for the El Dorado County Fire Protection District. San Jose, CA. 26-pages. Available online at: https://www.eldoradocountyfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/February-18-2021-full- packet.pdf. Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-66 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final _____. 2020c. 2020 Annual Report. 15-pages. Available online at: https://www.eldoradocountyfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/2020-Annual-Report- Final.pdf. El Dorado Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). August 2011. Countywide Fire Suppression and Emergency Services Municipal Service Review. 253-pages. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/municipal-service-reviews-and-spheres-of-influence. _____. 2019a. Fire District Survey: Fire Suppression Agency Questionnaire. Received August 2020. _____. February 2019b. Profile of El Dorado County Fire Prevention District. 1-page. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/files/08bd73197/EDCFireProtectionDistrict_2019.pdf. _____. 2020a. Request for Information: Fire Protection & Emergency Services Municipal Service Review & Sphere of Influence Update. Received August 2020. _____. 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. 2-pages. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/. Fire Safe Council for El Dorado County (FSC-EDC). 2016. Maps of Fuel Mitigation. Available online at: https://www.edcfiresafe.org/cwpp/maps/. Hodson, Dawn. (2016, March 17). El Dorado County fire district considering special tax. Available online at: https://www.mtdemocrat.com/news/el-dorado-county-fire-district-considering-special-tax/. Transparent California and Nevada Policy Research Institute. 2021. Wage data download for the year 2018. Available online at: https://transparentcalifornia.com/. U.S. Census Bureau. 2019. American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles as of 2019. TableID: DP05. Queried for the Diamond Springs Census Designated Place. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=diamond%20springs&tid=ACSDP5Y2019.DP05&hidePr eview=false. Wong, L. (2019, August 30). El Dorado County Votes Down Measure B. Available online at: https://fox40.com/news/local-news/el-dorado-county-votes-down-measure-b/. Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-67 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II El Dorado County Fire Protection District Page 4-68 of 4-68 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Chapter 5. El Dorado Hills County Water District This chapter details the district formation, boundary, government structure, population and land use, disadvantaged communities, finances, and the provision of fire protection and emergency medical services provided by the El Dorado Hills County Water District, dba the El Dorado Hills Fire Department (EDH, District, or Department) as well as the Municipal Service Review (MSR) determinations for this district. Table of Contents 5.1 Agency Profile ..................................................................................................................5-5 5.1.1 Agency Overview ................................................................................................................................... 5-5 5.2 Agency Formation and Boundary ......................................................................................5-6 5.2.1 Formation .............................................................................................................................................. 5-6 5.2.2 District Boundary................................................................................................................................... 5-6 5.2.3 Existing Sphere of Influence .................................................................................................................. 5-8 5.2.4 Proposed Annexation ............................................................................................................................ 5-8 5.2.5 Extra-Territorial Services ....................................................................................................................... 5-9 5.3 District Governance and Accountability ............................................................................5-9 5.3.1 Government Structure .......................................................................................................................... 5-9 5.3.2 District Board......................................................................................................................................... 5-9 5.3.3 Accountability ..................................................................................................................................... 5-11 5.3.4 Management Efficiencies and Staffing ............................................................................................... 5-12 5.3.5 Staffing and Training ........................................................................................................................... 5-13 5.4 Growth and Population Forecasts ................................................................................... 5-15 5.4.1 Existing Population .............................................................................................................................. 5-15 Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-1 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 5.4.1 Existing Population in SOI ................................................................................................................... 5-16 5.4.2 Projected Population Growth ............................................................................................................. 5-17 5.4.3 Existing Land Use ................................................................................................................................. 5-17 5.4.4 Potential Future Development ........................................................................................................... 5-18 5.4.5 Open Space and Agriculture ............................................................................................................... 5-19 5.4.6 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities.................................................................................... 5-20 5.5 Public Services and Infrastructure ................................................................................... 5-20 5.5.1 Service Overview ................................................................................................................................. 5-20 5.5.2 Fire and Emergency Response ............................................................................................................ 5-21 5.5.3 Mutual Aid, Automatic Aid, Other Agreements .................................................................................. 5-26 5.5.4 Dispatch ............................................................................................................................................... 5-28 5.5.5 Emergency Access ............................................................................................................................... 5-29 5.5.6 Fire Hazard Zones ................................................................................................................................ 5-29 5.5.7 Infrastructure ...................................................................................................................................... 5-31 5.5.8 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies ................................................................................................ 5-36 5.5.9 Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing ................................................................................................. 5-38 5.6 Financial Ability to Provide Services ................................................................................ 5-39 5.6.1 Financial Policies and Transparency ................................................................................................... 5-39 5.6.2 Department Revenues and Expenditures ........................................................................................... 5-40 5.6.3 Department Assets and Liabilities....................................................................................................... 5-44 5.6.4 Net Position ......................................................................................................................................... 5-45 5.6.5 Asset Maintenance and Replacement ................................................................................................ 5-45 5.6.6 Cost Avoidance .................................................................................................................................... 5-46 5.6.7 Financial Summary and Ability to Provide Services ............................................................................ 5-46 5.7 Determinations .............................................................................................................. 5-48 5.8 References ..................................................................................................................... 5-55 Table of Tables Table 5-1: Geographic Summary (2020) of Fire Protection Services for EDH ........................................... 5-8 Table 5-2: El Dorado Hills Fire Department Board of Directors ................................................................ 5-9 Table 5-3: Current Staffing Levels for the EDH by Type and Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) ........................ 5-13 Table 5-4: EDH Existing Population (2020) .............................................................................................. 5-15 Table 5-5: EDH Housing and Population per Station Response Area ...................................................... 5-16 Table 5-6: Total Estimated and Projected Population (2020 – 2040) ..................................................... 5-17 Table 5-7: Acreage Designated in the General Plan as Open Space, Agriculture, and Natural Resources within the EDH Boundary and SOI ........................................................................................................... 5-20 Table 5-8: EDH Public Services ................................................................................................................. 5-20 Table 5-9: Average Response Times for EDH from 2010 to 2019 ........................................................... 5-25 Table 5-10: Automatic Aid Provided and Received from/to EDH, 2019.................................................. 5-27 Table 5-11: EDH Fire Hazard Severity Zone Acreage and Percentage ..................................................... 5-31 Table 5-12: EDH Local, State and Federal Responsibility Area Acreage and Percentage ....................... 5-31 Table 5-13: EDH Fire Stations Detail ........................................................................................................ 5-31 Table 5-14: Apparatus and Light Vehicles, 2020 ..................................................................................... 5-33 Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-2 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 5-15: Utility and Staff Vehicles, 2020 ............................................................................................. 5-34 Table 5-16: Trailers and Water Rescue Apparatus, 2020 ........................................................................ 5-34 Table 5-17: Apparatus Replacement Schedule ........................................................................................ 5-36 Table 5-18: Summary of MSR Determinations for the EDH .................................................................... 5-48 Table of Figures Figure 5-1: El Dorado Hills Fire Department Service Area and SOI ........................................................... 5-7 Figure 5-2: Wages and Benefits, EDH Staff (2019) .................................................................................. 5-14 Figure 5-3: New Development in EDH and RES (2020) ............................................................................ 5-19 Figure 5-4: EDH Medic 85 Response to Incidents by Type, 2019 ............................................................ 5-22 Figure 5-5: EDH Calls for Service from 2010-2019 .................................................................................. 5-23 Figure 5-6: EDH Calls for Service by Type, 2019 ...................................................................................... 5-24 Figure 5-7: EDH Number of Calls by Station 2015-2019 .......................................................................... 5-24 Figure 5-8: Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Responsibility Areas for EDH .............................................. 5-30 Figure 5-9: EDH Total Revenues & Expenditures from FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 ............... 5-41 Figure 5-10: EDH Net Revenues Over/Under Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 .. 5-43 Figure 5-11: Department Assets as of June 30, 2019 .............................................................................. 5-44 Figure 5-12: Department Liabilities and Debt as of June 30, 2019 ......................................................... 5-45 Figure 5-13: Department Net Position as of June 30, 2019 .................................................................... 5-45 Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-3 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-4 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 5.1 Agency Profile 5.1.1 Agency Overview Consistent with its enabling legislation (County Water District Act; California Water Code Section 30000 et. seq.) the El Dorado Hills County Water District is empowered to exercise its authority to operate as a Fire Protection District pursuant to the Fire Protection District Act. Today, the El Dorado Hills County Water District is also known as the El Dorado Hills Fire Department (EDH or Department). Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-5 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The El Dorado Hills Fire Department provides fire suppression, emergency medical services, special and technical rescue, hazardous materials mitigation, fire prevention, public education, disaster preparedness, and support to many community-based programs within the 79 square mile boundary area encompassing the communities of El Dorado Hills and Latrobe. Additionally, EDH has a Shared Services agreement, with the Rescue Fire Protection District (RES). EDH’s fire stations are strategically located throughout its service area, utilizing a variety of equipment (LAFCO, 2020a). 5.2 Agency Formation and Boundary 5.2.1 Formation The El Dorado Hills Fire Department was formed in 1960 by LAFCO Resolution No. 65-60. The Department was formed for the purpose of providing fire protection services and emergency medical services (LAFCO, 2020b). 5.2.2 District Boundary The El Dorado Hills County Water District geographic boundary encompasses approximately 50,798 acres (or 79.4 square miles) as seen in Figure 5-1. The EDH is located within the southwest portion of the County of El Dorado and includes a small portion of Sacramento County (196 acres). That portion of the EDH boundary area located within Sacramento County is also inside the City of Folsom’s city limit. The Department is bounded on the west by the City of Folsom in Sacramento County; on the north by Folsom Lake; on the east by Cameron Park Community Services District (CAM), El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF) and Rescue Fire Protection District (RES); and on the south by Amador County Fire Protection District in Amador County. The boundary includes 20,314 assessor parcels (EDC, 2020a). In 2014, EDH annexed the Latrobe Fire Protection District1, a rural area of 23,000 acres. The Department has annexed several additional parcels since the last Municipal Service Review (2011) as follows: • APN: 126-100-024, Diamante Estates Reorg (now Vineyards at EDH), approximately 42 lots on approximately 113 acres, effective March 2018 • APN: 126-490-001 and APN: 126-490-002, Malcom Dixon Estates Reorg, 8 lots on approximately 40 acres, effective March 2018 • APN: 126-100-019, Alto Reorg, 23 lots on approximately 82 acres, effective August 2012 1 Details on EDH 2014 annexation of the Latrobe Fire Protection District are available on the EDH website: https://www.edhfire.com/news-events/news/latrobe-fire-protection-district-annexation-update Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-6 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 5-1: El Dorado Hills Fire Department Service Area and SOI El Dorado Hills County Water District/ Fire Protection District and Sphere of Influence Rd. LLAAKKEE HHIILLLL Fran SS cisco Dr. Lakeh ills D r. Mal S c al m o on m Falls DixonRd. D DDE e E Le EE r RR o V VV c a A l A l a e LL y L t L R E i E d o . YY n ##88 33 in County ##8844 GreenValleyRd. S E lD orado ilva Valley R H ills P k d. SerranoPrkwy. w .y Rd. WWIILLSSOONN BBLLVVDD ##8855 BBAASS # S # S 88 LL 66 AAKKEE Lake ssaB 50 Rd. Rock White GGOOLLDDEENN FFOOOOTTHHIILLLL ##8877 RRYYAANN RRAANNCCHH ##9922 LatrobeRd. BrandonRd. SSAACCRRAAMMEENNTTOO CCOOUUNNTTYY SouthShingleRd. SSOOUUTTHH SSHHIINNGGLLEE ##9911 FIRE STATIONS Staffed Staffed Part Time Not Staffed AAMMAADDOORR CCOOUUNNTTYY Minor Roads El Do16rado Hills CWD/FPD El Dorado Hills CWD/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. Figure X-X Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-7 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 5.2.3 Existing Sphere of Influence This section briefly describes the existing Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the El Dorado Hills Fire Department. El Dorado LAFCO most recently reaffirmed the SOI for the EDH on August 27, 2014 via Resolution No. L- 2014-07. The District’s SOI encompasses approximately 1,376 acres and includes 53 parcels as shown in Table 5-1 below. The SOI can be characterized as seven different pocket areas located either directly adjacent to the boundary or in the interior of the boundary as shown in Figure 7-1. Table 5-1: Geographic Summary (2020) of Fire Protection Services for EDH Boundary Area SOI Total Boundary (All Services) (All Services) & SOI Total Acres 50,798 1,376 52,174 Square Miles 79.4 2.2 81.6 Number of Assessor Parcels 20,314 53 20,367 Source: EDC GIS Data, 2020 The El Dorado Hills Fire Department SOI boundary area includes a small 196-acre area in the City of Folsom. Of the District’s total 50,798 acres, 196 of those acres are located in Sacramento County. The 196 acres encompasses 24 assessor parcels in Sacramento County and are located on the west side of the Department, just south of State Highway 50. When considering the existing viability of the SOI, EDH staff indicated that in the future (if LAFCO approves expansion of the boundary) the provision of service to the SOI areas could be possible. EDH provides service to the existing SOI (Chief Johnson, personal communication, September 2021). 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 (LAFCO, 2020a). In addition, the District has a planned fire station in the Marble Valley Specific Area that would be the closest responding emergency resource to the Lime Rock Valley Specific Plan Area (LRVSP). 5.2.4 Proposed Annexation Over the past several years, Rescue Fire Protection District (RES) has experienced inadequate revenue and increasing costs associated with the provision of fire protection and emergency medical services as detailed in the MSR Chapter for RES, Volume II – Chapter 13. In an effort to share resources and reduce costs, RES entered into a “shared services agreement” with EDH in October 2013, which covers administrative services, training, fire protection, and human resources. This agreement was later revised to include the sharing of the El Dorado Hills Fire Department Fire Chief. A proposed annexation would formalize the shared operations between EDH and RES into a single agency and would implement a strategy to help ensure adequate community protection and long-term financial sustainability. As part of the proposed annexation process, EDH would annex Rescue Fire Protection District and assume responsibility for providing fire services in Rescue’s service territory. EDH would also assume all of RES’s assets and financial obligations and RES would cease to exist. Annexation of RES into EDH would provide reciprocal benefits to both agencies. RES would benefit from EDH’s regional and Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-8 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final specialized resources, while EDH would benefit from the additional advanced Life Support Engine Company that would be staffed within RES’s jurisdiction (LAFCO, 2020a). 5.2.5 Extra-Territorial Services The EDH does not generally provide extra-territorial services outside of its District boundary (LAFCO, 2020a). The exception to this is the Shared Services Agreement with RES and the automatic aid system deployed with neighboring fire agencies and other state fire service providers in the County as described in Section 5.5.3, below. Therefore, these services provided outside the boundary are not considered to be Out-of-Agency Services. 5.3 District Governance and Accountability This section describes how performance, accountability, transparency, and public engagement relate to the public’s trust in local government. LAFCO is required by the CKH Act to make specific determinations regarding a special district’s government structure and accountability. 5.3.1 Government Structure The EDH is a local government agency structured as a County Water District consistent with its Principal Act: County Water District Act; California Water Code Section 30000, et seq. The District has five elected Board Members who reside within the community. All registered voters, who reside within the Department boundary are eligible to vote for and/or run for a seat on the District Board. The District Board appoints the Fire Chief, who also serves as the General Manager. 5.3.2 District Board The District operates under the direction of the elected District Board. Each elected Board Member serves a term of four years with two Board Member seats running two years apart from the remaining three seats. A new Board President is selected by the Board Members each year. The Board President assigns Directors to the Board’s committees. The District’s active committees include the Administrative Committee, Communications Committee, Finance Committee, and the Training Center Ad Hoc Committee. The current Board of Directors members, their committee appointments, and the expiration dates of their terms are shown in Table 5-2 below. Table 5-2: El Dorado Hills Fire Department Board of Directors Name Title Term End Committee Appointments Administrative Committee and Jim Hartley President Dec. 2022 Training Center Committee (Ad-Hoc) Tim White Vice President Dec. 2022 Training Center Committee (Ad-Hoc) Communications Committee and Greg Durante Member Dec. 2022 Administrative Committee John Giraudo Member Dec. 2024 Finance Committee Finance Committee and Communications Bobbi Bennet Member Dec. 2024 Committee Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-9 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Name Title Term End Committee Appointments Source: LAFCO, 2020a; LAFCO, 2019a The Department holds regular public meetings on the third Thursday of each month at 5:30 PM at the main fire station located at 1050 Wilson Blvd., El Dorado Hills, CA. Board members are eligible to receive a stipend of $100 per attendance at regular and special Board meetings (LAFCO, 2019a). Board members have received a $100 per meeting stipend for a number of years. In 2018 the Board voted to keep the stipend amount at $100.00 (Chief Johnson, personal communication, September 2021). Health benefits, retirement benefits, and mileage reimbursements are not offered to Board members (LAFCO, 2019a). The Department has not experienced difficulty in attracting candidates to run for the Board of Directors (LAFCO, 2019a). The most recent election for Board positions saw candidates run unopposed; although this can vary from election to election (LAFCO, 2019a). In California, elected members of special district boards are required to comply with three laws regarding accountability and ethics: 1) the Political Reform Act; 2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005), which requires ethics training; and 3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. which mandates sexual harassment prevention training. A description of each of these three state laws is provided in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Political Reform Act Each Special District in California is required to have ethics and conflict of interest code/policies. The Department has a conflict-of-interest code pursuant to Government Code Section 87300 and 87306. This code was updated in August 2020 pursuant to Government Code Section 87302 to designate employees who must disclose certain investments, income, interests in real property and business positions, and who must disqualify themselves from making or participating in the making of governmental decisions affecting those interests. EDH’s conflict of interest code adopted by Resolution No. 2016-08 is available to the public on the Department’s website at: https://www.edhfire.com/about-us/administration/form- 700#. The Political Reform Act also requires special district board members to disclose all personal economic interests by filing a “Statement of Economic Interests” with their District or the County Elections Office, consistent with guidelines from the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). EDH Board members have filed the required Statement of Economic Interest with the County. Information available from the FPPC indicates that Board members are complying with the Political Reform Act. Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005) Local government officials are required to take ethics training every two years. Compliance with this law was assessed for each of the fourteen fire agencies studied in this MSR by asking the Clerk of the District Board for the dates and other documentation of training events. EHD’s Board Clerk reports that training has been conducted on a regular basis from January through February 2021. Therefore, EDH’s Board is in compliance with AB 1234 (EDH Staff, personal communication, September 2021). Government Code 53237 et. seq. Special district board members must receive required sexual harassment prevention, two-hour training, every two years. Compliance with this law was assessed for each of the fourteen fire agencies studied in Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-10 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final this MSR by asking the Clerk of the District Board for the dates and other documentation of training events. EDH’s Board Clerk reports that training has been conducted on a regular basis and specifically in November 2019. Therefore, EDH’s Board is in compliance with GC 53237 et. seq. 5.3.3 Accountability Brown Act The details of the Brown Act are described in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. All meetings of the District Board and committees are open to the public in accordance with the Brown Act. The agenda for each meeting includes a public comment period and agendas are made available 72 hours before meetings. Any written document that relates to an agenda item is available for public inspection at the same time the agenda packet is distributed to the members of the Board of Directors. Written documents are made available at the District Office and on the Department website at: https://www.edhfire.com/ 2016-08-19-16-39-34/meeting-information. The Department and its representatives have a solid record of adherence to the meeting notice portion of the Brown Act requirements. The State Legislature updated the Brown Act in 2016 as codified in Government Code §54954.2 (see also Assembly Bill 2257). These new Brown Act requirements are detailed in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. EDH makes the most recent/upcoming meeting agenda available directly on the Department home page of its website. Additionally, agendas, packets, and other details for full Board meetings and Committee meetings are available electronically at: https://www.edhfire.com/2016-08-19- 16-39-34/meeting-information. The Department website agenda distribution complies with the requirements of the Brown Act 2016 Updates described in AB 2257. Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20 suspended parts of the Brown Act that require in-person attendance of Board members and citizens at public meetings as described in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. The EDH Board of Directors continued to meet in person during the pandemic timeframe (year 2020/21). However, in response to these events, the Department altered its meeting protocols effective April 2020 to allow for public participation by submitting comments in writing to inquiries@edhfire.com. EDH staff entered those comments into the public record. This alternative method for submitting comments was detailed on the Board’s meeting agenda. Additionally, starting in December 2020, the Board meetings were streamed live online via Zoom. The link to this meeting platform was shared with the public on each meeting agenda. The public was invited to participate directly at the meetings by offering comments on items by using the “raise a hand” button or pressing *9 if dialing in by phone. Public comments were limited to 3 minutes. Special District Transparency Act (SB 929) The Districts website offers several informative features related to the Special District Transparency Act. Past meeting agendas, board packets, and minutes are posted to the website in a timely fashion with historic documents available back to at least 2020. The website offers an online form that the public can utilize to directly contact the EDH to ask questions or to share information. EDH contact information including the mailing address and an email address are also provided. The District’s annual budget and certified annual financial statements from 2011 to 2019 are available on the Department’s website. The Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-11 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final website provide compensation information in the form of posting compensation of officers and employees on the Department website and provides a link to the Controller’s Government Compensation website for California. EDH website contains a plethora of public information related to the many community services it provides including: CPR classes, wood chipping, information on fire hydrants, hazardous waste, life jacket loaners, safe surrender, burn permits, PG&E Power Shutoff details, the Santa Run, vegetation management, disaster preparedness, and Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) training opportunities. Improving the availability of EDH staff compensation reports on the Department website is recommended. The EDH website complies with the requirements of the Special District Transparency Act (EDH, 2021). More information on the SB 929 can be found in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. General Accountability The EDH demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with El Dorado LAFCO. The District cooperated with LAFCO’s requests for information and participated in an interview with the MSR consultants. Additionally, the Board’s policy manual and the Board’s Bylaws are readily available on the EDH website as downloadable PDF files. EDH, along with all the fire protection districts in El Dorado County, have recently been the subject of a grand jury report (EDC, 2020b). The Grand Jury posits in Case No. 19-06 that, while it made sense historically, the only reason there are multiple fire agencies in El Dorado County is because of “strong loyalty to a local home district,” coming “at the expense of the County as a whole.” The Grand Jury concludes that the insufficient revenues afforded to rural districts puts a strain on the mutual and automatic aid system as a whole; forcing more financially stable districts to “subsidize” the rural ones by having the former respond to calls when the latter is unable to do so. The issues raised in the grand jury report remain valid (LAFCO, 2020c). Changes to the governmental structure of some fire protection districts are needed to address these issues. The Fire Chief for EDH notes that the Grand Jury did not focus on a problem with EDH and no changes to the governance structure have been identified for the District or requested of the District as a result of the report (Chief Johnson, personal communication, September 2021). 5.3.4 Management Efficiencies and Staffing The Fire Chief is appointed by and reports to the Board and is responsible for directing Department operations and overseeing and implementing policies on behalf of the Board. An important part of management effectiveness includes the Department adopting a mission statement and/or vision statement. The EDH Mission Statement is: We, the El Dorado Hills Fire Department, exist to serve and protect the Community through emergency management. The most recent update to the Strategic Plan for the Department was adopted on June 15, 2017 by the District Board of Directors. It is a community driven strategic plan that outlines community expectations and concerns (EDH, 2017). As of September 2021, the District is finalizing the 2024 Strategic Plan (Chief Johnson, personal communication, September 2021). Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-12 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 5.3.5 Staffing and Training EDH staff include paramedic firefighters, emergency medical technician firefighters, support staff, and interns. Detailed full-time personnel information can be seen in Table 5-3 below. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) calls for a standard of four staff per engine and truck company (4-0) model (NFPA, 2020). A three staff per engine and truck company (3-0) model is acceptable as a minimum standard for this MRS/SOI Update. More information on staffing levels can be found in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. The Department utilizes a blend of staffing models and currently follows the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) recommendation of four firefighters per engine (or 4-0 model) for the truck company and the minimum standard of three firefighters per engine (or 3-0 model) for all fire stations except for one. Only one fire station is staffed below the National and minimum standard at (2-0) staffing, Station No. 91 out of the Latrobe fire station, which was annexed to the District in 2014 (Chief Johnson, personal communication, April 12, 2021). More information on the staffing of Station No. 91 can be found in Section 5.5.7. Table 5-3: Current Staffing Levels for the EDH by Type and Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Position FTE Count as of July 1, 2020 Compared to 2018 Fire Chief 1 1 Deputy Fire Chief 2 2 Battalion Chief 3 2 Fire Marshal 1 1 Firefighter/Paramedic 56 58 Training Officer 1 0 Officer Support Staff 6 5 Support Volunteers (CERT) 4 0 Total 74 73 Source: LAFCO, 2020a; 2019a EDH does not currently use volunteer firefighters. EDH conducts staff recruitments based on projected retirements. The Department has been able to successfully recruit and train seven interns in the last two years (LAFCO, 2019a). EDH carefully monitors staffing levels to actively maintain the (3-0) or (4-0) staffing on apparatus that is needed for in the course of modern-day fire department activities. El Dorado County dispatches more than one resource to most calls due to inadequate staffing. EDH will dispatch additional units as needed or if caller information triggers additional response (Chief Johnson, personal communication, September 2020; August 2021). This ensures adequate personnel on scene to meet firefighter safety standards set by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal OSHA) and the NFPA. Since the El Dorado Hills Fire Department has five career staffed stations it does not experience challenges with staffing (LAFCO, 2019a). The five stations are staffed on a 24/7/365 basis. Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-13 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final There were six staff positions funded by the Emergency Services Authority in the year 2018. If this funding source were to disappear, the Department would no longer be able to absorb those salary costs with its current revenues, and no alternative source of funding has been identified for these six positions (LAFCO, 2019a). Staffing for the EDH is augmented by its participation in the automatic aid, boundary drop system that automatically deploys the closest available resource through dispatch to respond to incidents throughout the County of El Dorado (LAFCO, 2020a). Chief Johnson states that the District’s participation in the automatic aid, boundary drop system does not necessarily augment EDH staffing, but is simply a best practice to get the closest resource to a given incident (Chief Johnson, personal communication, September 2021). The EDH receives advantages from participating in this network of collaborating fire agencies which decreases response times. EDH does meet a minimum (3-0) staffing model, which allows for companies to immediately begin fire suppression tactics without waiting for additional resources to arrive to the call. Salaries and other payments to staff were queried using the California State Controller Government Compensation reports. Date was pulled for 2019. In 2019, EDH had a total of 79 staff (non-board members) who received salaries and benefits. Seven full-time staff received wages, benefits, and/or overtime pay, which exceeded $250,000 annually, as shown in Figure 5-2. There were 21 full-time or part- time employees who received wages, benefits, and/or overtime pay which exceeded $200,000 (but less than $250,000). The remaining full-time and part-time employees earned less than $200,000 in annual wages, benefits, and/or overtime pay (CSC, 2021). Figure 5-2: Wages and Benefits, EDH Staff (2019) $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 Individual Employees Regular Pay Overtime Pay Other Pay Defined Benefit Plan Contribution Employees Retirement Cost Covered Health/Dental/Vision Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-14 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Training The EDH Fire Department staff receives regular, structured training on a monthly basis through a designated training division, the EDH Training Division, within the Department. In general, staff have a monthly training goal of 20 hours with opportunities to meet this goal through topic specific trainings. Some examples of topics include elevator rescue drills, policy reviews, emergency medical topics such as allergic reaction protocols, driver trainings, and much more (LAFCO, 2020a). The EDH Training Division has committed to maintaining a high skill level and meeting industry standards for training. For example, the Insurance Service Office (ISO) industry-standard requires twenty hours of fire-based training per month. This standard is met through single-engine company and multi-company drills encompassing everything from hose evolutions and vehicle extrication to wildland fire drills. The Training Division also emphasizes continuous medical training for the crews, so they are current on new medical concepts and techniques (LAFCO, 2019a). Complaints During the years 2018 and 2019, the Department received no complaints (LAFCO, 2020a). 5.4 Growth and Population Forecasts The growth and population projections for the affected area are determinations which LAFCO is required to describe, consistent with the MSR Guidelines from the Office of Planning & Research (OPR) as set forth in the CKH Act. This section provides information on the existing population and future growth projections for the EDH. Historical and anticipated population growth are factors which affects service demand. 5.4.1 Existing Population The current permanent population within the EDH boundaries is estimated to range from a low of 33,924 to a high of 51,348 as of 2020. There are 11,113 registered voters within the EDH boundaries (LAFCO, 2019b). The U.S. Census and the CA Department of Finance provides population estimates for communities. The El Dorado Hills area is a ‘census designated place’ as defined by the U.S. Census. The census data also calculates there are 2.95 persons per household in El Dorado Hills. The 2020 Census data is not yet available online for the El Dorado Hills area. It should be noted that census tracts do not directly correspond with special district boundaries; however, the data provides a close approximation to the existing population for the Department. Table 5-4 lists the range of population data and calculations for the EDH. Detailed information regarding population demographics and socio-economic indicators in El Dorado County is provided in Volume I - Appendix A and Appendix B. Table 5-4: EDH Existing Population (2020) Population in existing Number of Registered Population in SOI only boundary area only Voters in Boundary Low Estimate1 33,924 89 Medium Estimate2 42,108 106 11,113 High Estimate3 51,348 134 Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-15 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Population in existing Number of Registered Population in SOI only boundary area only Voters in Boundary Sources: 1 Low Estimate Calculated based Calculated estimate based a total of 115,412 parcels in the County of El Dorado with an average of 1.67 persons per parcel in El Dorado County and 20,314 parcels within the EDH boundary. 2 Medium Estimate based on Data from 2010 US Census Quick Facts for the El Dorado Hills Census Designated Place as detailed: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/eldoradohillscdpcalifornia. 3High Estimate based upon data provided by EDH, 2020e. The high population estimate was calculated using data in the EDH Annual Report for 2020 which contains an estimate about the number of housing units within each fire station response area as listed in Table 5-5. This calculation is used to forecast future population growth as it is likely the most accurate due to the use of housing units at 2.95 persons per household. Table 5-5: EDH Housing and Population per Station Response Area Fire Station Estimated Number of Estimated Address Number Housing Units Population 2180 Francisco Drive, 84 5,536 16,331 El Dorado Hills 1050 Wilson Boulevard, 85 4,017 11,850 El Dorado Hills 3670 Bass Lake Road, 86 3,604 10,631 El Dorado Hills 4680 Golden Foothill Parkway, 87 3,944 11,634 El Dorado Hills 7660 South Shingle Road, Shingle 91 237 699 Springs 7470 Ryan Ranch Road, 92 69 203 El Dorado Hills Total 17,407 51,348 Data Source: EDH, 2020e. Notes: Population calculated based on 2.95 persons per household per U.S. Census. According to Department personnel, there are no special events within the EDH service area that cause population spikes. In addition to the permanent residents, the El Dorado Hills area sees a daytime worker and visitor population of up to 10,000 persons (LAFCO, 2020a). 5.4.1 Existing Population in SOI The population within EDH’s SOI and outside the Department Boundary is estimated to be 89 people for a “Low Estimate” based upon an average number of 1.67 persons per Assessor’s Parcel as shown in Table 7-6, above. The “High Estimate” of 135 persons permanently residing in the SOI (LAFCO, 2020a). Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-16 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 5.4.2 Projected Population Growth Projecting future population for a Special District is complicated due to census tracts that do not match with District boundaries. For purposes of this MSR, data from the California Department of Finance (DOF) was used to project population growth as shown in Table 5-6. The DOF provides population projections at the County level and the growth rate for the County of El Dorado is utilized to extrapolate population growth rates for the El Dorado Hills Fire Department. By the year 2040, it is estimated that EDH’s existing boundary will encompass a population of 56,650 persons. This represents an average annual growth rate of 0.516 percent between the years of 2020 and 2040. Table 5-6: Total Estimated and Projected Population (2020 – 2040) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 The County of El Dorado1 193,227 201,041 207,496 211,537 213,033 El Dorado Hills County Water District2 51,348 53,461 55,177 56,252 56,650 Sources: 1California 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. 2Population projection for EDH calculated as a percentage (0.26592) of the County of El Dorado. The projected growth rate for the County of El Dorado anticipates development throughout the entire County and therefore the addition of 5,302 more people to the EDH by 2040 is possible as the District has undeveloped areas within existing boundaries that could potentially be available for more intensive residential development. In addition, the County Board of Supervisors has approved several new residential developments in the area which will add future population to the District. It is likely that population may grow faster than projected based on the number of planned, in planning, and under construction projects in the District’s boundary. 5.4.3 Existing Land Use Land-use is a factor that affects population growth and therefore demand for public services. However, the EDH is not a land use authority. 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 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. Some Research & Development uses are located along the west side of Latrobe Road south of Highway 50, and include large campus complexes as well as commercial and residential development. There is also the Town Center development at Highway 50 and Latrobe Road which includes a movie theatre, hotel, box retail, office space, and a water feature. Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-17 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final County General Plan The District’s boundary area is entirely unincorporated and subject to the land use policies and regulations of the County of El Dorado. Most land-use decisions, initiated by private property owners over the last decade, are secured via entitlements and land-use permits from the County and other agencies. The County plans for its future growth through its General Plan, which is a long-term comprehensive framework to guide physical, social, and economic development within the community’s planning area. The County of El Dorado’s General Plan was adopted in 2004. Individual elements have since been updated on an individual basis. The 2013-2021 Housing Element was adopted in October 2013, with the most recent update occurring to the Land Use Element in August 2019. The community of El Dorado Hills is designated as a “Community Region” on the General Plan land use map, and this designation also establishes an urban limit line. Community Regions define those areas of highest intensity of self- sustaining compact urban-type development or suburban type development. Land uses within the Department boundaries are high density single-family residential, multi-family, retail, office, research and development, and open space. There are also numerous specific plans within the District boundary that establishes land uses in those areas. Boundaries of existing Community Regions can be modified through a General Plan amendment (EDC, 2019). 5.4.4 Potential Future Development Future population growth within the El Dorado Hills community is dependent upon zoning and General Plan policies and land-use designations in the region. The County of El Dorado General Plan serves as the County’s vision for long-term land use development and conservation. The Plan, adopted in July 2004 and amended in 2019, provides a series of goals, policies, standards, and implementation programs to guide land use, development, and environmental quality in the County. In August 2019, the County of El Dorado Board of Supervisors adopted the General Plan Land Use Element amendment. The Land Use Element identifies goals and policies to guide development throughout unincorporated areas of the County. There are some proposed and current projects that could potentially impact the District by increasing the demand for services. The Department is tracking 41 development projects as of July 2021 in the EDH boundary and RES boundary. A complete list of projects can be found on the Department website at: https://edhfire2019trial.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapTour/index.html?appid=50fcf38540764e1fa54afea2 4e940e57#. This list is kept up to date by Department staff. A map of the location for these projects can be seen in Figure 5-3. Of the 41 projects, 12 are in the planning stages and include: • Village of Marble Valley Specific Plan – Development of approximately 2,300+ homes partially within the EDH boundary with commercial and one additional fire station; • Oakmont Town Center West – Senior condominiums, apartments, and a recreation center with 2 to 4 story buildings; • Costco – Development of a Costco warehouse and gas station; and • Creekside Village – Development of 926 single family homes, 14.3 acres of parks and 46.3 acres of open space with walking trails, bike paths and a community center. Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-18 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 5-3: New Development in EDH and RES (2020) In addition, 10 projects are in review, 16 are approved and under construction, and three projects have been completed. 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. 5.4.5 Open Space and Agriculture El Dorado LAFCO’s policies require that an MSR/SOI offer a determination about the effect that a district’s service provision will have on open space and agricultural lands. For purposes of this MSR analysis, open space data was derived from the County General Plan land-use data. The Department’s boundary includes approximately 1,450 acres of open space and 9,151 acres of agriculture. A breakdown of open space, natural resources, and agricultural land located within the Department boundary and Sphere of Influence (SOI) can be seen in Table 5-7. Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-19 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 5-7: Acreage Designated in the General Plan as Open Space, Agriculture, and Natural Resources within the EDH Boundary and SOI Boundary Only (in acres) SOI Only (by itself) (in acres) Open space Agriculture Natural Resources Open space Agriculture Natural Resources 1,450 9,151 2,294 139 363 0 Source: EDC, 2020a Natural Resource lands are calculated to be approximately 2,294 acres within the District boundary. EDH’s effect on open space lands is minimal. LAFCO has an interest in documenting the conversion of agricultural and open space lands to other land use types, such as residential use. EDH fire protection services do not play a role in these types of land-use conversions. 5.4.6 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities As detailed in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information, a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) is an unincorporated area of a County in which the annual median household income (MHI) is less than 80 percent of the statewide MHI. This analysis uses Census Block Groups to determine DUCs because this level of analysis provides the most uniform income data available statewide. Data for this report was collected from the 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, at the census block group level. Within the boundaries of EDH there are no Census Block Groups that meet the DUC threshold (DWR, 2019). Therefore, no consideration for essential services is necessary. 5.5 Public Services and Infrastructure 5.5.1 Service Overview The El Dorado Hills County Water District provides a range of fire suppression and emergency services to residents within its boundaries. District services include fire prevention inspections and code enforcement; fire response and suppression; fire investigation; emergency medical services (EMS); special operations, such as rescue, vehicle extraction, and hazardous materials response; fire department administration and staff training; public safety education, including Community Emergency Response Training (CERT); and response to other public emergencies (LAFCO, 2020a). The EDH is an established County Water District and it is the primary service provider for fire protection services within the District boundaries. These services benefit local residents within its boundary as detailed in Table 5-8, below. Table 5-8: EDH Public Services Service Provider Structural Fire Protection EDH Wildland Fire Protection EDH Emergency Medical Response EDH Rescue/Extrication EDH Hazardous Materials EDH and El Dorado County Water Supply El Dorado Irrigation District Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-20 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Service Provider Dispatch Contract w/ CAL FIRE Camino ECC Training EDH Fire Safety Education EDH Arson Investigations EDH Source: (LAFCO, 2020a) Structural Fire Protection Post-fire investigation and research indicates that flying embers cause most home ignitions during wildfires. Individual homeowners can protect their property from the financial risk associated with structural fire by purchasing homeowner’s insurance with fire coverage. Purchasing this homeowner’s insurance has gotten more difficult in recent years. For example, in the County of El Dorado, during the year 2016, over 1,000 homeowners lost access to their homeowner’s insurance policy due to non-renewal by insurance companies (California Department of Insurance, 2018). 5.5.2 Fire and Emergency Response EDH’s approach to fire suppression of structures is to be aggressive and attack fires early with carefully managed distribution of fire engines and associated apparatus. Since the Department participates in the automatic aid/boundary drop system throughout the County, all firefighters within each fire agency in the County must be prepared for any type of emergency in any setting at all times. EDH staff notes that the Department has seen an increase in medical calls, partly due to an aging population. There are several senior housing options in the El Dorado Hills community including age restricted housing and memory care housing and this type of housing may increase medical aid calls (Chief Johnson, personal communication, September 9, 2020). Every fire agency within the United States is rated by an independent risk assessment and standards authority for the purposes of establishing insurance policy premiums for homeowners and businesses. California uses an independent national company called the Insurance Services Office, or ISO, for this purpose. The Insurance Services Office evaluates four broad categories of fire suppression when establishing a Public Protection Classification (PPC). These categories include: 1) Fire Department; 2) Emergency Communications; 3) Water Supply; and 4) Community Risk Reduction. ISO routinely conducts assessments of each fire agency in the United States. The rating scale from best to worse is One (1) — Ten (10). There is a possible score of 105.5 points from the total of the four categories listed above. An agency needs a score of 90-105.5 to receive a PPC of Class 1. The El Dorado County Fire Protection District received an ISO rating of 04 / 4X (LAFCO, 2020a). The ISO (PPC) rating is from 10 – 1, and the lower the ISO number, the better the grade. The El Dorado Hills Fire Department received an ISO rating of “03/3X” (LAFCO, 2020a). The Class 3 rating applies to properties within five road miles of a fire station and within 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant. The Class 3x rating applies to properties within five road miles of a fire station, but beyond 1,000 feet of a hydrant (LAFCO, 2020a). Emergency Medical Services The El Dorado Hills Fire Department operates a full-time paramedic ambulance as one of the sub- contracting fire agencies to the West Slope JPA, providing basic and advanced life support services to the Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-21 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final community 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. EDH’s paramedic firefighters provide extensive pre-hospital care, including the administration of drugs orally and intravenously, interpretation of electrocardiograms (EKGs), performance of endotracheal intubations, and the use of monitors and other complex equipment. The Agreement with the JPA is constantly reviewed based on the activity of the JPA (Chief Johnson, personal communication, October 2021). The District employs a Board AdHoc committee that attends each JPA Board meeting and reports out at each District Board Meeting (Chief Johnson, personal communication, September 2021). More information on the JPA can be found in Volume II - Chapter 15, County Service Area (CSA) 3 and CSA 7 MSR. The EDH ambulance is located at Station 85 and is numbered Medic 85 (M85). Medic 85 was the fourth busiest ambulance in the County in 2019 with 2,422 responses to incidents (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). A breakdown of incident response types for Medic 85 can be seen in Figure 5-4 below. Figure 5-4: EDH Medic 85 Response to Incidents by Type, 2019 1% 3% 10% 8% Assistance Fire Medical Other Transfer 78% Of those responses, the greatest type of incident was medical (78 percent) followed by medical transfer (8 percent) and fire (3 percent). Medical calls include medical aid, falls, CPR, rescue, and acute but non- time critical responses to medical calls. For medical transfer calls for service, the ambulance transfers patients from local area hospitals to other hospitals in the County or regionally. The “Other” category is made up of Extractions, Hazard calls, Traffic Collisions, Remote Area rescues, and other category types (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Additional information regarding emergency medical services can be found in Volume II - Chapter 15, County Service Area (CSA) 3 and CSA 7 MSR. Calls for Service According to CAL FIRE Camino ECC, the Department responded to 4,217 incidents (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). EDH Staff have noted that incident information for their MSR Chapter does not match the Department 2019 Annual Report produced by EDH (Chief Johnson, personal communication, November 2021). Through discussions with CAL FIRE Camion ECC staff, it is likely the discrepancy between this data and the 2019 Report is due to the information in this section excluding calls for service to the Department medic unit, which were included in the 2019 Annual Report. Consultants were not able to use the additional data EDH provided to determine the discrepancy and EDH did not respond to consultants’ Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-22 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final additional requests for information from EDH. Consultants were directed by LAFCO staff to analyze all the agencies in the County using dispatch data from each dispatch center. To stay consistent with other agencies, CAL FIRE Camino ECC data will be used for this analysis. The incidents translated to 6,161 calls for service by agency unit in 2019. An agency unit refers to any apparatus or vehicle for the agency which responded to a call, and each unit is counted as one “call for service.” The data includes incidents occurring both within and outside of the agency’s jurisdiction that the agency resources responded to. For more information on how consultants analyzed the dispatch data, refer to Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. From 2010 to 2019, 2019 represents the busiest year for the District. On average, EDH receives approximately 4,814 calls for service per year (or 92 calls per week) (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). A breakdown of calls for service from 2010 to 2019 can be seen in Figure 5-5 below. Figure 5-5: EDH Calls for Service from 2010-2019 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 From 2010 to 2019, calls for service have continued to trend steadily upward. There were 3,870 calls for service in 2010, representing the lowest number of calls. Call numbers have increased by 59 percent since 2010 with large increases occurring in years 2016 and 2014 when compared to the previous year. The majority of the calls were for medical at 2,221 incidents (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). A break down in incident types for 2019 can be seen Figure 5-6 on the next page. Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-23 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 5-6: EDH Calls for Service by Type, 2019 7% 8% 20% Assistance Fire Hazard 10% Medical Other 2% Traffic Collision 53% The Department responded to 3,265 medical incidents (53 percent), 408 (10 percent) fire incidents, 294 (7 percent) traffic collisions, and 78 hazard incidents (2 percent). The “Other” incident type includes mutual or automatic aid engine coverage for other fire agencies, aircraft down, arson, investigations, medical transfers, rescues, extractions, miscellaneous, radio and phone system failures, staffing pattern, call transfers, as well as other similar service types. The “Assistance” incident type includes public agency work such as demonstrations, assisting with a water leak, assisting with an animal, assisting with an alarm or lockout, elevator rescue, physically assisting in lifting a person, and assisting with search and rescue (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). More information on incident categories can be found in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Station 85 averaged 2,085 calls per year from 2015 to 2019 as shown in Figure 5-7. Station 87 is the next busiest station with an average of 1,200 calls per year (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Station No. 91 was annexed into the Department as part of the Latrobe Fire Protection District and is staffed 24/7. More information on Department stations can be found in Section 5.5.8. Figure 5-7: EDH Number of Calls by Station 2015-2019 2,500 2,000 2015 1,500 2016 2017 1,000 2018 2019 500 0 84 85 86 87 91 92 Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-24 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Response Time El Dorado County’s General Plan (2004 as amended through 2019) Public Services and Utilities Element has several policies related to goals for average response time for new development as described in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Consultants do not have the capability to break response time data out by County of El Dorado defined Community Region, Rural Center, or Rural Region standards. EDH has established response time goals as follows: Urban/Suburban – 6 minutes at 90 percent of Code 3 incidents; Rural areas – 8 minutes at 90 percent of Code 3 incidents. EDH has also established a First-Alarm effective response force time of 9 minutes travel time to 90 percent of incidents in urban areas of the jurisdiction and a First-Alarm effective response force time of 12 minutes travel time to 90 percent of incidents. According to EDH Staff, unfortunately, the current Dispatch contract provider is not capable of tracking these response metrics (LAFCO, 2020a). In the year 2019, the District’s average response time was 6 minutes 26 seconds based on available data from CAL FIRE Camino Dispatch and calculated by the consultants. Average response times for the District from 2010 to 2019 can be seen in Table 5-9 below. The response time data does not cover interfacility transfers (IFT), auto/mutual aid, and strike team/overhead (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Table 5-9: Average Response Times for EDH from 2010 to 2019 Average Response Time Year (Hr : Min : Sec) 2010 0:06:33 2011 0:06:36 2012 0:06:35 2013 0:06:45 2014 0:07:43 2015 0:07:16 2016 0:06:51 2017 0:06:47 2018 0:06:54 2019 0:06:26 Source: CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020 EDH average for 2019 appears to meet County response time goals for new discretionary projects in all County community types. EDH contains the Community Region of El Dorado Hills. Other Industry Standards In general, other industry standards applicable to the EDH are established by the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA), the Insurance Services Office, Cal OSHA, and Department ordinances. All of these agencies, as well as many others, directly and/or indirectly affect the type of services, the quality and development of those services, expansion, reliability, facility design, and construction and environmental issues that the Department provides. Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-25 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Forest Fuel Treatment Forest fuel treatment is an issue that typically relates to wildland fires, rather than the structural fires, which are the focus of the EDH. However, within the EDH's boundaries, there are multiple privately owned parcels that contain native vegetation. Also within the District boundaries are several pockets of land on which fuel treatments have occurred, including both privately owned land and federally managed land (FSC-EDC, 2016). These past fuel treatments are likely to reduce fire risk. Although the EDH is not directly responsible for forest fuel treatments, a community approach to safety that considers house-to-house transmission, structural safety, and forest fuel treatments is important. There are two Fire Safe Councils (FSC) within the EDH boundaries: the Lakehills FSC and portions of the Greater Cameron Park Area FSC. Details about these two fire safe councils can be found on the El Dorado County Fire Safe Council website: https://www. edcfiresafe.org. The completed and planned forest fuel treatments conducted by both FSCs can also be found on this website. 5.5.3 Mutual Aid, Automatic Aid, Other Agreements Mutual Aid The El Dorado Hills Fire Department provides resources under two separate Mutual Aid Agreements: 1) California Fire Assistance Agreement (CFAA); and 2) California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement. These agreements allow for giving and receiving of emergency resources (LAFCO, 2020a). Ideally, agreements for mutual aid or any other appropriate agreement (i.e., Revenue Sharing Agreement) are periodically reviewed to ensure fiscal neutrality. EDH constantly reviews automatic and mutual aid agreements for effectiveness and sustainability. The District annually (each Spring) reviews the California Fire Assistance Agreement (CFAA), updates the District’s Salary Survey, and monitors the terms and conditions of the CFAA (Chief Johnson, personal communication, September 2021). Automatic Aid The El Dorado Hills Fire Department maintains automatic aid, boundary drop, and closest resource agreements with all fire protection providers operating in the County of El Dorado including the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and CAL FIRE. Any resource provided by EDH is available under these agreements (LAFCO, 2020a). Through the current automatic aid 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. For this MSR/SOI Update, LAFCO requested an analysis of automatic aid provided to and received from each agency that provided and/or received aid. Consultants received a breakdown in automatic aid data directly from CAL FIRE Camino ECC dispatch in order to provide the following analysis. This data shows who the first responder to the call was within another agency’s service area boundary. In the context of this analysis, automatic aid specifically refers to instances where an agency was first responder to a call within another agency’s jurisdictional boundary. CAL FIRE is a statewide organization that operates throughout the County of El Dorado. As mentioned previously, CAL FIRE operates within the County under the same automatic aid system as the other local fire agencies. As a result of CAL FIRE’s expansive service area in El Dorado County, the agency responds to Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-26 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final a significant number of calls for service throughout the County for the local fire agencies. CAL FIRE automatic aid for each local fire agency is included in the following analysis because CAL FIRE operates within the automatic aid system and was first responder to calls for all of the local fire agencies in the study year 2019. It is important to note that the automatic aid data that was analyzed only included the first responder data and did not include the local fire agencies responses to statewide fires managed by CAL FIRE. Thus, it is not surprising that almost none of the agencies were first responders to CAL FIRE calls aiding CAL FIRE; which are handled through the assignment of strike teams by CAL FIRE. CAL FIRE does not have a designated jurisdictional boundary within the automatic aid system, but is tasked with responding to wildfires within State Responsibility Areas, much of which is within other fire agency boundaries. In 2019, the County of El Dorado experienced 151 wildland fires with a total of 266 acres burned (CAL FIRE, 2019). Only three local agencies provided first response aid to one of those incidents for CAL FIRE in 2019. More information on the State Responsibility Areas can be found in Section 5.5.6. Information about CAL FIRE operations in the County can be found in Volume I - Appendix D. Through consultation with the ad hoc Fire Chiefs MSR group and LAFCO, consultants agreed to exclude the CAL FIRE automatic aid numbers from Table 5-10 below, due to the reasons stated above. However, the study cannot ignore the CAL FIRE automatic aid data as part of the contextual analysis. Doing so would make it appear that local agencies received less aid than they actually did in 2019 and paint an inaccurate picture of the amount of aid received and provided between fire agencies operating in the County in 2019. Thus, the following analysis and determinations include CAL FIRE aid in the contextual details while removing the numbers from Table 5-10 below. CAL FIRE automatic aid numbers are described countywide in greater detail in Volume I - Appendix D. EDH received automatic aid 319 times and provided automatic aid 577 times in 2019. Table 5-10 below shows the individual agencies that provided aid to EDH and those that received aid from EDH in 2019, excluding CAL FIRE. The CAL FIRE Amador-El Dorado Unit provided automatic aid to EDH 172 times in 2019 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Table 5-10: Automatic Aid Provided and Received from/to EDH, 2019 Agency Providing/Receiving Amount of Aid Amount of Aid Aid to/from EDH Provided to EDH Received from EDH CAM 132 171 DSP 9 9 ECF 41 129 GEO 0 2 MQT 1 0 PIO 0 1 RES 55 192 Other Agencies2 81 73 Total 319 577 Source: CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020 1 Other Agencies includes Amador County Fire Protection District, USFS - Eldorado National Forest, City of Folsom, Sacramento Metropolitan Fire Department, and Jackson Valley Fire Protection District. The CAL FIRE – Amador-El Dorado Unit aid provided to EDH is described in Volume I - Appendix D. Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-27 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The EDH provided aid 258 more times than it received for 2019. This high amount in aid provided vs. received suggests that the Department is able to provide adequate service to the communities within its boundaries and has the capacity to assist neighboring agencies in providing those services. The Department received the majority of aid from CAM at about 40 percent of all aid received followed by RES at 17 percent. For “Other Agencies,” the City of Folsom Fire Department provide the most aid to EDH at 68 times (21 percent). The aid provided and received from RES is part of the Shared Services Agreement between the two Departments as described below. EDH provided the most aid to RES at 33 percent of all aid provided, followed closely by the Cameron Park Community Services District (CAM) at 30 percent and El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF) at 22 percent (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). 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. A more detailed analysis of automatic aid is needed to determine the reasoning for variation in aid received versus provided for EDH and other fire agencies in the County, factoring in the location of calls in relation to available resources for each agency. 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. With CAL FIRE aid removed, the District required aid for five percent of all calls in 2019 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). For the District, CALFIRE only responds to vegetation fires or calls that CAL FIRE deems a threat to the vegetation (car fires, structure fires, etc.). This is different than how CAL FIRE responds to other agencies in the County in which a CAL FIRE engine is often the closest resource deployed. On almost all incidents, multiple EDH engines and chief officers arrive on scene prior to a CALFIRE unit (Chief Johnson, personal communication, September 2021). Joint Powers Authorities Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs) are joint decision-making efforts in which the District participates regarding fire protection or emergency services. The El Dorado Hills Fire Department is a transporting agency for the El Dorado County Emergency Services Authority (West Slope JPA) (LAFCO, 2020a). Shared Services Agreement with EDH The Rescue Fire Protection District and El Dorado Hills Fire Department have maintained a Shared Services Agreement for over seven years. This agreement has evolved from a regular shared services relationship into an enhanced relationship where the EDH manages all aspects of the Rescue Fire Protection District. Separate governing Boards and separate finances are maintained by each respective District. The El Dorado Hills Fire Department provides operational oversight including a 24-hour Chief Officer response, Chief Financial Officer, Director of Human Resources, Training, and Fire Marshall. The Fire Chief of EDH also serves as the Fire Chief of RES. Both Districts are staffed separately, however fire engines regularly move between Districts to cover for training and emergency incidents (LAFCO, 2020a). 5.5.4 Dispatch Fire and emergency medical dispatching is provided through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center (ECC), providing a single dispatch system for the entire Western Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-28 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Slope of the County. Additional details on countywide dispatch can be found in Volume I - Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. 5.5.5 Emergency Access Major access roads to and from EDH include Highway 50, El Dorado Hills Boulevard, Silva Valley Parkway, Green Valley Road, Francisco Drive, Salmon Falls Road, Bass Lake Road, and Latrobe Road. The boundary area rarely experiences ingress and egress challenges as identified in the County's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. For example, access to rural roads is sometimes limited due to blockages caused by tree falls or illegally parked cars. More information on Countywide roadway maintenance operations can be found in Volume I - Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. 5.5.6 Fire Hazard Zones The Fire Hazard Severity Zones, Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), and Community Risk Fire Map are described in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Areas of land within the Department boundary are considered “Local Responsibility Area” (LRA), “State Responsibility Area” (SRA), and “Federal Responsibility Area” (FRA) for fire protection services. Areas are also identified from High to Very High fire hazard risk as seen in Table 5-11. See Figure 5-8 for a map of those areas on the next page and a breakdown in acreage for responsibility areas in Table 5-12. Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-29 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 5-8: Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Responsibility Areas for EDH Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-30 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 5-11: EDH Fire Hazard Severity Zone Acreage and Percentage Acreage in Very High % in Very High Acreage in High % in High Fire Total % in Very High Fire Risk Fire Risk Risk and High Fire Risk 4,804 9.5% 16,601 32.8% 42.3% Source: EDC, 2020a Within the EDH’s boundaries, approximately 4,804 acres are in Fire Hazard Severity zone “Very High” and 16,601 acres are in “High” based on GIS data provided by CAL FIRE. The rest of the District is located in a “Moderate” Fire Risk Zone or in areas considered “Urban” which do not fall into any fire hazard risk categories. See Figure 5-8 for a map of those areas. CAL FIRE has mapped the WUI in El Dorado County and the EDH is located within an identified WUI. Table 5-12 below shows acreages of land within the Department boundary designated as LRA, SRA, and FRA. Table 5-12: EDH Local, State and Federal Responsibility Area Acreage and Percentage Boundary Only (in acres) SOI Only (by itself) (in acres) LRA SRA FRA LRA SRA FRA 4,007 45,485 1,281 1 1,397 10 Source: CAL FIRE, 2021 Approximately 90 percent of the District boundary is within a State Responsibility Area (SRA) with CAL FIRE as the primary wildland fire response agency. CAL FIRE is legally and financially responsible to provide fire protection in all State Responsibility Areas. Areas under the FRA are managed by a federal agency, such as the U.S. Forest Service. A portion of the District is located within a Local Responsibility Area, meaning that EDH has fire protection responsibility for those approximately 4,000 acres. These areas are generally in the higher density developed areas along El Dorado Hills Boulevard and Silva Valley Road as well as portions of Bass Lake Road and Green Valley Road near the Sacramento County line. Acres for the LRA boundary also includes the approximately 197 acres in the Sacramento County portion of the District boundary. 5.5.7 Infrastructure The El Dorado Hills Fire Department maintains infrastructure to support its fire protection services. This infrastructure includes fire stations, fire hydrants, fire apparatus and other vehicles, water hoses, and other equipment. A list of fire stations and staffing for each station is provided in Table 5-13, below. EDH owns and operates five fire stations and leases a sixth station for apparatus storage. Table 5-13: EDH Fire Stations Detail Station No. Address Staffing 2180 Francisco Drive, El Dorado 84 24/7/365 Hills 1050 Wilson Boulevard, 85 24/7/365 El Dorado Hills Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-31 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Station No. Address Staffing 3670 Bass Lake Road, 86 24/7/365 El Dorado Hills 4680 Golden Foothill Parkway, 87 24/7/365 El Dorado Hills 7660 South Shingle Road, 91 24/7/365 Shingle Springs 7470 Ryan Ranch Road, 92 None El Dorado Hills Data Source: LAFCO, 2020a Station 84 is called the "Marina Station.” Constructed in 1982, this station is the second station added to the El Dorado Hills Fire Department. A major remodel of Station 84 was completed in 1993, adding a storage area, dormitory, and restroom facilities to accommodate the paid staff assigned there. In addition, the outside was remodeled, adding a hose tower and an above ground fuel tank. In 2014, the station underwent a full remodel and upgrade (EDH, 2021; 2020a). Station No. 85 is administrative headquarters for the Department. This station was built in 2005 to replace the original Station 85 located at Lassen Lane that was constructed in 1963 with the help of volunteer firefighters. This facility is 26,000 square feet and is anticipated to accommodate the Department needs for the next 50 years with ample room to add staff as the Department continues to grow. The headquarters includes a large community meeting room (EDH, 2021; 2020a). Station No. 86 is called the “Bass Lake Station.” In 1999, the District purchased a ten-acre parcel in the Bass Lake area to build a third fire station. Construction began shortly after in March of 2001. The station was staffed with three personnel and equipped with an advanced life support engine (EDH, 2021). Station No. 87 is called the “Business Park Station.” In 2005, the Department purchased the 21-acre site on Cypress Point Court in the El Dorado Hills Business Park. In June of 2007, the District hired nine paramedics for Station 87 staffing. New Type I and Type III engines were purchased for the Station 87 opening in January of 2008 (EDH, 2021). Station No. 91 is called the “South Shingle Station.” In 2014, the Latrobe Fire Protection District was annexed by the El Dorado Hills Fire Department. Once annexed, the staffing changed to two paid fire personnel available to respond 24 hours 7 days a week. The decision to staff Station 91 with a Captain and Engineer (2-0) was a collaboration of efforts by EDH leadership and the Local 3604. The previous Latrobe Fire Protection District was only staffed with volunteers and limited paid call firefighters 40 hours a week. The enhancement to service after EDH’s annexation of Latrobe in 2014 was to increase service to (2-0) staffing 24/7/365 with an Advanced Life Support (ALS) engine company. This staffing decision required EDH to augment the revenue generated by the Latrobe area. The station was upgraded from the original volunteer fire station to accommodate safety personnel to be housed fulltime. This remodel included upgrades to the interior and exterior of the building (EDH, 2021). Station No. 92 land is not owned by EDH. The Department has a long-term lease on the building and has identified that this station is not located in a strategic geographical position. EDH does not plan to staff this station in the future and is currently using the station to store out-of-service apparatus. This station Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-32 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final does provide benefit to the community members as a public meeting space and is planned to be maintained as a meeting space in the future. EDH owns all land that is used for fire protection services and associated facilities/services with the exception of the Latrobe Fire Station where the land is leased from a private party (LAFCO, 2020a). Each of its five fire stations are staffed 24/7/365 (LAFCO, 2019a). In addition to the above five fire stations, EDH coordinates with the Rescue Fire Protection District at Station No. 83 per the Shared Services agreement with the District. All the fire stations’ bays are large enough to house the fire engines with the exception of Station No. 91. Station No. 91 only will fit smaller fire engines. This station will need to be replaced in the future. The fire stations were built to the standards of the seismic codes that were in place at the time of construction. (LAFCO, 2019a). Future Stations EDH Fire has plans to build and staff a new Fire Station in the Village of Marble Valley Specific Plan Area (VMVSP). This Fire Station will provide first response to the VMVSP Area, the Lime Rock Valley Specific Plan Area (LRVSP) and the Valley View area. It should be noted that the EDH Fire Department’s jurisdiction does not include any of the LRVSP, the entire LRVSP area is within the boundaries of, and currently served by, the ECF. Upon construction of the VMVSP station, EDH will be the closest first response unit to this planning area (Chief Johnson, personal communication, September 2021). Equipment and Apparatus The District supplies all employees and interns with safety gear required by Department policy and mandated safety laws, including OSHA personal protective equipment (PPE) standards. Table 5-14 to Table 5-16 below list the major fire and emergency medical apparatus that the EDH owns and maintains. Table 5-14: Apparatus and Light Vehicles, 2020 Water Capacity Equipment Type Identifier Year Make/Model (gallons) Air/Light Support Air-84 2002 International/Hackney N/A Water Rescue WR-84 2008 Ford/F-350 N/A Type 6 P-91 2015 Ford/F-550 400 Ambulance M-85 2017 Dodge/Arrow N/A Ambulance (Reserve) M-285 2015 Ford/Arrow N/A Type 3 E-387 2004 International/West-Mark 500 Type 3 E-386 2007 International/West-Mark 500 Type 1 (Reserve) N/A 2003 Spartan/Ferrara Class “A” Pumper 500 Type 1 (Reserve) N/A 2001 HME/Westates Class “A” Pumper 500 Type 1 OES-384 2013 HME/Ahrens-Fox 800 Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-33 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Water Capacity Equipment Type Identifier Year Make/Model (gallons) Type 1 E-86 2007 Spartan/Ferrara Class “A” Pumper 500 Type 1 E-87 2010 Igniter/Ferrara Class “A” Pumper 500 Type 1 E-84 2013 KME/Class “A” Pumper 500 Type 1 E-85 2018 Pierce/Class “A” Pumper 500 Type 1 E-91 2001 HME/Class “A” Pumper 800 Quint T-85 2012 Sutphen/100’ Aerial Platform 300 Source: EDH, 2020b; Chief Johnson, personal communication, September 2021 Table 5-15: Utility and Staff Vehicles, 2020 Year Make/Model Vehicle Description Type of Use Milage 2007 Ford/F-150 Pickup 4x4 Operations Support 108,435 2016 Ford/Explorer SUV Prevention Officer 16,055 2016 Ford/Explorer SUV Prevention Officer 33,624 2015 Chevrolet/Tahoe SUV Deputy Chief Admin 55,478 2015 Chevrolet/Tahoe SUV Fire Marshal 47,461 2018 Chevrolet/Tahoe SUV Deputy Chief Ops 48,929 2018 Chevrolet/Tahoe SUV Fire Chief 21,329 2005 Ford F-250 Pickup 4x4 Training Officer 15,007 2005 Ford Explorer SUV Prevention Officer 108,321 2006 Ford F-250 Pickup 4x4 Shift BC/Strike Team 11,744 1999 Ford F-350 Pickup 2x4 DRW Prev. Trailer/Utility 91,328 2003 Ford Expedition SUV Utility 77,236 2003 Ford Expedition SUV Utility 107,503 2003 Ford Expedition SUV Utility 112,175 Source: EDH, 2020b; Chief Johnson, personal communication, September 2021 Table 5-16: Trailers and Water Rescue Apparatus, 2020 Year Make/Model Vehicle Description Type of Use Milage 2018 Interstate Box Trailer Rescue Trailer N/A 2017 Karavan Rescue Boat Trailer Rescue Boat Trailer N/A 1996 Charm Prevention Trailer Prevention Training N/A 2007 PJ Trailers Dump Trailer Debris Removal N/A Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-34 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Year Make/Model Vehicle Description Type of Use Milage 2008 Interstate Honor Guard Trailer Equipment Transport N/A 2008 Shoreland PWC Transport PWC Transport N/A 2020 Charm Utility Trailer Utility Trailer N/A 2018 Covered Wagon Enclosed Trailer CERT N/A 2017 Wing P4.2 14’ Inflatable Rescue Boat (IRB) Water Rescue N/A 2018 Wing P4.2 14’ IRB Water Rescue N/A 2017 NRS Outlaw 14’ River Raft Water Rescue N/A 2008 Sea Doo Personal Water Craft (PWC) Water Rescue Training N/A 2009 Sea Doo PWC Water Rescue Training N/A Source: EDH, 2020b Water and Hydrants In the EDH service area, water supply is provided by the El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) to the more urbanized portions of the community (LAFCO, 2020a). Services provided by EID are described in LAFCO’s 2020 MSR/SOI Update for the District. A significant portion of the EDH area is rural and relies upon privately owned water tanks and wells for water supply (LAFCO, 2020a). Water can also be obtained from local natural or neighborhood sources such as rivers, lakes, ponds and/or swimming pools. In the developed areas of El Dorado Hills, the water supply is sufficient. Water supply is more challenging in the rural or remotely developed areas such as the Watermark development adjacent to the South Fork of the American River (LAFCO, 2020a). The District’s fire engines and water tender also contain water storage. EDH periodically inspects the fire hydrants in the area to verify the ability to supply water to local neighborhoods. EDH staff indicates that generally, where hydrants exist, they are sufficient for fire protection (LAFCO, 2020a). It is recommended that in the next MSR, LAFCO should research or invite EDH to submit more detailed information on the spatial distribution of water supply and fire hydrants within the EDH boundary and SOI. Maintenance Facilities, infrastructure, and equipment need to be maintained on a regular basis. To cover these costs the Department funds a Capital Replacement Program. Each year funds are allocated to this program based on Apparatus/Facility needs. EDH has completed a comprehensive facility needs assessment. This assessment is used to ensure that the Capital Replacement Program is properly funded based on current and future Facility needs. The El Dorado Hills Fire Department does not have a deferred maintenance strategy. The Board and staff allocate money each year to maintain facilities. EDH’s policies and practices for depreciation and replacement of infrastructure are described in its Capital Asset Policy. Any new or upgraded infrastructure that may be needed in the future would likely be financed through the District’s General Fund and/or Development Fee Fund (for qualifying expenditures) (LAFCO, 2019a) Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-35 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 5.5.8 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The Department provided consultants with the 2019-2024 Draft Facilities Master Plan. The Plan is designed to provide strategic and measured facility improvements for five of the six fire stations in the District. The Plan calls for numerous capital improvements to each Department station totaling approximately $1.28 million by 2024. EDH is planning a state-of-the-art training center on an 11-acre parcel of land in the El Dorado Hills Business Park next to Station No. 87. The training center will be a fully function training center with a classroom and several components related to structural and wildland firefighting, technical rescue, a training tower, and drivers training. The new campus is also being planned to have a logistics/fleet maintenance building, for future growth. EDH is in the review process with a professional consultant to evaluate the Department’s radio communications system. EDH has identified substantial deficiencies in the current radio system that have directly impacted emergency incidents. The Department has asked the consultant to evaluate three (3) options: 1. Remain in the current system with enhancements 2. Build separate dispatch center and system; and 3. Join the Sacramento Regional Fire Emergency Communications Center (SRFECC). At the time of development of this Plan document, it is too early to estimate the future costs associated with a new communications direction. However, there will be capital improvement costs that the EDH will have to add to this Plan in the future (EDH, 2020a). Apparatus Replacement Schedule Consultants were provided a detailed Apparatus Replacement Schedule from the Department that included replacement plan financing for each apparatus. The full replacement plan schedule identifies financing sources and shows “Savings to Date” for all apparatus as well as “Future Annual Savings” required to meet replacement costs. Some of the information within the apparatus replacement plan is provided in Table 5-17 below. Table 5-17: Apparatus Replacement Schedule Estimated Total Cost to Remaining Service Current Year of Category Age Replace Years to Life Designator Replacement (Present Value) Replace (Years) Chief Officers 10 Back-up/Staff 17 - 2013 -7 Trailer 20 Prevention 24 $125,000.00 2016 -4 Trailer 20 Utility 24 $6,000.00 2016 -4 Utilities 20 Prev. Hauler 21 $60,000.00 2019 -1 Backup B-85/ 15 STL 14 $83,200.00 2021 1 STL Vehicle Type I/II 20 E91 19 $755,000.00 2021 1 Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-36 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Estimated Total Cost to Remaining Service Current Year of Category Age Replace Years to Life Designator Replacement (Present Value) Replace (Years) BC Vehicle 5 B85 3 $84,800.00 2022 2 11 T85 8 $1,500,000.00 2023 3 Truck Type I/II 20 E287 17 $755,000.00 2023 3 Type I/II 20 New E91 17 $755,000.00 2023 3 Utilities 20 Utility 17 - 2023 3 Utilities 20 Utility 17 - 2023 3 Boat 10 Jet Ski 5 $30,000.00 2025 5 Boat 10 Jet Ski 5 $30,000.00 2025 5 Chief Officers 10 8501 5 $80,000.00 2025 5 Chief Officers 10 8510 5 $80,000.00 2025 5 Type III 20 E387 15 $400,000.00 2025 5 Type VI 10 P91 5 - 2025 5 Utilities 20 F-250 15 $60,000.00 2025 5 Water Rescue 20 WR84 15 - 2025 5 Chief Officers 10 8502 4 $80,000.00 2026 6 Chief Officers 10 8500 4 $80,000.00 2026 6 Type VI 10 P85 4 - 2026 6 Boat 10 Rescue 84 3 $18,000.00 2027 7 Boat 10 3 $3,000.00 2027 7 Rescue 25 A85 18 $400,000.00 2027 7 Trailer 20 Dump 13 $12,000.00 2027 7 Type I/II WUI 20 E86 13 $755,000.00 2027 7 Type I/II Heavy 20 E87 13 $755,000.00 2027 7 Type III 20 E386 13 - 2027 7 Utilities 20 OPS SPT 13 $60,000.00 2027 7 Boat 10 Rescue 84 2 $18,000.00 2028 8 Trailer 20 Honor 12 $10,000.00 2028 8 Prevention 15 8521 4 $40,000.00 2031 11 Prevention 15 8522 4 $40,000.00 2031 11 Prevention 15 8520 1 $40,000.00 2034 14 Type I/II WUI 20 E84 6 $755,000.00 2034 14 Trailer 20 PWC 5 $2,500.00 2035 15 Water Tender 25 WT85 10 $400,000.00 2035 15 Trailer 20 Boat 3 $2,000.00 2037 17 Trailer 20 Rescue 2 $9,500.00 2038 18 Type I/II Heavy 20 E85 2 $900,000.00 2038 18 Source: EDH, 2020b; Chief Johnson, personal communication, September 2021 Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-37 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Challenges When queried about regulatory issues, infrastructure, equipment or other challenges potentially confronting the District in the next five years, EDH staff noted the following: The most critical infrastructure challenge facing the Department in the next five years will be addressing firefighter safety issues associated with the outdated and single-focused communications utilized by the Fire Services in El Dorado County. The current system is in excess of 40 years old and is further complicated by the limitations of the current communications contractor. Resolving the communications issue would require that all of the Fire Agencies and El Dorado County work together collaboratively. Given the size and scope of a new communications project, designing and implementing the necessary improvements could require significant financial expenditure (LAFCO, 2020a). 5.5.9 Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing EDH has undertaken numerous cost avoidance measures over the past several years. The District’s actions aim to save money, lower expenses, and/or improve services at the same costs. For example, the EDH Fire Department and the EDH Fire Professional Firefighters’ Local 3604 have agreed upon additional employee contributions to their retirements in addition to healthcare contributions limits. Also, EDH routinely evaluates contracts and uses competitive bidding processes to reduce costs where possible. (LAFCO, 2020a). EDH will continue to seek opportunities to reduce costs through regional collaboration. (LAFCO, 2020a). When queried about potential functional or structural reorganizations that District may consider to save taxpayer funds, EDH staff noted that the District is currently in the process of considering annexing the Rescue Fire Protection District into the Department. 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). EDH is also interested in exploring other regional operations for functional operation of joint training, fire prevention, and fleet services (LAFCO, 2020a). When considering the issue of consolidation, annexation, or contracting out services, informal discussions among the EDH Board have noted several pros and cons. The pros include increased operational efficiencies, firefighter effective force, reduced duplication of services, and continuity of operations. The cons include disparate funding levels, different labor contracts, and potential negative financial impacts on the District (LAFCO, 2019a). The El Dorado Hills Fire Department is open to exploring all options that do not remove governance and local control from the District. The District will not support any effort that would degrade the level of services currently provided to the communities of El Dorado Hills, Latrobe, and Rescue (LAFCO, 2019a). The District annexed the Latrobe Fire Protection District and EDH staff have expressed that EDH still faces the uncertainty of funds agreed to from the County. EDH staff find that this uncertainty has caused skepticism for EDH that the County will follow through with any agreement that is reached related to funding. The annexation of neighboring agencies is typically triggered by a financial shortfall of that agency. A small amount of savings can be realized by elimination of duplicative services, however, if the revenue source does not match that of the annexing agency, a negative draw on that agency would exist. For the El Dorado Hills Fire Department, annexation of another District is the only realistic option as EDH Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-38 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final has a multi-county Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) exemption that is very important to the District’s financial stability (LAFCO, 2019a). Issues that would lead the District to consider annexation, consolidation, or contracting would include the following: • Modernized Emergency Communications/Dispatch Services; • Fire Department control of all aspects of the Ambulance transport system; and • Opportunities to increase Firefighter Safety and increased level of service to the Community (LAFCO, 2019a). Additional consideration of the geographic boundaries of the different fire agencies is necessary. EDH staff believes that it does not make sense for one fire agency to have an “island” or “pocket” of their protection area that is separated or mostly surrounded by another fire protection agency. This creates a situation where one fire agency’s personnel has to drive through another fire agency to get to their island or pocket they protect. (LAFCO, 2019a) 5.6 Financial Ability to Provide Services LAFCO is required to make determinations regarding the financial ability of the El Dorado Hills County Water District (EDH) to provide public services. This section provides an overview of the financial health of EDH and a context for LAFCO’s financial determinations. The audited financial statements from the District for the fiscal years (FY) 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 are the primary source of all information for this section. The Preliminary and Final Budget for FY 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 are also used in order to provide the most recent information available to the analysis. In California, special districts are classified as either enterprise or non-enterprise based on their source of revenue. EDH generally operates as a non- enterprise district, collecting and utilizing property tax and other revenue to fund fire and emergency services (EDH, 2018; 2019c; 2019d; 2020d). 5.6.1 Financial Policies and Transparency The primary policy document for EDH is the Board of Directors Policy Manual last updated on May 21, 2020. The manual describes the rules for the District’s business operations, including budget, procurement, and financial policies. The Department adopts a one-year budget and conducts an annual review of the budget to determine if any changes are needed. The FY 2020/2021 Financial Plan was adopted by the Board on September 17, 2020. The Department publishes audited financial statements every year. California Government Code and District policy require an annual independent audit of the District’s financial records by a certified public accountant. The independent audits for FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 were performed by Richardson and Company, independent auditors. The auditors judge whether the Department’s financial statements are presented in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is responsible for establishing GAAP for state and local governments. The District uses the accrual basis of accounting, where revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recorded when liabilities are incurred. EDH has completed the audited financial statement for FY 2019/2020 as well as a final budget approved by the District Board for FY 2020/2021. These updated documents were not utilized in this report to Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-39 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final maintain a baseline for comparison between the other fire agencies in the County. Where possible, other fire agencies are analyzed utilizing the same fiscal year documents throughout the report. 5.6.2 Department Revenues and Expenditures The Department’s largest revenue source is property taxes and assessments, which are projected to make up approximately 87 percent of total revenue in FY 2019/2020. The Department’s biggest expense year over year is Salaries and Benefits. A breakdown in revenues and expenditures for the District can be seen in Figure 5-9 below. A breakdown of revenues and expenditures is also available in table format in Volume II – Appendix A, Financial Tables by Agency. Revenues The Department’s largest revenue source is property taxes and assessments, which makes up 82 percent of total revenue in FY 2018/2019. These taxes and assessments include a voter approved Fire/EMS Special Tax (Measure R approved June 11, 1991) for fire and rescue services within the former Latrobe Fire Protection District (FPD), levied only on those properties previously serviced by Latrobe FPD. Overall, property tax revenue within the District has steadily increased year over year since a 10-year low in FY 2010/2011. While property tax revenue is projected to increase by approximately 5.33 percent in FY 2019/2020, total revenue is projected to decrease by approximately 0.8 percent. This slight decrease is partially due to a projected decline in development impact fee revenue received through new construction within the District. This is the seventh consecutive year that EDH had an increase in property tax revenue. Overall, property tax revenue has increased an average of 6.8 percent per year over the past 5 years; and 3.75 percent per year over the past 10 years (EDH, 2019d). The California State Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) revenue shown as “Strike Team Reimbursements” (mostly offset by Cal OES expenses) is also expected to decrease due to a less severe fire season in FY 2018/2019. “Other” revenue for FY 2019/2020 and FY 2020/2021 is mostly made up of interest income, which has seen an increase in recent years due to rising interest rates. The Department is a participating agency and operates one ambulance for County Service Area No. 7 (CSA 7) under contract as part of the El Dorado County Emergency Services Authority (West Slope JPA). The revenue received from the JPA is collected based on a fixed rate contract and represents the recovery of actual costs incurred to operate an ambulance. Under the existing JPA Ambulance Agreement, the Department receives $1.15 million to staff and operate the ambulance, Medic 85. Actual costs for the Department are higher than the current amount reimbursed by the JPA. In FY 2018/2019, the Department spent about $1.185 million for the ambulance, approximately $35,000 more than the amount provided by the JPA and not reimbursed to EDH (EDH Staff, personal communication, April 12, 2021). In FY 2017/2018 the Department had six Emergency Services Authority positions funded through the West Slope JPA to operate ambulance service. In 2019, the EDH Fire Chief concluded that the Department would need an additional $1.2 million to cover these positions if EMS funding was lost. Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-40 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 5-9: EDH Total Revenues & Expenditures from FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-41 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-42 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Expenditures As seen above, the Department’s biggest expense year over year is Salaries and Benefits. Salaries and Benefits have increased steadily from FY 2012/2013 as the Department recovered from the economic recession. This steady increase is due to staffing of Station No. 91 following annexation of the Latrobe Fire Protection District in late 2014, as well as adding several personnel positions, include a training officer, a deputy chief, a director of human resources, and a community risk reduction officer. As seen in Figure 5-9 above, a spike in total expenses was budgeted for FY 2019/2020. This increase is due to an administrative reorganization involving new positions, as well as several one-time expenses. These one-time expenses include furnishing a new Employee Development Center, replacing turnouts, completing a radio engineering study, and purchasing active shooter gear. For FY 2019/2020, the Department also budgeted discretionary lump sum payments of $1.5 million toward its Pension Unfunded Liability (EDH, 2019c). As mentioned previously in this chapter, the Department utilizes a blend of staffing models. As of July 1, 2020, the Department had 74 full-time employees. The Department saw an increase of one staff person from FY 2018/2019 to FY 2019/2020 from a total of 73 full-time employees. The Department does not utilize any volunteer firefighters (LAFCO, 2019a; 2020a). For FY 2019/2020, the Department staffed five fire stations 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and had one unstaffed station that is used to house out- of-service apparatus. Revenues (over / under) Expenditures Revenues for FY 2018/2019 exceeded expenses by approximately $2.91 million. A portion of this excess consists of restricted development impact fee revenue that can only be used for capital improvements or facilities providing a nexus can be found. Excluding development impact fees and related interest earnings which are also restricted, revenues exceed expenses by approximately $1.52 million as shown in Figure 5-10. Figure 5-10: EDH Net Revenues Over/Under Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-43 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The Department anticipates expenses exceeding revenues for FY 2019/2020 based on the one-time reorganizational expenses described above. Projections for the FY 2020/2021 budget predict revenues to again exceed expenses. This exceedance is primarily based on the expectation for the Department to receive additional developer impact fees revenue. It is important to note that budgets are projections and subject to change with the ability for one-time expenses to be covered by reserves if needed. 5.6.3 Department Assets and Liabilities Department Assets On June 30, 2019, the Department had $66.5 million in Assets and Deferred Outflows. This is primarily made up of Cash at $31.4 million and Capital Assets of $21.4 million as shown in Figure 5-11 below. The Department saw about $7.5 million, (or 12.8 percent) increase in assets between FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019. This increase was primarily driven by a $5.0 million increase in Deferred Outflows. Figure 5-11: Department Assets as of June 30, 2019 Liabilities and Debt Department liabilities and debts as of June 30, 2019 are shown in Figure 5-12 below. The majority of the Department’s long-term obligations consist of the net pension liability, which is about $17.1 million, and net Other Post Employment Benefit (OPEB) Liability, which is approximately $12.7 million. Noncurrent liabilities are made up of Net Pension, OPEB, compensated absences, and health reimbursement arrangements. Total combined Net Pension and OPEB liabilities were about $29.7 million as of June 30, 2019, an increase of about $6.2 million from the previous year (or 21 percent). The Department does not have any other outstanding debt in the form of loans or long-term financing. Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-44 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 5-12: Department Liabilities and Debt as of June 30, 2019 The Department does have outstanding litigation that may affect its financial statues. In the case of Thomas Austin et al vs. El Dorado County, EDH has a potential $230,000 to $2 million exposure as part of the lawsuit. These funds are held by the County and will not affect the Operating Fund for EDH (LAFCO, 2020a). 5.6.4 Net Position The Department ended the FY 2018/2019 with a positive Net Position of approximately $32.9 million. This includes about $21.5 million in net capital assets, $9.2 million in assets that are restricted for qualifying capital improvements related to Department growth, and another $2.1 million in assets that are restricted for the payment of pension benefits. The Unrestricted Net Position for the same year closed at $104,306, a decrease from Unrestricted Net Position of $1.75 million from FY 2017/2018. Figure 5-13 shows net position for FY 2018/2019. Figure 5-13: Department Net Position as of June 30, 2019 5.6.5 Asset Maintenance and Replacement According to the EHD Fire Chief, the Department continues efforts to replace aging fire engines and other apparatus based on an Apparatus Replacement Schedule last updated on July 1, 2020 and listed in Section Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-45 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 0 above. The Apparatus Replacement Schedule was designed to meet the Department’s needs for the next 25 years (EDH, 2020b). The Department purchased fixed assets totaling $1.19 million in FY 2018/2019. This includes $726,918 for a new Type 1 Engine. A replacement prevention vehicle and a new Fire Chief vehicle were also purchased totaling $40,586 and $40,943, respectively. Radio communications equipment, including mobile data computers, were purchased totaling $176,935. Another $79,500 was spent on two simulation tables for training and community outreach. Other capital expenditures made during the year include a Lund University Cardiopulmonary Assist System (LUCAS) device, which is a mechanical chest compression device; a prevention iPlan Table (fire prevention matrix); a water rescue boat and motor; a technical rescue trailer; and Holmatro rescue tools (hydraulic extraction devises) for the new Type 1 Engine (EDH, 2019d). 5.6.6 Cost Avoidance EDH responds to calls in other fire agencies in the County through the automatic aid, boundary drop, and closest resource system. The Department also maintains an automatic aid agreement with the City of Folsom Fire Department for areas west of the District boundary in Sacramento County, and the Amador County Fire Protection Department to the south in Amador County. Any resource owned by EDH is available to these agencies under these agreements. EDH continues to seek opportunities to reduce costs through regional collaboration (LAFCO, 2020a). 5.6.7 Financial Summary and Ability to Provide Services Based on the data presented above, the El Dorado Hills County Water Department is able to provide adequate service to the residents of the El Dorado Hills area. As mentioned previously, the Department currently operates with a blend of staffing models. The bulk of the stations are staffed at a 3-0 staffing model while the truck company is staffed at a 4-0 staffing model. Station No. 91 is staffed with a 2-0 staffing model. The Department’s General Fund reported total fund balances of about $31.28 million. Of this balance, $19.9 million is unrestricted. The portion of the unrestricted balance committed for future capital replacements is $3.79 million (or 18 percent). The remaining $16.17 millions of unrestricted fund balance represents approximately 84.8 percent of the FY 2018/2019 total operating expenditures. The Department has historically maintained healthy reserve balances by meeting its reserve policy requirement of keeping a minimum of 50 percent total operating expense on hand in the General Reserve Fund. The 10-year historical trends for the Department 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 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). Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-46 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Alternative Financing The Department pursues one time grant funding for equipment and personnel as needed (Chief Johnson, personal communication, April 12, 2021). In addition, the Department is exploring the annexation of the Rescue Fire Protection District (RES). This annexation would be advantageous to EDH from an operational perspective. The EDH and RES have a shared services agreement in place and are continuing discussions for full annexation. Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-47 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 5.7 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 the El Dorado Hills County Water District 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. Scoring for the determinations in Table 5-18 below are as follows: ▲ ● ▼ ◆ Above Average (compared to similar Districts), Average, Below Average, Statement of Fact (not rated). Table 5-18: Summary of MSR Determinations for the EDH Indicator Score Determination Population and Growth The El Dorado Hills Fire Department approximately 50,798-acre boundary ◆ area is located in unincorporated County of El Dorado and serves the Existing Boundary. community of El Dorado Hills. The boundary includes a small portion of Sacramento County (196 acres). El Dorado LAFCO most recently considered and updated the SOI for EDH on August 27, 2014 via Resolution No. L-2014-07. The District’s SOI ◆ Existing Sphere of Influence. encompasses 1,376 acres and includes 53 parcels. The SOI can be characterized as roughly seven different pocket areas located either directly adjacent to the boundary or in the interior of the boundary. EDH does not generally provide extra-territorial services (with the Extra-territorial Services the District provides as described in ◆ exception of mutual aid with neighboring agencies and the Shared Services Government Code Section 56134. Agreement with Rescue Fire Protection District). By the year 2040, it is estimated that EDH’s existing boundary will ◆ encompass a population of 56,650 persons. This represents a projected Projected population in years 2020 through 2040. average annual growth rate of 0.516 percent between the years 2020 and 2040. Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-48 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination Currently, the District’s boundary area supports an average of one person per acre which is considered to be low population density. The County District boundaries contain sufficient land area to accommodate ◆ General Plan suggests that future growth may occur in the El Dorado Hills projected growth. community. Therefore, the EDH boundaries do contain sufficient land area to accommodate projected growth. Government Structure and Accountability EDH’s elected Board members have submitted required forms and received Do elected Board members submit required forms and receive required trainings as prescribed by the three state laws regarding required trainings as prescribed by the three state laws regarding accountability and ethics including: 1) the Political Reform Act; 2) Assembly accountability and ethics including: Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005) which requires ethics training; and 3) Government ▲ Code 53237 et. seq. Conflict of interest code/policies for the EDH Board (1) the Political Reform Act; and/or staff are posted on the District website. EDH Board members have (2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005); and filed the required Statement of Economic Interest with the County. (3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. Information available from the FPPC indicates that Board members are complying with the Political Reform Act. EDH along with all the fire protection districts in El Dorado County have recently been the subject of a grand jury report, Case No. 19-06. The issues Is the District involved in current litigation and/or has the District ▼ raised in the grand jury report remain valid. Changes to the governmental been the subject of a recent grand jury inquiry. structure of some fire protection districts are needed to address these issues. The EDH Fire Chief notes that the Grand Jury did not focus on a problem with EDH. Does the District comply with the Special District Transparency Act (SB 929 or California Government Code, §6270.6 and 53087.8) which The EDH website contains all necessary information to comply with SB 929 ▲ requires special districts to have a functional website that lists including contact information, financial statements, compensation reports, contact information and contains financial statements, and a plethora of public information. compensation reports, and other relevant public information. Educating homeowners regarding fire safety and prevention is an aim of General Plan Objective 6.2.5. EDH works to meet this objective by utilizing Does the District work to inform and educate homeowners regarding its website to share information related to CPR classes, wood chipping, ▲ fire safety and prevention consistent with General Plan Objective information on fire hydrants, hazardous waste, life jacket loaners, safe 6.2.5? surrender, burn permits, PG&E Power Shutoff details, vegetation management, disaster preparedness, and the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) training opportunities. Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-49 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination EDH makes the most recent/upcoming meeting agenda available directly on the home page of its website as required by AB 2257. Additionally, Does the District’s website comply with the 2016 updates to the ▲ agendas, agenda packets, and other details for full Board meetings and Brown Act described in Government Code §54954.2 and enacted by Committee meetings are available on the website. The District website Assembly Bill 2257? agenda distribution complies with the requirements of the Brown Act 2016 Updates described in AB2257. The Board member webpage on the District’s website provides an updated Terms of office and next election date are disclosed for District Board ▲ “Board Roster” as a pdf file that is readily available for download. This members and committee appointments are online. Board Roster discloses the terms of office and next election date for District Board members. Disadvantage Communities The median household income is identified. The DUC threshold MHI California’s median household income was $71,228 in 2018. This yields a ◆ (80 percent of the statewide MHI) is clearly stated. The MHI in the DUC threshold MHI of less than $56,982. There are no census block groups Agency’s boundary is described. within the EDH boundary that have an MHI less than $56,982. Potential DUCs are considered. The provision of adequate water, ◆ There are no DUCs within the EDH boundary. Therefore, no consideration wastewater, and structural fire protection services to DUCs is for essential services is necessary. considered. Shared Facilities and Services Agreements for mutual aid or any other appropriate agreement (i.e., Agreements for mutual aid or any other appropriate agreement (i.e., Tax ▲ Joint Operating Agreement) are periodically reviewed to ensure Sharing Agreement) are reviewed by the District each Spring for fiscal neutrality. effectiveness and sustainability. Other practices and opportunities that may reduce or eliminate The District has taken several actions in the last five years to save money, unnecessary costs are examined by the District periodically. Ideally, ▲ lower expenses or improve services at the same costs. For example, EDH there is a balance between cost efficiency and risk reduction staff contribution to retirement and health benefits has recently increased. strategies. EDH collaborates with multiple other agencies for the delivery of services The District collaborates with multiple other fire and emergency ▲ within its boundary. For example, the existing Shared Services Agreement medical agencies for the delivery of services within its boundary. with the Rescue FPD is implemented and it may lead to a future closer working relationship, potentially including annexation. Public Services and Infrastructure Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-50 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination EDH currently meets NFPA staffing standards for all fire stations except one, Station No. 91 which was annexed to the Department in 2014 from the Latrobe Fire Protection District. This staffing level for Station No. 91 is a Does the District comply with County General Plan policies in ● result of a collaboration between EDH and the Local 3604. Lower staffing relation to response times. Does the District meet the minimum levels leave the community vulnerable to low frequency, high risk events, standard for staffing. such as a working structure fire. The District’s average response time was 6 minutes 26 seconds based on available data from CAL FIRE Camino Dispatch and calculated by the consultants. The District provides sufficient services to meet current and future demands for two of the three indicators: (1) EDH recruits Board members and paid staff as the needs arise; (2) EDH participates in the county-wide mutual aid and automatic aid Does the District provides sufficient services to meet current and program. The Department provided aid 258 more times than it future demands with: received in 2019 suggesting that the Department is able to provide ▲ adequate service to communities within its boundaries and has (1) recruitment; capacity to assist neighboring agencies in providing those services; (2) mutual aid; and and (3) water supply for fire protection (3) Water service is provided through hydrants from EID to a portion of the District. Rural areas rely upon private water sources (tanks, ponds, lakes) throughout the District. Recommendation: When the next MSR is prepared, LAFCO should study the sufficiency of water for fire flows along with the spatial distribution of fire hydrants and water supply. EDH does have capacity to assist with and/or assume services provided by other fire protection agencies, based on the following factors: (1) Overall, the EDH’s level of transparency and organizational accountability is great, and its website does meet current legal requirements; (2) EDH’s staffing model meets national standards except for one fire Evaluation of District’s capacity to assist with and/or assume services ▲ station; and provided by other agencies. (3) All of EDH’s fire stations are staffed 24/7/365 with sufficient capacity to upstaff specific apparatus when needed. The Department is one of only two agencies in the County that provided more aid than it received in 2019 suggesting that the Department is well staffed and funded with capacity to assist with and/or assume services provided by other agencies. Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-51 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination An assessment of EDH’s facilities was recently completed. This assessment The District has preventative maintenance measures and has ▲ describes necessary maintenance and upgrades. EDH has financial planning planned for replacement of aging infrastructure. systems in place to cover the costs of future maintenance, improvements, or upgrades The Department provided consultants with the 2019-2024 Draft Facilities Has the District has been diligent in developing plans to Master Plan. The Plan is designed to provide strategic and measured facility accommodate the infrastructure and service needs of current and improvements for five of the six fire stations in the District. The Plan calls ▲ future constituents? District regularly reviews and updates its service for numerous capital improvements to each Department station totaling plans to ensure that infrastructure needs, and deficiencies are approximately $1.28 million by 2024. In addition, the Department provided addressed in a timely manner. an Asset Replacement Schedule for all Department assets with dedicated funding sources. EDH currently meets and plans for future infrastructure needs as follows: (1) Improvements are outlined in the Facilities Master Plan and sufficient to meet current needs; (2) Rolling stock [engines, apparatus, and emergency medical response The District meets infrastructure needs for: units] are sufficient to meet current and future needs; (1) facilities (stations); (3) Dispatch is provided by the ECC operated by CAL FIRE. Department (2) rolling stock (engines, apparatus, and emergency medical ▲ staff indicate the most critical infrastructure challenge facing the response units;) Department in the next five years will be addressing firefighter safety (3) dispatch systems; and issues associated with the outdated and single-focused (4) roadways for emergency access. communications utilized by the fire agencies in the County. Recommendation: When the next MSR is prepared, LAFCO should study the sufficiency of dispatch services for the West Slope; and (4) Roadways for emergency access appear to be sufficient; however, an emergency access plan was not provided. Rating for the District from the neutral third-party Insurance Services ▲ Office (ISO) where the rating scale from best to worse is One (1) to EDH received an ISO rating of 03/3X. Ten (10). The nearest CAL FIRE station to the District is Station No. 43 at 5660 ◆ Is there duplicate infrastructure by other agencies nearby? Mother Lode Dr, Placerville, CA 95667 operated by CAL FIRE. This station is 12.9 miles east of the District and is staffed seasonally. Financial Ability to Provide Services Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-52 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination District finances are sufficient to apply a staffing model that meets or District operates with a blend of staffing models from (4-0) staffing on the exceeds the generally accepted minimum standard of three staff per ● truck to (3-0) staffing for all but one of the fire stations, Station No. 91, engine and truck company (3-0) model (or at NFPA 1720 standards if which is staffed at the (2-0) model. The staffing for Station No. 91 requires applicable). the District to augment revenue generated by the Latrobe area. ▲ The District had a positive Net Position for FY 2018/2019. District had a $32 million Positive Net Position in FY 18/19. The primary policy document for EDH is the Board of Directors Policy The District has a published policy for reserve funds, including the ▲ Manual updated on May 21, 2020. The District continues to update size and purpose of reserves and how they are invested. necessary policies regarding reserve funds. The Strategic Plan for EDH was originally adopted in April of 2013 and has been subsequently updated every one to two years. The most recent ▲ update occurred in June of 2017 and projects out five years to 2022. The District has an updated Strategic Plan that addresses financial goals. plan includes goals, objectives and assigns leads to tasks with each objective including a timeframe for when tasks should be concluded as well as identified funding sources. A minimum of 50% total operating expense is kept on hand in the ▲ The General Reserve Fund carries above 50% of Annual Operating General Reserve Fund. Expenses. District Revenues exceed expenditures in FY 2017/2018 and FY ▲ District operated with $3.5 million and $2.9 million revenues over 2018/2019. expenditures in FY 17/18 and 18/19 respectively. The District publishes an audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) every year. Government Code and District policy require an annual Summary financial information presented in a standard format and ◆ independent audit of the District’s financial records by a certified public simple language. accountant. The independent audits on FY 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 were performed by Richardson and Company, independent auditors. Alternative financing opportunities were explored and pursued by ◆ The District pursues one time grant funding for equipment and personnel the District. as needed. Effect on Agriculture and Open Space The District’s boundary includes approximately 1,663 acres of open space Effect that the District’s service provision will have on open space ◆ and 1,069 acres of agricultural lands. A vineyard actively operates within and agricultural lands. the District boundary. Fire protection and emergency medical services generally have minimal effects on open space and agricultural land. ▲ ● ▼ ◆ Key Score: Above Average (compared to similar Districts), Average, Below Average, Statement of Fact (not rated) Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-53 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-54 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 5.8 References California State Controller. 2021. Government Compensation in California: Special District Detail – El Dorado Hills County Water District (2019). Available online at: https://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/SpecialDistricts/SpecialDistrict.aspx?entityid=2363&year=201 9. 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/. _____. 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/. _____. 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/. California Department of Water Resources (DWR). June, 2019. Disadvantaged Communities Mapping Tool. Available online at: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/dacs/. 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 online 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 online at: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/FIreHazardZone_NonTechnical_Prim er.pdf _____. 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. _____. Fire and Resource Protection Program (FRAP). December 2019. Map of Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). MAPID: WUI_19DATA SOURCES:WUI_12_315TY_18. Available online at: https://frap.fire.ca.gov/media/10300/wui_19_ada.pdf. _____. April 2021. SRA-LRA-FRA: SRA 21_1 Geodatabase. Available online at: https://frap.fire.ca.gov/mapping/gis-data/. CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center (ECC). 2020. CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center Dispatch Data. Received October 2020. California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). August 2003. Local Agency Formation Commission Municipal Service Review Guidelines Final. California State Controller's Office (SCO). 2021. Government Compensation in California. Special District Detail for the El Dorado Hills Fire Protection District, FY2019 by Betty Yee, State Controller. Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-55 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Available online at: https://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/SpecialDistricts/SpecialDistrict.aspx?entityid=2363&year=201 9. County of El Dorado (EDC). Emergency Services Authority. 2017. Strategic Plan 2017 – 2022. Available online at: http://edcjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/EDC-JPA-Strategic-Plan-2017- Master.pdf. _____. Sherriff’s Department Office of Emergency Services. July 2018. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available online at: https://eldorado.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3923674&GUID=C562ECEB-7E9F-446D- AE6B-3AC56E13F465. _____. 2019. El Dorado County General Plan Land Use Element. Available online at: https://www.edcgov.us/Government/planning/adoptedgeneralplan/Documents/2_landuse.pdf. _____. 2020a. GIS Data provider shape files. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. Grand Jury. June 8, 2020b. West Slope Fire Protection Update. Case No. 19-06. Available online at: https://edcgov.us/Government/GrandJury/Documents/2019- 2020%20Reports/West%20Slope%20Fire%20Protection%20Update.pdf. El Dorado Hills Fire Department (EDH). June 2017a. 2017-2022 EDHFD Strategic Plan. Contributions from Center for Public Safety Excellence. https://www.edhfire.com/2016-08-19-16-39- 34/documents-forms. _____. 2018. El Dorado Hills County Water District Audited Financial Statements and Compliance Report - June 30, 2018. Received November 2020. _____. 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. _____. May 2, 2019b. Facility and Fleet Assessment. 24-pages. _____. 2019c. El Dorado Hills County Water District Audited Financial Statements and Compliance Report – June 30, 2019. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. 2019d. El Dorado Hills Fire Department 2019 Annual Report. Available online at: www.edhfire.com. _____. February 18, 2020a. Draft Facilities Master Plan. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. July 1, 2020b. Apparatus Replacement Schedule. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. January – December 2020c. Monthly Training Detail. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. July 2020d. El Dorado Hills Capital Replacement Fund: Capital Asset Replacement Schedule Funding Analysis. Received November 2020. Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-56 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final _____. 2020e. El Dorado Hills Fire Department 2020 Annual Report. Available online at: https://www.eldoradocountyfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/2020-Annual-Report-Draft- Final.pdf. _____. 2021. Web pages. Available online at: https://www.edhfire.com/. El Dorado Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). August 2011. Countywide Fire Suppression and Emergency Services Municipal Service Review. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/municipal-service-reviews-and-spheres-of-influence. _____. 2019a. Fire District Survey: Fire Suppression Agency Questionnaire. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. September 11, 2019b. El Dorado Hills County Water District Detail. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/files/78039f36b/RescueFire_Sep+2019.pdf. _____. September 2020a. Response to LAFCO’s Request for Information. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. July 22, 2020c. 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 No. 19- 06. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/. Fire Safe Council for El Dorado County (EDCFSC). April 2021. EDCFSC Community Councils Map. Available online at https://www.edcfiresafe.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Councils-Map- Upate-4.28.21.pdf. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). 2020. 1710 Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. Transparent California and Nevada Policy Research Institute. 2021. Wage data download for the year 2018. Available online at: https://transparentcalifornia.com/. Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-57 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II El Dorado Hills County Water District Page 5-58 of 5-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Chapter 6. Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District This chapter details the district formation, boundary, government structure, population and land use, disadvantaged communities, finances, and the provision of fire protection facilities and services provided by the Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District (FLL) as well as the Municipal Service Review (MSR) determinations for this District. Table of Contents 6.1 Agency Profile ..................................................................................................................6-5 6.1.1 Agency Overview ................................................................................................................................... 6-5 6.2 Agency Formation and Boundary ......................................................................................6-6 6.2.1 Formation .............................................................................................................................................. 6-6 6.2.2 District Boundary................................................................................................................................... 6-6 6.2.3 Existing Sphere of Influence .................................................................................................................. 6-8 6.2.4 Extra-Territorial Services ....................................................................................................................... 6-8 6.3 District Governance and Accountability ............................................................................6-8 6.3.1 Government Structure .......................................................................................................................... 6-9 6.3.2 District Board......................................................................................................................................... 6-9 6.3.3 Accountability ..................................................................................................................................... 6-12 6.3.4 Management Efficiencies and Staffing ............................................................................................... 6-13 6.3.5 Staffing and Training ........................................................................................................................... 6-13 6.4 Growth & Population Forecasts ...................................................................................... 6-15 6.4.1 Existing Population .............................................................................................................................. 6-15 6.4.2 Existing Population in SOI ................................................................................................................... 6-16 Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-1 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 6.4.3 Projected Population Growth ............................................................................................................. 6-16 6.4.4 Existing Land Use ................................................................................................................................. 6-17 6.4.5 Potential Future Development ........................................................................................................... 6-18 6.4.6 Open Space & Agriculture ................................................................................................................... 6-19 6.4.7 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities.................................................................................... 6-19 6.5 Public Services and Infrastructure ................................................................................... 6-20 6.5.1 Service Overview ................................................................................................................................. 6-20 6.5.2 Fire & Emergency Response................................................................................................................ 6-20 6.5.3 Mutual Aid, Automatic Aid, Other Agreements .................................................................................. 6-23 6.5.4 Dispatch ............................................................................................................................................... 6-24 6.5.5 Emergency Access ............................................................................................................................... 6-25 6.5.6 Fire Hazard Zones ................................................................................................................................ 6-25 6.5.7 Other Fire Protection .......................................................................................................................... 6-28 6.5.8 Infrastructure ...................................................................................................................................... 6-28 6.5.9 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies ................................................................................................ 6-30 6.5.10 Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing ............................................................................................ 6-30 6.6 Financial Ability to Provide Services ................................................................................ 6-31 6.6.1 Financial Policies and Transparency ................................................................................................... 6-31 6.6.2 District Revenues and Expenditures ................................................................................................... 6-32 6.6.3 District Assets and Liabilities ............................................................................................................... 6-37 6.6.4 Net Position ......................................................................................................................................... 6-38 6.6.5 Asset Maintenance and Replacement ................................................................................................ 6-39 6.6.6 Cost Avoidance .................................................................................................................................... 6-39 6.6.7 Financial Summary and Ability to Provide Services ............................................................................ 6-39 6.7 Determinations .............................................................................................................. 6-44 6.8 References ..................................................................................................................... 6-51 Table of Tables Table 6-1: Geographic Summary (2020) of Fire Protection Services for FLL ............................................. 6-8 Table 6-2: Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Board of Directors ........................................... 6-9 Table 6-3: Current Staffing Levels for the FLL by Type & Full-time Equivalent (FTE) .............................. 6-14 Table 6-4: Existing Population for FLL ...................................................................................................... 6-15 Table 6-5: Total Estimated & Projected Population (2020 – 2045) ........................................................ 6-16 Table 6-6: Boundary Only Acreage Designated in the TRPA Land Use as Backcountry, Conservation and Wilderness ............................................................................................................................................... 6-19 Table 6-7: FLL Public Services .................................................................................................................. 6-20 Table 6-8: FLL Fire Hazard Severity Zone Acreage and Percentage ........................................................ 6-25 Table 6-9: FLL Local, State and Federal Responsibility Area Acreage and Percentage ........................... 6-26 Table 6-10: Fire Stations Detail ................................................................................................................ 6-28 Table 6-11: Apparatus & Light Vehicles, 2020 ......................................................................................... 6-29 Table 6-12: Percent increase of Property Taxes from FY 2017/2018 to FY 2020/2021 .......................... 6-32 Table 6-13: Summary of MSR Determinations for Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District ......... 6-44 Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-2 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table of Figures Figure 6-1: Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Boundary Area ................................................ 6-7 Figure 6-2: Topography of Lake Tahoe Environs & FLL District Boundary .............................................. 6-17 Figure 6-3: FLL Calls for Service from 2010 – 2019 .................................................................................. 6-22 Figure 6-4: FLL Calls for Service by Type, 2019 ........................................................................................ 6-22 Figure 6-5: Fire Hazard Severity Zones within the FLL............................................................................. 6-27 Figure 6-6: FLL Revenues & Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 Through FY 2020/2021............................. 6-33 Figure 6-7: California State Auditor’s Report Fact Sheet District Overbilled Amounts, 2016-2018 ....... 6-35 Figure 6-8: FLL Net Revenues Over/Under Expenditures from FY 2017/2018 to FY 2020/2021 ............ 6-37 Figure 6-9: District Assets as of June 30, 2019 ........................................................................................ 6-38 Figure 6-10: District Liabilities and Debt as of June 30, 2019.................................................................. 6-38 Figure 6-11: District Net Position as of June 30, 2019 ............................................................................. 6-39 Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-3 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-4 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 6.1 Agency Profile 6.1.1 Agency Overview The Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District (FLL or District) is located within the Lake Tahoe Basin, along the northeast side of the County of El Dorado and generally encompasses the areas surrounding Fallen Leaf Lake and Lilly Lake just south of the Fallen Leaf Lake Campground operated by the USFS. The District provides fire protection and parks and recreation services to areas within the Fallen Leaf Lake Basin, north of Angora Ridge Road to one mile south of State Highway 89 (LAFCO, 2020a). Fire protection services provided by the District generally include fire prevention inspection; fire response and suppression; emergency medical services (EMS); special operations (such as water and wilderness rescues); vehicle extrication and hazardous materials response; fire administration and staff training; and Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-5 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final response to other public emergencies. Dispatch is through the South Lake Tahoe Dispatch Center operated by the City of South Lake Tahoe Police Department. This dispatch center is the primary Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for the South Tahoe basin area (CSLT, 2020). 6.2 Agency Formation and Boundary 6.2.1 Formation The District was formed in December 1982 under Government Code §61000, et seq. to provide fire protection and related services in the Fallen Leaf Lake Basin (FLL, 2020). In 1987, the District added parks and recreation facilities to its provision of services, including operating and maintaining the marina, general store, parking lot, and beaches around Fallen Leaf Lake. The District is bounded on all sides by El Dorado National Forest Service lands and is adjacent to the Desolation Wilderness. 6.2.2 District Boundary The Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District (FLL) geographic boundary encompasses approximately 3,377 acres or 5.2 square miles as seen in Figure 6-1 below. The FLL is located on the east side of the County of El Dorado and west of Lake Tahoe. FLL serves the communities located adjacent to Fallen Leaf Lake on the east and west sides, and homes located in the Glen Alpine Canyon. The District boundary also includes the Stanford Sierra Conference Center. There are roughly 289 improved parcels within the District. A majority of the District is made up of Fallen Leaf Lake in the center of the district with a topography of steep, densely wooded ridges and mountains along the east, west, and south sides of the District (TRPA, 2020). Adjacent to the FLL is the Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LAV). Fire services in the area are also provided by CAL FIRE and the United States Forest Service (USFS) in coordination with the FLL, LAV, and the City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department (SLT). Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-6 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 6-1: Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Boundary Area Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-7 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 6.2.3 Existing Sphere of Influence El Dorado LAFCO adopted the original Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the FLL in October 2013 via Resolution No. L-2013-15 (LAFCO, 2018). The District’s SOI is coterminous with its boundary as depicted in Table 6-1. The geographic summary of the District is shown in Error! Reference source not found.. Table 6-1: Geographic Summary (2020) of Fire Protection Services for FLL Boundary Area SOI Total Boundary (All Services) (All Services) & SOI Total Acres 3,377.5 0 3,377.5 Square Miles 5.2 0 5.2 Number of Assessor Parcels 479 0 479 Source: El Dorado County GIS Data, 2020 It is mentioned in the 2013 MSR for the District that, in previous years FLL has discussed combining with LAV because of severe financial concerns for FLL due to lost revenue attributed to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) in 2012. Ultimately, it was found to be cost prohibitive to reorganize with LAV as LAV provides higher levels of service and staffing and higher negotiated employee salaries and benefits. 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 (LAFCO, 2020a). The two potential locations for this fire station are along Cathedral Road on the west-side of Fallen Leaf Lake; or the corner of State Route 89 and Fallen Leaf Road, outside of the current District boundaries (LAFCO, 2020a). 6.2.4 Extra-Territorial Services FLL does provide extra-territorial services outside of its district boundary in response to mutual and automatic aid. However, these services provided outside the District are not considered to be Out-of- Agency Services but accomplished as part of the existing automatic aid and mutual aid agreements. Adjacent to the FLL is the Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LAV). Fire services in the area are also provided by CAL FIRE and the United States Forest Service (USFS) in coordination with the FLL, LAV, and the City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department (SLT). The District maintains automatic aid agreements with LAV, CAL FIRE and USFS for fire suppression and emergency medical services. FLL does not have a current agreement with the City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department but will respond when called (LAFCO, 2020a). 6.3 District Governance and Accountability This section describes how performance, accountability, transparency, and public engagement relate to the public’s trust in local government. LAFCO is required by the CKH Act to make specific determinations regarding a service provider’s governmental structure and accountability. Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-8 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 6.3.1 Government Structure The Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District (FLL) is a local government agency structured as a Community Services District consistent with its Principal Act: Community Services District Law, Government Code §61000, et seq. The District has five elected Board Members who must be registered to vote at addresses within the District. All registered voters, who reside within the District are eligible to vote for and/or run for a seat on the District Board of Directors. The District Board appoints the General Manager (GM). The current GM also acts as the Fire Chief and Secretary for FLL. The District is organized into operational services for the community center, general store and café, marina, and fire department. 6.3.2 District Board The District operates under the direction of the elected District Board of Directors. Each elected Board Member serves for a term of four years with two Board Member seats running two years apart from the remaining three seats. A new Board President is selected by the Board Members each year. The District does not have any active committees. The current Board of Directors and the expiration dates of their terms are shown in Table 6-2 below. The Board’s By-Laws and Policies & Procedures were adopted in 1991 (LAFCO, 2018). The Board holds on average five public meetings per year, generally one each for the months of March, May, July, September, and December. A maximum of six to eight Board meetings are held annually with additional public forums held on the holiday weekends of the 4th of July and Labor Day (LAFCO, 2018). For 2019, the Board held four meetings throughout the year and seven in 2020. Generally, ten to fifteen residents of the District attend board meetings. Board Members receive a stipend of $100 per meeting and IRS rates for milage related to District travel are available to Board Members; however, in 2018, no Board Members requested this stipend or mileage reimbursement, effectively serving as volunteers (Transparent CA, 2020). Other employment benefits such as health insurance or retirement are not available to Board Members (LAFCO, 2020a). Table 6-2: Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Board of Directors Name Title Term End Committee Appointments Mike Cathcart President 12/2024 None Grant Calof Director 12/2024 None Stephen A Malley Director 12/2024 None Bruce Hart Director 12/2022 None Mike Casey Vice President 12/2022 None Source: FLL, 2020a As of the November 2020 election, the District had two vacancies on the Board. Because the District had two seats available and only two candidates filed for the election, these open Board seats did not appear on the November 2020 ballot. The two candidates who filed: incumbents Mike Cathcart and Stephen Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-9 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Malley, were automatically appointed to the District Board (EDC Elections Department staff, personal communication, January 11, 2020). California State Auditor’s Report The California State Auditor reviewed the governance related to the FLL Board of Directors in a report, “Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District – Its Billing Practices and Small Electorate Jeopardize Its Ability to Provide Services,” dated July 2019. This report found that FLL’s billing practices and small electorate jeopardize its ability to provide services. In addition, the report found that FLL overcharged its state, federal, and local partners by claiming excessive personnel costs and by inflating its salary rates (California State Auditor, 2019). The District disagrees with the findings of the California State Auditor with respect to those conclusions (Fallen Leaf Lake CSD: Attorney legal, personal communication, August 2021). The report also found that the District has had difficulty attracting candidates to run for its five- member board due to eligibility requirements, as evidenced by the November 2020 election. Only people who have their primary, fixed residence in the District are eligible to register to vote and to sit on the Board. Many community members live in the District for only part of the year. Consequently, as of January 2019, the District had 62 registered voters, with only 17 of them provided mailing addresses in South Lake Tahoe. The other 45 voters, including all five of the District’s current Board members registered with mailing addresses outside the area, an indication that these members may actually have primary, fixed residences outside of the District and are, therefore, ineligible to serve on the Board. Because these voter registration irregulates indicate possible violations of California law, the report has been forwarded to the California Secretary of State and the County of El Dorado District Attorney for consideration and possible further investigation. The District has not had a contested election for a Board seat since August 2010, and since January 2010, it has had eight different vacancies on its Board (California State Auditor, 2019). In response to the State Auditor’s report, FLL has taken two actions related to the issue of Board governance including: 1. Coordination with State Senators Brain Dahle and Josh Becker on Senate Bill 96, “The Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Fire Protection Act of 2021,” introduced on December 21, 2020. This bill would modify State Uniform District Election Law for the District to allow landowners and holders of Forest Service Permits within the District, who do not reside within FLL, along with otherwise registered voters in the District, to be eligible to vote for District Board candidates and to serve on the FLL Board of Directors (California Legislative Information, 2020). The District passed Resolution No. 2020-1 in support of SB 1180, substantively identical to SB 96, on April 10, 2020; and 2. Hired a lobbyist to seek a political resolution as identified in the agenda item on the Board’s December 2020 agenda: “Discussion and Possible Motion(s) to approve Lobbyist Contract with Nate Solov of Nossaman LLP for services retroactive from November 1, 2020 – Director Casey.” Normally, contracts for professional services are approved prior to such services being initiated. Concerns could be raised if Mr. Solov performed work prior to the December 5, 2020 Board meeting. The State Auditor’s 2019 Report also found that “The fire chief also appears to have circumvented the board’s role in governing the district. State law gives special districts’ boards the authority to adopt Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-10 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final policies for their districts’ operation, including fiscal and personnel policies. The district provided no such fiscal or personnel policies related to its strike teams. In the absence of a policy delegating the authority to the district’s fire chief to determine salary rates for fire fighters on strike teams, we expected the district’s board to have approved the proposed salary rates. However, the fire chief could not provide evidence that the district’s board approved the pay rates he submitted to Cal OES” (California State Auditor, 2019). The District and its Board disagrees with this conclusion (Fallen Leaf Lake CSD: Attorney legal, personal communication, August 2021). More information on this can be found in the Finance Section, Section 6.6 below. In California, elected members of special district boards are required to comply with three laws regarding accountability and ethics including 1) the Political Reform Act; 2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005), which requires ethics training; and 3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. which mandates sexual harassment prevention training. A description of each of these three state laws is provided in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Political Reform Act Each special district in California is required to have ethics and conflict of interest code/policies. It is not clear if FLL has an adopted Ethics Policy, nor is it clear if the District has a Conflict-of-Interest policy as none are presented on the District’s website. The Political Reform Act requires Special District Board Members to disclose all personal economic interests by filing a "Statement of Economic Interests" (Form 700) with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). All District Board members are up to date with their filings as of February 2021, except for Bruce Hart for which no Form 700 was available from the County of El Dorado Elections Department. In addition, none of the Board Members listed assets in real property within the District boundary on their Form 700s. Though it is possible for Board Members to be renting property as a primary residence, this could indicate that none of the current Board Members have primary, fixed residences in the District as described in the section above. Information available from the FPPC indicates that Board Members are complying with the Political Reform Act. Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005) Local government officials are required to take ethics training every two years. Compliance with this law was assessed for each of the fourteen fire agencies studied in this MSR by asking the District Clerk of the Board for the dates and other documentation of training events. FLL’s Fire Chief reports that training has been conducted on a regular basis every two years (Chief Garren, personal communication, August 2021). Therefore, FLL’s Board is in compliance with AB 1234. Government Code 53237 et. seq. Special district board members must receive required sexual harassment prevention, two-hour training, every two years. Compliance with this law was assessed for each of the fourteen fire agencies studied in this MSR by asking the District Clerk of the Board for the dates and other documentation of training events. FLL’s Fire Chief reports that training has been conducted on a regular basis (Chief Garren, personal communication, August 2021). Therefore, FLL’s Board is in compliance with Gov. Code 53237 et. seq. Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-11 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 6.3.3 Accountability Brown Act The Brown Act is described in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. All meetings of the District Board and committees are open to the public in accordance with the Brown Act. FLL’s agenda for each Board meeting includes a public comment period and agendas are made available 72 hours before meetings. Written document that relate to agenda items are available for public inspection at the same time the agenda packet is distributed to the members of the Board of Directors. Written documents are also made available at the District Office (LAFCO, 2020a). New Brown Act requirements prescribe the methods and location by which an agenda must be accessible on an agency's website for all meetings. FLL makes its most recent agenda available on the homepage of the District website at: http://fllcsd.org/. The District website agenda distribution complies with the requirements of the Brown Act 2016 Updates described in AB2257. Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-29-20 suspended parts of the Brown Act that require in-person attendance of Board Members and citizens at public meetings as described in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. In response to these events, the District implemented Teleconference/Electronic Meeting Protocols, which allow for public participation through phone and via video conferencing called "Zoom". This platform is accessible by the public for free. Access information by phone is available on the agendas each month (Chief Gerren, personal communication, September 2020). The District, however, does not leave the phone line open for the length of the meeting, but disconnects the line if there are no phone participants in the first 30 minutes of the open session of the meeting. Special District Transparency Act (SB 929) The Special District Transparency Act (SB 929 or California Government Code, §6270.6 and 53087.8) requires that special districts have a functional website, and the requirements of this Act are described in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. The District’s website is not kept updated. Only outdated financial data is available on the District website, and no access to strategic planning or long-term reports created by the District are available. In addition, the District’s By-Laws and Policy & Procedures adopted in 1991 are not available on the website. Some links are broken including fire department related documents such as the District’s “Standard Operations Manual” and “Fire Department Masterplan.” The District’s website does not meet the intent of allowing the public easy access to District records and information. The website design is easily navigable with current and past agenda packets available for download (FLL, 2020a). The Fire Chief reports that the website is updated regularly and is currently in the process of being further updated; and the Board website information follows all Brown Act Guidelines (Chief Garren, personal communication, August 2021). Overall, the Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District does not comply with the requirements of the Special District Transparency Act. Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-12 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final General Accountability The Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District (FLL) demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with El Dorado LAFCO. The District cooperated with LAFCO's requests for information in 2020 and participated in an interview with the MSR consultants. FLL, along with all the fire protection districts in El Dorado County, were the subject of a 2018 grand jury report entitled “El Dorado County Fire Protection Consolidation” (EDC, 2018). The Grand Jury posits in Case No. 19-06 that, while it made sense historically, the only reason there are multiple fire agencies in El Dorado County is because of “strong loyalty to a local home district,” coming “at the expense of the County as a whole.” The Grand Jury concludes that the insufficient revenues afforded to rural districts puts a strain on the mutual and automatic aid system as a whole; forcing more financially stable districts to “subsidize” the rural ones by having the former respond to calls when the latter is unable to do so. The issues raised in the grand jury report remain valid (LAFCO, 2020b). Changes to the governmental structure of some fire protection districts are needed to address these issues. 6.3.4 Management Efficiencies and Staffing The District operates under the direction of the elected District Board. The General Manager is appointed by and reports to the Board and is responsible for directing District operations and overseeing and implementing policies on behalf of the Board. An important part of management effectiveness includes the District adopting a mission and vision statement. The FLL Fire Department mission statement is: to minimize the damaging effects of fire and other hazards on life, the environment and property in and around the Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District. To serve the Fallen Leaf Lake Community with a volunteer force to the best of our ability according to budget, training, and access by providing education, prevention, and initial response to fires, medical emergencies, and other hazards. It is unclear the number of adopted policy documents for the District as none are transparently displayed on the District’s website (FLL, 2020a). 6.3.5 Staffing and Training FLL is staffed at a ratio of two firefighters per engine and truck company (2-0) model. Detailed full-time personnel information can be seen in Table 6-3 below. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) calls for a standard of four firefighters per engine and truck company (4-0) model (NFPA, 2020). A three firefighters per engine and truck company (3-0) model is acceptable as a minimum standard for this MSR/SOI Update. More information on staffing levels can be found in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Lower staffing levels leave the community vulnerable to low frequency, high- risk events, such as a working structure fire. Staffing for the District is below the minimum standard practice. However, the Fire Chief for FLL indicated to consultants that the current staffing is adequate for the District (Chief Gerren, personal communication, September 2020). FLL operates a small fire department with one fire chief, six paid uniform personnel, one office staff, and one assistant. District employees do not participate in the California Public Employee’s Retirement System (CalPERS) (FLL, 2019a). The District generally has four active volunteers and approximately 10-20 interns at the beginning of each fire season. The District operates seasonally, generally opening on May 1 each Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-13 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final year and closing at the end of fire season (generally mid-October to November 1st). During the winter months, only four volunteers are available and one 4-wheel drive apparatus is left in the station for responses to emergencies (LAFCO, 2020a; Chief Gerren, personal communication, September 2020, 2020). The personnel summary table shown below lists the positions that manage the fire and emergency services provided by the District. Table 8-3 lists the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) positions at the beginning of the fiscal year. Table 6-3: Current Staffing Levels for the FLL by Type & Full-time Equivalent (FTE) FTE Count as of Compared to Position July 1, 2020 2018 Fire Chief 1 1 Deputy Fire Chief 1 1 Paid Firefighter - Seasonal 6 9 Administrative Assistant 1 1 Total 9 12 Source: LAFCO, 2020a In 2020, the District started with 20 interns, which were reduced to about 16 as some interns were able to procure full-time positions elsewhere. The District generally runs one to three interns per shift, which brings the number of staff per engine to three or four on some shifts, meeting minimum national standards when available. The year-round volunteers are employees at the Stanford Camp (Chief Gerren, personal communication, September 2020, 2020). Staffing for the FLL is augmented by its participation in a ‘boundary drop,’ mutual aid system that automatically deploys the closest available resource to respond to requests for aid from other fire agencies in the County of El Dorado (LAFCO, 2020a). In addition, FLL participates in the Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chiefs’ Association (LTRFCA). This Association provides regional cooperation in the form of automatic and mutual aid agreements between all fire agencies in the Lake Tahoe Basin as well as agencies within Carson Valley, Nevada. Although FLL does not meet the 3-0 staffing model standard, its agreement with the Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chiefs’ Association helps it function as a mutual aid system partner (LTRFCA, 2020). In the California State Auditor’s Report mentioned in Section 6.3.2 above, the California State Auditor found that the District mischaracterized its employment relationship with its recruits/volunteers. What the State Auditor defines as recruits/volunteers are the personnel that the District considers to be interns. The State Auditor found, “Not only did the district inappropriately profit from providing personnel for strike teams, it may also have violated federal law by not treating its fire agency recruits as employees. Laws related to whether employers should treat their personnel—including firefighters—as volunteers, interns, independent contractors, or employees are complex, and several factors can influence the determination. For instance, the Fair Labor Standards Act (Fair Labor Act) is a series of federal statutes that provide numerous protections, including minimum wages and allowable maximum work hours, for employees.” The report specifically mentions that the Fair Labor Act excludes people working as interns from being considered employees as well as limits the amount of compensation available to these positions while still retaining an “intern” status (California State Auditor, 2019). The Fire Chief stated in Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-14 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final the Auditor’s Report that the District pays interns when they respond to strike team incidents because strike team duties exceed the normal duties within the District. However, because the District has paid interns the same rates paid to employees while on strike team assignments and because those assignments are part of the training regimen for interns, the District may be in violation of the Fair Labor Act. More information on this topic can be found in Section 6.6 below. Training District personnel, volunteers, and interns are current with all training requirements including certification in Wildland-Urban Interface training. Personnel train every day (Chief Gerren, personal communication, August 2021; LAFCO, 2020a). Complaints During the years 2018 and 2019, the District did not receive any complaints regarding its service (LAFCO, 2020a). 6.4 Growth & Population Forecasts The growth and population projection for the affected area is a determination which LAFCO is required to describe, consistent with the MSR Guidelines from the Office of Planning & Research (OPR) as set forth in the CKH Act. This section provides information on the existing population and future growth projections for the Fallen Leaf Lake Fire Protection District. Historical and anticipated population growth is a factor that affects service demand. 6.4.1 Existing Population Within FLL boundaries there are approximately five (5) to 33 permanent residents as of 2018, as shown in Table 6-4 below. Detailed information regarding population demographics and socio-economic indicators in El Dorado County is provided in Volume I - Appendix A and Appendix B. Table 6-4: Existing Population for FLL Number of Overnight Visitor Daytime Permanent Registered Population Visitor Population Voters (Estimated) Population Fallen Leaf Lake Community 901 5-332 1,6803 3,5004 Services District Sources: 1 LAFCO, 2020a 2 Cal OES, 2018 3 This includes a maximum of 1,000 homeowners in the summer months along with 180 employees and 500 campers at Stanford Camp. 4 LAFCO, 2020a Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-15 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The California State Auditor’s report estimated the number of residents to be between five and 33 by including the number of landowners who claimed a homeowner’s exemption, the number of registered voters within the District who reported mailing addresses in the South Lake Tahoe area, and the number of individuals with vehicle registrations or driver licenses with addresses within the District. The District’s community members include 172 private landowners who own 192 parcels of land with houses or cabins. There are also 96 holders of permits that the USFS has issued for cabins or other improvements on 97 federal land parcels (California State Auditor, 2019). At maximum, there could be up to 5,000 people within the District on any given day during the summer months with peaks occurring during holiday weekends. During the winter months there are between five and 33 permanent residents as well as a skeleton crew at Stanford Camp, usually four employees. Visitors to existing homes increase during holiday weekends over the winter months as well, though access is restricted to residents only due to seasonal road closures (Chief Gerren, personal communication, September 2020; California State Auditor, 2019). 6.4.2 Existing Population in SOI The SOI for FLL is coterminous with its boundary. 6.4.3 Projected Population Growth County-level population estimates are shown in Table 6-5 along with District projections. By the year 2040, it is estimated that FLL’s existing boundary will encompass a population of 36 permanent residents and 1,854 overnight visitors. The combined number of permanent and overnight persons of 1890 in year 2040 represents an average annual growth rate of 0.0046 percent during the twenty-year time period. This growth rate was taken from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) estimates for growth within the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) from 2018 to 2045. Table 6-5: Total Estimated & Projected Population (2020 – 2045) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 County of El Dorado1 193,227 201,041 207,496 211,537 213,033 Fallen Leaf Lake Community 1,731 1,771 1,811 1,851 1,890 Services District2 Sources: 1 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. 2 Population projection for FLL calculated as a percentage of The County of El Dorado and includes both permanent residents and overnight visitor population. Though the projected growth rate for the County of El Dorado anticipates development throughout the entire County, the addition of 36 more people to the FLL by 2040 is possible as the District has undeveloped areas within its existing boundaries that could potentially be available for more residential development, subject to TRPA and County approval. Growth in the Tahoe Basin is slow due to land use regulation by the TRPA; an average of 20-30 permits are reviewed annually for remodeling projects and new homes (LAFCO, 2011). Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-16 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 6.4.4 Existing Land Use 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 TRPA regulations as well as local topography. There are large variations in topography within the FLL District as well as in the surrounding areas as shown in Figure 6-2. Figure 6-2: Topography of Lake Tahoe Environs & FLL District Boundary Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Future population growth within the Lake Tahoe region is dependent upon the General Plan and zoning policies and land-use designations in the region. Regional population and General Plans/zoning are described in detail in Volume I – Chapter 3, Introduction. The Lake Tahoe area is under the jurisdiction of several agencies, including the TRPA and the County of El Dorado, as well as various State agencies due to the fact that the lake straddles California and Nevada. The 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 (TRPA, 1987a). • South Fallen Leaf: Existing uses include residential summer homes, the Fallen Leaf Lake Lodge and cabins, and the Stanford Camp Resort. There is high recreational demand in this area which has created access and parking problems. Areas within the Fallen Leaf Lodge property are subject to winter debris avalanches during heavy precipitation events and Stanford Camp is subject to Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-17 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final avalanche hazards. Very few parcels are available for development as single-family dwellings or summer homes and additional commercial development is limited to parcels with that specific use on the effective date of the area plan which was last amended in August 2002. Recreational opportunities including public boat launching and some public beach access. As of 2002, no more allocations existed to develop additional outdoor recreation capacity facilities in this area (TRPA, 1987b). • Fallen Leaf North: Uses in the area are mostly recreational within the District boundary. Support facilities for recreational use include summer tract homes and hiking trails. The Cathedral Lake trail head for Mount Tallac is accessible from within the District boundary and maintained by the USFS Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (TRPA, 1987c). • Fallen Leaf Forest Service Tracts: Predominant uses are summer homes located on USFS administered lands. Automobile access to these summer homes is by unimproved roads while others are only accessible by walking or boating. As of 2002, no more allocations existed to develop additional outdoor recreation capacity facilities in this area (TRPA, 1987d). There are 45 summer homes located along this side of Fallen Leaf Lake and nine of these home are only accessible by boat (Chief Gerren, personal communication, September 2020, 2020). • Lilly/Angora Lakes: This planning area includes summer homes with many located on private lands. The area provides trail heads to the Desolation Wilderness and recreational activities including hiking, fishing, boating, and picnicking (TRPA, 1987e). County General Plan The District's boundary area is entirely unincorporated and subject to the land-use policies and regulations of the County of El Dorado. Over the last decade, most land-use decisions, initiated by private property owners, are secured via entitlements and land-use permits from the County of El Dorado and other agencies. To date, one Community Plan has been adopted within the County’s jurisdiction: the Meyers Area (Community) Plan. Future subdivisions in the area around Fallen Leaf Lake are precluded by the County due to seismic related hazards such as landslides and avalanches in the area (EDC, 2018). 6.4.5 Potential Future Development FLL staff has indicated that there have been no new residential or commercial development within its 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 (LAFCO, 2020a). Primary land uses within the District are residential and open space. 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. The District does not receive any tax from the U.S. Government directly. The County receives payment in lieu of taxes (PILT funds) and these funds are not distributed accordingly to FLL or any fire agency in the County. The parcels that are exempt because they are owned by the USFS, have PILT funds paid directly Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-18 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final to the County for fire protection coverage of these parcels. The Fire Chief contends that the District should be receiving from the County of El Dorado FLL’s portion of the PILT tax that is paid to the County on parcels that are in the District and that the District is providing first response to for all emergencies. More information on PILT funds can be found in Volume I - Chapter 5, Countywide Finances. 6.4.6 Open Space & Agriculture El Dorado LAFCO’s policies require that an MSR/SOI offer a determination about the effect that a district’s service provision will have on open space and agricultural lands. For purposes of this MSR analysis, open space data was derived from the County GIS data. Open space within the FLL boundary calculates to 3,150.7 acres and includes backcountry, conservation, and wilderness land use designations from the TRPA as shown in Table 6-6. There are agricultural lands for timber harvest within the District. The District's boundary contains state and federal lands, beaches, a marina, and trailheads (LAFCO, 2020a). Table 6-6: Boundary Only Acreage Designated in the TRPA Land Use as Backcountry, Conservation and Wilderness Land Use Type TRPA Planning Areas Acres Conservation Fallen Leaf Forest Service Tracts 97 Conservation Lilly/Angora Lakes 223 Conservation Angora Ridge 261 Conservation Fallen Leaf North 1,990 Wilderness Desolation Wilderness 28 Backcountry Desolation Wilderness 551 Total 3,150 Source: TRPA GIS, 2019 As a fire district, FLL’s effect on open space lands is positive because the District does provide fire protection services within its boundaries. However, LAFCO also has an interest in documenting the conversion of agricultural and open space lands to other land use types, such as residential use. The FLL fire services do not play a direct role in these types of land-use conversions. Municipal government agencies, such as the County of El Dorado and TRPA have the responsibility for land-use decisions. 6.4.7 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities As detailed in the Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information, a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) is an unincorporated area of a County in which the annual median household income (MHI) is less than 80 percent of the statewide MHI. Within the boundaries of FLL, there is one Census Block Group (Census Tract 032000, Block Group 2) that may qualify as a DUC. However, no information is available for median household income for this area (DWR, 2018). Therefore, it is not known whether there is a disadvantaged unincorporated community within the District boundary. Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-19 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 6.5 Public Services and Infrastructure 6.5.1 Service Overview The Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District (FLL) is an established special district and is the primary service provider for emergency medical services, fire protection, and parks and recreation services to residents and businesses within its boundaries. The District provides comprehensive fire and emergency medical services as detailed in Table 6-7. Table 6-7: FLL Public Services Service Provider Structural Fire Protection FLL Wildland Fire Protection FLL Emergency Medical Response Cal Tahoe JPA Rescue/Extrication FLL Hazardous Materials FLL Water Supply FLL Dispatch SLT Dispatch Training FLL Fire Safety Education FLL Arson Investigations FLL, Other Source: LAFCO, 2020a Apart from the duties of the FLL Fire Department, the District manages a general store and café, a marina, a community center, two beaches, the launch ramp, and associated parking lots. The District outsources the general store and café management to a vendor. There is some overlap with staff between the parks and recreation side and the fire department. In 2020, one intern worked for both the fire department and the general store (Chief Gerren, personal communication, September 2020). 6.5.2 Fire & Emergency Response The District maintains a mutual aid agreement with Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LAV) located in El Dorado County for fire suppression and emergency management services. Under this system, the District may be called to respond to close proximity calls within the adjacent fire jurisdiction, as well as receives assistance from LAV when requested. This type of agreement ensures the best possible emergency service is delivered by the most efficient means possible. The District also participates in a mutual aid system that responds to requests for aid from throughout the County and State. Because of these agreements, all firefighters within each fire agency in the County must be prepared for any type of emergency in any setting at all times. 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. Every fire agency within the United States is rated by an independent risk assessment and standards authority for the purposes of establishing insurance policy premiums for homeowners and businesses. California uses an independent national company called the Insurance Services Office, or ISO, for this purpose. The Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-20 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Insurance Services Office evaluates four broad categories of fire suppression when establishing a Public Protection Classification (PPC). These categories include: 1) Fire Department; 2) Emergency Communications; 3) Water Supply; and 4) Community Risk Reduction. ISO routinely conducts assessments of each fire agency in the United States. The rating scale from best to worse is One (1) — Ten (10). There is a possible score of 105.5 points from the total of the four categories listed above. An agency needs a score of 90-105.5 to receive a PPC of Class 1. The Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District received an ISO rating of 2 (LAFCO, 2020a). Since an ISO Class 1 represents an exemplary fire suppression program, FLL’s ISO rating of “2” is very good. Emergency Medical Services The Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District participates in the California Tahoe Emergency Services Operations Joint Powers Authority (Cal Tahoe JPA) as a non-transporting agency. The Cal Tahoe JPA is the transport contractor for ambulance service with the County of El Dorado to service the Lake Tahoe South Shore area and parts of northwestern Alpine County. As a non-transporting agency, the FLL does not staff or maintain an ambulance within the District for the Cal Tahoe JPA. The closest ambulances available to the District through the JPA are Medic 7 from Lake Valley Fire Protection District in Meyers or Medics 2 and 3 from the City of South Lake Tahoe. Generally, an ambulance will take 25 to 30 minutes to get to the FLL fire station. As a result, the District employs firefighter paramedics to allow for immediate medical care to residents during medical emergencies as they wait for the ambulance. The District has an agreement to purchase medical supplies and drugs through Barton Memorial Hospital located in the City of South Lake Tahoe (Chief Gerren, personal communication, September 2020). The Cal Tahoe JPA contracts six ambulances to serve the Lake Tahoe South Shore area. Of those six ambulances, three operate full-time, one through Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LAV) and two directly through the JPA. One ambulance is utilized part-time and the remaining two are held in reserve with LAV. The City does not participate in the JPA and provides its own ambulance service within the City Limits. Paramedics from the Cal Tahoe JPA and LAV respond to over 3,400 emergency medical calls annually (Cal Tahoe JPA, 2020). More information regarding the Cal Tahoe JPA can be found in Volume II - Chapter 15, County Service Area (CSA) 3 and CSA 7 MSR. Calls for Service According to South Lake Tahoe Dispatch, FLL responded to 25 unique incidents in 2019. Those incidents translated to 30 calls for service. A call for service refers to any apparatus or vehicle for the agency which responded to a unique incident, and each apparatus or vehicle is counted as one “call for service.” A breakdown of calls for service from 2010 to 2019 can be seen in Figure 6-3 (SLT, 2020a). Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-21 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 6-3: FLL Calls for Service from 2010 – 2019 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 The District calls for service fluctuate by 10 to 20 calls on busy years versus slower years, however the District in general has the lowest call volume of any fire agency in the County of El Dorado. Though the calls for service fluctuate year over year, there has been a general trend of increased service calls in the District since 2010, which saw the smallest number of calls at seven. The District saw the highest number of calls in 2018 at 41 calls (SLT, 2020a). As shown in Figure 6-4, the majority of the calls to which FLL responded in 2019 were medical (12 incidents) followed by other (5 incidents) and fire and assistance (4 incidents). The majority of the District’s calls were for emergency medical services (SLT, 2020a). Figure 6-4: FLL Calls for Service by Type, 2019 16% Medical 48% Fire 20% Other Assistance 16% Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-22 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The “Other” category includes law enforcement, rescues, aircraft and other call types as detailed in Volume II - Appendix B. Response Time The District does have a response time policy that sets the response time at 5 minutes. According to South Tahoe Dispatch, in the year 2019 the FLL’s average response time was about nine (9) minutes (SLT, 2020a). This is four (4) minutes longer than the District’s policy. Longer response times reduce the likelihood for positive outcomes related to structure fires and emergency service calls. The response time data does not cover interfacility transfer (IFT), auto/mutual aid, and strike team/overhead (LAFCO, 2020a). Other Industry Standards In general, other industry standards applicable to the FLL are established by the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA), the Insurance Services Office, Cal OSHA, and District ordinances. All of these agencies, as well as many others, directly and/or indirectly affect the type of services, the quality and development of those services, expansion, reliability, facility design, and construction and environmental issues that the District provides. 6.5.3 Mutual Aid, Automatic Aid, Other Agreements As mentioned previously, FLL maintains several mutual aid agreements with regard to fire protection or emergency services. Specific aid agreements with surrounding fire agencies include LAV, CAL FIRE, and the US Forest Service (USFS). Also included are the Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chiefs’ Association (LTRFCA), California Master Mutual Aid, and Operational Agreements with state and local agencies. In addition, the District will send personnel and interns out on strike team assignments throughout the State to assist with wildfires during wildfire season (LAFCO, 2020a). The District most recently reviewed the various mutual aid agreements on May 1, 2021. Automatic Aid Automatic aid is a voluntary agreement between the fire districts. As with all fire agencies in the greater Lake Tahoe Region, FLL’s agreement with the LTRFCA makes resources rapidly from multiple agencies as seen in Volume I – Appendix E. Under the LTRFCA Agreement, member agencies provide support and aid for 24 hours to agencies within two hours distance at no charge. The LTRFCA works collaboratively on regional issues relating to the delivery of fire, rescue, and emergency medical services in the greater Lake Tahoe Region (LTRFCA, 2020). FLL has entered into a South Shore Response Plan with the neighboring fire agencies of LAV, SLT, TDOX, CAL FIRE, and NTF. This Plan operates just like an automatic aid agreement would, meaning aid is dispatched automatically by a contractual agreement between all fire agencies. The Plan establishes move up and cover assignments, and the number of units, unit types, and which fire agencies should respond to specific types of services calls and by priority call (LAFCO, 2020a; Chief Savacool, personal communication, April 14, 2021; SLT, 2021b). Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-23 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Joint Agreements A Joint Agreement manages situations where a District jointly owns or share fire protection services capital facilities or services with other agencies. FLL is part of the Joint Powers Agreement for County Service Area No. 3 (CSA 3) that created the Cal Tahoe JPA. Other member agencies are the City of South Lake Tahoe (SLT) and LAV. The JPA establishes, operates, and maintains the emergency medical services for the Lake Tahoe Basin side of the County of El Dorado (LAFCO, 2020a). More information on the JPA can be found in Volume II - Chapter 15, County Service Area (CSA) 3 and CSA 7 MSR. When considering whether there any areas the District currently serves for fire protection services that might be served more efficiently by another agency, there are many limitations. First, the location of the District in relative isolation limits options for other neighboring agencies to service the District. It can take 18 minutes for District personnel to get from the fire station to State Route 89, the most direct route out of the District. Second, FLL is a multi-service Community Services District. As a result, it cannot be consolidated with another fire protection district because fire protection districts cannot provide park/recreation services. Third, LAFCO (or any other entity save for the Legislature) does not have the ability to strip an authorized power from a community services district. It is not possible to remove FLL as a fire entity and grant the service area to another provider. The Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District could divest itself of fire service and have its service area annexed to another entity (presumably LAV). This idea has been proposed to the Fire Chief and the District Board but has been – essentially – rejected. The State Auditor asked about this option but did not pursue it when it presented its findings (California State Auditor, 2019). The District has been in discussions over the years with LAV, the closest neighboring agency to FLL. However, differences in operation, staffing, and costs between the two Districts have stalled consolidation discussions (Chief Gerren, personal communication, September 2020). As provided in more detail in Section 6.5.6 below, the entirety of the District service area is within state and federal responsibility areas. Future fire protection and emergency medical services may be better served by CAL FIRE or the USFS since the District only operates seasonally, similar to both the State and Federal organizations, and is already within state and federal responsibility areas. 6.5.4 Dispatch FLL contracts with the City of South Lake Tahoe Police Department Dispatch Center (SLT Dispatch) for the provision of fire department 9-1-1 emergency dispatch services. South Tahoe Dispatch is responsible for dispatching emergency fire and medical units from their office in the City for FLL as well as the City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department, Cal Tahoe JPA, and Lake Valley Fire Protection District (SLT, 2020). FLL currently experiences dispatch communication deficiencies because the primary channel antenna for South Lake Tahoe Dispatch is in a location that does not allow signals to reach the Fallen Leaf Lake Fire Department station. According to the FLL Fire Chief, the City’s dispatch services need equipment upgrades. As a work around, FLL currently utilizes a repeater provided by Lake Valley Fire Protection District located on Angora Ridge. In order to effectively utilize the repeater, however, FLL needs to purchase new pagers as signals currently only come through the repeater to the individual handheld radios. Sometimes, FLL pagers will go off at the station when the City transmits a simulcast signal. However, usually station staff are listening to the handheld chatter and will hear the call, regardless of if Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-24 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final the pagers receive the signal. FLL has discussed moving to CAL FIRE Camino Dispatch along with LAV (Chief Gerren, personal communication, September 2020). More information about dispatching services can be found in Volume I – Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. 6.5.5 Emergency Access Major access roads to the Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District include Fallen Leaf Road and Cathedral Road which dead-end on each side of Fallen Leaf Lake, providing only one-way ingress and egress. Narrow, dead-end, and seasonal roads are a significant impediment to fast response time by emergency vehicles. The FLL’s boundary area includes ingress and egress challenges. State Route 89, Tahoe Mountain Road, and North Upper Truckee Road provide main access points to these roads into the District. Fallen Leaf Road, the only road to the fire station, is a narrow, winding, two lane road with poor alignment and site distance as well as some areas that are one-way only and some areas that have fallen into disrepair. The Fire Chief for the District acknowledges that the southern portion of the District, where the fire station is located, is difficult to access. In addition, fire fighter personnel must drive around Fallen Leaf Lake to access approximately 45 homes located on Cathedral Road, on the west side of the lake, which can take a minimum of 30 minutes. Cathedral Road is no longer maintained by the County of El Dorado. In addition, some of the homes off of Cathedral Road area are accessible by boat only. As a result, the District stores one engine on private property for staff to access if needed on that side of the lake but would otherwise respond to calls off Cathedral Road by boat. 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. For the last two seasons the main road, Fallen Leaf Road, has been plowed by a private party up to Dundee Road where County maintenance crews maintain plow services. Unconventionally, the CSA 3 charges residents of the District for snow removal; however, the County does not provide that service to the area. In order to offset this, the County maintenance crews attempt to patch areas where the road has fallen into disrepair when funding is available (Chief Gerren, personal communication, September 2020). The District acknowledges the access issues and isolation challenges along the Cathedral Road area of the lake and has been attempting to receive the necessary funding to build another station on that side of the District. Unfortunately, funding attempts so far have been unsuccessful (Chief Gerren, personal communication, September 2020). 6.5.6 Fire Hazard Zones The Fire Hazard Severity Zones, Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), and Community Risk Fire Map in which CAL Fire categorizes spatial areas into different risk areas are described in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Areas of land within the District boundary are considered “Local Responsibility Area” (LRA), “State Responsibility Area” (SRA), and “Federal Responsibility Area” (FRA) for fire protection services. Areas are also identified from High to Very High Fire Hazard Risk as seen in Table 6-8. Refer to Figure 6-5 for a map of those areas on the next page and a breakdown in acreage for responsibility areas in Table 6-9. Table 6-8: FLL Fire Hazard Severity Zone Acreage and Percentage Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-25 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Acreage in Very High % in Very High Acreage in High % in High Fire Total % in Very High Fire Risk Fire Risk Risk and High Fire Risk 1,969.00 58.3% 0.00 0% 58.3% Data Source: County GIS Data, 2020 derived from CalFire data Within the FLL’s boundaries, 1,969 acres are in Fire Hazard Severity zone “Very High” Fire Risk with no acres in “High” Fire Risk based on GIS data provided by CAL FIRE as detailed above. Over half, 58.3 percent of the District’s geography is located in a “Very High” zone. CAL FIRE has mapped the WUI in El Dorado County and the FLL is located within an identified WUI. Table 8-9 below shows acreages of land within the District boundary designated as LRA, SRA, and FRA. Table 6-9: FLL Local, State and Federal Responsibility Area Acreage and Percentage Boundary Only (in acres) LRA SRA FRA 0.00 1,705 1,673 Data Source: GIS data from CAL FIRE Areas of the District are almost evenly split between State Responsibility Area and Federal Responsibility Area. None of the District is located within a Local Responsibility Area. CAL FIRE is legally and financially responsible to provide fire protection in all State Responsibility Areas. Areas under the FRA are managed by a federal agency, such as the U.S. Forest Service. Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-26 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 6-5: Fire Hazard Severity Zones within the FLL Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-27 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 6.5.7 Other Fire Protection Fire Prevention and Public Outreach In the past, FLL had active fire safe council community members who set up a neighborhood program for on-demand fire extinguishers. This program has since faded out due to lack of interest. The District acknowledges that most residents take care of fire-safe cleanup on their properties, while fire department staff can also help to clear properties if needed. FLL provides information on the District’s website regarding defensible space, Knox-box’s, and a safety checklist. In addition, the website provides detailed escape routes and safety zones to be utilized by residents in the event of an emergency or wildfire requiring evacuation (FLL, 2020a; Chief Gerren, personal communication, September 2020). Forest Fuel Treatment Forest fuel treatment as an issue typically relates to wildland fires rather than the structural fires which are the focus in the FLL. However, within the FLL’s boundaries, there are multiple privately owned parcels that contain native vegetation. Although the FLL is not directly responsible for forest fuel treatments, a community approach to safety that considers house-to-house transmission, structural safety, and forest fuel treatments is essential. The FLL area benefits from the work conducted by the Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team.1 The Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team was formed in 2008 and includes 22 agencies around the Lake Tahoe Basin including local, state, federal and special districts. This Team implements the 2014 Lake Tahoe Basin Multi-Jurisdictional Fuel Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy, the 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 (Eric Horntvedt, email communication, February 9, 2021). 6.5.8 Infrastructure FLL maintains infrastructure to support its fire protection services. This infrastructure includes one fire station, fire hydrants, fire trucks and other vehicles, water hoses, and other equipment. FLL operates one fire station within the District including the building and the underlying land as listed in Table 6-10. This station is open and operated 24 hours per day, seven days per week on a seasonal basis (LAFCO, 2020a). The station is closed during the winter months which are generally November 1st to May 1st though one 4-wheel drive apparatus is left at the station for volunteers to utilize for responses to emergencies (Chief Gerren, personal communication, September 2020). Table 6-10: Fire Stations Detail Station No. Address Staffing 241 Fallen Leaf 9 Seasonally Road 1 More information about the Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team can be found at: https://fireadaptednetwork.org/member/tahoe-fire- and-fuels-team/. Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-28 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Station No. 9 was built in 2001, however the station is too small to meet the current needs of the District. The District currently has five apparatus and a patrol vehicle, however only two apparatus will fit in the station. The station was designed as a two-bay station, but the design is too small to fit more than two apparatus at a time. As a result, during the winter months, the District has to lease a warehouse on the Nevada side of the Lake Tahoe basin to store equipment. FLL leases the space for six months to others when the District is not using it to store equipment (Chief Gerren, personal communication, September 2020). The District has explored the possibility of constructing a second station for the District. The first option would be to build the second station outside of the District boundaries at the corner of State Route 89 and Fallen Leaf Road. The Fire Chief sees this as a good location to provide quicker access to Camp Richardson and Emerald Bay as well as areas on the westside of the District off Cathedral Road. The District would like to explore a partnership with CAL FIRE in creating this station as the goal would be to develop a 4-bay station that can store equipment and provide a location for an ambulance to be stationed in the summer months as well as allow CAL FIRE to keep an apparatus there on red-flag days. The second option would be to build a 2-bay station on Cathedral Road (Chief Gerren, personal communication, September 2020). FLL owns several fire engines and other vehicles as listed in Table 6-11, below. The District fire boat is managed by the District and was purchased in 2013. The fire boat has been utilized over the years for forest medical responses or fire responses. The District has not had any structure fires since the purchase of the fire boat, however the boat can be set up to be used like another apparatus (LAFCO, 2020a; Chief Gerren, personal communication, September 2020). Table 6-11: Apparatus & Light Vehicles, 2020 Make/ Water Equipment Type Year Portable Equipment Model Capacity Type 1 Engine HME/18 2015 Unknown 1,250 Type 1 Engine HME/18 1996 Unknown Unknown Type 3 Engine BME 2001 Unknown Unknown Type 3 Engine BME 2020 Unknown Unknown Type 3 Engine International 2020 Unknown Unknown Mini Pumper FORD/E-One 1997 E200 fire pump and foam system 300 Ford Patrol PAT9 2001 Unknown N/A Fire Boat Lake Assault 2013 Unknown N/A Source: FLL, 2019a Water and Hydrants Water is essential to extinguish structural fires as well as preventing further propagation. In FLL, potable water supply is served primarily through Fallen Leaf Mutual Water Company along with several other smaller, organized water providers in the District. The District has one tank system with United Fire Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-29 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Hydrants. There are five fire hydrants pulling from the 125,000-gallon tank providing a max flow of 1,100 gallons per minute (GPM). Fire suppression can also be provided through the District’s fire boat stationed at the Fallen Leaf Lake Marina which pulls water directly from Fallen Leaf Lake (LAFCO, 2020a). 6.5.9 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The District has received a Draft ‘Reserve Study’ prepared by Applied Reserve Analysis (ARA) which looks at the life expectancy and replacement for District facilities and equipment. The study also looks at reserve funding capabilities and replacement costs. The Board of Directors is currently considering this study. The Fire Chief has identified some infrastructure needs and deficiencies that the District is working to address (LAFCO, 2020a). The biggest infrastructure need for FLL is to improve existing communication facilities for dispatch. The current system is inefficient and presents a problem for District personnel when they are on duty. There have been some region-wide discussions regarding the creation of a centralized dispatching services for the entire Lake Tahoe Basin. More information regarding this can be found in Volume I – Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. In addition to improved communications, the District is looking to lease a new Type 6 fire apparatus (Chief Gerren, personal communication, September 2020). Through conversations with the Fire Chief, it was acknowledged that the current fire station is too small to house new equipment effectively. As a result, the District has had to rent warehouse space to store equipment during off season. The District would like to expand the existing fire station in order to provide enough space to house equipment and vehicles. In addition, the Fire Chief would like to build a second fire station on the west side of Fallen Leaf Lake to provide better coverage for residents off Cathedral Road. The District currently lacks the financial resources to undertake either project and has not been successful in finding alternative funding sources (Chief Gerren, personal communication, September 2020). 6.5.10 Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing The District combines office supplies between departments for cost savings. The District did not provide any additional information to the consultants regarding actions taken by the District to reduce or eliminate unnecessary costs, lower expenses, or improve services while reducing risk. The Fire Chief reports that all other costs related to fire protection and emergency medical services are necessary and are reviewed annually (Chief Gerren, personal communication, August 2021). The FLL participates in automatic and mutual aid agreements with Lake Valley Fire Protection District and through the Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chief Association. Further, the California Master Mutual Aid Agreement has the ability to commit FLL resources anywhere in the State. The District has expressed an interest in working with CAL FIRE to develop an additional fire station on the west side of the District or at the intersection of State Route 89 and Fallen Leaf Road, outside of the District boundaries (LAFCO, 2020a). The District has competitive bid policies that require the District to put out a Request for Proposals (RFP) for at least three bids, or the District can accept sole source bids. Though CAL FIRE has come to the FLL station to conduct joint training sessions in the past, these have been less frequent (Chief Gerren, personal Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-30 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final communication, September 2020). The District does not share any facilities and, due to its isolated location, would have difficulty sharing resources with neighboring agencies. 6.6 Financial Ability to Provide Services LAFCO is required to make determinations regarding the financial ability of the FLL to provide public services. This section provides an overview of the financial health of the District and a context for LAFCO’s financial determinations. The audited financial statements from the District for the fiscal years (FY) FY 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 are the primary source of all information for this section. The Preliminary and Final Budgets for the FY 202019/202020 and FY 2020/2021 are also used in order to provide the most recent context to the analysis. In California, special districts are classified as either enterprise or non- enterprise based on their source of revenue. The FLL generally operates as an enterprise district, charging fees for recreation services. However, the District also collects and utilizes property tax revenue to fund fire protection and emergency medical services. Because this report is solely interested in the fire protection and emergency medical services aspects of this District, only information pertinent to the financial health of this service will be analyzed in this report (FLL, 2018; 2019b; 2019c; 2020b; and 2020c). 6.6.1 Financial Policies and Transparency The primary policy document for FLL is the Fallen Leaf Lake Standard Operations Manual Appendix GG and H updated on March 23, 2010. The appendix describes the rules for the District’s business operations including budget, procurement, and financial policies. The District adopts a 1-year budget and conducts an annual review to determine any changes that might be needed. The FY 2019/2020 Financial Plan was adopted by the Board on July 6, 2019. The District publishes an audited financial statement every year. Government Code and District policy require an annual independent audit of the District’s financial records by a certified public accountant. The independent audit for FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/19 were performed by Robert W. Johnson, independent auditors. The auditors judge whether the District’s financial statements are presented in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is responsible for establishing GAAP for state and local governments through its statements and interpretations. The District uses the accrual basis of accounting, where revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recorded when liabilities are incurred. The FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 auditor reports indicated that the District has not presented Management’s Discussion and Analysis or budgetary comparison information. Based on accounting principles generally accepted, this information is required to be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the GASB who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. Some other fire services providers within the County are also missing Management’s Discussion and Analysis or budgetary comparison information. As mentioned in Section 6.3.2, the California State Auditor reviewed the billing practices of the District in a report, “Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District – Its Billing Practices and Small Electorate Jeopardize Its Ability to Provide Services,” dated July 2019. The report concluding that the District’s billing Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-31 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final and budgeting practices jeopardized its ability to provide services. It was found that the California Fire Assistance Agreement between the federal and state agencies, which provides reimbursement to local fire agencies for providing firefighting assistance during wildfires, was violated when the District claimed excessive personnel costs by inflating its salary rates and claiming over $700,000 more than it should have for firefighting assistance from 2016 through 2018. Without these inflated reimbursements and if the District had not reduced expenditures or increased revenues from other sources, the District would have experienced financial shortfalls during this time period. The District’s actions jeopardized its financial viability because it may have to repay the excessive reimbursement amounts. Furthermore, the District’s recent budget practice of counting on these reimbursements—a volatile revenue source—to help cover increases in budget personnel costs, adds to the District’s financial risk (California State Auditor, 2019). The District disagrees with the conclusions of the California State Auditor with respect to these conclusions, and has not been required to repay any amount under the California Fire Assistance Agreement (Fallen Leaf Lake CSD: Attorney legal, personal communication, August 2021). 6.6.2 District Revenues and Expenditures The District’s largest revenue source of recurring revenue is a voter-approved Fire/EMS Assessment. A breakdown in revenues and expenditures can be seen in Figure 6-6 on the next page. A breakdown of revenues and expenditures is also available in table format in Volume II - Appendix A, Financial Tables by Agency. Revenues The voter-approved Fire/EMS Assessment (Election of June 5, 2018 Measure A) for Emergency Medical & Fire Protection Services brings in $660 per parcel. Voters extended this Assessment for another four years which is still in effect until it goes to vote in June of 2022. On average, the District has received or plans to receive $195,609 per year from the Fire/EMS Assessment (calculated from an average of FY 2017/2018, FY 2018/2019, FY 2019/2020, and FY 2020/2021). The District budget, which contains reserve funds, are always available for operational emergency. The District tries to maintain a 50 percent funding availability. Property taxes accounted for four and two percent of recurring revenues for the District between FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 or $39,429 and $36,941 respectively. The District receives property taxes from El Dorado County under the Teeter Plan. Under this plan, the District receives 100 percent of the levied property taxes in periodic payments. Per the annual budget estimations, property tax revenues are expected to increase by 12.92 percent in FY 2019/2020 and by 18.67 percent in FY 2020/2021 as shown in Error! Reference source not found.below. This is an increase from FY 2018/2019 when property tax revenues fell by 6 percent from the previous year. It is unclear from the budgeted information provided why there is an expected double digit jump in property tax revenue. Table 6-12: Percent increase of Property Taxes from FY 2017/2018 to FY 2020/2021 FY 2017/2018 FY 2018/2019 FY 2019/2020 FY 2020/2021 Property Tax (est.) $36,000 $39,000 $40,000 $42,000 Percentage Change - 8% 3% 5% Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-32 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 6-6: FLL Revenues & Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 Through FY 2020/2021 Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-33 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-34 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final In FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 the District received $728,000 and $1.17 million in revenue from Strike Team Reimbursements respectively. These reimbursements made up 74 to 75 percent in revenue for the District. As previously mentioned, the FY 2018/2019 Strike Team revenue is under investigation by the California Auditor. The following graphic, Figure 6-7, taken from the California State Auditor’s Report Fact Sheet, shows the amounts the District overbilled from 2016 through 2018 and provides a total that may be due to the reimbursing agencies (California State Auditor, 2019). Figure 6-7: California State Auditor’s Report Fact Sheet District Overbilled Amounts, 2016-2018 Expenditures In the District’s FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 Financial Audited Statements, Strike Team Reimbursements were the largest expense incurred by the District at $445,038 and $547,555 respectively. This made-up 50 percent and 43 percent of the expenses in each year. However, during the FY 2018/2019 the District received revenue for Strike Team Reimbursements in the amount of $1,165,113 million; a revenue over expense of $617,558. Salaries and Benefits are the second largest expense and make up 71 and 73 percent of budgeted expenses in FY 2019/2020 and FY 2020/2021. The Districts Salaries and Expenses increased by $81,157 or 29 percent between FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019. This expense is expected to drop by $65,471 or 22 percent in FY 2019/2020. The District has set a Final and Preliminary Budget for FY 2019/2020 and FY 2020/2021 with less than half of the prior year expenditures. It is unclear how the District anticipates this reduction in expenses for estimated budgets in FY 2019/2020 and FY 2020/2021. As mentioned in Section 6.3.5, the District is currently staffed at 2-0 model, meaning there are two firefighters for every engine. As of July 1, 2020, the District had nine employees. This includes: one chief, one deputy chief, six seasonal firefighters, and one administrative assistant. All District personnel are seasonal. The District did not use any volunteer firefighters in 2020, however the District did employ what Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-35 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final the Fire Chief classifies as interns. The District is a signatory to Cal Tahoe JPA for emergency medical services, but does not qualify for Emergency Services Authority Funding for positions because the District does not provide ambulance services. As mentioned in Section 6.3.2, the California State Auditor Report stated that the District may have violated federal law. The intern personnel the District utilized for strike teams were paid as independent contractors instead of as employees. Because of these actions, the fire chief put the District at risk of unintended financial consequences calculated at nearly $703,000 in excess personnel expenses. Because the Fire Chief submitted inflated salary rates rather than base rates to Cal OES and did not pay the strike teams overtime, the District improperly profited by receiving higher reimbursement amounts than it should have. In addition, misclassifying workers as independent contractors rather than employees could subject the District to various unanticipated expenses, including penalties and payment of unpaid Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment taxes. Furthermore, under state law, willful misclassification of an employee as an independent contractor could subject the District to penalties of $5,000 to $15,000 for each violation, among other penalties. This suggests that the District may, eventually, need to pay a much higher sum than the $703,000 anticipated in excess reimbursements the District claimed for 2016 through 2018. The California State Auditor’s Report suggests that, given the financial risks the District could face in the future, the State Auditor believes the ongoing financial viability of the District may be in jeopardy. Because the District’s treatment of recruits as independent contractors may have violated federal and state laws, the Auditor’s Report was forwarded to the U.S. Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Employment Development Department for consideration and, if appropriate, further investigation (California State Auditor, 2019). The District completely disagrees with the assessments and legal conclusions of the State Auditor Report with respect to the alleged violations of law. The California Employment Development Department (EDD) conducted its own audit of the District’s compensation of firefighter interns as independent contractors rather than employees. The EDD had initially concluded on February 27, 2020 that for the period of January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2019, the total amount the District owed for Personal Income Tax (PIT) was $4,679.05. However, the EDD further determined as of March 2, 2020 that the interns were independent contracts and abated the monetary determination. The EDD made the adjustment to its initial assessment, but required the District to pay a balance of $33.10 for interest owed, which the District paid in March 2020. Moreover, the District revamped its policies and procedures to ensure compliance with state and federal employment law, as recommended by the California State Auditor, to avoid any further misinterpretations. Furthermore, no federal agency has contacted the District, let alone disagreed with FLL’s practices (Fallen Leaf Lake CSD: Attorney legal, personal communication, August 2021). As of June 30th, 2019, the District had $1.15 million in cash. If the District is required to pay back the $703,000 in excess personal expenses this would wipe out the majority of Districts liquid assets leaving them with $449,294 in cash. This may lead to future challenges in meeting expenditures as, for FY 2019/2020 and FY 2020/2021, the District is not expecting to continue to see Revenues exceed Expenditures. As a result, it appears that the District is highly reliant on strike team revenues to end fiscal years in a positive position. Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-36 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Revenues (over / under) Expenditures The District has had two consecutive years of revenues exceeding expenditures, however, as discussed in the California State Auditor’s Report, FLL’s billing and budgeting practices jeopardized its ability to provide services. For the Districts FY 2019/2020 and FY 2020/2021 budgets, it is not expected that the District will continue to see revenues exceed expenditures. This is due to the District removing anticipated strike team revenue from future budgeting as recommended by the State Auditor. In addition, the District would have experienced a financial shortfall in FY 2017/2018, contrary to Figure 6-8 below, had it not submitted inflated reimbursements for providing firefighting assistance. Figure 6-8: FLL Net Revenues Over/Under Expenditures from FY 2017/2018 to FY 2020/2021 Based on the District’s undergoing legal complications with the California State Auditor, the District has budgeted for a sharp decline in estimated revenues and expenditures for FY 2019/2020 and FY 2020/2021. The District has balanced their budget for FY 2019/2020 and FY 2020/2021. District budgets do not include anticipated strike team revenues, which accounts for the high variability between the District’s audited financial statements and the District’s budgets. Without the strike team revenue, the District brings in slightly less than half a million dollars per year with expenses outpacing revenues. 6.6.3 District Assets and Liabilities District Assets On June 30th, 2019, the District had approximately $1.16 million in cash assets. The majority of the cash, or approximately $1.15 millions resides in an Unrestricted checking account. The prior year, June 30th, 2018, the District had $870,065 in Cash and Accounts Receivable. The District saw a 32 percent increase in unrestricted cash assets from FY 2017/2018 to FY 2019/2020, likely the result of the Strike Team Reimbursement revenue. Capital Assets in the amount of approximately $3.016 million were listed on the FY 2018/2019 Audited Financial Statement; however it is unclear if these assets are specific to the Fire Department or other community services based on the Financial Audit being a collective summary of all of the Fallen Leaf Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-37 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Community Services including the General Fund and the Parks & Recreation Department. The Fire Chief, in consultation with the District’s independent auditor believes roughly 60 percent of capital assets are based on Fire Department specific assets, or about $1.80 million. A breakdown in District assets as shown in Figure 6-9. Figure 6-9: District Assets as of June 30, 2019 Liabilities and Debt As of June 30th, 2019, the District had $3,245 in liabilities as shown in. Liabilities from the Balance Sheet of the FY 2018/2019 audited financial statement included only Accounts Payable as shown in Figure 6-10. Figure 6-10: District Liabilities and Debt as of June 30, 2019 In Note 5 of the FY 2018/2019 Audited Financial Statement a $150,000 debt for the purchase of a 2020 chassis remount in December 2018 was indicated as a long-term liability. This five-year lease-purchase agreement requires an annual payment of $33,466 including an interest rate of 4.53 percent. This long- term debt is listed in the Statement of Activities as a Revenue item of $150,000 but not listed on the balance sheet as a long-term liability. This is an uncommon accounting practice when compared with how other Districts allocate long-term liabilities. 6.6.4 Net Position The Net Position includes a summation of the District’s assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities, and deferred inflows of resources, which provide information about the nature, and amounts of investments in assets and obligations to District creditors. It also provides the basis for computing rates of return, evaluating the capital structure of the District, and assessing financial flexibility of the District. In the FY 2018/2019 audited financial statement, the independent auditing firm indicated “Total Fund Balances” of approximately $1.15 million for the Fire Department. It is important to note that the long- term financing liability of $150,000 was not included nor was the Capital Assets of the Fire Department. If these were included, the Net Position may look different than what is shown in Figure 6-11. Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-38 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 6-11: District Net Position as of June 30, 2019 6.6.5 Asset Maintenance and Replacement The District does not have funds allocated to renovate aging infrastructure. As mentioned previously the District has received a Draft ‘Reserve Study’ prepared by Applied Reserve Analysis (ARA) which looks at the life expectancy and replacement for District facilities and equipment. The study also looks at reserve funding capabilities and replacement costs. The Board of Directors is currently considering this study. 6.6.6 Cost Avoidance The District did not provide consultants with any cost avoidance measures taken by the District apart from sharing office supplies between departments. The Fire Chief states that the Fallen Leaf Fire Department provides superior services to the community at the lowest cost available. Operational costs are always maintained on a very limited budget (Chief Gerren, personal communication, August 2021). 6.6.7 Financial Summary and Ability to Provide Services Based on the data presented above, the District is unable to provide adequate service to the residents of FLL. Currently the District operates at a 2-0 staffing model, meaning there are two staff for every engine. In addition, there is no consistency within the recurring revenues or expenses of the financial audited statements to be able to adequately project a meaningful budget due to the District’s perceived dependence on strike team revenues. As stated in the last MSR, strike team revenue cannot be considered regular, stable, and ongoing because it depends on a District’s ability to field a strike team and the number of wildfires that occur around the State in any given year (LAFCO, 2011). It is the belief of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee of the California State Auditor that FLL’s financial risks have put the District in significant financial jeopardy. Even the District’s reserve balance shown in its FY 2018/2019 audited financial report may not be sufficient to maintain its viability. Possible financial risks that could impact the District’s reserve balance include a repayment up to $703,000 in excess reimbursements the District claimed for 2016 through 2018 under the fire agreement; any repayments of excess reimbursements the District claimed for 2013 through 2015; and any penalties, back pay, or liquidated damages that federal and state agencies assess if the District violated labor laws. 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. As part of the State Auditor’s Report, the State Auditor set recommendations for the District to take certain actions to rectify the problems outlined in the report. The Report 2018-133 lists eight Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-39 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final recommendations for the District to implement numbered six through thirteen. The District recently provided the State Auditor with 1-Year agency responses to recommendations that have not yet been resolved or fully implemented near the end of 2020. The Auditor responded to some of these 1-Year agency responses as listed after the recommendations below. The recommendations and the 1-Year status/response from the District and the State Auditor are as follows2: Recommendation 6: To ensure that the district complies with the reimbursement terms of the fire agreement and does not claim excessive reimbursement amounts, the district's board, by September 15, 2019, should create and implement a policy governing the reimbursement rate the fire chief claims for paid and recruit firefighters who participate on strike team assignments under the fire agreement. Additionally, the district's board should review and approve the annual salary form before the fire chief submits it to Cal OES. Status: Resolved. On August 31, 2019, the District's Board adopted and began implementation of two Resolutions governing the reimbursement rates for firefighters who participate on strike team assignments under the fire agreement. The Resolutions are 2019-5 and 2019-6. The first Resolution provides the terms and conditions for Fire Department response away from the official duty station and assigned to an emergency incident. The second Resolution governs overtime pay for those firefighters assigned to an emergency incident. The District's Board will be reviewing and approving the annual salary form before the Fire Chief submits it to Cal-OES in 2020. Recommendation 7: To rectify the excessive reimbursement amounts it received for strike team assignments, the district should, by December 31, 2019, develop and implement a plan for returning to the paying agencies the excessive reimbursements it received for 2016 through 2018. Status: Pending. The District has developed and implemented a plan to determine the amount, if any, of excessive reimbursements received for the years 2016 through 2018. To that end, the District's plan has consisted of two parts: 1) conducting an internal audit for fire seasons 2016-2018; and 2) engaging in regular communications with the Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal-OES) and any other agencies. Those items have been accomplished. The California Employment Development Department (EDD) conducted its own audit of the District's compensation of firefighter interns as independent contractors rather than employees. The EDD had initially concluded on February 27, 2020 that for the period of January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2019, the total amount the District owed for Personal Income Tax (PIT) was $4,679.05. However, the EDD further determined as of March 2, 2020 that the interns were independent contractors and abated the monetary determination. The EDD made the adjustment 2 The report from the State Auditor can be found here: https://auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2018-133.pdf. Listed recommendations for the Report (No. 2018-133) as well as responses by the District and State Auditor can be found here: http://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/recommendations/2018-133. Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-40 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final to its initial assessment but required the District to pay a balance of $33.10 for interest owed, which the District has paid in March 2020. Furthermore, the District's Fire Chief has had multiple communications with Cal-OES representatives regarding its recent submission of the 2020 Salary Survey for Fire Strike Teams. Cal-OES has informed the District that its previously enacted Resolutions regarding Strike Team regular and overtime pay are appropriate, as is the District's 2020 Salary Survey. State Auditor’s Assessment of 1-Year Status (Pending): The State Auditor disagrees with the District's response that it fully implemented Recommendation 7. Although the District stated that it implemented a two-part plan including conducting an internal audit for fire seasons 2016-2018, it provided an audit of its financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2019, which was not responsive to the recommendation. Additionally, the District stated that its plan included engaging in regular communications with the Governor's Office of Emergency Services and any other agencies that contact the District, yet the district could not provide evidence of discussions or agreements reached. Auditee did not substantiate its claim of full implementation. Auditee did not address all aspects of the recommendation Recommendation 8: To rectify the excessive reimbursement amounts it received for strike team assignments, the district should, by December 31, 2019, work with Cal OES to identify the amounts of excess reimbursements the district received for 2013 through 2015 and then develop and implement a plan for returning those amounts to the paying agency. Status: Pending. As indicated in the District's response to this Recommendation (contained within the Audit Report), the District "will work with OES to determine overpayment, if any, for the calendar years 2013-2015 and, if so, will develop and implement a plan for returning any excess monies received." On August 15, 2019, District officials conducted a teleconference with representatives of Cal-OES to discuss the process to review of any excessive payments to the District during the period in question. The District has also been in regular communication with Cal-OES concerning the subject matter. The District's expectation is that Cal-OES will make the determination as to whether any excessive monies are owed for the period in question, using the full cooperation of the District and its resources. As far as the District is aware, no determination has been made by Cal-OES. State Auditor’s Assessment of 1-Year Status (Pending): No comments were provided by the Auditor for this 1-year status update. Recommendation 9: To ensure that it complies with all applicable labor and wage laws, the district should, by September 15, 2019, seek advice from appropriate experts, such as legal counsel and tax advisors, regarding the proper characterization and compensation of its recruit firefighters. It should develop and implement a policy in this area that meets all applicable requirements. Status: Fully Implemented. Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-41 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The Board has consulted with legal counsel and its tax advisors concerning all applicable labor and wage laws with respect to the proper characterization and compensation of recruit firefighters. As a result, on August 31, 2019, the Board adopted Resolution 2019-7, entitled "Resolution for the Implementation of Firefighter Internship Program and Use of Firefighter Trainees (Nonpaid)." This Resolution formalizes the Firefighter Internship Program run by the District. The Resolution's contents meet all applicable federal and state legal requirements, and establish the permitted use of Intern trainees both at the official duty station and on emergency incidents away from the official duty station. In addition to passing Resolution 2019-7, the Board also approved a formal job description for Firefighter Trainee, which was vetted by legal counsel. Recommendation 10: To improve its financial viability and safeguard its ability to continue providing services to the Fallen Leaf Lake community, the district should, by December 31, 2019, monitor the financial risks it may face in the future, forecast their impact on its finances and budget, and plan and implement appropriate changes to its budget as necessary throughout the fiscal year. Status: Pending. The District agreed in response to the Audit that it "will strengthen its financial viability by incorporating the recommendation as appropriate." The District previously reported that August 31, 2019, the District adopted and began implementation of resolutions which of two Resolutions governing the reimbursement rates for firefighters who participate on strike team assignments under the fire agreement. The District then passed additional resolutions for 2020 on these same issues on July 4, 2020. Copies of these Resolutions are being provided to the State Auditor. Furthermore, the Board had discussions on this topic in creating its fiscal budget for 2020-21 when it reconvened this past summer. The District has provided those budgets to the State Auditor. In the event of a significant budget shortfall, the District is prepared to make cuts to certain line items, such as its paramedic program. Finally, in addition to completion of its internal audit in 2019, the District retained and authorized a third-party financial-consultant to conduct a research study starting in July 2020 to review District's operations and reserves so that the District may forecast economics for the next five fiscal years. That company, called Applied Reserve Analysis, through its principal, Eric Phillipps, RS, PRA, is expected to complete its research, analysis, and findings in Q3 of 2020. State Auditor’s Assessment of 1-Year Status (Pending): No comments were provided by the Auditor for this 1-year status update. Recommendation 11: To improve its financial viability and safeguard its ability to continue providing services to the Fallen Leaf Lake community, the district should, by December 31, 2019, limit the extent to which it relies on volatile revenue sources to balance its budget. Status: Pending. The District agreed in response to the Audit Report to "strengthen its finances by taking the necessary steps to review and assess, on an annual basis, any revenue sources that it and its auditors may reasonably conclude are 'volatile'." The most recent audit did not find any volatile revenue sources. Nevertheless, this year the District has had great concerns regarding the Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-42 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final potential for financial fluctuations due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Governing Board has carefully reviewed and passed the most recent budgets on July 4, 2020 in light of these concerns. In addition, the District has ensured that there is adequate insurance and third-party indemnification available to protect itself from any lawsuits related to the pandemic or patron illness due to COVID. State Auditor’s Assessment of 1-Year Status (Pending): No comments were provided by the Auditor for this 1-year status update. Recommendation 12: To improve its financial viability and safeguard its ability to continue providing services to the Fallen Leaf Lake community, the district should, by December 31, 2019, develop and implement a budget plan that realistically estimates changes in revenues and expenditures, and identifies approaches to address such changes. Status: Fully Implemented. As explained in the District's response to the recommendation (both contained within the Audit Report), the District "will strengthen its budget plan by annually reviewing and assessing any potential changes in revenues and expenditures." The District's budget for the fiscal year (2020- 2021) was approved by the District's Board of Trustees on July 4, 2020. The District's budget reflects consideration and discussion by the Board of Trustees to assess potential changes in revenues and expenditures, particularly due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Recommendation 13: To improve its financial viability and safeguard its ability to continue providing services to the Fallen Leaf Lake community, the district should, by December 31, 2019, develop a five-year forecast of estimated revenues and expenditures and a plan to guide its decisions and actions in the event of fluctuations. Status: Pending. The District's Board has retained and authorized a third-party financial-consultant to conduct a research study starting in July 2020 to review District's operations and reserves so that the District may forecast economics for the next five fiscal years. That company, called Applied Reserve Analysis, through its principal, Eric Phillipps, RS, PRA, is expected to complete its research, analysis, and findings in Q3 of 2020. In addition, the District met on July 4, 2020 and discussed the potential for COVID-19 pandemic-related loss of revenues, and potential climate-related increases in spending, as well as new sources of revenues. State Auditor’s Assessment of 1-Year Status (Pending): No comments were provided by the Auditor for this 1-year status update. (Source: California State Auditor, 2020) Alternative Financing The District did not provide information on attempts to find alternative financing. The District is isolated with limited opportunities to reduce costs making it difficult for the District to partner with other agencies. Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-43 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 6.7 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 the Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District 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. Scoring for the determinations in Table 6-13 below are as follows: ▲ ● ▼ ◆ Above Average (compared to similar Districts), Average, Below Average, Statement of Fact (not rated). Table 6-13: Summary of MSR Determinations for Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Indicator Score Determination Population & Growth FLL’s 3,377.5-acre boundary area is located in unincorporated County of El Dorado ◆ within the Lake Tahoe Basin, surrounding Fallen Leaf Lake, and includes the Existing Boundary. communities located adjacent to Fallen Leaf Lake on the east and west sides, and homes located in the Glen Alpine Canyon. El Dorado LAFCO adopted the original SOI for the FLL in 2013 via Resolution # L-2013- 15. The District’s SOI is congruent with its boundary. A congruent SOI is often referred ◆ to as a Zero Sphere of Influence signaling that the District does not have the Existing Sphere of Influence. resources, 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. FLL does provide services outside of its district boundary in response to mutual and ◆ automatic aid. However, these services provided outside the District are not Extra-territorial Services. considered to be Out-of-Agency Services but accomplished as part of the existing automatic aid and mutual aid agreements. By the year 2040, it is estimated that FLL’s existing boundary will encompass a ◆ population of 36 permanent residents and 1,854 overnight visitors. The combined Projected population in years 2020 through 2045. number of permanent and overnight persons of 1,890 represents an average annual growth rate of 0.45 percent between the years of 2020 and 2040. Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-44 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination The projected addition of 36 more people to the FLL by 2040 is possible as the District has undeveloped residential parcels within existing boundaries that could potentially District boundaries contain sufficient land area to ◆ be developed into single family homes, subject to land use regulation by the Tahoe accommodate projected growth. Regional Planning Agency and County approval. Growth in the Tahoe Basin is slow due to land-use regulation by the TRPA; an average of 20-30 permits are reviewed annually for remodeling projects and new homes throughout the entire basin. Government Structure & Accountability Compliance with the Special District Transparency Act (Gov. Code, §6270.6 and Does the District comply with the Special District 53087.8) was evaluated in this MSR. The FLL does posts meeting agenda's directly on Transparency Act (SB 929 or California Government Code, its primary homepage. However, FLL does not provide up-to-date financial §6270.6 and 53087.8) which requires special districts to ▼ statements, compensations reports or other relevant public information on the have a functional website that lists contact information District’s website. The District’s website does not meet the intent of the Act to allow and contains financial statements, compensation reports, the public easy access to District records and information. Therefore, FLL does not and other relevant public information. comply with the Special District Transparency Act. Terms of office, the next election date, and committee appointments are not Terms of office and next election date are disclosed for ▼ disclosed on the District website. In addition, the District has had changes to the District Board members and committee appointments are Board since the election on November, 2020; however the website does not provide online. these updated changes as of January 2021. The Grand Jury's 2019 report focused only on the west slope districts and FLL was not mentioned. The California State Auditor reviewed the governance related to the FLL Board of Directors in their report dated July 2019 and found that FLL’s billing practices and small electorate jeopardize its ability to provide services. In addition to finding that Is the District involved in current litigation and/or has the ▼ FLL overcharged its state, federal, and local partners by claiming excessive personnel District been the subject of a recent grand jury inquiry. costs and by inflating its salary rates, it also found that the District has had difficulty attracting candidates to run for the board. Because these irregulates indicate possible violations of California law, the report has been forwarded to the California Secretary of State, the district attorney, the U.S. Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Employment Development Department for the State of California for consideration and, if appropriate, further investigation. Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-45 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination Compliance with the Political Fair Practices Act by GRV Board members was Do elected Board members submit required forms and evaluated as part of this MSR process. One Board member has not completed filings receive required trainings as prescribed by the three state required under this act. laws regarding accountability and ethics including: ● (1) The Political Reform Act; FLL’s Board members are in compliance with Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005), (2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005); and which requires ethics training and with Government Code 53237 regarding the (3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. prevention of sexual harassment. District staff work to inform and educate homeowners regarding fire safety and prevention through the FLL website. In addition, the website provides detailed escape Does the District work to inform and educate homeowners ● routes and safety zones to be utilized by residents in the event of an emergency or regarding fire safety and prevention consistent with wildfire requiring evacuation. It is not clear whether Board Members or District staff General Plan Objective 6.2.5? provide any other resources or information to educate residents regarding fire safety and prevention beyond what is available on the District website. Compliance with the 2016 updates to the Brown Act described in Government Code Does the District’s website comply with the 2016 updates §54954.2 was evaluated in this MSR. FLL’s website contains meeting minutes and ● to the Brown Act described in Government Code §54954.2 agendas for the current year and past several years. One improvement that the and enacted by Assembly Bill 2257? District may wish to consider would be to post the committee assignments for each Board member as well as their terms of service. Disadvantage Communities California’s median household income was $71,228 in 2018. This yields a DUC The median household income is identified. The DUC threshold MHI of less than $56,982. Within the boundaries of FLL are located one ◆ threshold MHI (80 percent of the statewide MHI) is clearly census block group, however no information is available for median household stated. The MHI in the Agency’s boundary is described. income for this area. Therefore, it is not known whether there are disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the District boundary. Potential DUCs are considered. The provision of adequate It is not known whether there are disadvantaged unincorporated communities within ◆ water, wastewater, and structural fire protection services the District boundary. to DUCs is considered. Shared Facilities & Services Other practices and opportunities that may reduce or The District shares office supplies between departments as a cost reduction measure. eliminate unnecessary costs are examined by the District ▼ The Fire Chief states that the Fallen Leaf Fire Department provides superior services periodically. Ideally, there is a balance between cost to the community at the lowest cost available. Operational costs are always efficiency and risk reduction strategies. maintained on a very limited budget Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-46 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination FLL collaborates as much as possible with regional neighbors given the Districts isolated location and difficult access. The District has specific agreements with surrounding fire agencies include Lake Valley Protection District Fire, CAL FIRE, and The District collaborates with multiple other fire and ● the US Forest Service (USFS), including the Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chiefs emergency medical agencies for the delivery of services Association (LTRFCA), the CA Master Mutual Aid, and Operational Agreements with within its boundary. state and local agencies. In addition, the District will send personnel and interns out on strike team assignments throughout the State to assist with wildfires during wildfire season. Agreements for mutual aid or any other appropriate There is insufficient data about whether GRV’s Agreements for mutual aid are ◆ agreement (i.e., Tax Sharing Agreement) are periodically periodically reviewed to ensure fiscal neutrality. reviewed by the District Board to ensure fiscal neutrality. Public Services & Infrastructure FLL is staffed on a ratio with two staff per engine and truck company (2-0) model. This Does the District comply with County General Plan policies ▼ staffing level is below the minimum nationwide standard practice. Lower staffing in relation to response times. Does the District meet the levels leave the community vulnerable to low frequency, high-risk events, such as a minimum standard for staffing. working structure fire. FLL has very limited to no capacity to assist with and/or assume services provided by Evaluation of the District’s capacity to assist with and/or ▼ other agencies. The isolated location of the District as well as length of time it takes assume fire and emergency medical services provided by personnel to get out of the District generally precludes the need for the District to other agencies. respond to mutual aid requests. According to communication with the Fire Chief, the District is in the process of The District has preventative maintenance measures and ▼ conducting a reserve study to determine the life expectancy of fire assets, however has planned for replacement of aging infrastructure. no further information was given regarding timing or if this study is an update to an existing document. Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-47 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination The District maintains infrastructure to support its fire protection services. (1) FLL owns one fire station within the District including the building and the underlying land. The fire station is currently too small to store all of the District’s equipment and vehicles. The District would like to expand the fire station to be able to store all equipment on site year-round. Additionally, the District would like to develop a second fire station to increase services to the west-side of the District; The District meets infrastructure needs for (2) FLL maintains adequate rolling stock to meet service needs with the exception of the need to lease a new Type 6 fire apparatus. It is not clear if the District (1) facilities (stations); has funds allocated for this purchase; (2) rolling stock (engines, apparatus, and emergency ▼ (3) FLL contracts with the City of South Lake Tahoe Police Department for dispatch medical response units;) services. Dispatch is currently inadequate for the District due to infrastructure (3) dispatch systems; and deficiencies that make it difficult for the District to receive pages. As a work- (4) roadways for emergency access. around District personnel rely on a repeater owned by LAV, however new pagers are needed to receive signals from the repeater. The District must currently rely on handheld radios to receive dispatch calls; and (4) The District has existing ingress and egress deficiencies related to access for the District. Narrow, dead-end, and seasonal roads are a significant impediment to fast response times by emergency vehicles. Some homes in the District are only accessible by boat. District personnel can take 30 minutes to arrive to homes on the west-side of the lake for emergencies. Has the District has been diligent in developing plans to The District has received a Draft ‘Reserve Study’ prepared by Applied Reserve Analysis accommodate the infrastructure and service needs of (ARA) which looks at the life expectancy and replacement for District facilities and ● current and future constituents? District regularly reviews equipment. The study also looks at reserve funding capabilities and replacement and updates its service plans to ensure that infrastructure costs. The Board of Directors is currently considering this study needs, and deficiencies are addressed in a timely manner. Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-48 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination The District generally provides adequate services to meet the following criteria for current and future needs: (1) FLL’s Board of Directors has one vacancy and recruitment for candidates is on- going, however the District finds it difficult to fill board positions due to its small electorate and as a result may have been in violation of California law. Does the District provide sufficient services to meet The District has not had a contested election for a Board seat since August current and future demands with: 2010. For fire personnel, the Fire Chief stated that the number of firefighters ● (1) recruitment; for the District are currently adequate. (2) mutual aid; and (2) FLL participates in mutual aid agreements through its contract with LAV and (3) water supply for fire protection. the LTRFCA. (3) The District has one tank system with United Fire Hydrants as the water supply for fire suppression. There are five hydrants pulling form the 125,000-gallon tank which provides a maximum flow of 1,100 gpm. Water can also be pulled directly from Fallen Leaf Lake by the District’s fire boat. The District has adequate water supply for fire protection. The nearest fire station to FLL is operated by the Lake Valley Fire Protection District, Is there duplicate infrastructure by other fire agencies ◆ Station 5 at 1009 Boulder Mountain Ct, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. This station is 2 nearby. miles east of FLL Station 9. Financial Accountability District has an updated Strategic Plan that addresses ▼ The Master Plan for FLL was originally adopted in 2010 and has not been updated. financial goals. District Revenues exceed expenditures in FY 2017/2018 ▼ District operated with $63,000 and $282,000 revenues over expenditures in FY and FY 2018/2019 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 respectively; however there is an audit pending on the legality of the revenue funds by the California State Auditor. District finances are sufficient to apply a staffing model that meets or exceeds the minimum standard of three ▼ District operates at a minimum (2-0) staffing model. staff per engine and truck company (3-0) model (or at NFPA 1720 standards if applicable). A minimum of 50% total operating expense is kept on hand ● The District budget, which contains reserve funds, are always available for operational emergency. The District tries to maintain a 50 percent funding in the General Reserve Fund in FY 2018/2019. availability. Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-49 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination The primary policy document for FLL is the Fallen Leaf Lake Standard Operations The District has a published policy for reserve funds, ● Manual Appendix GG and H updated on March 23, 2010. The appendix describes the including the size and purpose of reserves and how they rules for the District’s business operations including budget, procurement, and are invested. financial policies. There is not a published policy for reserve funds. In the FY 2018/2019 audited financial statement, the independent auditing firm indicated “Total Fund Balances” of approximately $1.15 million positive Net Position ◆ The District had a positive Net Position for FY 2018/2019.. for the Fire Department. It is important to note that the long-term financing liability of $150,000 was not included nor were the Capital Assets of the Fire Department. If these were included, the Net Position may look different. The District publishes an audited financial statement every year. Government Code Summary financial information presented in a standard ◆ and District policy require an annual independent audit of the District’s financial format and simple language. records by a certified public accountant. The independent audits on FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 were performed by Richardson and Company, independent auditors. Alternative financing information was not provided. The District is isolated with Alternative financing opportunities were explored and ◆ limited opportunities to reduce costs making it difficult for the District to partner with pursued by the District. other agencies. Effect on Agriculture and Open Space There are some agricultural lands for timber harvest within the fire service boundaries for the FLL. Open space totals 3,150.7 acres within the fire service Effect that the District’s service provision will have on open ◆ boundaries for the FLL, which includes backcountry, conservation, and wilderness space and agricultural lands. land use designations from the TRPA. Fire Protection Services and Emergency Medical Services generally have minimal effects on agricultural land and open space. ▲ ● ▼ ◆ Key Score: Above Average (compared to similar Districts), Average, Below Average, Statement of Fact (not rated). Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-50 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 6.8 References California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit. May 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/. _____. 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/. _____. 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/. California Legislative Information. December 21, 2020. SB-96 Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Fire Department Protection Act of 2021: elections. Introduced by Senators Dahle and Becker. Available online at: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB96 California State Auditor. Elaine M. Howle, CPA, California State Auditor. July 2019. Report # 2018‑133 - Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District. Available online at https://auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2018-133.pdf. Sacramento, California. _____. July 2020. Report 2018‑133 Recommendations. Available online at: http://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/recommendations/2018-133. 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. _____. Office of the State Fire Marshal. May 2007. Fact Sheet: Fire Hazard Severity Zone Model A Non- Technical Primer. 4-pages. Available on-line at https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/FIreHazardZone_NonTechnical_Prim er.pdf _____. April 21, 2014. Unit Strategic Fire Plan Amador-El Dorado Unit. 57-pages. Available online at https://www.edcfiresafe.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2014-Unit-Strategic-Fire-Plan_CAL- FIRE-Amador-El-Dorado-Unit.pdf. _____. December 2019. Map of Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). MAPID: WUI_19DATA SOURCES:WUI_12_38TY_18. Available online at https://frap.fire.ca.gov/media/10300/wui_19_ada.pdf. California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). August 2003. Local Agency Formation Commission Municipal Service Review Guidelines Final. 107-pages. California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2018. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Mapping Tool. Available online at https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/dacs/. Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-51 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final California Tahoe Emergency Services Operations Joint Powers Authority (Cal Tahoe JPA). 2020. Cal Tahoe JPA website. Available online at https://www.ctesoa.org/. City of South Lake Tahoe (SLT). 2020. South Lake Tahoe Dispatch Center. Available online at https://cityofslt.us/1045/Dispatch. ____. 2020a. South Lake Tahoe Dispatch data. Received December 2020. County of El Dorado (ECD) Grand Jury. 2018. El Dorado County Fire Protection Consolidation Case 17-04. 10-pages. Available online at https://www.edlafco.us/files/bb748815f/18Jun_Item+8+Staff+Memo+Attachment+A+%28Gran d+Jury+Report%29.pdf. County of El Dorado (ECD) Sherriff’s Department Office of Emergency Services. July 2018. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. 256-pages. Available online at https://eldorado.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3923674&GUID=C562ECEB-7E9F-446D- AE6B-3AC56E13F465. County of El Dorado. 2020. GIS Data. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. El Dorado Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). August 2011. Countywide Fire Suppression and Emergency Services Municipal Service Review. 253-pages. Available online at https://www.edlafco.us/municipal-service-reviews-and-spheres-of-influence. _____. 2018. Profile of Fallen Leaf Lake Community Service District. 1-page. Available online at https://www.edlafco.us/. _____. September 2020a. Response to LAFCO’s Request for Information. 13-pages. 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. 2-pages. Available online at https://www.edlafco.us/. Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District (FLL). 2018. Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report for the year ended June 30, 2018. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. September 2019a. Response to LAFCO’s Request for Information. 6-pages. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. 2019b. Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report for the year ended June 30, 2019. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. 2020a. Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District website. Available online at https://www.fllcsd.org/. _____. 2020b. Fire Final Budget 2019-20. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. 2020c. Fire Preliminary Budget 2020-21 OC. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-52 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chiefs Association (LTRFCA). LTRFCA website. Available online at https://www.ltrfca.org/. Personal communication. January 11, 2020. Discussion with Kim Smith, County Elections Office and Amanda Ross, South Fork Consulting. Fire & Emergency Services MSR/SOI. _____. September 11, 2020. Interview with Gary Gerren, Fire Chief and General Manager Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District, Amanda Ross, South Fork Consulting, and Bruce Baracco, Conslutant. Fire & Emergency Services MSR/SOI. Tahoe Fire & Fuels Team (TFFT). August 2015. Lake Tahoe Basin Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Implementing the Lake Tahoe Multi-Jurisdictional Fuel Reduction & Wildfire Prevention Strategy. 550-pages. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 1987a. TRPA Area Plans. Available online at http://www.trpa.org/wp-content/uploads/Index_AP-CP-PAS_Web_061419.pdf . _____. 1987b. South Fallen Leaf Lake (145). Available online at http://www.trpa.org/wp- content/uploads/145.pdf. _____. 1987c. Fallen Leaf North (129). Available online at http://www.trpa.org/wp- content/uploads/129.pdf. _____. 1987d. Fallen Leaf Forest Service Tracts. Available online at http://www.trpa.org/wp- content/uploads/144A.pdf. _____. 1987e. Lilly/Angora Lakes. Available online at http://www.trpa.org/wp- content/uploads/144B.pdf. _____. 2020. TRPA Map Maker GIS Data. Available online at https://gis.trpa.org/mapmaker/. Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-53 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Page 6-54 of 6-54 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Chapter 7. Garden Valley Fire Protection District This chapter details the district formation, boundary, government structure, population, land use, disadvantaged communities, finances, and the provision of fire protection facilities and services provided by the Garden Valley Fire Protection District (GRV or District), as well as the MSR determinations for this District. Table of Contents 7.1 Agency Profile ..................................................................................................................7-5 7.1.1 Agency Overview ................................................................................................................... 7-5 7.2 Agency Formation and Boundary ......................................................................................7-6 7.2.1 Formation .............................................................................................................................. 7-6 7.2.2 District Boundary ................................................................................................................... 7-6 7.2.3 Existing Sphere of Influence .................................................................................................. 7-6 7.2.4 Extra-Territorial Services ....................................................................................................... 7-8 7.3 District Governance and Accountability ............................................................................7-8 7.3.1 Government Structure ........................................................................................................... 7-8 7.3.2 District Board ......................................................................................................................... 7-8 7.3.3 Accountability and Transparency .......................................................................................... 7-9 7.3.4 Management Efficiencies .................................................................................................... 7-11 7.3.5 Staffing and Training ............................................................................................................ 7-11 Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-1 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 7.4 Growth and Population Forecasts ................................................................................... 7-14 7.4.1 Existing Population .............................................................................................................. 7-14 7.4.2 Existing Population in SOI .................................................................................................... 7-15 7.4.3 Projected Population Growth .............................................................................................. 7-15 7.4.4 Existing Land Use ................................................................................................................. 7-16 7.4.5 Potential Future Development ............................................................................................ 7-16 7.4.6 Open Space and Agriculture ................................................................................................ 7-17 7.4.7 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities .................................................................... 7-17 7.5 Public Services and Infrastructure ................................................................................... 7-18 7.5.1 Service Overview ................................................................................................................. 7-18 7.5.2 Fire and Emergency Response ............................................................................................. 7-18 7.5.3 Mutual Aid, Automatic Aid, Other Agreements .................................................................. 7-22 7.5.4 Dispatch ............................................................................................................................... 7-24 7.5.5 Emergency Access ................................................................................................................ 7-24 7.5.6 Fire Hazard Zones ................................................................................................................ 7-25 7.5.7 Infrastructure ....................................................................................................................... 7-27 7.5.8 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies ................................................................................ 7-28 7.5.9 Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing ................................................................................. 7-29 7.6 Financial Ability to Provide Services ................................................................................ 7-29 7.6.1 Financial Policies and Transparency .................................................................................... 7-30 7.6.2 District Revenues and Expenditures .................................................................................... 7-30 7.6.3 District Assets and Liabilities ............................................................................................... 7-35 7.6.4 Net Position ......................................................................................................................... 7-36 7.6.5 Asset Maintenance and Replacement ................................................................................. 7-37 7.6.6 Cost Avoidance .................................................................................................................... 7-38 7.6.7 Financial Summary and Ability to Provide Services ............................................................. 7-38 7.7 Determinations .............................................................................................................. 7-40 7.8 References ..................................................................................................................... 7-47 Table of Tables Table 7-1: Geographic Summary of Garden Valley Fire Protection District Boundary and SOI ............... 7-6 Table 7-2: Garden Valley Fire Protection District Board of Directors ....................................................... 7-8 Table 7-3: Current Staffing Levels for the GRV by Type and Full-time Equivalent (FTE) ......................... 7-12 Table 7-4: Existing Population Data (2020) in Garden Valley Fire Protection District Boundary............ 7-14 Table 7-5: Total Estimated and Projected Population (2020 – 2040) .................................................... 7-15 Table 7-6: Recent Residential Units Constructed in the GRV District Boundary ..................................... 7-16 Table 7-7: General Plan Designation Acreage for Open Space, Agriculture, and Natural Resources within the District ............................................................................................................................................... 7-17 Table 7-8: Median Household Income by Census Block Group ............................................................... 7-17 Table 7-9: List of Services Provided by GRV and its Partners .................................................................. 7-18 Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-2 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 7-10: Average Response Times for GRV from 2010 to 2019 ......................................................... 7-21 Table 7-11: Automatic Aid Provided and Received from the GRV, 2019 ................................................ 7-23 Table 7-12: Fire Hazard Risk in GRV ......................................................................................................... 7-25 Table 7-13: GRV Responsibility Areas ...................................................................................................... 7-25 Table 7-14: Fire Stations Detail ................................................................................................................ 7-27 Table 7-15: GRV Major Equipment List.................................................................................................... 7-27 Table 7-16: Summary of MSR Determinations for the Garden Valley Fire Protection District ............... 7-40 Table of Figures Figure 7-1: District Boundary Area and SOI ............................................................................................... 7-7 Figure 7-2: Wages and Benefits, GRV Staff, 2018 .................................................................................... 7-13 Figure 7-3: District Calls for Service from 2010 – 2019 .......................................................................... 7-20 Figure 7-4: GRV Percent of Incidents by Type, 2019 ............................................................................... 7-20 Figure 7-5: Fire Hazard Severity Zones within the GRV ........................................................................... 7-26 Figure 7-6: GRV Revenues and Total Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 to FY 2020/2021 ........................ 7-31 Figure 7-7: GRV Net Revenues Over/Under Expenditures for FY 2017-2021 ......................................... 7-35 Figure 7-8: District Assets from the General Ledger Statement as of June 30, 2019 ............................. 7-36 Figure 7-9: District Liabilities and Debt from the General Ledger Statement as of June 30, 2019 ......... 7-36 Figure 7-10: District Net Position as of June 30, 2019 ............................................................................. 7-37 Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-3 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-4 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 7.1 Agency Profile 7.1.1 Agency Overview The Garden Valley Fire Protection District (GRV) is located in the northwest quadrant of the County of El Dorado, north of Placerville; and generally, encompasses the areas north of the South Fork of the American River near Chili Bar Reservoir and south of the community of Georgetown. Major communities in the area are Garden Valley, Greenwood, and Kelsey, with all of them being in major risk areas for wildland-urban interface. Highway 193 and Marshall Road are major access roads through the District. Eighty-seven percent of the District consists of land designated as State Responsibility Area (SRA) and 13% as Federal Responsibility Area (FRA) as detailed in Section 7.5.5. GRV is a limited-purpose local government agency organized under the California Health and Safety Code, to provide following services: Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-5 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • Advanced Life Support (ALS); • non-transport emergency medical services; • fire suppression; • rescue; and • hazardous materials response. 7.2 Agency Formation and Boundary 7.2.1 Formation The Garden Valley Fire Protection District (GRV) was organized in November of 1973, and operates under Resolution No. 560-73, adopted by the County of El Dorado Board of Supervisors, which established the District services. 7.2.2 District Boundary The Garden Valley Fire Protection District’s geographic boundary encompasses approximately 37,612 acres or 58.7 square miles, as seen in Figure 7-1 below. The boundary area includes the communities of Garden Valley, Greenwood, Meadow Wood, Spanish Flat, and Kelsey. The District is bounded by the Georgetown Fire Protection District (GEO) to the north, the El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF) to the west and south, and the Mosquito Fire Protection District (MQT) to the southeast. Since the 2011 Countywide Fire Suppression and Emergency Services MSR (2011 MSR) was approved, the District has annexed an additional 191 parcels totaling 41 acres as part of the Eells Ranch Road annexation completed in 2019. Today, the boundary includes 2,806 assessor parcels (EDC GIS, 2020). District staff indicate that there are no areas within the District boundary that might be served more efficiently by a different agency; meaning the District feels it is the best provider of services within this area (LAFCO, 2020a). 7.2.3 Existing Sphere of Influence El Dorado LAFCO updated the Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the GRV on August 24, 2011 under Resolution No. L-2011-09. The District’s SOI contains 2,588 acres and includes 18 assessor parcels, as shown in Table 7-1 below. Table 7-1: Geographic Summary of Garden Valley Fire Protection District Boundary and SOI District Boundary SOI Total Boundary Area (only) and SOI (All Services) Total Acres 37,612.17 2,588.60 40,200.77 Square Miles 58.77 4.04 62.81 Number of Assessor Parcels 2,806 18 2,824 Source: EDC GIS, 2020 Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-6 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 7-1: District Boundary Area and SOI Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-7 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final District staff indicate that the Sphere of Influence is adequate for future fire and emergency service needs. The staff also believe they can affordably provide service to all areas of the SOI in the future. However, potential areas of the SOI where services will need to be extended in the next 20 years are not clear due, to the unpredictable factors such as the potential for new development in the area and future demand for service (LAFCO, 2020a). 7.2.4 Extra-Territorial Services Consistent with its mutual aid and automatic aid agreements with Georgetown Fire Protection District (GEO), Mosquito Fire Protection District (MQT), and other fire protection service providers in the County of El Dorado, GRV does sometimes provide extra-territorial services outside of its District boundary, on an as-needed basis (LAFCO, 2020a). Details regarding the mutual aid and automatic aid agreements are provided in Section 9.5.3 Given the formal agreements with the other fire service providers, this service is not considered to be Out-of-Agency Services. The District maintains automatic aid agreements with all fire service agencies located in the County for both fire suppression and emergency medical services. 7.3 District Governance and Accountability This section describes how performance, accountability, transparency, and public engagement relate to the public's trust in local government. LAFCO is required by the CKH Act to make specific determinations regarding an agency’s government structure and accountability. 7.3.1 Government Structure The Garden Valley Fire Protection District has five elected Board Members who reside within the community. All registered voters, who reside within the District boundaries are eligible to vote for and/or run for a seat on the District Board of Directors. The District Board appoints the Fire Chief, Finance Officer and Secretary. Department heads are appointed by the Fire Chief. 7.3.2 District Board The District operates under the direction of the elected District Board. Each elected Board Member serves for a term of four years with two Board Member seats running two years apart from the remaining three seats. A new Board President is selected by the Board Members each year. The current Board of Directors members and their terms' expiration dates are shown in Table 7-2 below. The District’s active committees are not known. The Board’s Policies and Procedures were adopted on December 12, 2000 and By-Laws were adopted on August 18, 1982 (LAFCO, 2018). Table 7-2: Garden Valley Fire Protection District Board of Directors Name Title Term End Committee Appointments Frank Edwards Chairperson Dec. 2024 Unknown Ed Hawkins Vice-Chair Dec. 2024 Unknown Frank Clark Director Dec. 2022 Unknown Mark Spaugh Director Dec. 2024 Unknown Ron Nail Director Dec. 2022 Unknown Source: LAFCO, 2020a. Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-8 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The District holds regular public meetings on the fourth Tuesday of each month at 9:30 AM at the fire station located at 4860 Marshall Road, Garden Valley (LAFCO, 2020a). Board members are volunteers who did not receive any stipends or other payments during the study years of 2018 to 2019 (Transparent California, 2020). In California, elected members of special district boards are required to comply with three laws regarding accountability and ethics: 1) the Political Reform Act; 2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005), which requires ethics training; and 3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. which mandates sexual harassment prevention training. A description of each of these three state laws is provided in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Political Reform Act Each district is required to have ethics and conflict of interest code/policies. GRV does have adopted conflict of interest code/policies which were adopted on August 21, 2018. GRV’s conflict of interest policies are available to the public at the County of El Dorado Recorder Clerks Office. The Board of Directors has been asked to review and update or amend this policy. As of May 2021, this has not yet been completed by the Board. This law also requires special district board members to disclose all personal economic interests by filing a “Statement of Economic Interests” with their District or the County Board of Supervisors consistent with requirements of the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). All District Board Members are up to date with their filings as of February 2021. Query results from the FPPC found one violation, occurring in the year 2019 for one board member. Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005) Local government officials are required to take ethics training every two years. GRV staff did not provide consultants with any information regarding whether training has or has not been conducted on a regular basis. Therefore, it is not known whether GRV’s Board is complying with AB 1234. Government Code 53237 et. seq. Special district board members must receive required sexual harassment prevention in a two-hour training class, every two years. GRV staff did not provide consultants with any information regarding whether training has or has not been conducted as described. Therefore, it is not known whether GRV’s Board is complying with Gov. Code 53237 et. seq. 7.3.3 Accountability and Transparency Brown Act All meetings of the District Board and committees are open to the public in accordance with the Brown Act, which is described in detail in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. In compliance with the Act, each meeting's agenda includes a public comment period, and agendas are made available 72 hours before meetings. Meeting agendas are posted on the District bulletin board located at the Fire Station at 4860 Marshall Road. Agendas are sometimes posted to the District’s Facebook page. Since the District does not currently maintain a website, agendas cannot be posted there. There is no community email list distribution. Packets are distributed to community members upon request. Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-9 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The State Legislature updated the Brown Act in 2016 as codified in Government Code §54954.2 (see also Assembly Bill 2257). These new Brown Act requirements are detailed in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. GRV does not maintain a website and does not comply with the requirements of the Brown Act 2016 Updates described in AB2257. Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-29-20 suspended parts of the Brown Act that require in-person attendance of Board members and citizens at public meetings as described in detail in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. In response to these events, the District implemented Teleconference/Electronic Meeting Protocols effective March, 2020, which allow for public participation through a video conferencing platform called Zoom. This platform is accessible by the public for free. Access information is available on the agendas each month. Special District Transparency Act (SB 929) The Special District Transparency Act (SB 929 or California Government Code, §6270.6 and 53087.8) requires that special districts have a functional website, and the requirements of this Act are described in detail in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. The Garden Valley Fire Protection District does not currently maintain a website. SB 929 does allow for a special district to be exempt from the website requirements if the District has adopted a resolution declaring that a hardship exists which prevents the district from establishing or maintaining a website. Any such resolution would be valid for one year and would need to be adopted annually so long as the hardship exists.1 As far as consultants are aware, the District Board has not adopted a resolution declaring a hardship. Therefore, GRV does not comply with the requirements of the Special District Transparency Act. It is recommended that the District Board adopt such a resolution. General Accountability The GRV demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with El Dorado LAFCO. The District cooperated with LAFCO’s requests for information and participated in an interview with the MSR consultants. There are several laws, regulations, and guidelines which prescribe safety features associated with fire protection services, including state laws and regulations exercised through the District's cooperative agreement with CAL FIRE, the Safety Element of the County of El Dorado's General Plan, and other County requirements and regulations. The Garden Valley Fire Protection District, along with all the fire protection districts in the County of El Dorado, has recently been the subject of a Grand Jury Report (County of El Dorado, 2020a). The Grand Jury Report posits in Case No. 19-06 that, while it made sense historically, the only reason there are multiple fire agencies in El Dorado County is because of "strong loyalty to a local home district," coming "at the expense of the County as a whole." The Grand Jury concludes that the insufficient revenues afforded to rural districts strain the mutual and automatic aid system as a whole, forcing more financially stable districts to "subsidize" the rural ones by having the former respond to calls when the latter is unable to do so. The issues raised in this report remain valid (LAFCO, 2020b). Also, LAFCO's 2011 MSR reported 1 Senate Bill No. 929 Section 53087.8 text can be found here: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB929 Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-10 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final that GRV had been the subject of at least three Grand Jury investigations during 2007 to 2011 with a report of high-risk activity (LAFCO, 2011). Changes to the governmental structure of some fire protection districts are needed in the future to address these issues. 7.3.4 Management Efficiencies The Fire Chief is appointed by and reports to the elected Board of Directors. The Fire Chief is responsible for directing District operations and overseeing and implementing policies on behalf of the Board. The GRV Master Plan (5 year) was adopted in 2001. An important part of management effectiveness includes the District adopting a District-wide mission and vision statement. The GRV Mission statement is: “The mission of the Garden Valley Fire Protection District is to protect our community through effective and innovative public safety services.” 7.3.5 Staffing and Training The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) calls for a standard of four staff per engine company and truck company (4-0) model (NFPA, 2020). A three staff per engine and truck company (3-0) model is acceptable as a minimum standard practice for this MSR/SOI Update. More information on staffing levels can be found in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Garden Valley Fire Protection District meets the NFPA definition of a “Volunteer Fire Department” as outlined in NFPA 1720, a different designation than a career fire department. NFPA 1720 sets standards for the minimum number of firefighters to respond based on population for a combination of career and volunteer personnel. The Fire Chief confirms that per NFPA 1720, GRV operates in a Rural Area (<500 population/square mile). Under this designation, it is recommended for GRV to have six firefighters assembled at a structure fire within 14 minutes, 80 percent of the time. According to the Fire Chief, the District meets this recommendation and follows NFPA 1720 standards (Chief Norman, personal communication, April 2022). GRV is staffed with one staff per engine (1-0) model2. This staffing level is below the minimum standard practice. Lower staffing levels leave the community vulnerable to low frequency, high-risk events, such as a working structure fire. GRV utilizes a mix of paid staff and volunteers, including the following types: • Full-time, paid; • Part-time, paid; • Seasonal, paid; • On-call, paid per incident; • Volunteer, unpaid. As of August 2020, GRV indicates that its staffing level has been reduced to three (3) uniformed staff and thirty-five plus (35+) support staff (LAFCO, 2020a). District support staff includes the Interim Fire Chief, one administrative support staff position, 16 volunteers, and numerous volunteers under the District’s Incident Management Team. The Incident Management Team is made up of retired firefighters and experts in the field that work for the District on Strike Team assignments during fire season. These 2 GRV staff has indicated to consultants that the District budget currently only supports a 1-0 staffing model as of August 29, 2020. Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-11 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final members are employed by the District but are paid through the State of California Strike Team revenue and are not assigned to any shifts at the fire station. GRV has 16 active volunteers that are available to be assigned shifts at the fire station, but normally have full-time jobs and are not always available to cover shifts. In summary, apart from the interim Fire Chief, only three firefighters and about 16 volunteers are available for shifts at the fire station. Details regarding staffing are provided in Table 7-3 below (Assistant Chief L. Szcezepanik, personal communication, September 2020). Table 7-3: Current Staffing Levels for the GRV by Type and Full-time Equivalent (FTE) Position FTE Count as of July 1, 2020 Compared to 2018 Fire Chief 1 (Interim Chief) 1 Assistant Fire Chief 0 1 Captain/Paramedic Firefighter 2 2 Captain/EMT 1 1 Firefighter/Paramedic 0 4 Firefighter/EMT 0 0 Paid Firefighter 0 3 Office Support Staff 1 5 Incident Management Team* 12 27 Volunteer Firefighter 16 13 Total 33 55 *Incident Management Team staff are volunteers used for Strike Team assignments during fire season Source: LAFCO, 2020a The District has two firefighters also trained as paramedics, which are the only paramedics in the area. If the ambulance for Georgetown Fire Protection District travels out of the area for an Advanced Life Support (ALS) call, then there is no ambulance available to the Garden Valley area. In this situation, GRV's one firefighter/paramedic on duty can respond (Assistant Chief L. Szcezepanik, personal communication, September 2020). By necessity, GRV currently functions as a fire district that relies on volunteers to a significant extent, along with a very small number of paid staff (LAFCO, 2019). GRV does not staff an ambulance for the West Slope JPA within its District and is considered a non- transportation agency. Prior to 2019, GRV received a stipend of $2,500 per year from the West Slope JPA as a non-transporting agency along with the other non-transporting agencies, however the stipend was canceled in 2019 at the April 24, 2019 JPA Board of Directors meeting (Item 8.4). Instead of the stipend, non-transporting agencies can restock medical supplies from the ambulance or bill the JPA directly if they are unable to restock. The JPA Board of Directors decided to halt the stipend and have the Systems Status Management Committee review and/or revise the Expense and Variance Report policy regarding how non-transporting agencies restock from the ambulances (West Slope JPA, 2019). The closest transporting agency, which manages one ambulance for the JPA, is the Georgetown Fire Protection District (LAFCO, 2019). Salaries and other payments to staff were queried using the Transparent California database. The most recent data available is from the year 2018. In 2018, GRV had a total of 55 personnel on the payroll as Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-12 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final shown in Figure 7-2. Ten individuals were “on-call” and were paid less than $6,000 during the year. Thirty- six individuals were paid more than $6,000 and less than $100,000 in the 2018, including those who worked on-call, seasonally, part-time, and full-time. One seasonal employee earned more than $100,000 in wages and benefits during the year. Additionally, six full-time employees earned an average of $145,555 in total wages and benefits in 2018. Typically, only “full-time” employees receive employment benefits. Total benefits consist of the employer-paid cost of health, dental and vision medical insurance, plus retirement contributions (Transparent California, 2020). Figure 7-2: Wages and Benefits, GRV Staff, 2018 $200,000 $150,000 Benefits $100,000 Other Pay Overtime Pay $50,000 Base Pay $ Individual Employees However, since 2018 there have been staff layoffs including the stepping down of the District Fire Chief to save one firefighter position. In August 2020, in order to further cut costs, GRV laid off three firefighter paramedics reducing the number of full-time firefighters from six to three (Assistant Chief L. Szcezepanik, personal communication, September 2020). The District staff reports that the District has aggressively sought to reduce costs by reducing staffing as far as possible in order to retain service to the community. Specifically, staffing is down to one firefighter per day (LAFCO, 2020a). The District tries to meet revenue shortfalls with revenue generated from the State through Strike Team reimbursement. When considering whether the number of firefighters is adequate to provide services, District staff noted that they are always recruiting to keep the numbers of volunteers up (LAFCO, 2020a). Staffing for GRV is augmented by its participation in the automatic aid, boundary drop, and closest resource system that automatically deploys the closest available resource to respond to any calls for service regardless of agency boundaries in the County of El Dorado (CAM 2020f). GRV receives advantages from participating in this network of collaborating fire agencies which reduces response times and increases resource deployment. The 2010 Fire and Emergency Services Study (FESS) report noted that response times in the County were not a problem, however deficiency existed in a “weight of attack” problem, where a responding resource had to wait for additional resources to arrive in order to tackle the problem adequately (Citygate, 2010). Additional information on staffing practices can be found in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Training Garden Valley Fire Protection District personnel train regularly, and the training is routinely scheduled for the 2nd Thursday evening every month, with an additional four Saturdays during the year (LAFCO, 2020a). Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-13 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The training exercises include structure drills, wildland drills, EMS training, CPR training annually, vehicle accident, and defibrillator training (LAFCO, 2020a). GRV has indicated that its volunteers are also current with all required training (LAFCO, 2019). Firefighters employed by the Garden Valley Fire Protection District are fully trained and certified to fill the positions they are qualified for. GRV meets all Federal and State requirements for wildland fire and all staff are recertified annually, meeting all required guidelines. Complaints During the years 2018 and 2019, GRV did not receive any complaints (LAFCO, 2020a). 7.4 Growth and Population Forecasts The growth and population projection for the affected area is a determination which LAFCO is required to describe, consistent with the MSR Guidelines from the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) as set forth in the CKH Act. This section provides information on the existing population and future growth projections for the GRV. Historical and anticipated population growth is a factor which affects service demand. 7.4.1 Existing Population Within GRV's boundaries, there are approximately 4,685 permanent residents and 560 temporary overnight visitors as of 2020, as shown in Table 7-4 below. Detailed information regarding population demographics and socio-economic indicators in El Dorado County is provided in Volume I - Appendix A and Appendix B. Table 7-4: Existing Population Data (2020) in Garden Valley Fire Protection District Boundary Number of Permanent Overnight Visitor Daytime Visitor Registered Voters1 Population2 Population3 Population4 Garden Valley Fire 2,539 4,685 560 1,000 Protection District Sources: 1 Data Source for number of voters is LAFCO, 2018. 2 Permanent population calculated based on 2,806 parcels in GRV's boundaries, with an average of 1.67 persons per parcel (GIS data, 2020). 3 Overnight visitor number calculated based on average of 88 percent of the homes within GRV's boundaries are owner occupied on a year-round basis3. 4 GRV staff indicated that special events, such as the annual 4th of July parade, can bring up to 1,000 visitors to the area (LAFCO, 2020a). 3 El Dorado County has a long history of the use of housing units for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. According to the U.S. Census and the County of El Dorado Housing Element (EDC, 2013), the average number of vacant homes is approximately 12 percent of the total number of units throughout the unincorporated community. Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-14 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final During special events, such as the 4th of July annual parades, and celebrations, approximately 1,000 visitors to the area temporarily increase the population (LAFCO, 2020a). The daytime visitor population includes the summertime increase in calls to the Coloma/Lotus and Pilot Hill areas, when the American River is open for rafting and rafting companies are more active (Assistant Chief L. Szcezepanik, personal communication, September 2020). Approximately 6,245 persons comprise the total peak daytime level that the District supports. Within the District’s boundaries, the permanent population increased by 309 persons between its 2010 population of 4,376 residents to today’s 4,685 residents. This equates to an average annual growth rate of 0.62 percent. The District's population has continued to increase with small parcel divisions, construction of new single-family homes on existing lots, and other developments occurring in the District over the last 10 years. Of the 4,685 residents within the District boundaries, all receive fire protection services from the GRV. 7.4.2 Existing Population in SOI The population in GRV’s SOI and outside the District Boundary, is estimated to be 30 people based upon an average number of 1.67 persons per Assessor’s Parcel. These residents receive fire protection services for wildland fires from CAL FIRE. 7.4.3 Projected Population Growth Projecting future population for a District is complicated due to varying annexation rates and census tracts that do not match with District boundaries. For purposes of this MSR, data from the California Department of Finance (DOF) was used to project population growth as shown in Table 7-5 below. The DOF provides population projections at the County level and the growth rate for the County of El Dorado is utilized to extrapolate population growth rates for the Garden Valley Fire Protection District. By the year 2040, it is estimated that GRV’s existing boundary will encompass a population of 5,175 persons. This represents an average annual growth rate of 0.5 percent over the 20-year timeframe between the years 2020 and 2040. Table 7-5: Total Estimated and Projected Population (2020 – 2040) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 County of El Dorado1,3 193,227 201,041 207,496 211,537 213,033 Garden Valley Fire Protection District2,4 4,685 4,885 5,040 5,140 5,175 Sources: 1 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. 2 Population projection for GRV calculated as a percentage of The County of El Dorado and includes both permanent residents and overnight visitor population. 3 California Department of Finance. May 2020. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011- 2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark. Sacramento, California. 4 Calculated estimate based a total of 115,412 parcels in the County of El Dorado with an average of 1.67 persons per parcel in El Dorado County as of the year 2020 and 2,806 parcels within the boundary. Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-15 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The addition of almost 500 more people to the District by 2040 is possible as the District has undeveloped areas that could potentially be available for more intensive residential development as described in the following paragraphs related to land use (9.4.4). 7.4.4 Existing Land Use Land-use is a factor that affects population growth and therefore demand for public services. However, the Garden Valley Fire Protection District is not a land-use authority, as that is reserved to the County of El Dorado. 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 (LAFCO, 2011). Single-family dwellings are the primary residential type. Many of the homes constructed in the GRV area are constructed with lumber and related materials, and were built prior to the adoption of the fire safe regulations. This has resulted in residential neighborhoods with inadequate ingress/egress routes and insufficient defensible space clearance around the homes (CALFIRE, 2014). House-to-house ignition is a structural fire safety problem in this area. The Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) manages 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 (FSC-EDC, 2016). About 35 new single-family structures were built in the District in 2019. Table 7-6 shows recent residential unit construction from 2017 to 2019. Table 7-6: Recent Residential Units Constructed in the GRV District Boundary 2017 2018 2019 Number of single-family homes constructed 21 19 35 Source: LAFCO, 2020a County General Plan The District's boundary area is entirely unincorporated and subject to the land-use policies and regulations of the County of El Dorado. Over the last decade, most land-use decisions, initiated by private property owners, are secured via entitlements and land-use permits from the County and other agencies. Garden Valley is identified as a “Rural Center” consistent with General Plan Policy 2.1.2.1. Rural Center boundaries establish areas of higher intensity development throughout the rural areas of the County based on the availability of infrastructure, public services, existing uses, parcelization, impact on natural resources, etc. General Plan planning designations within the District boundary includes single-family residential, rural residential, agricultural, open space, and public facilities. The western portion of the District is within an identified biological corridor. 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. 7.4.5 Potential Future Development 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 General Plan Land Use Element (as amended through 2019) identifies goals and policies to guide development throughout Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-16 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final unincorporated areas of the County. The District has not identified any proposed and/or current projects that would impact the District. 7.4.6 Open Space and Agriculture El Dorado LAFCO’s policies require that an MSR/SOI offer a determination about the effect that a district’s service provision will have on open space and agricultural lands. Open space within the GRV’s boundary totals 1,979 acres. Agricultural lands are calculated to be approximately 4,350 acres within the District as shown in Table 7-7. Table 7-7: General Plan Designation Acreage for Open Space, Agriculture, and Natural Resources within the District Boundary Only (in acres) SOI Area Only Open space Agriculture Natural Resources Open space Agriculture Natural Resources 1,979 4,350 7,170 0 1,152 599 Source: EDC GIS, 2019 The Garden Valley Fire Protection District’s effect on open space lands and agricultural land is minimal. The District does provide fire protection services to open space areas within its boundaries. LAFCO has an interest in documenting the conversion of agricultural and open space lands to other land use types, such as residential use. The District’s fire protection services do not play a role in these types of land-use conversions. 7.4.7 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities A Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) is an unincorporated area of a County in which the annual median household income (MHI) is less than 80 percent of the statewide MHI. More information on DUCs can be found in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. There is one rural area that qualifies as a DUC that is partially within the District boundary, as detailed in Table 7-8. Table 7-8: Median Household Income by Census Block Group Identification Block Group No. of Median Census No. Population No. No. Households Income (2018) 0306031 30603 1 923 305 $55,966 Source: US Census, 2018: ACS 5-Year Estimates Detailed Tables, Table: B19013 Census Tract 30603 is located in the northeastern portion of the Garden Valley Fire Protection District boundary and crosses into the southeastern side of the Georgetown Fire Protection District boundary. Census Tract 30603 contains approximately 305 households with an annual median household income of $55,966 (DWR, 2018). A rural area may be considered to be a disadvantaged unincorporated community (DUC) if inadequate services are provided for domestic water supply, sewage disposal, and structural fire protection. This area receives water service from Georgetown Divide Public Utility District or private wells. Wastewater services are provided to this DUC area by small septic systems. Fire protection services to the DUC are provided by the GRV and neighboring agencies through automatic dispatch. Census Tract 30603 Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-17 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final is currently receiving these three essential municipal services, and no health or safety issues have been identified. 7.5 Public Services and Infrastructure 7.5.1 Service Overview The District provides fire and emergency services to local residents; specifically, Advanced Life Support (ALS), non-transport Emergency medical services, fire suppression, rescue, and hazardous-materials response as listed in Table 7-9, below. The Garden Valley Fire Protection District is the primary service provider for fire protection services within the District boundaries. Table 7-9: List of Services Provided by GRV and its Partners Service Primary Provider Partners Structural Fire Protection GRV GEO, MQT, ECF Wildland Fire Protection GRV GEO, MQT, ECF, CALFIRE, USFS Emergency Medical Response West Slope JPA CAM, EDH, ECF, DSP, GEO, MQT, USFS, RES, PIO Rescue/Extrication GRV GEO, MQT, ECF, USFS Hazardous Materials GRV GEO, MQT, ECF, USFS Water Supply/hydrants EID, GDPUD GRV, GEO, MQT, ECF, USFS Training GRV GEO, MQT, CALFIRE Fire Safety Education GRV None Arson Investigations None None Source: LAFCO, 2020a Structural Fire Protection The suppression of fires in local structures is the primary focus of GRV’s work. Post-fire investigation and research indicates that flying embers cause most home ignitions during wildfires. Individual homeowners can protect their property from the financial risk associated with structural fire by purchasing homeowner’s insurance with fire coverage. Purchasing this homeowner’s insurance has become more difficult in recent years. For example, in the County of El Dorado, during the year 2016, over 1,000 homeowners lost access to their homeowner’s insurance policy due to non-renewal by the insurance company (California Department of Insurance, 2018). 7.5.2 Fire and Emergency Response The District maintains automatic aid agreements with all fire service agencies located in the County of El Dorado for fire suppression and emergency medical services. Under this system, the District responds to close proximity calls within adjacent fire jurisdictions, as well as receives assistance from neighboring agencies when requested. This type of agreement ensures the best possible emergency service is delivered by the most efficient means possible. The District also participates in a mutual aid system that responds to requests for aid from throughout the County and State. Because of these agreements, all firefighters within each fire agency in the County must be prepared for any type of emergency in any setting at all times. Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-18 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Every fire agency within the United States is rated by an independent risk assessment and standards authority for the purposes of establishing insurance policy premiums for homeowners and businesses. California uses an independent national company called the Insurance Services Office, or ISO, for this purpose. The Insurance Services Office evaluates four broad categories of fire suppression when establishing a Public Protection Classification (PPC). These categories include: 1) Fire Department; 2) Emergency Communications; 3) Water Supply; and 4) Community Risk Reduction. ISO routinely conducts assessments of each fire agency in the United States. The rating scale from best to worse is One (1) — Ten (10). There is a possible score of 105.5 points from the total of the four categories listed above. An agency needs a score of 90-105.5 to receive a PPC of Class 1. The District received an ISO rating of 4/4X (LAFCO, 2020a). 4/4X is a split classification such that the first number refers to the classification of properties within 5 road miles of a fire station and within 1,000 feet of a creditable water supply. The second number, with the X designation, applies to properties within 5 road miles of a fire station but beyond 1,000 feet of a creditable water supply. Improving an ISO score would require improvements to the following factors: staff training, standard operating procedures, water supply, personnel/staffing levels, communications, and data tracking. Emergency Medical Services GRV provides non-transport emergency medical services to residents within the District as it does have two firefighters trained as Advanced Life Support (ALS) Paramedics and one firefighter trained as an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT). For medical emergencies requiring transportation, the Georgetown Fire Protection District provides paramedic ambulance services for the GRV (LAFCO, 2011). No new data has been noted since the 2011 Countywide Fire Suppression and Emergency Services MSR (2011 MSR). Ambulance service can deliver patients to the Marshall Hospital, at 1100 Marshall Way, Placerville, CA 95667 or to other hospitals in the greater Sacramento region such as UC Davis, Dignity Health, and Sutter Health. The District is a signatory to the West Slope JPA (County Service Area No. 7) but does not staff an ambulance for the JPA. Additional information regarding emergency medical services can be found in Volume II - Chapter 15, County Service Area (CSA) 3 and CSA 7 MSR. Calls for Service According to Camino Dispatch, the District responded to 693 unique incidents in 2019. Those incidents translated to 1,388 calls for service. A call for service refers to any apparatus or vehicle for the agency which responded to a unique incident, and each apparatus or vehicle is counted as one “call for service.” The data includes incidents occurring both within and outside of the agency’s jurisdiction that the agencies resources responded to. For more information on how consultants analyzed the dispatch data, refer to Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire and Emergency Medical Services Agency MSR General Information. A breakdown of calls for service from 2010 to 2019 can be seen in Figure 7-3. The year 2019 represents the second highest number of calls for the District in a single year since 2010. The busiest year for the District was 2010 with 1,725 calls for service. Between 2010 and 2019, the District has seen variable changes in the number of calls with an overall slow decline (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-19 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 7-3: District Calls for Service from 2010 – 2019 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 According to Camino ECC Dispatch data, the majority of the incidents were for medical at 384 incidents. A break down in incidents for 2019 can be seen in Figure 7-4 below (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Figure 7-4: GRV Percent of Incidents by Type, 2019 7% 15% 15% Assistance 4% Fire Hazard 4% Medical Other Traffic Collision 55% Medical calls made up a little over half (55 percent) of incidents in 2019 followed by fire (15 percent) and traffic collisions (15 percent). The “Other” incident type includes mutual or automatic aid engine coverage for other fire agencies, aircraft down, arson, investigations, medical transfers, rescues, extractions, miscellaneous, radio and phone system failures, staffing pattern, call transfers, as well as other similar service types. The “Assistance” incident type includes public agency work such as demonstrations, assisting with a water leak, assisting with an animal, assisting with an alarm or lockout, elevator rescue, Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-20 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final physically assisting in lifting a person, and assisting with search and rescue (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). More information on incident categories can be found in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Response Times El Dorado County’s General Plan (2004 as amended through 2019) Public Services and Utilities Element has several policies related to goals for average response time for new development as described in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Consultants do not have the capability to break response time data out by County of El Dorado defined Community Region, Rural Center, or Rural Region standards. GRV staff reports that the District's response times range from two (2) minutes to twenty (20) minutes. In 2019, the District’s average response time was 12 minutes and 57 seconds based on available data from CAL FIRE Camino Dispatch and calculated by the consultants (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). GRV average for 2019 appears to meet County response time goals for new discretionary projects in Rural Centers and Rural Regions. Average response times for the District from 2010 to 2019 can be seen in Table 7-10 below. Table 7-10: Average Response Times for GRV from 2010 to 2019 Average Response Time Year (Hr : Min : Sec) 2010 0:08:32 2011 0:10:09 2012 0:09:32 2013 0:10:45 2014 0:15:26 2015 0:10:57 2016 0:11:57 2017 0:11:15 2018 0:12:21 2019 0:12:57 Source: CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020 Average response times for the District have slowly increased since 2015, though overall number of calls has decreased or remained steady year over year (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). It would be challenging to improve this response time due to the District's geographic expanse (LAFCO, 2020a). The response time data does not cover inter-facility transfer (IFT), auto/mutual aid, and strike team/overhead (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Consultants were informed by staff from multiple fire agencies in the County that CAL FIRE Camino ECC does not have the ability to track turnout time and other needed elements to define definitive numbers to measure true response times. Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-21 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Other Industry Standards In general, other industry standards applicable to GRV are established by the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA), the Insurance Services Office, Cal OSHA, and District ordinances. All of these agencies, as well as many others, directly and/or indirectly affect the type of services, the quality and development of those services, expansion, reliability, facility design, and construction and environmental issues that the District provides. Forest Fuel Treatment Forest fuel treatments are used by property owners and managers to reduce fire hazard fuel and for ecological restoration. Due to past fire exclusion, forests today contain denser fuel loads and are susceptible to severe wildfires. There are two common types of treatments: 1) Mechanical thinning, including cutting and clearing wood and brush; and 2) Prescribed fire in which a low intensity fire is managed to burn existing fuel before more accumulates. Within GRV's boundaries, there are several pockets of land on which forest fuel treatments have occurred, including both privately owned land and federally managed land (FSC-EDC, 2016). Although the GRV is not directly responsible for forest fuel treatments, a community approach to safety that considers house-to-house transmission, structural safety, and forest fuel treatments is essential. 7.5.3 Mutual Aid, Automatic Aid, Other Agreements Mutual Aid The Garden Valley Fire Protection District provides resources to all fire agencies in the County of El Dorado through mutual aid agreements. These agreements allow for giving and receiving of emergency resources (LAFCO, 2020a). Ideally, agreements for mutual aid or any other appropriate agreement (i.e., Tax Sharing Agreement) are periodically reviewed to ensure fiscal neutrality. GRV has a contract with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) through the Federal Forest Agreement (LAFCO, 2020a). GRV also has a contract with CAL FIRE through the annual operating plan (LAFCO, 2020a). For both agreements, GRV is compensated for responding to fires within state and federal responsibility areas. Automatic Aid The Garden Valley Fire Protection District maintains automatic aid, boundary drop, and closest resource agreements with all fire protection providers operating in the County of El Dorado including the U.S. Forest Service and CAL FIRE. Any resource provided by GRV is available under these agreements (LAFCO, 2020a). Through the current automatic aid 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. For this MSR/SOI Update, LAFCO requested an analysis of automatic aid provided to and received from each agency that provided and/or received aid. Consultants received a breakdown in automatic aid data directly from CAL FIRE Camino ECC dispatch in order to provide the following analysis. This data shows who the first responder to the call was within another agency’s service area boundary. In the context of this analysis, automatic aid specifically refers to instances where an agency was first responder to a call within another agency’s jurisdictional boundary. Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-22 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final CAL FIRE is a statewide organization that operates throughout the County of El Dorado. As mentioned previously, CAL FIRE operates within the County under the same automatic aid system as the other local fire agencies. As a result of CAL FIRE’s expansive service area in El Dorado County, the agency responds to a significant number of calls for service throughout the County for the local fire agencies. CAL FIRE automatic aid for each local fire agency is included in the following analysis because CAL FIRE operates within the automatic aid system and was first responder to calls for all of the local fire agencies in the study year 2019. It is important to note that the automatic aid data that was analyzed only included the first responder data and did not include the local fire agencies responses to statewide fires managed by CAL FIRE. Thus, it is not surprising that almost none of the agencies were first responders to CAL FIRE calls aiding CAL FIRE; which are handled through the assignment of strike teams by CAL FIRE. CAL FIRE does not have a designated jurisdictional boundary within the automatic aid system, but is tasked with responding to wildfires within State Responsibility Areas, much of which is within other fire agency boundaries. In 2019, the County of El Dorado experienced 151 wildland fires with a total of 266 acres burned (CAL FIRE, 2019). Only three local agencies provided first response aid to one of those incidents for CAL FIRE in 2019. More information on the State Responsibility Areas can be found in Section 7.5.6. Information about CAL FIRE operations in the County can be found in Volume I - Appendix D. Through consultation with the ad hoc Fire Chiefs MSR group and LAFCO, consultants agreed to exclude the CAL FIRE automatic aid numbers from Table 7-11 below, due to the reasons stated above. However, the study cannot ignore the CAL FIRE automatic aid data as part of the contextual analysis. Doing so would make it appear that local agencies received less aid than they actually did in 2019 and paint an inaccurate picture of the amount of aid received and provided between fire agencies operating in the County in 2019. Thus, the following analysis and determinations include CAL FIRE aid in the contextual details while removing the numbers from Table 7-11 below. CAL FIRE automatic aid numbers are described countywide in greater detail in Volume I - Appendix D. GRV received automatic aid 249 times and provided automatic aid 238 times in 2019. Table 7-11 below shows the individual agencies that provided aid to GRV and those that received aid from GRV in 2019, excluding CAL FIRE. The CAL FIRE Amador-El Dorado Unit provided automatic aid to GRV 288 times in 2019 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Table 7-11: Automatic Aid Provided and Received from the GRV, 2019 Agency Providing/Receiving Amount of Aid Amount of Aid Aid to/from GRV Provided to GRV Given from GRV CAM 3 1 DSP 8 1 ECF 37 97 GEO 167 129 MQT 11 3 RES 15 0 Other Agencies1 8 7 Total 249 238 Source: CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020 Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-23 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Agency Providing/Receiving Amount of Aid Amount of Aid Aid to/from GRV Provided to GRV Given from GRV 1Other Agencies include the U.S. Forest Service – Eldorado National Forest Unit, CAL FIRE – Nevada-Yuba-Placer Unit, and the California Department of Forestry – Toulmune-Calaveras Unit. The CAL FIRE – Amador-El Dorado Unit aid provided to GRV is described in Volume I - Appendix D. GRV received more aid than the District provided to other agencies in 2019. The majority of aid received by GRV came from GEO at approximately 67 percent of all aid. The next highest amount received was from ECF at approximately 15 percent of all aid. The GRV provided the most aid to GEO at 129 times, but received aid 38 more times from GEO than it provided. Of all of the agencies receiving aid from GRV, the District provided more aid to only one, ECF, than it received (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). The low difference between aid provided and received for GEO shows a balance of automatic aid and that automatic aid is operating well for GRV. 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. A more detailed analysis of automatic aid is needed to determine the reasoning for variation in aid received versus provided for GRV and other fire agencies in the County, factoring in the location of calls in relation to available resources for each agency. Of all of the calls for service in 2019, the District required aid for 39 percent of all calls when adding in CAL FIRE. With CAL FIRE aid removed, the District required aid for 18 percent of all calls in 2019 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Joint Agreements A Joint Agreement is one where a District may jointly own or share fire protection services, capital facilities, or services with other agencies. GRV entered into a Joint Operations Authority with the Fire Protection Districts of Georgetown and Mosquito. This agreement allows the three agencies to share volunteers, and equipment as necessary, to assist each district with coverage on a day-to-day basis. 7.5.4 Dispatch Dispatching is provided through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the multiagency CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center (ECC), providing a single dispatch system for the entire Western Slope of the County. Emergency medical services are provided by the District through the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the County of El Dorado. Additional details on County wide dispatch can be found in Volume I - Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. 7.5.5 Emergency Access Major access roads to the community include Marshall Road, Greenwood Road, and Highway 193. The County’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan has identified several challenges to the provision of emergency access including: Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-24 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • Excessive vegetation along roadsides and hanging over roads, fire engine access, and evacuation routes. • Narrow, one-lane and/or dead-end roads complicating evacuation and emergency response. • Subdivisions that have only one means of ingress/egress. • Inadequate or missing street signs on private roads and house address signs (CED, Sherriff’s Department, July 2018). The District’s boundary area does include examples of these challenging situations. Many of the GRV area homes are constructed of seasoned wood and were built prior to the adoption of the fire safe regulations. This has resulted in residential neighborhoods with inadequate ingress/egress routes and insufficient defensible space clearance around the homes (CAL FIRE, 2014). District staff does work with community stakeholders to remediate issues as they are identified. As far as consultants are aware, GRV has not yet been subject to an evaluation of evacuation routes in the event of an emergency. 7.5.6 Fire Hazard Zones The Fire Hazard Severity Zones, Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), and Community Risk Fire Map in which CAL Fire categorizes spatial areas into different risk areas are described in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Within the GRV’s boundaries, 27,977 acres are in a “Very High” Fire Hazard Severity Zone and 8,509 acres are in “High” based on GIS data provided by CAL FIRE as shown in Table 7-12 and Figure 7-5. In total, 97 percent of the area within the District can be classified as either “Very High” or “High” fire risk and this is a significant percentage. Table 7-12: Fire Hazard Risk in GRV Acreage in Very Percent in Very Acreage in Percent in Total Percentage in Very High Fire Risk High Fire Risk High Fire Risk High Fire Risk High and High Fire Risk 27,977 74.4% 8,509 22.6% 97.0% Source: GIS Data from the County of El Dorado, 2020, as derived from CALFIRE Data. The GRV is located within an identified WUI and is identified as a community at risk (CAL FIRE, 2019). CAL FIRE works to prevent and suppress wildland fires only on those lands that are formally classified as a State Responsibility Area (SRA), consistent with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 4125. GRV’s boundary contains 31,690 acres of “State Responsibility Area” (SRA), and 5,928 acres of “Federal Responsibility Area” (FRA) for wildland fire protection services. The acreage of each category of land within the GRV boundary as listed in Table 7-13, below. Table 7-13: GRV Responsibility Areas Boundary Only (Acres) SOI Only (by itself) (Acres) LRA SRA FRA LRA SRA FRA 0 31,690 5,928 0 1,983 606 Source: GIS data from Cal Fire Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-25 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 7-5: Fire Hazard Severity Zones within the GRV Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-26 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final GRV does not have any acreage designated as “Local Responsibility Area” (LRA). Most of the land within the District boundary is categorized as “State Responsibility Area” in terms of wildland fire. See Figure 7-5 for a map of the SRA and FRA areas. GRV does remain responsible for structural fires within its boundaries. 7.5.7 Infrastructure GRV maintains infrastructure to support its fire protection services. This infrastructure includes fire stations, fire hydrants, fire trucks, and other vehicles, water hoses, and other equipment. Fire Stations The District owns three fire stations, as shown in Table 7-14. Only the main station at 4860 Marshall Road is staffed on a full-time, year-round, regular basis while the other two are used to store equipment. Table 7-14: Fire Stations Detail Station Number Address Staffing 4680 Marshall Rd., 51 24/7/365 Garden Valley 9751 Hwy 193, 52 None Garden Valley 3813 Hwy 193, 53 None Garden Valley Source: LAFCO, 2020a, GRV 2019a, and EDC GIS Data, 2020 There has been a significant change in fire station staffing since LAFCO's 2011 MSR, which reported that volunteers staffed two stations. Over the past ten years, there has been a decline in fire station staffing. In addition to the three stations listed in Table 7-14 above, CAL FIRE maintains a fire station in the vicinity, and this station is used to respond to wildland fires. CALFIRE’s station is staffed only during fire season. Equipment/Apparatus The GRV currently owns and maintains three fire engines and one water tender as well as other vehicles. Additionally, the District is purchasing a ZOLL Auto resuscitator. The District has recently sold several pieces of equipment to conserve financial resources as listed in Table 7-15, below. Table 7-15: GRV Major Equipment List Equipment GRV Owns as of November 2020 2019 BME Type 3 Engine 2003 Ferrerra Type 2 Engine 2011 Ferrera Type 1 Tactical Tender 1998 GMC 3500 Type 6 Engine 2005 Chevy 1/2 ton pickup ZOLL Auto resuscitator Purchasing with CARES Act Assistance 2019 Chevy Tahoe 2500HD 2009 Ford Expedition 2006 Chevy 1500 Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-27 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Equipment GRV Owns as of November 2020 2009 Ford Crown Victorian 2018 Chevy 2500 HD 2006 F-550 Equipment that GRV Sold 2019 Chevy Tahoe sold to Dunsmuir FD 2007 Ferrara Type 1 sold to Mt Hope FD West Virginia 1992 Sparton Type 1 sold to Georgetown FD Source: LAFCO, 2020a In 2011, LAFCO reported that GRV owned five fire engines and also owned one rescue/medical squad vehicle with Basic Life Support (BLS) and Advanced Life Support (ALS) service and foam capabilities, a command vehicle, a duty officer vehicle for night coverage, two utility vehicles [one a flatbed], and one water tender (LAFCO, 2011). The District has gained one vehicle and sold two fire engines and a vehicle since 2011. Water and Hydrants GRV utilizes water supplies to support structural firefighting. Infrastructure available for firefighters to tap includes the local hydrant system, tanks, ponds, river, streams, and swimming pools. The water source for this infrastructure is Georgetown Divide Public Utility District for water supplied to hydrants and storage tanks in the area and private citizens who provide access to natural water in ponds, rivers, and streams (LAFCO, 2020a). The hydrant capacity/rating of the system is 581 gallons per minute (GPM) with 34,860 gallons per hour (GPH) (LAFCO, 2020a). LAFCO's 2011 MSR contains additional details about GRV's water supply, and the system has not changed significantly since then. Hydrants are maintained by the Georgetown Divide Public Utility District. 7.5.8 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies GRV staff has indicated the following infrastructure, facilities, and equipment needs/deficiencies: • Station 52 and 53 need new roof, siding, and trim replaced • Need for a newer Type 6 engine to replace 22-year-old Type 6 engine Data Source: LAFCO, 2020a GRV staff reports that they have aggressively sought to reduce costs by selling all excess vehicles and equipment (LAFCO, 2020a). GRV staff also reports that Station No. 51 and Station No. 52 need extensive maintenance (LAFCO, 2020a). For these two stations, the roofs need replacement as well as some siding and trim due to rot and the buildings need to be painted. GRV's Type 3 Engine recently burned during a fire in the County, and it needs to be replaced. However, there is no funding available to replace this fire apparatus. Since the GRV budget now allocates all reserve funds to salaries, there is no funding available for equipment (LAFCO, 2019). GRV staff reports that it does have an assessment of its fire stations and other facilities that outlines needed retrofits and upgrades (LAFCO, 2019). GRV staff reports that maintenance is routinely completed for its fire stations and other facilities (LAFCO, 2019). The fire station’s bays are large enough to accommodate the fire engine. Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-28 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final However, the fire stations are not up to current seismic codes (LAFCO, 2019). No other infrastructure deficiencies were identified by GRV staff (LAFCO, 2019). 7.5.9 Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing GRV staff reports that they have aggressively sought to reduce costs by reducing staffing as far as possible to retain service to the community. Specifically, staffing is down to one (1) firefighter per day. All excess vehicles and equipment have been sold. The District has also applied for several grants from federal and state resources to provide funding for specific needs and projects (LAFCO, 2020a). Additionally, the District provides automatic and mutual aid, as described in Section 7.5.3. GRV is actively involved with and supporting its community partners as detailed in LAFCO’s 2011 MSR including the Red Cross, 55 Alive, Every 15 Minutes, IAFF, El Dorado County Elections Department, the Garden Valley Community Association, the 4th of July Committee, and the El Dorado County Sheriff among others. Directly related to its mission is the three local Fire Safe Councils (FSC), including the Auburn Lake Trails FSC, Georgetown Divide FSC, and the Coloma Lotus FSC. GRV’s boundaries overlap with these three FSC’s. GRV allows the FSC’s to hold meetings at Station 51 and supply the Councils with information related to types of fuel loading and fire history in the area. The GRV has previously (informally) considered the issue of consolidation or annexations as a means to save resources. One aspect of the conceptual thinking related to whether the District should consider joining a regional fire and emergency medical services agency is how this might increase service to the community. GRV staff noted that some benefits to this approach could include efficiency, financial sustainability, job security, and improved service to the taxpayers. Potential impacts to be considered relate to local control, longer response times to remote areas, and community identity (LAFCO, 2019). Two aspects that could encourage GRV to further consider these issues are the potential to improve service to its communities and improve response times. 7.6 Financial Ability to Provide Services LAFCO is required to make determinations regarding the financial ability of the Garden Valley Fire Protection District (GRV) to provide public services. This section provides an overview of the financial health of the District and a context for LAFCO’s financial determinations. For the fire agencies analyzed in this MSR/SOI Update, the audited financial statements for the fiscal years (FY) 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 were used as the primary sources of all information for this section. However, Garden Valley Fire Protection District (GRV) has not completed an independent comprehensive audited financial report since 2016 (GRV Staff, personal communication, December 2020). Special districts have the option, under Assembly Bill (AB) 2613 and through unanimous approval by the governing board of the District and the Board of Supervisors for the County, to replace the annual audit with an audit over a longer period of time or with a financial review by the County Auditor-Controller. In addition, under AB 2613, special districts can, by unanimous request of its governing board and with unanimous approval of the Board of Supervisors, replace the annual audit with an annual financial compilation and an annual review of the internal control procedures of the special district performed by the County Auditor-Controller in accordance with professional standards if certain conditions are met Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-29 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final (California Legislative Information, 2016).4 Garden Valley Fire Protection District does not appear to be meeting the requirements of California Government Code section 53890 eq seq. and may be subject to fines and penalties as described under the same section. The County of El Dorado Auditor-Controller informed LAFCO staff that the County has taken no action to enforce the law based on representations the District has made over the years regarding steps to hire an auditing firm (CA Legislative Information, 2016; Joe Harn, personal communication, March 2021). The County Auditor-Controller provided consultants with Revenue and Expenditure Statements for FY’s 2017/2018, 2018/2019, and 2019/2020 as well as the FY 2018/2019 General Ledger. The District provided consultants with the preliminary budget for FY 2020/2021. These are the primary sources of all information for this section. Consultants refer to the combination of documents from the County Auditor-Controller as the “unaudited financial compilation” throughout this section (EDC, 2021a; 2021b; 2021c; 2021d). In California, special districts are classified as either enterprise or non-enterprise, based on their source of revenue. GRV generally operates as a non-enterprise district, collecting and utilizing property tax revenue to fund a majority of its fire and emergency service operations. Garden Valley Fire Protection District has hired Fetching & Company CPA in April of 2021 to complete all outstanding audits. These audits are projected to be completed by the end of 2021. It is the intent of the District to be legally compliant and transparent. More information regarding the financial status for the fire agencies throughout the County can be found in Volume I - Chapter 5, Countywide Finances. 7.6.1 Financial Policies and Transparency The primary policy document that describes the rules for the District’s business operations including budget, procurement, and financial policies for GRV was not provided to consultants and the District does not have a functioning website. As far as consultants are aware, the District adopts a budget and conducts an annual review cycle to determine any changes that might be needed. The Final Budget for FY 2020/2021 was adopted by the Board in October. Because of the District’s lack of audited financial statements as described above, the District is not meeting standards for financial transparency required by special districts in the State of California. The District is working towards meeting standards for audits and hopes to be in compliance in late 2021, early 2022 (Chief Norman, personal communication, July 2021). 7.6.2 District Revenues and Expenditures The District’s largest revenue source was “Miscellaneous Rev” for FY 2017/2018 and Strike Team reimbursements for FY 2018/2019. The largest expense for both fiscal years was Salaries and Benefits accounting for between 86 and 82 percent of all expenditures respectively as shown Figure 7-6. A breakdown of revenues and expenditures is also available in table format in Volume II - Appendix A, Financial Tables by Agency. 4 Conditions that would allow a district to choose this option can be found within the text of AB 2613 here: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB2613. Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-30 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 7-6: GRV Revenues and Total Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 to FY 2020/2021 Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-31 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-32 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Revenues The District’s largest revenue source in FY 2017/2018, “Miscellaneous Rev,” accounted for approximately $2.01 million or 70 percent of the Districts revenue. Upon further investigation of this revenue source, it appears that approximately $1.74 million is based on a “Beginning Balance,” or carry over balance from the previous fiscal year, reported in the Revenue and Expenditure statements provided to consultants. Utilizing carry over balances as a source of revenue in the budget indicates a lack of the necessary revenues needed to cover the Districts primary expenses. No other fire agencies in the County use carry over balances as a way to allocate their budget. District staff communicated to consultants that this line item also includes Strike Team reimbursements for that fiscal year and some donations. The District did not provide consultants with how much of the “Miscellaneous Rev” for FY 2017/2018 was from Strike Team reimbursements. For FY 2018/2019, the unaudited financial compilations from the County indicated a similar amount of approximately $2.03 million categorized as “Other Governmental agency.” District staff communicated to consultants that this line item is Strike Team Reimbursements for this fiscal year (Chief Norman, personal communication, August 2021). The revenues for FY 2019/2020 are anticipated to drop by $956,192, or 52 percent, when compared to FY 2018/2019. Revenues for the District are anticipated to drop again in FY 2020/2021 by $274,329 or another 20 percent. From 2017 to 2021, the District is anticipating revenue to drop by $1.85 million, or 72 percent. Consultants asked for clarification regarding this drop in revenue. District staff stated that the District’s budget “literally” depends on how many times they go out on Strike Team and fire season is the way the District keeps the doors open (GRV Staff, personal communication, May 2021). Consultants should note that the District included “Other Governmental agency” revenue in the budgets for FY 2019/2020 and FY 2020/2021. Assuming this line item is anticipated Strike Team Reimbursements, it is the opinion of the California State Auditor that the practice of counting on reimbursements through strike team assignments to help cover budgeted personnel costs adds to a fire districts financial risk (California State Auditor, 2019). The District’s recurring revenue includes Property Taxes as well as a Fire Suppression Assessment of $76.07 per parcel on developed land, and $47.14 per parcel on undeveloped land, with an annual escalator of 2 percent (2005); and a Fire/EMS Special Tax (election of July 14, 1992) for Emergency Medical and Fire Services at $35 per parcel. The District receives an average of 8.12 percent of the one (1) percent Ad Valorum Property Tax revenue (Hodson, 2019). The recurring revenue categories: Property Taxes, Direct Assessments, and Charges for services in the unaudited financial compilations from the County is considered a stable source of revenue because it is predictable and can be budgeted for year over year. GRV’s recurring revenue made up 14 percent and 15 percent of all revenue in FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019, or $397,934 and $410,478 respectively. Consultants asked the District to verify the amounts received through the special tax and assessment were accurate. District staff declined to provide this information due to lack of staff time and resources. Property taxes are expected to increase to $429,688 for FY 2019/2020 and $449,802 for FY 2020/2021. However, this increase will not cover the District’s annual expenditures. In July 2019, the District attempted to increase revenue by adding an additional 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 Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-33 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Board approval and no sunset clause. This assessment attempt was voted down by 54 percent of District residents. More information related to this attempt can be found in Section 7.8.1 below. Expenditures The District’s biggest expense is Salaries and Benefits which accounts for between 79 and 86 percent of the budget over the past three fiscal years as shown in Figure 7-6. Salaries and Benefits increased by $108,091 between FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019, but are anticipated to be reduced by approximately $1.36 million or 50 percent between FY 2018/2019 and FY 2019/2020. District staff indicated this large decrease is due to layoffs that were necessitated by the failure of the November 2019 ballot measure. Staffing In FY 2020/2021, Salaries and Benefits are estimated to decrease again by 57 percent. The District received a grant covering one position for the next four years that is normally funded by the District. Consultants asked District staff to explain how salaries and benefits are anticipated to decrease by such a large percent in FY 2020/2021. District staff declined to provide this information due to lack of staff time and resources. In most Districts, consultants are seeing a rise in Salaries and Benefits year over year related to increases in the cost-of-living expenses as well as inflation overall. Following Salaries and Benefits expenditures, “Services and Supplies” was the next largest expenditure for FY 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 which represented 11 percent and 9 percent of the remaining budget respectively. The final listed expenditure was “Fixed Assets” with a subcategory for “Appropriation for Contingency” which appears to represent funds set aside for Fixed Asset maintenance and improvements. “Appropriation for Contingency” funds are used for maintenance and emergency vehicle purchasing only (Chief Norman, personal communication, August 2021). The District is currently staffed at a (1-0) model, meaning there is one firefighter on duty. The District has only three paid full-time firefighters after three firefighters were laid off in August 2020, reducing the number of full-time paid staff from six to three. The remaining positions are staffed by 16 volunteers who may be available for shifts at the fire station. All volunteers have other full-time jobs that may not be located within the District. In 2018 the District had 9 full-time employees. Since 2018, the District has lost six employees due to budget constraints (LAFCO, 2020a; LAFCO, 2019). The District is a signatory to the West Slope JPA for emergency medical services, but does not provide ambulance service. As such, the District does not qualify for Emergency Services Authority Funding for paramedic positions. As a signatory agency the District used to receive a $2,500 stipend for training and certifications and $7,000 for supplies from the JPA, but that practice was discontinued in 2019, reducing an already low recurring revenue stream (Chief Szcezepanik, personal communication, September 2020; Chief Norman, personal communication, August 2021). Currently, the District staffs one fire station 24 hours a day, seven days a week and has two unstaffed stations (LAFCO, 2020a). Revenues (Over/Under) Expenditures FY 2017/2018, 2018/2019, and 2019/2020 respectively. The District expects a positive Revenue over Expenditures for FY 2020/2021 of $249,111 shown in Figure 7-7. Consultants requested that the District add any other information regarding the net loss year over year. District staff indicate that loss in fire revenues for two of these years as well as increasing costs are the reason for the net losses. Positive revenue over expenditures will be higher according to Tim Moore, Auditor Controller Payroll Division. The Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-34 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final District is now operating in the black with increased revenues from "Other Government Agencies." The Fire Chief expect the carryover to be approximately $600,000 for FY 2020/2021 with no foreseeable need to touch those funds in FY 2021/2022. Figure 7-7: GRV Net Revenues Over/Under Expenditures for FY 2017-2021 7.6.3 District Assets and Liabilities District Assets Per the FY 2018/2019 General Ledger Statement provided by the County, the District has a net $900,340 in assets as shown in Figure 7-8; with negative Accumulated Depreciated Equipment offsetting the remaining assets by just over 50 percent. The top three assets for the District are as follows: $822,148 categorized as Capital Assets (net of depreciation), $581,148 in Building and Equipment, and $274,830 in “Equity as Pooled Cash.” “Equity as Pooled Cash” funds are available for the operating budget and indicate available cash on hand. In the FY 2018/2019, the District also listed a negative $925,914 in “Accumulated Depreciated Equipment” under District assets. In other Districts audited financial statements, the depreciation of equipment is categorized in the “Capital Assets (net of depreciation).” In light of not having an audited financial statement, consultants are unable to determine if the accounting practices used to construct the General Ledger Statement provided by the County represent a full financial picture of the District’s Assets and Liabilities (EDC, 2021b). District staff indicate that the general reserve fund policy for the District allows for covering operating expenses and that the balance aligns with the FY 2018/2019 net position. Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-35 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 7-8: District Assets from the General Ledger Statement as of June 30, 2019 Liabilities and Debt The District has relatively low liabilities totaling $107,509 for FY 2018/2019 as shown in Figure 7-9. Liabilities for the District consist primarily of “Vouchers Payable.” This line item represents the Districts debts and other bills (Chief Norman, personal communication, August 2021). Figure 7-9: District Liabilities and Debt from the General Ledger Statement as of June 30, 2019 Other liabilities include “Liabilities Compensated Absences” followed by “Salaries and Benefits Payable.” “Liabilities Compensated Absences” are the vacation, sick, or other paid leave accrued by District personnel. Overall, liabilities decreased by about $34,500 from the prior year’s General Ledger Statement document which listed liabilities at $142,053 (EDC, 2021b). 7.6.4 Net Position Based on the General Ledger Statement provided, the District listed $900,340 in Assets and $107,509 in Liabilities providing a Net Position of $792,831 as of FY 2018/2019 as shown in Figure 7-9. In the FY 2017/2018 General Ledger Statement the District listed $1,492,156 in Assets and $142,053 in Liabilities for a Net Position of $1,350,103. This is a 41 percent decrease in Net Position from FY 2017/2018 to FY 2018/2019. The decrease was primarily based on the decrease in the “Equity in Pooled Cash” which Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-36 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final decreased from $930,774 in FY 2017/2018 to $274,830 in FY 2018/2019. It appears that the District drew down the “Equity and Pooled Cash” fund in FY 2017/2018 to cover expenditures exceeding revenue for FY 2018/2019. If this trend continues, the District will have no reserve fund left to cover expenditures outpacing revenues. Figure 7-10: District Net Position as of June 30, 2019 Per the comments in the Assets and Liabilities section, it is unclear if the FY 2018/2019 General Ledger Statement document provided by the County utilized standard accounting procedures when allocating Capital Assets and respective depreciation (EDC, 2021b). 7.6.5 Asset Maintenance and Replacement The District does not have a financial plan for renovating aging infrastructure. All three fire stations for the District are not up to seismic code. Station No. 52 and Station No. 53 need new roofs, siding, and trim replaced. As mentioned in Section 7.5.9 above, GRV’s budgets allocate all reserve funds to salaries, therefore there is no funding available for equipment replacement (LAFCO, 2019). The District currently needs to replace one Type 6 engine, but is lacking the funds to do so. Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-37 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 7.6.6 Cost Avoidance After the District’s attempt to increase parcel taxes through the November assessment failed in 2019, the Fire Chief at the time presented these options for the District moving forward at a special Board Meeting on January 28, 2020: 1. Layoff three firefighters and make the existing budget work by going back to the model of operations from the 1990s, which would be staffing one firefighter with the support of volunteers. 2. Disband and be absorbed into El Dorado County Fire District (ECF). The level of service would remain the same in this scenario. The ECF has a larger unfunded pension (CalPERS) liability than Garden Valley and if absorbed, the residents in Garden Valley would share that liability. 3. Enter into a shared service model with ECF. 4. Work with CAL FIRE on a Schedule A agreement where all employees of Garden Valley would become CAL Fire employees. CAL FIRE would run the District and report to its Board of Directors. 5. The District could be annexed by El Dorado County’s Service Area (CSA) 7, which is the entity responsible for running the ambulance program. El Dorado County Board of Supervisors would activate the El Dorado County Fire Authority, giving it the ability to oversee fire services. CAL FIRE would then operate the District under a Schedule A contract and would report directly to the Board of Supervisors. 6. Annex Georgetown Fire Protection District (GEO) and Mosquito Fire Protection District (MQT) to Garden Valley Fire Protection District and form one District to serve what is the area known as the Divide. Neither GEO or MQT was interested in consolidating although they did agree to share volunteers and equipment. The Fire Chief recommended Option 5 as the best option as this is a proven model that would theoretically give the District access to additional funding. Having fire districts under the Board of Supervisors would provide “for a more global perspective on fire protection, more accountability to taxpayers (and) improve the level of professionalism” and the Fire Chief believed this would be a step in the right direction for fire protection Countywide (Hodson, 2020). District staff provided consultants with the agenda packet for this Board meeting, but did not provide meeting minutes or any other relevant information. Therefore, consultants could not verify the validity of this information. District staff declined to provide a review of this information due to lack of staff time and resources. As far as consultants are aware, the District Board went with Option 1. Within the last year, the District has been working on an agreement to share volunteers and equipment as necessary with GEO and MQT (LAFCO, 2020a). 7.6.7 Financial Summary and Ability to Provide Services Based on the unaudited financial compilation documents provided by the County of El Dorado Auditor- Controller, the District is able to provide limited service to the residents of GRV, relying on strike team reimbursement revenue. Currently the District operates at a 1-0 staffing model, meaning there is one staff person per engine on shift. The District Chief did confirm that the District operates under NFPA 1720 standard and that they meet the staffing requirements as outlined (Chief Norman, personal communication, April 2022). 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 known dependence on strike team reimbursement. Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-38 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The District’s unaudited Revenue and Expenditure statements indicate that the District has been in the red each year since FY 2017/2018. The positive budget forecast for FY 2020/2021 comes as a result of significant layoffs. Consultants recommend alternative financing opportunities and other methods of providing services such as agreements be pursued. Alternative Financing The District attempted to increase available recurring revenue by levying an additional benefit assessment to residents of the District. The new Fire Suppression Assessment was proposed to levy $182.58 for improved parcels and $71.38 for unimproved parcels, with the money allocated for staffing with no sunset clause. This would have been an added benefit assessment to the already established Fire/EMS Special Tax (1992) and Fire Suppression Assessment (2005). It was anticipated that the assessment would have brought total recurring revenues to $1.1 million, enough to staff the Station No. 51 24/7/365 with two firefighter/paramedics or (2-0) staffing. The new assessment was brought before District property owners in response to a change in how the U.S. Forest Service reimbursed the District for personnel on strike teams responding to fires on federal land. As of May 2019, the District must pay personnel the costs associated with strike team responses and then be fully reimbursed from the U.S. Forest Service. In the past, the U.S. Forest Service would pay the District up front. This change made it impossible for GRV to continue to send strike teams to fires on federal land because the District does not have enough reserve funds to cover the costs associated with strike teams responding to fires on federal land upfront. This equates to an approximately $300,000 loss in revenue for the District annually. The ballot measure failed with 46 percent voting in favor. The District needed 50 percent plus one to pass the assessment (Hodson, 2019; 2020). Since the ballot measure failed, the District has sold all excess vehicles and equipment. Staff have applied for grant funding, including SAFER grants. The District was awarded a SAFER grant for November 2021. This grant will only cover one administrative salary and volunteer shift stipends for three years (GRV Staff, personal communication, May 2021). A SAFER grant for volunteer recruitment and retention was awarded in September 2020. This grant funds a recruitment and retention officer and supplements training and retention costs of volunteers (Chief Norman, personal communication, August 2021). The District has also 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. It is recommended that GRV continue to work with GEO and MQT to reduced costs and share resources in the future and pursue other avenues to strengthen partnerships. Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-39 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 7.7 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 the Garden Valley Fire Protection District 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. Scoring for the determinations in Table 7-16, below, are as follows: ▲ ● ▼ ◆ Above Average (compared to similar Agencies), Average, Needs Improvement, Statement of Fact (not rated). Table 7-16: Summary of MSR Determinations for the Garden Valley Fire Protection District Indicator Score Determination Population and Growth ◆ GRV’s 37,612-acre boundary area is located in the unincorporated County of El Existing District Boundary. Dorado and includes the communities of Garden Valley, Greenwood, and Kelsey. ◆ The District’s SOI was initially established by LAFCO in August 2011. The District’s SOI Existing District Sphere of Influence. covers 2,588.60 acres. Consistent with its mutual aid and automatic aid agreements with Georgetown FPD, Mosquito FPD, and other fire protection service providers in the County of El Dorado, GRV does sometimes provide extra-territorial services outside of its District Extra-territorial Services the District provides as described ◆ boundary, on an as-needed basis. Given the formal agreements with the other fire in Government Code Section 56134. service providers, this service is not considered to be Out-of-Agency Services as described in Government Code Section 56134 due to responses being under existing agreements. By the year 2040, it is estimated that GRV’s existing boundary will encompass a ◆ population of 5,175 persons. This represents an average annual growth rate of 0.5 Projected population in years 2020 through 2040. percent over the 20-year timeframe between the years 2020 and 2040. Currently, the District’s boundary area supports an average of 0.12 persons (i.e., District boundaries contain sufficient land area to ◆ permanent resident) per acre, which is considered to be a low population density, accommodate projected growth. indicating that the existing boundaries contain sufficient land area to accommodate increased population growth. Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-40 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination Government Structure and Accountability Does the District’s website comply with the 2016 updates Compliance with the 2016 updates to the Brown Act described in Government Code ▼ to the Brown Act described in Government Code §54954.2 §54954.2 were evaluated in this MSR. The GRV does not currently maintain a website and enacted by Assembly Bill 2257? and therefore does not comply with the 2016 updates to the Brown Act. Does the District comply with the Special District Transparency Act (SB 929 or California Government Code, Compliance with the Special District Transparency Act (Gov. Code, §6270.6 and §6270.6 and 53087.8) which requires special districts to ▼ 53087.8) was evaluated in this MSR. The GRV does not currently maintain a website have a functional website that lists contact information and therefore, does not comply with the Special District Transparency Act. and contains financial statements, compensation reports, and other relevant public information. Terms of office and next election date are disclosed for ▼ Terms of office and the next election date are disclosed for District Board members. District Board members, and committee appointments are However, the GRV does not currently maintain a website. available online. Compliance with the Political Fair Practices Act by GRV Board members was evaluated as part of this MSR process. One violation of the Act’s requirement to file a Do elected Board members submit required forms and “Statement of Economic Interests” was found in the Complaint and Case Information receive required trainings as prescribed by the three state Portal. This violation indicates that improvement to GRV’s training and laws regarding accountability and ethics including: ▼ implementation of the Act is needed. (1) the Political Reform Act; (2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005); and GRV’s compliance with Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005), which requires ethics (3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. training and with Government Code 53237 regarding the prevention of sexual harassment could not be evaluated due to insufficient data. GRV, along with all the fire protection districts in El Dorado County have recently been the subject of a grand jury report. The issues raised in the grand jury report Is the District involved in current litigation and/or has the ▼ remain valid. Additionally, GRV was the subject of three grand jury investigations District been the subject of a recent grand jury inquiry. between the years 2007 to 2011. Changes to the governmental structure of some fire protection districts are needed to address these issues. GRV works informally to educate homeowners regarding fire safety and prevention consistent with General Plan Objective 6.2.5 through its active involvement with its community partners as detailed in LAFCO’s 2011 MSR including the Red Cross, 55 Does the District work to inform and educate homeowners Alive, Every 15 Minutes, IAFF, El Dorado County Elections Department, the Garden ● regarding fire safety and prevention consistent with Valley Community Association, the 4th of July Committee, and the El Dorado County General Plan Objective 6.2.5? Sheriff among others. The three local fire safe councils (FSC), including the Auburn Lake Trails FSC, Georgetown Divide FSC, and the Coloma Lotus FSC are active in the GRV District area. GRV allows the FSC’s to hold meetings at Station 51 and supply the Councils with information related to types of fuel loading and fire history in the area. Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-41 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination Disadvantage Communities The median household income is identified. The DUC California’s median household income was $71,228 in 2018. This yields a DUC ◆ threshold MHI (80 percent of the statewide MHI) is clearly threshold MHI of less than $56,982. There is one census block group that meets the stated. The MHI in the District’s boundary is described. DUC threshold within the GRV boundary. There is one DUC within or contiguous to the GRV boundary and sphere of influence. The DUC is provided with water and wastewater services by El Dorado Irrigation Potential DUCs are considered within the District District, Georgetown Divide Public Utility District, and private wells and septic tanks. boundary. The provision of adequate water, wastewater, ◆ The installation of private wells is overseen by the County of El Dorado Health and structural fire protection services to DUCs is Department. The current or long-term functioning of these wells has not been considered. comprehensively studied. Fire protection services are provided by the GRV. No public health safety issues have been identified. Shared Facilities and Services Although GRV collaborates with multiple other agencies for the delivery of services The District collaborates with multiple other fire and within its boundary, its lack of staffing indicates that it is dependent upon its ▼ emergency medical agencies for the delivery of services neighboring districts and may not be pulling its own weight. This lack of staffing could within its boundary. potentially create a risk for the El Dorado fire prevention network of mutual agreement partners. The District Board of Directors and staff have made significant budget cuts. The Other practices and opportunities that may reduce or District has recently sold several pieces of equipment to conserve financial resources. eliminate unnecessary costs are examined by the District ▼ Staff layoffs have resulted in the closing of two fire stations since the 2011 MSR. GRV periodically. Ideally, there is a balance between cost is currently staffed with one firefighter per engine (1-0 model) and augmented with efficiency and risk reduction strategies. volunteers when available. These cost cutting measures may result in reduced fire protection services. Agreements for mutual aid or any other appropriate ◆ There is insufficient data about whether GRV’s Agreements for mutual aid are agreement (i.e., Tax Sharing Agreement) are periodically periodically reviewed to ensure fiscal neutrality. reviewed by the District Board to ensure fiscal neutrality. Public Services and Infrastructure Has the District has been diligent in developing plans to GRV staff performs regular and routine maintenance on the local fire station and fire accommodate the infrastructure and service needs of ▼ equipment. However, GRV did not provide a capital improvement plan to the current and future constituents? District regularly reviews consultants for this MSR. Additionally, it appears that reserve funds are not set aside and updates its service plans to ensure that infrastructure for maintenance. needs, and deficiencies are addressed in a timely manner. Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-42 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination In the year 2019, GRV’s average response time was 12 minutes 57 seconds. GRV average for 2019 appear to meet response time goals for new discretionary projects in Rural Centers and Rural Regions. Does the District comply with County General Plan policies ● Garden Valley Fire Protection District meets the NFPA definition of a “Volunteer Fire in relation to response times. Does the District meet the Department” as outlined in NFPA 1720. According to the Fire Chief, the District meets minimum standard for staffing. staffing standards for NFPA 1720. GRV is staffed at 1-0 Model meaning there is one staff person per fire engine. Lower staffing levels leave the community vulnerable to low frequency, high-risk events, such as a working structure fire The District generally provides limited services to meet the following criteria for current and future needs: (1) GRV currently operates within NFPA 1720 standards. Since GRV relies on Does the District provide sufficient services to meet volunteer firefighters to a significant extent, recruitment can be challenging. current and future demands with: Additionally, given the staff shortages, the relatively higher workload and ▼ responsibilities may impact recruitment of paid staff. (1) recruitment; (2) Of all of the calls for service in 2019, the District required aid for 39 percent of (2) mutual aid; and all calls when adding in CAL FIRE. With CAL FIRE aid removed, the District (3) water supply for fire protection. required aid for 18 percent of all calls in 2019. The lack of staffing could potentially create a risk for the El Dorado fire prevention network of mutual agreement partners. (3) LAFCO’s 2011 MSR described GRV’s approach to water supply as adequate. The GRV has limited infrastructure to support its fire protection services. (1) Two of GRV's three stations are used for storage and are not staffed. If needed, these two stations could be refurbished and staffed; (2) GRV has recently sold several significant pieces of fire apparatus, and it is not The District meets infrastructure needs for clear whether it retains sufficient equipment to meet service needs; (1) facilities (stations); (3) GRV contracts with CAL FIRE through the JPA for the provision of fire (2) rolling stock (engines, apparatus, and emergency ▼ department 9-1-1 emergency dispatch services through the Fire/Emergency medical response vehicles;) Command Center; and (3) dispatch systems; and (4) Many of the GRV area homes are constructed of dried wood and were built (4) roadways for emergency access. prior to the adoption of the fire safe regulations. This has resulted in residential neighborhoods with inadequate ingress/egress routes and insufficient defensible space clearance around the homes. Ingress and egress were conceptually described in this MSR; however, GRV has not been subject to an evaluation of evacuation routes for use during an emergency. Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-43 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination GRV has very limited capacity to assist with and/or assume services provided by other Evaluation of the District’s capacity to assist with and/or ▼ agencies. GRV is experiencing funding shortfalls that have necessitated significant assume fire and emergency medical services provided by cuts to staffing and equipment. Therefore, GRV is not currently situated to assist other agencies. other agencies beyond its current mutual aid agreements. GRV staff works diligently to implement preventative maintenance measures. The District has preventative maintenance measures and ● However, since GRV did not share a capital improvement plan with LAFCO’s has planned for replacement of aging infrastructure. consultants, it seems there is not a plan to replace aging infrastructure. Rating for the District from the neutral third-party ● Insurance Services Office (ISO) where the rating scale from GRV received an ISO rating of 4X and 4. best to worse is One (1) to Ten (10). CAL FIRE maintains a seasonally operated fire station nearby. This is not considered Is there duplicate infrastructure by other fire and ◆ to be a duplicate service because CAL FIRE focuses on wildland fires. However, the emergency medical agencies nearby. CAL FIRE station could present a future opportunity for resource utilization efficiency. Financial Accountability The District has not completed an audited financial statement since 2016. The District Summary financial information presented in a standard ▼ is working to be in compliance in the near future. Recommendation: Consultants format and simple language. recommend the District work with the County to pursue options available under AB 2613 if financial audits for the missing years are not feasible. The District has a published policy for reserve funds, The primary policy document that describes the rules for the District’s business ▼ including the size and purpose of reserves and how they operations including budget, procurement, and financial policies for GRV was not are invested. provided to consultants and the District does not have a functioning website. District revenues exceed expenditures in FY 17/18 and FY ▼ District operated in the negative with $161,528 and $557,272 revenues under 18/19. expenditures in FY 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 respectively. Garden Valley Fire Protection District meets the NFPA definition of a “Volunteer Fire District finances are sufficient to apply a staffing model Department” as outlined in NFPA 1720. According to the Fire Chief, the District meets that meets or exceeds the minimum standard of three ● staffing standards for NFPA 1720. District operates at a (1-0) staffing model meaning staff per engine and truck company (3-0) model (or at there is one staff person per fire engine. Lower staffing levels leave the community NFPA 1720 standards if applicable). vulnerable to low frequency, high-risk events, such as a working structure fire. The District is staffed at the level allowed by available revenue. ▲ District had a $792,831 Positive Net Position as of June 30th, 2019, however it is The District had a positive Net Position for FY 2018/2019. important to note that this is a 41 percent decrease from the previous year. Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-44 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination A minimum of 50% total operating expense is kept on hand ▲ District staff indicate that the general reserve fund policy for the District allows for covering operating expenses and that the balance aligns with the FY 2018/2019 net in the General Reserve Fund in FY 2018/2019. position. District has an updated Strategic Plan that addresses ◆ A Strategic Plan for the District was not provided to consultants. It is not clear if the financial goals. District has a Strategic Plan or if it is updated. The District attempted to add an additional benefit assessment which ultimately failed. In order to reduce costs, the District has entered into a Shared Services Alternative financing opportunities were explored and ◆ agreement with GEO and MQT. pursued by the District. Recommendation: GRV continue to work closely with GEO and MQT to reduced costs and share resources in the future and pursue other avenues to strengthen partnerships. Effect on Agriculture and Open Space There are two small, isolated pockets of agricultural land identified within the fire service boundaries for the GRV. 13,499 acres of GRV’s boundary areas is identified as Effect that the District’s service provision will have on open ◆ open space, agriculture, or natural resource area as listed in Table 7-7. Fire space and agricultural lands. Protection Services and Emergency Medical Services generally have minimal effects on agricultural land and open space. ▲ ● ▼ ◆ Key Score: Above Average (compared to similar Districts), Average, Below Average, Statement of Fact (not rated). Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-45 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-46 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 7.8 References 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/. _____. 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/. _____. 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. May 2007. Fact Sheet: Fire Hazard Severity Zone Model A Non-Technical Primer. 4- pages. Available online at: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/FIreHazardZone_NonTechnical_Prim er.pdf. _____. December 2019. Fire and Resource Protection Program (FRAP). Map of Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). MAPID: WUI_19DATA SOURCES: WUI_12_3CNTY_18. Available online at: https://frap.fire.ca.gov/media/10300/wui_19_ada.pdf. _____. April 21, 2014. Unit Strategic Fire Plan Amador-El Dorado Unit. 57-pages. Available online at: https://www.edcfiresafe.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2014-Unit-Strategic-Fire-Plan_CAL- FIRE-Amador-El-Dorado-Unit.pdf. _____. 2020d. CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center Dispatch Data. Received October 2020. California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). AUGUST 2003. Local Agency Formation Commission Municipal Service Review Guidelines Final. 107-pages. California Legislative Information. 2016. AB-2613 County auditor: audits: special districts. Available online at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB2613. California State Auditor. Elaine M. Howle, CPA, California State Auditor. July 2019. Report # 2018‑133 - Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District. Available online at https://auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2018-133.pdf. 70-pages. Sacramento, California. CityGate Associates, LLC (CityGate). May 13, 2010. Fire and Emergency Services Study for the El Dorado LAFCO Volume 1 of 3 – Main Report. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/citygate-fire- study#:~:text=Citygate%20Fire%20Study-,Main%20Report,-Map%20Atlas. County of El Dorado (CED). October 29, 2013. El Dorado County General Plan2013–2021 Housing Element. Adopted by Resolution #161-2013. 134-pages. Available online at: https://www.edcgov.us/government/planning/housing/documents/2013- 2021%20Housing%20Element.pdf. Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-47 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final County of El Dorado Grand Jury. June 8, 2020. West Slope Fire Protection Update. Case 19-06. 14- pages. Available online at: https://edcgov.us/Government/GrandJury/Documents/2019- 2020%20Reports/West%20Slope%20Fire%20Protection%20Update.pdf. County of El Dorado (CED) Sherriff’s Department Office of Emergency Services. July 2018. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. 256-pages. Available online at: https://eldorado.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3923674&GUID=C562ECEB-7E9F-446D- AE6B-3AC56E13F465. County of El Dorado (EDC). 2021a. Revenues and Expenditures Detail for the Period 201801 through 201813 – Sub Fund 85550000 – Garden Valley Fire to 85550000 – Garden Valley Fire. Available from LAFCO files upon request. _____. 2021b. General Ledger 85550000 Garden Valley Fire through 85550000 Garden Valley Fire – Summary for the Period 201901 through 201913 Orgs 85550000 to 85550000. Available from LAFCO files upon request. _____. 2021c. Revenues and Expenditures Detail for the Period 201901 through 201913 – Sub Fund 85550000 – Garden Valley Fire to 85550000 – Garden Valley Fire. Available from LAFCO files upon request. _____. 2021d. Revenues and Expenditures Detail for the Period 202001 through 202013 – Sub Fund 85550000 – Garden Valley Fire to 85550000 – Garden Valley Fire. Available from LAFCO files upon request. Division of Integrated Regional Water (DWR) Water Management. 2018. DAC Mapping Tool – Disadvantaged Communities Block Groups 2018. Available online at: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/dacs/. El Dorado County Emergency Services Authority (West Slope JPA). 2017. Strategic Plan 2017 – 2022. Available online at: http://edcjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/EDC-JPA-Strategic-Plan- 2017-Master.pdf. _____. April 24, 2019. JPA Board of Directors Meeting Minutes. Available in LAFCO files upon request. El Dorado Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). August 2011. Countywide Fire Suppression and Emergency Services Municipal Service Review. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/municipal-service-reviews-and-spheres-of-influence. _____. 2018. Profile of the Garden Valley Fire Protection District. 1-page. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/. _____. 2019a. District Response to Request for Information from LAFCO. 17-pages. Available in LAFCO files upon request. _____. September 2020a. District Response to Request for Information from LAFCO and South Fork Consulting. 12-pages. Available in LAFCO files upon request. Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-48 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final _____. 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/. Fire Safe Council for El Dorado County (FSC-EDC). 2016. Map of Garden Valley Fuel Mitigation. Available online at: https://www.edcfiresafe.org/cwpp/maps/. Garden Valley Fire Protection District (GRV). Fire District Budget – Fiscal Year 2020-2021. Available from LAFCO files upon request. Hodson, Dawn. May 29, 2019. “Garden Valley proposes new assessment.” Mountain Democrat. Available online at: https://www.mtdemocrat.com/news/garden-valley-fire-proposes-new-assessment/. _____. February 3, 2020. “Garden Valley fire considers options in wake of assessment failure.” Mountain Democrat. Available online at: https://www.mtdemocrat.com/news/garden-valley- fire-considers-options-in-wake-of-assessment-failure/. Transparent California and Nevada Policy Research Institute. 2020. Wage data download for the year 2018. Available online at: https://transparentcalifornia.com/. U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. American Community Survey, 2010: ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables & 2018: ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?t=Populations%20and%20People&g=1600000US0610256 &tid=ACSST5Y2018.S0101&hidePreview=false. Accessed September 2020. Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-49 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Garden Valley Fire Protection District Page 7-50 of 7-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Chapter 8. Georgetown Fire Protection District This chapter details the district formation, boundary, government structure, population and land use, disadvantaged communities, finances, and the provision of fire protection facilities and services provided by the Georgetown Fire Protection District (GEO or District) as well as the MSR determinations for this District. Table of Contents 8.1 Agency Profile ..................................................................................................................8-5 8.1.1 Agency Overview ................................................................................................................................... 8-5 8.2 Agency Formation and Boundary ......................................................................................8-6 8.2.1 Formation .............................................................................................................................................. 8-6 8.2.2 District Boundary................................................................................................................................... 8-6 8.2.3 Existing Sphere of Influence .................................................................................................................. 8-6 8.2.4 Extra-Territorial Services ....................................................................................................................... 8-9 8.3 District Governance and Accountability ............................................................................8-9 8.3.1 Government Structure .......................................................................................................................... 8-9 8.3.2 District Board....................................................................................................................................... 8-10 8.3.3 Accountability and Transparency ........................................................................................................ 8-11 8.3.4 Management Efficiencies and Staffing ............................................................................................... 8-13 8.3.5 Staffing and Training ........................................................................................................................... 8-13 8.4 Growth & Population Forecasts ...................................................................................... 8-16 8.4.1 Existing Population .............................................................................................................................. 8-16 8.4.1 Existing Population in SOI ................................................................................................................... 8-17 8.4.2 Projected Population Growth ............................................................................................................. 8-17 8.4.3 Existing Land Use ................................................................................................................................. 8-18 8.4.4 Potential Future Development ........................................................................................................... 8-19 Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-1 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 8.4.5 Open Space & Agriculture ................................................................................................................... 8-19 8.4.6 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities.................................................................................... 8-20 8.5 Public Services and Infrastructure ................................................................................... 8-20 8.5.1 Service Overview ................................................................................................................................. 8-20 8.5.2 Fire and Emergency Response ............................................................................................................ 8-21 8.5.3 Mutual Aid, Automatic Aid, Other Agreements .................................................................................. 8-26 8.5.4 Dispatch ............................................................................................................................................... 8-28 8.5.5 Emergency Access ............................................................................................................................... 8-28 8.5.6 Fire Hazard Zones ................................................................................................................................ 8-29 8.5.7 Infrastructure ...................................................................................................................................... 8-31 8.5.8 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies ................................................................................................ 8-33 8.5.9 Cost Avoidance & Facilities Sharing .................................................................................................... 8-34 8.6 Financial Ability to Provide Services ................................................................................ 8-35 8.6.1 Financial Policies & Transparency ....................................................................................................... 8-35 8.6.2 District Revenues and Expenditures ................................................................................................... 8-36 8.6.3 District Assets and Liabilities ............................................................................................................... 8-41 8.6.4 Net Position ......................................................................................................................................... 8-42 8.6.5 Asset Maintenance and Replacement ................................................................................................ 8-43 8.6.6 Cost Avoidance .................................................................................................................................... 8-43 8.6.7 Financial Summary and Ability to Provide Services ............................................................................ 8-43 8.7 Determinations .............................................................................................................. 8-45 8.8 References ..................................................................................................................... 8-53 Table of Tables Table 8-1: Geographic Summary (2020) of Fire Protection Services for GEO ........................................... 8-9 Table 8-2: Georgetown Fire Protection District Board of Directors ........................................................ 8-10 Table 8-3: Current Staffing Levels for the GEO by Type & Full-time Equivalent (FTE) ............................ 8-14 Table 8-4: GEO Existing Population ......................................................................................................... 8-16 Table 8-5: Peak Population in GEO Boundary ......................................................................................... 8-17 Table 8-6: Total Estimated & Projected Population (2020 – 2050) ......................................................... 8-18 Table 8-7: Acreage Designated in the General Plan as Open Space, Agriculture, and Natural Resources within the GEO Boundary and SOI ........................................................................................................... 8-19 Table 8-8: MHI in Census Block Groups for Georgetown Fire Protection District .................................. 8-20 Table 8-9: GEO Public Services ................................................................................................................ 8-21 Table 8-10: Average Response Times for GEO from 2010 to 2019 ......................................................... 8-25 Table 8-11: Automatic Aid Provided & Received from the GEO, 2019 ................................................... 8-27 Table 8-12: GEO Fire Hazard Severity Zone Acreage and Percentage..................................................... 8-29 Table 8-13: GEO Responsibility Areas ...................................................................................................... 8-29 Table 8-14: Georgetown Fire Protection District Fire Stations Detail ..................................................... 8-31 Table 8-15: Apparatus & Light Vehicles, 2020 ......................................................................................... 8-32 Table 8-16: Special Taxes/Assessments Levied by GEO, FY 2018/2019 .................................................. 8-39 Table 8-17: Summary of MSR Determinations for the Georgetown Fire Protection District ................. 8-45 Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-2 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table of Figures Figure 8-1: Georgetown Fire Protection District Service Area & SOI ........................................................ 8-7 Figure 8-2: Wages and Benefits, GEO Staff (2018) .................................................................................. 8-15 Figure 8-3: Peak Population in GEO Boundary ........................................................................................ 8-17 Figure 8-4: GEO Medic 61 Calls for Service by Type, 2019 ...................................................................... 8-22 Figure 8-5: GEO Calls for Service from 2010-2019 .................................................................................. 8-23 Figure 8-6: GEO Percent of Incidents by Type, 2019 ............................................................................... 8-24 Figure 8-7: GEO Number of Calls by Station 2015-2019 ......................................................................... 8-24 Figure 8-8: Fire Hazard Severity Zones & Responsibility Areas for GEO ................................................. 8-30 Figure 8-9: GEO Total Revenues and Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 ............... 8-37 Figure 8-10: GEO Net Revenues Over/Under Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 .. 8-40 Figure 8-11: District Assets as of June 30, 2019 ...................................................................................... 8-41 Figure 8-12: District Liabilities and Debt as of June 30, 2019.................................................................. 8-41 Figure 8-13: District Net Position as of June 30, 2019 ............................................................................. 8-43 Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-3 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-4 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 8.1 Agency Profile 8.1.1 Agency Overview As a Fire Protection District, the Georgetown Fire Protection District is empowered to provide public services to the local community, including fire suppression and emergency medical services. Currently, the District provides these public services to 4,322 permanent residents within a 43,881-acre boundary. The GEO is located directly north of Placerville in the western side of the County of El Dorado. The District extends north to the Middle Fork of the American River, which is the County of El Dorado/Placer County line. The GEO serves the communities of Georgetown, Quintette, Buckeye, Sliger Mine, and Volcanoville. Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-5 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 8.2 Agency Formation and Boundary 8.2.1 Formation The Georgetown Fire Protection District (GEO) was legally formed as a special district on August 12, 1937, as the successor to the Mountaineer Hook and Ladder Company, which had been in place since 1854 (LAFCO, 2011). The District’s public services focus on fire suppression and emergency medical services. The District was formed to formalize fire protection services for the residents of the Georgetown community. The GEO operates under the California Health and Safety Code. The District is a full-service organization offering the following and more: • Emergency Medical • Fire Suppression • Public Education • Hazardous Materials • Vegetation Management 8.2.2 District Boundary The Georgetown Fire Protection District geographic boundary encompasses approximately 43,881 acres or 68.56 square miles, as seen in Figure 8-1. GEO is adjacent to two fire districts, the El Dorado County Fire Protection District to the west, and the Garden Valley Fire Protection District to the south and west. Within the District boundary are 2,588 assessor parcels (EDC GIS, 2020). The District has not annexed any parcels since the last MSR in 2011. All areas within the District boundary receive services from the District. GEO staff indicates there are no other areas the District currently serves for fire protection services that might be served more efficiently by another agency (LAFCO, 2020a). 8.2.3 Existing Sphere of Influence This section briefly describes the existing Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the Georgetown Fire Protection District. El Dorado LAFCO’s most recent action on GEO’s SOI occurred August 24, 2011 via Resolution No. L-2011-09, which affirmed the existing District SOI. GEO’s SOI encompasses a large swath of land located to the east, northeast, and southeast of the boundary and also encompasses 11 pockets of land internal to the boundary, as shown in Figure 8-1. The District’s SOI is made up of 19,564 acres and includes 96 parcels as shown in Table 8-1. GEO’s SOI consists of rural areas with a very limited permanent population. However, the SOI includes numerous campsites and other recreation areas that hosts temporary overnight and daytime visitors. GEO provide services within its SOI; however, their response time to these rural areas is very long (LAFCO, 2020a). Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-6 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 8-1: Georgetown Fire Protection District Service Area & SOI Location in County Georgetown Fire Protection District and Sphere of Influence VolcanovilleRd. VVOOLLCCAANNOOVVIILLLLEE SS lil gi e g e rr MM iinneeRRdd.. R d. d. SSPPAANNIISSHH DDRRYY DDIIGGGGIINNSS SpanishDryDigginsRd. Ma m el uke Hill GeorgiaSlide Rd. BBUUCCKK Bre e d E l ov E e R YYEE Wentworth SpringsRd. W entworth SpringsRd. QQUUIINNTTEETTTTEE Rock C MMAAIINN SSTTAATTIIOONN reek R d. FIRE STATIONS 193 Staffed Not Staffed 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. Figure X-X Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-7 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-8 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 8-1: Geographic Summary (2020) of Fire Protection Services for GEO Boundary Area SOI Total Boundary (All Services) (All Services) & SOI Total Acres 43,881.65 19,564 63,446 Square Miles 68.56 30.57 99.13 Number of Assessor Parcels 2,588 96 2,684 Source: El Dorado County GIS Data, 2020 In 2003, then-Fire Chief Rick Todd approached LAFCO about conducting a comprehensive annexation of many parcels in its sphere of influence, totaling approximately 7,000 acres. The purpose of this request was to recognize that GEO does provide fire protection services within its SOI, including those pockets of land currently surrounded by the District. The application process was never initiated because issues arose regarding the application process's costs and funding (LAFCO, 2011). 8.2.4 Extra-Territorial Services The GEO does provide extra-territorial services outside of its District boundary in two circumstances: 1) within its SOI; and 2) in response to mutual aid requests. Emergency response services to its SOI are considered to be Out-of-Agency Service. Responses to mutual and automatic aid requests are consistent with the District’s formal mutual and automatic aid agreements with the other fire districts within the County of El Dorado and with CAL FIRE and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) as described in Section 8.5.3, below. Therefore, these services provided outside the boundary are not considered to be Out-of-Agency Services. Through automatic aid, GEO provides services to a large area (hundreds of square miles) including the entrance to the Rubicon and Loon Lake area closer to the Tahoe Basin side of the County. The District responds as the closest available resource to these areas. The District maintains automatic aid agreements with all fire service agencies located in El Dorado County for fire suppression and emergency medical services. GEO does not provide fire protection services to other agencies by contract (LAFCO, 2020a). 8.3 District Governance and Accountability This section describes how performance, accountability, transparency, and public engagement relate to the public’s trust in local government. LAFCO is required by the CKH Act to make specific determinations regarding a municipality’s government structure and accountability. 8.3.1 Government Structure The GEO is a local government agency structured as a Fire Protection District consistent with its Principal Act: Section 13800 et. sec. of the California Health and Safety Code. The District has five elected Board Members who reside within the community. All registered voters who reside within the District boundaries are eligible to vote for and/or run for a seat on the District Board of Directors. The District Board appoints the Fire Chief. Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-9 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 8.3.2 District Board The District operates under the direction of the elected District Board of Directors. Each elected Board Member serves for a term of four years, with two Board Member seats running two years apart from the remaining three seats. A new Board President is selected by the Board Members each year. The Board President assigns directors to the District’s committees. The District’s active committees include the Policy and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Negotiation. The current Board of Directors members, their committee appointments, and their terms' expiration dates are shown in Table 8-2 below. Table 8-2: Georgetown Fire Protection District Board of Directors Name Title Term End Committee Appointments Rick Todd President Dec. 2022 MOU Negotiation Larry Anderson Vice President Dec. 2022 Policy Rod Williams Director Dec. 2024 None Craig Davis Director Dec. 2024 MOU Negotiation Bob Brown Director Dec. 2024 None Source: LAFCO, 2019; Chief Brown, personal communication, June 25, 2021 As of the November 2020 election, the District had three vacancies on the Board. Because the District had three seats available and only three candidates filed for election, these open board seats were not put on the November 2020 ballot. The three candidates who filed, incumbents Rod Williams, Craig Davis, and Bob Brown were automatically appointed to the District Board (Elections Office Staff, personal communication, January 2020). The District does have difficulty in attracting candidates to run for the Board of Directors. Directors typically ran unopposed during the past five (5) elections (GEO, 2019a), with the most recent election making it six. A lack of candidates to fill vacant seats is a common thread in other fire agencies in the County and can lead to governing challenges if agencies are unable to fill vacant seats. As a last resort, vacant positions can be filled by appointment by the County of El Dorado Board of Supervisors. The District holds regular public meetings on the second Thursday of every month at 9:00 AM. The meeting location is the fire station at 6281 Main Street Georgetown, CA 95634. Board members are not eligible to receive a stipend, health benefits, retirement, or mileage (GEO, 2019a). The authors of this report verified that no payments were made to Board members during the year 2018 (GEO, 2019a). In California, elected members of special district boards are required to comply with three laws regarding accountability and ethics: 1) the Political Reform Act; 2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005), which requires ethics training; and 3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. which mandates sexual harassment prevention training. A detailed description of these three state laws is provided in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire and Emergency Medical Services Agency MSR General Information. Political Reform Act Each district is required to have ethics and conflict of interest code/policies. GEO does have an adopted conflict-of-interest code adopted on December 10, 2020. In addition, GEO has purchased a plan through the company Lexipol for policy development assistance, including a policy manual for the Board of Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-10 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Directors and is actively in the processes of developing this manual (Chief Brown, personal communication, June 25, 2021). It is recommended that GEO post its conflict-of-interest code on its website. This law also requires special district board members to disclose all personal economic interests by filing a “Statement of Economic Interests” with their District or the County Clerk consistent with requirements of the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). Information available from the FPPC for the GEO found no complaints or cases, indicating that Board members are complying with the Political Reform Act (Salinas, 2005). Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005) Local government officials are required to take ethics training every two years. Compliance with this law was assessed for each of the fourteen fire agencies studied in this MSR by asking the Clerk of the District Board for the dates and other documentation of training events. GEO's Fire Chief indicates that training has been conducted on a regular basis for Board members and the District is currently in the process of scheduling the Board for updated ethics training. Therefore, GEO’s Board is in compliance with AB 1234. Government Code 53237 et. seq. Special district board members must receive required sexual harassment prevention, two-hour training, every two years. Compliance with this law was assessed for each of the fire agencies studied in this MSR. GEO’s Fire Chief reports that training has been conducted on a regular basis and specifically on the May 16, 2021. Therefore, GEO’s Board is in compliance with Gov. Code 53237 et. seq. 8.3.3 Accountability and Transparency Brown Act The Brown Act is described in Volume II - Chapter 1. District staff has reported that the agenda for each meeting includes a public comment period, and agendas are made available 72 hours before meetings (LAFCO, 2020a). The meeting notice is posted at the Main Street station and the District website. Any written document that relates to an agenda item is available for public inspection at the same time the document is distributed to the members of the Board of Directors. Written documents are made available at the District Office (LAFCO, 2020a). The State Legislature updated the Brown Act in 2016 as codified in Government Code §54954.2 (see also Assembly Bill 2257). These new Brown Act requirements are detailed in Volume II - Chapter 1. GEO does makes its current meeting agenda and meeting agendas and minutes for the past six months available on its website, including a direct link to the most current agenda on the District homepage. Therefore, the District website does comply with the Brown Act 2016 Updates' technical requirements described in AB2257 (GEO, 2021). Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20 suspended parts of the Brown Act that require in-person attendance of Board members and citizens at public meetings as described in Volume II - Chapter 1. The District continued to meet in person following all CDC guidelines (Chief Brown, personal communication, June 30, 2021). Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-11 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Special District Transparency Act (SB 929) The Special District Transparency Act (SB 929 or California Government Code, §6270.6 and 53087.8) requires that special districts have a functional website, and the requirements of this Act are described in detail in Volume II - Chapter 1. The District's website is kept updated and is easily navigable with current and past agendas and minutes available for download. The website also contains contact information, audits, budgets, and other relevant public information including a link to the State of California Government Compensation Portal. The terms of office are disclosed for District Board members online including committee appointments for Board members. Contact information for Board Members is available on the District’s website. The Georgetown Fire Protection District complies with the requirements of the Special District Transparency Act. General Accountability The GEO demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with El Dorado LAFCO. The District cooperated with LAFCO’s requests for information and participated in an interview with the MSR consultants. There are several laws, regulations, and guidelines which prescribe safety features associated with fire protection services, including state laws and regulations exercised through the District's cooperative agreement with CAL FIRE, the Safety Element of the County of El Dorado's General Plan, and other County requirements and regulations. GEO, along with all the fire protection districts in El Dorado County, has recently been the subject of a grand jury report (CED, 2020a). The Grand Jury posits in Case No. 19-06 that, while it made sense historically, the only reason there are multiple fire agencies in El Dorado County is because of "strong loyalty to a local home district," coming "at the expense of the County as a whole." The Grand Jury concludes that the insufficient revenues afforded to rural districts put a strain on the mutual and automatic aid system as a whole, forcing more financially stable districts to "subsidize" the rural districts by having the former respond to calls when the latter is unable to do so. The issues raised in the grand jury report remain valid (LAFCO, 2020b). Changes to the governmental structure of some fire protection districts are needed to address these issues. The following comment regarding the Grand Jury Report was provided to consultants from the Fire Chief: “The Grand Jury Report, Case No. 19-06 discussed the need for agencies to take a holistic approach to fire services in El Dorado County. The report failed to mention that this would be in direct conflict with the mandate in Fire Protection District Law of 1987, section 13801: The Legislature encourages local communities and their officials to adapt the powers and procedures in this part to meet their own circumstances and responsibilities. GEO, and all local fire districts have a primary responsibility to the citizens of their communities and do, and should continue to be good neighbors and assist partner fire agencies in El Dorado County. To look at a holistic view of countywide fire services would be counter to the sworn oath and duties of local fire board members” (Chief Brown, personal communication, June 2021). Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-12 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 8.3.4 Management Efficiencies and Staffing The Fire Chief reports to the Board of Directors and is responsible for directing District operations and overseeing and implementing policies on behalf of the Board. An important part of management effectiveness includes the District adopting a District-wide mission and vision statement. The GEO Mission statement is: The mission of the Georgetown Fire Department is to preserve and enhance the quality of life for its citizens and visitors. We are committed to providing the highest level of emergency medical services, fire protection, rescue, public education and protection of life, property, and the environment. The District sets General Orders as: • Be quick in our responses to the public • Ensure readiness of our equipment and ourselves • Provide competent and professional service • Practice safe operations • Look to improve our delivery of services • Act with compassion for all • Embrace innovation within our organization • Be friendly to those we meet • Take care of each other • Integrity: We demonstrate sound, honest, truthful, and consistent actions • Accountability: We take ownership of our actions and responsibilities • Commitment to Service: We are dedicated to seeking solutions for our community. Additionally, the District does have an adopted Administrative Code which describes roles and responsibilities. General legal counsel for the District is retained on a contractual basis with Liebert, Cassidy and Whitmore (LCS). 8.3.5 Staffing and Training The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) calls for a standard of four staff per engine and truck company (4-0) model (NFPA, 2020) for career fire departments. A three staff per engine and truck company (3-0) model is acceptable as a minimum standard for this MSR/SOI Update as detailed in Volume II - Chapter 1. Georgetown Fire Protection District meets the NFPA definition of a “Combination Fire Department” as outlined in NFPA 1720, a different designation than a career fire department. NFPA 1720 sets standards for the minimum number of firefighters to respond based on population for combination fire departments, meaning a combination of career and volunteer personnel. The Fire Chief confirms that per NFPA 1720, GEO operates in a Rural Area (<500 population/square mile). Under this designation, it is recommended for GEO to have six firefighters assembled at a structure fire within 14 minutes, 80 percent of the time. According to the Fire Chief, the District easily exceeds this recommendation through the automatic aid agreements with neighboring agencies and follows NFPA 1720 standards. GEO is staffed at 1-0 model, meaning there is one staff person per fire engine and details are in Table 8-3 below (GEO, 2019a; LAFCO, 2020a). Table 10-3, shown below, lists the positions that manage the fire and emergency services provided by the District. The number of full-time equivalent (FTE) positions at the beginning of the fiscal year are listed. Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-13 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 8-3: Current Staffing Levels for the GEO by Type & Full-time Equivalent (FTE) Position FTE Count as of July 1, 2020 Compared to 2018 Fire Chief 1 1 Paid Firefighter 1 0 Captain 1 2 Firefighter/Paramedic 5 5 Admin Assistant 1 1 Total 9 9 Other Positions Volunteer Firefighter 20 Unknown Support Volunteers 1 “ Reserve Firefighter 8 “ Data Source: LAFCO, 2020a; GEO, 2019a Most of the District’s staffing revolves around staffing specific fire stations and fire engines. In 2019, District staff reported that the District’s only staffed station was Station No. 61. Two personnel were on 24/7 staffing for Medic 61, with at least one of those staff as a paramedic. GEO provided one personnel on an engine 10 hours a day. The District had a second position on the engine, for a volunteer, 10 hours a day as staffed intermittently. Volunteer staffing was provided for overnight engine response (GEO, 2019a; Chief Brown, personal communication, June 25, 2021). Staffing for the GEO is augmented by its participation in a boundary drop, automatic aid system that automatically deploys the closest available resource from any fire agency to an incident in the County of El Dorado (LAFCO, 2020a). The GEO receives advantages from participating in this network of collaborating fire agencies, which reduces response times and resource deployment. The Fire Chief finds that the automatic aid system is a great service for the citizens of the County in that all of the fire agencies are reliant on each other and none are large enough to operate in a closed response environment (Chief Brown, personal communication, June 25, 2021). Six of the 2018 positions’ salaries were funded through the El Dorado County Emergency Services Authority (GEO, 2019a). The District has two administrative staff: 1) Fire Chief (Full-time salary), and 2) Administrative Assistant (Full-time hourly) (GEO, 2019a). Overall, GEO has a mix of full-time salaried staff, part-time hourly staff, and volunteers. In 2020, the District identified 20 volunteers that are available to be scheduled for shifts as well as eight reserve firefighters and one support volunteer. GEO currently has one paid full-time firefighter who works 10 hours a day. The District’s staffing goal is to have one paid staff and one volunteer during the 10-hour day. Additionally, one volunteer covers the night shift, and this staffing goal is rarely not met (LAFCO, 2020a; Chief Brown, personal communication, March 2022). Salaries and other payments to staff were queried using the Transparent California database. The most recent data available is from the year 2018. In 2018, GEO had a total of 41 personnel made up of staff and volunteers (non-Board Members) who received payments. Six full-time staff received wages, benefits, and/or overtime pay, which exceeded $100,000, as shown in Figure 8-2. Six full-time or part-time employees received wages, benefits, and/or overtime pay, which was less than $80,000 but was more Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-14 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final than $35,000. The remaining employees were part-time or on-call status and earned less than $30,000 in annual wages, benefits, and/or overtime pay during the year 2018 (Transparent California, 2020). Figure 8-2: Wages and Benefits, GEO Staff (2018) $200,000 $180,000 $160,000 $140,000 $120,000 Benefits $100,000 Other Pay $80,000 Overtime Pay $60,000 Base Pay $40,000 $20,000 $0 Indivdual Employees Volunteers GEO utilizes volunteer firefighters to augment career staff. Specifically, 20 volunteers rotate through the schedule, and about half of these are active. Six volunteers are utilized on the engine and have the qualifications to drive the engine. The availability of volunteer’s changes depending on work and where volunteers are at any given time (LAFCO, 2020a). Volunteer numbers have decreased from a year or two ago when the District had active volunteers available 24-7 (LAFCO, 2020a). However, GEO staff noted that volunteers require a constant recruiting effort to maintain a good quality workforce. The MSR authors also note that other fire agencies have found that when utilizing volunteer firefighters, it is difficult to fully comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal law which establishes minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and youth employment standards affecting employees in the private sector and in Federal, State, and local governments. The Fire Chief acknowledges that managing volunteers, like paid staff, can be difficult at times, but that FLSA has a specific volunteer exemption that allows the District to utilize its volunteer firefighters (Chief Brown, personal communication, June 2021). Training GEO full-time staff are all a minimum of California Certified FF1 and are expected to complete two hours of training each shift they work. The training varies on the type and length depending on call volume and other duties that affect the workday. The District provides a four hour and a separate two-hour training for volunteer personnel each month. Volunteers are expected to attend at least one of the two sessions each month, or to make up the training with paid staff, or via other methods. All are required to complete a minimum of 24 hours per year. All volunteers are FF certified and have attended the District’s internal volunteer fire academy or an approved fire academy elsewhere. Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-15 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final GEO is working with the Garden Valley Fire Protection District (GRV) and the Mosquito Fire Protection District (MQT) to overhaul the volunteer training programs and bring all three into a set schedule where the District’s teach the same material throughout the month and any volunteers can attend any of the three District’s training in order to receive credit. This is in addition to the three fire districts working together on the annual volunteer fire academy. GEO along with GRV and MQT have committed to sharing volunteers amongst the three agencies, which will improve service levels to all communities and build upon existing relationships. Complaints During the years 2018 and 2019, GEO did not receive any complaints that the District staff are aware of (LAFCO, 2020a). 8.4 Growth & Population Forecasts The growth and population projection for the affected area is a determination which LAFCO is required to describe, consistent with the MSR Guidelines from the Office of Planning & Research (OPR) as set forth in the CKH Act. This section provides information on the existing population and future growth projections for the GEO. Historical and anticipated population growth is a factor which affects service demand. 8.4.1 Existing Population There are approximately 4,322 permanent residents within the District boundaries as of 2020, based on the calculation of an average number of persons per parcel of 1.67. The U.S. Census provides population estimates for communities, and the Georgetown 'census-designated place' has 2,577 persons residing within the 15.1 square mile area (US Census, 2019). This is a smaller geographic area than the Fire District’s boundary of 68 square miles. The U.S. census tracts do not directly correspond with District boundaries. Table 8-4 below shows existing population data for the GEO. There are 1,826 Registered Voters within the District (LAFCO, 2019). Detailed information regarding population demographics and socio-economic indicators in El Dorado County is provided in Volume I - Appendix A and Appendix B. Table 8-4: GEO Existing Population Population existing boundary Population in SOI area only1, 2, 3 area only1, 2, 3 Georgetown Fire Protection District 4,322 160 Sources: 1California Department of Finance. May 2020. E-2. California County Population Estimates as Components of Change by Year – July 1, 2000-2010. Sacramento, California. 2California Department of Finance. May 2020. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark. Sacramento, California. 3Calculated estimate based on an average of 1.67 persons per parcel in El Dorado County and 2,588 parcels within the GEO boundary. Between the years 2010 and 2020, the population increased by approximately 12,169 for the entire County of El Dorado. In 2010/2011, the Fire and Emergency Services Study (FESS) and LAFCO’s MSR estimated that GEO contained 3,300 permanent residents based on 1,486 dwelling units (LAFCO, 2011). Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-16 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The current GEO population of 4,322 residents represents an increase of 1,022 persons with an average growth rate of 2.7 percent per year. In addition to the 4,322 permanent population, GEO also sees temporary overnight visitors and daytime visitors and workers. For example, special events such as the Jeepers events and Founders Day attract thousands of tourists (LAFCO, 2020a). Overnight visitors may stay in vacation homes or other accommodations within the boundary and SOI or one of the numerous campsites within the SOI. It is estimated that overnight visitors are approximately 20 percent of the permanent population and twelve percent of the total peak population. It is estimated that the peak population that GEO serves is 7,186, as shown in Table 8-5 and Figure 8-3, below. Table 8-5: Peak Population in GEO Boundary Permanent Population Overnight Visitors Peak Daytime Visitors Total 4,322 864 2,000 7,186 Data Sources: 1: Table 10-4, on page 10-12 2: Calculated based on an estimate of 20 percent of the permanent population. 3: Estimated based on special events listed in LAFCO, 2020a Figure 8-3: Peak Population in GEO Boundary 28% Permanent Overnight Visitors 60% 12% Peak Daytime Visitors 8.4.1 Existing Population in SOI The permanent population within GEO’s SOI but outside the District Boundary is estimated to be 160 people based upon calculations using an average number of 1.67 persons per Assessor’s Parcel (El Dorado County GIS Data, 2020). 8.4.2 Projected Population Growth Projecting future population for a District is complicated due to varying annexation rates and census tracts that do not match with District boundaries. For purposes of this MSR, data from the California Department of Finance (DOF) was used to project population growth, as shown in Table 8-6 below. The DOF provides population projections at the County level, and the growth rate for the County of El Dorado is utilized to extrapolate population growth rates for the Georgetown Fire Protection District. By the year 2040, it is estimated that GEO’s existing boundary will encompass a permanent population of 4,768 persons. This represents an average annual growth rate of 0.9 percent between the years 2020 and 2040. Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-17 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 8-6: Total Estimated & Projected Population (2020 – 2050) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 County of El Dorado1 193,227 201,041 207,496 211,537 213,033 GEO Estimated Population2 4,322 4,500 4,644 4,735 4,768 Sources: 1California 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. 2Population projection for GEO calculated as a percentage (0.02238221) of The County of El Dorado. The projected growth rate for the County of El Dorado anticipates development throughout the entire County. The addition of 446 more people to the GEO by 2040 is possible as the District has undeveloped areas within existing boundaries that could potentially be available for more intensive residential development. 8.4.3 Existing Land Use Land-use is a factor that affects population growth and therefore demand for public services. However, the GEO is not a land-use authority, which is the responsibility of the County of El Dorado. GEO’s topography includes mountainous, steep terrain. Dense conifer forests cover the mountains. 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. 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 (LAFCO, 2020a). County General Plan The District's boundary area is entirely unincorporated and subject to the land-use policies and regulations of the County of El Dorado. Over the last decade, most land-use decisions, initiated by private property owners, are secured via entitlements and land-use permits from the County and other agencies. The County plans for its future growth through its General Plan, which is a long-term comprehensive framework to guide physical, social, and economic development within the community’s planning area. The County of El Dorado’s General Plan was adopted in 2004. Individual elements have since been updated on an individual basis. The 2013-2021 Housing Element was adopted in October 2013, with the most recent update occurring to the Land Use Element in August 2019. The communities of Georgetown, Greenwood, and Quintette are designated as "Rural Centers" in the El Dorado County General Plan. Within the General Plan, Rural Center boundaries establish areas of higher intensity development throughout the rural areas of the County based on the availability of infrastructure, public services, existing uses, parcelization, impact on natural resources, etc. (Policy 2.1.2.2). To meet the commercial and service needs of the residents of the Rural Centers and Rural Regions, the predominant land use type within Rural Centers shall be commercial and higher density residential development (Policy 2.1.2.3) (CED, 2019). In Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-18 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 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. 8.4.4 Potential Future Development Future population growth within the District boundaries is dependent upon zoning and General Plan policies and land-use designations in the region. The County of El Dorado General Plan serves as the County’s vision for long-term land use development and conservation. The County’s General Plan provides a series of goals, policies, standards, and implementation programs to guide land use, development, and environmental quality in the County. In August 2019, the County of El Dorado Board of Supervisors adopted the General Plan Land Use Element amendment. The Land Use Element identifies goals and policies to guide development throughout unincorporated areas of the County. The District is not aware of any new major development projects under consideration with the District boundaries or SOI (LAFCO, 2020a). 8.4.5 Open Space & Agriculture El Dorado LAFCO’s policies require that an MSR/SOI offer a determination about the effect that a district’s service provision will have on open space and agricultural lands. For purposes of this MSR analysis, open space data was derived from the County General Plan land-use data. 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, as shown in Table 8-7 below. The District’s provision of fire protection services to open space areas (i.e., non-structural) within its boundaries occurs occasionally, but wildland fire suppression is the primary responsibility of CAL FIRE or the U.S. Forest Service. The Fire Chief notes that due to the District’s location, personnel are the closest resource for wildland fire suppression for a vast area. There are times that the U.S. Forest Service have staffing that are closer to some areas, but GEO responds on all vegetation fires in the areas the District serves (Chief Brown, personal communication, June 25, 2021). LAFCO has an interest in documenting the conversion of agricultural and open space lands to other land use types, such as residential use. The GEO fire protection services do not play a role in these types of land-use conversions. GEO’s effect on open space lands is minimal. Table 8-7: Acreage Designated in the General Plan as Open Space, Agriculture, and Natural Resources within the GEO Boundary and SOI Boundary Only (in acres) SOI Only (by itself) (in acres) Open space Agriculture Natural Resources Open space Agriculture Natural Resources 2,521 394 26,572 0 0 18,675 Source: County of El Dorado GIS, 2019 Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-19 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 8.4.6 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities As described in Volume II - Chapter 1, a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) is an unincorporated area of a County in which the annual median household income (MHI) is less than 80 percent of the statewide MHI. Eighty percent of the statewide MHI (2018) equals $56,982, the threshold used to determine which geographic areas qualify for classification as disadvantaged communities. This analysis uses Census Block Groups to determine DUCs because this level of analysis provides the most uniform income data available statewide. Data for this report was collected from the 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, at the census block group level. Within the boundaries of GEO is located a portion of one Census Block Group that meets the DUC threshold and is therefore classified as a disadvantaged unincorporated community as listed in Table 8-8 below. Table 8-8: MHI in Census Block Groups for Georgetown Fire Protection District Identification Census Block Group Number of Median Household Population Number Number Number Households Income (2018) 306031 030603 1 923 305 $55,966 Source: US Census, 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates This unincorporated area is provided numerous public services from local and state agencies. 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 El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF) and Garden Valley Fire Protection District (GRV). The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) also provides fire protection services in the wildland areas located within the State Responsibility areas as does the U.S. Forest Service in Federal Responsibility areas. 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. 8.5 Public Services and Infrastructure 8.5.1 Service Overview The Georgetown Fire Protection District focuses on providing fire suppression services and emergency medical services (EMS). However, in practice, GEO provides a range of fire safety services, including fire prevention inspections; fire investigation; special operations (such as rescue, vehicle extraction, and hazardous materials response); fire department administration; staff training (including Community Emergency Response Training [CERT]); public safety education; response to other public emergencies; coordination of fire hydrants and water supply; and arson investigations, as listed in Table 8-9, below. The GEO is an established Fire Protection District, and it is the primary service provider for fire protection services within the District boundaries. Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-20 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 8-9: GEO Public Services Service Provider Structural Fire Protection GEO Wildland Fire Protection GEO and CAL FIRE Emergency Medical Response GEO Rescue/Extrication GEO Hazardous Materials GEO Water Supply GDPUD Dispatch CALFIRE Training GEO Fire Safety Education GEO Arson Investigations GEO Source: LAFCO, 2020a The District website provides a range of public information on fire safety-related topics including rural water supply guidelines, business license certification, address and street signs, burn permits, residential plan review, fire extinguisher safety, home checklist, ordinance inspections, and defensible space. Structural Fire Protection The suppression of fires in local structures is the primary focus of GEO’s work. Post-fire investigation and research indicates that flying embers cause most home ignitions during wildfires. Individual homeowners can protect their property from the financial risk associated with structural fire by purchasing homeowner’s insurance with fire coverage. Purchasing this homeowner’s insurance has become more difficult in recent years. For example, in the County of El Dorado, during the year 2016, over 1,000 homeowners lost access to their homeowner’s insurance policy due to non-renewal by the insurance company (California Department of Insurance, 2018). 8.5.2 Fire and Emergency Response The District maintains automatic aid agreements with all fire service agencies located in El Dorado County for fire suppression and emergency management services. Under this system, the District responds to close proximity calls within adjacent fire jurisdictions, as well as receives assistance from neighboring agencies when requested. This type of agreement ensures the best possible emergency service is delivered by the most efficient means possible. The District also participates in a mutual aid system that responds to requests for aid from throughout the County and the State. Because of these agreements, all firefighters within each fire agency in the County must be prepared for any type of emergency in any setting at all times. Every fire agency within the United States is rated by an independent risk assessment and standards authority for the purposes of establishing insurance policy premiums for homeowners and businesses. California uses an independent national company called the Insurance Services Office, or ISO, for this purpose. The Insurance Services Office evaluates four broad categories of fire suppression when establishing a Public Protection Classification (PPC). These categories include: 1) Fire Department; 2) Emergency Communications; 3) Water Supply; and 4) Community Risk Reduction. ISO routinely conducts Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-21 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final assessments of each fire agency in the United States. The rating scale from best to worse is One (1) — Ten (10). There is a possible score of 105.5 points from the total of the four categories listed above. An agency needs a score of 90-105.5 to receive a PPC of Class 1. The Georgetown Fire Protection District received an ISO rating of 5/5x (LAFCO, 2020a). The ISO rating is from 10 – 1, with the lower the ISO number, the better the grade. GEO’s rating is in the middle of this scale. GEO’s last ISO rating was completed in October 2020. Emergency Medical Services The Georgetown Fire Protection District operates a full-time paramedic ambulance as one of the sub- contracting fire agencies to the El Dorado County Emergency Medical Authority (West Slope JPA), providing basic and advanced life support services to the community 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. GEO’s paramedic firefighters provide extensive pre-hospital care, including the administration of drugs orally and intravenously, interpretation of electrocardiograms (EKGs), performance of endotracheal intubations, and the use of monitors and other complex equipment. The contract with the JPA is reviewed annually by the GEO Board of Directors and is currently a 5-year contract with the fourth year beginning on July 1, 2021. More information on the JPA can be found in Volume II - Chapter 15, County Service Area (CSA) 3 and CSA 7 MSR. The GEO ambulance is located at Station No. 61, the Main Station, and is numbered Medic 61 (M61). Medic 61 was the least utilized ambulance in the County in 2019 with 1,113 responses to incidents. This is roughly 1,500 calls less than the busiest ambulance, Medic 25 managed by the El Dorado County Fire Protection District (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). A breakdown of incident response types can be seen in Figure 8-4 below. Figure 8-4: GEO Medic 61 Calls for Service by Type, 2019 2% 1% 2% 27% Assistance Other Fire Medical Transfer 68% Of those responses, the greatest type of incident was medical followed by medical transfer. Medical calls include medical aid, falls, CPR, rescue, and acute but non-time critical responses to medical calls. For medical transfer calls for service, the ambulance transfers patients from local area hospitals to other hospitals in the County or regionally. The “Other” category is made up of Extractions, Hazard calls, Traffic Collisions, and Remote Area rescues (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Additional information regarding Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-22 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final emergency medical services can be found in Volume II - Chapter 15, County Service Area (CSA) 3 and CSA 7 MSR. In 1996, the El Dorado County Emergency Services Authority (or West Slope JPA) was 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. Fire agencies that sub-contract with the JPA operate the medic units and are reimbursed with funds from County Service Area No. 7 (CSA 7). These costs include personnel, operating expenses, equipment, and administrative overhead. Non-transporting fire agencies do not receive funds from CSA 7, however in years past these agencies did receive funds for medical supplies and training. Some of these agencies operate full-time paramedic engines, while others operate part-time advanced life support engines. Calls for Service According to CAL FIRE Camino ECC Dispatch, the District responded to 591 unique incidents in 2019. Those incidents translated to 2,279 calls for service that year. A call for service refers to any apparatus or vehicle for the agency which responded to a unique incident, and each apparatus or vehicle is counted as one “call for service.” The data includes incidents occurring both within and outside of the agency’s jurisdiction that the agency’s resources responded to. For more information on how consultants analyzed the dispatch data, refer to Volume II - Chapter 1. This is roughly a seven percent decrease from 2018 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). A breakdown of calls for service from 2010 to 2019 can be seen in Figure 8-5 below. Figure 8-5: GEO Calls for Service from 2010-2019 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 From 2010 to 2019, calls for service continued to trend upward with increases in calls in 2016 and 2018. There were 2,453 calls for service in 2018, representing the highest number of calls since 2010. There was a decline in calls in 2019 (174 less calls in 2019 than in 2018). According to Camino Dispatch data, the majority of the calls were for medical at 362 incidents (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). A break down in incident types for 2019 can be seen in Figure 8-6. Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-23 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 8-6: GEO Percent of Incidents by Type, 2019 4% 10% 8% Assistance 12% Fire Hazard 5% Medical Other Traffic Collision 61% The “Other” incident type includes mutual or automatic aid engine coverage for other fire agencies, aircraft down, arson, investigations, medical transfers, rescues, extractions, miscellaneous, radio and phone system failures, staffing pattern, call transfers, as well as other similar service types. The “Assistance” incident type includes public agency work such as demonstrations, assisting with a water leak, assisting with an animal, assisting with an alarm or lockout, elevator rescue, physically assisting in lifting a person, and assisting with search and rescue (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). More information on incident categories can be found in Volume II - Chapter 1. Medical incidents made up the majority of call types at 61 percent or 362 incidents in 2019. Fire and Traffic Collisions make up the next highest number of incidents in 2019, with 73 for fire and 57 for traffic collisions. Station No. 61 is the busiest station in the District, averaging over 550 calls per year from 2015 to 2019 as shown in Figure 8-7 below. Station No. 63 is the next busiest station with an average of 6 calls per year (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Figure 8-7: GEO Number of Calls by Station 2015-2019 700 600 500 2015 400 2016 300 2017 200 2018 100 0 2019 61 62 63 64 65 Station Number Station No. 61 is the only station in the District staffed 24/7, therefore it is not surprising that the most responses to calls originated from this station over the last 5 years. More information on District stations can be found in Section 8.5.7. Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-24 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Response Time El Dorado County’s General Plan (2004 as amended through 2019) Public Services and Utilities Element has several policies related to goals for average response time for new development as described in Volume II - Chapter 1. Consultants do not have the capability to break response time data out by County of El Dorado defined Community Region, Rural Center, or Rural Region standards. GEO did not provide any response time goals to consultants. In the year 2019, the District’s average response time was 9 minutes 11 seconds based on available data from CAL FIRE Camino Dispatch and calculated by the consultants. The response time data does not cover interfacility transfer (IFT), automatic/mutual aid, and strike team/overhead (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). GEO’s average for 2019 appears to meet County response time goals for new discretionary projects in Rural Centers and Rural Regions. Average response times for the District from 2010 to 2019 can be seen in Table 8-10 below. Table 8-10: Average Response Times for GEO from 2010 to 2019 Average Response Time Year (Hr : Min : Sec) 2010 0:09:13 2011 0:09:57 2012 0:09:51 2013 0:09:57 2014 0:10:54 2015 0:11:20 2016 0:09:54 2017 0:09:45 2018 0:10:48 2019 0:09:11 Source: CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020 Average response times for the District have fluctuated over the years. In 2019, the District had the lowest average response time for the 10-year period studied (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Consultants were informed by staff from multiple fire agencies in the County that CAL FIRE Camino ECC does not have the ability to track turnout time and other needed elements to define definitive numbers to measure true response times. Other Industry Standards Other industry standards applicable to the GEO are established by the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA), the Insurance Services Office, Cal OSHA, and District ordinances. All of these agencies, as well as many others, directly and/or indirectly affect the type of services, the quality and development of those services, expansion, reliability, facility design, and construction and environmental issues that the District provides. Although analysis of GEO’s performance relative to these other industry standards was beyond the scope of this MSR, it is noted that GEO is aware of the standards. Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-25 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Forest Fuel Treatment Forest fuel treatment typically relates to wildland fires, rather than the structural fires, which are the focus for the GEO. However, within the GEO's boundaries, there are multiple privately owned parcels that contain native vegetation. Also within District boundaries are several pockets of land on which fuel treatments have occurred, including both privately owned land and federally managed land (FSC-EDC, 2016). These past fuel treatments are likely to reduce fire risk. However, there are no current or planned fuel treatments within GEO’s boundary area. Although the GEO is not directly responsible for forest fuel treatments, a community approach to safety that considers house-to-house transmission, structural safety, and forest fuel treatments is important. 8.5.3 Mutual Aid, Automatic Aid, Other Agreements Mutual Aid The Georgetown Fire Protection District provides resources to all fire agencies in the County of El Dorado through mutual aid agreements. These agreements allow for giving and receiving of emergency resources (LAFCO, 2020a). Ideally, agreements for mutual aid or any other appropriate agreement (i.e., Tax Sharing Agreement) are periodically reviewed to ensure fiscal neutrality. All agreements for GEO are reviewed and approved by the District Board upon renewal. The CAL FIRE mutual aid agreements are renewed annually. The USFS agreement to share Station No. 65 is currently under review. The CAL FIRE and USFS agreements have payment requirements. Automatic Aid The Georgetown Fire Protection District maintains automatic aid, boundary drop, and closest resource agreements with all fire protection providers operating in the County of El Dorado including the U.S. Forest Service and CAL FIRE. Any resource provided by GEO is available under these agreements (LAFCO, 2020a). Through the current automatic aid 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. For this MSR/SOI Update, LAFCO requested an analysis of automatic aid provided to and received from each agency that provided and/or received aid. Consultants received a breakdown in automatic aid data directly from CAL FIRE Camino ECC dispatch in order to provide the following analysis. This data shows who the first responder to the call was within another agency’s service area boundary. In the context of this analysis, automatic aid specifically refers to instances where an agency was first responder to a call within another agency’s jurisdictional boundary. CAL FIRE is a statewide organization that operates throughout the County of El Dorado. CAL FIRE ‘s jurisdiction encompasses all the State Responsibility areas within the County (unincorporated areas of private lands excluding the national forests) for wildland fires, essentially overlapping the jurisdictions of the local fire agencies. As mentioned previously, CAL FIRE operates within the County under the same automatic aid system as the other local fire agencies. As a result of CAL FIRE’s expansive service area in El Dorado County, the agency responds to a significant number of calls for service throughout the County for the local fire agencies. CAL FIRE automatic aid for each local fire agency is included in the following analysis because CAL FIRE operates within the automatic aid system and was first responder to calls for all of the local fire agencies in the study year 2019. It is important to note that the automatic aid data that Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-26 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final was analyzed only included the first responder data and did not include the local fire agencies responses to statewide fires managed by CAL FIRE. Thus, it is not surprising that almost none of the agencies were first responders to CAL FIRE calls aiding CAL FIRE; which are handled through the assignment of strike teams by CAL FIRE. In 2019, the County of El Dorado experienced 151 wildland fires with a total of 266 acres burned (CAL FIRE, 2019). Only three local agencies provided first response aid to one of those incidents for CAL FIRE in 2019. It should be noted that a response by an agency resource to another agencies jurisdiction for a wildland fire could be considered automatic aid to both the fire agency and CAL FIRE. More information on the State Responsibility Areas can be found in Section 8.5.6. Information about CAL FIRE operations in the County can be found in Volume I - Appendix D. Through consultation with the ad hoc Fire Chiefs MSR group and LAFCO, consultants agreed to exclude the CAL FIRE automatic aid numbers from Table 8-11 below, due to the reasons stated above. However, the study cannot ignore the CAL FIRE automatic aid data as part of the contextual analysis. Doing so would make it appear that local agencies received less aid than they actually did in 2019 and paint an inaccurate picture of the amount of aid received and provided between fire agencies operating in the County in 2019. Thus, the following analysis and determinations include CAL FIRE aid in the contextual details while removing the numbers from Table 8-11 below. CAL FIRE automatic aid numbers are described countywide in greater detail in Volume I - Appendix D, Other Agencies Providing Services in the County of El Dorado. GEO received automatic aid 195 times and provided automatic aid 240 times in 2019. Table 8-11 below shows the agencies that provided aid to the GEO and those that received aid from the GEO in 2019. The CAL FIRE Amador-El Dorado Unit provided automatic aid to GEO 93 times in 2019 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Table 8-11: Automatic Aid Provided & Received from the GEO, 2019 Agency Providing/Receiving Amount of Aid Amount of Aid Aid to/from GEO Provided to GEO Received from GEO CAM 8 0 DSP 1 1 ECF 16 47 EDH 2 0 GRV 129 167 MQT 7 2 RES 2 1 Other Agencies1 30 22 Total 195 240 Source: CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020 1Other Agencies include the Amador Fire Protection District, Buena Vista Rancheria Fire Department, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Eldorado National Forest Unit, the City of Ion, Lockwood Fire Protection District, and the CAL FIRE Nevada-Yuba-Placer Unit. The CAL FIRE – Amador-El Dorado Unit aid provided to GEO is described in Volume I - Appendix D. Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-27 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The GEO provided more aid than the District received for 2019. The District received the majority of mutual aid from the Garden Valley Fire Protection District (GRV) at about 66 percent of all mutual aid received. The GEO also gave the most mutual aid to the GRV, more than any other fire agency, and more than the District received from GRV. For the “Other Agencies” category, the GEO received the most automatic aid from the Eldorado National Forest Unit (ENF) with 21 mutual aid calls received. Overall, the GEO provided aid 45 more times than it received in 2019 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). The low difference between aid provided and received for GEO shows a balance of automatic aid and that automatic aid is operating well for GEO. A more detailed analysis of automatic aid is needed to determine the reasoning for variation in aid received versus provided for GEO and other fire agencies in the County. 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. A more detailed analysis of automatic aid is needed to determine the reasoning for variation in aid received versus provided for GEO and other fire agencies in the County, factoring in the location of calls in relation to available resources for each agency. Of all of the calls for service in 2019, the District required aid for 12 percent of all calls when adding in CAL FIRE. With CAL FIRE aid removed, the District required aid for nine percent of all calls in 2019 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). The Fire Chief for GEO states that the great thing about the automatic aid system in the County is that all of the agencies are reliant on each other and none are large enough to operate in a closed response environment and that the system should be lauded as a great service to the citizens of the County of El Dorado (Chief Brown, personal communication, June 25, 2021). Joint Agreements A Joint Agreement is one where a District may jointly own or share fire protection services, capital facilities, or services with other agencies. GEO does have a Joint Agreement with the El Dorado National Forest and together, they share a fire station in Quintette. The District entered into a Joint Operations Authority with the Fire Protection Districts of Garden Valley and Mosquito. This agreement allows the three agencies to share volunteers, and equipment as necessary, to assist each district with coverage on a day-to-day basis. 8.5.4 Dispatch For GEO, dispatching is provided through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the multiagency Camino Emergency Command Center operated by CAL FIRE, providing a single dispatch system for the entire Western Slope of the County (LAFCO, 2020a). Additional details on countywide dispatch can be found in Volume I - Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. 8.5.5 Emergency Access Major access roads to the Georgetown Fire Protection District include State Highway 193 and Wentworth Road. The GEO's boundary area does include ingress and egress challenges identified in the County's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. For example, access to rural, long, dead-end roads such as Jeffrey Court and Silent Meadow Lane may sometimes be limited due to road blockages from fallen trees, etc. District staff does work with community stakeholders to remediate these ingress/egress issues as they are identified. Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-28 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Although roadways for emergency access appear to be sufficient, an emergency access plan was not provided to the consultants. The District has identified one community with access issues; the community of Volcanoville has only one ingress and egress point. Volcanoville is the only Firewise community in the District. More information on county wide maintenance operations can be found in Volume I - Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. 8.5.6 Fire Hazard Zones The Fire Hazard Severity Zones, Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), and Community Risk Fire Map in which CAL Fire categorizes spatial areas into different risk areas are described in Volume II - Chapter 1. Within the GEO’s boundaries, 42,672 acres are in Fire Hazard Severity zone “Very High” and 1,060 acres are in “High” based on GIS data provided by CAL FIRE as shown in Table 8-12, below. Roughly 99.7 percent of GEO’s total boundary area is classified as either a “Very High” or “High” fire severity zone. See Figure 8-8 for a map of those areas. CAL FIRE has mapped the WUI in El Dorado County and the GEO is located within an identified WUI. Table 8-12: GEO Fire Hazard Severity Zone Acreage and Percentage Acreage in Very Percentage in Very Acreage in Percentage in Total Percentage in Very High Fire Risk High Fire Risk High Fire Risk High Fire Risk High and High Fire Risk 42,672 97.2% 1,060 2.4% 99.7% Source: County GIS Data, 2020 derived from CalFire data Areas of land within the District boundary are considered “Local Responsibility Area” (LRA), “State Responsibility Area” (SRA), and “Federal Responsibility Area” (FRA) for fire protection services. CAL FIRE will typically respond to wildland fires within the SRA, and a federal agency, such as the U.S. Forest Service will respond to wildland fires within the FRA. Within GEO's boundary, 26,453 acres are in the state responsibility area, and 17,381 acres are in a federal responsibility area for wildland fires. Within the GEO SOI, 9,866 acres are in the SRA and an additional 9,668 are in the FRA as shown in Table 8-13, below. See Figure 8-8 for a map of these areas. Table 8-13: GEO Responsibility Areas Boundary Only (in acres) SOI Only (by itself) (in acres) LRA SRA FRA LRA SRA FRA 0 26,453 17,381 0 9,866 9,668 Source: GIS data from CAL FIRE About 60 percent of the District is within a State Responsibility Area (SRA) with CAL FIRE as the primary wildland fire response agency. CAL FIRE is legally and financially responsible to provide fire protection in all State Responsibility Areas (SRA). Approximately 40 percent is within a designated Federal Responsibility Area. Areas under the FRA are managed by a federal agency, such as the U.S. Forest Service. None of the District is located within a Local Responsibility Area, meaning that there is no area within the District that does not have fire protection responsibility by either the state or federal government for wildfires. Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-29 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 8-8: Fire Hazard Severity Zones & Responsibility Areas for GEO Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-30 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 8.5.7 Infrastructure The Georgetown Fire Protection District maintains infrastructure to support its fire protection services. This infrastructure includes fire stations, fire hydrants, fire trucks and other vehicles, water hoses, and other equipment as described on the following pages. There are five fire stations within the District, and four of these are owned by GEO. One station (Station No. 65 on Sand Mountain Boulevard) is owned by the El Dorado National Forest, but shared with and located in GEO’s boundaries. Only one of the four GEO owned stations is staffed on a regular basis (24/7/365). The remaining three GEO stations are unstaffed with apparatus available for personnel to utilize (GEO, 2019a). The District is working to have a live-in volunteer program in the future that will have personnel residing in Station No.’s 62, 63, and 64 (Chief Brown, personal communication, June 2021). GEO’s fire stations are listed in Table 8-14, below. Table 8-14: Georgetown Fire Protection District Fire Stations Detail Station Number Address Staffing 6281 Main Street, Georgetown 61 24/7/365 (Main station) 7331 Wentworth Springs, None 62 Georgetown (Training Yard) (Historically Volunteer) 4900 Volcanoville Road, None 63 Georgetown (Historically Volunteer) 2065 Sliger Mine Road, None 64 Greenwood (Historically Volunteer) 10561 Sand Mountain None 65 Boulevard, Georgetown (Historically Volunteer) Source: LAFCO, 2020a GEO provided LAFCO with the following details about the construction and status of each station: • Station No. 61 was constructed in the early 1960s. It is staffed with one full-time paid firefighter/EMT on a 24/7/365 basis. In 1993, the District purchased an adjoining building and remodeled it to accommodate the needs of the personnel. The District is currently remodeling this existing fire station to address inadequate office space and seismic issues. Additional structural problems include the flat roof, which chronically leaks and the areas for dealing with biohazards need greater attention. The apparatus bays are adequately sized to fit the engine; however, the District acknowledges that it is a “tight” fit (GEO, 2019a). • Station No. 62 was constructed in 1977. It is not staffed. It currently houses a Type I engine and a 2000-gallon Type 1 water tender. • Station No. 63 was constructed in the early 1980s. It is not staffed. This station was built to meet the ISO rural 8 rating. • Station No. 64 was built in the late 1980s. It is not staffed. Funds donated to the firefighters were utilized to restore this station. Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-31 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • Station No. 65 was constructed and opened in 1996, covering the Quintette area. This project was a cooperative project between the District and the United States Forest Service, Georgetown Ranger District. It is not staffed. In addition to the existing five stations, GEO owns a 5-acre lot located on Highway 193 in close proximity to Main Street. There has been virtually no investment in capital improvements to this site. It is reserved for a potential future Station No. 66 if the need arises. GEO is working to develop a strategic plan with response guidelines for each of their stations (Chief Brown, personal communication, September 2020). As mentioned previously, GEO utilizes volunteer firefighters to augment career staff at Station No. 61 (LAFCO, 2020a). Unstaffed stations may appear to indicate the District does not have the financial resources necessary to maintain services in those areas. However, stations which were historically staffed by volunteers typically came into existence when a local community, such as Volcanoville, approached the District at the time with the request that a certain number of residents would commit to volunteer and a parcel of land could be used to create a new fire station. This occurred for many of the stations in GEO. As the volunteer programs have declined or ceased over the years for these stations, the District has not added paid staff. Equipment and Apparatus The District supplies all employees and volunteers with safety gear required by district policy and mandated safety laws, including OSHA personal protective equipment (PPE) standards. GEO equipment utilized to perform its duties are listed in Table 8-15. Table 8-15: Apparatus & Light Vehicles, 2020 Equipment Type Identifier Year Make/Model Water Capacity (gallons) Type 1 Engine E61 2000 HME 800 Type 1 Engine OES4101 2005 HME 800 Type 2 Engine E264 2003 Freightliner 500 Type 3 Engine E361 2017 International 500 Type 3 Engine E363 2004 International 500 Type 3 Engine E265 2004 International 500 Water Tender WT62 2015 Kenworth 2000 Water Tender WT63 2015 Kenworth 2000 Type 6 Brush Truck P61 1999 Chevy /K3500 250 Utility Vehicle Repair 61 2002 Chevy/K3500 N/A Utility Vehicle U61 2011 Ford/F150 N/A Utility Vehicle C7100 2015 Ford/F250 N/A Converted Ambulance S62 2006 Ford/350 N/A Body for Type 6 Engine N/A 2006 Ford/F450 N/A Spare/Training Engine N/A 1991 Hitech 750 Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-32 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Equipment Type Identifier Year Make/Model Water Capacity (gallons) Ambulance M61 2019 Ford/F550 Ambulance M261 2016 Dodge/5500 Source: Chief Brown, personal communication, June 25, 2021 All vehicle maintenance is evaluated in-house and then either repaired internally or sent out for repair as needed. District personnel perform most building and facilities maintenance; although, some is contracted out through a bidding process. NFPA recommends that second line equipment should not be more than 20 years old. A few pieces of equipment listed in Table 8-15 exceed this age guidance and a four pieces are within two to three years of exceeding 20 years. Addendum The District Fire Chief notes that the District has dramatically upgraded rescue equipment in the last year (utilizing several grants). The District had two complete sets of extrication equipment and have now added three sets of battery powered extrication tools, water rescue, rope, and off road rescue equipment (Chief Brown, personal communication, November 2021). Water and Hydrants In GEO, water service is provided through hydrants from Georgetown Divide Public Utilities District (GDPUD), Bear State Water Company, and private water sources (tanks, ponds, lakes) throughout the District (LAFCO, 2020a). GDPUD maintains 156 “dry barrel” hydrants to protect them from freezing. These hydrants are ‘activated’ with valve turn-ons during periods of use. In areas outside the GDPUD boundaries, the strategies differ. There are 18 water tanks in the Volcanoville area, along Volcanoville Road. The District boundary contains numerous lakes and ponds that can be utilized as a water supply, including Walton Lake, Stumpy Meadows, and Greenwood Lake. Approximately 10 percent of the private properties in the Georgetown Fire Protection District have good size ponds suitable for fire suppression (LAFCO, 2011). In addition, the Georgetown Canal has water running almost consistently and is recognized by the District as a potential water source (Chief Brown, personal communication, June 25, 2021). 8.5.8 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies GEO adopted a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in 2014. CAL FIRE completed a full assessment of GEO’s facilities in 2018 (GEO, 2019a). This assessment describes necessary maintenance and upgrades. Consistent with its CIP and the CAL FIRE assessment, the District is setting aside reserve funds for future capital projects, as available. The District will soon have several loans paid off, which will open up its ability to fund new capital improvement projects (LAFCO, 2020a). GEO staff identified facility needs or deficiencies including: • Station No. 61: Currently being remodeled. • Station No. 62, 63, and 64 need A/C units installed and minor remodel to allow for live in firefighters. Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-33 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final (Data Source: LAFCO, 2020a) The District funds facility and equipment costs from separate reserve accounts and through the general fund. GEO staff continues to search for financing for needed projects through existing funds and/or new alternative financing options (GEO, 2019a). When queried about potential regulatory issues, infrastructure, equipment, or other challenges that could potentially confront the District in the next five years, GEO staff noted changes to tax laws, or the distribution of tax revenues could impact the GEO (LAFCO, 2020a). 8.5.9 Cost Avoidance & Facilities Sharing GEO has undertaken numerous cost avoidance measures over the past several years. The District has taken several actions in the last five years to save money, lower expenses or improve services at the same costs. For example, GEO has purchased used apparatus and loaned apparatus from State and Federal Fire Agencies (LAFCO, 2020a). Another example of cost avoidance and resource sharing is the mutual aid and automatic aid agreements in which all fire agencies in the West Slope of the County of El Dorado and the GEO participates. Further, the California Master mutual aid agreement has the ability to commit GEO resources anywhere in the state. A third example of GEO’s actions to avoid unnecessary costs is the Joint Operations Authority that the District has entered into with Garden Valley Fire and Mosquito Fire Protection Districts. GEO hopes this Joint Operations Authority will facilitate the continued cooperation of the three districts (LAFCO, 2020a). The fourth example of cost avoidance measures enacted by GEO is Station 65, located in the Quintette area. This project was a cooperative project between the District and the United States Forest Service. This station's construction and operation is an excellent example of inter- agency cooperation that creates cost savings for taxpayers. Without this cooperation, the station would not have been constructed. Addendum The District Fire Chief notes that the Joint Operations Authority was formed in order to allow the Districts to work closer together, reduce costs where possible and have a better chance at regional grants which the Districts have been very successful, including an almost $750,000 grant for new SCBA’s in 2021 (Chief Brown, personal communication, November 2021). Jurisdictional Reorganization Considering functional or structural reorganizations that the District could potentially evaluate to benefit recipients of fire protection services or improve the provision of fire protection services is part of this MSR/SOI analysis and under LAFCO’s purview. GEO staff has noted several pros and cons regarding any potential future Jurisdictional Reorganization. Pros include possible administrative cost savings; possible increase of purchasing power; and possible improved use of volunteer personnel. Cons include the potential situation where a reorganization is somehow forced upon GEO, without proper evaluation of current data; financial differences between fire districts; personnel issues; loss of community identity; possible increased worker’s comp rates; possible decrease in assessment rates; possible decrease in fire assistance rates; debt repayment; Union/Non- Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-34 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Union concern; possible effect on grants; possible effect on MOU’s; and the cost of rebranding (GEO, 2019a). As GEO considers whether joining a regional fire and emergency services agency would serve the needs of the community better than remaining independent, the District weighs several community factors including: • The pros and cons listed above; • Whether such a regional concept would remove the small-town community interaction/ownership of the Fire District and potentially cause a reduction in community support and volunteerism; and • Whether such a regional concept would ultimately result in improved service levels (Source: Georgetown, 2019a). GEO’s website states the following: “Georgetown Fire is, and always has been, opposed to any concepts regarding forcing any consolidation/annexation of fire districts, but is, and always has been, willing to discuss any type of working relationships between our agencies” (GEO, 2019c). As background information, in the past, the GEO considered contracting with CAL FIRE to manage the District. There were talks of entering into an Amador Agreement where CAL FIRE would staff GEO stations. Ultimately, the talks failed because the agreement wouldn’t support a separate fire chief for the GEO area. GEO’s constituents enjoy the small-town community atmosphere, and they support the Fire District with community events and fundraisers (Personal communication, Chief Brown, September 2020). 8.6 Financial Ability to Provide Services LAFCO is required to make determinations regarding the financial ability of the Georgetown Fire Protection District to provide public services. This section provides an overview of the financial health of the District and a context for LAFCO’s financial determinations. The audited financial reports from the District for the fiscal years 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 as well as the final budgets for FY 2019/2020 and FY 2020/2021 are the primary source of information for this section (GEO, 2018; 2019a; 2019b; 2020). In California, special districts are classified as either enterprise or non-enterprise based on their source of revenue. The GEO District generally operates as a non-enterprise district, collecting and utilizing property tax revenue to fund fire and emergency services. 8.6.1 Financial Policies & Transparency GEO does not currently have a primary policy document that includes financial policies. The District has contracted with a consultant to assist with developing new policies for the District and contracted with a law firm to assist with the develop specific financial procedures. The District adopts a fiscal-year budget and conducts an annual-cycle review to determine any changes that might be needed. The District does not have a financial plan (Chief Brown, personal communication, November 2021). The District must publish an audited financial report every year, however the completion of the FY 2018/2019 audited financial report did not occur until the spring of 2021 due to circumstances beyond the District’s control. Government Code and District policy require an annual independent audit of the Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-35 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final District’s financial records by a certified public accountant. The independent audit on FY 2017/2018 was performed by Fletcher & Company, independent auditors. The independent audit for FY 2018/2019 was performed by Robert W. Johnson, an accountancy corporation. The District had been with Robert Johnson for many years prior and was happy with his firm’s work. However, the Board decided it would be in the best interests of the District’s fiscal health to have another unrelated firm take over for a few years to make certain that best practices were being followed. With that change, the District was unhappy with the quality and timeliness of the new firm and rejoined Robert Johnson’s firm in FY 2019/20 (Chief Brown, personal communication, July 2021). This change in accounting firms created discrepancies in the Year over Year analysis presented in the financial analysis below. The auditors judge whether the District’s financial statements are presented in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is responsible for establishing GAAP for state and local governments through its statements and interpretations. The District uses the accrual basis of accounting, where revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recorded when liabilities are incurred. 8.6.2 District Revenues and Expenditures The District’s largest recurring revenue source is property taxes in FY 2018/2019. Salaries & Benefits represent the Districts largest expense. A breakdown in revenues and expenditures for the District can be seen in Figure 8-9 on the next page. A breakdown of revenues and expenditures is also available in table format in Volume II - Appendix A, Financial Tables by Agency. Revenues The District’s largest recurring revenue source is Property Taxes, a Fire Suppression Assessment, and Special Tax which combined accounted for 51 percent of total revenue in FY 2017/2018 and 30 percent of total revenue in FY 2018/2019. JPA Reimbursement Revenue is not included in Figure 8-9. The District received $1.15 million in JPA Reimbursement Revenue in FY 2018/2019 and anticipates receiving the same amount annually. JPA Reimbursements are not budgeted for in the FY 2019/2020 or FY 2020/2021 budget. The District shared that this is because it is revenue that cannot be predicted with any accuracy. In practice, the District endeavors to keep these funding sources completely separate, however occasionally it is unavoidable. This is generally due to the inflexibility of the County Payroll systems, or confusion from vendors combining payments to both the JPA and the District (Chief Brown, personal communication, July 7, 2021). The District informed consultants that GEO will likely subsidize the JPA revenue by approximately $120,000 for FY 2020/2021. The subsidization of JPA costs born by the District has been an ongoing issue that the District is hoping to get resolved. As far as consultants are aware, JPA reimbursements are a fixed amount to Districts every year and are billed monthly. Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-36 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 8-9: GEO Total Revenues and Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-37 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-38 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final In FY 2017/2018, the Special Assessment (grouped together with property taxes and the special tax in the above Figure 10-1 above) accounted for nine percent of total revenue or $142,179. Similarly in FY 2018/2019, it accounted for $145,668 or 6 percent of total revenue. In the FY 2019/2020 Final Budget, the Special Assessment is projected to increase to 13 percent or $210,500, and increase another seven percent in the FY 2020/2021 Preliminary budget to $224,384 which represents 20 percent of the total revenue. Table 8-16 provides information about the Fire/EMS Special Tax and Fire Suppression Assessment levied by the GEO district as of FY 2018/2019. Table 8-16: Special Taxes/Assessments Levied by GEO, FY 2018/2019 Developed Parcel Undeveloped Parcel Escalator 2% annual escalator and is Fire Suppression currently at $61.12 for Assessment $68.56 $58.78 undeveloped parcels, and (Adopted 2004) $71.30 for developed parcels (for FY 21/22). Fire/EMS The Special Tax has no Special Tax $35.00 $35.00 escalator and has remained at (Adopted 10/6/1987) $35.00 per parcel. Source: EDC, 2021 Addendum – New Information from GEO The Fire Chief informed consultants that the Special Assessment brought in $146,265.31 in FY 2020/2021 and the Special Tax brought in $75,819.26. These figures came from the County’s end of the year financials sent to the District in September (Chief Brown, personal communication, November 2021). Expenditures The District’s biggest expense is Salaries and Benefits which accounted for 52 percent of total expenses in FY 2017/2018, and 78 percent in FY 2018/2019. Salaries and Benefit expenditures increased by 59 percent from FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019. It is important to note that between these two fiscal years there was a change in Accounting Firms and the Financial Reporting line items differ from accounting firm to accounting firm. In FY 2018/2019 the District spent $1,151,619 in Ambulance or JPA expenses but were only reimbursed $1,150,000 a difference of $1,619. The District’s financial and administrative functions are governed by a five-member Board of Directors elected by the voting population within the District. Current District staffing includes a full time Chief, a full time hourly Administrative Assistant and a mix of full-time salaried staff, part-time hourly staff, and volunteers. In 2020, the District identified 24 volunteers that are available to be scheduled for shifts as well as eight reserve firefighters and one support volunteer. GEO currently has one paid full-time firefighter who works 10 hours a day. The District’s staffing goal is to have one paid staff and one volunteer Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-39 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final during the 10-hour day. Additionally, one volunteer covers the night shift. However, this staffing goal is not always met due to a lack of available volunteers (LAFCO, 2020a). In the FY 2018/2019 Independent Auditors Management report by Robert W. Johnson it was noted “deficiencies related to the District’s personnel time reporting system (timesheets) such as: • Timesheets are not required to be signed by employee; • No supervisor approval is required; and • Employees log into Microsoft SharePoint to input hours worked. Employees apparently are able to access and make entries to other employee time records.” A series of recommendations were made by the Financial Auditors to reconcile these deficiencies with stronger policy enforcements. Revenues (Over/Under) Expenditures Revenues (Over/Under) expenditures can be seen in Figure 8-10 below. Revenues for FY 2017/2018 exceeded expenses by $508,137 and Revenue for FY 2018/2019 exceeded expenses by $81,638. A portion of the revenues exceeding expenditures in FY 2017/2018 may be attributed to the $516,587 in Strike Team Reimbursements and $189,983 in the sale of Long-Term Assets. Figure 8-10: GEO Net Revenues Over/Under Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 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 (Chief Brown, personal communication, November 2021). It is unclear how the District would cover expenditures without the $766,565 fund transfer. Projections for the FY 2020/2021 budget predict expenditures to net zero. The Board have directed staff to present a balanced budget annually (Chief Brown, personal communication, November 2021). Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-40 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 8.6.3 District Assets and Liabilities District Assets As of June 30, 2019, the District had $3,520,022 in assets driven by a strong cash and capital assets position as shown in Figure 8-11. Total assets as of June 30th, 2018 accounted for $2,793,130. This is a 20 percent increase year over year. The primary driver of the increase was new accounting for $537,201 in deferred outflows. No deferred outflows are indicated on the FY 2017/2018 Audited Financial Report. Further, the District saw a $238,349 increase in their “Cash” position and $14,325 increase in Accounts Receivable in the FY 2018/2019 Audited Financial Report. Figure 8-11: District Assets as of June 30, 2019 Liabilities and Debt District liabilities as of June 30, 2019 are $6,387,320 shown in Figure 8-12 below. The majority of the District’s long-term obligations consist of “Net Pension Liability”, about $2.6 million, and “Other Post Employment Benefit (OPEB)” Liabilities of $2.4 million. Figure 8-12: District Liabilities and Debt as of June 30, 2019 Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-41 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final District liabilities reported on the audited financial report as of June 30, 2018 was $373,179 in Long Term Debt, $453,772 in Net OPEB liabilities, and $78,301 in Accounts Payable and Accrued payroll and benefits liabilities. Between FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019, Liabilities increased by $5,482,068 as shown in the financial audited reports. This increase appears to be due to the change in their Financial Auditors and the Financial Accounting Standards utilized between the two firms. The District provides a defined benefit pension plan but did not recognize their long-term obligation for pension benefits as a liability on the statement of net position, or move comprehensively and comparably to measure the annual costs of pension benefits for the year-ended June 30, 2018. The District’s Long-Term Liabilities include a number of loans for purchase of land and equipment described as follows: • On October 27, 2005, the District entered into a loan for the purchase of land for $266,667. On July 24, 2008, the balance of the loan and interest was paid off form the proceeds of a new loan from Westamerica Bank. The amount of the new loan was $289,780 at 4.98 percent interest due semi-annually in the amount of $13,827 for 15 years. As of FY 2018/2019, the District had $22,997 left on this loan. • In October 2014, the District entered into a loan with a bank for the purchase of a fire vehicle. The amount of the loan was $30,000 at 3.82 percent with principal and interest payments of $6,705 due annually on September 1 for five years through 2019. As of FY 2018/2019, the District had $7,604 left on this loan. • In FY 2016/2017, the District entered into a loan with a bank to help finance the purchase of a vehicle. The total amount of the loan was $60,000 and the payments of $13,626 are made on an annual basis through the end of FY 2021/2022. As of FY 2018/2019, the District had $37,534 left on this loan. • In FY 2016/2017, the District entered into a loan agreement with First Bank to finance the purchase of a vehicle. The total amount of the loan was $189,983 and the payments of $41,628 are made on an annual basis through the end of FY 2022/2023. As of FY 2018/2019, the District had $115,844 left on this loan. 8.6.4 Net Position As of June 30, 2019, the Statement of Net Position for the District reported in the FY 2018/2019 audited financial report was negative $2,867,298; as seen in Figure 8-13. This is a summary of the District’s assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities, and deferred inflows of resources, which provide information about the nature, and amounts of investments in assets and obligations to District creditors. It also provides the basis for computing rates of return, evaluating the capital structure of the District, and assessing financial flexibility of the District. The negative net position is driven primary based on the Net Pension Liability of negative $2,665,325. Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-42 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 8-13: District Net Position as of June 30, 2019 8.6.5 Asset Maintenance and Replacement According to the GEO Fire Chief, the District adopted a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) in 2014 to set aside reserve funds for future capital projects, as available. The District will have several loans paid off in the near future, which will open up the District’s ability to fund new projects. 8.6.6 Cost Avoidance As stated in Section 8.5.9., GEO has undertaken numerous cost avoidance measures over the past several years to save money, lower expenses or improve services at the same costs. For example, GEO has purchased used apparatus and loaned apparatus from State and Federal Fire Agencies (LAFCO, 2020a). The District has entered into a Joint Operations Agreement with Garden Valley Fire and Mosquito Fire Districts. GEO hopes this agreement will facilitate the continued cooperation of the three districts (LAFCO, 2020a). 8.6.7 Financial Summary and Ability to Provide Services Based on the data presented above, the GEO is able to provide service to the residents of the Georgetown area based on automatic/mutual aid agreements and volunteers. As mentioned previously, the District currently operates with a blend of staffing models. GEO is primarily staffed at (1-0) model meaning one Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-43 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final staff person per fire engine. Lower staffing levels leave the community vulnerable to low frequency, high- risk events, such as a working structure fire. The District’s General Fund reported total fund balances of about $1,204,618 million as of June 30th 2019. Of this balance, $768,852 is “unassigned”. With FY 2018/2019 Operating Expenditures at $2.1 million, the District’s General Reserve Fund does not meet the 50 percent minimum reserve to cover operating expenses. Alternative Financing The District received an Assistance to Firefighters Grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 2020 for $102,112 and a tourism grant through the County of El Dorado in 2021 for $5,800. Per the Fire Chief, the District actively applies for and participates in grant funding. In 2020, the Fire Chief applied for six FEMA grants and is awaiting award decisions (Chief Brown, personal communication, July 2021). Addendum – New Information from GEO The Fire Chief informed consultants that the District received the following two grant awards: 1. Regional Grant hosted by RES for two Automatic CPR Devices and two Cardiac Monitors for approximately $80,000 2. Regional Grant hosted by PIO for 39 Self Contained Breathing Apparatuses (SCBAs) for approximately $253,500 (Chief Brown, personal communication, November 2021). Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-44 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 8.7 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 the Georgetown Fire Protection District 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. Scoring for the determinations in Table 8-17 below are as follows: ▲ ● ▼ ◆ Above Average (compared to similar Districts), Average, Below Average, Statement of Fact (not rated). Table 8-17: Summary of MSR Determinations for the Georgetown Fire Protection District Indicator Score Determination Population & Growth GEO’s 43,881 acre boundary area is located in the unincorporated County Existing Boundary. ◆ of El Dorado and includes most of the communities of Georgetown, Buckeye, Sliger Mine, Quintette, and Volcanoville. El Dorado LAFCO’s most recent action on GEO's SOI occurred August 24, ◆ 2011, via Resolution No. L-2011-09. The District’s SOI includes 19,564 acres Existing Sphere of Influence. and includes 96 parcels. GEO provide services to its SOI; however, their response time to these rural areas is very long. The GEO does provide extra-territorial services outside of its District boundary in two circumstances: 1) to its SOI and 2) in response to automatic aid. Emergency response services to its SOI is considered an Extra-territorial Services the District provides as described in ◆ Out-of-Agency Services. Responses to mutual/automatic aid are consistent Government Code Section 56134. with the District's formal mutual and automatic aid agreements, and therefore, these services provided outside the boundary are not considered to be Out-of-Agency Services. GEO does not provide fire protection services to other agencies by contract. Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-45 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination By the year 2040, it is estimated that GEO’s existing boundary will ◆ encompass a permanent population of 4,768 persons. This represents an Projected population in years 2020 through 2040. average annual growth rate of 0.9 percent between the years 2020 and 2040. Currently, the District’s boundary area supports an average of less than one person per acre, which is considered to be very low population density. The analysis described in this MSR suggests that the GEO has sufficient District boundaries contain sufficient land area to accommodate ◆ infrastructure capacity with its five existing stations to provide fire and projected growth. emergency services and accommodate projected population growth. The County General Plan suggests that growth may occur in the Rural Centers (The communities of Georgetown, Greenwood, and Quintette) of the GEO boundary. Government Structure & Accountability GEO, along with all the fire protection districts in El Dorado County, have recently been the subject of a grand jury report, Case No. 19-06. The issues Is the District involved in current litigation and/or has the District ▼ raised in the grand jury report remain valid. Changes to the governmental been the subject of a recent grand jury inquiry. structure of some fire protection districts are needed to address these issues. Compliance with the Special District Transparency Act (SB 929 or California Government Code, §6270.6 and 53087.8) which requires Compliance with the Special District Transparency Act (Gov. Code, §6270.6 ▲ special districts to have a functional website that lists contact and 53087.8) was evaluated in this MSR. The District's website complies information and contains financial statements, compensation with the requirements of the Special District Transparency Act. reports, and other relevant public information. Terms of office and next election date are disclosed for District Board ▲ Terms of office and next election date are disclosed for District Board members and committee appointments are online. members, and committee appointments are available online. Compliance with the 2016 updates to the Brown Act described in Government Code §54954.2 was evaluated in this MSR. GEO’s website Does the agency’s website comply with the 2016 updates to the ▲ contains the current meeting agenda as well as past agendas and posts the Brown Act described in Government Code §54954.2 and enacted by most recent agenda on the homepage. Therefore, the District website Assembly Bill 2257? agenda distribution does comply with the requirements of the Brown Act 2016 Updates described in AB2257. Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-46 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination A review of whether GEO’s elected Board members submit required forms and receive required trainings as prescribed by the three state laws Do elected Board members submit required forms and receive regarding accountability and ethics including: 1) the Political Reform Act; 2) required trainings as prescribed by the three state laws regarding Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005) which requires ethics training; and 3) accountability and ethics including: Government Code 53237 et. seq. found the following: ▲ (1) the Political Reform Act; GEO has an established conflict-of-interest code. There have been no (2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005); and complaints to the CA FPPC regarding filing of Economic Statements of (3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. Interest required under the Political Reform Act. District Board members are have received ethics and sexual harassment training to satisfy AB 1234 and GC 53237 et. seq. GEO’s website provides easily accessible information and education to homeowners regarding fire safety and prevention consistent with General Does the agency work to inform and educate homeowners regarding ▲ Plan Objective 6.2.5. Additionally, the District conducts a significant fire safety and prevention consistent with General Plan Objective amount of public outreach in the form of fundraisers, special events, and 6.2.5? volunteer recruitment. The district enjoys a significant amount of support from the community. Disadvantage Communities The median household income is identified. The DUC threshold MHI California’s median household income was $71,228 in 2018. This yields a ◆ (80 percent of the statewide MHI) is clearly stated. The MHI in the DUC threshold MHI of less than $56,982. There are portions of one census Agency’s boundary is described. block group that meet the DUC threshold within the GEO boundary. There are portions of one identified Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community within the GEO boundary and sphere of influence. The DUC Potential DUCs are considered. The provision of adequate water, described in this chapter does receive adequate water service from ◆ wastewater, and structural fire protection services to DUCs is Georgetown Divide Public Utility District or private wells. Wastewater considered. services are provided to DUC areas by small septic systems. Fire protection services to the DUCs described in this chapter are provided by the GEO, ECF, or GRV. No public health and safety issues have been identified. Shared Facilities & Services Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-47 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination The District has taken several actions in the last five years to save money, lower expenses or improve services at the same costs. For example, GEO has purchased used apparatus and loaned apparatus from State and Other practices and opportunities that may reduce or eliminate Federal Fire Agencies. Additionally, GEO participates in the County-wide unnecessary costs are examined by the District periodically. Ideally, ● automatic aid program and also has other cooperative agreements with there is a balance between cost efficiency and risk reduction Garden Valley Fire Protection District. The District has been operating at strategies. the 1-0 staffing level supported by volunteers for years. It is noted that every structure located within the GEO is in a “high” or “very high” risk area. Agreements for mutual aid or any other appropriate agreement (i.e., All agreements are reviewed and approved by the District Board upon ▲ Tax Sharing Agreement) are periodically reviewed to ensure fiscal renewal. The CAL FIRE mutual aid agreements are renewed annually. The neutrality. USFS agreement to share Station No. 65 is currently under review. GEO collaborates with multiple other agencies for the delivery of services within its boundary. GEO participates in the automatic aid program. GEO participates in the Joint Operations Authority with Garden Valley Fire and The District collaborates with multiple other agencies for the delivery ▲ Mosquito Fire Districts. GEO hopes this Joint Operations Authority will of services within its boundary. facilitate the continued cooperation of the three districts. GEO has cooperated with the U.S. Forest Service in the construction and operation of Station No. 65, located in the Quintette area. Public Services & Infrastructure The District does provide sufficient services to meet current and future demands for the following three indicators: The District provides sufficient services to meet current and future (1) GEO recruits Board members, paid staff, and volunteers as the needs demands with: arise; ● (1) recruitment; (2) GEO participates in the county-wide mutual aid and automatic aid (2) mutual aid; and program; and (3) water supply for fire protection; (3) water service is provided through hydrants from Georgetown Divide Public Utilities District and private water sources (tanks, ponds, lakes) throughout the District. Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-48 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination GEO appears to have some capacity (limited) to assist with and/or assume services provided by other fire protection agencies, based on the following factors: (1) overall, the GEO’s level of transparency and organizational accountability is adequate, and its website meets current legal requirements; Evaluation of agency's capacity to assist with and/or assume services ● (2) GEO’s 1-0 staffing model can sometimes leave the community provided by other agencies. vulnerable, though the District does meet NFPA 1720 standards; and (3) GEO provided more aid than it received in 2019 with CAL FIRE aid removed. With CAL FIRE aid added, GEO received aid 45 more times that it provided in 2019. This low difference between aid provided and received for GEO shows a balance of automatic aid and that automatic aid is operating well for GEO. The District meets infrastructure needs for: Although GEO currently meets its infrastructure needs, there is room for improvement as follows: (1) facilities (stations); (1) four of the District's five stations are unstaffed; (2) rolling stock (engines, apparatus, and emergency medical (2) rolling stock [engines, apparatus, and emergency medical response response units; ● units] information was not provided to the MSR consultants; (3) dispatch systems; and (3) dispatch is provided by the Camino Emergency Command Center (4) roadways. operated by CAL FIRE; and (4) roadways for emergency access appear to be sufficient; however an emergency access plan was not provided. In the year 2019, the District’s average response time was 9 minutes and 11 seconds. GEO’s average for 2019 appears to meet response time goals for new discretionary projects in Rural Centers and Rural Regions. Does the District comply with County General Plan policies in Georgetown Fire Protection District meets the NFPA definition of a ● “Combination Fire Department” as outlined in NFPA 1720. According to the relation to response times. Does the District meet the minimum Fire Chief, the District meets staffing standards for NFPA 1720 through the standard for staffing. automatic aid agreements with neighboring agencies. GEO is staffed at 1-0 Model meaning there is one staff person per fire engine. Lower staffing levels leave the community vulnerable to low frequency, high-risk events, such as a working structure fire. Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-49 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination The GEO periodically reviews and updates its service plans to help ensure Has the District has been diligent in developing plans to that infrastructure needs and deficiencies are addressed in a timely accommodate the infrastructure and service needs of current and manner. GEO adopted a Capital Improvement Program in 2014. CAL FIRE ● future constituents? District regularly reviews and updates its service completed a full assessment of GEO’s facilities in 2018. This assessment plans to ensure that infrastructure needs, and deficiencies are describes necessary maintenance and upgrades. Consistent with its CIP and addressed in a timely manner. the CAL FIRE assessment, the District is setting aside reserve funds for future capital projects, as available. The District’s maintenance strategy is to complete work using in-house staff and volunteers to the extent possible as well as appropriate vendors. The District has preventative maintenance measures and has ● CAL FIRE completed a full assessment of GEO’s facilities in 2018. All items planned for replacement of aging infrastructure. included in this report have been remedied. GEO does save money for future maintenance, improvements, and/or upgrades. Rating for the District from the neutral third-party Insurance Services ● GEO received an ISO rating of 5/5x. GEO’s rating is in the middle of this Office (ISO) where the rating scale from best to worse is One (1) to scale. GEO’s last ISO rating was completed in October 2020. Ten (10). CAL FIRE’s Station No. 50 is staffed on a seasonal basis and is located five miles south of the District within the Garden Valley Fire Protection District ◆ Is there duplicate infrastructure by other agencies nearby? boundaries. Although there is some limited overlap between GEO and CAL FIRE services, it is not considered an exact duplication of services because the GEO focuses on structural fire protection services. Financial Accountability The District’s General Fund reported total fund balances of $1,204,618 as of June 30th, 2019. Of this balance, $768,852 is “unassigned”. With FY A minimum of 50% total operating expense is kept on hand in the ▼ 2018/2019 Operating Expenditures at $2.1 million, the District’s General General Reserve Fund. Reserve Fund does not meet the 50 percent minimum reserve to cover operating expenses. ▼ The District does not have an updated strategic plan, but are working with District has an updated Strategic Plan that addresses financial goals. consultants to develop one. ▼ As of June 30, 2019 the Statement of Net Position for the District reported The District had a positive Net Position for FY 2018/2019. in the FY 2018/2019 audited financial statement was negative $2,867,2998. The District has a published policy for reserve funds, including the ▼ The District does not currently have a published policy for reserve funds, size and purpose of reserves and how they are invested. but are working with consultants to develop one. Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-50 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination Georgetown Fire Protection District meets the NFPA definition of a “Combination Fire Department” as outlined in NFPA 1720. According to the District finances are sufficient to apply a staffing model that meets or Fire Chief, the District meets staffing standards for NFPA 1720 through the exceeds the generally accepted minimum national standard of three ● automatic aid agreements with neighboring agencies. GEO is staffed at a staff per engine and truck company (3-0) model (and at NFPA 1720 (1-0) model meaning there is one staff person per fire engine. Lower standards if applicable). staffing levels leave the community vulnerable to low frequency, high-risk events, such as a working structure fire. District Revenues exceed expenditures in FY 2017/2018 and FY ▲ Revenues for FY 2017/2018 exceeded expenses by $508,137; Revenue for 2018/2019. FY 2018/2019 exceeded expenses by $81,638. The independent audit on FY 2017/2018 was performed by Fletcher & Summary financial information presented in a standard format and ◆ Company. The independent audit for FY 2018/2019 was performed by simple language. Robert W. Johnson. This change in accounting firms created discrepancies in the Year over Year analysis presented in the financial analysis. Alternative financing opportunities were explored and pursued by ◆ The District actively applies for and participates in grants. the District. Effect on Agriculture and Open Space Within GEO’s boundary, open space occupies 2,520 acres, and agricultural lands occupy 394 acres. The total open space, agriculture, and natural Effect that the District’s service provision will have on open space ◆ resource areas in both the boundary and SOI calculates to 48,162 acres. and agricultural lands. Fire protection services and emergency medical services generally have minimal effect on these areas. ▲ ● ▼ ◆ Key Score: Above Average (compared to similar Districts), Average, Below Average, Statement of Fact (not rated) Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-51 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-52 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 8.8 References 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/. _____. 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/. _____. 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). November 7, 2007a. Map of Fire Hazard Severity Zones for El Dorado County. Available online at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6670/fhszs_map9.pdf. _____. May 2007b. Fact Sheet: Fire Hazard Severity Zone Model A Non-Technical Primer. 4-pages. Available online at: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/FIreHazardZone_NonTechnical_Prim er.pdf. _____. April 21, 2014. Unit Strategic Fire Plan Amador-El Dorado Unit. 57-pages. Available online at: https://www.edcfiresafe.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2014-Unit-Strategic-Fire-Plan_CAL- FIRE-Amador-El-Dorado-Unit.pdf. _____. Fire and Resource Protection Program (FRAP). December 2019. Map of Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) – Map ID: WUI_19DATA SOURCES: WUI_12_35TY_18. Available online at: https://frap.fire.ca.gov/media/10300/wui_19_ada.pdf. CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center (ECC). 2020. CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center Dispatch Data. Received October 2020. California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). August 2003. Local Agency Formation Commission Municipal Service Review Guidelines Final. 107-pages. County of El Dorado. Land-Use Element of General Plan. As Amended through August 6, 2019. Available online at: https://www.edcgov.us/Government/planning/adoptedgeneralplan/Documents/2_landuse.pdf. _____. Grand Jury. June 8, 2020. West Slope Fire Protection Update. Case 19-06. Available online at: https://edcgov.us/Government/GrandJury/Documents/2019- 2020%20Reports/West%20Slope%20Fire%20Protection%20Update.pdf. _____. Sherriff’s Department Office of Emergency Services. July 2018. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. 256-pages. Available online at: Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-53 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final https://eldorado.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3923674&GUID=C562ECEB-7E9F-446D- AE6B-3AC56E13F465. El Dorado County Emergency Services Authority. 2017. Strategic Plan 2017 – 2022. 21-pages. Available online at: http://edcjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/EDC-JPA-Strategic-Plan-2017- Master.pdf. El Dorado Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). August 2011. Countywide Fire Suppression and Emergency Services Municipal Service Review. 253-pages. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/municipal-service-reviews-and-spheres-of-influence. _____. September 2019. Profile of the Georgetown Fire Protection District. 1-page. Retrieved on September 20, 2020 from: https://www.edlafco.us/files/a48ec66d4/GeorgetownFire_2019.pdf. _____. September 2020a. Response to LAFCO’s Request for Information. 12-pages. 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 . 2-pages. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/. Georgetown Fire Protection District. June 30, 2018. Georgetown Fire Protection District Financial Statements with Independent Auditor’s Report Thereon June 30, 2018 and 2017. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. June 30, 2019a. Georgetown Fire Protection District Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report for the year ended June 30, 2019. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. 2019b. DIST FINAL FY 19-20 Budget. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. 2019c. Press Release. 1-page. Subject: American River Fire Protection District. Retrieved on November 16, 2020 from https://geofire.org/2019/11/24/the-georgetown-fire-protection- district-is-watching-the-american-river-fire-protection-district-process-very-closely-and- announces-future-town-hall-meetings/. _____. 2020. DIST Fiscal Year 20-21 Final Budget. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. 2021. District website. Available online at: https://geofire.org/. Personal communication. September 9, 2020. Interview with Glenn Brown, Fire Chief Georgetown Fire Protection District, Amanda Ross, South Fork Consulting, and Bruce Baracco, Consultant. Fire & Emergency Services MSR/SOI. Transparent California and Nevada Policy Research Institute. 2020. Wage data download for the year 2018. Available online at: https://transparentcalifornia.com/. Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-54 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final U.S. Census Bureau. 2019. American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates Data Profiles as of 2019. TableID: DP05. Queried for the Georgetown Census Designated Place. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=diamond%20springs&tid=ACSDP5Y2019.DP05&hidePr eview=false. Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-55 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Georgetown Fire Protection District Page 8-56 of 8-56 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Chapter 9. Lake Valley Fire Protection District This chapter details the district formation, boundary, government structure, population and land use, disadvantaged communities, finances, and the provision of fire protection facilities and services provided by the Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LAV or District) as well as the MSR determinations for this District. Table of Contents 9.1 Agency Profile ..................................................................................................................9-5 9.1.1 Agency Overview ................................................................................................................................... 9-5 9.2 Agency Formation and Boundary ......................................................................................9-6 9.2.1 Formation .............................................................................................................................................. 9-6 9.2.2 District Boundary................................................................................................................................... 9-6 9.2.3 Existing Sphere of Influence .................................................................................................................. 9-9 9.2.4 Extra-Territorial Services ....................................................................................................................... 9-9 9.3 District Governance and Accountability ............................................................................9-9 9.3.1 Government Structure .......................................................................................................................... 9-9 9.3.2 District Board....................................................................................................................................... 9-10 9.3.3 Accountability ..................................................................................................................................... 9-11 9.3.4 Management Efficiencies and Staffing ............................................................................................... 9-12 9.3.5 Staffing and Training ........................................................................................................................... 9-13 9.4 Growth and Population Forecasts ................................................................................... 9-15 9.4.1 Existing Population .............................................................................................................................. 9-15 9.4.1 Existing Population in SOI ................................................................................................................... 9-17 9.4.2 Projected Population Growth ............................................................................................................. 9-17 9.4.3 Existing Land Use ................................................................................................................................. 9-17 9.4.4 Potential Future Development ........................................................................................................... 9-18 9.4.5 Open Space and Agriculture ............................................................................................................... 9-18 9.4.6 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities.................................................................................... 9-19 Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-1 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 9.5 Public Services and Infrastructure ................................................................................... 9-20 9.5.1 Service Overview ................................................................................................................................. 9-20 9.5.2 Fire and Emergency Response ............................................................................................................ 9-22 9.5.3 Mutual Aid, Automatic Aid, Other Agreements .................................................................................. 9-25 9.5.4 Dispatch ............................................................................................................................................... 9-26 9.5.5 Emergency Access ............................................................................................................................... 9-26 9.5.6 Fire Hazard Zones ................................................................................................................................ 9-26 9.5.7 Infrastructure ...................................................................................................................................... 9-29 9.5.8 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies ................................................................................................ 9-30 9.5.9 Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing ................................................................................................. 9-31 9.6 Financial Ability to Provide Services ................................................................................ 9-32 9.6.1 Financial Policies and Transparency ................................................................................................... 9-32 9.6.2 District Revenues and Expenditures ................................................................................................... 9-33 9.6.3 District Assets and Liabilities ............................................................................................................... 9-36 9.6.4 Net Position ......................................................................................................................................... 9-37 9.6.5 Asset Maintenance and Replacement ................................................................................................ 9-38 9.6.6 Cost Avoidance .................................................................................................................................... 9-38 9.6.7 Financial Summary and Ability to Provide Services ............................................................................ 9-39 9.7 Determinations .............................................................................................................. 9-40 9.8 References ..................................................................................................................... 9-49 Table of Tables Table 9-1: Geographic Summary (2020) of Fire Protection Services for LAV ............................................ 9-6 Table 9-2: Lake Valley Fire Protection District Board of Directors .......................................................... 9-10 Table 9-3: Current Staffing Levels for the LAV by Type and Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) ......................... 9-13 Table 9-4: LAV Existing Population (2020) ............................................................................................... 9-16 Table 9-5: Total Estimated and Projected Population (2020 – 2040) ..................................................... 9-17 Table 9-6: Acreage Designated as Open Space, Agriculture, and Natural Resources ............................. 9-19 Table 9-7: MHI in Census Block Groups for Lake Valley Fire Protection District ..................................... 9-19 Table 9-8: Services Providers ................................................................................................................... 9-20 Table 9-9: LAV Fire Hazard Severity Zone Acreage and Percentage ....................................................... 9-27 Table 9-10: LAV Responsibility Area Acreage and Percentage ................................................................ 9-27 Table 9-11: LAV Fire Stations Detail......................................................................................................... 9-29 Table 9-12: Apparatus and Light Vehicles, 2020 ..................................................................................... 9-29 Table 9-13: LAV Property Assessment Detailed Information .................................................................. 9-33 Table 9-14: Summary of MSR Determinations for the LAV ..................................................................... 9-40 Table of Figures Figure 9-1: Lake Valley Fire Protection District Service Area and SOI ....................................................... 9-7 Figure 9-2: Overlap Areas for Service within the SLT City Limits and LAV Boundary ................................ 9-8 Figure 9-3: LAV Staff Base Pay, Overtime, Other Pay, and Benefits, 2018 .............................................. 9-14 Figure 9-4: Peak Population in LAV Boundary ......................................................................................... 9-16 Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-2 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 9-5: 2007 Angora Fire Boundary ................................................................................................... 9-21 Figure 9-6: LAV Medic 7 Calls for Service by Type, 2019 ......................................................................... 9-23 Figure 9-7: Calls for Service from 2010-2019 .......................................................................................... 9-23 Figure 9-8: LAV Calls for Service by Type, 2019 ....................................................................................... 9-24 Figure 9-9: Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Responsibility Areas for LAV ............................................... 9-28 Figure 9-10: LAV Total Revenues and Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 Through FY 2020/2021 ............. 9-34 Figure 9-11: LAV Net Revenues Over/Under Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 .. 9-35 Figure 9-12: District Assets as of June 30, 2019 ...................................................................................... 9-36 Figure 9-13: District Liabilities and Debt as of June 30, 2019.................................................................. 9-37 Figure 9-14: District Net Position as of June 30, 2019 ............................................................................. 9-37 Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-3 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-4 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 9.1 Agency Profile 9.1.1 Agency Overview As a Fire Protection District, the Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LAV or District) is empowered to provide public services to the local community, specifically fire suppression and emergency medical services. The District is in the eastern portion of the County of El Dorado, in the South Lake Tahoe area. LAV is located south of Emerald Bay and south of the City of So. Lake Tahoe, approximately two miles east of Twin Bridges. Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-5 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 9.2 Agency Formation and Boundary 9.2.1 Formation The Lake Valley Fire Protection District was organized in 1947. The District operates consistent with its Principal Legislation, the California Health and Safety Code. LAV is a multi-jurisdictional agency serving portions of both the County of El Dorado and the County of Alpine. LAV was formed for the purpose of providing structural fire protection and emergency medical services. 9.2.2 District Boundary The Lake Valley Fire Protection District geographic boundary encompasses approximately 47,191.2 acres or 74 square miles as seen in Figure 9-1 (next page). The District includes 13,367 assessor parcels (EDC GIS, 2020) with 177.8 acres located in Alpine County and the remaining 47,013.4 acres located within the County of El Dorado. LAV is adjacent to neighboring fire service providing agencies including the City of South Lake Tahoe to the east and north and Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District to the west. The southwestern edge of LAV’s boundary borders the eastern edge of El Dorado County Fire Protection District. In May 1993, LAV annexed 177.8 acres in Alpine County along State Highway 89. LAV also responds south on State Highway 89 to Picketts Junction, and east on Highway 88, as requested, to the Woodfords intersection (LAFCO, 2011). 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, Twin Bridges, and Spring Creek (near Cascade Lake). There have been no annexations to LAV since the last MSR/SOI Update. A breakdown in boundary area and sphere of influence (SOI) can be seen in Table 9-1 below. Table 9-1: Geographic Summary (2020) of Fire Protection Services for LAV Boundary Area SOI Total Boundary and SOI Total Acres 47,191.20 0.00 47,191.20 Square Miles 73.74 0.00 73.74 Number of Assessor Parcels 13,367 0 13,367 Source: El Dorado County GIS Data, 2020 LAFCO’s 2011 MSR found the following boundary issues: “The City of South Lake Tahoe is surrounded by LAV. In 2004 the City completed a preliminary study of possible consolidation or reorganization with the District. The study identifies several challenging issues which may make reorganization infeasible. Subsequent to the report, the City and district discussed the possibility of combining services. To date no action has been taken by either agency to initiate a change of organization. There may also be interest on the part of Fallen Leaf Lake CSD to combine its fire services with LAV. LAV’s first response area does not match its boundary. City fire crews are the first responder to the Heavenly Valley territory. El Dorado County FPD is first responder to Strawberry. Meeks Bay responds to calls in some areas within LAV’s boundaries during winter road closure conditions. As noted above, LAV is the first responder to some areas in Alpine County“ (LAFCO, 2011). Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-6 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 9-1: Lake Valley Fire Protection District Service Area and SOI Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-7 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final In reviewing these statements from the 2011 MSR, LAV staff find that the challenges identified in the 2004 study remain valid and find the combining services between the City and the District to be infeasible due to the City government structure and District structure. Both the City and the District provide mutual aid to each other to ensure the most appropriate response for citizens of both jurisdictions. As far as LAV is aware, the possibility of combining with FLL is also infeasible at this time due to wide disparities in financial resources. In addition, Lake Valley Fire Protection District is the first responder to Heavenly Valley territory and all other areas within its jurisdiction (LAV Administrative Manager, personal communication, June 14, 2021). Please note that LAFCO’s 2016 City of South Lake Tahoe MSR/SOI Update and the City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan Background Report indicate that the Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LAV) serves areas within the City boundary as well as the area within the City’s SOI. There appears to be some overlap between four areas within the City Limits and LAV District boundary as shown in Figure 9-2 below. Figure 9-2: Overlap Areas for Service within the SLT City Limits and LAV Boundary Consultants reviewed tax records for some properties in all four areas through the County of El Dorado Treasure-Tax Collector. Properties reviewed within these areas do not appear pay taxes to Lake Valley Fire Protection District (El Dorado County, 2021). Future discussions between the agencies are encouraged to determine the appropriate service provider to these areas. Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-8 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 9.2.3 Existing Sphere of Influence This section briefly describes the existing Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the Lake Valley Fire Protection District. El Dorado LAFCO most recently reviewed and affirmed the District’s SOI through Resolution L- 2011-09 Adopted on August 24, 2011. LAV’s SOI is coterminous with its boundary and encompasses 47,191 acres with 177.8 of these acres are located in Alpine County. 9.2.4 Extra-Territorial Services LAV does provide extra-territorial fire protection and emergency service to customers outside its boundaries including: • Eastern Alpine County; • Desolation Wilderness; • Strawberry; and • El Dorado County to Wright’s Lake (Data source: LAFCO, 2020a) District staff noted the area around Strawberry where services could be extended based on frequent responses (LAFCO, 2020a). 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. Additionally, the LAV has mutual and automatic aid agreements with other agencies as described in Section 9.5.3. The mutual aid and automatic aid services provided outside the boundary are not considered to be Out-of-Agency Services. 9.3 District Governance and Accountability This section describes how performance, accountability, transparency, and public engagement relate to the public’s trust in local government. LAFCO is required by the CKH Act to make specific determinations regarding a municipality’s government structure and accountability. 9.3.1 Government Structure The Lake Valley Fire Protection District is a local government agency structured as a Fire Protection District consistent with its Principal Act, the CA Health and Safety Code. The District has five elected Board Members who reside within the community. All registered voters (approximately 4,793 registered voters), who reside within the District boundaries are eligible to vote for and/or run for a seat on the District Board of Directors. The District Board appoints the Fire Chief who also serves as the General Manager. The District is organized into the following seven divisions: Administrative, Operations, Fire Prevention, Training, Support Services, Emergency Medical, and Fuels (LAV, 2021). Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-9 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 9.3.2 District Board The District operates under the direction of the elected District Board. Each Board Member serves for a term of four years with two Board Member seats running two years apart from the remaining three seats. Voter participation in elections is ongoing, and the County of El Dorado Elections Office managed the 2020 election process for LAV Board Members. Four candidates ran in 2020 for three seats. A new Board President is selected by the Board Members each year. The Board President assigns Directors to the District’s committees. The District’s active committees include the finance, building and grounds, the JPA, and commendations. The current Board of Directors members, their committee appointments and the expiration dates of their terms are shown in Table 9-2 below. Table 9-2: Lake Valley Fire Protection District Board of Directors Name Title Term End Committee Appointments Gary Moore Director Dec. 2022 Finance Leona Allen Director Dec. 2024 JPA Brian Hogan Director Dec. 2022 Finance John Rice Director Dec. 2024 JPA and Commendations Committee Ronald Sitton Director Dec. 2024 Buildings and Grounds Source: El Dorado County Elections Office, 2021 The District holds regular public meetings on the 2nd Thursday of every month at 4:00pm at the main fire station located at 2211 Keetak Street, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. The JPA Committee meets with the JPA Board quarterly on the first Monday of each quarter. The other committees meet as needed (Administrative Manager, personal communication, June 14, 2021). Board members may choose to receive a stipend/payment for attendance at meetings. In 2018, only four of the five Board Members received payments. For these four Board Members, the average annual payment made in 2018 was $1,100 (Transparent CA, 2018). Health benefits available to Board members are limited to only annual physicals. No retirement benefits or mileage reimbursements are offered to Board members (LAFCO, 2019). LAV has indicated that they do not have any difficulty in attracting candidates to run for the Board of Directors. Typically, Board Members run unopposed (LAFCO, 2019). In California, elected members of special district boards are required to comply with three laws regarding accountability and ethics including 1) the Political Reform Act; 2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005), which requires ethics training; and 3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. which mandates sexual harassment prevention training. A description of each of these three state laws is provided in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire and Emergency Medical Agency MSR General Information. Political Reform Act Each district is required to have ethics and conflict of interest code/policies. LAV has an adopted conflict of interest code which was updated on July 12, 2018. It is recommended that LAV post its conflict-of- Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-10 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final interest code on its website. This law also requires special district board members to disclose all personal economic interests by filing a “Statement of Economic Interests” with their District consistent with requirements of the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). Information available from the FPPC indicates that Board members are complying with the Political Reform Act. The state database does list one complaint, No. COM-06152020-01065, related to Ronald Sitton in 2020 that has since been resolved. Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005) Local government officials are required to take ethics training every two years. Compliance with this law was assessed for each of the fourteen fire agencies studied in this MSR by asking the Clerk of the Board for the dates and other documentation of training events. LAV's Fire Chief provided documentation of the most recent training events for all Board members to consultants upon request. Training is conducted on a regular basis and occurs when Board members are elected. Therefore, the District’s Board is in compliance with AB 1234. Government Code 53237 et. seq. Special district board members must receive required sexual harassment prevention, two-hour training, every two years. LAV’s reports that training has been conducted on a regular basis when Board members are elected and every two years after (Administrative Manager, personal communication, June 2021). Therefore, the District’s Board is in compliance with Gov. Code 53237 et. seq. 9.3.3 Accountability Brown Act The Brown Act is described in Volume II - Chapter 1. All meetings of the District Board and committees are open to the public in accordance with the Brown Act. The agenda for each meeting includes a public comment period and agendas are made available 72 hours before meetings. Any written document that relates to an agenda item is available for public inspection at the same time the writing is distributed to the members of the Board of Directors. Written documents are made available at the District Office. Agendas are also distributed via email upon request. The State Legislature updated the Brown Act in 2016 as codified in Government Code §54954.2 (see also Assembly Bill 2257). These new Brown Act requirements are detailed in Volume II - Chapter 1. LAV makes its agenda available on its “About Us” page of its website at: https://lakevalleyfire.org/about-us/board- of-directors/meeting-agendas. The District website agenda distribution does not comply with the requirements of the Brown Act 2016 Updates described in AB 2257. The following changes to the LAV website are necessary in order to comply: • A link to the webpage containing the agenda information should be directly provided on the homepage, this link may not be hidden in a contextual menu (LAV, 2021). Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20 suspended parts of the Brown Act that require in-person attendance of Board members and citizens at public meetings as described in Volume II - Chapter 1 In response to these events, the District implemented Teleconference/Electronic Meeting Protocols effective April 2020 which allow for public participation through video conferencing and by telephone. All LAV Board meetings are streamed live via Zoom, a video conferencing platform, that is accessible by the Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-11 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final public for free. There is no listed protocol for facilitating Public comments in advance of the Zoom meeting. However, accommodations, if needed, can be discussed with the Administrative Manager by calling (530) 577-3737 at least 24 hours in Advance of the meeting. Special District Transparency Act (SB 929) The Special District Transparency Act (SB 929 or California Government Code, §6270.6 and 53087.8) requires that special districts have a functional website, and the requirements of this Act are described in Volume II - Chapter 1 The District's website is kept updated and is easily navigable with current and past agendas and minutes available for download. The website also contains contact information, meeting minutes, budgets, other relevant public information, and a link to the State of California Government Compensation Portal. The terms of office are disclosed for District Board members online. However, the LAV website does not list either the next election date or committee appointments for Board members. Although the Lake Valley Fire Protection District generally complies with the requirements of the Special District Transparency Act, there remains room for improvement. General Accountability The LAV demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with El Dorado LAFCO. The District cooperated with LAFCO’s requests for information and participated in an interview with the MSR consultants. There are several laws, regulations, and guidelines which prescribe safety features associated with fire protection services, including state laws and regulations exercised through the District's cooperative agreement with CAL FIRE, the Safety Element of the County of El Dorado's General Plan, and other County requirements and regulations. LAV, along with all the fire protection districts in El Dorado County, has recently been the subject of a grand jury report (ECD, 2020a). The Grand Jury posits in Case No. 19-06 that, while it made sense historically, the only reason there are multiple fire agencies in El Dorado County is because of "strong loyalty to a local home district”… “coming at the expense of the County as a whole." The Grand Jury concludes that the insufficient revenues afforded to rural districts puts a strain on the mutual and automatic aid system as a whole, forcing more financially stable districts to "subsidize" the rural ones by having the former respond to calls when the latter is unable to do so. The issues raised in the Grand Jury report remain valid (LAFCO, 2020b). Changes to the governmental structure of some fire protection districts are needed to address these issues. 9.3.4 Management Efficiencies and Staffing The Fire Chief is appointed by and reports to the Board of Directors and is responsible for directing District operations and overseeing and implementing policies on behalf of the Board. An important part of management effectiveness includes the District adopting a District-wide mission and vision statement. The LAV Mission statement is: Lake Valley Fire Protection District is committed to providing the highest level of public safety services for our community, its people, and environment. ‘Because We Care’ (LAV, 2021). Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-12 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final An excerpt of the District’s Vision Statement is provided here: We, the members of the Lake Valley Fire Protection District, envision an organization that completely values doing the right thing for our customers, community, district, and personnel. Through enhanced inter-agency relations strategies and continuous drive for excellence, we will deliver quality services and promote safety in the district. Because we care, our positive attitude will prove our unified commitment to meet the expectations of our community, while holding one another accountable for carrying out our mission, living our values, accomplishing our goals, and ensuring that this vision becomes reality (LAV, 2021). 9.3.5 Staffing and Training The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) calls for a standard of four staff per engine (4-0) model (NFPA, 2020). A three staff per engine (3-0) model is acceptable as the minimum standard for this MSR/SOI Update. More information on staffing levels can be found in Volume II - Chapter 1 LAV is staffed at two staff per engine (a 2-0 model), and this staffing level does not meet the NFPA standards. Lower staffing levels leave the community vulnerable to low frequency, high risk events, such as a working structure fire. District staff have indicated that apprentice firefighters, when not filling a vacancy, can provide a third staff member during a shift. In addition, the medic unit for the District is staffed with two firefighter paramedics, allowing for the potential for four personnel to incidents that require ambulance response in which the District medic unit also responds (Administrative Manager, personal communication, June 2021). This type of cross-staffing is not available when other JPA ambulances respond as those staff are not certified firefighters. The positions that manage the fire and emergency services provided by the District are listed in Table 9-3, below. The number of full-time equivalent (FTE) positions at the beginning of the fiscal year is also listed. Table 9-3: Current Staffing Levels for the LAV by Type and Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Position FTE Count as of July 1, 2020 Compared to 2018 Fire Chief 1 1 Battalion Chief 2 4 Administrative Manager 1 1 Apprentice 3 3 Captain 6 7 Engineer 7 0 Firefighter/Paramedic 6 7 Mechanic 1 1 Office Manager/ Prevention 1 2 Fire Marshall/Battalion Chief 1 0 Paid Firefighter 0 5 Total 29 31 Source: LAFCO, 2020a LAV staff indicates that the number of firefighters is adequate to provide services (LAV RFI, 2020a). LAV staff has provided other staffing details as follows: Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-13 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • Firefighters are all paid. There are no volunteer firefighters ; • Firefighters are all fulltime; • Firefighters are all paid hourly; • Firefighters are all State Certified; and • All firefighters have participated on strike teams during the past year. (Source: LAFCO, 2019a) The California Tahoe Emergency Services Operations Authority (Cal Tahoe JPA) funds a number of salaries for LAV firefighters including: six (6) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) employees and one (1) contract Apprentice. If the JPA funding were to end in the future, LAV would not be able to absorb those salary costs with its current revenues. In order for the District to be able to fund those positions (if the Cal Tahoe JPA funding were to end at some point in the future) an alternative funding source would be needed (LAFCO, 2019). More information about the Cal Tahoe JPA can be found in Volume II – Chapter 15, County Service Area (CSA) 3 and CSA 7 MSR. Wage information for LAV staff can be seen in Figure 9-3 below. Figure 9-3: LAV Staff Base Pay, Overtime, Other Pay, and Benefits, 2018 $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 Individual Employees Base Pay Overtime Pay Other Pay Benefits Staff are paid a regular wage, which includes base pay, overtime, and other pay. Staff also receive medical insurance and other benefits. Data on payments to staff for the year 2018 shows that four employees received pay and benefits that exceeded $200,00, fifteen staff payments and benefits exceeded $150,000 annually but were less than $200,000. Twelve staff received pay and benefits that were less than $150,000 in 2018. LAV currently has an MOU with the employee union/association for the 19 paid professional firefighters. The 19th position is a floater and always staffed. Of these paid firefighter positions, two (2) are staffed to the ambulance. LAV staff includes three battalion chiefs who each run a shift, A, B and C. To save money, one of these battalion chiefs might be replaced with a Captain (Chief Zlendick, personal communication, September 2020). LAV’s volunteer fire fighter program was cancelled due to the economic downturn and because the State of California minimum training requirements for volunteers was difficult to maintain. However, local citizens have expressed an interest in volunteering, so the volunteer program might re- start in a few years (Chief Zlendick, personal communication, September 2020; June 2021). Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-14 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Staffing for the LAV are augmented by its participation in a boundary drop, mutual aid system that automatically deploys the closest available resource to respond to requests for aid from other fire agencies in the County of El Dorado (LAFCO, 2020a). The LAV receives advantages from participating in this network of collaborating fire districts which increases response times and resource deployment. LAV does not meet the minimum 3-0 staffing model, which allows for companies to immediately begin fire suppression tactics without waiting for additional resources to arrive to the call. However, District staff have indicated that with the addition of the paramedic firefighters on the medic unit, as well as the ability for apprentice firefighters to add an additional staff member during some shifts, it is likely that more than two personnel will be on the scene of incidents (Administrative Manager, personal communication, June 2021). Training Working in the unique Tahoe topography requires specialized knowledge, expertise and training. The Lake Valley Fire Protection District covers a wide range of response zones including: residential, commercial, backcountry rescues, water rescues, high speed highways including vehicle extrications, high and low angle rope rescues, helicopter assisted rescues including hoist systems, and emergency medical services. Additionally, the area receives large amounts of winter snow, resulting in areas geographically separated by mountain passes and subject to snow closures (LAFCO, 2019). These factors increase the need for self- sufficiency and adequately trained staff. District staff indicate that personnel train regularly (LAFCO, 2020a). All LAV firefighters meet the California State requirements for professional firefighters for 350-500 hours per year for structural, rescue, and EMS. Additionally, firefighters employed by LAV complete their National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) and agency task books to meet the certifications required for each Incident Command System (ICS) position (Administrative Manager, personal communication, June 14, 2021). LAV has an active apprentice program which provides on the job training and experience for entry level firefighters. LAV also assists with the fire prevention training program at the Lake Tahoe Community College academy (Chief Zlendick, personal communication, September 2020). Complaints During the years 2018 and 2019, the District received no complaints for service (LAFCO, 2020a). 9.4 Growth and Population Forecasts The growth and population projection for the affected area is a determination which LAFCO is required to describe, consistent with the MSR Guidelines from the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) as set forth in the CKH Act. This section provides information on the existing population and future growth projections for the LAV. Historical and anticipated population growth is a factor which affects service demand. 9.4.1 Existing Population The permanent population of a district in the Lake Tahoe Region is a small fraction of the total population that a district serves due to the high number of vacation homes, campgrounds, inns (temporary overnight Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-15 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final visitors) and daytime visitors. The Lake Tahoe Region experiences a significant seasonal influx of visitors seeking recreational opportunities. 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 visits the region. (Placer LAFCO, 2018). Within LAV's boundaries there are approximately 22,315 permanent residents as of 2020, as shown in Table 9-4 below. Detailed information regarding population demographics and socio-economic indicators in El Dorado County is provided in Volume I - Appendix A and Appendix B. Table 9-4: LAV Existing Population (2020) Number of Permanent Overnight Visitor Daytime Visitor Registered Population Population Population Voters (Estimated) (Estimated) Lake Valley Fire 4,793 * 22,3231 22,325 +100,000+ Protection District 3 Notes: For purposes of this calculation, it is assumed that 50 percent of the homes within LAV's boundaries are owner-occupied on a year-round basis. There are 13,367 parcels in LAV's boundaries, with an average of 1.67 persons per parcel (GIS data, 2020). Sources: * LAFCO’s number of voters for LAV online at: https://www.edlafco.us + LAFCO, 2011 1 California Department of Finance. May 2020. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark. Sacramento, California. Special events, such as marathons and bike races can bring 100,000 daytime visitors to the Lake Valley Fire Protection District area. During the busy season, peak population is estimated at approximately 144,650 persons as shown in Figure 9-4 below. Figure 9-4: Peak Population in LAV Boundary 15% Permanent 16% Overnight Daytime 69% Peak snow conditions for skiing and other winter sports can also bring 100,000 daytime visitors to the District area (LAFCO, 2020a). It should be noted that census tracts do not directly correspond with District Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-16 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final boundaries; however, the data presented in Table 9-4, above, provides a close approximation to the existing population for the District. 9.4.1 Existing Population in SOI The population in LAV’s SOI is equivalent to the population within its boundaries, since the SOI and boundary areas are the same (El Dorado County GIS Data, 2020). 9.4.2 Projected Population Growth Projecting future population for a District is complicated due to census tracts that do not match with District boundaries. For purposes of this MSR, data from the California Department of Finance (DOF) was used to project population growth as shown in Table 9-5 below. The DOF provides population projections at the County level and the growth rate for the County of El Dorado is utilized to extrapolate population growth rates for the Lake Valley Fire Protection District. By the year 2040, it is estimated that LAV’s existing boundary will encompass a permanent population of 24,627 persons. This represents an average annual growth rate of 0.38 percent between the years of 2020 and 2040. Table 9-5: Total Estimated and Projected Population (2020 – 2040) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 County of El Dorado 193,098 201,041 207,496 211,537 213,033 Lake Valley Fire Protection District 2 22,323 23,241 23,987 24,455 24,627 Source: 1 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. 2 Permanent population projection for LAV calculated as a percentage of the County of El Dorado. The addition of 2,304 more permanent residents to the LAV by 2040 is possible as the District has areas within its existing boundaries that could potentially be available for infill residential development; subject to TRPA and other land-use regulations as described in Section 9.4.4 in the following paragraphs. 9.4.3 Existing Land Use Land-use is a factor that affects population growth and therefore demand for public services. However, the LAV is not a land use authority. The primary geographic feature within the District is Lake Tahoe and the surrounding Sierra mountains. Elevations within the District range from 6,225 ft. at Lake Tahoe to 9,735 feet at Mt. Tallac. The area is cut by several steep drainages, including the Upper Truckee River. The District serves multiple distinct communities including the Emerald Bay/Cascade Lake area, Echo Summit, Christmas Valley, Meyers, Phillips, Sawmill and Pioneer, North Upper Truckee, Heavenly Valley, Twin Bridges, and Spring Creek (near Cascade Lake). Major land uses 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 Myers. For example, the commercial development along the Highway 50 Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-17 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final corridor includes Holiday Supermarket, Meek’s Hardware, several café’s, and a golf course. The Tahoe Conservancy, along with federal or state agencies maintain permanent open space within the boundaries. On average, approximately 65 residential permits are issued within LAV each year (LAFCO, 2011). Subdivisions are prohibited according to the LAV Annual Report on Fire District Development Improvement Fees (March 2004). 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 (LAFCO, 2020a). There are no other new projects currently proposed that the District is aware of within the District boundaries or SOI (LAFCO, 2020a). County General Plan The District's boundary area is entirely unincorporated and subject to the land-use policies and regulations of El Dorado County. Most land-use decisions, initiated by private property owners over the last decade, are secured via entitlements and land-use permits from El Dorado County and other agencies. The County plans for its future growth through its General Plan, a long-term comprehensive framework to guide physical, social, and economic development within the community’s planning area. The County of El Dorado’s General Plan was adopted in July 2004. Individual elements have since been updated on an individual basis. The 2013-2021 Housing Element was adopted in October 2013, with the most recent update occurring to the Land Use Element in August 2019. The County of El Dorado General Plan serves as the County’s vision for long-term land use development and conservation (County of El Dorado, 2019). Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) As described in Volume I – Chapter 3, Introduction, the Lake Tahoe area is under the jurisdiction of several agencies, including the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and the County of El Dorado, as well as various State agencies due to the fact that the lake straddles California and Nevada. 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. In December 2012, the TRPA Governing Board adopted the Lake Tahoe Regional Plan Update. The Regional Plan Update leaves many of the policies of the 1987 Regional Plan in place while providing more autonomy to local governments through adoption of Area Plans. The Regional Plan Update initiated a Region-wide transition to a planning and permitting system where all requirements—TRPA, local, state, and federal—are addressed in coordinated Area Plans. 9.4.4 Potential Future Development There are no new projects currently proposed that the District is aware of within the District boundaries or SOI (LAFCO, 2020a). 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 TRPA. 9.4.5 Open Space and Agriculture El Dorado LAFCO’s policies require that an MSR/SOI offer a determination about the effect that a district’s service provision will have on open space and agricultural lands. For purposes of this MSR analysis, open Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-18 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final space data was derived from the County General Plan land-use data. 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 7,438.94 acres within the District as shown in Table 9-6, below. 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. Local geological features include granitic rock with glacial deposits. Table 9-6: Acreage Designated as Open Space, Agriculture, and Natural Resources Boundary Only (in acres) SOI Only (by itself) (in acres) Open space Agriculture Natural Resources Open space Agriculture Natural Resources 6 0 7,439 N/A N/A N/A Source: EDC GIS, 2019 LAV’s effect on open space lands is minimal. The District’s provision of fire protection services to open space areas (i.e., non-structural) within its boundaries occurs occasionally, but is the primary responsibility of CAL FIRE and/or the U.S. Forest Service. LAFCO has an interest in documenting the conversion of agricultural and open space lands to other land use types, such as residential use. The LAV fire protection services do not play a role in these types of land-use conversions. 9.4.6 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities As described in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information, a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) is an unincorporated area of a County in which the annual median household income (MHI) is less than 80 percent of the statewide MHI. Within the boundaries of LAV are located portions three Census Block Groups that meets the DUC threshold and is therefore classified as disadvantaged unincorporated communities as listed in Table 9-7 below. In addition, there are three other Census Block Groups (Census Tract 032000, Block Group 2; Census Tract 032000, Block Group 3; and Census Tract 030603, Block Group 4) within the LAV boundaries that may qualify as a DUC. However, no information is available for median household income for these areas (DWR, 2018). Therefore, it is not known whether there are additional disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the District boundary apart from those listed below. Table 9-7: MHI in Census Block Groups for Lake Valley Fire Protection District Identification Census Block Group Number of Median Household Population Number Number Number Households Income (2018) 304022 030402 2 1,186 484 $38,125 302002 030200 2 1,005 448 $55,417 316001 031600 1 777 322 $41,726 Source: US Census, 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-19 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final A rural area may be considered to be a disadvantaged unincorporated community (DUC) if inadequate services are provided for domestic water supply, sewage disposal, and structural fire protection. These census tracts currently receive these three essential municipal services. Due to these areas receiving the essential municipal services of water, wastewater, and structural fire protection, there are no communities within the existing LAV boundary that lack public services, and no health or safety issues have been identified. 9.5 Public Services and Infrastructure 9.5.1 Service Overview The Lake Valley Fire Protection District provides a range of services, as listed in Table 9-8, including fire suppression, technical rescue, advanced life support, ambulance transport, public education, and back country rescue to residents. The LAV is an established Fire Protection District and it is the primary service provider for these public services within the District boundaries. Table 9-8: Services Providers Service Provider Structural Fire Protection LAV Wildland Fire Protection LAV, CAL FIRE, and USFS Emergency Medical Response LAV and Cal Tahoe JPA Rescue/Extrication LAV Hazardous Materials LAV Water Supply LAV and the STPUD Dispatch SLT Dispatch Training LAV Fire Safety Education LAV and Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team (TFFT) Arson Investigations LAV Source: LAFCO, 2020a Structural Fire Protection The suppression of fires in local structures is the primary focus of LAV’s work. Post fire investigation and research indicates that most home ignitions during wildfires are caused by flying embers. Individual homeowners can protect their property from the financial risk associated with structural fire by purchasing homeowner’s insurance with fire coverage. Purchasing this homeowner’s insurance has gotten more difficult in recent years. For example, in the County of El Dorado, during the year 2016, over 1,000 homeowners lost access to their homeowner’s insurance policy due to non-renewal by the insurance company (California Department of Insurance, 2018). Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-20 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Fire Fuels Management The Tahoe Basin has an active fuels management program and since 2007, over 50,000 acres have been subject to fuels reduction treatments. The Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team1 The Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team was formed in 2008 and includes 22 agencies around the Lake Tahoe Basin including local, state, federal and special districts. This Team implements the 2014 Lake Tahoe Basin Multi-Jurisdictional Fuel Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Strategy, the 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 (Eric Horntvedt, email communication, February 2021). LAV is a member of the TFFT. Fire History The Angora Fire was a wind-driven event which started on June 24, 2007 as an abandoned campfire near North Upper Truckee. Figure 9-5 below shows the approximate location of the fire. Figure 9-5: 2007 Angora Fire Boundary Data source: http://www.ic.arc.losrios.edu/ Within three hours, the fire had spread over four miles and burned more than 250 structures. Eventually the fire grew to cover 3,100 acres with most of the fire within LAV’s boundary. In total, 254 homes were burned. This fire was the largest, most devastating wildfire in the history of the Lake Tahoe Basin and prompted the creation of the California-Nevada Tahoe Basin Fire Commission which provided findings and recommendations to address the short and long-term needs related to Lake Tahoe’s vulnerability to wildfire (California Resources Agency, 2008). 1 More information about the Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team can be found at: https://fireadaptednetwork.org/member/tahoe-fire- and-fuels-team/. Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-21 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 9.5.2 Fire and Emergency Response The District maintains automatic aid agreements with all West Slope fire service agencies for fire suppression and emergency management services. Under this system, the District responds to close proximity calls within adjacent fire jurisdictions, as well as receives assistance from neighboring agencies when requested. This type of agreement ensures the best possible emergency service is delivered by the most efficient means possible. The District also participates in a mutual aid system within the Lake Tahoe Basin and other systems that responds to requests for aid from throughout the County and State. Because of these agreements, all firefighters within each fire agency in the County must be prepared for any type of emergency in any setting at all times. Every fire agency within the United States is rated by an independent risk assessment and standards authority for the purposes of establishing insurance policy premiums for homeowners and businesses. California uses an independent national company called the Insurance Services Office, or ISO, for this purpose. The Insurance Services Office evaluates four broad categories of fire suppression when establishing a Public Protection Classification (PPC). These categories include: 1) Fire Department; 2) Emergency Communications; 3) Water Supply; and 4) Community Risk Reduction. ISO routinely conducts assessments of each fire agency in the United States. The rating scale from best to worse is One (1) — Ten (10). There is a possible score of 105.5 points from the total of the four categories listed above. An agency needs a score of 90-105.5 to receive a PPC of Class 1. The Lake Valley Fire Protection District received an ISO rating of “2Y Rural” (LAFCO, 2020a). Emergency Medical Services Lake Valley Fire Protection District operates one (1) full-time paramedic ambulance as one of the sub- contracting fire agencies to the Cal Tahoe Emergency Services Operations Authority (Cal Tahoe JPA), providing basic and advanced life support services to the community 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. LAV’s paramedic firefighters provide extensive pre-hospital care, including the administration of drugs orally and intravenously, interpretation of electrocardiograms (EKGs), performance of endotracheal intubations, and the use of monitors and other complex equipment. The Agreement with the JPA was most recently reviewed during the LAV Board meeting in August 2019 (Administrative Manager, personal communication, June 2021). More information on the JPA can be found in Volume II – Chapter 15, County Service Area (CSA) 3 and CSA 7 MSR. The LAV ambulance is located at Station No. 7 and is numbered Medic 7 (M7). Medic 7 was the third busiest ambulance in the Cal Tahoe JPA in 2019 with 998 responses to incidents (SLT Dispatch, 2020). A breakdown of incident response types can be seen in Figure 9-6 below. LAV also operates a reserve ambulance, Medic 6 (M6). Medic 6 responded to three calls for service in 2019, one medical call and two assistance calls. Of the 998 calls for Medic 7, the greatest number of incidents was medical at 477 calls, followed by medical transfer at 163 calls, and fire at 130 calls. Medical calls include any medical aid not involving a traffic collision. This call type also includes any responses to ski resorts and any transfers that may result from those responses (SLT Dispatch, 2020). Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-22 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 9-6: LAV Medic 7 Calls for Service by Type, 2019 4% 11% 13% Assistance Fire 16% 8% Mutual Aid Medical Transfer Other 48% For medical transfer calls for service, the ambulance transfers patients from local area hospitals to other hospitals in the County or regionally. Other includes hazard calls, rescues, traffic collisions, aircraft down, bomb threat, strike team, law enforcement calls, miscellaneous, and informational calls such as controlled burns. Medic 7 for LAV responded to 85 mutual aid calls from neighboring agencies outside of the County of El Dorado such as Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District in Douglas County, Nevada, or Alpine County, California (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Additional information regarding emergency medical services can be found in Volume II - Chapter 15, County Service Area (CSA) 3 and CSA 7 MSR. Calls for Service According to South Lake Tahoe Dispatch, the District responded to 764 unique incidents in 2019. Those incidents translated to 1,001 calls for service by agency resource in 2019, excluding ambulances. A breakdown in calls for service from 2010 to 2019 can be seen in Figure 9-7 below (SLT Dispatch, 2020). Figure 9-7: Calls for Service from 2010-2019 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-23 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final A call for service refers to any apparatus or vehicle for the agency which responded to a unique incident, and each apparatus or vehicle is counted as one “call for service.” The number of calls in 2019 represents an 22 percent increase from 2018. From 2010 to 2019, calls for service have continued to trend slightly upward with large increases in calls in 2014 to a peak in 2017. There were 1,178 calls for service in 2017, representing the highest number of calls since 2010. There was a decline in calls by approximately 392 less calls in 2018 than 2017 (SLT Dispatch, 2020). According to South Lake Tahoe Dispatch data, the majority of the calls in 2019 were for medical at 360 incidents (47 percent) followed by fire at 189 incidents (25 percent) (SLT Dispatch, 2020). A break down in incidents by type for 2019 can be seen in Figure 9-8 below. Figure 9-8: LAV Calls for Service by Type, 2019 3% 11% Medical Fire 10% 47% Other 4% Traffic Collision Assistance 25% Mutual Aid The “Other” service type includes aircraft down, bomb threat, rescues, water flow alarm, strike team, hazards, law enforcement calls, miscellaneous, medical transfer, and informational calls such as controlled burns. The “Assistance” service type includes citizen assists such as assisting with an animal, assisting with an alarm or lockout, and physically assisting in lifting a person. The “Mutual Aid” service type identifies instances where Lake Valley Fire Protection District resources responded to mutual aid requests from neighboring agencies outside of the County of El Dorado such as Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District in Douglas County, Nevada or Alpine County, California (SLT Dispatch, 2020). More information on incident categories can be found in Volume II - Chapter 1. Response Time El Dorado County’s General Plan (2004 as amended through 2019) Public Services and Utilities Element has several policies related to goals for average response time as described in Volume II - Chapter 1 In the year 2019, the District’s average response time was 9 minutes 41 seconds based on available data from City of South Lake Tahoe Dispatch Center and calculated by the consultants. The response time data does not cover Interfacility Transfer (IFT), auto/mutual aid, and strike team/overhead (SLT Dispatch, 2020). The District’s response time goal is under 10 minutes. Because the District is located within the Tahoe Basin, the Community Region, Rural Center, and Rural Region, designations in the County of EL Dorado General Plan do not apply to communities within the District boundary. Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-24 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Other Industry Standards In general, other industry standards applicable to the LAV are established by the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA), the Insurance Services Office (ISO), Cal OSHA, and District ordinances. All of these agencies, as well as many others, directly and/or indirectly affect the type of services, the quality and development of those services, expansion, reliability, facility design, and construction and environmental issues that the District provides. Forest Fuel Treatment Forest fuel treatment typically relates to wildland fires, rather than the structural fires which are the focus in the LAV. However, within the LAV’s boundaries there are multiple privately owned parcels which contain native vegetation. LAV has an active program to inspect the defensible space around homes and businesses. The Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team (TFFT) works to manage vegetation in the Tahoe Basin (TFFT, 2019). 9.5.3 Mutual Aid, Automatic Aid, Other Agreements A discussion regarding the amounts of automatic aid given and received for the West Slope fire agencies could not be replicated for the fire agencies in the County within the Lake Tahoe basin. The City of South Lake Tahoe Dispatch was not able to provide the consultants with a breakdown in mutual aid received versus given for each agency in the County due to the reports available to dispatch staff. Data is available for mutual aid provided to neighboring districts, but only in the amount of mutual aid provided and not who it was provided to. LAV provided mutual aid 78 times in 2019 to neighboring fire agencies for which the District does not have an automatic aid agreement. As a result of lack of data, this section will discuss general mutual aid information for LAV. All agreements are reviewed by the District Board for approval and again for any changes. The Fire Chief reviews all agreements annually for fiscal neutrality. Mutual Aid Through a mutual aid agreement, districts provide personnel and apparatus when requested by other parties. LAV maintains mutual aid agreements with regard to fire protection or emergency services with the following agencies: 1. Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chiefs Association - Mutual Aid (A list of resources can be found in Volume I – Appendix E), 2. CAL Fire Amador El Dorado Annual Operating Contract/Plan- Mutual Aid, and 3. U.S. Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) Annual Operating Agreement- Mutual Aid (LAFCO, 2020a). Automatic Aid LAV has entered into a South Shore Response Plan with the neighboring fire agencies of FLL, SLT, TDOX, CAL FIRE, and NTF. This Plan operates just like an automatic aid agreement would, meaning aid is dispatched automatically by a contractual agreement between all fire agencies. The Plan establishes move up and cover assignments, and the number of resources, resource types, and which fire agencies should respond to specific types of services calls and by priority call. When a call is received by the initial Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-25 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final responding agency, the partner agency is notified and the agreed upon resource is automatically dispatched as backup to the initial responding resource. Boundary drops are a higher level of aid. The term references the dropping of district boundaries between partnering agencies. Under a boundary drop plan, the closest resource to the incident is dispatched as the initial responder regardless of the political jurisdiction. The position of stations can often result in improved response times to emergency calls in a boundary drop scenario. LAV participates in a boundary drop agreement with these neighboring fire agencies. Joint Agreements LAV participates in the Cal Tahoe JPA (LAFCO, 2020a). Through this agreement, LAV operates one ambulance stationed at LAV Station No. 7 in Meyers. In addition, the District participates in Joint Agreements through jointly owning or sharing fire protection services capital facilities or services with other agencies, including: • Station No. 5 at Boulder Mountain - Cal Fire • Joint Powers Authority (JPA)/Lake Valley Fire Protection District - Shop/Mechanic • Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District, Nevada - chipping services • LAV in coordination with CAL FIRE - Defensible space services There are no other areas which the District currently serves for fire protection services that might be served more efficiently by another agency (LAFCO, 2020a). This is an indication that the District’s boundaries and SOI are configured in a functional manner. Additionally, LAV does not offer contract services to other agencies, aside from the mutual aid agreements previously described (LAFCO, 2020a). 9.5.4 Dispatch For LAV, dispatching is provided through the City of South Lake Tahoe Police Department (LAFCO, 2020a). More information regarding dispatch can be found in Volume I - Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. 9.5.5 Emergency Access Highways 50 and 89 are the major access corridors into the South Lake Tahoe Basin; however, once inside the Basin, Lake Tahoe Boulevard, Sawmill Road and Pioneer Trail serve as important transportation corridors. The LAV's boundary area does include ingress and egress challenges identified in the County's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. For example, access to Echo Circle or some of the “Forest Routes” can sometimes be limited due to blockages by fallen trees or snow. District staff works with community stakeholders to remediate these ingress/egress issues as they are identified. All evacuations and evacuation planning are completed through the County of El Dorado Sheriff’s department. 9.5.6 Fire Hazard Zones The Fire Hazard Severity Zones, Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), and Community Risk Fire Maps in which CAL Fire categorizes spatial areas into different risk areas are described in Volume II - Chapter 1 Within the LAV’s boundaries, approximately 31,220 acres are in Fire Hazard Severity zone “Very High” and 10,657 acres are in “High” as shown in Figure 9-9. Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-26 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The information in this section is based on GIS data provided by CAL FIRE. Fire Hazard Severity acreage in the District is detailed in Table 9-9 below. CAL FIRE has mapped the WUI in El Dorado County and the LAV is located within an identified WUI (TFFT, 2019). Table 9-9: LAV Fire Hazard Severity Zone Acreage and Percentage Acreage in Very High Percentage in Acreage in High Percentage in Total Percentage Fire Risk Very High Fire Fire Risk High Fire Risk in Very High and Risk High Fire Risk 31,220 66.5% 10,656 22.6% 88.7% Source: County GIS Data, 2020 derived from CalFire data All of the approximately 178 acres of the Lake Valley Fire Protection District boundary located in Alpine county is in the High Fire risk zone. Areas of land within the District boundary are considered ether: “Local Responsibility Area” (LRA); “State Responsibility Area” (SRA); and “Federal Responsibility Area” (FRA) for fire protection services. Refer to Figure 9-9 for a map of those areas and a breakdown in acreage in Table 9-10. Table 9-10: LAV Responsibility Area Acreage and Percentage Boundary Only (in acres) SOI Only (by itself) (in acres) LRA SRA FRA LRA SRA FRA 445 8,780 37,973 N/A N/A N/A Source: GIS data from CAL FIRE A large portion (80 percent) of the LAV area is classified as Federal Responsibility Area. Only 1.7 percent is classified as Local Responsibility Area and 17.9 percent is classified as State Responsibility Area. CAL FIRE is legally and financially responsible to provide fire protection in all State Responsibility Areas (SRA). The Federal Responsibility Areas are primarily the responsibility of the a federal government agency such as the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-27 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 9-9: Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Responsibility Areas for LAV Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-28 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 9.5.7 Infrastructure The Lake Valley Fire Protection District maintains infrastructure to support its fire protection services. This infrastructure includes fire stations, fire hydrants, fire trucks and other vehicles, water hoses, and other equipment. The three fire stations owned by the District are described in Table 9-11, below. Table 9-11: LAV Fire Stations Detail Station No. Address Staffing 1009 Boulder Mountain Court Part-time 5 South Lake Tahoe (Staffed by CAL FIRE) 1286 Golden Bear Trail 6 Full-time South Lake Tahoe 2211 Keetak Street 7 Full-time South Lake Tahoe Source: LAFCO, 2020a Station No. 7 on Keetak Street is the primary fire station for the Lake Valley Fire Protection District. In addition, the District owns another parcel adjacent to Station No. 7, which is LAV’s headquarters. Station No. 5 is staffed by CAL FIRE2. Each of the three stations are staffed on a 24/7/365 basis (LAFCO, 2019). Equipment and Apparatus LAV provided a list of its equipment and apparatus as shown in Table 9-12. There are notes for each apparatus based on the mechanic’s grade for the District. Table 9-12: Apparatus and Light Vehicles, 2020 In service Type Manufacturer Pump/tank size Mechanic’s grade date Type 1, AWD (E7) Ferrara 1500GPM/750gal 2011 Operational “B” Type 1, AWD (E6) Ferrara 1500GPM/750gal 2005 Plan replace “C” Type 1, AWD (E5) HME/Ferrara 1500GPM/750gal 1998 Replace ASAP Type 3, 4x4 (B7) International 500GPM/500gal 2003 Operational “B” Type 3, 4x4 (B6) International 500GPM/500gal 1997 Plan replace “B” Type 6, 4x4 (Sq7) Ford F-550 200GPM/300gal 1999 Plan replace “B” Water Tender (WT7) Kenworth 750GPM/3000gal 2015 Operational “A” ’47 Mack Engine Mack 500GPM/500gal 1947 PR use only C700 (Chief’s buggy) Chevy Tahoe N/A 2014 Plan replace “C” C701 (BC 701) Ford F-250 N/A 2019 Operational “A” 2 Station No. 5 is staffed by CAL FIRE Battalion No. 8. Station No. 4 contains one frontline Type III engine. This station responds to all risk emergencies, conducts public education, and inspects defensible space within the surrounding community. The CAL FIRE crew has a close working relationship with surrounding local government and federal fire agencies, such as the USDA Forest Service and the USDI Bureau of Land Management (CAL FIRE, 2014). Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-29 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final In service Type Manufacturer Pump/tank size Mechanic’s grade date C702 (BC 702) Ford F-250 N/A 2019 Operational “A” C703 (BC 703) Ford F-350 N/A 2009 Operational “B” Reserve BC Dodge Dakota N/A 2005 Operational “B” Mech 7 Ford F-350 N/A 1999 Plan replace “C” Utility 72 Ford F-350 N/A 2008 Operational “B” Plow 7 Ford F-350 N/A 1999 Replace ASAP “C” Utility 75 Ford F-350 N/A 1996 Operational “B” Air 7 AC/Bauer Air Compressor 2015 Good shape “A” Loader 7 Cat- 930K N/A 1977 Operational “B” Cal Tahoe JPA Ambulance Fleet Ford/Braun, T1-4x4 2012 Reserve Square/PL Next remount Ford/Braun, T1-4x4 2012 Medic 2 Slant/no PL Replace ASAP Ford/Braun, T1-4x4 2012 Medic 5 Square/PL Braun remount Ford/Braun, T1-4x4 2012 Reserve Square/PL Operational “B” Ford/Braun, T1-4x4 2017 Medic 7 Square/PL Good shape “A” Ford/Braun, T1-4x4 2017 Medic 1 Square/PL Good shape “A” Ford/Braun, T1-4x4 2017 Medic 3 Square/PL Good shape “A” Ford/Braun, T1-4x4 2015 Medic 6 Square/PL Plan replace “B” Source: LAFCO, 2020a Water 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. In LAV, water service is provided by the South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD). Additionally, LAV maintains Water Tender No. 7 which provides water to specific sites. There are also numerous water storage tanks situated throughout the District (LAFCO, 2020a). Water can also be obtained from local natural or neighborhood sources such as rivers, lakes, ponds and/or swimming pools. Fire hydrants are spaced within 500 feet of structures. Water sources are either gravity-fed or powered by pumps with emergency back-up generators. District documents state that available fire flows within the service area of STPUD are more than adequate to provide fire flows for structural protections and wildland fire suppression (LAFCO, 2011). The STUPD system is undergoing updates to increase efficiency. During this process the water tender for the District is available if needed (Administrative Manager, personal communication, June 2021). 9.5.8 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies LAV’s current Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) (2019-2029) was recently updated and identifies funding sources for apparatus, equipment, and station repairs/replacement (e.g., major repair, seismic retrofit, ADA access compliance, installation of living quarters). Some of the anticipated repairs/replacements in the CIP are funded by development fees; a limited funding source since new development is regulated by the TRPA. The District does not have any identified vehicle or equipment needs in which no funding has been currently identified (LAFCO, 2019). To fund facility and equipment costs, LAV has a dedicated reserve account for public safety equipment and apparatus and also utilizes general reserve funding (LAFCO, 2019). The District’s deferred maintenance strategy is to use rental income from Station No. 5 to fund Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-30 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final building maintenance as needed (LAFCO, 2019). New or upgraded infrastructure and deferred maintenance will be financed with AB 1600 funds, reserves, or general funds. Periodic preventative maintenance or replacement of fire stations and associated facilities/infrastructure is needed to protect existing assets. The District is currently replacing fire engines and equipment while also adding funds future needs. During FY 2020/2021, $820,000 were added to reserves to aid in these needs (Administrative Manager, personal communication, June 2021). Fire stations’ bays are not quite large enough to house the District’s engines (LAFCO, 2019). Although Station No. 7 meets current seismic code; it is not known whether Stations No. 5 and No. 6 meet this code (LAFCO, 2019). There are no other identified infrastructure deficiencies (LAFCO, 2019). 9.5.9 Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing LAV has several practices to avoid unnecessary costs and to share facilities. Specifically, the LAV provides automatic and mutual aid fire and paramedic ambulance services to other local fire districts in the Tahoe Basin, CalFire, and the U.S. Forest Service. Further, the California Master Mutual Aid Agreement has the ability to commit LAV resources anywhere in the state. The District has taken several actions during the last five years to save money, lower expenses or improve services at the same costs including: • Foregoing pay raises; • Sub out Grants/Services; • Cost Recovery; • Less personnel; • Charge Vacation Home Rentals (VHR); • Squad 7 in place of Type I Engine. Future plans or opportunities for the District to reduce overhead and operational costs include: • Refund Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL); • Automatic Aid; and • Joint Powers Authority Contract. When queried whether there are any functional or structural reorganizations that District is evaluating to benefit recipients of fire protection services or improve the provision of fire protection services generally, District staff indicated the Auto Aid Response Plan/ South Shore Plan (LAFCO, 2020a). The District indicates that the South Shore Plan provides automatic aid for the closest resource within the Tahoe Basin for LAV, SLT, FLL, and CAL FIRE. The District feels that the current system operates well (Chief Zlendick, personal communication, June 2021). In the past, the District Board of Directors discussed the potential to save money by considering a Schedule A contract with Cal Fire. After due consideration, the Board declined to proceed and has not given staff any direction to explore this further. At this time, District staff indicates there is no need for LAV to consider annexation, consolidation or contracting out services (LAFCO, 2019). Future Challenges As part of this MSR, District staff was queried about future challenges that could arise in the future. LAV staff indicated that the Cal PERS Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) and Vacation Home Rentals (VHR) could potentially be future challenges. Recently, the District was able to refinance the Cal PERS UAL. With this new understanding and management of the UAL, District staff indicate they feel better prepared for any Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-31 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final new challenges it presents With the cap on the number of VHR's and the County's recent support of TOT funding to the District, staff feel better able to serve the needs of visitors in the jurisdiction (Administrative Manager, personal communication, June 2021). The continued provision of extra-territorial service to the unincorporated community of Strawberry is an identified future challenge (LAFCO, 2020a). Recommendation Consultants recommend that ECF and LAV consider the feasibility and costs associated with a potential Annexation of Strawberry from ECF to LAV in the future. 9.6 Financial Ability to Provide Services The El Dorado County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is required to make determinations regarding the financial ability of the Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LAV) to provide public services. This section provides an overview of the financial health of the District and a basis for LAFCO’s financial determinations. The audited financial statements from the District for fiscal years (FY) 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 are the primary source of all information for this section (LAV, 2018; LAFCO, 2019). The Preliminary and Final Budgets for FY 2019/2020 and FY 2020/2021 are also used in order to provide the most recent context to the analysis (LAV, 2019b; LAFCO, 2020a). In California, special districts are classified as either enterprise or non-enterprise, based on their source of revenue. The LAV generally operates as a non-enterprise district, collecting and utilizing property tax revenue to fund fire and emergency services. However, the District also operates as a quasi-enterprise district by charging fees to out of boundary residents and visitors for fire services. 9.6.1 Financial Policies and Transparency The primary policy document for LAV is the Lake Valley Fire Protection District Board of Directors Policies updated in 2020. The policies describe the rules for the District’s business operations including budget, procurement, and financial policies. The 2014-2018 Strategic Plan for LAV was originally adopted in 2013 and has not been updated. A copy was not made available to consultants and the District website does not have a usable link to access the document. It is not clear if the Strategic Plan includes financial goals. The District adopts a one-year budget and conducts an annual review to determine if any changes might be needed. The FY 2020/2021 final budget was adopted by the Board of Directors on Sept. 10, 2020. The District publishes an audited financial statement every year. California Government Code and District policy require an annual independent audit of the District’s financial records by a certified public accountant. The independent audits for FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 were performed by PnP CPA, independent auditors. The auditors judge whether the District’s financial statements are presented in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is responsible for establishing GAAP for state and local governments through its statements and interpretations. The District uses the accrual basis of accounting, where revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recorded when liabilities are incurred. The FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 auditor reports indicate that the District has not presented Management’s Discussion and Analysis or budgetary comparison information. Based on accounting Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-32 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final principles generally accepted, this information is required to be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the GASB who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. 9.6.2 District Revenues and Expenditures The District’s largest revenue source is property taxes followed by a special assessment. The District’s biggest expense is Salaries and Benefits. A breakdown for revenues and expenses can be seen in Figure 9-10 below. A breakdown of revenues and expenditures is also available in table format in Volume II - Appendix A, Financial Tables by Agency. Revenues As mentioned previously, the District’s largest revenue source is property taxes, as well as a voter- approved Fire/EMS Assessment (Election of June 3, 1986 - Measure M for Fire Service) as shown in Figure 9-10. The Fire/EMS Assessment revenue estimate calculations can be seen in Table 9-13 as follows: Table 9-13: LAV Property Assessment Detailed Information Parcel Type Assessment Amount Residential $20.00 per parcel Commercial $40.00 per parcel Vacant $10.00 per parcel This Assessment, as well as property taxes, account for between 65 percent and 72 percent of recurring revenue for the District. The Assessment does not include an escalator and has not been updated since it was adopted in 1986. Property Tax revenues increased by 3.8 percent in FY 2018/2019. In FY 2018/2019 the “Miscellaneous” line item accounted for $1.2 million or 17 percent of the Districts non-recurring revenues. This is identified as “Other” in Figure 11-9 below includes Strike-team revenue (approximately $860,000) with the remainder made up of FEMA storm reimbursements, donations, and grants as well as other small reimbursements. This revenue doubled between FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 due to the large amount of Strike-team revenue the District received in FY 2018/2019. In FY 2017/2018 the District only brought in approximately $500,000 in Strike-team revenue. Other revenue sources for the District include rent which is comprised of revenue from CAL FIRE operating out of Station No. 5, the cell tower at the main fire station, and rent paid by South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) for their pump station. The District also receives administrative revenue from grants and Strike-team activities. The District is a transporting agency for the Cal Tahoe JPA for emergency medical services, and as such, receives Emergency Services Authority Funding to staff one ambulance for the JPA. As of July 2020, the District operates one ambulance for the Cal Tahoe JPA and manages two staffed positions for that ambulance. The District received $692,276.00 in FY 2018/2019 in reimbursements from the JPA and $533,745 in FY 2017/2018 (Administrative Manager, personal communication, June 14, 2021). Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-33 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 9-10: LAV Total Revenues and Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 Through FY 2020/2021 Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-34 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Expenditures The District’s biggest expense is Salaries and Benefits, which account for 81 percent of the FY 2018/2019 budget as seen in Figure 9-10. The District anticipates an increase of seven percent (or $153,000) for Salaries & Benefits in FY 2019/2020 with an estimated decrease to 80 percent (or minus $188,000) in FY 2020/2021. This decrease in FY 2020/2021 is offset with an increase in Professional Fees. The Professional Fees are for consultants that provide special services to the District, such as the consultants who assisted the District with the tax measure increase in FY 2018/2019. It is also important to note that the District had Capital Assets and Debt Services expenses in the Audited Financial Statements, but do not have those same expenses budgeted for in FY 2019/2020 or FY 2020/2021. The District is currently staffed at a (2-0) model, meaning there are two firefighters per engine on shift, which is below both the minimum and national standards. As of July 1, 2020, the District had 28 full-time employees. In 2018, the District had 31 full-time employees (El Dorado LAFCO, 2019). In order to cut costs, the District chose not to backfill one firefighter position in 2020. The District currently has three battalion chiefs running three shifts; however, the District is looking to replace the third Battalion Chief with a Captain to cut costs (El Dorado LAFCO, 2020). The District also has three apprentice firefighters training as paramedic firefighters (Chief B. Zlendick, personal communication, September 2020). In 2018, the District had seven Emergency Services Authority Funding positions through the Cal Tahoe JPA. The Chief estimated an increase to the Fire/EMS Assessment of $105 per parcel would be needed to cover these positions if this funding were lost. In 2018, the District staffed three fire stations 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and had no unstaffed stations (El Dorado LAFCO, 2019). The District did not use any volunteer firefighters in 2020 (El Dorado LAFCO, 2020). Revenues (Over/Under) Expenditures Revenues (Over/Under) expenditures can be seen in Figure 9-11 below. The District had two consecutive years where Revenue exceeded Expenditures in FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019. Figure 9-11: LAV Net Revenues Over/Under Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-35 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final It is expected that FY 2019/2020 and FY 2020/2021 will continue in a positive trend based primarily on the expected increases in the “Charges for Services” revenue line which represents the funding the District receives from the JPA to operate the ambulance. The District saw an increase in revenues over expenditures by $490,984 between FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019. This is due to the large increase in the “Other” revenue category for the District in FY 2018/2019. As mentioned previously, this category is mainly comprised of strike-team reimbursement and some additional grant funding and other reimbursements. The District anticipates revenues to continue to exceed expenditures in budget estimates through FY 2020/2021. 9.6.3 District Assets and Liabilities District Assets As of June 30, 2019, the District had over $8.2 million in Cash and Capital Assets as shown in Figure 9-12 below. The District saw an increase in assets of $563,703 (or 6 percent) between FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019. The increase was primarily driven from an increase in Cash. The District has a strong Cash position with $3.05 million in Cash as of June 30, 2019. Figure 9-12: District Assets as of June 30, 2019 Liabilities and Debt District liabilities totaled $13.06 million as of June 30th, 2019. District liabilities and debts are shown in Figure 9-13 on the next page. Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-36 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 9-13: District Liabilities and Debt as of June 30, 2019 Over 84 percent of the District’s Liabilities and Debts consist of the Net Pension Liability or about $11.01 million of the total $13.06 million. The Net Pension Liability is considered to be a “Long Term Liability.” Long-term Liabilities increased by $258,000 or 1.0 percent between FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019. 9.6.4 Net Position The District ended FY 2018/2019 with a deficit of the Net Position of roughly $4.8 million. The Statement of Net Position is shown in Figure 9-14 below and includes a summary of the District’s assets, deferred outflows of resources, and liabilities, and deferred inflows of resources which provide information about the nature and amounts of investments in assets and obligations to the District’s creditors. It also provides the basis for computing rates of return, evaluating the capital structure of the District, and assessing the financial flexibility of the District. Figure 9-14: District Net Position as of June 30, 2019 The District saw a decrease in the deficit of the Net Position by $339,135 between FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019. The District deficit in FY 2017/2018 was $5.1 million. The reduction in the deficit from FY 2017/2018 to FY 2018/2019 is due to a decrease to the Current Liabilities. The District refinanced their unfunded liability to stabilize finances. The Undesignated Reserve Fund for the District has enough cash on hand to cover a minimum of 50 percent total operating expenses. These funds can be utilized for operating expenses with Board approval. Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-37 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 9.6.5 Asset Maintenance and Replacement The District continues efforts to replace aging public safety equipment and apparatus with a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) funded by Development Impact Fees. However, the growth of these fees is limited by restricted development in the District under Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) regulations. The District has not done any recent facilities assessments indicating District stations need upgrades; however, it is unknown if Stations No. 5 and No. 6 are up to current seismic code requirements. The District uses rental income from Station No. 5 (which is staffed by CAL FIRE) to fund building maintenance as needed (El Dorado LAFCO, 2020). The District completed a 15-Year Equipment Replacement Program in 2020. This Program anticipates purchase and replacement of a fire engine in 2021 (estimated to cost approximately $902,000), a fire vehicle in 2021 (estimated to cost approximately $85,000), a brush truck in 2022 (estimated at approximately $492,000), a squad apparatus in 2022 (estimated at $383,000), and numerous types of equipment in 2021 including self-contained breathing apparatus, extraction tools and equipment, communication equipment, Advanced Life Support (ALS) cardiac monitors, hoses/nozzles, and small engines. Vehicles, equipment, and supplies in the 15-Year Equipment Replacement Program are anticipated to be financed because of the large upfront costs. In addition, interest associated with financing the equipment is assumed to be three percent with loan terms ranging from 10 years for the engine to three years for the fire vehicle (LAV, 2020b). The District currently has three Type 1 fire engines (one of which needs to be replaced as soon as possible and one of which is planned for replacement), two Type 3 fire engines (one of which is planned for replacement), one Type 6 fire engine, one water tender, one 1947 Mack Engine for public relations use only; a 2014 Chevy Tahoe (which is planned for replacement); seven trucks and one plow (that needs to be replaced as soon as possible); and a loader. Addendum – New Information from LAV LAV Staff informed consultants that the District is currently funding a capital replacement plan to include apparatus, equipment and station repairs/replacement. The District was able to put $820,000 in reserves for FY 2020-21 and will continue to fund the capital replacement plan with general fund dollars. Additionally, development fees will be used for capital replacements. (Administrative Manager, personal communication, June 2021). 9.6.6 Cost Avoidance In the last five years, the District has implemented the following strategies to save money, lower expenses and increase revenue: • No pay raises; • Sub out Grants/Services; • Cost Recovery ; • Reduce paid personnel; and • Charge Vacation Home Rentals (VHR). Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-38 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final (Source: LAFCO, 2020) The District also chose to not staff a Battalion Chief position but have maintained staffing as stated in the MOU with the union. In addition, instead of buying one each of Type 1 and Type 3 vehicle replacements, the District is going purchase a quint vehicle to serve as one of the Type 1 Engines with increased capabilities (Administrative Manager, personal communication, June 2021). 9.6.7 Financial Summary and Ability to Provide Services Based on the data presented above, the District is able to provide limited service to the residents of Lake Valley Fire Protection District. The District currently operates at a (2-0) staffing model, which is less than the minimum and national standards. District staff have indicated that apprentice firefighters, when not filling a vacancy, can provide a third staff member during a shift. In addition, the ambulance for the District is staffed with two firefighter paramedics, allowing for the potential for four personnel to incidents that require ambulance response in which the District ambulance also responds (Administrative Manager, personal communication, June 2021). This type of cross-staffing is not available when other JPA ambulances respond as those staff are not certified firefighters. This means that the District may not have enough firefighters responding to incidents per engine and must rely on back-up from other stations or neighboring fire service agencies. 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 went before the voters in March 2019 as Measure B and 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 liability (Chief B. Zlendick, personal communication, September 2020). Alternative Financing The District attempted to increase the Fire/EMS Assessment on November 4, 2014 and most recently on March 3, 2020 without success. Measure H, the November 2014 attempt, would have increased the Assessment to $120 per parcel, while Measure B, attempted in March 2020, would have increased the Assessment to $52 per parcel and would have been used to replace the District’s aging equipment over the next 15 years. Both attempts were voted down by District residents (County of El Dorado, 2020). Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-39 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 9.7 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 the Lake Valley Fire Protection District 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. Scoring for the determinations in Table 9-14 below are as follows: ▲ ● ▼ ◆ Above Average (compared to similar Districts), Average, Below Average, Statement of Fact (not rated). Table 9-14: Summary of MSR Determinations for the LAV Indicator Score Determination Population and Growth The Lake Valley Fire Protection District geographic boundary encompasses ◆ 47,191 acres. The boundary includes 13,367 assessor parcels. 177.8 acres Existing Boundary. of the District area is located in Alpine County and the remaining 47,013 acres are within the County of El Dorado. El Dorado LAFCO most recently reviewed and approved the District’s SOI ◆ through Resolution No. L-2011-09 Adopted on August 24, 2011. LAV’s SOI is Existing Sphere of Influence. coterminous with its boundary and encompasses 47,191 acres; of which 177.8 acres are located in Alpine County. LAV does provide extra-territorial fire protection and emergency service to customers outside its boundaries including: Extra-territorial Services the District provides as described in ◆ • Eastern Alpine County; Government Code Section 56134. • Desolation Wilderness; • Strawberry; and • El Dorado County to Wright’s Lake. Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-40 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination By the year 2040, it is estimated that LAV’s existing boundary will encompass a permanent population of 24,627 persons. This represents an ◆ average annual growth rate of 0.38 percent between the years of 2020 and Projected population in years 2020 through 2040. 2040. In addition to its permanent population, LAV also sees a significant number of overnight and daytime visitors which adds to the total population served by the District. Currently, the District’s boundary area supports an average of 0.47 persons per acre which is considered to be a low population density. The District boundaries contain sufficient land area to accommodate ◆ anticipated future average annual growth rate of 0.38 percent is projected growth. considered to be a slow growth rate. Therefore, the District contains sufficient land area to accommodate projected growth. Government Structure and Accountability LAV makes its agenda available on its “About Us” page of its website. The Does the District’s website comply with the 2016 updates to the ▼ District website agenda distribution does not comply with the Brown Act described in Government Code §54954.2 and enacted by requirements of the Brown Act 2016 Updates because there is not a direct Assembly Bill 2257? link to the current agenda on its primary homepage. Terms of office and the next election date are not disclosed for District Terms of office and next election date are disclosed for District Board ▼ Board Members online. Information about Board Committee members and committee appointments are online. appointments are not available on the District’s website. LAV is not currently involved in litigation per RFI response (LAFCO, 2020a). Is the District involved in current litigation and/or has the District ▼ LAV, along with all the fire protection districts in El Dorado County, have been the subject of a recent grand jury inquiry. recently been the subject of a grand jury report (Case 19-06) and the issues raised therein continue to be relevant. Board members are required to submit forms and receive required trainings as prescribed by the three state laws regarding accountability and ethics. For Do elected Board members submit required forms and receive each of the three laws, this MSR found the following: required trainings as prescribed by the three state laws regarding 1) Political Reform Act: one complaint No. COM-06152020-01065 was accountability and ethics including: received at the CA-FPPC regarding filing of forms for one board ● member, Ronald Sitton, in 2020 and the case has since been resolved. (1) The Political Reform Act; 2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005): Training is conducted on a regular (2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005); and basis and occurs when Board members are elected. The District’s Board (3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. complies with AB 1234. 3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. - There is insufficient information to evaluate this requirement. Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-41 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination The District's website is easily navigable with current and past agendas and minutes available for download. The website also contains contact Compliance with the Special District Transparency Act (SB 929 or information, meeting minutes, budgets, other relevant public information, California Government Code, §6270.6 and 53087.8) which requires ● and a link to the State of California Government Compensation Portal. The special districts to have a functional website that lists contact LAV website does not list either the next election date or committee information and contains financial statements, compensation appointments for Board members. The District generally complies with the reports, and other relevant public information. requirements of the Special District Transparency Act however, there remains room for improvement. LAV works to inform and educate homeowners regarding fire safety and Does the District work to inform and educate homeowners regarding prevention consistent with General Plan Objective 6.2.5. Specifically, LAV ▲ fire safety and prevention consistent with General Plan Objective participates on the Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team to manage vegetation in the 6.2.5? Tahoe Basin. LAV’s website provides information about fire adapted communities. Disadvantage Communities California’s median household income was $71,228 in 2018. This yields a The median household income is identified. The DUC threshold MHI ◆ DUC threshold MHI of less than $56,982. There are portions of three census (80 percent of the statewide MHI) is clearly stated. The MHI in the block groups that meet the DUC threshold within the Lake Valley Fire Agency’s boundary is described. Protection District. There are portions of DUCs within the LAV boundary and Sphere of Influence, including three census block groups. A rural area may be Potential DUCs are considered. The provision of adequate water, ◆ considered a DUC if inadequate services are provided for domestic water wastewater, and structural fire protection services to DUCs is supply, sewage disposal, and structural fire protection. These census tracts considered. currently receive these three essential municipal services, and no health or safety issues have been identified. Shared Facilities and Services Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-42 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination The District has taken several actions during the last five years to save money, lower expenses or improve services at the same costs including: • Foregoing pay raises; • Sub out Grants/Services; • Cost Recovery; • Less personnel; Other practices and opportunities that may help to reduce or • Charge Vacation Home Rentals (VHR); and ● eliminate unnecessary costs are examined by the district • Squad 7 in place of Type I Engine. periodically. Additionally, the District has developed several ideas to reduce overhead and operational costs in the future as described in the “Cost Avoidance” section of this MSR. However, to cut costs, the District has reduced its staffing below the NFPA standards. LAV’s staffing level at two staff per engine, (a 2-0 model) and this lower staffing level leave the community vulnerable to low frequency, high risk events, such as a working structure fire. Cost efficiency has been achieved, but the risks may be higher. Agreements for mutual aid or any other appropriate agreement (i.e., The Fire Chief for LAV reviews these agreements annually for fiscal ▲ Tax Sharing Agreement) are periodically reviewed to ensure fiscal neutrality. Any change to the agreements are reviewed by the District neutrality. Board. LAV maintains mutual aid agreements with regard to fire protection or emergency services with the following agencies: 1) Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chiefs Association- Mutual Aid, 2) CAL Fire Amador El Dorado Annual Operating Contract/Plan- Mutual Aid, and 3) U.S. Forest Service Lake Tahoe The District collaborates with multiple other fire and emergency ▲ Basin Management Unit Annual Operating Agreement- Mutual Aid. LAV medical agencies for the delivery of services within its boundary. maintains automatic aid agreements with regard to fire protection or emergency services with the City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department. Additionally, the District jointly owns or shares fire protection services capital facilities or services with several other agencies. Public Services and Infrastructure Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-43 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination In the year 2019, the District’s average response time was 7 minutes and 30 seconds. This is within the District’s response time goals. Because the District is located within the Tahoe Basin, the Community Region, Rural Center, and Rural Region, designations in the County of EL Dorado General Plan do not apply to communities within the District boundary. Does the District comply with County General Plan policies in relation to response times. Does the District meet the minimum ▼ LAV is staffed on a ratio with two staff per engine and truck company (2-0) standard for staffing. model. This staffing level is below the minimum nationwide standard practice. District staff have indicated that apprentice firefighters, when not filling a vacancy, can provide a third staff member during a shift. In addition, the ambulance for the District is staffed with two firefighter paramedics, allowing for the potential for four personnel to incidents that require ambulance response. The District meets infrastructure needs for: LAV maintains infrastructure to support its fire protection services. This infrastructure includes fire stations, fire hydrants, fire trucks, and other (1) facilities (stations); vehicles, water hoses, and other equipment. LAV owns three fire stations (2) rolling stock (engines, apparatus, and emergency medical ● within the District including the buildings and the underlying land. response units;) Emergency dispatch services is provided under contract to the City of South (3) dispatch systems; and Lake Tahoe. LAV staff works with the community to mitigate any ingress (4) roadways for emergency access. and egress issues that may arise. LAV aims to provide sufficient services to meet current and future demands. (1) LAV has a five-member Board of Directors and all Board positions are filled. Does the District provides sufficient services to meet current and (2) LAV participates in several mutual aid and automatic aid agreements. future demands with: (3) In LAV, water service is provided by South Tahoe Public Utility District. ● LAV maintains Water Tender No. 7 which provides water to specific (1) recruitment; sites. There are also numerous water storage tanks situated (2) mutual aid; and throughout the District. Water can also be obtained from local natural (3) water supply for fire protection or neighborhood sources such as rivers, lakes, ponds and/or swimming pools. Within the service area of STPUD, water flows are adequate to provide fire flows for structural protections and wildland fire suppression. Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-44 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination LAV does have limited capacity to assist with and/or assume services provided by other fire protection agencies, based on the following factors: (1) Overall, the LAV is a well-run organization; Evaluation of District’s capacity to assist with and/or assume services ● (2) LAV’s 2-0 staffing model is below national standard practice; and provided by other agencies. (3) LAV has a sufficient number of fire stations and equipment to serve its own needs, however, its maintenance practices are not clear and infrastructure may not be sufficient to potentially support or collaborate with other agencies. Periodic preventative maintenance or replacement of fire stations and The District has preventative maintenance measures and has ▲ associated facilities/infrastructure is needed to protect existing assets. The planned for replacement of aging infrastructure. District’s current CIP plans for replacement/repair of aging infrastructure to 2029 and includes identified funding sources. The District has a current Capital Replacement Plan (2019-2029) which includes identified funding for apparatus, equipment, and station repairs/replacement (e.g., major repair, seismic retrofit, ADA access compliance, installation of living quarters). The District will continue to Has the District has been diligent in developing plans to fund the capital replacement plan with general fund dollars and accommodate the infrastructure and service needs of current and development fees. The District’s deferred maintenance strategy is to use ▲ future constituents? District regularly reviews and updates its service rental income from Station No. 5 to fund building maintenance as needed. plans to ensure that infrastructure needs, and deficiencies are New or upgraded infrastructure and deferred maintenance could be addressed in a timely manner. financed with AB 1600 funds, reserves, or general funds. LAV’s fire stations’ bays are large enough to house the District’s current engines. Although Station No. 7 meets current seismic code, it is not known whether Station No. 5 and No. 6 meet this code. There are no other identified infrastructure deficiencies Rating for the District from the neutral third-party Insurance Services ▲ Office (ISO) where the rating scale from best to worse is One (1) to LAV received an ISO rating of 2Y Rural. Ten (10). Only 1.7 percent of the LAV boundary area is classified as a local responsibility area. The remaining 98+ percent is state and federal ◆ responsibility area, indicating some overlap in services with other nearby Is there duplicate infrastructure by other agencies nearby? agencies. CAL FIRE utilizes Station No. 5, located at 1009 Boulder Mountain Court, which is owned by the LAV. CAL FIRE focuses on wildland fires, whereas LAV focuses on structural fires. Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-45 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination Financial Accountability The primary policy document for the District is the Lake Valley Fire The District has a published policy for reserve funds, including the ▼ Protection District Board of Directors Policies updated on March 10, 2016. size and purpose of reserves and how they are invested. A reserve fund policy is not included in this document. The District operated at a deficit of $4.8 million negative Net Position in FY The District had a positive Net Position for FY 2018/2019. ▼ 2018/2019. This is slightly less than the negative Net Position of $5.1 million from FY 2017/2018. The District operates at a 2-0 Staffing Model or two firefighters per engine. This staffing level is below the minimum standards of practice set by the District finances are sufficient to apply a staffing model that meets or ▼ National Fire Protection Association. Lower staffing levels leave the exceeds the minimum standard of three staff per engine and truck community vulnerable to low frequency, high-risk events, such as a working company (3-0) model (or at NFPA 1720 standards if applicable). structure fire. The District is staffed at the level allowed by available revenue. The 2014-2018 Strategic Plan for LAV was originally adopted in 2013 and ▼ District has an updated Strategic Plan that addresses financial goals. has not been updated. A copy was not made available to consultants and the District website does not have a usable link to access the document. District operated with $90,000 and $581,000 revenues over expenditures in District Revenues exceed expenditures in FY 2017/2018 and FY ▲ FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 respectively. The District anticipates 2018/2019. continuing this trend for estimated budgets in FY 2019/2020 and FY 2020/2021. The Undesignated Reserve Fund has enough cash on hand to cover a A minimum of 50% total operating expense is kept on hand in the ▲ minimum of 50 percent total operating expenses. These funds can be General Reserve Fund. utilized for operating expenses with Board approval. The District publishes an audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) every year. Government Code and District policy require an annual Summary financial information presented in a standard format and ◆ independent audit of the District’s financial records by a certified public simple language. accountant. The independent audits on FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 were performed by PnP CPA, independent auditors. Alternative financing opportunities were explored and pursued by ◆ The District pursued increases to the Fire/EMS Assessment in 2014 and the District. 2020 without success. Effect on Agriculture and Open Space Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-46 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination Open space within the LAV’s boundary calculates to almost six acres. There are no agricultural lands within the District. Natural resource identified Effect that the District’s service provision will have on open space ◆ lands calculate to 7,438 acres within LAV. Fire Protection Services and and agricultural lands. Emergency Medical Services generally have minimal effects on agricultural land and open space. ▲ ● ▼ ◆ Key Score: Above Average (compared to similar Districts), Average, Below Average, Statement of Fact (not rated) Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-47 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-48 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 9.8 References 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/. _____. 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/. _____. 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. 4-pages. Available on-line at: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/FIreHazardZone_NonTechnical_Prim er.pdf. _____. April 21, 2014. Unit Strategic Fire Plan Amador-El Dorado Unit. 57-pages. Available online at: https://www.edcfiresafe.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2014-Unit-Strategic-Fire-Plan_CAL- FIRE-Amador-El-Dorado-Unit.pdf. _____. Fire and Resource Protection Program (FRAP). December 2019. Map of Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). MAPID: WUI_19DATA SOURCES: WUI_12_311TY_18. Available online at: https://frap.fire.ca.gov/media/10300/wui_19_ada.pdf. California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). AUGUST 2003. Local Agency Formation Commission Municipal Service Review Guidelines Final. 107-pages. City of South Lake Tahoe Dispatch (SLT Dispatch). 2020. Dispatch data for LAV, FLL, and SLT. Received November 2020. County of El Dorado (EDC). Grand Jury. June 8, 2020a. West Slope Fire Protection Update. Case 19-06. 14-pages. Available online at: https://edcgov.us/Government/GrandJury/Documents/2019- 2020%20Reports/West%20Slope%20Fire%20Protection%20Update.pdf. _____. Sherriff’s Department Office of Emergency Services. July 2018. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. 256-pages. Available online at: https://eldorado.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3923674&GUID=C562ECEB-7E9F-446D- AE6B-3AC56E13F465. ______. March 3, 2020. Consolidated Presidential Primary Election Official Final Report. Available online at: https://www.edcgov.us/Government/Elections/Documents/20200303.pdf. Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-49 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final El Dorado County Emergency Services Authority. 2017. Strategic Plan 2017 – 2022. 21-pages. Available online at: http://edcjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/EDC-JPA-Strategic-Plan-2017- Master.pdf. El Dorado Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). August 2011. Countywide Fire Suppression and Emergency Services Municipal Service Review. 253-pages. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/municipal-service-reviews-and-spheres-of-influence. _____. 2019. Response to LAFCO’s Request for Information. 7-pages. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. ______. September 2020a. Response to LAFCO’s Request for Information. 13-pages. 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. 2-pages. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/. Fire Safe Council for El Dorado County (FSC-EDC). 2016. Map of Garden Valley Fuel Mitigation. Available online at: https://www.edcfiresafe.org/cwpp/maps/. Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LAV). 2018. Lake Valley Fire Protection District Financial Statements Audit Report – June 30, 2018. Available in LAFCO files upon request. _____. 2019a. Lake Valley Fire Protection District Financial Statements Audit Report – June 30, 2019. Available in LAFCO files upon request. _____. September 2019b. Lake Valley Fire Protection District Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget. Available in LAFCO files upon request. _____. September 2020a. Lake Valley Fire Protection District Fiscal Year 2020/2021 Final Budget. Available in LAFCO files upon request. _____. 2020b. Lake Valley Fire Protection District Summary of 15-Year Equipment Replacement Program. Available in LAFCO files upon request. ______. 2021. LAV Website at “Home Page” and “About Us.” Available online at: https://www.lakevalleyfire.org/. Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team (TFFT). August 2019. Lake Tahoe Basin Forest Action Plan. Published by the California Tahoe Conservancy. 8-pages. Retrieved January 27, 2021 from: http://www.tahoelivingwithfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/TFFT-Lake-Tahoe-Basin- Forest-Action-Plan-2019.pdf. Transparent California and Nevada Policy Research Institute. 2020. Wage data download for the year 2018. Available online at: https://transparentcalifornia.com/. Volume II of II Lake Valley Fire Protection District Page 9-50 of 9-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Chapter 10. Meeks Bay Fire Protection District This chapter details the district formation, boundary, government structure, population, land use, disadvantaged communities, finances, and the provision of fire protection facilities and services provided by the Meeks Bay Fire Protection District (MEK or District), as well as the MSR determinations for this District. Table of Contents 10.1. Agency Profile ............................................................................................................ 10-5 10.1.1. Agency Overview ............................................................................................................................ 10-5 10.2. Agency Formation and Boundary ................................................................................ 10-6 10.2.1. Formation ....................................................................................................................................... 10-6 10.2.2. District Boundary ............................................................................................................................ 10-6 10.2.3. Existing Sphere of Influence ........................................................................................................... 10-6 10.2.4. Extra-Territorial Services ................................................................................................................ 10-8 10.3. District Governance and Accountability ....................................................................... 10-8 10.3.1. Government Structure .................................................................................................................... 10-8 10.3.2. District Board .................................................................................................................................. 10-8 10.3.3. Accountability and Transparency ................................................................................................. 10-10 10.3.4. Management Efficiencies ............................................................................................................. 10-11 10.3.5. Staffing and Training ..................................................................................................................... 10-11 10.4. Growth and Population Forecasts ............................................................................. 10-13 10.4.1. Existing Population ....................................................................................................................... 10-13 10.4.2. Existing Population in SOI ............................................................................................................. 10-14 10.4.3. Projected Population Growth ....................................................................................................... 10-14 10.4.4. Existing Land Use .......................................................................................................................... 10-15 10.4.5. Potential Future Development ..................................................................................................... 10-17 Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-1 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 10.4.6. Open Space and Agriculture ......................................................................................................... 10-17 10.4.7. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ............................................................................. 10-17 10.5. Public Services and Infrastructure ............................................................................. 10-17 10.5.1. Service Overview .......................................................................................................................... 10-17 10.5.2. Fire and Emergency Response ...................................................................................................... 10-18 10.5.3. Mutual Aid, Automatic Aid, Other Agreements ........................................................................... 10-23 10.5.4. Dispatch ........................................................................................................................................ 10-24 10.5.5. Emergency Access ......................................................................................................................... 10-24 10.5.6. Fire Hazard Zones ......................................................................................................................... 10-24 10.5.7. Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................ 10-27 10.5.8. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies ......................................................................................... 10-28 10.5.9. Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing .......................................................................................... 10-28 10.6. Financial Ability to Provide Services .......................................................................... 10-29 10.6.1. Financial Policies and Transparency ............................................................................................. 10-29 10.6.2. District Revenues and Expenditures ............................................................................................. 10-30 10.6.3. District Assets and Liabilities ........................................................................................................ 10-34 10.6.4. Net Position .................................................................................................................................. 10-35 10.6.5. Asset Maintenance and Replacement .......................................................................................... 10-36 10.6.6. Cost Avoidance ............................................................................................................................. 10-36 10.6.7. Financial Summary and Ability to Provide Services ...................................................................... 10-36 10.7. Determinations ........................................................................................................ 10-39 10.8. References ............................................................................................................... 10-45 Table of Tables Table 10-1: Geographic Summary of Fire Protection Services for MEK (as of December 2020) ........... 10-8 Table 10-2: Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Board of Directors ......................................................... 10-9 Table 10-3: Current Staffing Levels for the MEK by Type and Full-time Equivalent (FTE) .................... 10-12 Table 10-4: MEK Existing Population (2020).......................................................................................... 10-14 Table 10-5: Total Estimated and Projected Population (2020 – 2040) ................................................. 10-14 Table 10-6: List of Services Provided by MEK or Other Provider .......................................................... 10-17 Table 10-7: MEK/NTF Response Time Policies and Goals ..................................................................... 10-20 Table 10-8: MEK Local, State and Federal Responsibility Area Acreage and Percentage ..................... 10-24 Table 10-9: MEK Local, State and Federal Responsibility Area Acreage and Percentage ..................... 10-25 Table 10-10: Fire Stations Detail ............................................................................................................ 10-27 Table 10-11: Apparatus and Light Vehicles, 2020 ................................................................................. 10-27 Table 10-12: Expenses, Revenues, and Fund Balance Projections (FY 2017/2018 to FY 2027/2028) .. 10-37 Table 10-13: Summary of MSR Determinations for the Meeks Bay Fire Protection District ................ 10-39 Table of Figures Figure 10-1: District Boundary Area and SOI ......................................................................................... 10-7 Figure 10-2: Base Pay and Benefits, MEK Board, 2017............................................................................ 10-9 Figure 10-3: Wages and Benefits, MEK Staff, 2017 ............................................................................... 10-12 Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-2 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 10-4: Topography of Lake Tahoe Environs and MEK District Boundary ..................................... 10-16 Figure 10-5: MEK Calls for Service from 2010 – 2019 ........................................................................... 10-19 Figure 10-6: MEK Incidents by Type, 2019 ............................................................................................ 10-20 Figure 10-7: Fire Hazard Severity Zones within the MEK ...................................................................... 10-26 Figure 10-8: MEK Revenues and Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 to FY 2020/2021 ............................. 10-31 Figure 10-9: MEK Net Revenues Over/Under Expenditures for FY 2017-2021 ..................................... 10-33 Figure 10-10: District Assets as of June 30, 2019 .................................................................................. 10-34 Figure 10-11: District Liabilities and Debt as of June 30, 2019.............................................................. 10-35 Figure 10-12: District Net Position as of June 30, 2019......................................................................... 10-35 Figure 10-13: Expenses, Revenues, Fund Projections from FY 2017/2018 to FY 2027/2028 ............... 10-37 Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-3 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-4 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 10.1. Agency Profile 10.1.1. Agency Overview The Meeks Bay Fire Protection District (MEK) is located along Lake Tahoe in the eastern portion of the County of El Dorado, on both sides of Highway 89, from Eagle Falls at Emerald Bay, north to the El Dorado/Placer County line. Within the District, Meeks Creek is a distinctive locational, geographic feature, at an elevation of 6,240 feet. The Meeks Bay Fire Protection District (MEK) is empowered to provide two public services: emergency medical services and fire suppression services. MEK delivers these services Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-5 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final through a contract with the North Tahoe Fire Protection District (NTF). Contracted services include fire department management, administration and operations, fire prevention, training, fire suppression and rescue, equipment and apparatus maintenance, and emergency medical services (Placer LAFCO, 2018). 10.2. Agency Formation and Boundary 10.2.1. Formation The Meeks Bay Fire Protection District was organized on November 27, 1973 through the Board of Supervisor's Resolution No. 556-73, which established the District services, including fire protection services (LAFCO, 2011). Additionally, El Dorado LAFCO authorized the formation of this District through its Resolution LAFCO Resolution No. 13-73, adopted on July 18, 1973. The District was formed to provide emergency medical services and fire suppression services to the Lake Tahoe community known as Meeks Bay. Today, the District delivers these same services through its contract with the North Tahoe Fire Protection District (NTF). 10.2.2. District Boundary The MEK's geographic boundary encompasses roughly 3,880.4 acres or six square miles, as seen in Figure 10-1 (next page). The District provides public services to the communities of Tahoma, Meeks Bay, Rubicon, Glenridge, Gold Coast, and Tahoe Hills. In addition, the District serves several recreational areas, including: Meeks Bay Resort and Meeks Bay Campgrounds; Sugar Pine/General Creek Campgrounds, and the Campgrounds in Bliss State Park and Vikingsholm State Park. MEK is bounded by North Tahoe Fire Protection District to the north and the Lake Valley Fire Protection District to the south. The District’s boundary to the south terminates several miles north of Emerald Bay. Lake Tahoe forms the District's eastern boundary. West of the Districts lies land managed by the U. S. Forest Service. MEK's boundary currently includes 3,086 assessor parcels (EDC GIS, 2020). The District provides services to all parcels within its boundaries through its contract with the North Tahoe Fire Protection District. 10.2.3. Existing Sphere of Influence This section briefly describes the existing Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the MEK. El Dorado LAFCO adjusted the original SOI for the MEK in 2011 via Resolution No. L-2011-09. LAFCO most recently affirmed MEK's SOI through Resolution No. L-2011-09, adopted on August 24, 2011. The District's SOI encompasses 1,863.89 acres and includes 33 parcels, as shown in Table 10-1, below. The average parcel size within the SOI is 94 acres per parcel. The Districts southern boundary to the SOI terminates at Emerald Bay, where Lake Valley Fire Protection District 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 in April 2011 via Resolution No. L-2011-06 of 29 additional parcels as requested by MEK. Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-6 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 10-1: District Boundary Area and SOI Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-7 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 10-1: Geographic Summary of Fire Protection Services for MEK (as of December 2020) District Boundary SOI Total Boundary Area (Only) and SOI (All Services) Total Acres 3,880.4 1863.89 5744.34 Square Miles 6 2.9 8.9 Number of Assessor Parcels 3,086 33 3,119 Source: El Dorado County GIS Data, 2020 Of the 3,086 assessor parcels within the District, only 2,180 parcels are "billable" meaning that the additional 906 parcels include federal, state, and county properties of which the District in responsible for responding to and does not receive any tax revenue (LAFCO, 2020a). 10.2.4. Extra-Territorial Services Since the MEK only provides service to areas within its boundaries through its contract with the North Tahoe Fire Protection District (NTF), MEK does not directly provide extra-territorial services. However, the NTF does participate in various mutual aid agreements, which may result in temporary services outside its boundary. These services are not considered to be Out-of-Agency Services as described in Government Code Section 56134 due to responses being under existing agreements. 10.3. District Governance and Accountability This section describes how performance, accountability, transparency, and public engagement relate to the public's trust in local government. LAFCO is required by the CKH Act to make specific determinations regarding a municipality's government structure and accountability. 10.3.1. Government Structure The MEK is a local government agency structured as an Independent Fire Protection District consistent with its Principal Act. The District has five elected Board Members who reside within the community. All registered voters who reside within the District boundaries are eligible to vote for and/or run for a seat on the District Board of Directors. The District Board's primary responsibilities are to manage the contract with the NTF and to host public meetings on District issues. 10.3.2. District Board The District operates under the direction of the elected District Board. Each Board Member serves for a term of four years with two Board Member seats running two years apart from the remaining three seats. A new Board President is selected by the Board Members each year. The Board's By-Laws were originally adopted in 1982. The District's active committee is the Finance Committee. Directors Fielding and Kromydas are members of the Finance Committee. The current Board of Directors members and their terms' expiration dates are shown in Table 10-2 below. Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-8 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 10-2: Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Board of Directors Person Title Term of Office Edward Miller President Dec. 2024 Korie Kromydas Vice President Dec. 2022 Louie Fielding Director Dec. 2024 Bob Millslagle Director Dec. 2024 Vacant Director Dec. 2022 Source: MEK, 2020e Several previous board members retired in 2019. Directors Jennifer Lemke and Korie Kromydas were all appointed to the position by the County Board of Supervisors in 2019. The District has seen a high level of turn over for Board members in the past three years. MEK has acknowledged that as an independent district, it has experienced some difficulty filling board vacancies. It is thought that perhaps board compensation issues might be a factor that could be adjusted to aid filling those vacancies (MEK, 2020c). The District holds regular public meetings at 3:30 pm on the third Wednesday of each month, January through November, and the second Wednesday in December. The meetings usually occur at the MEK Fire Station No. 67 located at 8041 Hwy 89 (Emerald Bay Road), Meeks Bay, CA. (MEK, 2020a). Board members receive a small stipend for attendance at regular and special Board meetings as well as Board committee meetings. In the year 2017, the Board member stipend was an average of $1,200 per member for the entire year (Transparent Calif, 2020). Board members do receive a health insurance benefit based on the length of service (Source: MEK Meeting Agenda for September 30, 2020 Item #6c). In the year 2017, Board members received a benefits package that ranged from $941.52 to $3,446.16 (Transparent Calif, 2020). Base pay and benefits for Board members in 2017 can be seen in Figure 10-2 below. Figure 10-2: Base Pay and Benefits, MEK Board, 2017 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 Benefits $2,000 Base Pay $1,000 $0 Individual Board Members In California, elected members of special district boards are required to comply with three laws regarding accountability and ethics including 1) the Political Reform Act; 2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005), which requires ethics training; and 3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. which mandates sexual harassment prevention training. A description of each of these three state laws is provided in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-9 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Political Reform Act Each district is required to have ethics and conflict of interest code/policies. MEK does have an adopted Ethics Policy, and it is posted on their website at: https://www.meeksbayfire.com/code-of-ethics-policy. MEK also has a Conflict-of-Interest policy, which is reviewed by the Board on a biennial basis and was most recently reaffirmed in July 2020. The conflict-of-interest policy is also is available to the public on the District website. The Political Reform Act requires special district board members to disclose all personal economic interests by filing a "Statement of Economic Interests" with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). Information available from the FPPC indicates that Board members are complying with the Political Reform Act. Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005) Local government officials are required to take ethics training every two years. Compliance with this law was assessed for each of the fire agencies studied in this MSR by asking staff for the dates and other documentation of training events. MEK's staff reports that all board members have completed the required trainings. Therefore, at this time, MEK's Board is in compliance with AB 1234. Government Code 53237 et. seq. Special district board members must receive required sexual harassment prevention, two-hour training, every two years. Compliance with this law was assessed for each of the fire agencies studied in this MSR by asking staff for the dates and other documentation of training events. MEK's staff reports that all board members have completed the required trainings. Therefore, at this time, MEK's Board is in compliance with Gov. Code 53237 et. seq. 10.3.3. Accountability and Transparency Brown Act The Brown Act is described in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. All meetings of the District Board and committees are open to the public in accordance with the Brown Act. The agenda for each meeting includes a public comment period, and agendas are made available 72 hours before meetings. Agendas are posted at both district facilities: one in Tahoma and the other at Meeks Bay's main station. Public Hearings are noticed in the local newspaper, "Sierra Sun" (LAFCO, 2020a). The District retains legal counsel to ensure compliance with Brown Act and other legal requirements. Any written document that relates to an agenda item is available for public inspection at the same time the writing is distributed to the members of the Board of Directors. Written documents are made available at the District Office and on the District website at: https://www.meeksbayfire.com/board-meetings. Agendas are also distributed via email upon request. The District and its representatives have a solid record of adherence to the requirements of the Brown Act, the Political Reform Act, and similar laws. New Brown Act requirements prescribe the methods and location by which an agenda must be accessible on an agency's website for all meetings. These new Brown Act requirements are detailed in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. MEK makes its agenda available by posting a direct link to the current agenda on its primary homepage. Additionally, the meeting agenda is downloadable and electronically searchable by common internet browsers. MEK provides meeting agendas to the public free Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-10 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final of charge, without restrictions and complies with the requirements of the Brown Act 2016 Updates described in AB2257. Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-29-20 suspended parts of the Brown Act that require in-person attendance of Board members and citizens at public meetings as described in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. In response to these events, the District implemented Teleconference/Electronic Meeting Protocols effective April 2020, which allow for public participation through a video conferencing called "GoToMeeting". This platform is accessible by the public for free. Access information is available on the agendas each month. Special District Transparency Act (SB 929) The Special District Transparency Act (SB 929 or California Government Code, §6270.6 and 53087.8) requires that special districts have a functional website, and the requirements of this Act are described in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. MEK's website is kept updated and is easily navigable with current and past agenda packets available for download. The website contains all necessary information to comply with SB 929 including contact information for Board members, meeting minutes, budgets, other relevant public information, and a link to the State of California Government Compensation Portal. In summary, the Meeks Bay Fire Protection District complies with the requirements of the Special District Transparency Act. General Accountability The MEK demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with El Dorado LAFCO. The District cooperated with LAFCO's requests for information in 2020 and participated in an interview with the MSR consultants. The MEK does appear to comply with the laws, regulations, and guidelines which prescribe safety features associated with fire protection services including state laws and regulations, the Safety Element of the County of El Dorado's General Plan, and other County requirements and regulations. 10.3.4. Management Efficiencies The Fire Chief is responsible for directing District operations and overseeing and implementing policies on behalf of the Board. An important part of management effectiveness includes the District adopting a District-wide mission and vision statement. The MEK Mission statement is: be responsive to the needs of the people of our District with a progressive organization that provides the community with fire prevention, suppression, rescue and life safety, and emergency medical services in a competent and professional manner. The District has several adopted policy documents, including Ethics Policy, Financial Reserves Policy, Brown Act Compliance Policy, Public Records Act Policy, and Conflict of Interest Policy displayed on the District's website at: https://www.meeksbayfire.com/district-transparency. 10.3.5. Staffing and Training The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) calls for a standard of four staff per engine and truck company (4-0) model (NFPA, 2020). A three staff per engine and truck company (3-0) model is acceptable as the minimum standard for this MSR/SOI Update as detailed in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Lower staffing levels leave the community vulnerable to low frequency, high-risk Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-11 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final events, such as a working structure fire. MEK is staffed on ratio with two staff per engine and truck company (2-0) model. This staffing level is below the minimum standard practice. Table 10-3 lists the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) positions at the beginning of the fiscal year. Table 10-3: Current Staffing Levels for the MEK by Type and Full-time Equivalent (FTE) Position FTE Count as of July 1, 2020 Fire Chief 1* Battalion Chief 3* Division Fire Chief 1* Fire Marshall, Division 1* Paid Firefighter 6+* Firefighter/EMT 3* Firefighter/Paramedic 3* Training Officer/Battalion Chief 1* Officer Support Staff, Business 1 Manager Other Administrative Support Staff 4* Source: LAFCO, 2020a *Indicates positions staffed by NTF under the contract agreement. Through its contract with NTF, MEK pays the salaries for three captains, three paramedic firefighters, and one division chief. As of March 24, 2022, District employs no personnel. In Table 10-3 above, those positions noted with an asterisk symbol are employees of NTF and provide service to MEK through contract with NTF. The one fire station in the Meeks Bay boundary is staffed with a Captain/Driver Operator and a Firefighter/Paramedic. Given that MEK does not meet the NFPA staffing standard, MEK contracted staff acknowledges that adding a second firefighter and an engineer would provide adequate staffing for the values at risk (LAFCO, 2020a). Following Office Manager Crawford's anticipated retirement in late 2021, there will no longer be any Meeks Bay Fire employees (MEK, Dec 2020c). Combined, the MEK and the NTF have a total of 60-70 employees between the two Districts. Salaries and other payments to staff were queried using the Transparent California database. The most recent data available is from the year 2017. In 2017, MEK had a one employee on the payroll as shown in Figure 10-3. Total benefits consist of the employer-paid cost of health, dental and vision medical insurance, plus retirement contributions (Transparent California, 2020). Figure 10-3: Wages and Benefits, MEK Staff, 2017 $15,877.39 Base Pay $18,911.88 Overtime Pay Other Pay $1,584.54 Benefits $87,019.14 Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-12 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Staffing for the MEK is augmented by its participation in a ‘boundary drop,’ mutual aid system that automatically deploys the closest available resource to respond to requests for aid from other fire agencies in the County of El Dorado (MEK 2020a). In addition, NTF and MEK participate in the Lake Tahoe Regional Chiefs’ Association. This Association provides regional cooperation in the form of automatic and mutual aid agreements between all fire agencies in the Lake Tahoe Basin as well as agencies within Carson Valley, Washoe County, and Douglas County in Nevada. Although MEK does not meet the 3-0 staffing model standard, its agreement with the NTF and the Lake Tahoe Regional Chiefs’ Association helps it function as a mutual aid system partner. The NTF Fire Chief serves both agencies. Per the terms of the Agreement for Fire Services Management and Related Services, the NTF Chief has designated a member of his executive staff to serve as Chief of MEK for daily operations and liaison to the MEK Board. (NTF and MEK, 2018a). Staffing coverage for emergency response uses career firefighters on 24-hour shifts. For an immediate response, no less than 13 personnel are on duty at all times (NTF/MEK, 2018a). Training The NTF Training Division sends out monthly training schedules to all crews. The training consists of a minimum of two hours of training per shift. Staff completes multi-company drills quarterly. The drills consist of multi-station training based on different topics. A bi-annual night drill is also conducted. Other specialized training for each year is as follows: RT 130, blood borne pathogens, CPR, Harassment training, Hazmat FRO, Shore zone rescue, SCBA quarterly drill, and river rescue training. Staff also takes part in instructing the regional fire academy and hosts a three-week Engineer's academy annually. Internal staff leadership receives training from an outside instructor (LAFCO, 2020a). Complaints During the years 2018 and 2019, the District did not receive any complaints regarding its service (LAFCO, 2020a). 10.4. Growth and Population Forecasts The growth and population projection for the affected area is a determination which LAFCO is required to describe, consistent with the MSR Guidelines from the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) as set forth in the CKH Act. This section provides information on the existing population and future growth projections for the MEK. Historical and anticipated population growth is a factor which affects service demand. 10.4.1. Existing Population The permanent population of a district in the Lake Tahoe Region is a small fraction of the total population that a district serves due to the high number of vacation homes, campgrounds, and daytime visitors. he Lake Tahoe Region experiences a significant seasonal influx of visitors seeking recreational opportunities. 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 visits the region (Placer LAFCO, 2018). Within MEK's boundaries there are approximately 2,576 permanent residents as of 2020, as shown in Table 10-4 Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-13 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final below. Detailed information regarding population demographics and socio-economic indicators in El Dorado County is provided in Volume I - Appendix A and Appendix B. Table 10-4: MEK Existing Population (2020) Number of Permanent Overnight Visitor Daytime Visitor Registered Population Population Population Voters (Estimated) (Estimated) Meeks Bay Fire 5901 2,576 2,577 7,0002 Protection District Notes: For purposes of this calculation, it is assumed that 50% of the homes within MEK’s boundaries are owner- occupied on a year-round basis. There are 3,086 parcels in MEK’s boundaries, with an average of 1.67 persons per parcel (GIS data, 2020) Source: 1LAFCO’s number of voters for MEK online a: https://www.edlafco.us/files/f03e36760/MeeksBayFire_2019.pdf 2El Dorado LAFCO, 2011 NTF staff indicate that summer vacation season and winter ski season cause population spikes within the District boundaries. It should be noted that census tracts do not directly correspond with District boundaries; however, the data presented in Table 12-4, above, provides a close approximation to the existing population for the District. 10.4.2. Existing Population in SOI The population in MEK's SOI and outside the District Boundary is estimated to include 2,576 permanent residents and an average of 2,577 overnight visitors based upon an average number of 1.67 persons per Assessor's Parcel. Additionally, several campgrounds and other visitor-serving facilities within the SOI could increase the daytime visitor population up by +1,000 or more persons. 10.4.3. Projected Population Growth Projecting future population for a District is complicated due to varying annexation rates and census tracts that do not match with District boundaries. For purposes of this MSR, data from the California Department of Finance (DOF) was used to project population growth as shown in Table 10-5 below. The DOF provides population projections at the County level and the growth rate for the County of El Dorado is utilized to extrapolate population growth rates for the Meeks Bay Fire Protection District. By the year 2040, it is estimated that MEK's existing boundary will encompass a population of 2,821 permanent residents and 2,846 overnight visitors. The combined number of permanent and overnight persons of 5,667 in year 2040 represents an average annual growth rate of 0.36 percent during the twenty-year time period. Table 10-5: Total Estimated and Projected Population (2020 – 2040) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 County of El Dorado1 193,227 201,041 207,496 211,537 213,033 Meeks Bay Fire Protection District2 5,153 5,347 5,519 5,627 5,667 Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-14 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Sources: 1California 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. 2Population projection for MEK calculated as a percentage of The County of El Dorado and includes both permanent residents and overnight visitor population. Though the projected growth rate for the County of El Dorado anticipates development throughout the entire County, the addition of 245 more people to the MEK by 2040 is possible as the District has undeveloped areas within its existing boundaries that could potentially be available for more intensive residential development, subject to TRPA and County approval. Growth in the Tahoe Basin is slow due to land use regulation by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA); an average of 20-30 permits are reviewed annually for remodeling projects and new homes (LAFCO, 2011). 10.4.4. Existing Land Use Land-use is a factor that affects population growth and therefore, demand for public services. However, the MEK is not a land-use authority. Currently, the primary land uses within the service area for the District are residential and recreation with associated open space. The residential areas are predominantly single-family homes. Recreational areas include several campgrounds, a state park, a community park, and a trail. Although there are no ski resorts within MEK's proper boundary, several resorts, such as Homewood, are nearby. Open space within the District includes 841 acres owned by the State of California and 1,244 acres owned by the USFS (LAFCO, 2011). There are no industrial areas in the District; however, El Dorado County Department of Transportation and the State Parks Service have maintenance yards in the area. There are about 20 commercial operations in the District. There are no formal schools, churches, or other public assembly places (LAFCO, 2011). No agricultural use is present within MEK's boundaries. Parcelization has slowly increased within MEK's boundary over the years. The most recent annexation added eight parcels to the District. The District's SOI contains state and federal lands, parks and campgrounds (LAFCO, 2020a). The Desolation wilderness forms the western boundary of a portion of MEK. There are large variations in topography within the MEK District as well as in the surrounding areas as shown in Figure 10-4 below. Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-15 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 10-4: Topography of Lake Tahoe Environs and MEK District Boundary Tahoe Regional Planning Agency As described in Volume I – Chapter 3, Introduction, the Lake Tahoe area is under the jurisdiction of several agencies, including the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and the County of El Dorado, as well as various State agencies due to the fact that the lake straddles California and Nevada. 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. In December 2012, the TRPA Governing Board adopted the Lake Tahoe Regional Plan Update. The Regional Plan Update leaves many of the policies of the 1987 Regional Plan in place while providing more autonomy to local governments through adoption of Area Plans. The Regional Plan Update initiated a Region-wide transition to a planning and permitting system where all requirements—TRPA, local, state, and federal—are addressed in coordinated Area Plans. County General Plan The District's boundary area is entirely unincorporated and subject to the land-use policies and regulations of El Dorado County. Most land-use decisions, initiated by private property owners over the last decade, are secured via entitlements and land-use permits from El Dorado County and other agencies. The County plans for its future growth through its General Plan, a long-term comprehensive framework to guide physical, social, and economic development within the community’s planning area. The County of El Dorado’s General Plan was adopted in July 2004. Individual elements have since been updated on an individual basis. The 2013-2021 Housing Element was adopted in October 2013, with the most recent update occurring to the Land Use Element in August 2019. The County of El Dorado General Plan serves as the County’s vision for long-term land use development and conservation (County of El Dorado, 2019). Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-16 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 10.4.5. Potential Future Development Future population growth within the unincorporated Meeks Bay community is dependent upon zoning and general plan policies and land-use designations in the region in concert with the County of El Dorado General Plan. There are no proposed or current projects that would impact the District. 10.4.6. Open Space and Agriculture El Dorado LAFCO's policies require that an MSR/SOI offer a determination about the effect that a district's service provision will have on open space and agricultural lands. For purposes of this MSR analysis, open space data was derived from the County GIS data. 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 (LAFCO, 2020a). MEK's effect on open space lands is minimal. The District does provide fire protection services to open space areas within its boundaries. The MEK fire protection services do not play a role in these types of land-use conversions. 10.4.7. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities As described in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information, a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) is an unincorporated area of a County in which the annual median household income (MHI) is less than 80 percent of the statewide MHI. Within the boundaries of MEK are located one Census Block Group and one Census Designated Place. Neither meet the DUC threshold to be classified as disadvantaged unincorporated community. Therefore, no DUCs exist within the MEK District boundary. 10.5. Public Services and Infrastructure 10.5.1. Service Overview The Meeks Bay Fire Protection District is an established Fire Protection District. MEK is empowered by its enabling legislation to provide emergency medical services and fire suppression to residents and businesses throughout its boundaries. The North Tahoe Fire Protection District (NTF) provides services to MEK through an Out-of-Area Service Agreement. Contracted services include fire department management, administration and operations, fire prevention, training, fire suppression and rescue, equipment and apparatus maintenance, emergency medical services, hazardous materials emergency response, arson investigation, and fire safety education (LAFCO, 2020a). A list of services and providers in the District is shown in Table 10-6. Table 10-6: List of Services Provided by MEK or Other Provider Service Provider Structural Fire Protection NTF Wildland Fire Protection NTF Emergency Medical Response NTF Rescue/Extrication NTF Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-17 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Service Provider Hazardous Materials NTF Water Supply/hydrants Tahoe City PUD & Private Water Purveyors (Tamarack Mutual & Glenridge) Training NTF Fire Safety Education NTF Arson Investigations NTF Source: LAFCO, 2020a Structural Fire Protection The suppression of fires in local structures is the primary focus of MEK’s work. Post-fire investigation and research indicates that flying embers cause most home ignitions during wildfires. Individual homeowners can protect their property from the financial risk associated with structural fire by purchasing homeowner’s insurance with fire coverage. Purchasing this homeowner’s insurance has become more difficult in recent years. For example, in the County of El Dorado, during the year 2016, over 1,000 homeowners lost access to their homeowner’s insurance policy due to non-renewal by the insurance company (California Department of Insurance, 2018). 10.5.2. Fire and Emergency Response The District maintains automatic aid agreements with all fire service agencies located in the County of El Dorado and Lake Tahoe Basin for fire suppression and emergency management services. Under this system, the District responds to close proximity calls within adjacent fire jurisdictions, as well as receives assistance from neighboring agencies when requested. This type of agreement ensures the best possible emergency service is delivered by the most efficient means possible. The District also participates in a mutual aid system that responds to requests for aid from throughout the County and State. Because of these agreements, all firefighters within each fire agency in the County must be prepared for any type of emergency in any setting at all times. Every fire agency within the United States is rated by an independent risk assessment and standards authority for the purposes of establishing insurance policy premiums for homeowners and businesses. California uses an independent national company called the Insurance Services Office, or ISO, for this purpose. The Insurance Services Office evaluates four broad categories of fire suppression when establishing a Public Protection Classification (PPC). These categories include: 1) Fire Department; 2) Emergency Communications; 3) Water Supply; and 4) Community Risk Reduction. ISO routinely conducts assessments of each fire agency in the United States. The rating scale from best to worse is One (1) — Ten (10). There is a possible score of 105.5 points from the total of the four categories listed above. An agency needs a score of 90-105.5 to receive a PPC of Class 1. The Meeks Bay Fire Protection District received an ISO rating of 3/3Y (LAFCO, 2020a). Emergency Medical Services The North Tahoe Fire Protection District (NTF) provides Advanced Life Support Paramedics and ambulance transport to the North and West shores of Lake Tahoe from the Nevada State line to Emerald Bay in El Dorado County, including Alpine Meadows, and on the lake waters of Tahoe in cooperation with the United States Coast Guard. Approximately 78 percent of the emergency calls to the NTF contain a Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-18 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final component of emergency medical services (EMS). The mission of the NTF EMS program is to be the leader in prehospital emergency medical services through well-trained personnel, rapidly providing excellent, cost effective care to all patients by utilizing appropriate equipment and technology. All of NTF's safety personnel are qualified to work as either a paramedic or EMT (emergency medical technician). This service is covered under the agreement between MEK and NTF. Depending on the situation, patients in an ambulance may be transported to Tahoe Forest Hospital in Truckee, Barton Memorial Hospital in South Lake Tahoe, or other health facilities. The NTF runs five ambulances within its District and provides ambulance service to the MEK communities under contract with the County of El Dorado. Additionally, an advanced life support equipped fire engine responds under contract with County of El Dorado out of the MEK fire station. This contract is separate from the two JPAs that operate ambulances for all other areas of the County and ambulance service provided by NTF is not analyzed as part of this MSR/SOI Update. This contract is reflective of the geographical limitations that makes it difficult for emergency personnel to go through the Emerald Bay area. Two of NTF's stations have both engine and ambulance crews and are both fully staffed. All other NTF stations house either an engine company or ambulance crew. NTF ambulance conduct transfers for the Tahoe Forest Hospital on a rotational basis with the Truckee Fire Protection District on a rotating schedule (Chief Crawford, personal communication, October 2, 2020). Calls for Service According to CAL FIRE Grass Valley Emergency Command Center (ECC), the District responded to 748 unique incidents in 2019. Those incidents translated to 934 calls for service. A call for service refers to any apparatus or vehicle for the agency which responded to a unique incident, and each apparatus or vehicle is counted as one “call for service.” For MEK, this data analysis includes the ambulance Medic 67 (M67) that responds out of the District station. A breakdown of calls for service from 2010 to 2019 can be seen in Figure 10-5. The year 2019 represents the most calls for the District. Between 2010 and 2019, the District saw an increase of calls by approximately 300 percent (CAL FIRE Grass Valley ECC, 2020). Figure 10-5: MEK Calls for Service from 2010 – 2019 1,000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-19 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final According to CAL FIRE Grass Valley ECC data, the majority of the calls were for medical at 343 incidents (46 percent). The next highest was fire at 144 incidents (19 percent) followed by assistance incidents at 105 incidents (14 percent). A break down in incident types for 2019 can be seen in Figure 10-6 below (CAL FIRE Grass Valley ECC, 2020). Figure 10-6: MEK Incidents by Type, 2019 2% 10% 14% Assistance Fire Hazard 19% Medical Other 46% 9% Traffic Collision The “Other” incident category includes engine covers for other fire agencies, aircraft down, arson, investigations, medical transfers, rescues, extractions, miscellaneous, radio and phone system failures, staffing patterns, call transfers, as well as other similar incident types. The “Assistance” incident category includes public agency work such as demonstrations, assisting with a water leak, assisting with an animal, assisting with an alarm or lockout, elevator rescue, physically assisting in lifting a person, and assisting with search and rescue (CAL FIRE Grass Valley ECC, 2020). More information on incident categories can be found in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Response Time MEK/NTF have several policies regarding response time, and these policies are listed in Table 10-7. In the year 2019, the MEK's average response time was 8 minutes, 50 seconds. The response time data does not cover interfacility transfer (IFT), auto/mutual aid, strike team/overhead, out of county wildland, back country rescues, and move-up and cover (CAL FIRE Grass Valley ECC, 2020). The calls for service calculated for response time totaled 200 for 2019 (Shawn Crawford, personal communication, February 2021). Table 10-7: MEK/NTF Response Time Policies and Goals 309.2 Policy It is the policy of the Fire Protection District to establish response time goals and a performance objective of not less than 90 percent for the achievement of those goals. Goals may include: a. One minute or less for dispatch processing time. b. Turn Out time 1. For all Alarms = 60 to 90 seconds 2. For all Wildland Incidents = 3 minutes Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-20 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final c. Four minutes or less for the arrival of the first engine company at a fire suppression incident. d. Eight minutes or less for the arrival of a full first alarm assignment at a fire suppression incident. e. Arrival of an advanced life support (ALS) unit at an emergency medical incident: 1. North Shore, State line to 1870 West Lake Blvd., including Sunnyside, North on Highway 89 to Midway Bridge, North on Highway 267 to Northstar Drive ~ 10 Minute Response Time 2. Homewood, 1870 West Lake Blvd. South to El Dorado County line ~ 20 Minute Response Time 3. Alpine Springs, From Highway 89 and Alpine Meadows Road into Alpine Meadows ~ 20 Minute Response Time 4. Wilderness, all other District areas including backcountry and areas of non-paved roads ~ As soon as possible NTF El Dorado County EMS contract states; EMS response in El Dorado County is 20 minutes or less, 90% of the time. Response Performance Summary • Each agencies response interval performance during the study period was evaluated. Non- emergency incidents, mutual aid incidents outside the study area, data outliers, and invalid data were removed from the data set whenever possible. • NTF/MEK has adopted the following service delivery goals for measuring response performance: Dispatch Call Processing Time • 9-1-1 calls will be answered at the primary PSAP within 15 seconds, 95 percent of the time. • Calls will be transferred from the primary PSAP to GVECC within 30 seconds from the time answered, 95 percent of the time. • Response resources shall be notified of a priority incident within 64 seconds from receipt of the call at the dispatch center, 90 percent of the time. Turnout Time • Response personnel shall initiate response to a priority non-wildland fire and special operations incidents within 80 seconds from notification, 90 percent of the time. • Response personnel shall initiate response to a priority wildland fire incident within 3 minutes from notification, 90 percent of the time. • Response personnel shall initiate response to all other priority incidents within 60 seconds from notification, 90 percent of the time. Response Time for Arrival of the First Response Unit at a Priority Incident • The first response unit capable of initiating effective incident intervention shall arrive at a priority non-wildland fire and special operations incident within 5 minutes, 20 seconds from notification of response personnel, 90 percent of the time. • The first response unit capable of initiating effective incident intervention shall arrive at a priority wildland fire incident within 8 minutes from notification of response personnel, 90 percent of the time. • The first response unit capable of initiating effective incident intervention shall arrive at all other priority incidents within 5 minutes, from notification of response personnel, 90 percent of the time. Response Time for Arrival of the Effective Response Force at a Moderate Risk Structure Fire Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-21 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • The full effective response force shall arrive at a moderate risk structure fire within 9 minutes, 20 seconds, of notification of response personnel, 90 percent of the time. Wildland Fires • The full effective response force shall arrive at a wildland fire within 9 minutes, 20 seconds, of notification of response personnel, 90 percent of the time Source: ESCI Alternative Governance Study regarding NTF and MKF response standards. pg. 68 (73/150) and from LAFCO, 2020a. The District was well ahead of the 20-minute response standard for emergency medical services (EMS) incidents and had an average dispatch to on scene time of 8 minutes 44 seconds. MEK had 95 EMS incidents, which accounts for 39 percent of call volume. Although the District has made many adjustments to improve response times, the District remained above the target with an average response time of 9 minutes 50 seconds for incidents involving fire suppression. The District continues to strive for response time of 8 minutes 20 seconds, 90 percent of the time, for incidents involving special operations or a priority fire and remains committed to improving response times in all areas of the District (Shawn Crawford, personal communication, February 2021). Other Industry Standards In general, other industry standards applicable to the MEK are established by the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA), the Insurance Services Office, Cal OSHA, and District ordinances. All of these agencies, as well as many others, directly and/or indirectly affect the type of services, the quality and development of those services, expansion, reliability, facility design, and construction and environmental issues that the District provides. Fire Prevention and Public Outreach MEK Board members participate in several community groups to facilitate ongoing public education on fire prevention measures. MEK also provides a Facebook page that provides links to information about fire prevention, safety, and current events related to the District's mission. MEK and NFT are a leading partner with the Tahoe Network of Fire Adapted Communities. This program is designed to help residents and visitors prepare for wildfire. This multi-agency and community collaboration 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 Services provide the following: 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 (Eric Horntvedt, email communication, February 9, 2021). There are no formal Fire Safe Councils, however the Tahoe Network of Fire Adapted Communities works closely with identified volunteer neighborhood leaders, and MEK along with NTF are leaders in the Tahoe Basin for integrating NFPA's Firewise USA Recognition Program into the Tahoe Network of Fire Adapted Communities Program. There are currently 6 recognized Firewise communities within NTF, and we are working to identify neighborhood leaders and encourage the Firewise USA program throughout MEK communities (Eric Horntvedt, email communication, February 9, 2021). Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-22 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Forest Fuel Treatment Forest fuel treatment typically relates to wildland fires rather than the structural fires which are the focus on the MEK. However, within the MEK's boundaries, there are multiple privately owned parcels that contain native vegetation. Although the MEK is not directly responsible for forest fuel treatments, a community approach to safety that considers house-to-house transmission, structural safety, and forest fuel treatments is essential. The NTF and MEK work as collaborative partners with the Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team1. The Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team was formed in 2008 and includes 22 agencies around the Tahoe Basin including local, state, federal and special districts. This Team implements 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 (Eric Horntvedt, email communication, February 2021). 10.5.3. Mutual Aid, Automatic Aid, Other Agreements A discussion regarding the amounts of automatic aid given and received for the West Slope fire agencies could not be replicated for the fire agencies in the County within the Lake Tahoe basin. CAL FIRE Grass Valley ECC Dispatch did not provide the consultants with a breakdown in automatic aid received versus provided for Meeks Bay Fire Protection District in a usable format. As a result of lack of data, this section will discuss general mutual aid information for MEK. Agreements for mutual aid or any other appropriate agreements are not reviewed at set dates. The District is signatory to these agreements, not the implementor due to Joint Agreements with NTF as detailed below (LAFCO, 2020a). Mutual Aid MEK maintains several mutual aid agreements with regard to fire protection or emergency services. Specific aid agreements with surrounding fire agencies include North Tahoe Fire Protection District, Lake Valley Fire, Cal Fire, and U.S. Forest Service (USFS), including the Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chiefs’ Agreement, the CA Master Mutual Aid and Operational Agreements with State and Local Agencies (LAFCO, 2020a). Automatic Aid Automatic aid is a voluntary agreement between the fire districts. MEK maintains several automatic aid agreements with regard to fire protection or emergency services. Specific automatic aid agreements with surrounding fire agencies include North Tahoe Fire, Lake Valley Fire, Cal Fire, and USFS. There is also a Seven Party Boundary drop agreement. This agreement outlines the negotiated reimbursement terms and conditions for local fire agency responses through the California Fire Service and Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid system. It allows the state of California and federal fire agencies to utilize local government firefighting personnel and equipment to assist the state of California and federal agencies (LAFCO, 2020a). 1 More information about the Tahoe Fire and Fuels Team can be found at: https://fireadaptednetwork.org/member/tahoe-fire- and-fuels-team/. Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-23 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Joint Agreement A Joint Agreement manages situations where a District jointly owns or share fire protection services capital facilities or services with other agencies. MEK currently 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 (LAFCO, 2020a; Chief Leighton, personal communication, March 2022). Although MEK receives services from NTF by contract, MEK does not offer any services to other districts (aside from mutual/automatic aid agreements) (LAFCO, 2020a). When considering whether there are any areas the District currently serves for fire protection services that might be served more efficiently by another agency, staff noted that since its District is managed via contract with the NTF, that jurisdictional organizational options should be considered by MEK and LAFCO. 10.5.4. Dispatch MEK contracts with CAL FIRE for the provision of fire department 9-1-1 emergency dispatch services through the Grass Valley Fire/Emergency Command Center (ECC). Under this agreement, CAL Fire is responsible for dispatching emergency resource units. The CAL FIRE Grass Valley ECC is staffed with a Battalion Chief, three or more Fire Captains, and Communications Operators to provide 24/7 year-round coverage. There is always an officer of Captain rank or higher to serve as the shift supervisor and command officer. CAL FIRE's integrated Computer Aided Dispatch system uses the latest technology to direct the closest available resources to all emergency incidents. Through the state's cost recovery program, MEK pays almost $20k per year under the three-year term of the contract for a maximum total cost of $59,344. This agreement is detailed in MEK Resolution No. 2020-08, which is effective from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2023. The District Board reviews this agreement every three years with the most recent review occurring on June 8, 2020 (LAFCO, 2020a). 10.5.5. Emergency Access Major access roads to the Meeks Bay Fire Protection District include State Route 89 (Emerald Bay Road), Sunrise Avenue, North Lane, and Sierra Drive. The MEK's boundary area includes ingress and egress challenges identified in the County's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. For example, access to fire hydrants is sometimes limited due to snow. All evacuations and evacuation planning are completed through the County of El Dorado Sheriff’s department. 10.5.6. Fire Hazard Zones The Fire Hazard Severity Zones, WUI, and Community Risk Fire Map in which CAL Fire categorizes spatial areas into different risk areas are described in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. The MEK is located within an identified WUI as shown in Figure 10-7 below (CAL FIRE, 2007). Within the MEK's boundaries, 3,858 acres are in Fire Hazard Severity zone "Very High" based on GIS data provided by CAL FIRE, and this equates to 99 percent of the District as detailed in Table 10-8 below. Table 10-8: MEK Local, State and Federal Responsibility Area Acreage and Percentage Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-24 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Acreage in Very High % in Very High Acreage in High % in High Fire Total % in Very High Fire Risk Fire Risk Risk and High Fire Risk 3,858 99.4% 0.00 0% 99.4% Source: County GIS Data, 2020 derived from CalFire data Within the District boundaries, 74 percent is located within a State Responsibility Area (SRA), 25 percent is located within a Federal Responsibility Area, and approximately one percent is located in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). The portions of the District within an LRA are along the shore of Lake Tahoe and Lake Tahoe itself which CAL FIRE designates as a Local Responsibility Area. The District’s SOI includes 80 percent within the SRA, 19 percent within the FRA, and less than one percent in the LRA. The LRA portions for the SOI contain the lake and lake shoreline. Table 10-9: MEK Local, State and Federal Responsibility Area Acreage and Percentage Boundary Only (in acres) SOI Only (by itself) (in acres) LRA SRA FRA LRA SRA FRA 6 2,902 972 16 1,495 353 Source: GIS data from CAL FIRE Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-25 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 10-7: Fire Hazard Severity Zones within the MEK Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-26 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final For wildland fires, the majority of the District is in an SRA, where CAL FIRE has responsibility for fires as shown in Figure 10-7 and Table 10-9. However, CAL FIRE has a "balance of efforts" agreement with the USFS for fire protection in the vicinity of the MEK. The USFS does not provide around the clock staffing and is not equipped to assist with calls related to interior structural fire protection, medical aid, hazardous materials incidents, and rescues. Consequently, when the USFS staff is not available, local firefighters become the primary responders for all wildfires in the general area. Also, MEK, through its contract with NTF, provides structural fire protection services to all USFS structures and all structures in the state parks – a function normally performed by CAL FIRE (LAFCO, 2020a). 10.5.7. Infrastructure MEK maintains infrastructure to support its fire protection services. This infrastructure includes fire stations, fire trucks and other vehicles, water hoses, and other equipment. MEK owns two fire stations within the District including the buildings and the underlying land as listed in Table 10-10, below. These stations were recently renumbered as shown below. Table 10-10: Fire Stations Detail Current Station Number Previous Station Number Address Staffing 8041 Hwy 89, 67 61 24/7/365 Meeks Bay, CA 7164 7th Avenue, 68 62 Not staffed Tahoma CA Station 68 is used for vehicle and equipment storage. For daily operations, the NTF has a minimum of 13 safety personnel, including one Battalion Chief, on shift for the entire NTF boundary and its partners including MEK, every single day. When an emergency call arises, the closest two stations are routed to the call (Chief Crawford, personal communication, October 2, 2020). MEK owns several fire engines and other vehicles as listed in Table 10-11, below. Table 10-11: Apparatus and Light Vehicles, 2020 Water Equipment Type Identifier Year Portable Equipment Capacity Type 1 Engine M-1501 1999 Gas powered generator 1000 Type 1 Tender 2003 Gas powered transfer pump and gas- 2600 M-1503 powered generator Utility M-1504 2000 N/A N/A Utility M-1505 2002 N/A N/A Utility M-1510 1999 Snowplow and 50-gal diesel jump tank N/A Type 1 Engine M-1512 2017 ALS, Hurst E-hydraulic extrication tool set 750 (cutter, spreader and ram), Ramfan battery operated PPV fan Source: MEK 2020a Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-27 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Water and Hydrants Water is essential to extinguish structural fires as well as preventing further propagation. In MEK, water service is provided by Tahoe City Public Utility District and private water purveyors (Tamarack Mutual Water Company and Glenridge Mutual Water Company) (LAFCO, 2020a). These water purveyors are described in Placer LAFCO's 2018 MSR on North Tahoe and Martis Valley. Water can also be obtained from local, natural, or neighborhood sources such as rivers, lakes, and ponds. Specifically, MEK/NTF have the ability to draft water from Lake Tahoe if necessary (LAFCO, 2020a). A number of private tanks (e.g. Emerald Bay Tracts) and water company tanks assist the District with its water supply. Unfortunately, whether 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 or other sources, and by requiring homes to include auxiliary tanks and fire sprinkler systems (LAFCO, 2011). There are fire hydrants throughout the District, however hydrant capacity varies by hydrant and water purveyor (LAFCO, 2020a). 10.5.8. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies MEK has collaborated with the NTF to document any infrastructure, facilities, and equipment needs or deficiencies in their Apparatus Replacement Plan, managed by North Tahoe Fire (LAFCO, 2020a). Additionally, MEK staff has noted that periodic replacement of fire stations and associated facilities/infrastructure is needed to protect existing assets. A higher level of daily staffing would be better to support current facilities (LAFCO, 2020a). 10.5.9. Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing 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 2017 Emergency Services Consulting International (ESCI) Alternative Governance study (North Tahoe-Meeks Bay Alternative Governance Report), most economy of scale and efficiency savings have already been gained using the existing agreements with NTF. Aside from consolidation, there are no additional work tasks that could be further reduced as a cost savings measure (LAFCO, 2020a). The North Tahoe-Meeks Bay Alternative Governance Report outlines potential actions by LAFCO or others that could assist in addressing challenges. 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: Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-28 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • 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 informal 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, 2018b) 10.6. Financial Ability to Provide Services The El Dorado Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is required to make determinations regarding the financial ability of the MEK to provide public services. This section provides an overview of the financial health of the District and a context for LAFCO’s financial determinations. The audited financial statements from the District for the Fiscal Years (FY) 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 are the primary source of all information for this section. The Preliminary and Final Budgets for the FY 2019/2020 and FY 2020/2021 are also used in order to provide the most recent context to the analysis (MEK 2018; 2019; 2020d; 2020e). In California, special districts are classified as either enterprise or non-enterprise based on their source of revenue. MEK generally operates as a non-enterprise district, collecting and utilizing property tax revenue to fund fire protection and emergency medical services (MEK 2019; 2018). 10.6.1. Financial Policies and Transparency MEK has a reimbursement policy and a reserve policy that governs how the District maintains reserve funds and reimburses staff and Board Members for travel expenses (MEK, 2020b). The District adopts a fiscal year budget and conducts an annual cycle review to determine any changes that might be needed. The Preliminary Budget for FY 2020/2021 was adopted by the Board on June 17, 2020 (MEK, 2020d). The District publishes an audited financial statement every year. California Government Code and District policy require an annual independent audit of the District’s financial records by a certified public accountant. The independent audits for FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 were performed by Zachary Pehling, CPA, independent auditors. The auditors judge whether the District’s financial statements are Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-29 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final presented in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is responsible for establishing GAAP for state and local governments through its statements and interpretations. The District uses the accrual basis of accounting, where revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recorded when liabilities are incurred (MEK, 2018; 2019). The FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 auditor reports indicated that the District has not presented Management’s Discussion and Analysis or budgetary comparison information. Based on accounting principles generally accepted, this information is required to be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the GASB who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context (MEK, 2018; 2019). 10.6.2. District Revenues and Expenditures The District’s largest and primary revenue source is Property Taxes while the District’s largest expenditure is Professional Fees. A breakdown in revenues and expenditures can be seen in Figure 10-8. A breakdown of revenues and expenditures is also available in table format in in Volume II - Appendix A, Financial Tables by Agency. Revenues The District’s largest and primary revenue source is Property Taxes. In addition to property taxes, other recurring revenue sources include a Fire Suppression Assessment (ballot measure approved on August 10, 2009) and two Fire/EMS Assessments (Measure Z approved on August 4, 1992 and Measure R approved on August 4, 1998) (El Dorado County, 2020). As shown in Figure 10-8, for FY 2018/2019 the District revenues were in excess of $1.6 million. The Fire Suppression Assessment and two Fire/EMS Assessment revenue estimated calculations for FY 2020/2021 are based on: • Fire Suppression Assessment based on $214.94 per single family equivalent (SFE); • The two Fire/EMS Assessments based on $85 per parcel for Measure Z, and $45 per parcel for Measure R; and Property tax is based on an estimated increase of 3.8 percent per year. Apart from the District’s Fire Suppression Assessment, property tax, and two Fire/EMS Assessments; additional revenue sources ranged from $49,466 in FY 2017/2018 to $117,282 in FY 2018/2019, representing a 58 percent increase between FY 2018/2019 and FY 2017/2018. Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-30 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 10-8: MEK Revenues and Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 to FY 2020/2021 Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-31 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-32 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final For the FY 2020/2021 Preliminary Budget, there is a line item of $222,919 for a Nevada Fire Safe Council (NVFSC) settlement, listed as “Operating Grants” in Figure 10-8, and a $75,000 line item for VHR Inspection revenue. The VHR Inspection revenue is a passthrough account that is paid to NFT. MEK is a creditor of the NVFSC which filed for bankruptcy after it was found by a federal audit that the council was not properly accounting for grant funding awarded by the Forest Services, including $3.6 million in Recovery Act money and $6.2 million in other grant funding. According to court filings, MEK filed a proof of claim for $392,178.55, but the courts awarded only $222,919.00 (MEK 2020a; Dornan, 2012). Expenditures The District's largest recurring expense is Professional Fees. On April 5, 2014, the District entered into a Fire Services Management Agreement with the North Tahoe Fire Protection District (NTF). Through this agreement, NTF supports the District’s ability to respond to calls by providing staffing, equipment, and training in exchange for the District paying 1/6th or 17 percent of NTF shared expenses. This agreement accounts for 70 percent of the Districts expenditures. The agreement requires NTF to provide services and staffing to include: one division chief, three captains and three paramedic firefighters. The District did not use any volunteer firefighters in 2020. Salaries and Benefits represent the next largest recurring expense. The District currently pays for the salary and benefits of one staff member, an office manager and clerk to the Board of Directors. The District also pays stipends and health insurance benefits for District Board members. A breakdown of the Districts expenses can be seen in Figure 10-8. Recurring expenses are anticipated to increase by 26 percent in FY 2020/2021; however, MEK revenues are anticipated to increase by only 24 percent, two percent less than expenses. MEK is anticipating operating with a two percent deficit for FY 2019/2020. It is important to note that budgets are best estimates and subject to change. Revenues Over/Under Expenditures The District operated at a loss in FY 2018/2019 as shown in Figure 10-9. Figure 10-9: MEK Net Revenues Over/Under Expenditures for FY 2017-2021 Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-33 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Based on the estimates from the final budget for FY 2019/2020, the District will again be operating at a deficit of almost $200,000. The estimated deficit for FY 2019/2020 was due to the District anticipating receiving the settlement money from NVFSC during that fiscal year. It is now assumed that the District will receive those funds in FY 2020/2021. Revenues are projected to increase by 22 percent for the Final 2020/2021 Budget based on the NVFSC settlement and new internal revenue from Vacation Home Rental (VHR) Inspections paid to and conducted by NTF. However, expenditures are also budgeted to increase by nine percent in FY 2020/2021. The Final FY 2020/2021 Budget includes the settlement of $222,919 from the NVFSC as discussed above. Without this additional revenue source, the District would likely end the year in a deficit. 10.6.3. District Assets and Liabilities District Assets The District had $3.2 million invested in total assets and deferred outflows as of June 30, 2019 as shown in Figure 10-10 below. Figure 10-10: District Assets as of June 30, 2019 The District had a strong cash position with 49 percent of Assets as liquid. This is an 0.8 percent decrease from the previous year. There were no purchases of fixed assets made during FY 2017/2018, FY 2018/2019, or FY 2019/2020. Although there were no fixed asset purchases made during those fiscal years, the District was responsible for paying 17 percent of NTF’s maintenance costs for assets per the Fire Services Management Agreement. Two capital purchases of $36,000 were included in the FY 2020/2021 final budget. These were a programmable sign trailer which can be used to inform the public of traffic hazards and fire restrictions; and a necessary upgrade to the radio system at Station No. 67 (LAFCO, 2020a). Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-34 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Liabilities and Debt The major long-term obligation for the District was the Net Pension of $1.7 million as of FY 2018/2019. This accounted for 82 percent of the Districts total liabilities. The District did not have any other outstanding debt in the form of loans or financing as of June 30th, 2019. See in Figure 10-11 for the Total Liabilities from the Audited Financial Statements. Figure 10-11: District Liabilities and Debt as of June 30, 2019 10.6.4. Net Position The Net Position of the District as of June 30, 2019 is provided in Figure 10-12 below. The Net Position includes the District’s assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities, and deferred inflows of resources. These together provide information about the nature and amounts of investments in assets and obligations to District creditors. The Net Position also provides the basis for computing rates of return, evaluating the capital structure of the District, and assessing financial flexibility of the District. Figure 10-12: District Net Position as of June 30, 2019 As of June 30, 2019, the District had a positive Net Position of just over $1.08 million. This is a decrease of $169,604, or 13 percent, from FY 2017/2018 which saw a net position of $1.25 million. The District had a strong net position based on their heavy cash position. Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-35 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 10.6.5. Asset Maintenance and Replacement The District currently shares NTF’s assets, which include eight leased vehicles. Without including NTF’s engines, the District has: one M-1501 (1999) HME Type 1 Engine; one M-1512 (2017) KME Severe 4x4 Type 1 Engine; one M-1503 (2003) International Water Tender; a 2011 Chevrolet Tahoe; a 2000 Ford Expedition; a 2020 Dodge Pickup; a 1999 Ford Utility Plow Truck; a 2007 Freightliner; a 2007 Track Chipper Trailer; and a 2004 Rescue Trailer, 255XP Bandit Track Chipper (LAFCO, 2020a). None of these vehicles are currently financed. The District does not share in the cost for NTF’s assets. 10.6.6. Cost Avoidance The combined operation of MEK and NFT is designed to maximize available resources resulting in service enhancements to MEK. Through the interagency agreement, MEK benefits from paying a specific rate for services from NTF that covers the costs for a chief, three captains and three firefighter/paramedics including worker’s compensation, medical and other costs. Though MEK pays for the costs of these seven personnel through the contract, the District enjoys support from the entire NTF staff. Firefighters that service MEK are employees of NTF. As a standalone agency, without the support of NTF, MEK would be unable to field a first alarm assignment for any of the identified alarm types. The District also has an agreement for dispatch service from CALFIRE Grass Valley Dispatch Center for the FYs 2020-2023. Total cost for dispatch services will not exceed $59,344 over the contract term. This is substantially lower than previous years. 10.6.7. Financial Summary and Ability to Provide Services Based on the data presented above, the District is able to provide adequate service to the residents of MEK through the agreement with NFT. It has been recommended by Emergency Services Consulting International (ESCI) in a FY 2017/2018 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, 2018a). The April 5, 2014 and December 16, 2015 agreements between MEK and NTF have resulted in enhanced service to the MEK community, 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. Consultants performed a preliminary analysis with broad assumptions to project when expenses might outpace revenues. Revenues and expenses from audited financial reports and budgets for FY 2014/2015 to FY 2020/2021 were utilized to create an average increase of 3.3 percent in revenues and increase of 8.0 percent in expenses year over year. The average percent change in revenues per year did not factor out any large operating grants or contributions MEK may have received for certain years when compared to others. The average percent change in expenditures per year did not factor out any large, one-time Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-36 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final expenses that may have occurred for certain years over others. The following analysis utilized the FY 2017/2018 “Beginning of the Year” fund balance as the base for the estimated projections. The scenario does not project how the Districts assets and liabilities may change over time. According to the FY 2020 fund balance report provided by MEK staff, of the approximately $1.47 million in the total fund balance, approximately $413,000 is committed. Assuming only about $1.06 million is available in the fund to cover expenses outpacing revenues, reserve funds will be depleted by FY 2023/2024, as shown in Figure 10-13 and Table 10-12 below. Assuming the trends as described, the District will exhaust the fund by FY 2023/2024 and will not be able to operate without additional external revenue. Figure 10-13 and Table 10-12 assume the fund could go negative (such as adding a line of credit), illustrating the severity of the situation. Four years after the fund runs out, the District would be operating at a deficit of $4.2 million. Figure 10-13: Expenses, Revenues, Fund Projections from FY 2017/2018 to FY 2027/2028 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $- 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 $(1,000,000) $(2,000,000) $(3,000,000) $(4,000,000) Expenses Revenue Fund Table 10-12: Expenses, Revenues, and Fund Balance Projections (FY 2017/2018 to FY 2027/2028) Difference in Expenses Fund Balance at End of FY Expenses Revenue and Revenue Year 17/18 $ 1,442,382 $ 1,520,526 $ 78,144 $ 1,421,633 18/19 $ 1,662,744 $ 1,661,489 $ (1,255) $ 1,420,378 19/20 $ 1,801,901 $ 1,607,443 $ (194,458) $ 1,060,753 20/21 $ 1,967,072 $ 1,744,153 $ (222,919) $ 837,834 21/22* $ 2,124,989 $ 1,801,894 $ (323,095) $ 514,739 22/23* $ 2,295,583 $ 1,861,546 $ (434,037) $ 80,702 23/24** $ 2,479,872 $ 1,923,173 $ (556,699) $ (475,997) Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-37 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Difference in Expenses Fund Balance at End of FY Expenses Revenue and Revenue Year 24/25* $ 2,678,957 $ 1,986,840 $ (692,117) $ (1,168,114) 25/26* $ 2,894,024 $ 2,052,615 $ (841,408) $ (2,009,523) 26/27* $ 3,126,356 $ 2,120,567 $ (1,005,788) $ (3,015,311) 27/28* $ 3,377,340 $ 2,190,769 $ (1,186,570) $ (4,201,881) * For the FYs, Revenues are calculated using a 3.3 percent change from the previous year while Expenses are calculated using a 8.0 percent change from the previous year. ** The Fund Balance is depleted by FY 2023/2024 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. There are existing duplications and redundancies between the two Districts that would be eliminated once the consolidation occurs. Based on information provided by MEK staff, about $69,000 per year could be saved through consolidation as listed: • CalPERS-GASB reports: ~ $2,500/year • Dispatch services: ~ $20,000/year • Audits: $8,500/year • Agency Administration fee $20,000/year • Board member meeting attendance fees $7,200/year • Websites: $3,600/year • Internet service ~ $7,000/year Other redundancies or duplications which could also save on costs and time include election services, fire code adoption, budget processing, various public hearings, memberships, ERAF, and liability insurance. MEK staff anticipate an increase in CalPERS Unfunded Accrued Liability after consolidation of $43,000 for safety personnel. A consolidation study would be needed to fully understand the extent of savings available to the District’s once they consolidate. Alternative Financing The District entered into the existing agreements with NTF to maximize financial opportunities and reduce overhead costs. They have reached the peak of finding alternative ways to meet their needs and the next step would be consolidation. Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-38 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 10.7. 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 the Meeks Bay Fire Protection District 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. Scoring for the determinations in Table 10-13, below, are as follows: ▲ ● ▼ ◆ Above Average (compared to similar Districts), Average, Needs Improvement, Statement of Fact (not rated). Table 10-13: Summary of MSR Determinations for the Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Indicator Score Determination Population and Growth MEK's 3,880.4-acre boundary area is located in unincorporated County of El Dorado, ◆ Existing District Boundary. along the west shore of Lake Tahoe, and includes the communities of Tahoma, Meeks Bay, Rubicon, Glenridge, Gold Coast, and Tahoe Hills. El Dorado LAFCO adopted the original SOI for the MEK in 2011 via Resolution # L- ◆ 2011-09. LAFCO most recently affirmed MEK's SOI through Resolution No. L-2011-09, Existing District Sphere of Influence. adopted on August 24, 2011. The District's SOI encompasses 1,863.89 acres and includes 33 parcels as shown in Table 12.1. Since the MEK only provides service to areas within its boundaries through its contract with the North Tahoe Fire Protection District (NTF), MEK does not directly Extra-territorial Services the District provides as ◆ provide extra-territorial services. However, the NTF does participate in various mutual described in Government Code Section 56134. aid agreements, which may result in temporary services outside its boundary. These services are not considered to be Out-of-Agency Services as described in Government Code Section 56134 due to responses being under existing agreements. By the year 2040, it is estimated that MEK's existing boundary will encompass a ◆ population of 2,821 permanent residents and 2,846 overnight visitors. The combined Projected population in years 2020 through 2040. number of permanent and overnight persons of 5,667 represents an average annual growth rate of 0.36 percent between the years of 2020 and 2040. Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-39 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination The projected addition of 245 more people to the MEK by 2040 is possible as the District has undeveloped areas within existing boundaries that could potentially be District boundaries contain sufficient land area to ◆ available for residential development. Growth in the Tahoe Basin is slow due to land- accommodate projected growth. use regulation by the TRPA; an average of 20-30 permits are reviewed annually for remodeling projects and new homes. Government Structure and Accountability MEK has a Conflict-of-Interest policy which is reviewed by the Board on a Biennial basis and was most recently reaffirmed in July 2020. Compliance with the Political Do elected Board members submit required forms and Reform Act requirements for district board members to disclose all personal receive required trainings as prescribed by the three economic interests by filing a "Statement of Economic Interests" with the Fair Political state laws regarding accountability and ethics including: ▲ Practices Commission (FPPC) was queried. Query results for the MEK found no (1) the Political Reform Act; complaints or cases, indicating that Board members are complying with the Political (2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005); and Reform Act. (3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. MEK is in compliance with Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005) and Government Code 53237 as of the creation of this report. Does the agency's Website comply with the 2016 Compliance with the 2016 updates to the Brown Act described in Government Code updates to the Brown Act described in Government ▲ §54954.2 was evaluated in this MSR. MEK's website complies with the 2016 updates Code §54954.2 and enacted by Assembly Bill 2257? to the Brown Act. Compliance with the Special District Transparency Act (SB 929 or California Government Code, §6270.6 and 53087.8) which requires special districts to have a ▲ MEK actively maintains its website and lists all required information. Therefore, MEK functional website that lists contact information and complies with the Special District Transparency Act. contains financial statements, compensation reports, and other relevant public information. Terms of office and next election date are disclosed for District Board members, and committee appointments ▲ Terms of office and the next election date are disclosed for District Board members as well as committee appointments. are online. Does the District work to inform and educate District Board Members and contracted staff work to inform and educate ▲ homeowners regarding fire safety and prevention homeowners regarding fire safety and prevention through the MEK website, consistent with General Plan Objective 6.2.5? Facebook page, community events, and personal communications. Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-40 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination Is the District involved in current litigation and/or has MEK has not been subject to litigation recently. The Grand Jury's fire services reports ▲ the District been the subject of a recent grand jury from 2017 to 2019 focused only on the West Slope fire agencies and MEK was not inquiry. mentioned. Disadvantage Communities The median household income is identified. The DUC California’s median household income was $71,228 in 2018. This yields a DUC threshold MHI (80 percent of the statewide MHI) is ◆ threshold MHI of less than $56,982. There are no census block groups that meet the clearly stated. The MHI in the District’s boundary is DUC threshold within the MEK boundary. described. Potential DUCs are considered within the District boundary. The provision of adequate water, ◆ There are no DUCs within the MEK boundary or adjacent to MEK within El Dorado wastewater, and structural fire protection services to County or Placer County. DUCs is considered. Shared Facilities and Services MEK collaborates with multiple other agencies for the delivery of services within its boundary. Specifically, MEK has an agreement for service with the NTF, participates in mutual aid and automatic aid agreements. The District collaborates with multiple other fire and ▲ emergency medical agencies for the delivery of services MEK facilities at Station No. 67 are available for use by others, including the County of within its boundary. El Dorado Sheriff's Department, Fire Safe Council, CAL FIRE, State Parks staff and community groups. The Fire Auxiliary and Volunteer Firefighters Association also meet at the station. Agreements for mutual aid or any other appropriate There are no set dates to review the various mutual aid agreements. The District is agreement (i.e., Tax Sharing Agreement) are periodically ▲ signatory to these agreements, not the implementer. MEK's dispatch service reviewed by the District Board to ensure fiscal agreement is reviewed every three years and was most recently reviewed on June 8, neutrality. 2020. Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-41 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination 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 Other practices and opportunities that may reduce or large capital purchases are conducted in concert with NTF and/or purchasing groups eliminate unnecessary costs are examined by the ▲ to achieve economy of scale savings (LAFCO, 2020a). As indicated in the 2017 District periodically. Ideally, there is a balance between Emergency Services Consulting International (ESCI) Alternative Governance study cost efficiency and risk reduction strategies. (North Tahoe-Meeks Bay Alternative Governance Report), most economy of scale and efficiency savings have already been gained using the existing agreements with NTF. Aside from consolidation, there are no additional work tasks that could be further reduced as a cost savings measure (LAFCO, 2020a). Public Services and Infrastructure A three staff per engine and truck company (3-0) model is acceptable as a minimum Does the District comply with County General Plan standard practice for this MSR/SOI Update. Lower staffing levels leave the ▼ policies and the safety standards of state and national community vulnerable to low frequency, high-risk events, such as a working structure organizations in relation to response times and staffing. fire. MEK is staffed on a ratio with two staff per engine and truck company (2-0) model. This staffing level is below the minimum standard practice. Evaluation of the District’s capacity to assist with and/or MEK has very limited capacity to assist with and/or assume services provided by ▼ assume fire and emergency medical services provided other agencies. MEK has only one independent staff person who will soon retire. The by other agencies. remaining MEK staff are retained via contract with NTF. (1) MEK's Board of Directors has several vacancies and recruitment for candidates is on-going. (2) MEK participates in mutual aid agreements through its contract with NTF. Does the District provide sufficient services to meet (3) In MEK, water service is provided by Tahoe City PUD and private water purveyors current and future demands with: ● (Tamarack Mutual Water Company and Glenridge Mutual Water Company). In (1) recruitment; many areas, the water companies cannot provide the required fire flows (2) mutual aid; and necessary to meet the state's codes. The District has responded to potential (3) water supply for fire protection. 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. MEK has collaborated with the NTF to document any infrastructure, facilities, and The District has preventative maintenance measures ● equipment needs or deficiencies in their Apparatus Replacement Plan, managed by and has planned for replacement of aging infrastructure. North Tahoe Fire. Additionally, MEK staff has noted that periodic replacement of fire stations and associated facilities/infrastructure is needed to protect existing assets. Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-42 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination The District meets infrastructure needs for MEK maintains infrastructure to support its fire protection services. This infrastructure includes fire stations, fire hydrants, fire trucks, and other vehicles, (1) facilities (stations); water hoses, and other equipment. MEK owns two fire stations within the District (2) rolling stock (engines, apparatus, and emergency ▲ including the buildings and the underlying land. MEK contracts with CAL FIRE for the medical response units;) provision of fire department 9-1-1 emergency dispatch services through the (3) dispatch systems; and Fire/Emergency Command Center. MEK staff works with the community to mitigate (4) roadways for emergency access. any ingress and egress issues that may arise. Has the District has been diligent in developing plans to MEK has collaborated with the NTF to document any infrastructure, facilities, and accommodate the infrastructure and service needs of equipment needs or deficiencies in their Apparatus Replacement Plan, managed by current and future constituents? District regularly ▲ North Tahoe Fire (LAFCO, 2020a). Additionally, MEK staff has noted that periodic reviews and updates its service plans to ensure that replacement of fire stations and associated facilities/infrastructure is needed to infrastructure needs, and deficiencies are addressed in a protect existing assets. timely manner. The nearest fire station to MEK is operated by North Tahoe Fire Protection District, Is there duplicate infrastructure by other fire and ◆ Station 53 at 5425 W Lake Blvd, Homewood, CA 96141. This station is 4.2 miles north emergency medical agencies nearby. of MEK Station 67. Financial Accountability District operated with $78,000 in revenues over expenditures in FY 2017/2018 and District revenues exceed expenditures in FY 17/18 and ▼ with $1,000 for revenues under expenditures in FY 2018/2019. Therefore, the District FY 18/19. operated at a deficit for FY 2018/2019. District finances are sufficient to apply a staffing model that meets or exceeds the minimum standard of three ▼ District operates at a (2-0) staffing model within budget constraints through staff per engine and truck company (3-0) model (or at agreements with NTF. NFPA 1720 standards if applicable). The ESCI 2018 Performance Review and Examination of Alternative Governance District has an updated Strategic Plan that addresses ▲ Models Report provides financial goals for the District including recommendations financial goals. that MEK take the necessary steps to initiate the process of annexing into NTF. District had a $1 million Positive Net Position in FY 2018/2019. However, it is The District had a positive Net Position for FY ▲ important to note that with current expenses outpacing revenues, the District will 2018/2019. exhaust its general fund by FY 2023/2024 and will not be able to operate without additional external revenue. Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-43 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination The General Reserve Fund carried above 50 percent of Annual Operating Expenses for FY 2018/2019. However, District expenses currently outpace revenues, with the A minimum of 50% total operating expense is kept on ▲ District running out of reserve funds available to cover revenue shortfalls within the hand in the General Reserve Fund in FY 2018/2019. next four years. The projections suggest an urgency for the District to consolidate with NTF as soon as possible. The District has a published policy for reserve funds, ▲ The primary policy document for MEK is on the District’s website. The District including the size and purpose of reserves and how they continues to update necessary policies regarding reserve funds. are invested. In 2014, the District entered into an agreement with the North Tahoe Fire Protection District in Placer County. Under this agreement the District is able to maximize Alternative financing opportunities were explored and ▲ financial opportunities and reduce overhead. Through this agreement the District has pursued by the District. reached the peak of finding alternative ways to meet needs with the next step being consolidation between the two districts. The District publishes an audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) every year. Government Code and District policy require an annual independent audit Summary financial information presented in a standard ◆ of the District’s financial records by a certified public accountant. The independent format and simple language. audits on FY 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 were performed by Zachary Pehling, CPA, independent auditors. Effect on Agriculture and Open Space There are no agricultural lands within the fire service boundaries for the MEK. Open space totals approximately 2,028 acres with land use designations of backcountry and Effect that the District’s service provision will have on ◆ conservation from the TRPA within the fire service boundaries for the MEK. Fire open space and agricultural lands. Protection Services and Emergency Medical Services generally have minimal effects on agricultural land and open space. Key Score: ▲ Above Average (compared to similar Districts), ● Average, ▼ Below Average, ◆ Statement of Fact (not rated). Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-44 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 10.8. References 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. 4-pages. Available on-line at: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/FIreHazardZone_NonTechnical_Prim er.pdf. _____. April 21, 2014. Unit Strategic Fire Plan Amador-El Dorado Unit. 57-pages. Available online at: https://www.edcfiresafe.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2014-Unit-Strategic-Fire-Plan_CAL- FIRE-Amador-El-Dorado-Unit.pdf. _____. 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. CAL FIRE Grass Valley Emergency Command Center (ECC). 2020. CAL FIRE Grass Valley Emergency Command Center Dispatch Data. Received November 2020. California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR). August 2003. Local Agency Formation Commission Municipal Service Review Guidelines Final. County of El Dorado (EDC). Sherriff's Department Office of Emergency Services. July 2018. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available online at: https://eldorado.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3923674&GUID=C562ECEB-7E9F-446D- AE6B-3AC56E13F465. _____. August 2019. El Dorado County General Plan. Available online at: https://edcgov.us/Government/Planning/pages/Adopted_General_Plan.aspx Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-45 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final ______. Auditor-Controller. 2020, September 18. Direct Charge Master. Available online at: https://www.edcgov.us/Government/Auditor- Controller/proptaxreports/Documents/DirectChargeMaster-ContactByDescription.pdf Dornan, Geoff. (2012, November 21). Fire Safe Council Files for bankruptcy. Tahoe Daily Tribune. Available online at: https://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/fire-safe-council-files- for-bankruptcy/ El Dorado County Emergency Services Authority. 2017. Strategic Plan 2017 – 2022. Available online at: http://edcjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/EDC-JPA-Strategic-Plan-2017-Master.pdf. El Dorado Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). August 2011. Countywide Fire Suppression and Emergency Services Municipal Service Review. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/municipal-service-reviews-and-spheres-of-influence. El Dorado Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). September 2020a. MEK staff response to LAFCO's Request for Information. Available upon request from LAFCO's files. _____. 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/. Fire Safe Council for El Dorado County (FSC-EDC). 2016. Map of Garden Valley Fuel Mitigation. Available online at: https://www.edcfiresafe.org/cwpp/maps/. Meeks Bay Fire Protection District. 2018. Financial Statements: Audit Report. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. 2019. Financial Statements: Audit Report. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. September 30, 2020a. 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. _____. 2020b. Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Reimbursement Policy. Available online at: https://www.meeksbayfire.com/meeks-bay-fire-district-reimbursement-policy. _____. 2020c. Final Budget Fiscal Year 2020-2021. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. 2020d. June 2020 Revenue Report. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. 2020e. MEK website. Available online at: https://www.meeksbayfire.com/. 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 Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-46 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final North Tahoe Fire Protection District (NTF) 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. North Tahoe Fire Protection District (NTF) and Meeks Bay Fire Protection District (MEK). 2018b. Performance Review and Examination of Alternative Governance Models. Prepared by Emergency Services Consulting International. Available upon request from LAFCO’s files. Placer LAFCO. August 8, 2018. Final Municipal Service Review North Tahoe and Martis Valley. 578-pages. Prepared by SWALE Inc., California. Available online at: https://www.placer.ca.gov/2704/Local- Agency-Formation-Commission-LAFCO. Transparent California and Nevada Policy Research Institute. 2020. Wage data download for the year 2018. Available online at: https://transparentcalifornia.com/. 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. Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-47 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Page 10-48 of 10-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Chapter 11. Mosquito Fire Protection District This chapter details the district formation, boundary, government structure, population and land use, disadvantaged communities, finances, and the provision of fire protection services and facilities provided by the Mosquito Fire Protection District (MQT or District) as well as the Municipal Service Review (MSR) determinations for this district. The majority of information included in the MSR/SOI was provided to consultants in October 2020 by District personnel in response to consultant’s request for information and through an interview conducted in September 2020 with the Fire Chief and District President at the time. In November 2020, a new majority was elected to the Board of Directors. New information provided to consultants by the current District President on November 9, 2021 has been included as an addendum at the end of each relevant section. This report is based primarily on the information received in October 2020. New information is included in order to provide future context for the District moving forward. Consultants commend the District for the strides that have been made by the Board and personnel throughout 2020-2021. Table of Contents 11.1 Agency Profile ................................................................................................................ 11-5 11.1.1 Agency Overview ............................................................................................................................ 11-5 11.2 Agency Formation and Boundary .................................................................................... 11-6 11.2.1 Formation ....................................................................................................................................... 11-6 11.2.2 District Boundary ............................................................................................................................ 11-6 11.2.3 Existing Sphere of Influence ........................................................................................................... 11-6 11.2.4 Extra-Territorial Services ................................................................................................................ 11-9 11.3 District Governance and Accountability .......................................................................... 11-9 11.3.1 Government Structure .................................................................................................................... 11-9 11.3.2 District Board .................................................................................................................................. 11-9 11.3.3 Accountability ............................................................................................................................... 11-11 Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-1 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 11.3.4 Management Efficiencies and Staffing ......................................................................................... 11-12 11.3.5 Staffing and Training ..................................................................................................................... 11-13 11.4 Growth and Population Forecasts ................................................................................. 11-17 11.4.1 Existing Population ....................................................................................................................... 11-17 11.4.1 Existing Population in SOI ............................................................................................................. 11-18 11.4.2 Projected Population Growth ....................................................................................................... 11-18 11.4.3 Existing Land Use .......................................................................................................................... 11-18 11.4.4 Potential Future Development ..................................................................................................... 11-20 11.4.5 Open Space & Agriculture ............................................................................................................ 11-20 11.4.6 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ............................................................................. 11-21 11.5 Public Services and Infrastructure ................................................................................. 11-21 11.5.1 Service Overview .......................................................................................................................... 11-21 11.5.2 Fire & Emergency Response ......................................................................................................... 11-22 11.5.3 Mutual Aid, Automatic Aid, Other Agreements ........................................................................... 11-28 11.5.4 Dispatch ........................................................................................................................................ 11-31 11.5.5 Emergency Access ......................................................................................................................... 11-31 11.5.6 Fire Hazard Zones ......................................................................................................................... 11-31 11.5.7 Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................ 11-33 11.5.8 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies ......................................................................................... 11-36 11.5.9 Cost Avoidance & Facilities Sharing .............................................................................................. 11-38 11.6 Financial Ability to Provide Services .............................................................................. 11-41 11.6.1 Finanical Policies and Transparency ............................................................................................. 11-41 11.6.2 District Revenues and Expenditures ............................................................................................. 11-42 11.6.3 District Assets and Liabilities ........................................................................................................ 11-46 11.6.4 Net Position .................................................................................................................................. 11-47 11.6.5 Asset Maintenance and Replacement .......................................................................................... 11-48 11.6.6 Cost Avoidance ............................................................................................................................. 11-49 11.6.7 Financial Summary and Ability to Provide Services ...................................................................... 11-49 11.7 Determinations ............................................................................................................ 11-52 11.8 References ................................................................................................................... 11-59 Table of Tables Table 11-1: Geographic Summary (2020) of Fire Protection Services for MQT ...................................... 11-9 Table 11-2: Mosquito Fire Protection District Board of Directors ........................................................ 11-10 Table 11-3: Staffing Levels for the MQT by Type & Full-time Equivalent (FTE) as of July 1, 2020 ........ 11-13 Table 11-4: MQT Existing Population .................................................................................................... 11-17 Table 11-5: Total Estimated & Projected Population (2020 – 2050) ..................................................... 11-18 Table 11-6: General Plan Designations for Open Space, Agriculture, and Natural Resources ............. 11-21 Table 11-7: MQT Public Services ........................................................................................................... 11-21 Table 11-8: Average Response Times for MQT from 2010 to 2019 ...................................................... 11-26 Table 11-9: Automatic Aid Provided and Received from/to MQT, 2019 .............................................. 11-29 Table 11-10: MQT Fire Hazard Severity Zone Acreage and Percentage................................................ 11-33 Table 11-11: MQT Responsibility Areas ................................................................................................. 11-33 Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-2 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 11-12: Mosquito Fire Protection District Fire Station Detail ....................................................... 11-33 Table 11-13: Apparatus & Light Vehicles, 2020 ..................................................................................... 11-35 Table 11-14: Summary of MSR Determinations for the Mosquito Fire Protection District .................. 11-52 Table of Figures Figure 11-1: Mosquito Fire Protection District Service Area & SOI ......................................................... 11-7 Figure 11-2: Wages and Benefits, MQT Staff, 2019 .............................................................................. 11-14 Figure 11-3: Topography of River Canyons and MQT District Boundary .............................................. 11-19 Figure 11-4: Mosquito Fire Protection District Calls for Service from 2010-2019 ................................ 11-24 Figure 11-5: Mosquito Fire Protection District Percent of Incidents by Type, 2019 ............................. 11-25 Figure 11-6: Fire Hazard Severity Zones & Responsibility Areas for MQT ............................................ 11-32 Figure 11-7: MQT Total Revenues and Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 .......... 11-43 Figure 11-8: MQT Net Revenues Over/Under Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/202111-46 Figure 11-9: District Assets as of June 30, 2019 .................................................................................... 11-47 Figure 11-10: District Liabilities and Debt as of June 30, 2019.............................................................. 11-47 Figure 11-11: District Net Position as of June 30, 2019......................................................................... 11-48 Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-3 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-4 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 11.1 Agency Profile 11.1.1 Agency Overview As a fire protection district, the Mosquito Fire Protection District (MQT or the District) is empowered to provide public services to the local community including fire protection and emergency medical services. The MQT is located northeast of Placerville and north of the South Fork of the American River, approximately two miles north of Union Ridge Road in the Finnon Reservoir area. The District is bordered on the east and south by Federal Bureau of Land Management (BML) land. The north boundary is adjacent to the El Dorado National Forest, whose government ownership prevents growth of the District into these federal areas. The South Fork of the American River tracks along the District’s southernmost boundary (refer to Figure 14-1). Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-5 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 11.2 Agency Formation and Boundary 11.2.1 Formation The Mosquito Fire Protection District was formally established on December 16, 1977. The County of El Dorado Board of Supervisor’s Resolution No. 246-77 established the District services including fire suppression and emergency medical services (LAFCO, 2019b). LAFCO authorized the formation process by approving Resolution No. 77-17 on July 20, 1977. The enabling legislation for the District is the California Health and Safety Code, Section 13800, et. seq. 11.2.2 District Boundary The Mosquito Fire Protection District serves the communities of Mosquito and Swansboro. The District’s geographic boundary encompasses approximately 6,989 acres or 10.9 square miles as seen in Figure 11-1. The boundary is made up of 1,025 assessor parcels. Of those parcels, 925 are taxable parcels (EDC GIS, 2020; Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). Since the previous MSR was approved in 2011, the District has not annexed any parcels. Areas along Rock Creek Road are currently outside the District service area. All areas within the District boundary receive service from the MQT. There are no areas within the District boundary that receive service from a neighboring agency (except for occasional mutual aid). MQT is bound on the west and northwest by the Garden Valley Fire Protection District (GRV) and on the south by the El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF). The United States Forest Service (USFS) lands border the District to the north and east. 11.2.3 Existing Sphere of Influence El Dorado LAFCO most recently affirmed the existing Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the Mosquito Fire Protection District in 2011 via Resolution No. L-2011-09 (LAFCO, 2019b). 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 (LAFCO, 2020a). However, District staff identified an area of the Garden Valley Fire Protection District (GRV) which is more efficiently served by the Mosquito Fire Protection District. This area is along Rock Creek Road from the District’s west boundary to Hwy 193 (LAFCO, 2020a). Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-6 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 11-1: Mosquito Fire Protection District Service Area & SOI Mosqu Mosq M u os i q t ui o to R F d ire ProteMo c squ t it i o o Rd n itDo Rd istrict RockCreekRd MosquitoRd RockCreekRd MAIN STATION #75 Rd Mosquito FIRE S S T ta A f T fe IO d N P S art Time Minor Roads Mosquito FPD Rd Creek Location in County Rock Rd o Mosquit 0 0.5 1 Miles Service Layer Credits: ESRI, USGS National Map District Boundaries, Roads and Fire Stations from El Dorado County LAFCo Figure X-X Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-7 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-8 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 11-1: Geographic Summary (2020) of Fire Protection Services for MQT Boundary Area SOI Total Boundary (All Services) (All Services) & SOI Total Acres 6,989 Coterminous 6,989 Square Miles 10.9 Coterminous 10.9 Number of Assessor Parcels 1,025* Coterminous 1,025 Source: El Dorado County GIS Data, 2020 *Approximately 925 of the 1,025 parcels are taxable parcels. As Table 11-1 indicates, MQT has 1,025 parcels geographically within the District boundary. This also includes roadways and other public parcels which are tax exempt. The number of taxable parcels within the District boundary is approximately 925 parcels. 11.2.4 Extra-Territorial Services The MQT does not provide extra-territorial services outside of its District boundary, except for the Joint Operations Agreement with both Garden Valley Fire Protection District (GRV) and Georgetown Fire Protection District (GEO) as described in Section 11.5.3, below. Therefore, these services provided outside the boundary are not considered to be Out-of-Agency Services. The District maintains automatic aid agreements with all fire service agencies located within the County of El Dorado for fire suppression and emergency medical services. The District does provide initial response emergency service to the El Dorado National Forest contiguous with the District. 11.3 District Governance and Accountability This section describes how performance, accountability, transparency, and public engagement relate to the public’s trust in local government. LAFCO is required by the CKH Act to make specific determinations regarding a special district’s government structure and accountability. 11.3.1 Government Structure The MQT is a local government agency structured as a Fire Protection District consistent with its Principal Act, the California Health and Safety Code. The District has five elected Board Members who reside within the District boundaries. All registered voters who reside within the District boundaries are eligible to vote for and/or run for a seat on the District Board of Directors. The District Board appoints the Fire Chief who also serves as the General Manager. District records and archives are housed at Station No. 75, 8801 Rock Creek Road. 11.3.2 District Board The District operates under the direction of the elected District Board. Each elected Board Member serves for a term of four years with two Board Member seats running two years apart from the remaining three seats. A new Board President is selected by the Board Members each year. The Board President assigns Directors to the District’s committees. The District Board has several identified ad-hoc committees including: Strategic Planning, Communications, Finances, Capital Improvement, and Policy Review. With Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-9 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final the resignation of two Board members committee efforts have been reduced. Committees meet on an as needed basis (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). The current Board of Directors members, their committee appointments, and the expiration dates of their terms are shown in Table 11-2. Table 11-2: Mosquito Fire Protection District Board of Directors Name Title Term Ends Committee Appointments Wayne Gregson Director 2022 Communications Connell Persico President 2024 Strategic Planning Jerry Pullin Director 2022 Finance Linnea Uggla Director 2022 TBD James Young Vice President 2024 Capital Improvement Source: MQT, 2020a The District Board holds regular public meetings on the 4th Thursday of every month at 7:00 PM. Board members did not receive a stipend or other payments during the year 2019 (CSC, 2021). Furthermore, Board members typically are not eligible to receive any stipend, insurance, retirement, or mileage (LAFCO, 2019a). The District has seen multiple candidates running for election to the Board for the last three years. In the November 2020 election, there were two candidates running for the one two-year term and three candidates running for the two four-year terms. Similarly, in 2018, there were three candidates running for the two four-year terms (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). In California, elected members of special district boards are required to comply with three laws regarding accountability and ethics including 1) the Political Reform Act; 2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005), which requires ethics training; and 3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. which mandates sexual harassment prevention training. A description of each of these three state laws is provided in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire and Emergency Medical Services Agency MSR General Information. Political Reform Act Each district is required to have ethics and conflict of interest code/policies. MQT does have a conflict- of-interest policy adopted on October 28, 2021 that is posted on the District’s website at www.mfpd.us. This law also requires special district board members to disclose all personal economic interests by filing a “Statement of Economic Interests” with their District or the County Clerk consistent with requirements of the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). Information available from the FPPC for the MQT regarding complaints could not be found as the FPPC search portal was undergoing maintenance during the time information was queried. Board members for the District have filed consistent with FPPC requirements. Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005) Local government officials are required to take ethics training every two years. Compliance with this law was assessed for each of the fourteen fire agencies studied in this MSR by asking the Clerk of the District Board for the dates and other documentation of training events. MQT’s Clerk of the Board reports that Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-10 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final training has been conducted on a regular basis and all Board members completed training in 2020 and 2021. Therefore, MQT’s Board is in compliance with AB 1234. Government Code 53237 et. seq. Special district board members must receive required sexual harassment prevention, two-hour training, every two years. Compliance with this law was assessed for MQT by asking the Clerk of the District Board for the dates and other documentation of training events. MQT’s Clerk of the Board reports that training has been conducted on a regular basis and all Board members completed training in 2021. Therefore, MQT’s Board is in compliance with Gov. Code 53237 et. seq. 11.3.3 Accountability Brown Act The Brown Act is described in Volume II - Chapter 1. All meetings of the District Board and Committees are open to the public in accordance with the Brown Act. The agenda for each meeting includes a public comment period and agendas are made available 72 hours before meetings. Any written document that relates to an agenda item is available for public inspection at the same time the agenda is distributed to the members of the Board of Directors. The District complies with the Brown Act by regularly posting notices of Board meetings. Specifically meeting agendas are posted in two physical locations and posted to the District website. MQT maintains an annually updated public distribution list for Board meeting packets, which are distributed to members on the list at the same time as Board member packets are distributed (LAFCO, 2020a). The State Legislature updated the Brown Act in 2016 as codified in Government Code §54954.2 (see also Assembly Bill 2257). These new Brown Act requirements are detailed in Volume II - Chapter 1. The new MQT website is under construction as of November 2021. Current Board meeting agendas are available on the primary homepage of the website in accordance with AB 2257 (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). The agendas are available to the public free of charge and without restrictions. The District website agenda distribution complies with the requirements of the Brown Act 2016 Updates described in AB2257 (LAFCO, 2020a). Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20 suspended parts of the Brown Act that require in-person attendance of Board members and citizens at public meetings as described in Volume II - Chapter 1. In response to these events, the District implemented Teleconference/Electronic Meeting Protocols effective April 2020 which allow for public participation through conference call and/or by telephone. The MQT hosts its meetings via conference call using the Zoom platform, which replaced “freeconferencecall.com.” Zoom is a telephone and video conferencing platform that is accessible by the public for free (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021; LAFCO, 2020a). Special District Transparency Act (SB 929) The District’s website is currently under construction (as of November, 2021) and the District is working to provide detailed information that meets with the requirements of SB 929. For example, the District posts the most recent financial audit and provides a link to the California State Controller’s Office. Present Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-11 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final and past agendas and meeting minutes as well as Chiefs reports and other information are available to the public on the District’s website. The District has a link to the California State Controller Government Compensation reports. Therefore, the Mosquito Fire Protection District complies with the requirements of the Special District Transparency Act. More information on the SB 929 can be found in Volume II - Chapter 1. General Accountability There are several laws, regulations, and guidelines which prescribe safety features associated with fire protection services including state laws and regulations exercised through the District’s cooperative agreement with CAL FIRE, the Safety Element of the County of El Dorado’s General Plan, and other County requirements and regulations. The MQT demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with El Dorado LAFCO. The District cooperated with LAFCO’s requests for information and participated in an interview with the MSR consultants. MQT has recently resolved two lawsuits: 1) “Joseph vs MQT” and 2) a liability claim. Several of MQT’s Board meeting agenda list closed sessions related to these lawsuits and personnel issues. MQT, along with all the fire protection districts in El Dorado County, have recently been the subject of a Grand Jury Report (EDC, 2020a). The Grand Jury posits in Case No. 19-06 that, while it made sense historically, the only reason there are multiple fire agencies in El Dorado County is because of “strong loyalty to a local home district,” coming “at the expense of the County as a whole.” The Grand Jury concludes that the insufficient revenues afforded to rural districts puts a strain on the mutual and automatic aid system as a whole; forcing more financially stable districts to “subsidize” the rural ones by having the former respond to calls when the latter is unable to do so. The issues raised in the Grand Jury Report remain valid (LAFCO, 2020). Changes to the governmental structure of some fire protection agencies are needed to address these issues. Addendum – New Information from MQT The District President disputes that the issues raised in the Grand Jury report remain valid and believes this statement to be misinformed and inaccurate. The District President refers readers to the District response to the Grand Jury and LAFCO regarding Report Findings (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). 11.3.4 Management Efficiencies and Staffing The Fire Chief is appointed by and reports to the Board of Directors, and is responsible for directing District operations and overseeing and implementing policies on behalf of the Board. An important part of management effectiveness includes having an updated Strategic Plan which includes the District adopted mission and vision statement. MQT’s Board approved their 12-page Strategic Plan in November of 2019. The MQT Mission statement is: The Mission of the Mosquito Fire Protection District is to provide to the people of the community services that will protect life, save property, and ensure public health and safety. This shall be done by applying the best available methods of risk mitigation, fire suppression and Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-12 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final emergency medical response through efficient use of personnel, equipment, training, prevention, and public engagement (MQT, 2019b). 11.3.5 Staffing and Training The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1710 for Career Fire Departments calls for a standard of four staff per engine and truck company (4-0) model (NFPA, 2020). A three staff per engine and truck company (3-0) model is acceptable as a minimum nationwide standard practice throughout the United States (El Dorado County, 2020). Mosquito Fire Protection District meets the NFPA definition of a “Volunteer and Combination Fire Department” as outlined in NFPA Standard 1720, a different designation than a career fire department. NFPA 1720 sets standards for the minimum number of firefighters to respond based on population for combination fire departments, meaning a combination of career and volunteer personnel. The District President confirms that per NFPA 1720, MQT operates in a Rural Area (<500 population/square mile). Under this designation, it is recommended for MQT to have six firefighters assembled at a structure fire within 14 minutes, 80 percent of the time. According to the District President, the District meets this recommendation and follows NFPA 1720 standards. MQT utilizes a 2-0 staffing model during the off season (or two firefighters per engine); and a 3-0 staffing model (three firefighters per engine) during fire season (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). The number of full-time equivalent (FTE) positions at the beginning of the fiscal year as well as volunteers, shown in Table 11-3. Table 11-3: Staffing Levels for the MQT by Type & Full-time Equivalent (FTE) as of July 1, 2020 Position FTE Count as of July 1, 2020 Compared to 2018 Fire Chief 1 1 Paid Firefighter 0 1 Firefighter Captain 1 1 Board Clerk 0.30 0.30 Administrative/Office Support Staff 0.50 0.50 Total 2.8 3.8 Other Positions Volunteer Firefighter 13 Unknown Support Volunteers 20 “ Part Time Firefighters 9 “ Management Team Volunteers 6 “ Data Source: MQT, 2020a As shown in Table 11-3, MQT had a total of 2.8 paid employees as of July 1, 2020. Including volunteers, MQT had a total of 13 employees which are a mix of full-time and part-time staff (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). The Fire Chief and Captain are paid and are available during business hours 5 days per week. Part-time firefighters are on duty 7 days per week from 8:00AM to 5:00PM. Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-13 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Staffing for the MQT is augmented by its participation in a boundary drop, mutual aid system that automatically deploys the closest available resource to respond to requests for aid from other fire agencies within the County of El Dorado (LAFCO, 2020a). The MQT receives advantages from participating in this network of collaborating fire districts which improves response times and increases resource deployment. District personnel are trained and equipped to begin fire suppression tactics as soon as they arrive. Depending on the level of operations, additional help and support is normally required, as is true of all fire responses in El Dorado County (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). Benefits for permanent staff include health, vacation, and retirement; however, MQT is not part of the CalPERS system. Therefore, MQT does not have any unfunded pension liability (MQT, 2019). Generally, new employees stay two to three years and then move on to other agencies. Many previous employees seem to be available to volunteer back/substitute back to MQT. Several past employees have left to work for CAL FIRE and other agencies in the County (Chief Rosevear, personal communication, September 2020; Director Mikel, personal communication, September 2020). No MQT staff positions have salaries funded through the El Dorado County Emergency Services Authority or West Slope JPA because the MQT does not operate an ambulance for the JPA (LAFCO, 2019a). MQT’s volunteers are current with training requirements (MQT, 2019). In order to recruit and train volunteers over the past several years, MQT has needed to devote time and funding towards recruitment and training efforts, and this has been moderately successful (LAFCO, 2019a). The District does schedule volunteers for shifts at the fire station (MQT, 2019). There are particular time periods when the District has challenges staffing calls (LAFCO, 2019a). As shown in Figure 11-2, the highest paid employee, the Fire Chief, earned $81,228 in the year 2019 (CSC, 2021). The remaining 19 employees earned less than $55,000 per year. Employees classified as “volunteer” still earned some pay for their work on strike teams, etc. MQT does have an established standard pay schedule and organizational chart (LAFCO, 2019a). Consultants have noted that MQT’s staff receives less pay when compared to other fire agencies evaluated in this MSR. Figure 11-2: Wages and Benefits, MQT Staff, 2019 $90,000 $80,000 $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 Individual Employees Regular Pay Overtime Pay Other Pay Defined Benefit Plan Contribution Health/Dental/Vision Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-14 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Addendum – New Information from MQT As of July 1, 2021, the District has reduced the total number of paid employees to 5 which are a mix of full-time and part-time staff. The Fire Chief lives in the District and is available for emergency response after hours. The District has been able to increase staffing hours with a combination of full-time, part- time, and volunteer personnel to be on duty 24 hours 7 days per week (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). The District President reports that MQT maintains an average of three qualified firefighters for response at all times. MQT is supported by additional volunteer personnel who can provide firefighting support or additional water supply. MQT staff is augmented by a robust volunteer support program, and is able to handle most common emergencies without mutual aid. For medical response, a paramedic ambulance is always dispatched for advanced life support and transportation. For fire incidents, MQT has adequate staffing for initial response and fire attack, supported by mutual aid resources (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). The District President states that MQT provides a Fire Officer, Apparatus Operator and Firefighter to major fire incidents out of the District on a regular basis. MQT has the ability to deploy this fire engine and provide adequate coverage within the District. MQT also provides a water tender mutual aid, when requested. The MQT water tender (Tender 75) has deployed to numerous fire incidents around El Dorado County in 2020-2021. El Dorado County has limited water tender availability, so providing assistance when needed, is important (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). The District President states “all volunteer and combination fire agencies are challenged by volunteer recruitment and retention. We focus our recruitment on community-based residents and paid professionals who live in the community. We do have part time and volunteer firefighters who do not live in the community. Our increase in personnel has risen dramatically, with the help of a FEMA SAFER Grant which assists the District with all levels of volunteer recruitment, from personal protective gear, training, and stipend pay for working shifts. The District has been successful with other grants as well and has greatly improved since the information provided in 2019” (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). The District refutes the claim that staff received less pay when compared to other fire agencies evaluated in this MSR and references GRV, GEO, and PIO as similar districts with similar pay for staff (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). Consultants refer readers to the MSR Chapters for GRV, GEO, and PIO in Volume II of this report. Based on pay for staff analyzed for the three agencies mentioned by the District, consultants agree that MQT has similar pay to PIO, but less than GRV and GEO. The District President notes that the highest paid employee earned $71,000 in 2021 (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-15 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volunteers MQT recruits both volunteers and part-time staff on an on-going and continuous basis. The District successfully secured a $700,000 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) staffing grant for retention and recruitment of volunteers. Additionally, a marketing program is being developed to draw interest for potential new volunteers. MQT has a matching program to match potential volunteers with their specialized skills including firefighting, fire apparatus operation, medical expertise, or administrative skills (LAFCO, 2020a). The District also recruits interested volunteers from outside of the local community. There is an interest of out of the area volunteers to receive firefighter related training and certifications; however, the average voluntary time commitment to the District is less than two years (LAFCO, 2020a). In 2020, there were six (6) active volunteers that covered after hours staffing. For MQT, any call after 5:00PM is responded to by volunteers and the Fire Chief. Addendum – New Information from MQT The District President states “Staffing has increased considerably from July 2020 through September 2021. A combination of paid and volunteer staff (26 total) provide coverage for emergency response at all hours. The Fire Chief also resides in the community and responds to emergencies during weekdays and after hours” (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). Training Regular training is provided to both paid staff and volunteers. Day shift crews train at least 1 to 2 hours per shift, especially in support of new volunteers. The Support Group volunteers train on various topics on the first Saturday of each month for 2 to 3 hours. MQT has re-instituted its Tuesday evening training (at least two times per month) to accommodate volunteer schedules (LAFCO, 2020a). The District participates in an annual volunteer firefighter academy, usually hosted by the Georgetown Fire Protection District. The District also provides an annual, week-long, wildland fire academy which provides the minimum State standard training for wildland firefighting. As needed, the District will also provide specialized training in forceable entry, rope rescue, and swift water rescue. The District is always looking to partner with other agencies for specialized classes, sponsored by the District or others. The District’s FEMA-SAFER volunteer staffing grant and Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) provide funding for specialized training classes; as well as EMT and Firefighter 1 training academies (LAFCO, 2020a). Addendum – New Information from MQT The District President states “MQT has reinstituted its Tuesday night training which takes place every Tuesday. Training sessions over the past year have averaged 15-20 personnel who attend training each week” (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-16 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 11.4 Growth and Population Forecasts The growth and population projection for the affected area are a determination which LAFCO is required to describe, consistent with the MSR Guidelines from the State Office of Planning & Research (OPR) as set forth in the CKH Act. This section provides information on the existing population and future growth projections for the MQT. Historical and anticipated population growth is a factor which affects service demand. 11.4.1 Existing Population There are approximately 1,712 residents within the District boundaries as of 2020, based on the number of taxable parcels in the District and the average number of persons per parcel at 1.67 persons. Table 11-4 shows existing population data for the MQT. Detailed information regarding population and socio- economic demographics in the County of El Dorado is provided in Volume I - Appendix A and Appendix B. In addition to serving its permanent residents, there are special activities that occur within the District boundary that increase the daytime visitor population, such as seasonal recreational activities at the Finnon Recreation Area. Camping at the reservoir also contributes to temporary overnight visitor population (LAFCO, 2020a). The District President reports that the District has visitors overnight frequently at the Finnon Lake Campground; much of the days during the summer and fall are at capacity. There are also a number of visitors who transit to the District for recreation in the El Dorado National Forest (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). Table 11-4: MQT Existing Population Population Population in Percent of District Number of existing boundary SOI Population of Total Registered area only1, 2, 3 area only1, 2, 3 County Population Voters4 Mosquito Fire Protection 1,712 0 0.0089 610 District Sources: 1: California Department of Finance. May 2020. E-2. California County Population Estimates as Components of Change by Year – July 1, 2000-2010. Sacramento, California. 2: California Department of Finance. May 2020. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark. Sacramento, California. 3: Calculated estimate based on an average of 1.67 persons per parcel in the County of El Dorado and 1,025 parcels within the MQT boundary. 4: Number of registered voters provided by LAFCO, 2019 In 2010, MQT’s boundary encompassed a population of approximately 1,335 (LAFCO, 2020a). Between the years 2010 and 2020, the population increased by approximately 12,169 persons for the entire County of El Dorado. Within the District’s boundaries it is estimated the population increased by 169 persons between 2010 and 2020 which equates to an average annual growth rate of 2.52 percent. Within the District boundaries, it is estimated all residents are eligible to receive fire protection services. Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-17 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 11.4.1 Existing Population in SOI Since the MQT’s boundaries are contiguous with its SOI, there are no additional people residing in the SOI only. 11.4.2 Projected Population Growth Projecting future population for a District is complicated due to census tracts that do not match District boundaries. For purposes of this MSR, data from the California Department of Finance (DOF) was used to project population growth as shown in Table 11-5. The DOF provides population projections at the County level and the growth rate for the County of El Dorado was utilized to extrapolate population growth rates for the Mosquito Fire Protection District. By the year 2040, it is estimated that MQT’s existing boundary will encompass a population of 1,888 persons. This represents an average annual growth rate of 0.377 percent between the years of 2020 and 2040. The projected growth rate for the County of El Dorado anticipates development throughout the entire County. The addition of 176 more people to the MQT by 2040 is possible as the District has undeveloped areas within the existing District boundary that could potentially be available for more intensive residential development. Table 11-5: Total Estimated & Projected Population (2020 – 2050) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 County of El Dorado1 193,227 201,041 207,496 211,537 213,033 MQT Estimated Population2 1,712 1,782 1,839 1,875 1,888 Sources: 1: 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. 2: Population projection for MQT calculated as a percentage (0.00886467) of the County of El Dorado. Approximately 58 percent of the parcels within the District are considered built-out (LAFCO, 2020a). This leaves a significant percentage of the vacant parcels which could potentially accommodate development in the future. 11.4.3 Existing Land Use Land-use is a factor that affects population growth and therefore demand for public services. However, the MQT is not a land use authority. The District is located in an area with diverse geography ranging in elevation from 1,300 feet in the west to 3,500 feet in the east. Natural features of the District include three major river canyons: Slab Creek to the east, Rock Creek to the west, and the South Fork of the American River to the south as shown in Figure 11-3. The South Fork of the American River runs along the District’s southern boundary. Finnon Lake Dam and Finnon Lake are located west of the District’s Fire Station No. 75. Outdoor recreational uses are common in and adjacent to the District (LAFCO, 2011). Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-18 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Currently, the primary land uses within the service area consist primarily of agricultural and rural residential uses. Single family homes on a minimum parcel size of two acres are concentrated on the east side of the District. Jodar Winery owns 40 acres of agricultural land west of Finnon Lake. The 2004 County General Plan designates approximately ten acres of land on Rock Creek Road and six acres of land on Mosquito Road (south of Rock Creek Road) as a commercial area (LAFCO, 2011). Figure 11-3: Topography of River Canyons and MQT District Boundary North of the main station, Station No. 75, is a private airport called Swansboro Country Airport located at 6770 Sluice Street. This airport covers 9 acres and has one asphalt runway. Night operations are not allowed and use of the airport is limited to property owners and their guests. Twenty-five aircraft are registered at this airport (FAA, 2021). In the event of an emergency, firefighting personnel utilize the airport as a staging area for fire trucks; crew trucks; and heavy equipment, as it was used during the 2014 King Fire. This private runway is designated by the District’s Wildfire Evacuation and General Preparedness Plan as an evacuation area for District residents. The runway is centrally located, accessible, has the facilities to provide temporary shelter, and is less exposed to the risk of wildfire (LAFCO, 2011). The runway is also a landing location for medical transport helicopters (Chief Rosevear, personal communication, November 2021). Since the previous MSR published in 2011, new development projects have been built within the District boundaries such as the new AT&T Cell Tower and one new commercial project. 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 Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-19 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 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. The County of El Dorado Board of Supervisors has approved the project to proceed to Design Phase 2 (LAFCO, 2020a). The funds for this project are fully federally funded (ECD, 2016). 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. County General Plan The District's boundary area is entirely unincorporated and subject to the land-use policies and regulations of the County of El Dorado. Over the last decade, most land-use decisions, initiated by private property owners, are secured via entitlements and land-use permits from the County and other agencies. The County plans for its future growth through its General Plan, which is a long-term comprehensive framework to guide physical, social, and economic development within the community’s planning area. The County of El Dorado’s General Plan was adopted in 2004. Individual elements have since been updated on an individual basis. The 2013-2021 Housing Element was adopted in October 2013, with the most recent update occurring to the Land Use Element in August 2019. Designated planned land use within the District boundaries is primarily single-family residential. In the adjacent area, outside of the District boundaries, land is primarily zoned Residential Agriculture 20-acre, or Unclassified; and Timberland Preserve Zone with a land use designation of Natural Resources, one dwelling unit per 40 acres. 11.4.4 Potential Future Development Future population growth within the Mosquito and Swansboro communities is dependent upon General Plan policies, zoning, and land-use designations in the region. The County of El Dorado General Plan serves as the County’s vision for long-term land use development and conservation. The County’s General Plan, adopted in July 2004 and amended in 2019, provides a series of goals, policies, standards, and implementation programs to guide land use, development, and environmental quality in the County. Aside from the previously mentioned improvements to the Mosquito Road Bridge over the South Fork of the American River, there are no other proposed or current projects that would impact the District’s service provision. 11.4.5 Open Space & Agriculture El Dorado LAFCO’s policies require that an MSR/SOI offer a determination about the effect that a district’s service provision will have on open space and agricultural lands. For purposes of this MSR analysis, open space data was derived from the County General Plan land-use data. 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 as shown in Table 11-6. The District’s provision of fire protection services to open space areas (i.e., non-structural) within its boundaries occurs occasionally, but wildland fire suppression is the primary responsibility of CAL FIRE or the U.S. Forest Service. LAFCO has an interest in documenting the conversion of agricultural and open space lands to other land use types, such as residential use. MQT fire protection services do not play a role in these types of land-use conversions. MQT’s effect on open space lands is minimal. Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-20 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 11-6: General Plan Designations for Open Space, Agriculture, and Natural Resources Boundary Only (in acres) SOI Only (by itself) (in acres) Open space Agriculture Natural Resources Open space Agriculture Natural Resources 221 0.00 3,496 N/A N/A N/A Source: County of El Dorado GIS, 2019 11.4.6 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities As detailed in Volume II - Chapter 1, a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) is an unincorporated area of a County in which the annual median household income (MHI) is less than 80 percent of the statewide MHI. This analysis uses Census Block Groups to determine DUCs because this level of analysis provides the most uniform income data available statewide. Data for this report was collected from the 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, at the census block group level. Within the boundaries of MQT are located two Census Block Groups. Neither meet the DUC threshold to be classified as disadvantaged unincorporated community. Therefore, no DUCs exist within the MQT District boundary, and the provision of essential services need not be analyzed. 11.5 Public Services and Infrastructure 11.5.1 Service Overview The Mosquito Fire Protection District provides fire suppression and emergency medical services to residents in the District. Specific District services include fire prevention inspections and code enforcement; fire response and suppression; fire investigation; emergency medical services (EMS); special operations, such as rescue, vehicle extraction, and hazardous materials response; fire department administration and staff training; public safety education, and response to other public emergencies. The MQT is the primary service provider for fire protection services within the District boundary. MQT provides a range of fire suppression and emergency services as listed in Table 11-7. Table 11-7: MQT Public Services Service Provider Structural Fire Protection MQT Wildland Fire Protection MQT and Cal Fire SRA Emergency Medical Response MQT and the JPA Ambulance, Paramedic Rescue/Extrication MQT and El Dorado County Fire Protection District & Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District (Technical Rescue) Hazardous Materials MQT and County Hazmat Water Supply SCPOA PONDS /EID/WATER TENDERS/MVFA Finnon Reservoir Dispatch CALFIRE Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-21 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Service Provider Training MQT and jointly with other fire districts Fire Safety Education MQT Arson Investigations MQT and EDSO/County FPO Investigation Team Source: MQT, 2020a Structural Fire Protection The suppression of fires in local structures is the primary focus of MQT’s work. Post fire investigation and research indicates that most home ignitions during wildfires are caused by flying embers. Individual homeowners can protect their property from the financial risk associated with structural fire by purchasing homeowner’s insurance with fire coverage. Purchasing this homeowner’s insurance has gotten more difficult in recent years. For example, in the County of El Dorado, during the year 2016, over 1,000 homeowners lost access to their homeowner’s insurance policy due to non-renewal by the insurance company (California Department of Insurance, 2018). 11.5.2 Fire & Emergency Response The District maintains automatic aid agreements with all fire service agencies located in El Dorado County for fire suppression and emergency management services. Under this system, the District responds to close proximity calls within adjacent fire jurisdictions, as well as receives assistance from neighboring agencies when requested. This type of agreement ensures the best possible emergency service is delivered by the most efficient means possible. The District also participates in a mutual aid system that responds to requests for aid from throughout the County and State. Because of these agreements, all firefighters within each fire agency in the County must be prepared for any type of emergency in any setting at all times. Every fire agency within the United States is rated by an independent risk assessment and standards authority for the purposes of establishing insurance policy premiums for homeowners and businesses. California uses an independent national company called the Insurance Services Office, or ISO, for this purpose. The Insurance Services Office evaluates four broad categories of fire suppression when establishing a Public Protection Classification (PPC). These categories include: 1) Fire Department; 2) Emergency Communications; 3) Water Supply; and 4) Community Risk Reduction. ISO routinely conducts assessments of each fire agency in the United States. The rating scale from best to worse is One (1) — Ten (10). There is a possible score of 105.5 points from the total of the four categories listed above. An agency needs a score of 90-105.5 to receive a PPC of Class 1. The Mosquito Fire Protection District received an ISO rating of “5” in areas within 1,000 feet of a hydrant, and a rating of “8” in areas located further from a hydrant (LAFCO, 2020a). MQT’s last ISO rating was completed in 2014. Former Chief Dwyer reported a new survey was “to be scheduled”. Regardless of the ISO rating, the local property owners have been experiencing frequent insurance cancellations of their private homeowner’s insurance and significant premium increases because of wildland fire threat perceptions by insurance companies. Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-22 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Addendum – New Information from MQT The 2021-2022 renewal of the MQT property, vehicle, and liability insurance policy doubled in cost effective November 2021 with significant increases in deductibles for claims (Chief Rosevear, personal communication, November 2021). Emergency Medical Services The Mosquito Fire Protection District does not operate a paramedic ambulance for the El Dorado County Emergency Medical Authority (West Slope JPA). The West Slope JPA currently operates eight (8) Advanced Life Support (ALS) ambulances on a 24/7/365 basis. The JPA has the capacity to staff sixteen ALS ambulances when a need exists, such as for special events and disaster level emergencies. These ambulances are used for the benefit of all County residents as they are assigned across County Service Area 7 (CSA 7) and can be dispatched, as needed, anywhere in the County (EDC, 2017). No new data has been noted since the 2011 Fire and Emergency Services MSR/SOI Update. Ambulance service can deliver patients to Marshall Hospital, at 1100 Marshall Way, Placerville, CA 95667 or to other hospitals in the greater Sacramento region such as UC Davis, Dignity Health, and Sutter Health. Prior to 2019, MQT received a stipend of $2,500 per year from the West Slope JPA as a non-transporting agency along with the other non-transporting fire agencies. However, the stipend was canceled in 2019 at the April 24, 2019 JPA Board of Directors meeting (Item 8.4). Instead of the stipend, non-transporting agencies can restock medical supplies from the medic units or bill the JPA directly if they are unable to restock (West Slope JPA, 2019). The closest medic unit to the District is Medic 25 operated by El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF) at Station No. 25 in Placerville. Response from Medic 25 to the District is never less than 40-45 minutes from this location. No medic unit can get to the District in under 40 minutes unless the unit is dispatched while on Rock Creek Road (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). The Fire Chief acknowledged that this is a “devastatingly” long time to get services. In the past, the District relied on the JPA stipend for purchasing medical supplies as District staff are reliant upon the District to handle EMS responses before an ambulance arrives. In addition, the Chief believes call volume is relatively low because it takes so long for paramedics to arrive (Chief Rosevear, personal communication, September 2020). President Connell states “Many residents are aware of lengthy ambulance response times. Sometimes, they opt to self-transport or be driven by a friend/family member and bypass the 911 system. There is no way MQT knows how often that happens except when told from time to time by a resident or neighbor” (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). One of the primary vehicles for the District is a surplus ambulance that has been converted into a response vehicle for medical search and rescue calls. The previous fire chief attempted to implement a system where a patient could be transported in the District response vehicle with a certified paramedic and driven down to the Mosquito Road Bridge to meet the ambulance paramedics on other side, reducing the drive time for the ambulance and giving the patient a faster time getting to the hospital. The JPA was against this kind of relay type “transporting” and the system was never implemented (Chief Rosevear, personal communication, September 23, 2020). Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-23 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Access for the ambulance to the District may be easier in the future. As mentioned previously, in August 2017, the County of El Dorado Board of Supervisors approved the Mosquito Bridge at South Fork American River Project, CIP 77126/36105028. The project will build a new bridge, located 400 feet above the river, to replace the existing Mosquito Road Bridget that was built in 1867. The current bridge is structurally deficient and functionally obsolete (Svoboda, 2019). The new bridge will span 1,180 feet of the South Fork of the American River canyon, reducing drive time to the District by removing the need to drive down into the canyon via numerous switchbacks and shortening access to the District by one mile (EDC, 2019c). Addendum – New Information from MQT According to the District President, it is anticipated that the new bridge may cut paramedic ambulance and additional fire engine response time in half. This will be a significant improvement for fire protection and advanced life support services. On April 21, 2022 the County of El Dorado will present a construction schedule to the Mosquito Community in a town hall meeting for the new bridge. Construction time is approximately two years (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). Calls for Service and Incidents According to CAL FIRE Camino ECC dispatch data, MQT responded to 130 unique incidents in 2019. Those incidents translated to 465 calls for service that year. A call for service for this report refers to any apparatus or vehicle for the agency which responded to a unique incident, and each apparatus or vehicle is counted as one “call for service.” The data includes incidents occurring both within and outside of the agency’s jurisdiction that the agency’s resources responded to. For more information on how consultants analyzed the dispatch data, refer to Volume II - Chapter 1. The year 2019 represents the lowest number of calls for the District since 2010 as shown in Figure 11-4 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Figure 11-4: Mosquito Fire Protection District Calls for Service from 2010-2019 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-24 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Calls for service for the District have trended slightly downward over the nine-year period, with calls fluctuating yearly. The District received the most calls for service in 2017 at 619 calls, which is only 154 calls more than the lowest year, 2019 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). The Fire Chief acknowledged that the District sees low call volumes that have not increased due to slow population growth (Chief Rosevear, personal communication, September 23, 2020). In 2019, a majority of incidents were for emergency medical services at 49 percent (or 64 incidents). The next highest were fire incidents and Assistance at 14 percent (or 18 calls) each, followed by traffic collision incidents at 11 percent (or 14 calls). The remaining incidents were related to hazards or other issues as shown in Figure 11-5 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Figure 11-5: Mosquito Fire Protection District Percent of Incidents by Type, 2019 3% 11% 14% Assistance Fire 14% Hazard Medical Other 9% Traffic Collision 49% The “Other” incident type includes mutual or automatic aid engine coverage for other fire agencies, aircraft down, arson, investigations, medical transfers, rescues, extractions, miscellaneous, radio and phone system failures, staffing pattern, call transfers, as well as other similar service types. The “Assistance” incident type includes public agency work such as demonstrations, assisting with a water leak, assisting with an animal, assisting with an alarm or lockout, elevator rescue, physically assisting in lifting a person, and assisting with search and rescue (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). More information on incident categories can be found in Volume II - Chapter 1. Addendum – New Information from MQT MQT reports that the District responded to 97 calls for service dispatched by CAL FIRE Camino in 2020 (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). Response Time El Dorado County’s General Plan (2004 as amended through 2019) Public Services and Utilities Element has several policies related to goals for average response time for new development as described in Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-25 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Volume II - Chapter 1. Consultants do not have the capability to break response time data out by County of El Dorado defined Community Region, Rural Center, or Rural Region standards. In the year 2019, the District’s average response time was 10 minutes 38 seconds based on available data from CAL FIRE Camino Dispatch and calculated by the consultants. The response time data does not cover interfacility transfer (IFT), automatic/mutual aid, and strike team/overhead (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Average response times for the District from 2010 to 2019 can be seen in Table 11-8 below. Table 11-8: Average Response Times for MQT from 2010 to 2019 Average Response Time Year (Hr : Min : Sec) 2010 0:07:25 2011 0:08:37 2012 0:06:25 2013 0:06:32 2014 0:06:40 2015 0:07:09 2016 0:09:20 2017 0:08:01 2018 0:08:28 2019 0:10:38 Source: CAL FIRE Camino ECC Dispatch Data Average response times for the District have slowly increased since 2014, though overall number of calls has fluctuated year over year from between 465 calls to 619 calls. In 2012, the District had the lowest response time at 6 minutes 25 seconds (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). The District has a response time goal of 80 percent of responses within 10 minutes within 8 miles of the fire station, and 20 minutes for remote locations over 8 miles from the fire station. As mentioned previously, staffing is a combination paid and volunteer personnel. The District has improved response time when staffed with part time paid firefighters between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM and longer response times with volunteers responding from home between 5:00 PM and 8:00 AM (LAFCO, 2020a). MQT’s May 1, 2020 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) acknowledges that MQT does own a parcel which could allow the District to expand the number of fire stations by one in order to reduce response times. However, given the financial constraints of the District, the CIP recommends that the MQT focus its efforts on improving the existing fire station, instead of expanding the number of fire stations (MQT, 2020b). Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-26 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Addendum – New Information from MQT The District President states that District response times comply with NFPA 1720 for rural fire protection. Variations in response times over years may be attributed to the various locations of incidents and their proximity to the District fire station. The response times noted from 2010 through 2019 should be considered excellent and consistent for a rural, combination fire department. Responses by District personnel consistently meet or exceed fire service standards. Increases in response time when volunteers are at home do not take into consideration the availability of a duty chief and/or other responders who may respond directly to the scene. Designated personnel respond to the fire station after hours to respond with fire apparatus. The location of key volunteers who live near the fire station minimize the delay in response of fire apparatus. A duty chief and other responders are able to respond directly to the scene, assess the situation, report to Camino Dispatch and begin to mitigate the emergency. The District provides an excellent service with rapid response, in a rural remote area (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). The District President states that the parcel referenced is not a practical location for a second fire station. The District President believes that the district is a total of 13 square miles and the current fire station is centrally located. There are no plans to construct another fire station. Efforts are focused on maintenance and improvements to the current station (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). Other Industry Standards In general, other industry standards applicable to the MQT are established by the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA), the Insurance Services Office, Cal OSHA, and District ordinances. All of these agencies, as well as many others, directly and/or indirectly affect the type of services, the quality and development of those services, expansion, reliability, facility design, and construction and environmental issues that the District provides. Forest Fuel Treatment Forest fuel treatment typically relates to wildland fires, rather than the structural fires which are the focus for the MQT. However, within the MQT’s boundaries there are multiple privately owned parcels which contain native vegetation. Also within District boundaries are several pockets of land on which fuel treatments have occurred including both privately owned land and federally managed land (FSC-EDC, 2016). Although the MQT is not directly responsible for forest fuel treatments, a community approach to safety that considers house-to-house transmission, structural safety, and forest fuel treatments is important. The Mosquito community has a Fire Safe Council which helps coordinate and obtain grant money, in cooperation with the Homeowners Association to perform substantial fuel mitigation. The Mosquito Fire Safe Council has earned and achieved Community Fire Wise status through the National Fire Protection Association standards (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-27 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 11.5.3 Mutual Aid, Automatic Aid, Other Agreements Mutual Aid MQT provides mutual aid for any incident which Camino Dispatch requests. Actual response is based on the District’s ability to provide back-staffing to cover MQT’s boundary area at the time of the request. Coverage needs to be carefully planned since the District is remotely located and assistance from other fire agencies is at least a 45-minute response time. Therefore, the provision of mutual aid is determined on a case-by-case basis. Volunteer firefighter presence in the community is varied depending on time of day. The District occasionally provides medical assistance to injured visitors and would respond to any emergency incident in those areas of the El Dorado National Forest (LAFCO, 2020a). Automatic Aid The Mosquito Fire Protection District maintains automatic aid, boundary drop, and closest resource agreements with all fire protection providers operating in the County of El Dorado including the U.S. Forest Service and CAL FIRE (LAFCO, 2020a). Through the current automatic aid 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. For this MSR/SOI Update, LAFCO requested an analysis of automatic aid provided to and received from each agency that provided and/or received aid. Consultants received a breakdown in automatic aid data directly from CAL FIRE Camino ECC dispatch in order to provide the following analysis. This data shows who the first responder to the call was within another agency’s service area boundary. In the context of this analysis, automatic aid specifically refers to instances where an agency was first responder to a call within another agency’s jurisdictional boundary. CAL FIRE is a statewide organization that operates throughout the County of El Dorado. As mentioned previously, CAL FIRE operates within the County under the same automatic aid system as the other local fire agencies. As a result of CAL FIRE’s expansive service area in El Dorado County, the agency responds to a significant number of calls for service throughout the County for the local fire agencies. CAL FIRE automatic aid for each local fire agency is included in the following analysis because CAL FIRE operates within the automatic aid system and was first responder to calls for all of the local fire agencies in the study year 2019. It is important to note that the automatic aid data that was analyzed only included the first responder data and did not include the local fire agencies responses to statewide fires managed by CAL FIRE. Thus, it is not surprising that almost none of the agencies were first responders to CAL FIRE calls aiding CAL FIRE; which are handled through the assignment of strike teams by CAL FIRE. CAL FIRE does not have a designated jurisdictional boundary within the automatic aid system, but is tasked with responding to wildfires within State Responsibility Areas, much of which is within other fire agency boundaries. In 2019, the County of El Dorado experienced 151 wildland fires with a total of 266 acres burned (CAL FIRE, 2019). Only three local agencies provided first response aid to one of those incidents for CAL FIRE in 2019. More information on the State Responsibility Areas can be found in Section 11.5.6. Information about CAL FIRE operations in the County can be found in Volume I - Appendix D. Through consultation with the ad hoc Fire Chiefs MSR group and LAFCO, consultants agreed to exclude the CAL FIRE automatic aid numbers from Table 11-9 below, due to the reasons stated above. However, the study cannot ignore the CAL FIRE automatic aid data as part of the contextual analysis. Doing so would make it appear that local agencies received less aid than they actually did in 2019 and paint an inaccurate Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-28 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final picture of the amount of aid received and provided between fire agencies operating in the County in 2019. Thus, the following analysis and determinations include CAL FIRE aid in the contextual details while removing the numbers from Table 11-9 below. CAL FIRE automatic aid numbers are described countywide in greater detail in Volume I - Appendix D. MQT received aid 36 times and provided aid 25 times in 2019. Table 11-9 below shows the agencies that provided aid to the MQT and those that received aid from the MQT in 2019, excluding CAL FIRE. The CAL FIRE Amador-El Dorado Unit provided aid to MQT 16 times in 2019 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Table 11-9: Automatic Aid Provided and Received from/to MQT, 2019 Agency Providing/Receiving Amount of Aid Amount of Aid Aid to/from MQT Provided to MQT Received from MQT CAM 1 0 DSP 3 2 ECF 25 4 EDH 0 1 GEO 2 7 GRV 3 11 PIO 1 0 RES 1 0 Total 36 25 Source: CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020 The CAL FIRE – Amador-El Dorado Unit aid provided to MQT is described in Volume I - Appendix D. As shown in Table 11-9, the MQT received automatic aid 11 more times than provided in 2019. The District received the majority of aid from the El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF) at about 70 percent of all aid received. MQT provided the most aid to the GRV, and more than the District received from GRV. The District provided the second most aid to GEO, also more than it received from GEO in 2019 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Compared to other agencies, aid received to and provided by the District is generally balanced and may suggest that the District provides adequate service to the communities within its boundaries and has the capacity to assist neighboring agencies. However, the geographic barriers to access the District could account for the variation in aid provided versus received for MQT. 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. A more detailed analysis of automatic aid is needed to determine the reasoning for variation in aid received versus provided for MQT and other fire agencies in the County, factoring in the location of calls in relation to available resources for each agency. 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. With CAL FIRE aid removed, the District required aid for approximately seven percent of all calls in 2019 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-29 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final In addition, MQT maintains an automatic aid agreement with GRV for areas on or near Rock Creek Rd to State Highway 193, and with the USFS in the ElDorado National Forest where the fire road and trail network can be accessed from the District (north and east portions of the District) (LAFCO, 2020a). Addendum The District President states: “In 2019 MQT reportedly had 130 calls for service. Based on Table 13-9, 61 of those calls involved receiving or providing mutual aid. That amounts to 47% of MQTs calls. Based on MQTs remote area it is hard to imagine that level of calls requiring mutual aid. The notable high amount of mutual aid from El Dorado County Fire must be attributed to paramedic ambulance response. Responses from Cameron Park, Pioneer and Rescue Fire Districts are unlikely due to their extremely long distance from MQT. The accuracy of the statistics is questionable and appears to be out of context” (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). Consultants would like to clarify that the raw data consultants received from CAL FIRE Camino ECC for automatic aid did not include paramedic ambulance response. The data lists all agency vehicles and apparatus that responded automatically to a call to MQT, excluding ambulances. The District President also states: “Mosquito is a remote community and there is no mandate that assistance other Districts be provided, especially considering the long distance to travel to get to our neighbors. The District honors every request to provide assistance and is dependent on available staffing. Leaving the District unprotected when another fire agency can easily provide the assistance, is not in the community’s best interests. There is no automatic cover engine dispatched when our engine is out of the area. Cal Fire and other larger agencies are able to arrange cover engines for their stations, but Mosquito is not included in that program” (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). Joint Agreements A Joint Agreement is one where a District may jointly own or share fire protection services, capital facilities, or services with other agencies. The District recently entered into a Joint Operating Agreement with the GRV and GEO Districts. The agreement calls for joint staffing, on an as needed basis, for special circumstances (Strike Team Engine Staffing) and allows off duty personnel and volunteers to respond to one another’s emergency incidents if they are in the area (or live in the area). This agreement also allows duty chief coverage between the Districts, loaning of equipment/fire apparatus when mechanical breakdowns happen, and joint training classes (LAFCO, 2020a). The “Master Agreement Between the Garden Valley, Georgetown And Mosquito Fire Protection Districts for The Purpose of Providing Reciprocal Fire Protection and Related Services Under This Joint Operations Agreement” was considered and approved by the MQT during their August 21, 2020 Board Meeting. Contract Services to Other Agencies MQT does provide fire protection services to other agencies by contract. Specifically, MQT provides fire suppression equipment and personnel to the Cal OES on dispatch request (Master Mutual Aid Agreement- OES Region 4 Operational Area) MQT also provides assistance to the California Incident Management Team (IMT), and Federal IMT personnel on assignment (LAFCO, 2020a). Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-30 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Addendum – New Information from MQT According to the District President, MQT has a contract, signed in June 2021, with Cal State OES for the housing and deployment of a Type 6 fire engine. The brand-new engine and a crew of MQT firefighters will respond where OES requires. The first deployment after receiving the new engine was to the Bootleg Fire in Southern Oregon. Management Team personnel and Federal Team IMT program worked during the 2020 Fire Season, but due to changes in the California Fire Assistance Agreement (CFAA), the Board of Directors decided to not renew the program in 2021. (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). Other Cooperative Efforts MQT is a member of several professional organizations that provide mutual benefits to their membership including the Fire Chiefs Association, Fire Prevention Officers Association, Fire Operations Group, County Training Officers, and the El Dorado County Emergency Medical Services Agency (LAFCO, 2020a). 11.5.4 Dispatch For MQT, dispatching is provided through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the multiagency Camino Emergency Command Center operated by CAL FIRE, providing a single dispatch system for the entire Western Slope of the County (LAFCO, 2020a). Additional details on Countywide dispatch can be found in Volume I - Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. 11.5.5 Emergency Access Mosquito Road provides access to the community of Mosquito from U.S. Highway 50 to the south. Mosquito Road is a rural, narrow roadway that meanders through the mountainous terrain of the South Fork American River canyon. Mosquito Road was originally built as a wagon trail in the 1800s. In 1859, the County Board of Supervisors commissioned Mosquito Road to be built from Placerville to Mosquito Village. Subsequently, the road was paved with asphalt; however, it currently lacks passing lanes and safety shoulders which could be a concern if the road were to be utilized for emergency evacuation. The MQT's boundary area does include ingress and egress challenges identified in the County's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. District staff works with community stakeholders to remediate these ingress/egress issues as they are identified. More information on county wide maintenance operations can be found in Volume I - Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. 11.5.6 Fire Hazard Zones The Fire Hazard Severity Zones, Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), and Community Risk Fire Map in which CAL Fire categorizes spatial areas into different risk areas are described in Volume II - Chapter 1. Within the MQT’s boundaries, 100 percent of the District is within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone of “Very High” or “High.” Specifically, 6,035 acres are classified as “Very High” Risk and 956 acres as “High” Risk, based on GIS data provided by CAL FIRE as shown in Table 11-10, below. See Figure 11-6 for a map of those areas. CAL FIRE has mapped the WUI in El Dorado County and the MQT is located within an identified WUI. Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-31 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 11-6: Fire Hazard Severity Zones & Responsibility Areas for MQT Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-32 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 11-10: MQT Fire Hazard Severity Zone Acreage and Percentage Acreage in Very High Percentage in Acreage in High Percentage in Total Percentage Fire Risk Very High Fire Fire Risk High Fire Risk in Very High and Risk High Fire Risk 6,035 86.3% 956 13.7% 100% Source: LAFCO GIS Data, 2020 derived from CAL FIRE data Areas of land within the District boundary are considered “Local Responsibility Area” (LRA), “State Responsibility Area” (SRA), and “Federal Responsibility Area” (FRA) for fire protection services. Acreage for these areas as shown in Table 11-11. CAL FIRE will typically respond to wildland fires within the SRA, and a federal agency, such as the U.S. Forest Service will respond to wildland fires within the FRA. Table 11-11: MQT Responsibility Areas Boundary Only (in acres) LRA SRA FRA 0.00 6,563 427 Source: GIS data from CAL FIRE Within MQT’s boundary, 6,563 acres are in the SRA, and 427 acres are in an FRA for wildland fires. About 94 percent of the District is within an SRA and six percent is within an FRA. None of the District is located within an LRA, meaning that there is no area within the District that does not have fire protection responsibility by either the state or federal government for wildfires. See Figure 13-6 for a map of these areas. 11.5.7 Infrastructure The Mosquito Fire Protection District maintains infrastructure to support its fire protection services. This infrastructure includes fire stations, fire hydrants, fire trucks and other vehicles, water hoses, and other equipment. MQT has one fire station located at 8801 Rock Creek Rd, Placerville, CA, CA 95667. Station No. 75 is equipped with five bays capable of housing five pieces of equipment, a training room, reception area, and administrative office. MQT’s fire station is fully functional and can house people onsite in the dorm area. There is also areas for apparatus, a workout area, and a working kitchen. The fire station is staffed part-time 7 days per week, 8 hours per day (LAFCO, 2019a). The fire stations' bays are large enough to house the District's engines (LAFCO, 2019a). MQT’s fire station is listed in Table 11-12, below. Table 11-12: Mosquito Fire Protection District Fire Station Detail Station No. Address Staffing 8801 Rock Creek Road, 75 Part-time Placerville (Main station) Source: MQT, 2020a The District hosts community groups and events at its station. Any room, within the limits of the District’s current policy, is available to a group or agency that makes a request. At the discretion of the Fire Chief Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-33 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final or the Board of Directors, a nominal fee may be required for use of District facilities. Vehicles are moved in and out of the station bays to accommodate some activities. Per the District policies, users must provide evidence of proper and sufficient liability insurance coverage. The station is also used as a polling place for elections (LAFCO, 2011). Fire Station No. 75 was constructed in the 1980’s when part-time volunteer staffing was in effect. Given the present fire protection need, the station is undersized and not conductive to full-time staffing due to limitations on space and amenities (LAFOC, 2019a). Additionally, the fire station is not up to current seismic code (LAFCO, 2019a). MQT’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) was adopted on May 1, 2020 and it suggests that MQT study improving Station No. 75 by adding a 1,500 square foot at-grade addition to modernize the on-duty staff’s living quarters. This would shift administrative and office functions to the building addition and allow the existing administrative offices and tool room to be used as a training room area. This project would provide a vastly improved working environment. This proposed addition is subject to further study and financial analysis. MQT owns a 0.55-acre parcel that was donated to the District in lieu of payment of the parcel assessment fee. This parcel is deed restricted for the purpose of providing a new sub-station. The suitability of the site and the ability to use as a secondary response station to the eastern area of the District would require careful research for future use. A Nexus Study was completed for the District in 2019 to review Fire Impact Fees. The study recommended the District establish a new development impact fee to fund the costs of providing fire facilities, apparatus, and equipment needed to accommodate new development (SCI Consulting, 2019). Addendum – New Information from MQT The District President states: “In 2019 MQT was awarded a $700,000 grant from FEMA for the recruitment and retention of volunteer firefighters. A portion of the grant money is dedicated to a stipend program which allows volunteers to work shifts for a nominal stipend. Since beginning in the Summer of 2020, we have had great success adding new volunteers and have increased station staffing hours. In the summer of 2021, the fire station was staffing the majority of the time with 24-hour firefighters. The few evenings the station was not staffed, assigned firefighters living nearby provided coverage so the engine can respond quickly when needed” (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). The District finds that the size of the station is adequate to accommodate personnel full time, if necessary. The District President states that one fire station is adequate for the needs of the District in a semi-remote area (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021) Equipment and Apparatus Fire engines and other vehicles are some of the most expensive equipment that MQT owns. MQT owns and operates two engines; one Type I and one Type III. Each have an onboard water capacity of 500 to 750 gallons and the capability to deliver 1,000 gallons per minute (GPM). All of the engines are four-wheel drive and are capable of delivering foam. The District also owns four utility vehicles (one command, two Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-34 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final duty and one utility) and one water tender. The 3,000-gallon water tender can deliver 250 to 500 GPM and was purchased in 2007. NFPA recommends that second line equipment should not be more than 20 years old; one of the District’s water tenders is 30 years old. The two engines are over 17 years old. Table 11-13 lists the value and age of each of MQT’s vehicles. Table 11-13: Apparatus & Light Vehicles, 2020 Years in Cost to Replace Per Year – Identifier Years to Max Miles Service Chief’s Value Engine 75 17 21 $34,094 Engine 275 17 20 $32,200 Chief Vehicle 7500 18 -8 -$6,140 Command Vehicle 7501 17 13 $3,898 Water Tender (WT) 75 13 23 $21,023 Squad Vehicle 75 9 6 $20,797 Support Vehicle 75 18 -1 $74,910 Utility Vehicle 75 21 -15 -$2,656 Annual Budget $36,005 Source: MQT, 2020b The District has noted vehicle or equipment needs for which no funding has been currently identified (LAFCO, 2019a). Addendum – New Information from MQT The District President states “The District applied for and received an OES Type 6 Engine, placed into service in June 2021. The engine, designated 4613, has been dispatched to the Boot Leg Fire (Oregon), Dixie Fire, Caldor Fire and KNP complex, so far this fire season. The new and fully equipped engine will be available for District fire response when not deployed during fire season and during the off season” (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). Water and Hydrants In MQT, water service is provided by several sources including: • Tanks donated to MQT by El Dorado Irrigation District; • MQT’s water tender carries water to sites; • Mosquito Volunteer Fire Association (MVFA) owner of Finnon Lake Recreation Area; and • Lakes and ponds for helicopter water support. Data source: (LAFCO, 2020a). Local water hydrants are provided by the El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) and the Swansboro Country Property Owners Association (SCPOA). EID is described in LAFCO’s 2020 MSR. MQT maintains the District’s Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-35 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 31 fire hydrants. Water tenders supply water for fire suppression to areas without fire hydrants, which includes most of the western portion of MQT (LAFCO, 2011). Hydrant capacity is 500 Gallons per Minute (GPM) for 4 hours. The 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. Information from former Fire Chief Leo Chaloux who was with the District at the time of EID pipeline construction indicates that: “There are two pumps at the river just west of Slab Creek Dam. Each pump is capable of 500 GPM and only one pump runs at a time as the other is a backup. The line from the pump runs up from the river and comes out at the hydrant located at the east end of White Oak Drvie. From there it enters the system at about 350 GPM due to pressure loss in the pipe and elevation rise. Any excess over 350 GPM will go into the water tank located on Log Cabin Lane which contains close to 400,000 gallons. There are altitude gauges on the tank that communicate to EID, so they are supposed to know how much is in the tank at all times. During this time of the year (Sept) the 350 GPM probably only enters the tank late at night when usage is lower.” The hydrants on the lower end of the system have increased pressures and those on the upper portion of the system (Dickinson and Morton Court) have poor pressure as they are above the tank and receive their water from a pump at the tank. During the King Fire, the main storage tank was emptied and there was great reliance on pump drafting water from local lakes and ponds. Spacing between hydrants are excessive, in some locations. District firefighting tactics factor-in the fragile water supply, hydrant spacing, water tender operations, and water drafting from lakes and ponds (LAFCO, 2020a). Consultants conclude that hardening of the water supply for MQT as well as the need for more water storage for the District may warrant further study. Addendum – New Information from MQT The District President states: “All water systems are subject to failure during a wildland fire, especially if the back-up generator for the pump is compromised. The strongest systems all face the same challenges when wildfire strikes. MQT has an adequate water supply within areas served by the water district. During a wildfire, CAL FIRE and MQT would direct fire resources to protect the EID pump and tank station in the District. Recently, the District installed 10,000 gallon water tanks in three areas not serviced by the EID hydrant system” (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). 11.5.8 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies As mentioned previously, the District has prepared a 2020 – 2025 Draft Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The CIP describes planned facility and equipment upgrades. As part of the analysis, the District looked at station location and facility sufficiency (MQT, 2020b). The District fire station and surrounding property is generally in good condition and well maintained. The District lacks funding for future major maintenance repairs such as roof replacement or interior upgrades (LAFCO, 2020a). However, a 1,500 square foot addition to the existing station is proposed, but not funded in the CIP (MQT, 2020b). Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-36 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final MQT fire engines are model years 2001 and 2007. The Water Tender is model year 2006. All three were purchased new by the District. Apparatus used by the District can be exposed to harsh weather and off- road conditions, but are generally lightly used based on low call volume. Fire apparatus is in good condition but have gone beyond average acceptable life spans (LAFCO, 2020a). The primary response vehicle for medical aid and rescues is a 2010 Ford former ambulance retired by another fire agency. The District also owns four light utility vehicles which are all over 15 years old. The District has limited funding for equipment and personal protective equipment and depends on grant funding and donations to supplement needs. The District has recently gained access to the Federal Surplus program and will search for low-cost apparatus, light vehicles, and equipment in good shape for a reduced cost. The District has also applied for and received a State Office of Emergency Services (OES) fire engine (Type 6) which can be used in the District but will primarily serve for the Master Mutual Aid Agreement in which OES owned fire engines are distributed to local fire agencies around the State (LAFCO, 2020a). As part of this agreement, the District must provide staff for the engine when responding to other fires throughout the State (Connell Persico, personal communication, November 20201). Given existing funding constraints, there is little opportunity to replace aging equipment and no ability to replace apparatus or facilities without incurring major debt (LAFCO, 2020a). Challenges As part of this MSR process, District staff was queried about potential regulatory issues, infrastructure, equipment, or other challenges that could potentially confront the District over the next five years. District staff indicates that the MQT’s building is old and no longer meets many of the current requirements for fire equipment and OSHA standards. District equipment is aging and needs replacement. Additional regulatory issues requiring district compliance, with no ability to increase revenues to compensate is another identified challenge. Additionally, the completion of Mosquito Bridge replacement could spur the future development of vacant lots and those new homes could potentially impact District services (LAFCO, 2020a). The District has an informal assessment of its fire station, indicating necessary maintenance and upgrades (LAFCO, 2019a). However, this informal assessment was not reviewed as part of this MSR. The District's deferred maintenance strategy is to prioritize needs and allocate funds as they become available (LAFCO, 2019a). Addendum – New Information from MQT The District President states that “MQT meets OSHA standards and has been reviewed in late 2020 by the District’s workers compensation carrier. The District is currently updating its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). While it is true the fire apparatus is aging, the District has an aggressive preventative maintenance program, and has two mechanics on staff. The apparatus and equipment are continually inspected. The District will be addressing the updating of Fire Station 75. There has been a recent professional building inspection, which revealed minor issues, but nothing major with the exception of a possible roof covering replacement” (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-37 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 11.5.9 Cost Avoidance & Facilities Sharing Over the last five years, the District has seen consistent increasing costs without increases in revenue. The fire protection special tax currently in place has not seen an increase since its inception and an attempt to increase the special tax last year, failed. The District has employed every possible measure to reduce expenses, obtain grants and donations, utilize volunteer expertise, partner with other agencies, reduce paid staff, minimize salaries and benefits, and eliminate overtime. Specific cost reduction measures include: • Continued evaluation of every possible option to save money and make operations more efficient; • Use of volunteers for emergency response and incident support (balanced with the known lack in adequate numbers of active volunteers who can provide 24/7/365 service); • Provide and receive automatic and mutual aid fire protection services to several neighboring fire agencies in the West Slope of the County of El Dorado; and • Actively applied for several grants including: o Grant request to FEMA for the SAFER program funding for staffing submitted on 3/12/21. If awarded, the grant would provide the ability for MQT to fund six (6) full time positions 24/7/365 for the next 3 to 4 years. Awards will be announced in September 2021. o The CAL FIRE 50-50 grant is currently active ($20,000) for the purchase of wildland safety equipment. An initial order for gear ($8,500) will arrive Spring 2021. This grant provides reimbursement for half the amount expended on gear. According to grant requirements MQT must purchase the approved equipment prior to June 30, 2021. MQT will apply for next year’s round of CAL FIRE 50-50 grant in Spring 2021. o Three additional grant applications have been submitted (2 Regional, 1 District) to FEMA for various equipment. Regional grants have been requested along with neighboring fire agencies for the purchase of new, state of the art breathing apparatus and updated mobile radios, portable radios, and pagers. District equipment includes vehicle extrication equipment, a washing machine for contaminated safety gear and a replacement breathing air compressor. Paid personnel are necessary to supplement response, provide training for volunteers, and to maintain the facilities/apparatus. The process of reducing personnel and operational expenses, makes the District a less attractive place for employees to work. Due to funding constraints, it is not possible for MQT to offer competitive salaries, or to fund 24/7/365 paid staffing of the fire station. The estimated cost to staff the fire station with paid staff would take 4 to 5 times or more than the current Fire/EMS Special Tax of $204 per parcel (MQT, 2020a; 2021). District overhead and operational costs are very modest compared to the other fire agencies in El Dorado County. However, the District is currently in deficit spending and cannot maintain an operational budget for too much longer into the future, let alone provide financing for aging facility and apparatus (LAFCO, 2020a). Due to this and other factors, it may become necessary to return to the voting community for an increase in the Fire/EMS Special Tax. Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-38 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Addendum – New Information from MQT According to the District President, MQT was not successful in its application for the FEMA SAFER program funding for staffing to fund six (6) full time positions 24/7/365 for the next 3 to 4 years. The CAL FIRE 50-50 grant application for 2021 was approved for MQT. The District was successful achieving a breathing apparatus replacement grant with the Pioneer and Georgetown Fire Districts. The District will receive 15 new breathing apparatus valued at approximately $110,000. The District was not successful in the application of a FEMA AFG equipment grant and a regional grant with the Georgetown Fire District for radio and pager replacement. The District will continue to reapply for this equipment at the next available grant opportunity. The District President states “The statement that the District is in budget deficit and cannot maintain an operational budget for too much longer is not true and is a misleading statement. The District has rebuilt volunteer staff, with a focus on community based volunteers. The District has successfully and fully utilized its grant opportunities, for volunteer recruitment, retention, training and equipment. The District is currently in the process of a tax measure increase. The District has obtained a new fire engine from the State of California and is in the process of ordering an additional new water tender. The District has been able to staff the fire station more often and consistently than it has in many years. Volunteer support, from firefighters and community volunteers is growing at a significant rate. The District will continue to find cost savings on the personnel side of the budget and will continue to recruit and retain volunteer firefighters. The District has made significant improvements in staffing and equipment over the past year, which has raised the capabilities of the District’s response to and protection of the Community. The District’s combined firefighter and community volunteer staff is the highest number and best supported/organized in El Dorado County. The District has managed to utilize all available resources to protect a vulnerable and isolated community with little support from the County of El Dorado and CAL FIRE, unless there is an actual wildland fire burning within the District. The District takes great pride in protecting the Mosquito Community with professional services. The continued degrading of the District by the County of El Dorado, false and misstatements in the Grand Jury Report on West Slope Fire Protection, and the MSR updates by South Fork Consultants have a negative effect on the District’s ability to maintain an adequate level of service into the future” (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). As mentioned at the beginning of this Chapter, the majority of information included in this report was provided to consultants in October 2020 by District personnel in response to consultant’s request for information and through an interview conducted in September 2020 with the Fire Chief and past District President. In November 2020, a new majority was elected to the Board of Directors. New information provided to consultants by the current District President has been included as an addendum at the end of each relevant section. This report is based primarily on the information received in October 2020. Consultants commend the District for the strides that have been made by the Board and personnel throughout 2020-2021. New information is included in order to provide future context for the District moving forward. The fact that the District can provide service through paid and volunteer staff every day and night through the entire year, under adverse physical and fiscal conditions, is truly remarkable. The only way for the Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-39 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final District to continue providing current service is to increase consistent revenue through its Special Tax. Ultimately it will be the community’s decision to fund a level of service they believe is acceptable (LAFCO, 2020a). USFS Station 65 is staffed on a seasonal basis and is located eight miles northeast of the District within the ECF boundaries. USFS is available for wildland firefighting only and will assist as requested. USFS is not trained for medical/rescue emergencies or structure firefighting (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). Although there is some limited overlap between MQT and USFS services, it is not considered an exact duplication of services because the MQT focuses on structural fire protection services. Jurisdictional Reorganization The District has evaluated possible reorganizations and mergers which could potentially increase the level of service to the community by assessing “pros” and “cons”. The identified “Pros” include 24/7 coverage at the fire station, more paramedics, and more personnel (strike teams). The identified “Cons” include financial issues related to retirement funding (CalPERS), new personnel who are not familiar with the area, lack of local control, demands of rural environment, and loss of grant monies (present & future) (LAFCO, 2019a). Part of the evaluation considered whether joining a regional fire and emergency services agency would serve the needs of the community better than remaining independent. MQT has concluded that while the District carries no debt, particularly unfunded retirement liability, it lacks the revenue which other fire agencies considers important in a merger. To provide 24/7/365 paid staffing (2 personnel), an agency desiring to merge with the District would have to provide additional funding in excess of $500,000 per year. There are variations in staffing levels, which the District is always evaluating, but without a significant outside consistent funding source, a merging agency would find itself only able to staff in a way similar to how the District is staffed currently. Most, if not all other fire agencies in the County of El Dorado would not agree to the part time staffing of the fire station, with minimal pay and no benefits. Mergers with the District, absent a significant outside funding source, are anticipated to also be rejected by any labor group of a host agency. The only possible solution for a potential consolidation would require a full, county-wide consolidation in which the revenue for fire protection was shared by all and spread to staff fire stations in strategic and isolated locations, such as Mosquito. Revenue sharing for fire protection Countywide is the only solution which would fill the revenue gap with the District and other districts like MQT (LAFCO, 2020a). Overall MQT’s Board values the small community culture, organization, and assistance provided to the District. The Board is concerned that specific services would suffer if MQT merges or consolidates with a larger agency. There are worries about a potential loss of local knowledge and identity. Examples of the concerned services include CHP calls for assistance with road closures, CAL FIRE calls for assistance with wildland rescues, and Sheriff calls for assistance with "welfare checks" (LAFCO, 2019a). One issue that could lead MQT to consider annexation, consolidation or contracting out would be the provision of more personnel (LAFCO, 2019a). Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-40 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 11.6 Financial Ability to Provide Services LAFCO is required to make determinations regarding the financial ability of the Mosquito Fire Protection District (MQT) to provide fire and emergency medical services. This section provides an overview of the financial health of the District and a context for LAFCO’s financial determinations. The audited financial statements from the District for the fiscal years (FY) 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 are the primary source of all information for this section (MQT, 2018a; MQT, 2019a). The final and preliminary budget for FY 2019/2020 and FY 2020/2021 are also used in order to provide the most recent context to the analysis (MQT, 2019b; MQT, 2020a). However, it is important to note that budgets are estimates and subject to change. In California, special districts are classified as either enterprise or non-enterprise based on their source of revenue. The MQT generally operates as a non-enterprise district, collecting and utilizing property tax revenue to fund fire and emergency services. 11.6.1 Finanical Policies and Transparency The primary policy document for the Mosquito Fire Protection District is the Mosquito Fire Protection District Manual last updated on November 12, 2020. The manual describes the rules for the District’s business operations including budget, procurement, and financial policies. However, this document does not include the size and purpose of reserves and how they are invested or may be spent. The District adopts a 1-year budget and conducts an annual review to determine any changes that might be needed. The FY 2020/2021 Financial Plan was adopted by the Board on September 17, 2020. The District publishes an audited financial statement every year. Government Code and District policy require an annual independent audit of the District’s financial records by a certified public accountant. The independent audits for FY 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 were performed by Robert W. Johnson, independent auditors. The Auditors judge whether the District’s financial statements are presented in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) as established by the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB). The District uses the accrual basis of accounting, where revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recorded when liabilities are incurred. The FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 auditor reports indicated that the District has not presented Management’s Discussion and Analysis or budgetary comparison information. Based on accounting principles generally accepted, this information is required to be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the (GASB) who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. Addendum – New Information from MQT The FY 2019/2020 audit was conducted by Robert W. Johnson. The FY 2020/2021 audit is scheduled to be conducted. The last audit is posted on the District website (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-41 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 11.6.2 District Revenues and Expenditures On average, 30 percent of the District’s revenues are from property taxes and 36 percent are from a special tax. The District’s biggest expense is Salaries & Benefits accounting for 72 percent of the District’s expenditures in FY 2017/2018 and 62 percent in FY 2018/2019. A breakdown in revenues and expenditures can be seen in Figure 11-7 below. A breakdown of revenues and expenditures is also available in table format in Volume II - Appendix A, Financial Tables by Agency. Revenues The District has three main revenue sources described as follows: 1) A Fire/EMS Special Tax (Measure F, passed August 7, 2001) @ $204 per parcel; 2) Property Tax revenue; and 3) “Other” funding sources. Source: County of El Dorado 2019a For FY 2018/2019 the District revenues amounted to approximately $628,000 with the highest percentage of revenue received from the special tax followed by property taxes. Revenue identified as “Other” went up by $169,000 between FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019, or a 40 percent increase. This revenue is a combination of grants, cash donations and in-kind donations. It also includes payments from Allied World Insurance Company for a variety of settlements, cash donations from SCPOA, MFA, Crafters and MVFA, and rebates from US Bank (Connell Persico, personal communication, July 2021). Strike team reimbursements for MQT, categorized as “Paid Fire revenue” in the audited financial report amounted to $98,724 for FY 2018/2019. This includes payments for strike teams from MQT that assisted at the CARR fire incident, the STONE fire incident, and the CAMP fire incident (Connell Persico, personal communication, July 2021). The EMT-P Grant has been extended another year to FY 2020/2021 due to the impacts of the pandemic causing limits on the practical implementations of the grant. Annually, the District also applies and receives a CAL FIRE 50/50 Grant for Wildland Personal Protective Equipment (PPE); however, it is unclear how this grant is being accounted for within the Audited Financial Statements. The District was awarded a four-year, 100 percent federally funded Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Staffing and Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Recruitment and Retention Grant in September 2019 worth $698,618. A portion of the FEMA SAFER Grant is represented in the FY 2020/2021 budget. The Special Tax revenue estimate calculations are based on a $204 per parcel property tax and represents the highest percent of recurring revenue for the District. The District’s Five-Year Revenue Framework, last updated in 2018, mentions that traditionally, the operations budget is funded by property taxes while the personnel budget is funded by the Special Tax. Any amount not required to balance the budget is placed in the “Transfer to Reserves” account and moved into reserves if available at year’s end. For planning purposes, the MQT projects Property Tax revenue will increase by 1.04 percent each year. The District also notes that there are a couple of minor sources of recurring revenue that include Interest, State Homeowners Relief, and Unsecured Property, but together these provide only about $4,500 annually (MQT, 2018b). Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-42 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 11-7: MQT Total Revenues and Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-43 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-44 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Mosquito Fire Protection District attempted to pass a new Special Tax in March of 2019 in order to prevent significant service cutbacks to fire protection and emergency services. The proposed ballot measure would have generated $266 per parcel in addition to the existing assessment of $204 a parcel. It was anticipated that the proposed increase would add $245,784 annually to the District’s budget (MQT, 2018c). The District proposed to use the funds solely for: providing fire protection, both prevention and suppression; and emergency response services within the District and for any responses outside the District under automatic/mutual aid agreements with other fire agencies. The ballot measure required a two-thirds majority to pass and was defeated with only 56.7 percent voting in favor (EDC, 2019a). Expenditures The District’s biggest expense is Salaries & Benefits as seen in Figure 11-7. This accounted for 72 percent of the District’s expenditures in FY 2017/2018 and 62 percent in FY 2018/2019. There was a 41 percent increase in expenses between FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 as a $119,000 increase in “Services and Supplies.” This increase in expenses can be attributed to the purchase of a generator to enable the District to operate during power outages, repairs to the exterior of a fire station, and additional expenses accrued as a result of equipment and supplies utilized for participation in Strike Teams. The District has forecasted expenses to return to FY 2018/2019 levels for FY 2019/2020 and to include a Capital Outlay expense of $60,000, a $17,000 increase above FY 2018/2019. It is unclear from the Financial Statements what the capital outlay is expense is for. The District is currently staffed under the NFPA 1720 standard. The District is augmented by volunteers with approximately six active volunteers available to cover after hours shifts and respond to incident calls. However, volunteers have other full-time jobs and are not always available to cover shifts (Chief J. Rosevear, personal communication, September 23, 2020). As of July 1, 2020 the District had two full-time employees. This includes: one fire chief and one fire captain (El Dorado LAFCO, 2020). The District is a signatory to the West Slope JPA for emergency medical services, but does not qualify for Emergency Services Authority Funding for staff positions because the District does not provide ambulance services. In FY 2017/2018, the District staffed one fire station nine hours a day, seven days a week and had no unstaffed stations (LAFCO, 2019a). Revenues (Over/Under) Expenditures Revenues (Over/Under) expenditures can be seen in Figure 11-8 below. The District expenditures exceeded revenues by $8,388 in FY 2017/2018 and by $17,729 in FY 2018/2019. Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-45 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 11-8: MQT Net Revenues Over/Under Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 The District was able to balance its FY 2019/2020 budget via the transfer of funds from Reserves of $87,000 which accounted for 18 percent of the total budget. The District was able to balance its FY 2020/2021 budget via funding from FEMA in the amount of $107,000 or 21 percent. The budgets are estimates and it is possible that expenditures could outpace revenues similar to FY 2017/2018 and 2018/2019. The District Board President informed consultants that the General Reserve Fund was $163,327.22 and the equipment reserve fund was $130,508 for FY 2018/2019. The amount in the General Reserve is not enough to cover 50 percent of operating expenses. Operating Expenses for FY 2018/2019 was $608,223. The District does, however, have $427,000 in Cash on the Balance Sheet. The Board has the ability to use this contingency reserve for operational needs, but the Board’s commitment is to preserve equipment reserves and designate available funds to equipment reserves for capital improvements (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, April 19, 2021; June, 16, 2021). 11.6.3 District Assets and Liabilities District Assets As of June 30, 2019, the District had $679,490 in Total Assets as shown in Figure 11-9 below. The District had a strong cash position of $427,272, which makes up 63 percent of Total Assets. The District had capital assets and net of depreciation of $251,573. Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-46 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 11-9: District Assets as of June 30, 2019 Capital Assets for the District are mostly derived from apparatus and vehicles owned by the District. Between FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 the District saw a decrease in Assets of $11,949 (or 2 percent) driven primarily by a decrease in cash. Liabilities and Debt The District had very low liabilities totaling $22,017 as of June 30th, 2019. District liabilities and debts as of June 30, 2019 are shown in Figure 11-10 below. Figure 11-10: District Liabilities and Debt as of June 30, 2019 The District saw an increase of $3,350 (or 18 percent) in liabilities and debts between FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019. This is based on a slight increase in each liability category: accounts payable; compensated absences; and salaries and benefits. The District carries no debt or unfunded retirement liability. The consultants note that Salaries and Benefits are not commonly listed in the Liabilities section of an audited financial report. 11.6.4 Net Position The District ended FY 2018/2019 with a positive Net Position of $657,473. The Statement of Net Position is shown in Figure 11-11 below and includes a summary of the District’s assets, as well as restricted and unrestricted funds. Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-47 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 11-11: District Net Position as of June 30, 2019 The District saw a decrease in Net Position of $15,399 between FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 (or 2 percent). The District has a strong net position based on their heavy cash position and low liabilities. 11.6.5 Asset Maintenance and Replacement According to the Fire Chief for MQT, fire apparatus utilized by the District is in generally good condition, but has gone beyond the average acceptable life span (Chief Rosevear, personal communication, September 23, 2020). Engines were purchased new in 2001 and 2007 and the Water Tender was purchased new in 2006. The primary response vehicle for medical aid and rescues is a 2010 Ford ‘former’ ambulance retired by another fire department. In addition, the District owns four light utility vehicles that are all over 15 years old. The Districts Five-Year Revenue Framework identifies the need for equipment replacement/upgrading projected to average $30,000 annually. The Framework suggests these costs are being offset by Strike Team Equipment usage fees when MQT personnel go on Strike Teams out of the District (MQT, 2018b). The District has limited funding for equipment and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), relying on grant funding and donations to supplement needs. The District has recently gained access to the Federal Surplus program, which will allow for the purchase of low-cost apparatus, light vehicles, and equipment in good shape at a reduced cost. The District recently applied for a California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) fire engine (Type 6). Through this program, Cal OES provides apparatus on loan to local fire departments for use in their districts, while requiring those departments to staff the vehicles for the State when needed. Cal OES purchases the apparatus fully equipped, then assigns them to local governments and fire agencies on temporary use agreements where the state never relinquishes control of the vehicles (Cal OES, 2016). This program would allow the District to receive a brand-new engine to use within the District, but would also lock-in the District to respond to any calls from the State when needed (LAFCO, 2020a). The District fire station no longer meets many of the current requirements for fire equipment and OSHA standards. Additionally, there are regulatory issues requiring District compliance, however MQT has no ability to increase revenues to compensate (El Dorado LAFCO, 2020). Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-48 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Addendum – New Information from MQT MQT staff deployed the OES fire engine with a crew of three to major incidents in Oregon and California for a total of eight weeks. MQT completed all assignments requested by OES and was able to adequately back staff coverage for the District (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). 11.6.6 Cost Avoidance According to the Fire Chief, the District has employed measures to reduce expenses by: obtaining grants and donations; utilizing volunteer expertise; partnering with other agencies; reducing paid staff; minimizing salaries and benefits; and eliminating overtime (Chief Rosevear, personal communication, September 23, 2020). The District has evaluated reorganizations and consolidation with other neighboring Districts which could potentially increase the level of service to the community. While the District carries no debt, particularly unfunded retirement liability, it lacks the revenue which other fire agencies consider important in a consolidation. Mosquito Fire Protection District recently entered into a Joint Operations Agreement with Georgetown Fire Protection District and Garden Valley Fire Protection District to allow sharing of resources and volunteer personnel between the Districts. The hope is for the formal agreement to solidify relationships with neighboring districts and open up discussions to explore other avenues to reduce costs and increase opportunities for personnel training as well as future discussions. 11.6.7 Financial Summary and Ability to Provide Services The Mosquito Fire Protection District is operating in a deficit and it may be difficult for the District to maintain its operational budget into the future or provide financing for aging facilities and apparatus as indicated by the FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 financial audits and FY 2019/2020 final budget. District overhead and operational costs are modest compared to the other fire districts in El Dorado County. Future plans are focused on maintaining low operational costs and requesting that the community endorse a new special tax. The District’s 2019 Strategic Plan recognizes that the District is at a crossroads with dwindled resources, rising costs, a loss in volunteer firefighters, and unprecedented levels of wildfire risk; as well as medical emergencies (MQT, 2019c). The District Board believes that planning, communicating, and better data suggest the possibility of balanced budgets that enable supplementing reserves and capital improvements (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, April 19, 2021). To provide 24 hours a day, seven days a week paid staffing (two personnel) at the District fire station, MQT would need to find additional funding in excess of $500,000 per year; which would need to increase one to two percent per year to meet with inflation. In order to meet this funding gap, the District could look for alternative funding through a new Special Tax, merging with another District, or other funding sources such as grants. The District plans to gather data for a proposed assessment increase in November 2021. In addition, there are variations of staffing which the District is evaluating. Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-49 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final One solution to address the deficit would be a full County-wide consolidation, where the revenue for fire protection was shared by all fire protection agencies and spread to staff fire stations in strategic and isolated locations, such as Mosquito. Revenue sharing for fire protection County-wide could bridge the revenue gap for the District. Detailed discussions on consolidations and potential reorganizations are discussed in the Volume I – Chapter 5, Sphere of Influence Updates. The District Board does not agree with a county-wide consolidation effort as a solution to past deficit spending or a means to maintain the current level of service to the Mosquito community (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, April 19, 2021). Addendum – New Information from MQT The District President informed consultants that the District attempted an increase to the special tax in November of 2021. The proposed increase failed (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). The District President states “MQT had a positive net position in FY 2021. The District has a tax measure in place to eliminate the structural deficit so MQT can remain net positive in the future. The District also is working on reducing personnel costs through a robust volunteer program. The District has significantly increased volunteer staff and has reduced the need for part time paid staff. Through this staffing change, MQT has been able to provide consistent staffing 24/7, with the use of paid and volunteer firefighters. In July 2020, Jack Rosevear was appointed Fire Chief and in November 2020 a new majority was elected to the Board of Directors. In their first year together, this team has significantly increased the level of voluntarism in the District, generated a budget surplus, increased the amount of district reserves, doubled the amount of grant funds to be used in the 2021-2022 fiscal year” (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). Alternative Financing The District attempted pass a new Special Tax on March 5, 2019, without success. If the proposed increase had passed, the District would have been authorized to levy a parcel fee at the annual rate of $266 per parcel to fund fire protection and emergency response services. This would have been in addition to the existing Special Tax established in 2001. The District is re-evaluating another special tax or assessment increase for November 2021. As mentioned previously, the District applied for and was awarded three grants over the last three years. The FEMA SAFER Recruitment and Retention Grant will run for four years and started in September 2018; and totals $698,618 for four years. In FY 2017/2018, the District was awarded a Paramedic Training (EMT- P) Grant for $185,000, with a five percent District contribution. This Grant has been extended for another year due to COVID-19. Annually the District applies for and receives a CAL FIRE 50/50 grant for Wildland PPE. In 2020, the District was included in a joint grant along with the Rescue Fire Protection District, Cameron Park Fire Department, Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District, El Dorado County Fire Protection District, and Georgetown Fire Protection District for cardiac monitors and chest compression devices totaling $88,207, with a District match of $9,801. Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-50 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The District Board is committed to retaining its autonomy as a viable and sustainable fire district. In its strategic planning, the Board has identified a path forward as outlined below: ● A special tax increase to address the structural deficit resulting from no increase since 2001; ● Use of grant funds to supplement resident-based taxes and assessments; ● A strong auxiliary organization to enable private, corporate, and foundation donations; ● A predominantly volunteer (local residents and others) staffing model; and ● A community-based communications and education system that insures support and high morale. (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, April 17, 2021) Addendum – New Information from MQT As of November 2021, the District’s attempt at another special tax increase, Measure C, which failed (District President Connell Persico, personal communication, November 2021). Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-51 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 11.7 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 the Mosquito Fire Protection District 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. Scoring for the determinations in Table 11-14 below are as follows: ▲ ● ▼ ◆ Above Average (compared to similar Districts), Average, Below Average, Statement of Fact (not rated). Table 11-14: Summary of MSR Determinations for the Mosquito Fire Protection District Indicator Score Determination Population & Growth MQT’s 6,989-acre boundary area includes 1,025 assessor parcels (925 ◆ Existing Boundary. taxable parcels) is located in unincorporated County of El Dorado and includes most of the communities of Mosquito and Swansboro. ◆ The District’s SOI was last affirmed in the 2011 MSR/SOI for the District. Existing Sphere of Influence MQT’s boundary area is congruent with its SOI. The MQT does not provide extra-territorial services outside of its District boundary, except for the Joint Operations Agreement with both GRV and ◆ GEO. Therefore, these services provided outside the boundary are not Extra-territorial Services considered to be Out-of-Agency Services. The District does provide initial response emergency service to the El Dorado National Forest contiguous with the District. By the year 2040, it is estimated that MQT’s existing boundary will ◆ Projected population in years from 2020 through 2040. encompass a population of 1,888 persons. This represents an average annual growth rate of 0.377 percent between the years of 2020 and 2040. Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-52 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination Currently, the District’s boundary area supports an average of 0.24 persons per acre which is considered to be a very low population density. The District boundaries contain sufficient land area to accommodate ◆ projected growth rate for this area is very low (average annual growth rate projected growth. of 0.377 percent). The large size of the boundary area (6,989.5 acres) suggest that the District boundaries contain sufficient land area to accommodate projected growth. Government Structure & Accountability MQT recently resolved two lawsuits. Additionally, MQT along with all the fire protection districts in El Dorado County have recently been the subject of a grand jury report, Case 19-06. The issues raised in the grand jury Is the District involved in current litigation and/or has the District ▼ report remain valid. Changes to the governmental structure of some fire been the subject of a recent grand jury inquiry. protection districts are needed to address these issues. The District disputes that the issues raised in the Grand Jury report remain valid and refers readers to the District response to the Grand Jury and LAFCO regarding Report Findings. Terms of office are disclosed for District Board members online. However, Terms of office and next election date are disclosed for District Board ● Board committee appointments are not disclosed on the District’s website. members and committee appointments are online. Consultants recommend committee appointments be added. Does the District comply with the Special District Transparency Act The District’s website is currently under construction (as of November, (SB 929 or California Government Code, §6270.6 and 53087.8) which 2021). The District posts the most recent financial audit and provides a link ▲ requires special districts to have a functional website that lists to the California State Controller’s Office. Therefore, the Mosquito Fire contact information and contains financial statements, Protection District complies with the requirements of the Special District compensation reports, and other relevant public information. Transparency Act. MQT’s elected Board members submit required forms and receive required Do elected Board members submit required forms and receive trainings as prescribed by the three state laws regarding accountability and required trainings as prescribed by the three state laws regarding ethics including: 1) the Political Reform Act; 2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, accountability and ethics including: 2005) which requires ethics training; and 3) Government Code 53237 et. ▲ seq. (1) the Political Reform Act; (2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005); and MQT has an established conflict-of-interest code. There have been no (3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. complaints to the CA FPPC regarding filing of Economic Statements of Interest required under the Political Reform Act. Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-53 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination Compliance with the 2016 updates to the Brown Act described in Government Code §54954.2 was evaluated in this MSR. MQT’s website Does the agency’s website comply with the 2016 updates to the ▲ appears to be under construction. The Board agendas are posted to the Brown Act described in Government Code §54954.2 and enacted by homepage. Therefore, the District website agenda distribution does comply Assembly Bill 2257? with the requirements of the Brown Act 2016 Updates described in AB2257. LAFCO’s 2011 MSR describes how MQT works to inform and educate Does the agency work to inform and educate homeowners regarding homeowners regarding fire safety and prevention consistent with General ▲ fire safety and prevention consistent with General Plan Objective Plan Objective 6.2.5. Additionally, MQT cooperates with the Mosquito Fire 6.2.5? Safe Council. MQT also maintains a Facebook page providing updated information to local homeowners. Disadvantage Communities California’s median household income was $63,783 in 2018. This yields a The median household income is identified. The DUC threshold MHI ◆ DUC threshold MHI of less than $51,026. There are no identified (80 percent of the statewide MHI) is clearly stated. The MHI in the Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community within the MQT boundary and District’s boundary is described. sphere of influence. Potential DUCs are considered. The provision of adequate water, ◆ There are no identified Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community within wastewater, and structural fire protection services to DUCs is the MQT boundary and sphere of influence. considered. Shared Facilities & Services MQT has taken several actions in the last five years to save money, lower Other practices and opportunities that may help to reduce or ● expenses and/or improve services at the same costs, such as applying for eliminate unnecessary costs are examined by the district several grants. However, there is a lack of balance between cost efficiency periodically. and risk reduction strategies and there is a heavy reliance on volunteers. MQT collaborates with multiple other agencies for the delivery of services The Agency collaborates with multiple other agencies for the ▲ within its boundary through its participation in the mutual aid agreements delivery of services within its boundary. and through working agreements with the U.S Forest Service. The determination regarding the periodic review of agreements for mutual Agreements for mutual aid or any other appropriate agreement (i.e., ◆ aid or any other appropriate agreement (i.e., Tax Sharing Agreement) to Tax Sharing Agreement) are periodically reviewed to ensure fiscal ensure fiscal neutrality could not be evaluated due to insufficient neutrality. information. Public Services & Infrastructure Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-54 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination MQT’s Fire Station 75 is old and no longer meets many of the current Has the District has been diligent in developing plans to requirements for fire equipment and OSHA standards. District fire engines accommodate the infrastructure and service needs of current and and other vehicles are aging and need replacement. The District has an ▼ future constituents? District regularly reviews and updates its service informal assessment of its facility, indicating necessary maintenance and plans to ensure that infrastructure needs, and deficiencies are upgrades. However, this informal assessment was not reviewed as part of addressed in a timely manner. this MSR. The District's deferred maintenance strategy is to prioritize needs and allocate funds as they become available. Mosquito Fire Protection District meets the NFPA definition of a “Combination Fire Department” as outlined in NFPA 1720. According to the Fire Chief, the District meets staffing standards for NFPA 1720 through the automatic aid agreements with neighboring agencies. MQT is staffed at (2- Does the District comply with County General Plan policies and the 0) minimum during off season and (3-0) model during fire season. Lower ● safety standards of state and national organizations in relation to staffing levels may leave the community vulnerable to low frequency, high- response times and staffing? risk events, such as a working structure fire. Station 75 is centrally located for the District. MQT response times indicate that response times are within an average of 10 minutes, in accordance with NFPA Standard 1720. Rating for the District from the neutral third-party Insurance Services ● MQT received an ISO rating of “5” in areas within 1,000 feet of a hydrant Office (ISO) where the rating scale from best to worse is One (1) to and “8” in areas located further from a hydrant. Ten (10). MQT aims to implement preventative maintenance measures and to plan for replacement of aging infrastructure. For example, MQT does have a The District has preventative maintenance measures and has ● draft CIP dated May 2021 that has not yet been formally approved. MQT planned for replacement of aging infrastructure. lacks sufficient funding for future maintenance, improvements, or upgrades. Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-55 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination Although MQT currently meets minimum infrastructure needs, there is room for improvement as follows: The District meets infrastructure needs for: (1) the fire station is in need of some upgrades; (1) facilities (stations); (2) rolling stock [engines, apparatus, and emergency medical response (2) rolling stock (engines, apparatus, and emergency medical ● units] are aging; response units;) (3) dispatch is provided by the ECC operated by CAL FIRE. No dispatch (3) dispatch systems; and deficiencies have been noted; and (4) roadways for emergency access. (4) roadways for emergency access are paved, but narrow and sometimes lack shoulders; also, an emergency access plan was not provided. The District provides partially sufficient services to meet current and future demands for the following three indicators: (1) MQT generally has multiple candidates running for vacant seats; Does the District provides sufficient services to meet current and (2) MQT participates in the county-wide mutual aid and automatic aid future demands with: program. The District received aid 27 more times than it provided ● (1) recruitment; in 2019. The District’s ability to provide aid is based on available (2) mutual aid; and staffing due to the remote geographic area of the District; and (3) water supply for fire protection (3) water service is provided through hydrants from EID and Swansboro Country as well as tanks, ponds, and lakes throughout the District; however the system overall is fragile and could easily fail during a wildfire. MQT appears to have some capacity (limited) to assist with and/or assume services provided by other fire protection agencies, based on the following factors: (1) Overall, the MQT’s level of transparency and organizational accountability is adequate, and its website meets most legal requirements, Evaluation of District’s capacity to assist with and/or assume services ● (2) MQT’s 2-0/3-0 staffing model can sometimes leave the community provided by other agencies. vulnerable, though the District meets NFPA 1720 standards; and (3) With only one fire station, two engines, and limited staff, it is difficult for MQT to serve both its own needs and to potentially collaborate with other agencies. However, recent increases in volunteer staffing and the small percentage of aid received for all calls in 2019 suggests that the agency is moving in the right direction. Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-56 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination USFS Station 65 is staffed on a seasonal basis and is located eight miles northeast of the District within the ECF boundaries. USFS is available for wildland firefighting only, and will assist as requested. Cal Fire and USFS ◆ share the same communications center. USFS is not trained for Is there duplicate infrastructure by other agencies nearby? medical/rescue emergencies or structure firefighting. Although there is some limited overlap between MQT and USFS services, it is not considered an exact duplication of services because the MQT focuses on structural fire protection services. Financial Accountability The General Reserve Fund was $163,327.22 for FY 2018/2019 which is not A minimum of 50% total operating expense is kept on hand in the ▼ enough to cover 50 percent of operating expenses. The District does have General Reserve Fund. $427,000 in Cash on the Balance Sheet. District Revenues exceed expenditures in FY 2017/2018 and FY ▼ District operated at a deficit of $8,388 in FY 2017/2018, and $17,729 in FY 2018/2019. 2018/2019. District finances are sufficient to apply a staffing model that meets or Agency revenues allow for a mix of paid staff and volunteers to meet NFPA exceeds the generally accepted minimum national standard of three ● 1720 standards. The District indicates that during the offseason, the District staff per engine and truck company (3-0) model (or at NFPA 1720 operates at a minimum (2-0) model and at a (3-0) model during fire season. standards if applicable). The 5-Year Strategic Plan for MQT was updated in 2019. This Plan sets goals and objectives including financial stability, community risk reduction, ▲ District has an updated Strategic Plan that addresses financial goals. emergency service provision, community engagement, and good governance. In addition, the District has a 5-Year Revenue Framework that was last updated in 2018 and addresses financial goals. ▲ The District had a positive Net Position for FY 2018/2019. District had a $657,000 Positive Net Position in FY 2018/2019. The District has a published policy for reserve funds, including the ◆ There is not sufficient information to evaluate this performance measure. size and purpose of reserves and how they are invested. The District publishes an audited financial report every year. Government Code and District policy require an annual independent audit of the Summary financial information presented in a standard format and ◆ District’s financial records by a certified public accountant. The simple language. independent audits for FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 were performed by Robert W. Johnson, independent auditors. Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-57 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination Alternative financing in the form of ballot proposals and grants have been Alternative financing opportunities were explored and pursued by ◆ explored by the District. Ballot measures for increased funding have not the District. been passed by the voters since 2001, however several grants have been applied for with success. Effect on Agriculture and Open Space Effect that the District’s service provision will have on open space MQT’s boundary contains 3,717 acres of open space and natural resource and agricultural lands. ◆ designated lands. Additionally, there is a vineyard located within the District. Fire Protection Services and Emergency Medical Services generally have minimal effects on agricultural land and other open space. ▲ ● ▼ ◆ Key Score: Above Average (compared to similar Districts), Average, Below Average, Statement of Fact (not rated) Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-58 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 11.8 References California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit. May 1, 2020a. Table E-1, Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, And the State January 1, 2019 and 2020. Sacramento, California. Retrieved on September 18, 2020 from: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/. _____. May 2020b. 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/. _____. January 2020c. 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, 2007a. Map of Fire Hazard Severity Zones for El Dorado County. Available online at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6670/fhszs_map9.pdf. ______. May 2007b. Fact Sheet: Fire Hazard Severity Zone Model A Non-Technical Primer. Available online at: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/FIreHazardZone_NonTechnical_Prim er.pdf _____. 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. _____. Fire and Resource Protection Program (FRAP). December 2019. Map of Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). MAPID: WUI_19DATA SOURCES:WUI_12_313TY_18. Retrieved on September 18, 2020 from: https://frap.fire.ca.gov/media/10300/wui_19_ada.pdf. CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center. 2020. CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center Dispatch data. Received October 2020. California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). August 2003. Local Agency Formation Commission Municipal Service Review Guidelines Final. 107-pages. California Department of Finance (CDF). July 2019. E-2. California County Population Estimates a Components of Change by Year – July 1, 2000-2010. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-2/. Accessed August 2020. California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES). 2016. Instructions for Becoming An OES Engine Assignee. Available online at: https://www.caloes.ca.gov/FireRescueSite/Documents/CalOES%20- %20Instructions%20for%20becoming%20an%20OES%20Engine%20Assignee.pdf Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-59 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final California State Controller (CSC). 2021. Website Government Pay in California. Wage data download for the year 2019. Retrieved on February 23, 2021 from: https://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/SpecialDistricts/SpecialDistrict.aspx?entityid=1186&year=201 9. County of El Dorado (EDC). Community Development Department, Transportation Division. 2016. Mosquito Road Bridge Replacement Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH#: 2015062076. Prepared by ICF, (ICF 00496.14.) Sacramento, CA. Available online at: https://www.edcgov.us/MosquitoBridge _____. Sherriff’s Department Office of Emergency Services. July 2018. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available online at: https://eldorado.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3923674&GUID=C562ECEB-7E9F-446D- AE6B-3AC56E13F465. _____. 2019a. Mosquito Fire Protection District Special Ballot Election March 5, 2019. Available online at: https://www.edcgov.us/Government/Elections/Documents/VIP.Complete.11x17.pdf. _____. 2019b. Special Mail Ballot Election Update Report #1. Available online at: https://edcgov.us/Government/Elections/Documents/20190827.3.pdf. _____. December 10, 2019c. Board of Supervisors presentation on the Mosquito Road Bridge Replacement Project – Project Update. Available online at: https://www.edcgov.us/Government/dot/Documents/C%20-%20Presentation.pdf. _____. Grand Jury. June 8, 2020a. West Slope Fire Protection Update. Case 19-06. Available online at: https://edcgov.us/Government/GrandJury/Documents/2019- 2020%20Reports/West%20Slope%20Fire%20Protection%20Update.pdf. El Dorado County Emergency Services Authority. 2017. Strategic Plan 2017 – 2022. Available online at: http://edcjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/EDC-JPA-Strategic-Plan-2017-Master.pdf. El Dorado Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). August 2011. Countywide Fire Suppression and Emergency Services Municipal Service Review. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/municipal-service-reviews-and-spheres-of-influence. _____. 2019a. Mosquito Fire Protection District Response to LAFCO’s Request for Information. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. 2019b. Profile of the Mosquito Fire Protection District. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/files/f93ec6c89/MosquitoFire_June+2019.pdf. _____. 2020a. Mosquito Fire Protection District 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/. Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-60 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Fire Safe Council for El Dorado County (FSC-EDC). 2016. Map of Mosquito Fuel Mitigation. Available online at: https://www.edcfiresafe.org/cwpp/maps/ National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). 2020. NFPA 1710: Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. Accessed November 2020. Mosquito Fire Protection District (MQT). 2018a. Mosquito Fire Protection District Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report for the year ended June 30, 2018. Available in LAFCO files upon request. _____. 2018b. Mosquito Fire Protection District 5 Years Framework. Available online at: https://www.mfpd.us/Minutes/2018%205%20Year.pdf. _____. October 2018c. Resolution 18-05: Resolution of the Mosquito Fire Protection District Proposing a Ballot Measure to Create a Special Tax to Maintain and Enhance the Emergency and Fire Protection Services of the Mosquito Fire Protection District. Available online at: https://edcgov.us/Government/Elections/Documents/MOSQUITO%20FPD%20RESOLUTION.pdf. _____. 2019a. Mosquito Fire Protection District Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report for the year ended June 30, 2019. Available in LAFCO files upon request. _____. 2019b. Mosquito Fire Protection District Financial Final 2019-2020 Fiscal Year Budget. Available in LAFCO files upon request. _____. November 2019c. Mosquito Fire Protection District Strategic Plan. Available online at: https://www.mfpd.us/Minutes/2019%20Strategic%20Plan%20Nov%2014.pdf. _____. 2020a. Mosquito Fire Protection District 2020-2021 Preliminary Fiscal Year Budget June 30, 2019. Available in LAFCO files upon request. _____ . May 1, 2020b. Draft Capital Improvement Plan, 2020-2025. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____ . March-April, 2021. Chief's Report. Available online at: https://mfpd.us/our-district/news-recent- events/chiefs-report/. SCI Consulting Group. March 2019. Mosquito Fire Protection District Fire Impact Fee Nexus Study. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. Svoboda, Dylan. December 18, 2019. “One step closer to new Mosquito bridge.” Mountain Democrat. Available online at https://www.mtdemocrat.com/news/one-step-closer-to-new-mosquito- bridge/. U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. American Community Survey, 2010: ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables & 2018: ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?t=Populations%20and%20People&g=1600000US0610256 &tid=ACSST5Y2018.S0101&hidePreview=false. Accessed September 2020. Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-61 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Mosquito Fire Protection District Page 11-62 of 11-62 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Chapter 12. Pioneer Fire Protection District This chapter details the district formation, boundary, government structure, population and land use, disadvantaged communities, finances, and the provision of fire protection facilities and services provided by the Pioneer Fire Protection District (PIO, Pioneer Fire, or District) as well as the Municipal Service Review (MSR) determinations for this District. The information presented in this Chapter was collected and analyzed before the Caldor Fire decimated the community of Grizzly Flats and large portions of the District in August and September of 2021. Consultants do not know the extent of the challenges facing the District as a result of the fire. The fire chief sent consultants a brief statement indicating that the District has lost the use of two fire stations (one lost entirely due to the fire), lost paid staff, lost housing for the Battalion Chief, and several volunteers have lost their homes (Chief Matthews, personal communication, November 2021). Table of Contents 12.1 Agency Profile ................................................................................................................ 12-5 12.1.1 Agency Overview ............................................................................................................................ 12-5 12.2 Agency Formation and Boundary .................................................................................... 12-6 12.2.1 Formation ....................................................................................................................................... 12-6 12.2.2 District Boundary ............................................................................................................................ 12-6 12.2.3 Existing Sphere of Influence ........................................................................................................... 12-9 12.2.4 Extra-Territorial Services ................................................................................................................ 12-9 12.3 District Governance and Accountability ........................................................................ 12-10 12.3.1 Government Structure .................................................................................................................. 12-10 12.3.2 District Board ................................................................................................................................ 12-10 12.3.3 Accountability ............................................................................................................................... 12-11 Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-1 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 12.3.4 Management Efficiencies and Staffing ......................................................................................... 12-13 12.3.5 Staffing and Training ..................................................................................................................... 12-13 12.4 Growth and Population Forecasts ................................................................................. 12-16 12.4.1 Existing Population ....................................................................................................................... 12-16 12.4.1 Existing Population in SOI ............................................................................................................. 12-17 12.4.2 Projected Population Growth ....................................................................................................... 12-17 12.4.3 Existing Land Use .......................................................................................................................... 12-18 12.4.4 Potential Future Development ..................................................................................................... 12-19 12.4.5 Open Space and Agriculture ......................................................................................................... 12-19 12.4.6 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ............................................................................. 12-19 12.5 Public Services and Infrastructure ................................................................................. 12-20 12.5.1 Service Overview .......................................................................................................................... 12-20 12.5.2 Fire and Emergency Response ...................................................................................................... 12-21 12.5.3 Mutual Aid, Automatic Aid, Other Agreements ........................................................................... 12-25 12.5.4 Dispatch ........................................................................................................................................ 12-28 12.5.5 Emergency Access ......................................................................................................................... 12-28 12.5.6 Fire Hazard Zones ......................................................................................................................... 12-29 12.5.7 Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................ 12-31 12.5.8 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies ......................................................................................... 12-34 12.5.9 Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing .......................................................................................... 12-35 12.6 Financial Ability to Provide Services .............................................................................. 12-36 12.6.1 Financial Policies and Transparency ............................................................................................. 12-37 12.6.2 District Revenues and Expenditures ............................................................................................. 12-37 12.6.3 District Assets and Liabilities ........................................................................................................ 12-40 12.6.4 Net Position .................................................................................................................................. 12-41 12.6.5 Asset Maintenance and Replacement .......................................................................................... 12-42 12.6.6 Cost Avoidance ............................................................................................................................. 12-42 12.6.7 Financial Summary and Ability to Provide Services ...................................................................... 12-42 12.7 Determinations ............................................................................................................ 12-43 12.8 References ................................................................................................................... 12-51 Table of Tables Table 12-1: Geographic Summary (2020) of Fire Protection Services for PIO ........................................ 12-9 Table 12-2: Pioneer Fire Protection District Board of Directors ............................................................ 12-10 Table 12-3: Current Staffing Levels for the PIO by Type and Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) ..................... 12-13 Table 12-4: PIO Existing Population (2020) ........................................................................................... 12-16 Table 12-5: Visitation to PIO Area ......................................................................................................... 12-17 Table 12-6: Total Estimated and Projected Population (2020 – 2045) ................................................. 12-17 Table 12-7: Acreage Designated in the General Plan as Open Space, Agriculture, and Natural Resources within the PIO Boundary and SOI .......................................................................................................... 12-19 Table 12-8: MHI in Census Block Groups for Pioneer Fire Protection District ...................................... 12-20 Table 12-9: PIO Public Services .............................................................................................................. 12-20 Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-2 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 12-10: Average Response Times for PIO from 2010 to 2019....................................................... 12-24 Table 12-11: Automatic Aid Provided and Received from/to PIO, 2019 ............................................... 12-26 Table 12-12: PIO Fire Hazard Severity Zone Acreage and Percentage .................................................. 12-29 Table 12-13: PIO Local, State and Federal Responsibility Area Acreage and Percentage ..................... 12-29 Table 12-14: PIO Fire Stations Detail ..................................................................................................... 12-31 Table 12-15: Apparatus and Light Vehicles, 2020 ................................................................................. 12-32 Table 12-16: Facility Needs and Associated Costs by Station, 2020 ..................................................... 12-34 Table 12-17: Summary of MSR Determinations for the PIO ................................................................. 12-43 Table of Figures Figure 12-1: Pioneer Fire Protection District Service Area and SOI ........................................................ 12-7 Figure 12-2: PIO Staff Salary and Benefits (2019).................................................................................. 12-14 Figure 12-3: PIO Calls for Service from 2010-2019 ................................................................................ 12-22 Figure 12-4: PIO Percent of Incidents by Type, 2019 ............................................................................ 12-23 Figure 12-5: PIO Number of Calls by Station 2015-2019 ....................................................................... 12-23 Figure 12-6: Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Responsibility Areas for PIO ........................................... 12-30 Figure 12-7: PIO Total Revenues & Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 ............... 12-38 Figure 12-8: PIO Net Revenues Over/Under Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 . 12-40 Figure 12-9: District Assets as of June 30, 2019 .................................................................................... 12-40 Figure 12-10: District Liabilities and Debt as of June 30, 2019.............................................................. 12-41 Figure 12-11: District Net Position as of June 30, 2019......................................................................... 12-41 Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-3 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-4 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 12.1 Agency Profile 12.1.1 Agency Overview The Pioneer Fire Protection District (PIO) is empowered to provide public services to the local community including: fire suppression and emergency medical services. The PIO is located in the south-central portion of El Dorado County. Specifically, the District spans an area north of the South Fork of the Cosumnes River (at the El Dorado-Amador County Line); south and east of the North Fork of the Cosumnes River; and west of Mormon Emigrant Trail and State Highway 88. PIO serves the communities of Grizzly Flat, Somerset, Outingdale, Fair Play, Mt. Aukum, and Omo Ranch. PIO also provides mutual aid service to River Pines in Amador County. Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-5 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 12.2 Agency Formation and Boundary 12.2.1 Formation The Pioneer Fire Protection District was organized on December 30, 1980 by LAFCO Resolution No. L-80- 26 (LAFCO, 2011). The District was formed pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code for the purpose of providing public services to the Pioneer community and surrounding areas. Its empowered services include fire suppression, fire prevention, public education, rescue, hazardous materials, and emergency medical services. 12.2.2 District Boundary The Pioneer Fire Protection District geographic boundary encompasses approximately 181,433 acres (or 284 square miles) as seen in Figure 12-1 (next page). PIO is bounded by El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF) to the north, the Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District (DSP) to the west and Amador County to the south. The boundary includes 5,290 assessor parcels (EDC, 2020). The District has not annexed any parcels or had other boundary changes since the last Municipal Service review was approved in 2011. As shown in Figure 12-1 and as noted by LAFCO’s 2011 MSR for the PIO, “There are several holes in the district that contain structures. These are generally Williamson Act lands or private land blocks within federal areas. No action has been taken to annex these areas, although annexation is desired by the district” (LAFCO, 2011). Additionally, please note that there are areas within the District boundary that occasionally receive service from a neighboring agency via mutual aid or joint agreement as described in Section 12.5.3. In summary, the District’s boundary area supports an average of 0.05 persons per acre which is considered to be a very low population density. PIO has a large spatial extent to it’s the boundary (181,433.3 acres) and has an existing and projected low population base. Additionally, 89 percent of the PIO boundary area is classified as open space, agriculture, or natural resources. Most of PIO is under Federal Responsibility Area (FRA) as described in Section 12.5.6 with few structures. The 2011 MSR recommended additional study should be given to “right-sizing” the PIO boundary. Consultants found that the number of calls located outside of developed areas within PIO for 2019 was minimal. PIO’s existing aid contracts as well as the limited number of calls within the FRA suggests that the boundary, though very expansive, is adequate for providing fire protection and emergency medical services without causing a drain on District resources. No increase in calls is anticipated due to these areas being open space, agriculture, or natural resources. Therefore, the District’s boundary is adequate. Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-6 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 12-1: Pioneer Fire Protection District Service Area and SOI Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-7 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-8 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 12.2.3 Existing Sphere of Influence This section briefly describes the existing Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the Pioneer Fire Protection District. The SOI was most recently considered by El Dorado LAFCO under Resolution No. L-2011-09, approved on August 24, 2011. The District’s existing SOI encompasses approximately 7,103 acres and includes 57 parcels as shown in Table 12-1, below. 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 as shown in Figure 12-1. Table 12-1: Geographic Summary (2020) of Fire Protection Services for PIO Boundary Area SOI Total Boundary (All Services) (All Services) & SOI Total Acres 181,433 7,103 188,536 Square Miles 284 11 295 Number of Assessor Parcels 5,290 57 5,347 Source: El Dorado County GIS Data, 2020 As part of this MSR process, PIO staff was queried about whether there are any areas of the SOI where services will need to be extended within the next 20 years. 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 (LAFCO, 2020a). Additionally, it is important to note that PIO’s extra-territorial service area in Amador County is a regularly occurring activity that operates as described in the executed Joint Operation Agreement between PIO and Amador Fire Protection District (AMC) as described in Section 12.5.3. 12.2.4 Extra-Territorial Services The District does provide fire and emergency services to customers outside of its jurisdictional boundaries. Specifically, PIO has a contract with Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) to provide vegetation suppression services within their property. Consultants were not provided any additional information regarding these properties from PIO. The southeast portion of the Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District (DSP) is in an isolated area, making it difficult for the DSP to serve directly. In the past, the Pioneer Fire Protection District has been the first responder in those areas (LAFCO, 2011). Consultants were not provided any updated information from PIO regarding if the District is still first responder to those areas in DSP. Additionally, the PIO responds outside its boundaries to assist with state, federal, and local aid as described in Section 12.5.3. As mentioned previously, PIO has a Joint Operating Agreement (JOA) with AMC and the Districts also have joint staffing at one station to cover the River Pines area (LAFCO, 2020a). These are not considered Out-of-Agency services as described in Government Code Section 56134 due to responses being under existing agreements. Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-9 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 12.3 District Governance and Accountability This section describes how performance, accountability, transparency, and public engagement relate to the public’s trust in local government. LAFCO is required by the CKH Act to make specific determinations regarding a special district’s government structure and accountability. 12.3.1 Government Structure The PIO is a local government agency structured as a Fire Protection District consistent with its Principal Act, the California Health and Safety Code §13800, et seq. The District has five elected Board Members who reside within the community. All registered voters, who reside within the District boundaries are eligible to vote for and/or run for a seat on the District Board of Directors. The District Board appoints the Fire Chief, who also serves as the General Manager. 12.3.2 District Board The District operates under the direction of the elected Board of Directors. Each elected Board Member serves for a term of four years with two Board Member seats running two years apart from the remaining three seats. The District does sometimes have difficulty attracting candidates to run for the Board of Directors. During elections, the Directors typically run unopposed (LAFCO, 2019a). A new Board President is selected by the Board Members each year. The Board President assigns Directors to the Board’s committees. Consultants could not ascertain the District’s active committees on the District’s website and requested this information from PIO. PIO did not provide this information to consultants. The current Board of Directors members, their committee appointments, and the expiration dates of their terms are shown in Table 12-2 below. Table 12-2: Pioneer Fire Protection District Board of Directors Name Title Term End Committee Appointments Jerry Jumper Chair Dec. 2022 Unknown Randy Rossi Vice Chair Dec. 2024 Unknown Judy Hobson Secretary Dec. 2024 Unknown Tony Marcaccio Director Dec. 2022 Unknown Christina Holum Director Dec. 2024 Unknown Source: LAFCO, 2020a The District holds regular public meetings on the Second Tuesday of each month at 6:00 PM at Station No. 83 located at 7061 Mt. Aukum Road, Somerset, CA. Compensation to Board members is governed by the Board of Directors Policy Manual which states that “The Fire District shall not reimburse Board members for all regularly scheduled Board Meetings, Special Meetings, Ad Hoc and Committee Meetings and when in response to subpoenas or legal actions” (LAFCO, 2019b). In 2019, the members of the Board of Directors did not receive any salary, benefits, or other payments (Transparent California, 2021). Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-10 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final In California, elected members of special district boards are required to comply with three laws regarding accountability and ethics: 1) the Political Reform Act; 2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005), which requires ethics training; and 3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. which mandates sexual harassment prevention training. A detailed description of these three state laws is provided in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire and Emergency Medical Services Agency MSR General Information. Political Reform Act Each Special District in California is required to have ethics and conflict of interest code/policies. PIO’s adopted conflict of interest policies for the Board of Directors are described in Article 3.3 of the 2019 Board of Directors Policy Manual. These conflict-of-interest policies are available to the public on the District’s website. The Political Reform Act also requires special district board members to disclose all personal economic interests by filing a “Statement of Economic Interests” with their District or the County of El Dorado Elections Department, consistent with guidelines from the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). PIO Board members have filed the required Statement of Economic Interest with the County. Information available from the FPPC found no complaints for cases, indicating that Board members are complying with the Political Reform Act. Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005) Local government officials are required to take ethics training every two years. Compliance with this law was assessed for each of the fire agencies studied in this MSR by asking the District staff for the dates and other documentation of training events. PIO did not provide information to consultants regarding if board members have received ethics training. Therefore, it is not known whether PIO’s Board is in compliance with AB 1234. Government Code 53237 et. seq. Special district board members must receive required sexual harassment prevention, two-hour training, every two years. Compliance with this law was assessed for each of the fourteen fire agencies studied in this MSR by asking the Clerk of the Board for the dates and other documentation of training events. PIO did not provide information to consultants regarding if board members have received required sexual harassment prevention training. Therefore, it is not known whether PIO’s Board is in compliance with GC 53237 et. seq. 12.3.3 Accountability Brown Act The details of the Brown Act are described in Volume II - Chapter 1. All meetings of the District Board and Committees are open to the public in accordance with the Brown Act. The agenda for each meeting includes a public comment period. Agendas are made available 72 hours before meetings. Any written document that relates to an agenda item is available for public inspection at the same time the agenda packet is distributed to the members of the Board of Directors. Written documents are made available at the District Office and on the District website at: http://pioneerfire.org/. Notices for upcoming PIO Board meetings are posted four to six days prior to meetings in three locations: 1) on the District’s website; 2) Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-11 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final at the main fire station; and 3) the three community post offices in the District. The Brown Act is included in the Board of Director’s policy and procedures manual as well. All meetings are conducted under Brown act requirements (LAFCO, 2020a). The State Legislature updated the Brown Act in 2016 as codified in Government Code §54954.2 (see also Assembly Bill 2257). These new Brown Act requirements are detailed in described in detail in Volume II - Chapter 1. PIO makes its agenda available on its website at http://pioneerfire.org/minutes-agendas/. This webpage contains meeting minutes and agendas for the current year. Although the District does provide a dedicated webpage that provides the necessary agenda information with the most current agenda located at the top of the page, it does not provide a direct link from the homepage to the most current agenda. The home page does have an informational dropdown box of “District Information” that nests the most current board meeting date and a link to the “Minutes & Agendas” page. However, this does not fully meet the requirements of AB 2257. It is recommended that the District update its website to provide a direct link to the most recent agenda on the homepage. Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20 suspended parts of the Brown Act that require in-person attendance of Board members and citizens at public meetings as described in Volume II - Chapter 1. During this timeframe, the PIO held its Board meetings via teleconference. All meetings are accessible by the public for free through a telephone number that is posted on the meeting agenda (PIO, 2021a). Special District Transparency Act (SB 929) The Special District Transparency Act (SB 929 or California Government Code, §6270.6 and 53087.8) requires that special districts have a functional website, and the requirements of this Act are described in detail in Volume II - Chapter 1. The Districts website contains the current and past meeting agendas and associated agenda packets available for download. The District’s website is kept updated and is easily navigable with current and past agenda packets available for download. Additionally, the homepage contains a link to allow members of the public to sign up for the El Dorado County Sheriff's Office- Office of Emergency Services Alert Notification System. However, the website does not provide copies of the certified annual financial statements or compensation reports. The District does not seem to have a policy requiring that the PIO website be user friendly and contain accurate and up-to-date information. Many areas of the website contain outdated information related to agendas, meetings, and notices. Therefore, Pioneer Fire Protection District partially complies with the requirements of the Special District Transparency Act. General Accountability The PIO demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with El Dorado LAFCO. The District cooperated with LAFCO’s requests for information and participated in an interview with the MSR consultants. District staff were able to provide limited information to requests from consultants following the Caldor Fire incident in the County of El Dorado. PIO, along with all the fire protection districts in El Dorado County, have recently been the subject of a grand jury report (EDC, 2020a). The Grand Jury posits in Case No. 19-06 that, while it made sense historically, the only reason there are multiple fire agencies in El Dorado County is because of “strong loyalty to a local home district,” coming “at the expense of the County as a whole.” The Grand Jury Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-12 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final concludes that the insufficient revenues afforded to rural districts puts a strain on the mutual and automatic aid system as a whole; forcing more financially stable districts to “subsidize” the rural ones by having the former respond to calls when the latter is unable to do so. The issues raised in the grand jury report remain valid (LAFCO, 2020c). Changes to the governmental structure of some fire protection districts are needed to address these issues. 12.3.4 Management Efficiencies and Staffing The Fire Chief is appointed by and reports to the Board and is responsible for directing District operations and overseeing and implementing policies on behalf of the Board. An important part of management effectiveness includes the District adopting a District-wide mission statement and/or vision statement. The PIO Mission statement is: To provide a professional and compassionate level of community fire protection, emergency medical and rescue services to the citizens and property owners within the Fire District, in order to prevent or minimize the loss of life, pain, suffering and property damage as a result of fire or other types of emergency (PIO, 2021a). 12.3.5 Staffing and Training Detailed full-time personnel information for PIO can be seen in Table 12-3 below. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) calls for a standard of four staff per engine and truck company (4-0) model (NFPA, 2020). A three staff per engine and truck company (3-0) model is acceptable as a minimum standard for this MSR/SOI Update as detailed in Volume II - Chapter 1. The Pioneer Fire Department currently follows a (1-0) staffing model, meaning there is one staff person per fire engine (LAFCO, 2020a). PIO staffing levels do not meet the NFPA standards. Lower staffing levels leave the community vulnerable to low frequency, high risk events, such as a working structure fire. Table 12-3: Current Staffing Levels for the PIO by Type and Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Position FTE Count as of July 1, 2020 Compared to 2018 Fire Chief 1 1 Battalion Chief 1 0 Paid Firefighter (Full-time and Seasonal) 8 7 Training Officer 1 0 Firefighter Paramedic 1 0 Support Staff 0 1 Volunteer Firefighters 22-30 Unknown Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) 16-181 Unknown Volunteer Association 10-15 Unknown JOA with Amador Fire Protection District (AMC) Varies Unknown Total 12* 9 1EMT numbers are totals including both paid staff and volunteers *Total does not include volunteer or EMT positions Data Source: LAFCO, 2020a; 2019 Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-13 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 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 (LAFCO, 2020a). Staffing is augmented by PIO’s participation in a boundary drop, mutual aid system that automatically deploys the closest available resource to respond to requests for aid from other fire agencies in the County of El Dorado as described in Section 12.5.3 (LAFCO, 2020a). PIO also augments its staffing through its participation in a Joint Operating Agreement (JOA) with the Amador Fire Protection District (AMC) (LAFCO, 2020a). PIO receives advantages from participating in these networks of collaborating fire agencies which improves response times and resource deployment. As mentioned, PIO does not meet minimum (3-0) staffing model nor NFPA standards, and therefore personnel may be required to waiting for additional resources to arrive to a call before fire suppression tactics can begin. The District owns, leases, or operates a total of seven fire stations with various staffing levels. A breakdown in staffing levels per station can be found in Section 12.5.7. In 2019, PIO had a total of 38 individuals who received some type of wage, benefit, or other payment from PIO as shown in Figure 12-2. There were 16 individuals classified as “Volunteers” who received an average of $978 stipend. Eight individuals were classified as “Shift Volunteers” who received an average of $1,994 as a stipend. One mechanic received approximately $3,000 in hourly wages. Four firefighters received an average of approximately $51,000 in compensation. The Fire Chief received approximately $85,000 as a full-time salary and benefit package. Five Captains received an annual average of approximately $65,000. One Battalion Chief received approximately $41,000 in compensation. One Administrative Assistant received approximately $15,000 in hourly wages (Transparent California, 2021). In total, PIO expended $721,500 for basic salaries plus an additional $84,000 in employee benefit costs in 2019 (PIO, 2020a). Figure 12-2: PIO Staff Salary and Benefits (2019) $120,000.00 $100,000.00 $80,000.00 Benefits $60,000.00 Other Pay Overtime Pay $40,000.00 Base Pay $20,000.00 $0.00 Individual Employees Most of PIO’s paid employees appear to have part-time status based on salary and benefit information from 2019. The District is currently recruiting for nine positions as listed on the District’s website as of June 19, 2021 and provided below. Some of the recruitments are taking place jointly with Amador Fire Protection District (AMC) under the Joint Operations Agreement as mentioned: Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-14 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • (Full-time) Fire Captain-EMT Shift Supervisor – Joint with AMC (Salary) • (Full-time) Firefighter-EMT or Paramedic – Joint with AMC (Salary) • (Full-time) Firefighter, Firefighter-EMT, or Paramedic (Salary) • (Part-time) Admin Assistant (Hourly) • (Part-time) Resident Volunteer Fire Fighter (up to $750 per month plus education stipend) • (Volunteer) Wildland/Vegetation Volunteer Firefighter with the Quick Response Team (QRT) (No Compensation) • (Volunteer) Emergency Medical Responder (EMS) Volunteer Firefighter with QRT (No Compensation) • (Volunteer) EMS, EMT, or Certified Emergency Paramedic (CEP) Volunteer Firefighter with QRT (Call stipend for callback or event) • (Volunteer) Wildland/Vegetation Volunteer Firefighter with QRT (Call stipend for callback or event) • (Volunteer) Shift Firefighter-EMT or Paramedic (Shift stipend position) The District does not offer a pension plan through CAL PERS. Rather it offers employees a 457 Compensation Plan (PIO, 2019a). Volunteers Volunteers are an important part of PIO’s strategy to keep its stations open and operable and to have its fire engines and other equipment ready. The District has been able to recruit and train volunteers over the past several years. PIO works to keep volunteers current with training requirements. Volunteers are not “scheduled” for regular shifts due to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and other regulations that relate to volunteers (PIO, 2019a). PIO has two types of volunteers: 1. Shift volunteers who live off-site, work specific shifts, and receive $100 per shift peridium, and 2. Resident volunteers who live on site during their volunteer term. Volunteers may also be eligible to receive a uniform allowance and training. Shift Challenges The PIO faces daily staffing challenges due to limited numbers of paid staff and to the variability of volunteer work hours. Staffing challenges may sometimes affect response times (PIO, 2019a). Most of the District’s staffing revolves around staffing specific fire stations and fire engines. Since the District aims to staff two stations within its boundaries plus one station in Amador County, staff is stretched a bit thin and is spread out over a large geographic area. Training The PIO has set monthly training requirements that meet several disciplines as it relates to fire, emergency medical services, and rescue including bimonthly training for the volunteer stations. The dates and times vary on availability; however, each volunteer station has more than one option for the same training each month (LAFCO, 2020a). PIO’s training has, at a minimum, an annual one full day of Incident Command Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-15 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final System (ICS) training with Fire Service Communications (FSC), Urban Search and Rescue (USAR), Swiftwater Rescue (SRT), Hazardous materials, emergency medical response, Wildland, EMT re- certification, Paramedic re-certification, CPR, First Aid, Leadership, Safety and much more annually. The types of training available range from specialized and academy, to classes (LAFCO, 2020a). PIO has informal arrangements for shared training, but no formal agreements (LAFCO, 2011). Complaints During the years 2018 and 2019, PIO received fewer than five complaints. After consultation, these complaints were determined to be unfounded due to rumor or poor information. All have been resolved. PIO’s complaints resolution process involves communication both in person and via phone. It is often found that most complaints are not directly related to PIO, but rather are concerning other agencies or groups (LAFCO, 2020a). 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). 12.4 Growth and Population Forecasts The growth and population projections for the affected area are a determinations which LAFCO is required to describe, consistent with the MSR Guidelines from the Office of Planning & Research (OPR) as set forth in the CKH Act. This section provides information on the existing population and future growth projections for Pioneer Fire Protection District. Historical and anticipated population growth is a factor which affects service demand. 12.4.1 Existing Population There are approximately 8,843 permanent residents within the District boundaries as of 2020, as shown in Table 12-4, based on the number of parcels in the District and the average number of persons per parcel of 1.67. The U.S. Census provides population estimates for communities. Detailed information regarding population demographics and socio-economic indicators in El Dorado County is provided in Volume I - Appendix A and Appendix B. Table 12-4: PIO Existing Population (2020) Population existing Population in SOI No. of Registered boundary area only1, 2, 3 area only1, 2, 3 Voters4 Pioneer Fire Protection District 8,834 95 3,195 Sources: 1: California Department of Finance. May 2020. E-2. California County Population Estimates a Components of Change by Year – July 1, 2000-2010. Sacramento, California. Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-16 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 2: California Department of Finance. May 2020. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark. Sacramento, California. 3: Calculated estimate based on an average of 1.67 persons per parcel in El Dorado County and 5,290 assessor parcels within the PIO boundary. 4: LAFCO, 2019a In addition to the permanent population, the PIO area also sees daytime and overnight visitors who arrive to the area for recreational amenities and/or special events as summarized in Table 12-5. For example, Leone Meadows is a retreat center and summer camp operated by a church. The 900-acre Leone Meadows property contains a 10-acre lake, an 87 room motel/hotel with cabins, a lodge, meeting rooms, and recreational facilities (horse stalls, go-karts, adventure course etc.). During peak summertime, this property holds between 300 to 1,200 overnight visitors. The property is open year-round but sees fewer visitors during the winter. An RV park located within the PIO boundary hosts overnight visitors. Other general recreational activities can attract both daytime and overnight visitors. During seasonal recreation, total population within the District boundary can reach over 10,000 people (Chief Matthews, personal communication, October 2020). Table 12-5: Visitation to PIO Area Type of Recreation or Special Event Time of Year Estimated No. of Visitors Leone Meadow Retreat May to October 300-1,200 Amreldor Day Unknown 500-1,000 Recreation Seasonal 500-1,500 Source: LAFCO, 2020a 12.4.1 Existing Population in SOI The population in PIO’s SOI and outside the District Boundary is estimated to be 95 people based upon an average number of 1.67 persons per Assessor’s Parcel (El Dorado County GIS Data, 2020). 12.4.2 Projected Population Growth Projecting future population for a District is complicated due to census tracts that do not match with District boundaries. For purposes of this MSR, data from the California Department of Finance (DOF) was used to project population growth as shown in Table 12-6. The DOF provides population projections at the County level and the growth rate for the County of El Dorado is utilized to extrapolate population growth rates for the Pioneer Fire Protection District. By the year 2040, it is estimated that PIO’s existing boundary will encompass a population of 9,746 persons. This represents a projected average annual growth rate of 0.377 percent between the years of 2020 and 2040. Table 12-6: Total Estimated and Projected Population (2020 – 2045) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 The County of El Dorado1 193,227 201,041 207,496 211,537 213,033 Pioneer Fire Protection District2 8,834 9,198 9,493 9,678 9,746 Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-17 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Sources: 1: 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. 2: Population projection for PIO calculated as a percentage (0.03622682) of the County of El Dorado. The projected growth rate for the County of El Dorado anticipates development throughout the entire County. The addition of 912 more people to the PIO by 2040 is possible as the District has undeveloped areas within existing boundaries that could potentially be available for more intensive residential development. 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. 12.4.3 Existing Land Use Land-use is a factor that affects population growth and therefore demand for public services. However, the PIO is not a land use authority. Most of the territory within the PIO boundary is part of the El Dorado National Forest and is managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Major natural features include the three forks of the Cosumnes River, Mt. Aukum, and the Eldorado National Forest. The forest lands are mountainous with steep slopes and many inaccessible areas. A significant amount of the private land use is agricultural, with 3,000 acres in Williamson Act contracts, and several thousand acres in designated Timber Preserve Zones. The remaining private land includes: 3,276 developed and 2,134 undeveloped residential parcels; 34 developed and 11 undeveloped commercial parcels; and 884 miscellaneous parcels. The District also currently contains 30 wineries, 4 schools, and 2 churches. There are several unincorporated communities located within the PIO’s boundary including Grizzly Flat, Somerset, Outingdale, Fairplay, Mt. Aukum, and Omo Ranch. The unincorporated community of Somerset is described as Market Area 9 in the General Plan. The Somerset market area has 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. The Mt. Aukum area contains vineyards and wineries, along with several parcels under Williamson Act Contract. In Mt. Aukum, the General Plan designates land as “Rural Residential” and “Agricultural Lands-Agricultural District (AL-A)”. Outingdale is an unincorporated community with a small satellite water system that includes 190 water service connections which receives water from the Middle Fork of the Cosumnes River. Since LAFCO’s 2011 MSR for the District, there have been no new land use developments. No new projects are currently proposed within the District boundary (LAFCO, 2020a). In the adjacent area, outside of the District boundaries, land is primarily characterized by forests, managed by the El Dorado National Forest, with limited rural residential uses. County General Plan The District’s boundary area is entirely unincorporated and subject to the land use policies and regulations of the County of El Dorado. Most land-use decisions, initiated by private property owners over the last decade, are secured via entitlements and land-use permits from the County and other agencies. The Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-18 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final County plans for its future growth through its General Plan, which is a long-term comprehensive framework to guide physical, social, and economic development within the community’s planning area. The County of El Dorado’s General Plan was adopted in 2004. Individual elements have since been updated on an individual basis. The 2013-2021 Housing Element was adopted in October 2013, with the most recent update occurring to the Land Use Element in August 2019. The communities of Grizzly Flat, Somerset, Mt. Aukum, and Fairplay are designated as “Rural Centers” by the General Plan and this designation also demarcates an urban limit line. Rural Centers establish areas of higher intensity development throughout the rural areas of the County based on the availability of infrastructure, public services, existing uses, parcelization, impact on natural resources, etc. Boundaries of existing Rural Centers can be modified through a General Plan amendment process (EDC, 2019). 12.4.4 Potential Future Development Future population growth within the District’s territory is dependent upon zoning and general plan policies and land-use designations in the region. There are no proposed development projects that would impact the District (LAFCO, 2020a). 12.4.5 Open Space and Agriculture El Dorado LAFCO’s policies require that an MSR/SOI offer a determination about the effect that a district’s service provision will have on open space and agricultural lands. For purposes of this MSR analysis, open space data was derived from the County General Plan land-use data. The District’s boundary includes approximately 1,559 acres of open space, 13,842 acres of agricultural lands, and 145,636 acres of natural resource designated land. A breakdown of open space, natural resources, and agricultural land located within the District boundary and Sphere of Influence (SOI) can be seen in Table 12-7 below. Table 12-7: Acreage Designated in the General Plan as Open Space, Agriculture, and Natural Resources within the PIO Boundary and SOI Boundary Only (in acres) SOI Only (by itself) (in acres) Open space Agriculture Natural Resources Open space Agriculture Natural Resources 1,559 13,842 145,636 0 0 7,401 Source: County of El Dorado GIS, 2019 Overall 89 percent of the PIO boundary area is classified as open space, agriculture, or natural resources. PIO’s effect on open space lands is minimal. The District’s provision of fire protection services to open space areas (i.e., non-structural) within its boundaries occurs occasionally, but is the primary responsibility of CAL FIRE or the U.S. Forest Service. LAFCO has an interest in documenting the conversion of agricultural and open space lands to other land use types, such as residential use. The PIO fire protection services do not play a role in these types of land-use conversions. 12.4.6 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities As described in Volume II - Chapter 1, a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) is an unincorporated area of a County in which the annual median household income (MHI) is less than 80 Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-19 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final percent of the statewide MHI. Eighty percent of the statewide MHI (2018) equals $56,982, the threshold used to determine which geographic areas qualify for classification as disadvantaged communities. This analysis uses Census Block Groups to determine DUCs because this level of analysis provides the most uniform income data available statewide. Data for this report was collected from the 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, at the census block group level. Within the boundaries of PIO are located portions two Census Block Groups that meet the DUC threshold and are therefore classified as disadvantaged unincorporated communities and one Census Block Group for which no data was available as listed in Table 12-8 below. Table 12-8: MHI in Census Block Groups for Pioneer Fire Protection District # of Median Household Identification # Census # Block Group # Population Households Income (2018) 314021 031402 1 2,518 889 $53,828 314023 031402 3 1,596 644 $51,136 314024 031402 4 876 392 Unknown Source: US Census, 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates These unincorporated areas are provided numerous public services from local and state agencies. Water service to these DUCs is provided by the El Dorado Irrigation District (EID), the Grizzly Flat Community Services District (GFCSD) in Grizzly Flat, 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. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) as well as the U.S. Forest Service also provides fire protection services in the wildland areas located throughout the District. 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 that lack public services, and no public health or safety issues have been identified. 12.5 Public Services and Infrastructure 12.5.1 Service Overview The Pioneer Fire Protection District is an established Fire Protection District and is the primary service provider for fire suppression, emergency medical services, fire prevention, and other related services to residents in the unincorporated communities within the District boundary. Table 12-9 below summarizes the public services provided by PIO and associated agencies. Table 12-9: PIO Public Services Service Provider Structural Fire Protection PIO Wildland Fire Protection PIO and CAL FIRE Emergency Medical Response El Dorado Joint Power Authority (JPA) Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-20 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Service Provider Rescue/Extrication PIO Hazardous Materials PIO Water Supply EID, GFCSD, and RPPUD Dispatch Contract w/ CAL FIRE Camino ECC Training PIO Fire Safety Education PIO Arson Investigations Regional Team Source: (LAFCO, 2020a) Structural Fire Protection The suppression of fires in local structures is a significant focus of PIO’s work. Post fire investigation and research tells us that most home ignitions during wildfires are caused by flying embers. Individual homeowners can protect their property from the financial risk associated with structural fire by purchasing homeowner’s insurance with fire coverage. Purchasing this homeowner’s insurance has gotten more difficult in recent years. For example, within the County of El Dorado, during the year 2016, over 1,000 homeowners lost access to their homeowner’s insurance policy due to non-renewal by insurance companies (California Department of Insurance, 2018). 12.5.2 Fire and Emergency Response The District maintains automatic and mutual aid agreements with fire service agencies located in the County of El Dorado and neighboring agencies for fire suppression and emergency medical services. Under this system, the District responds to close proximity calls within adjacent fire jurisdictions, as well as receives assistance from neighboring agencies when requested. These types of agreements ensure the best possible emergency service is delivered by the most efficient means possible. The District also participates in a mutual aid system that responds to requests for aid from throughout the County and State. Because of these agreements, all firefighters within each fire agency in the County must be prepared for any type of emergency in any setting at all times. Every fire agency within the United States is rated by an independent risk assessment and standards authority for the purposes of establishing insurance policy premiums for homeowners and businesses. California uses an independent national company called the Insurance Services Office, or ISO, for this purpose. The Insurance Services Office evaluates four broad categories of fire suppression when establishing a Public Protection Classification (PPC). These categories include: 1) Fire Department; 2) Emergency Communications; 3) Water Supply; and 4) Community Risk Reduction. ISO routinely conducts assessments of each fire agency in the United States. The rating scale from best to worse is One (1) — Ten (10). There is a possible score of 105.5 points from the total of the four categories listed above. An agency needs a score of 90-105.5 to receive a PPC of Class 1. The Pioneer Fire Protection District received an ISO rating of 5/5x (LAFCO, 2020a). This new ISO rating is improved from the 2017 ISO rating which was 5/9 such that the five-rating pertained to the communities of Grizzly Flats and Outingdale, where parcels within 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant and within five road miles of a fire station are located. The remainder of the District was given a 9 rating (LAFCO, 2020a). Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-21 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Emergency Medical Services PIO is a member agency of the El Dorado County Emergency Services Authority (West Slope JPA) that was formed for the purpose of providing pre-hospital emergency medical service and emergency dispatch service for the West Slope of the County of El Dorado. PIO does not operate an ambulance for the West Slope JPA; and therefore, does not receive any payments from the JPA. However, the District is reimbursed for all authorized medical supply costs. Ambulance services in the area can deliver patients to Marshall Hospital in Placerville or to other hospitals in the greater Sacramento region such as UC Davis, Dignity Health, and Sutter Health. Additional information regarding emergency medical services can be found in Volume II - Chapter 15, County Service Area (CSA) 3 and CSA 7 MSR. Calls for Service and Incidents According to Camino Dispatch, PIO responded to 819 unique incidents in 2019. Those incidents translated to 1,729 calls for service that year. A call for service refers to any apparatus or vehicle for the agency which responded to a unique incident, and each apparatus or vehicle is counted as one “call for service.” The data includes incidents occurring both within and outside of the District’s jurisdiction that PIO resources responded to. This represents the busiest year for the District during the years studied. On average, PIO receives approximately 1,309 calls for service per year (or 25 calls per week) (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). A breakdown of calls for service from 2010 to 2019 can be seen in Figure 12-3 below. Figure 12-3: PIO Calls for Service from 2010-2019 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 From 2010 to 2019, calls for service have continued to trend steadily upward. There were 1,032 calls for service in 2013, representing the lowest number of calls. Call numbers have fluctuated over the years with the most recent lower than average number of calls occurring in 2017. According to ECC Camino Dispatch data, the majority of the calls were for medical at 428 calls for service (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). The next highest number of calls were for fire at 15 percent and other at 14 percent. The “Other” incident type includes mutual or automatic aid engine coverage for other fire agencies, aircraft down, arson, investigations, medical transfers, rescues, extractions, miscellaneous, radio and phone system failures, staffing pattern, call transfers, as well as other similar service types. A break down in call types for 2019 can be seen in Figure 12-4 on the next page. Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-22 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 12-4: PIO Percent of Incidents by Type, 2019 9% 6% Assistance 15% 14% Fire 4% Hazard Medical Other Traffic Collision 52% The “Assistance” incident type includes public agency work such as demonstrations, assisting with a water leak, assisting with an animal, assisting with an alarm or lockout, elevator rescue, physically assisting in lifting a person, and assisting with search and rescue (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). More information on incident categories can be found in Volume II - Chapter 1. Station No. 38 is the busiest station for the District averaging 946 calls for service per year from 2015 to 2019 as shown in Figure 12-5 below. This station responded to the highest number of calls in 2019 with 1,177 calls. Station No. 35 is the next busiest station with an average of 127 calls per year. Station No. 38 is the main station for the District and only station staffed 24/7, therefore it is not surprising that the most responses to calls originated from this station over the last five years (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). More information on District stations can be found in Section 12.5.7. Figure 12-5: PIO Number of Calls by Station 2015-2019 1,400 1,200 1,000 2015 800 2016 600 2017 2018 400 2019 200 0 31 32 34 35 37 38 Station Number Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-23 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Response Time El Dorado County’s General Plan (2004 as amended through 2019) Public Services and Utilities Element has several policies related to goals for average response time for new development as described in Volume II - Chapter 1. Consultants do not have the capability to break response time data out by County of El Dorado defined Community Region, Rural Center, or Rural Region standards. PIO provided consultants with the following response time goals: 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. In the year 2019, the District’s average response time was 14 minutes 4 seconds based on available data from CAL FIRE Camino Dispatch and calculated by consultants. The response time data does not cover Interfacility Transfers (IFT), auto/mutual aid, and strike team/overhead (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). PIO’s average for 2019 appears to meet County response time goals for new discretionary projects in Rural Centers and Rural Regions. Average response times for the District from 2010 to 2019 can be seen in Table 12-10 below. Table 12-10: Average Response Times for PIO from 2010 to 2019 Average Response Time Year (Hr : Min : Sec) 2010 0:13:23 2011 0:15:21 2012 0:14:48 2013 0:15:17 2014 0:22:47 2015 0:17:17 2016 0:16:49 2017 0:16:07 2018 0:15:41 2019 0:14:04 Source: CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020 Average response times for the District have slowly decreased since 2014, though overall number of calls has slowly increased year over year. In 2010, the District had the lowest average response time at 13 minutes 23 seconds (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). PIO staff was queried about the District’s response time for this report. 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 (LAFCO, 2020a). Consultants were informed by staff from multiple fire agencies in the County that CAL FIRE Camino ECC does not have the ability to track turnout time and other needed elements to define definitive numbers to measure true response times. Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-24 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Other Industry Standards In general, other industry standards applicable to the MQT are established by the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA), the Insurance Services Office, Cal OSHA, and District ordinances. All of these agencies, as well as many others, directly and/or indirectly affect the type of services, the quality and development of those services, expansion, reliability, facility design, and construction and environmental issues that the District provides. Forest Fuel Treatment Forest fuel treatment typically relates to wildland fires, rather than the structural fires which are the focus on the PIO. However, within the PIO’s boundaries there are multiple privately owned parcels which contain native vegetation. Although the PIO is not directly responsible for forest fuel treatments, a community approach to safety that considers house-to-house transmission, structural safety, and forest fuel treatments is important. There are two non-profit organizations, the Aukum/Fair Play Fire Safe Council, and the Omo Ranch Fire Safe Council, that aim to inform local homeowners about fire safe practices and encourage vegetation management. The Aukum/Fair Play Fire Safe Council maintains a website at: https://www.affsc.org/ where community members can apply for defensible space evaluations, join community events, volunteer, donate, and find resources. The Omo Ranch Fire Safe Council also maintains a website at: https://www.orfsc.org/ where community members can join community events, volunteer, and find resources. 12.5.3 Mutual Aid, Automatic Aid, Other Agreements Mutual Aid PIO maintains mutual aid agreements for fire protection services with CAL FIRE, California’s Office of Emergency Services (CAL OES), the U.S Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, Sierra Pacific Industries, and fire agencies in the County of El Dorado. Additionally, PIO has a mutual aid agreement with the Amador Fire Protection District. CAL OES provides guidance on how to support both in state and out of state emergency needs (LAFCO, 2020a). Automatic Aid The Pioneer Fire Protection District maintains automatic aid, boundary drop, and closest resource agreements with all fire protection providers operating in the County of El Dorado including the U.S. Forest Service and CAL FIRE. Any resource provided by PIO is available under these agreements (LAFCO, 2020a). Additionally, PIO has an automatic aid agreement with Amador Fire Protection District (AMC) in Amador County. Through the current automatic aid 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. For this MSR/SOI Update, LAFCO requested an analysis of automatic aid provided to and received from each agency that provided and/or received aid. Consultants received a breakdown in automatic aid data directly from CAL FIRE Camino ECC dispatch in order to provide the following analysis. This data shows who the first responder to the call was within another agency’s service area boundary. In the context of this analysis, automatic aid specifically refers to instances where an agency was first responder to a call within another agency’s jurisdictional boundary. Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-25 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final CAL FIRE is a statewide organization that operates throughout the County of El Dorado. CAL FIRE ‘s jurisdiction encompasses all the State Responsibility areas within the County (unincorporated areas of private lands excluding the national forests) for wildland fires, essentially overlapping the jurisdictions of the local fire agencies. As mentioned previously, CAL FIRE operates within the County under the same automatic aid system as the other local fire agencies. As a result of CAL FIRE’s expansive service area in El Dorado County, the agency responds to a significant number of calls for service throughout the County for the local fire agencies. CAL FIRE automatic aid for each local fire agency is included in the following analysis because CAL FIRE operates within the automatic aid system and was first responder to calls for all of the local fire agencies in the study year 2019. It is important to note that the automatic aid data that was analyzed only included the first responder data and did not include the local fire agencies responses to statewide fires managed by CAL FIRE. Thus, it is not surprising that almost none of the agencies were first responders to CAL FIRE calls aiding CAL FIRE; which are handled through the assignment of strike teams by CAL FIRE. In 2019, the County of El Dorado experienced 151 wildland fires with a total of 266 acres burned (CAL FIRE, 2019). Only three local agencies provided first response aid to one of those incidents for CAL FIRE in 2019. It should be noted that a response by an agency resource to another agencies jurisdiction for a wildland fire could be considered automatic aid to both the fire agency and CAL FIRE. More information on the State Responsibility Areas can be found in Section 12.5.6. Information about CAL FIRE operations in the County can be found in Volume I - Appendix D. Through consultation with the ad hoc Fire Chiefs MSR group and LAFCO, consultants agreed to exclude the CAL FIRE automatic aid numbers from Table 12-11 below, due to the reasons stated above. However, the study cannot ignore the CAL FIRE automatic aid data as part of the contextual analysis. Doing so would make it appear that local agencies received less aid than they actually did in 2019 and paint an inaccurate picture of the amount of aid received and provided between fire agencies operating in the County in 2019. Thus, the following analysis and determinations include CAL FIRE aid in the contextual details while removing the numbers from Table 12-11 below. CAL FIRE automatic aid numbers are described countywide in greater detail in Volume I - Appendix D, Other Agencies Providing Services in the County of El Dorado. PIO received automatic aid 227 times and provided automatic aid 213 times in 2019. Table 12-11 below shows the agencies that provided aid to the PIO and those that received aid from the PIO in 2019. The CAL FIRE Amador-El Dorado Unit provided automatic aid to PIO 157 times in 2019 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Table 12-11: Automatic Aid Provided and Received from/to PIO, 2019 Agency Providing/Receiving Amount of Aid Provided Amount of Aid Aid to/from PIO to PIO Received from PIO AMC1 21 28 CAM 1 0 DSP 34 7 ECF 154 172 EDH 1 0 MQT 0 1 RES 0 1 Other Agencies2 16 4 Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-26 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Agency Providing/Receiving Amount of Aid Provided Amount of Aid Aid to/from PIO to PIO Received from PIO Total 227 213 Source: CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020 1AMC is the Amador Fire Protection District – Amador County 2Other Agencies include the Buena Vista Rancheria Fire Department (BUV) provided 1 to PIO, USFS - Eldorado National Forest (ENF) provided 13 to PIO and received 4 from PIO, Lockwood Fire Protection District (LFP) provided 1 to PIO, and the California Dept of Forestry - Tuolumne- Calaveras Unit (TCU) provided 1 to PIO. The CAL FIRE – Amador-El Dorado Unit aid provided to PIO is described in Appendix D. The PIO received aid 14 times more than it provided in 2019. The District received the majority of aid from ECF, more than the other fire agencies combined. Aid from ECF made up 68 percent of all aid received in 2019. The aid received from AMC is part of the Joint Operations Agreement between the two Districts is described below. PIO provided the most aid to ECF followed by AMC and DSP. PIO provided aid 213 times in 2019 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). The amount of aid PIO received is similar to what it provided in 2019, suggesting that aid for the District is balanced. 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. A more detailed analysis of automatic aid is needed to determine the reasoning for variation in aid received versus provided for PIO and other fire agencies in the County, factoring in the location of calls in relation to available resources for each agency. 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 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Joint Powers Authorities Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs) are joint decision-making efforts in which the District participates regarding fire protection or emergency medical services. The Pioneer Fire Department is a member of the El Dorado County Emergency Services Authority for ambulance service in the County (LAFCO, 2020a). Joint Operations Agreement PIO and AMC entered into a Joint Operations Agreement (JOA) in June of 2020 for shared resources and in order to re-open the AMC Fiddletown Station No. 123 with on duty stand-by personnel. Through the agreement, PIO and AMC have joint staffing for several positions and work together to staff fire stations. The JOA provides the following type of service to both districts: • Move up and cover of AMC staff to PIO Station No. 34 or No. 38 when PIO paid staff is committed to a call; • Move up and cover of PIO staff to AMC Station No. 122 when AMC paid staff is committed to a call; Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-27 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • AMC personnel to cover PIO Station No. 38 when Station No. 38 is doing joint training with ECF Station No. 19 (Pleasant Valley Station) or AMC Station No. 122 (Plymouth Station) and the same for AMC Station No. 122; and • Response to calls as the primary unit into the Mt. Aukum area, Coyoteville and Omo Ranch area and as a second support unit to the same areas as well as Fariplay, Outingdale, and Somerset areas. Same for Fiddletown and Plymouth areas. (Source: PIO, 2020b) Amador Fire Protection District is an All Hazards/Risk combination fire protection district that services 491 square miles of Amador County including the communities of Plymouth, River Pines, Fiddletown, Drytown, Martell, Pine Grove, Pioneer, Barton, Clinton, Bonefoy, Jackson Rancheria and more. There are (4) full- time staffed stations, (3) stations staffed from home volunteers, and a combined staff between the two Districts of more than 50 personnel. The purpose of the joint collaborate effort is to provide more efficient service to the south areas of PIO and the Fiddletown area for AMC. Consultants were informed by the Fire Chief with GOE that PIO has also entered in to a JOA with GEO, MQT, and GRV (Chief Brown, personal communication, November 2021). This agreement allows the agencies to share volunteers, and equipment as necessary, to assist each district with coverage on a day- to-day basis. 12.5.4 Dispatch Fire and emergency medical dispatching is through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the multiagency CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center (ECC), providing a single dispatch system for the entire Western Slope of the County. Additional details on County wide dispatch can be found in Volume I – Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. 12.5.5 Emergency Access Major access roads to the Pioneer Fire Protection District include Highway 16/Mt. Aukum Road, Sand Ridge Road, Omo Ranch Road, and Grizzly Flats Road. The PIO's boundary area does include ingress and egress challenges identified in the County's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The rural roads in the PIO boundary area sometimes suffer from a lack of regular road maintenance. For example, Mt Akum Road contains several potholes making it a challenge for fire trucks to navigate. Other local roads sometimes have trees growing on the roads or missing chunks of asphalt. Many local roads evolved from old logging town dirt roads and may not have been initially engineered. Due to poor road conditions, response times for the PIO have been delayed. PIO staff noted that one time in the past, they were unable to get to a call in a washout on Coyoteville Lane off of Cedar Creek Road. Since shrubs can build up in the roadways, PIO staff needs to carry and use chainsaws for road clearance. During winter, snow plowing is conducted on a less than optimal frequency, and snow can pile up in roads, thereby delaying access. PIO staff feels there is a lack of roadway safety in this geographic area. District staff does work with community stakeholders to remediate these ingress/egress issues as they are identified (Fire Chief Matthews, personal communication, October 2020). More information on County wide roadway maintenance operations can be found in Volume I - Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-28 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 12.5.6 Fire Hazard Zones The Fire Hazard Severity Zones, Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), and Community Risk Fire Map in which CAL FIRE categorizes spatial areas into different risk areas are described in Volume II – Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Areas of land within the District boundary are considered “Local Responsibility Area” (LRA), “State Responsibility Area” (SRA), and “Federal Responsibility Area” (FRA) for fire protection services. Areas are also identified from High to Very High fire hazard risk as seen in Table 12-12. Table 12-12: PIO Fire Hazard Severity Zone Acreage and Percentage Acreage in Very High % in Very High Acreage in High % in High Fire Total % in Very High Fire Risk Fire Risk Risk and High Fire Risk 138,260 76.2% 16,207 8.9% 85.1% Source: County GIS Data, 2020 derived from CalFire data Within the PIO’s boundaries, approximately 138,260 acres are in Fire Hazard Severity zone “Very High” and 16,207 acres are in “High” based on GIS data provided by CAL FIRE. The PIO is located within an identified WUI (CAL FIRE). The rest of the District is located in a “Moderate” or Non-Wildland/Non-Urban Fire Risk Zone. See Figure 12-6 for a map of those areas. Table 12-13 below shows acreages of land within the District boundary designated as LRA, SRA, and FRA. Table 12-13: PIO Local, State and Federal Responsibility Area Acreage and Percentage Boundary Only (in acres) SOI Only (by itself) (in acres) LRA SRA FRA LRA SRA FRA 0 82,505 98,403 0 5,840 1,154 Source: GIS data from CAL FIRE Approximately 46 percent of the District boundary is within a State Responsibility Area (SRA) with CAL FIRE as the primary wildland fire response agency. CAL FIRE is legally and financially responsible to provide fire protection in all State Responsibility Areas. Approximately 54 percent is within a designated Federal Responsibility Area. Areas under the FRA are managed by a federal agency, such as the U.S. Forest Service. None of the District is located within a Local Responsibility Area. Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-29 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 12-6: Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Responsibility Areas for PIO Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-30 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 12.5.7 Infrastructure The Pioneer Fire Protection District maintains infrastructure to support its fire protection services. This infrastructure includes fire stations, fire hydrants, fire trucks and other vehicles, water hoses, and other equipment. The District owns, leases, or operates a total of seven fire stations as listed in Table 12-14. Consultants attempted to verify staffing information with the District staff multiple times and received no reply. The information below is based on an email communication consultants received from the Fire Chief on July 5, 2021. Two (2) stations are staffed full-time with a mixture of paid staff and seasonal/on call volunteers; four (4) are staffed part-time with a mixture of paid staff and seasonal/on call volunteers, and one station is unstaffed. Table 12-14: PIO Fire Stations Detail Station No. Address Staffing Paid staff; seasonal and on 7960 Grizzly Flat Road, 31 call Volunteers Somerset 24/7/365 Volunteers 4770 Sandridge Road, 32 Part-time Placerville (Historically Volunteer) On call Volunteers 2400 Omo Ranch Road, 34 Part-time Mt. Aukum (Historically Volunteer) Paid staff; seasonal and on 4837 Sciarioni Road, 35 call Volunteers Grizzly Flats Part-time 6100 Leoni Road, 36 None Grizzly Flats Seasonal and on call 6021 Omo Ranch Road, Volunteers 37 Somerset Part-time (Historically Volunteer) Paid staff; seasonal and on Main Station, 7061 Mt. 38 call Volunteers Aukum Road, Somerset 24/7/365 Data Source: LAFCO, 2020a; Chief Matthews, personal communication, July 2021 Five of the above fire stations are directly owned by PIO. Station 31 is leased from the Pioneer Volunteer Fire Association (LAFCO, 2020a). Only two of the fire stations (Station No.’s 31 and 38) are staffed 24/7/365. For these two stations that are “staffed”, that staff includes a mix of full-time, part-time, and volunteers (LAFCO, 2019a). Station No. 35 at Grizzly Flats also contains a residential structure and houses the District Battalion Chief. In addition to the seven stations listed in Table 12-14, above, the PIO jointly staffs Station No. 123 with AMC located at 14410 Jibboom St, Fiddletown, CA in Amador County (LAFCO, 2020b). Station No. 123 has the necessary facilities to house personnel during the day. This station is only 5 to 7 minutes away from Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-31 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final PIO’s Engine 16 service area, and 2 to 3 minutes away from the Coyoteville and Tyler Road areas of PIO’s service area. Structurally, the fire stations range in status from being in good shape to needing maintenance and/or remodel. Four of the fire stations have bays large enough to house the District’s engines. Two stations do not have large enough bays (PIO, 2019a). Pioneer Station No. 34 does not meet state and federal standards for daily living (no office, restrooms, or living space). The cost of upgrading Station No. 34 was estimated to be “expensive” in 2020 (PIO, 2020b). It is not known whether the PIO’s fire stations meet the current seismic codes due to a lack of information about the buildings (PIO, 2019a). In addition to PIO’s seven fire stations, CAL FIRE operates its Station No. 30 in the River Pines area, on a seasonal basis. Addendum – New Information from PIO Since the Caldor Fire the District has had several issues arise and changes. The District has lost the use of two fire stations, lost paid staff, lost housing for the Battalion Chief at Station 35, and several volunteers have lost their homes. The Fire Chief informed consultants that Station 35 and the associated residential structure was lost in the Caldor Fire. The District is working on a temporary site at 5006 Meadow Glen. This station was staffed with a resident Battalion Chief/Firefighter and on call volunteers. Station 36 use has also been suspended due to the loss of structures on the facility and the District is stowing a water tender on site. The District will be visiting opening Station 36 in the future with no structure due to fire loss (Chief Matthews, personal communication, November 2021). Equipment and Apparatus PIO utilizes a range of equipment to perform its duties as listed in Table 12-15. There are no vehicles or apparatus housed at Station No. 34. The newest vehicles for the District include a new 2,400-gallon water tender at Station No. 38 to support the 30-year-old water tender housed at Station No. 32 and a new pick- up truck at Station No. 35. The District has two Type 1 engines and two Type 3 engines. Since the last MSR update in 2011, the District added a Type 3 engine. The oldest Type 3 engine is 24 years old, and the oldest Type 1 engine is 16 years old. Table 12-15: Apparatus and Light Vehicles, 2020 Station Apparatus/Vehicle Year 31 Mini Pumper/Engine-Rescue Squad. 300 gallons 2003 32 3000-gallon Water tender 1989 32 Type 3 Engine/Rescue 600 gallons 1997 35 Mini Pumper/Engine-Rescue Squad 300 gallons 1992 35 SUV Rescue 2006 37 Mini Pumper/Engine-Rescue Squad 300 gallon 1997 37 Utility Pickup with 100-gallon tank 2005 38 2400-gallon Water Tender coming December 2020 2021 38 Type 3 engine/rescue 600-gallon Jaws/USAR/TRT/SRT 2017 38 Type 1 Engine/Rescue 650 gallons Jaws/USAR/TRT/SRT 2016 Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-32 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Station Apparatus/Vehicle Year 38 Type 1 Engine/Rescue 650 gallons Jaws/ Thermal/Night 2005 38 Utility Pick up 100 gallons 2004 38 UTV Jaws, USAR/TRT/SRT 2018 38 Haz-Mat EMS Trailer 2012 38 Staff Pick up Coming November 2020 Responds from 35 2021 38 Staff Pick up Responds from 31/38 Thermal/Night Vision 2019 38 Staff SUV Responds from 35/38 2010 Source: (LAFCO, 2020a) For PIO, each vehicle has a maintenance and service log which is used to generate an annual report. The District does have vehicle or equipment needs for which no funding has been identified (PIO, 2019a). It is not certain whether the District will be able to meet equipment and capital costs over the next five years (PIO, 2019a). Most facilities maintenance is performed in-house except garage doors, which are contracted out (LAFCO, 2011). Although the District does not have a defined deferred maintenance strategy, staff does aim to annually upgrade facilities and apparatus. However, structures and apparatus are gaining in years and associated wear and tear is noticeable. PIO has preventative maintenance inspection programs in place for apparatus and limited preventative maintenance inspections for facilities. PIO staff aims to conduct a majority of the labor in-house to reduce fiscal impact (PIO, 2019a). PIO does not have defined policies and practices for depreciation and replacement of equipment or infrastructure (PIO, 2019a). Financing new or upgraded equipment and deferred maintenance is a challenge. PIO staff has applied for grants (PIO, 2019a). NFPA recommends that second line equipment should not be more than 20 years old. A few pieces of equipment listed in Table 12-15 exceed this age guidance. Water and Hydrants In PIO, water supply to hydrants is provided by the Grizzly Flats Community Services District (GFCSD) in Grizzly Flat, the El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) in Outingdale, and River Pines Public Utility District (RPPUD) in the mutual aid area of River Pines. Hydrant capacity varies throughout the District as follows: • Grizzly Flats Community varies from 550 gallons per minute (gmp) to 1500 gmp; • Outingdale ranges from 550 gpm to 375 gpm; • Lamplighter community 700 gpm; and • Crystal Caves 500 gpm to 1200 gpm and draft pond Data source: (LAFCO, 2020a). In those remaining portions of the District that do not have a public water supply source, PIO utilizes mobile water tenders, identified drafting pond/lake sites, and private water storage tanks (LAFCO, 2020a). The District’s fire engines may also contain water storage. In addition, there is some water storage at local fire stations. PIO’s fire suppression water tank ordinance provides additional guidance. The District recognizes the need to provide a more efficient emergency water delivery/supply system for the communities served. Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-33 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The El Dorado County Regional Fire Protection Standard for Water Supplies for Suburban and Rural Fire Fighting is Standard No. D-003, effective March 24, 2021. The sufficiency of available water supply for fire flows throughout the District’s boundary area is a subject that may warrant further study. 12.5.8 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies Although the PIO does not currently have an approved Capital improvement Plan, the District provided consultants with a documented list of improvements that are needed to address infrastructure issues related to fire stations and other infrastructure as shown in Table 12-16, below. Since PIO operates seven fire stations, it is anticipated that several stations will need upgrades in the next 5 to 10 years (PIO, 2019a). Table 12-16: Facility Needs and Associated Costs by Station, 2020 Station Facility Needs Cost Install 12’x 32’ x 12’ x 10’ overhead door; one-man door $8,000 and two windows Install Solar LED lighting and battery/solar doors $2,500 31 Upgrade living quarters (remodel) $5,000 Install 14 K generator (Homeland Grant received) $0 Upgrade pump and water storage (fire suppression $0 system) Station No. 31 Total $15,500 Add 24’ x 32’ manufactured home $65,000 32 Add septic, foundation, water, gas, and power $22,000 Upgrade station office, restroom, living quarters $40,000 Upgrade offices and add restroom $10,000 Station No. 32 Total $137,000 Add restroom and office $25,000 Upgrade 5K plus water storage $4,000 34 Station repairs (doors, garage doors and windows) $2,000 Install Battery solar door opener $1,750 Station No. 34 Total $32,750 Add restroom $10,000 35 Install Generator transfer switch and battery/solar door $1,750 Add 12’ x 21’ x 7’ carport $2,000 Station No. 35 Total $13,750 Add restroom and office $25,000 37 Basic repairs and install battery solar door opener $2,250 Station No. 37 Total $27,250 Install Conex unit 20 or 30 foot $3,500 Install 16’ x 24’ metal building/fitness room to open up $5,500 main office space 38 Add a decontamination station $3,500 Add office space (convert weight room area) $1,500 Upgrade asphalt/concrete and build-up support wall $10,000 Upgrade fence $1,500 Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-34 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Station Facility Needs Cost District sign relocation and repair (potential) ground $1,200 improvement Station No. 38 Total $26,700 Facility Needs Total $252,950 Source: LAFCO, 2020a Six of the District’s seven stations need repairs, upgrades, and/or additional development. Funding for facility upgrades and repairs; and equipment upgrades and repairs; occur through PIO’s overall operating budget each fiscal year, grant funding, and any available reserves (PIO, 2019a). Also, development fees can contribute towards costs of equipment/apparatus upgrades and/or certain infrastructure needs (PIO, 2019a). For example, PIO recently purchased a new water tender with development impact fee monies. When queried about potential regulatory issues, infrastructure, equipment, or other challenges that could potentially confront the District in the next five years, PIO staff noted several potential issues, including the following: • Property owners maintaining homeowner's insurance; • Meeting unfunded mandates in a newly proposed Senate; • Poor management of area vegetation; • Finding funding to construct two living quarters at PIO stations; • County Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator’s Office not utilizing Proposition 172 funds and Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) funding correctly and per the elements of the law (should be distributed to fire agencies); • Other larger agencies trying to push the county agencies out and substantially raising taxes and fiscal responsibilities within the communities; • meeting fuel storage requirements; and • permitting. (Source: PIO, 2019a; LAFCO, 2020a) To address these challenges, the PIO is asking for community support to encourage County Administrators to direct funds from Proposition 172 accordingly to the law as well as distributing the PILT funds to the three agencies where the districts are providing service as it relates to the PILT regulations and requirements, preventing future litigation for the PIO (LAFCO, 2020a). More information on Proposition 172 and PILT funding can be found in Volume I - Chapter 5, Countywide Finances. 12.5.9 Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing PIO has undertaken numerous cost avoidance measures over the past several years including: • Revamped the volunteer programs in 2018-19; • Applied for and received grants; • entered into the JOA; and • Regional teamwork. Source: LAFCO, 2020a Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-35 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Additionally, PIO has recently made several improvements to its services including reopening two fire stations and adding 2.5 staff positions. PIO’s staff and Board of Directors see future opportunities for the District to further reduce operational costs as follows: • Utilize overhead positions to operate a more efficient service; • Continue to develop cost base programs that will help the Fire and Life Safety Division, and Operations and Administration; • Continue to engage in Joint Agreements to assist in administration, operations and prevention programs; and • Continue to apply for grants, especially those that support collaboration with the Amador Fire Protection District. Source: LAFCO, 2020a Although PIO does have informal conversations with its partners about the potential for future functional or structural reorganizations that could benefit recipients of fire protection services, those conversations have not been formalized (LAFCO, 2020a). In the past, the District’s Board of Directors have discussed the need for fiscal sustainability and collaboration with agencies within the County of El Dorado as well as Amador County. Discussion about future collaboration raised the topic of financial sustainability and funding during situations with minimal budgets, unions, CalPERS unfunded liabilities, and agency compatibility (PIO, 2019a). PIO is open to exploring all options regarding future collaboration. The potential to join a regional fire and emergency services agency would require supportive funding and must provide efficient services (PIO, 2019a). Retention of local input is an important issue for the PIO. In the past, PIO had previously contracted with CAL FIRE for fire suppression. This contract was cancelled/expired, and PIO felt this was not a successful contract for service (PIO, 2019a). PIO is the largest geographical district within the County, with 284 square miles within its formal boundary plus a large service area, and the ability to provide more efficient services is a recognized challenge (PIO, 2019a). Since PIO has an existing signed JOA with the Amador Fire Protection District, this relationship might be the best option for future partnerships, including a potential future merger or consolidation. The current JOA covers shared resources in per-diem firefighters and training. As a next step, the JOA could consider partnering on administrative functions to reduce overhead costs and increase efficiency. In summary, there are no areas the District currently serves for fire protection services that might be served more efficiently by another agency (LAFCO, 2020a). PIO does provide fire protection services to other agencies by contract. Specifically, Sierra Pacific Industries has a contract with PIO for vegetation service and fire protection (LAFCO, 2020a). 12.6 Financial Ability to Provide Services This section provides an overview of the financial health of the Pioneer Fire Protection District and a context for LAFCO’s financial determinations. The audited financial statement from the District for the fiscal years (FY) 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 are the primary source of all information for this section. The Preliminary and Final Budgets for the FY 2019/2020 and FY 2020/2021 are also used in order to provide Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-36 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final the most recent context to the analysis. In California, special districts are classified as either enterprise or non-enterprise based on their source of revenue. The PIO generally operates as a non-enterprise district, collecting and utilizing property tax revenue to fund fire and emergency services (PIO, 2018; 2019b; 2019c; 2020c; 2020d). 12.6.1 Financial Policies and Transparency The primary policy document for PIO is the 2019 Pioneer Fire Protection District Board of Directors Policy Manual. The Policy Manual describes the rules for the District’s business operations including budget, procurement, and financial policies. The FY 2020/2021 Budget was adopted by the Board of Directors on September 8, 2020. The District publishes an audited financial statement every year. Government Code and District policy require an annual independent audit of the District’s financial records by a certified public accountant. The independent audits for FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 were performed by Fechter & Company, independent auditors. The auditors judge whether the District’s financial statements are presented in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is responsible for establishing GAAP for state and local governments through its statements and interpretations. The District uses the modified accrual basis of accounting, where revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recorded when liabilities are incurred PIO, 2018; 2019b; 2019c; 2020c; 2020d). 12.6.2 District Revenues and Expenditures The District’s largest and main source of recurring revenue is property taxes, accounting for 61 percent of total revenue for FY 2017/2018 and 59 percent in FY 2018/2019. The District's largest expense is Salaries and Benefits, which accounted for 81 percent of expenses in FY 2017/2018 and 78 percent FY 2018/2019. A breakdown in revenues and expenditures for the District can be seen in Figure 12-7 below. A breakdown of revenues and expenditures is also available in table format in in Volume II - Appendix A, Financial Tables by Agency. Revenues The District’s largest and main source of recurring revenue is property taxes, accounting for $660,473 in FY 2017/2018 and $688,798 in FY 2018/2019. The District anticipates averaging $679,242 in annual Property Tax revenue from FY 2017 through FY 2021. The “County Augmentation” revenue line item appears as the second largest revenue source, accounting for 23 percent of total revenue for FY 2017/2018 and 21 percent in FY 2018/2019. This revenue source represents the approximately $450,000 in carryover funds that is used every year by the District to cover the first quarter or more before tax funds are received. The District also receives recurring revenue from the Fire/EMS Special Tax Assessment (Measure F approved during the November 2011 election) for fire protection/prevention and medical services charged at the rate of $85 per parcel. For the FY 2019/2020 budget, the District identified $200,000 in revenues from Developer Fees, but plans to receive no Developer fees for the FY 2020/2021 budget. The use of Developer Fees are restricted solely for financing public facilities and equipment necessary to serve new developments. As of June 30, 2019, the District had a reserve balance of $203,199 in development fees. Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-37 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 12-7: PIO Total Revenues & Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-38 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Expenditures As seen in Figure 12-7, the District's largest expense is Salaries and Benefits, which accounted for $688,411 (81 percent of expenses) in FY 2017/2018 and $719,164 (78 percent) FY 2018/2019. This is a decrease of three percent in expenses related to Salaries and Benefits between FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019. In the FY 2020/2021 Preliminary Budget, Salaries and Benefits are expected to rise by 20 percent (or $960,023) when compared to the FY 2019/2020 budget estimates. This increase is due to the addition of a Fire Marshal Position and a Limited Term Firefighter position. As of July 1, 2020, the District had twelve full-time employees. This includes: one Fire Chief, one Battalion Chief, eight firefighters, one fire marshal, one limited term firefighter, and one Training Officer. Additionally, the District recently hired one Fire Marshall (LAFCO, 2020a). In FY 2018/2019 the District had nine full-time employees (PIO, 2019a). The District is a signatory to the West Slope JPA for emergency medical services, but does not provide ambulance services; and therefore, does not qualify for Emergency Services Authority Funding for paramedic positions. 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 (PIO, 2019a). The District utilized six volunteer firefighters in 2020 (LAFCO, 2020a). In the budget provided for FY 2020/2021 there is an “Appropriation of Contingency and Reserves” line item listed at an amount of $506,427. It appears the District is allocating a Carry Over Balance from the revenues to the Fund Contingency and Reserves. The $500,000 of the Carry Over Balance from revenues is being allocated to “Fund Contingency & Reserves” with $200,000 intended to be spent in FY 2020/2021. Revenues (over / under) Expenditures Revenues (Over/Under) expenditures can be seen in Figure 12-8 below. The District has operated with Revenues exceeding Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019. Based on the Final Budget for FY 2019/2020, the District anticipates operating with Revenues exceeding Expenditures by $341,739. This increase is largely based on the $200,000 in Development Fees, which are allocated in the FY 2020/2021 budget to purchase a water tender. Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-39 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 12-8: PIO Net Revenues Over/Under Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 The District anticipates that FY 2020/2021 will be at net zero. The budget was strategically developed by District staff at the request of the District Board of Directors to make the budget Net Zero for FY 2020/2021. 12.6.3 District Assets and Liabilities District Assets On June 30, 2019, the District had approximately $2.1 million in total assets. This is an increase of 8 percent from the previous fiscal year in which total assets were $1.9 million. Primarily, the District’s assets are made up of only two components: Cash at 58 percent and Capital Assets at 42 percent as shown in Figure 12-9 below. Figure 12-9: District Assets as of June 30, 2019 There is approximately $1.22 million in cash in a County Treasury fund according to the FY 2018/2019 Financial Audited Statement. This fund contains both restricted and unrestricted funds that may be for use by the District for day-to-day operations. It is not clear how much of the fund is restricted versus unrestricted. Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-40 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Liabilities and Debt District liabilities and debts are relatively low at $78,461 as of June 30, 2019 as shown in Figure 12-10 below. This is an increase in liabilities of 32 percent form FY 2017/2018 in which the District had $59,390 in total liabilities. Figure 12-10: District Liabilities and Debt as of June 30, 2019 The District indicates an “Accrued Vacation Payable” line item on the liabilities balance sheet. Accrued Vacation Payable incurs if an employee accumulates vacation time in accordance with the employee’s respective “Memorandum of Understanding.” The amount of vacation and sick time vested and accrued by personnel depends on years of service, employee classification, and the date of hire. Personnel may accumulate up to a maximum of 672 hours of vacation vested which can be paid in full upon termination or retirement. Accrued vacation payable has not been seen on any of the other Districts balance sheets in the County. It appears that this is not a common practice for fire agencies in the County and accounts for almost half of the Districts liabilities. 12.6.4 Net Position As of June 30th, 2019, the District had a positive Net Position of approximately $2 million as shown in Figure 12-11 below. Figure 12-11: District Net Position as of June 30, 2019 This is an increase of 7 percent from the previous fiscal year at $1.8 million. The Net Position includes the District’s assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities, and deferred inflows of resources, which provide information about the nature, and amounts, of investments in assets and obligations to District creditors. It also provides the basis for computing rates of return, evaluating the capital structure of the Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-41 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final District, and assessing financial flexibility of the District. The Net Position is made up of 46 percent “Unrestricted” funds which can be used to finance day-to-day operations without constraints, and 44 percent invested in Capital Assets. 12.6.5 Asset Maintenance and Replacement The District’s equipment assets include two Type I Fire Engines, two Type III Fire Engines, two Water Tenders, and other assets as listed in Section 12.5.7. Facility and equipment costs are funded through grants and general reserves. The District has identified a water tender and a Type 6 vehicle as equipment needing to be purchased. The District anticipates that a majority of its six stations will need upgrades in the next 5-10 years. The District intends to upgrade facilities and equipment annually, however structures and apparatus are continuing to gain years and wear. The District does not have written policies and practices for depreciation and replacement of infrastructure. In addition to grants, infrastructure and deferred maintenance are anticipated to be paid for with development impact fees collected by the District when new development takes place within the District’s boundaries. Development fees accounted for $19,004 and $35,712 in FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 respectively. 12.6.6 Cost Avoidance The District attempts to complete the majority of the labor to repair equipment in house in order to reduce costs. In addition, the District entered into a Joint Operations Agreement with Amador Fire Protection District (AMC) to provide better services, collaborate with AMC, and reduce costs (LAFCO, 2020a). More information can be found in Section 12.5.3. 12.6.7 Financial Summary and Ability to Provide Services Based on the data presented above, the 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. 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. Alternative Financing 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. Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-42 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 12.7 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 the Pioneer Fire Protection District 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. Scoring for the determinations in Table 12-17 below are as follows: ▲ ● ▼ ◆ Above Average (compared to similar Districts), Average, Below Average, Statement of Fact (not rated). Table 12-17: Summary of MSR Determinations for the PIO Indicator Score Determination Population and Growth PIO’s approximately 181,433-acre boundary area is located in the ◆ Existing Boundary. unincorporated County of El Dorado and includes the communities of Grizzly Flat, Somerset, Outingdale, Fairplay, Mt. Aukum, and Omo Ranch. The District’s SOI was last affirmed in the 2011 MSR/SOI for the District. In ◆ Existing Sphere of Influence. addition to the 181,433 boundary area, the District’s SOI covers 7,103 acres for a total of approximately 188,536 acres. The District does provide fire and emergency services to customers outside of its jurisdictional boundaries. Specifically, PIO has a contract with Sierra Pacific Industries to provide vegetation suppression services within their Extra-territorial Services the District provides as described in ◆ property. PIO sometimes functions as the first responder in the southern Government Code Section 56134. Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District boundary. Also, PIO has a joint operating agreement with the Amador Fire Protection District and the Districts also have joint staffing at one station to cover the River Pines area. By the year 2040, it is estimated that PIO’s existing boundary will ◆ encompass a population of 9,746 persons. This represents a projected Projected population in years 2020 through 2040. average annual growth rate of 0.37 percent between the years 2020 and 2040. Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-43 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination Currently, the District’s boundary area supports an average of 0.05 persons per acre which is considered to be a very low population density. PIO has a large spatial extent of the boundary (181,433 acres) and has an existing and District boundaries contain sufficient land area to accommodate ◆ projected low population. Additionally, 89 percent of the PIO boundary projected growth. area is classified as open space, agriculture, or natural resources. Recommendation: Consultants recommend that when the next MSR is prepared, additional study should be given to right sizing the PIO boundary. Government Structure and Accountability Although the District does provide a dedicated webpage that lists the necessary agenda information with the most current agenda located at the Does the agency’s website comply with the 2016 updates to the ▼ top of the page, it does not provide a link from the homepage that meets Brown Act described in Government Code §54954.2 and enacted by the requirements of AB 2257. Therefore, the District website agenda Assembly Bill 2257? distribution does not comply fully with the requirements of the Brown Act 2016 Updates described in AB 2257. Terms of office and next election date are disclosed for District Board ▼ Terms of office and next election date are not disclosed for District Board members and committee appointments are online. members and committee appointments are not available online. There is insufficient data to determine whether PIO’s elected Board members submit required forms and receive required trainings as prescribed by the three state laws regarding accountability and ethics including: 1) the Political Reform Act; 2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005) Do elected Board members submit required forms and receive which requires ethics training; and 3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. required trainings as prescribed by the three state laws regarding For the Political Reform Act, PIO’s adopted conflict of interest policies for accountability and ethics including: ▼ the Board of Directors are described in Article 3.3 of the 2019 Board of (1) the Political Reform Act; Directors Policy Manual and are available to the public on the District’s (2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005); and website. Board members have filed necessary information and no (3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. complaints or cases were found; therefore, board members are complying with the Political Reform Act. Information about the PIO Board’s ethics and sexual harassment training is not posted to the District’s website. There is insufficient information to assess PIO’s compliance with AB 1234 and GC 53237. Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-44 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination PIO along with all the fire protection districts in El Dorado County have recently been the subject of a grand jury report, Case No. 19-06. The issues Is the District involved in current litigation and/or has the District ▼ raised in the grand jury report remain valid. Changes to the governmental been the subject of a recent grand jury inquiry. structure of some fire protection districts are needed to address these issues. PIO aims to inform and educate homeowners regarding fire safety and prevention consistent with General Plan Objective 6.2.5 with the following Does the agency work to inform and educate homeowners regarding topics available on its website: ● fire safety and prevention consistent with General Plan Objective • An on-line newsletter 6.2.5? • Home fire safety tips listed • Information about building requirements Compliance with the Special District Transparency Act (SB 929 or The PIO website does not provide copies of the certified annual financial California Government Code, §6270.6 and 53087.8) which requires statements or compensation reports. The District does not seem to have a ● special districts to have a functional website that lists contact policy requiring that the PIO website be user friendly and contain accurate information and contains financial statements, compensation and up-to-date information. Therefore, Pioneer Fire Protection District reports, and other relevant public information. partially complies with the requirements of SB 929. Disadvantage Communities The median household income is identified. The DUC threshold MHI California’s median household income was $71,228 in 2018. This yields a ◆ (80 percent of the statewide MHI) is clearly stated. The MHI in the DUC threshold MHI of less than $56,982. There are two census block Agency’s boundary is described. groups that meet the DUC threshold within the PIO boundary. There are portions of two census block groups that qualify as Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within the PIO boundary and sphere of influence, including one census block group with no information. Potential DUCs are considered. The provision of adequate water, The DUCs described in this chapter do receive adequate water services ◆ wastewater, and structural fire protection services to DUCs is form EID, GFCSD, RPPUD, and individual wells. Wastewater services are considered. provided to DUC areas either by EID or small septic systems. Fire protection services to DUCs described in this chapter are provided by PIO or neighboring fire agencies. No public health and safety issues have been identified. Shared Facilities and Services Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-45 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination Over the past several years, PIO has taken specific actions to save money, lower expenses, and improve services at the same costs. For example, the PIO entered into a Joint Operations Agreement with the Amador Fire Other practices and opportunities that may reduce or eliminate Protection District. This Agreement has allowed the PIO to provide back-up unnecessary costs are examined by the District periodically. Ideally, ▼ coverage for several of its stations. Also, the PIO participates in automatic there is a balance between cost efficiency and risk reduction aid and mutual aid agreements. However, PIO is staffed at (1-0) model, strategies. meaning there is one staff person per fire engine. This staffing level does not meet the standards of practice set by the NFPA. Lower staffing levels leave the community vulnerable to low frequency, high-risk events, such as a working structure fire. The PIO collaborates with multiple other agencies for the delivery of The District collaborates with multiple other agencies for the delivery ▲ services within its boundary through its participation in the mutual aid of services within its boundary. agreements and participation in the JPA. Additionally, PIO has a joint services agreement with the Amador Fire Protection District. Agreements for mutual aid or any other appropriate agreement (i.e., There is insufficient information available to determine whether ◆ Tax Sharing Agreement) are periodically reviewed to ensure fiscal agreements for mutual aid or any other appropriate agreement (i.e., Tax neutrality. Sharing Agreement) are periodically reviewed to ensure fiscal neutrality. Public Services and Infrastructure The District’s maintenance strategy is to complete work using in-house staff to the extent possible. PIO lacks sufficient funding for all the future The District has preventative maintenance measures and plans for ▼ maintenance, improvements, or upgrades. A Facility Assessment was replacement of aging infrastructure. provided with cost estimates by station but lacked a timeline or details on how upgrades/additions would be accomplished. A Fleet Assessment for PIO is not available. In the year 2019, the District’s average response time was 14 minutes and 4 seconds. PIO’s average for 2019 appears to meet response time goals for new discretionary projects in Rural Centers and Rural Regions. Does the District comply with County General Plan policies in PIO does not currently meet NFPA staffing standards. PIO’s 1-0 staffing ▼ relation to response times. Does the District meet the minimum model and overall station staffing levels are within budget constraints. standard for staffing. Lower staffing levels leave the community vulnerable to low frequency, high risk events, such as a working structure fire. Given the geographical layout of the District, which is spatially expansive, it is a challenge for PIO to staff all its fire stations. Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-46 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination Rating for the District from the neutral third-party Insurance Services ● Office (ISO) where the rating scale from best to worse is One (1) to PIO received an ISO rating of 5/5x. PIO’s rating is in the middle of this scale. Ten (10). This MSR evaluated whether fire agencies have been diligent in developing plans to accommodate the infrastructure and service needs of current and future constituents and found the following: Has the District has been diligent in developing plans to • The PIO does not currently have an approved Capital improvement accommodate the infrastructure and service needs of current and ● Plan; however, it does have a documented list of improvements that future constituents? District regularly reviews and updates its service are needed to address infrastructure issues. plans to ensure that infrastructure needs, and deficiencies are addressed in a timely manner. • The PIO does not have a defined deferred maintenance strategy; however, staff does aim to annually upgrade facilities. • PIO does not have defined policies and practices for depreciation and replacement of equipment and infrastructure. Although PIO currently meets minimum infrastructure needs, there is room The District meets infrastructure needs for: for improvement as follows: (1) PIO’s fire stations require infrastructure improvements to meet (1) facilities (stations); national standards, seismic safety codes, and building codes; (2) rolling stock (engines, apparatus, and emergency medical ● (2) Rolling stock [engines, apparatus, and emergency medical response response units; units] are aging; (3) dispatch systems; and (3) Dispatch is provided by the ECC operated by CAL FIRE; and (4) roadways. (4) Roadways for emergency access are narrow, rural, and not well- maintained. Also, an emergency access plan was not provided. PIO does have some capacity (limited) to assist with and/or assume services provided by other fire protection agencies, based on the following factors: (1) overall, the PIO’s level of transparency and organizational accountability mostly complies with current laws, although its website does not meet current legal requirements; Evaluation of agency's capacity to assist with and/or assume services ● (2) PIO’s (1-0) staffing model can sometimes leave the community provided by other agencies. vulnerable; and (3) With limited staff, it is difficult for PIO to independently serve its own needs. PIO required mutual aid 14 times or 13 percent of calls in 2019 with CAL FIRE aid removed. However, PIO does have an effective and formalized working relationship with the Amador Fire Protection District and was able to provide aid 213 times to neighboring agencies in 2019. Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-47 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination The District does provide sufficient services to meet current and future demands for the following three indicators: (1) PIO actively recruits Board members and staff, though vacancies sometimes occur; (2) Although PIO participates in countywide mutual and automatic aid, its service area is quite large and geographically isolated. To mitigate for The District provides sufficient services to meet current and future this, PIO has approved a Joint Operations Agreement with the Amador demands with: County Fire District to provide move-up and cover for a few of PIO’s ● (1) recruitment; stations; and (2) mutual aid; and (3) Water supply to hydrants is provided by the GFCSD in Grizzly Flat, EID (3) water supply for fire protection. in Outingdale, and RPPUD in the mutual aid area of River Pines. Hydrant capacity varies throughout the District. In those remaining portions of the District that do not have a public water supply source, PIO utilizes mobile water tenders, identified drafting pond/lake sites, and private water storage tanks. The spatial distribution of water resources and the quantity of these water resources for fire flow purposes needs further study. Apart from neighboring fire agencies, the nearest CAL FIRE station to the Is there duplicate infrastructure by other agencies nearby? ◆ District is CAL FIRE Dew Drop Station No. 10 at 29300 Dew Drop Bypass, Pioneer, CA 95666. This station is 12 miles south of the District and is staffed seasonally. Financial Accountability District finances are sufficient to apply a staffing model that meets or exceeds the generally accepted minimum national standard of three ▼ District operates at a (1-0) staffing model within budgetary constraints. staff per engine and truck company (3-0) model (and at NFPA 1720 standards if applicable). The primary policy document for PIO is the 2019 Pioneer Fire Protection The District has a published policy for reserve funds, including the ▼ District Board of Directors Policy Manual. A policy for reserve funds is not size and purpose of reserves and how they are invested. included in this document. ▼ District has an updated Strategic Plan that addresses financial goals. A Strategic Plan for PIO was not provided. ▲ District had a $2.03 million positive Net Position in FY 2018/2019; an The District had a positive Net Position for FY 2018/2019. increase of 7 percent from the previous fiscal year. Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-48 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination A minimum of 50 percent total operating expense is kept on hand in ▲ The General Reserve Fund carries above 50 percent of Annual Operating the General Reserve Fund. Expenses. District Revenues exceed expenditures in FY 2017/2018 and FY ▲ The District operated with $227,000 and $237,000 revenues over 2018/2019. expenditures in FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 respectively. The District publishes an audited financial report every year. Government Summary financial information presented in a standard format and ◆ Code and District policy require an annual independent audit of the simple language. District’s financial records by a certified public accountant. The independent audits for FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 were performed by Fechter and Company independent auditors. The District’s JOA agreement with AMC covers shared resources in per- Alternative financing opportunities were explored and pursued by ◆ diem for firefighters and training. The next phase for PIO to consider would the District. be to add administrative functions to the JOA to reduce overhead and cut costs. Effect on Agriculture and Open Space The District’s boundary includes 1,559 acres of open space, 13,842 acres of agricultural lands, and 145,636 acres of natural resource designated land. Effect that the District’s service provision will have on open space ◆ Overall 89 percent of the PIO boundary area is classified as open space, and agricultural lands. agriculture, or natural resources. Fire protection services and emergency medical services generally have minimal effects on agricultural land and open space. ▲ ● ▼ ◆ Key Score: Above Average (compared to similar Districts), Average, Below Average, Statement of Fact (not rated) Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-49 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-50 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 12.8 References 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/. _____. 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/. _____. 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 online at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6670/fhszs_map9.pdf. _____. 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. _____. Fire and Resource Protection Program (FRAP). December 2019. Map of Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). MAPID: WUI_19DATA SOURCES:WUI_12_315TY_18. Available online at: https://frap.fire.ca.gov/media/10300/wui_19_ada.pdf. CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center (ECC). 2020. CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center Dispatch Data. Received October 2020. California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). August 2003. Local Agency Formation Commission Municipal Service Review Guidelines Final. County of El Dorado (EDC). Grand Jury. June 8, 2020a. West Slope Fire Protection Update. Case No. 19- 06. Available online at: https://edcgov.us/Government/GrandJury/Documents/2019- 2020%20Reports/West%20Slope%20Fire%20Protection%20Update.pdf. _____. May 2003. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the El Dorado County General Plan. Volume 1 of 3, Section 5.1, Land Use and Housing. State Clearinghouse No. 2001082030. Available online at: https://www.edcgov.us/Government/planning/pages/draft_environmental_impact_report_(dei r).aspx. _____. Emergency Services Authority. 2017. Strategic Plan 2017 – 2022. Available online at: http://edcjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/EDC-JPA-Strategic-Plan-2017-Master.pdf. _____. Office of the Auditor-Controller. September 2020. Direct Charge Master – Contact by Description. Available online at: https://www.edcgov.us/Government/Auditor- Controller/proptaxreports/Documents/DirectChargeMaster-ContactByDescription.pdf. Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-51 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final El Dorado Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). August 2011. Countywide Fire Suppression and Emergency Services Municipal Service Review. Available online at: <https://www.edlafco.us/municipal-service-reviews-and-spheres-of-influence>. _____. September 2020a. Pioneer Fire Protection District 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 No. 19-06. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/. Fire Safe Council for El Dorado County (EDCFSC). April 2021. EDCFSC Community Councils Map. Available online at: https://www.edcfiresafe.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Councils-Map- Upate-4.28.21.pdf. Pioneer Fire Protection District. 2018. Pioneer Fire Protection District Financial Statements with Independent Auditor’s Report Thereon - June 30, 2018. Received November 2020. _____. 2019a. Response to LAFCO’s Request for Information. 6-pages. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. 2019b. Board of Directors Policy Manual. Available online at: http://pioneerfire.org/board- members/ _____. 2019c. Pioneer Fire Protection District Financial Statements with Independent Auditor’s Report Thereon - June 30, 2019. Received November 2020. _____. June 3, 2020a. Financial Statements And Required Supplementary Information With Independent Auditor’s Report Thereon for June 30, 2019. Certified by Fechter & Company Certified Public Accountants. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. June 3, 2020b. Frequently asked Questions PFPD/AFPD Joint Staffing Fiddletown authored by Mark Matthews, Fire Chief. 2-pages. _____. June 2020c. Pioneer Fire Protection District Monthly Finances/ Budget June (2) 2020 Closed Out. Received November 2020. _____. September 2020d. Pioneer Fire Protection District Budget FY 2020-2021. Received November 2020. _____. May 11, 2021a. Meeting Agenda for Board of Directors. 2-pages. Retrieved on June 1, 2021 from < pioneerfire.org/minutes-agendas/ >. Transparent California and Nevada Policy Research Institute. 2021. Wage data download for the year 2019. Retrieved on June 5, 2021 from: <https://transparentcalifornia.com/>. Volume II of II Pioneer Fire Protection District Page 12-52 of 12-52 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Chapter 13. Rescue Fire Protection District This chapter details the district formation, boundary, government structure, population and land use, disadvantaged communities, finances, and the provision of fire protection and emergency medical services provided by the Rescue Fire Protection District (RES) as well as the Municipal Service Review (MSR) determinations for this district. Table of Contents 13.1 Agency Profile ................................................................................................................ 13-4 13.1.1 Agency Overview ............................................................................................................................ 13-4 13.2 Agency Formation and Boundary .................................................................................... 13-5 13.2.1 Formation ....................................................................................................................................... 13-5 13.2.2 District Boundary ............................................................................................................................ 13-5 13.2.3 Existing Sphere of Influence ........................................................................................................... 13-5 13.2.4 Proposed Annexation ..................................................................................................................... 13-7 13.2.5 Extra-Territorial Services ................................................................................................................ 13-7 13.3 District Governance and Accountability .......................................................................... 13-8 13.3.1 Government Structure .................................................................................................................... 13-8 13.3.2 District Board .................................................................................................................................. 13-8 13.3.3 Accountability ................................................................................................................................. 13-9 13.3.4 Management Efficiencies and Staffing ......................................................................................... 13-11 13.3.5 Staffing and Training ..................................................................................................................... 13-11 13.4 Growth and Population Forecasts ................................................................................. 13-13 Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-1 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 13.4.1 Existing Population ....................................................................................................................... 13-13 13.4.1 Existing Population in SOI ............................................................................................................. 13-14 13.4.2 Projected Population Growth ....................................................................................................... 13-14 13.4.3 Existing Land Use .......................................................................................................................... 13-15 13.4.4 Potential Future Development ..................................................................................................... 13-15 13.4.5 Open Space and Agriculture ......................................................................................................... 13-16 13.4.6 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ............................................................................. 13-16 13.5 Public Services and Infrastructure ................................................................................. 13-17 13.5.1 Service Overview .......................................................................................................................... 13-17 13.5.2 Fire and Emergency Response ...................................................................................................... 13-17 13.5.3 Mutual Aid, Automatic Aid, Other Agreements ........................................................................... 13-21 13.5.4 Dispatch ........................................................................................................................................ 13-24 13.5.5 Emergency Access ......................................................................................................................... 13-24 13.5.6 Fire Hazard Zones ......................................................................................................................... 13-24 13.5.7 Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................ 13-26 13.5.8 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies ......................................................................................... 13-29 13.5.9 Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing .......................................................................................... 13-30 13.6 Financial Ability to Provide Services .............................................................................. 13-31 13.6.1 Financial Policies & Transparency ................................................................................................ 13-31 13.6.2 District Revenues and Expenditures ............................................................................................. 13-31 13.6.3 District Assets and Liabilities ........................................................................................................ 13-35 13.6.4 Net Position .................................................................................................................................. 13-36 13.6.5 Asset Maintenance and Replacement .......................................................................................... 13-36 13.6.6 Cost Avoidance ............................................................................................................................. 13-37 13.6.7 Financial Summary and Ability to Provide Services ...................................................................... 13-37 13.7 Determinations ............................................................................................................ 13-39 13.8 References ................................................................................................................... 13-46 Table of Tables Table 13-1: Geographic Summary (2020) of Fire Protection Services for RES ........................................ 13-7 Table 13-2: Rescue Fire Protection District Board of Directors ............................................................... 13-8 Table 13-3: Current Staffing Levels for the RES by Type and Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) ..................... 13-11 Table 13-4: RES Existing Population (2020) ........................................................................................... 13-13 Table 13-5: Total Estimated and Projected Population (2020 – 2045) ................................................. 13-14 Table 13-6: General Plan Designations for Open Space, Agriculture, and Natural Resources ............. 13-16 Table 13-7: RES Public Services.............................................................................................................. 13-17 Table 13-8: Average Response Times for CAM from 2010 to 2019 ...................................................... 13-20 Table 13-9: Aid Provided and Received from/to RES, 2019 .................................................................. 13-22 Table 13-10: RES Fire Hazard Severity Zone Acreage and Percentage .................................................. 13-24 Table 13-11: RES Local, State and Federal Responsibility Area Acreage and Percentage .................... 13-26 Table 13-12: RES Fire Stations Detail ..................................................................................................... 13-26 Table 13-13: RES Land Owned FY 2018/2019 ........................................................................................ 13-27 Table 13-14: Apparatus and Light Vehicles, 2020 ................................................................................. 13-28 Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-2 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 13-15: Apparatus and Light Vehicles Replacement Schedule ..................................................... 13-28 Table 13-16: Summary of MSR Determinations for the RES ................................................................. 13-39 Table of Figures Figure 13-1: Rescue Fire Protection District Service Area and SOI ......................................................... 13-6 Figure 13-2: RES Staff Salary and Benefits (2019) ................................................................................. 13-12 Figure 13-3: RES Calls for Service from 2010-2019 ............................................................................... 13-19 Figure 13-4: RES Incidents by Type, 2019 .............................................................................................. 13-19 Figure 13-5: Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Responsibility Areas for RES ........................................... 13-25 Figure 13-6: RES Total Revenues and Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 ............ 13-32 Figure 13-7: RES Net Revenues Over/Under Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 . 13-34 Figure 13-8: District Assets as of June 30, 2019 .................................................................................... 13-35 Figure 13-9: District Liabilities and Debt as of June 30, 2019 ................................................................ 13-36 Figure 13-10: District Net Position as of June 30, 2019......................................................................... 13-36 Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-3 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 13.1 Agency Profile 13.1.1 Agency Overview The Rescue Fire Protection District (District or RES) is in the northwestern portion of El Dorado County; specifically east of El Dorado Hills, northwest of Shingle Springs and north of Cameron Park. The District serves the rural unincorporated community of Rescue, which includes the areas of Kanaka Valley, Gold Hill, Luneman, Jergens, Arrowbee and Starbuck Road (EDH, 2019a). There are approximately 2,500 homes and other structures within the District boundary. The community lies at an elevation of approximately 1,200 feet. Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-4 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 13.2 Agency Formation and Boundary 13.2.1 Formation The Rescue Fire Protection District was formed in 1974 by LAFCO Resolution No. 74-26. The enabling legislation supporting RES is the California Health and Safety Code §13800, et seq. The District is empowered to provide fire protection, rescue, emergency medical response, and hazardous material services (LAFCO, 2020a). 13.2.2 District Boundary The Rescue Fire Protection District geographic boundary encompasses approximately 21,385 acres (or 33.4 square miles), as seen in Figure 13-1. The boundary includes 2,852 assessor parcels (EDC GIS, 2020). All areas within the boundary receive service from the RES. Nearby fire districts may respond to an emergency within the RES boundaries through existing mutual aid agreements as detailed in Section 13.5.2 below. RES staff has indicated that there are no areas the District currently serves that might be served more efficiently by another agency (LAFCO, 2020a). This indicates that the existing RES boundary area is suitable for the public services provided. The only area that receives services from a different Fire District is the SOI area on the northwest boundary near the Salmon Falls Bridge. EDH is the first responder to this area due to the lack of access from the RES side (Chief Johnson, personal communication, November 2021). There have been no annexations to the District since the last Municipal Service review in 2011. RES is bounded by several neighboring fire agencies including: El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF) on the northwest, north, northeast, and southeast; by Cameron Park Community Services District (CAM) to the south; El Dorado Hills County Water District (dba El Dorado Hills Fire Department or EDH) to the west; and by Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District (DSP) to the east (LAFCO, 2011). 13.2.3 Existing Sphere of Influence This section briefly describes the existing Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the Rescue Fire Protection District. Additional details can be found in Chapter 19, SOI Analysis, in this document. El Dorado LAFCO most recently updated 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 as shown in Table 13-1 below. 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 (LAFCO, 2011). 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 (LAFCO, 2020a). Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-5 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 13-1: Rescue Fire Protection District Service Area and SOI Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-6 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 13-1: Geographic Summary (2020) of Fire Protection Services for RES Boundary Area SOI Total Boundary (All Services) (All Services) & SOI Total Acres 21,385 4,025 25,410 Square Miles 33.4 6.3 39.7 Number of Assessor Parcels 2,852 92 2,944 Source: El Dorado County GIS Data, 2020 As part of this MSR process, District staff were queried about whether the existing Sphere of Influence boundary is adequate for protected future fire and emergency service needs. RES staff noted that the current SOI is sufficient for future service needs (LAFCO, 2020a). 13.2.4 Proposed Annexation Over the past several years, RES has experienced inadequate revenue and increasing costs associated with the provision of fire protection and emergency medical services as detailed in Section 13.5 of this MSR. In an effort to share resources and reduce costs, RES entered into a “shared services agreement” with EDH in October 2013, which covers administrative services, training, fire protection, and human resources. This agreement was later revised to include the sharing of the El Dorado Hills Fire Department Fire Chief. A proposed annexation would formalize the shared operations between EDH and RES into a single agency and would implement a strategy to help ensure adequate community protection and long-term financial sustainability. As part of the proposed annexation process, EDH would be absorbing Rescue Fire Protection District and assuming responsibility for providing fire services in Rescue’s service territory. EDH would also assume all of RES’s assets and financial obligations. Annexation of RES into EDH would provide reciprocal benefits to both agencies. 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 (LAFCO, 2020a). A LAFCO Special District Election ballot is an ongoing discussion between the two districts. 13.2.5 Extra-Territorial Services The RES does occasionally provide extra-territorial services outside of its District boundary in two circumstances: 1. Mutual and automatic aid agreements consistent with the California Fire Assistance Agreement, and with the California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement as described in Section 13.5.2; and 2. To the two designated SOI areas (LAFCO, 2020a). In circumstance No. 1, above, where services are provided outside the boundary based on mutual/automatic aid agreements, these are not considered to be Out-of-Agency Services. The District maintains automatic aid agreements with all fire service agencies located in the County of El Dorado for Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-7 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final fire suppression and emergency medical services. However, in circumstance No. 2, above, where RES does provide fire and emergency services to customers outside of its jurisdictional boundaries, who are in the two SOI areas, this is considered an Out-of-Agency Service. This situation can be remedied by utilizing Section 65133(b) of the CKH Act. This section allows a special district to provide services outside its boundary, but within its SOI and in anticipation of a later change of organization. 13.3 District Governance and Accountability This section describes how performance, accountability, transparency, and public engagement relate to the public’s trust in local government. LAFCO is required by the CKH Act to make specific determinations regarding a municipality’s government structure and accountability. 13.3.1 Government Structure The RES is a local government agency structured as a Fire Protection District consistent with its Principal Act, the California Health and Safety Code §13800, et seq. The District has five elected Board Members who reside within the community. All registered voters, who reside within the District boundary are eligible to vote for and/or run for a seat on the District Board. The District Board appoints the Fire Chief, who also serves as the General Manager. Per a joint agreement with the El Dorado County Water District (dba El Dorado Hills Fire Department), the Fire Chief position is held jointly between the two agencies. 13.3.2 District Board The District operates under the direction of the elected District Board. Each elected Board Member serves for a term of four years with two Board Member seats running two years apart from the remaining three seats. A new Board President is selected by the Board Members each year. The Board President assigns Directors to the Board’s committees. The Board’s committee appointments are listed on the District website. The Board’s active committees include the following: Personnel, Budget, Building and Grounds, and Annexation. The current Board of Directors members, their committee appointments, and the expiration dates of their terms are shown in Table 13-2 below. Table 13-2: Rescue Fire Protection District Board of Directors Name Title Term End Committee Appointments Janice Araujo Director Dec. 2022 Personnel, Annexation Penny Humphreys Director Dec. 2022 None Matt Koht Chair Dec. 2024 Budget, Building & Grounds, Annexation CJ Smith Director Dec. 2022 Budget Scott Thorne Vice Chair Dec. 2024 Building & Grounds, Personnel Source: LAFCO, 2020a; RES, 2019a; Chief Johnson, personal communication, November 2021 The District holds regular public meetings on the Second Wednesday of each month at 6:00 PM at the Rose Springs Literary Society (RSLS) Hall located at 5221 Deer Valley Road, Rescue, CA 95672. During the Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-8 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Covid-19 global pandemic, the Board continued to meet in person; although one meeting was held via the on-line platform, “Zoom”. The dates and times for the various Committee meetings do not seem to be published on the District website (as of May 9, 2021). The District’s policies about Board Compensation are not published on the District website (as of May 9, 2021). However, Board members did not receive any compensation for the year 2019 (SCO, 2021). In California, elected members of special district boards are required to comply with three laws regarding accountability and ethics including 1) the Political Reform Act; 2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005), which requires ethics training; and 3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. which mandates sexual harassment prevention training. A description of each of these three state laws is provided in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire and Emergency Medical Services Agency MSR General Information. Political Reform Act Each Special District in California is required to have ethics and conflict of interest code/policies. Rescue has an adopted Conflict of Interest Policy No. 100-029. This policy was originally adopted in August 2007 and is reviewed regularly. The Political Reform Act also requires special district board members to disclose all personal economic interests by filing a “Statement of Economic Interests” with their District or the County Board of Supervisors, consistent with guidelines from the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). RES Board members have filed the required Statement of Economic Interest with the County. Information available from the FPPC indicates that Board members are complying with the Political Reform Act. Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005) Local government officials are required to take ethics training every two years. Compliance with this law was assessed for each of the fire agencies studied in this report. According to RES staff, training has been conducted on a regular basis, with the most recent occurring in February 2021. Therefore, the District’s Board is in compliance with AB 1234. Government Code 53237 et. seq. Special district board members must receive required sexual harassment prevention, two-hour training, every two years. Compliance with this law was assessed for each of the fourteen fire agencies studied in this MSR by asking the Clerk of the Board for the dates and other documentation of training events. RES’s Fire Chief reports that training has been conducted for one District Board Member in November 2019. The other Board Members have not completed the required training. EDH HR Department has taken steps to ensure that all Board members are compliant with GC 53237. Therefore, RES’s Board is not currently in compliance with GC 53237 et. seq. 13.3.3 Accountability Brown Act The details of the Brown Act are described in in Volume II - Chapter 1. All meetings of the District Board and Committees are open to the public in accordance with the Brown Act. The agenda for each meeting Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-9 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final includes a public comment period and agendas are made available 72 hours before meetings. Any written document that relates to an agenda item is available for public inspection at the same time the agenda packet is distributed to the members of the Board of Directors. Written documents are made available at the District Office and on the District website at: https://www. rescuefiredepartment.org/. Agendas are also distributed via email upon request. Through the Shared Services Agreement between RES and EDH, the Board receives updates and trainings on the Brown Act throughout the year. The District also utilizes an attorney to provide additional direction and information related to the Brown Act when needed (LAFCO, 2020a). The State Legislature updated the Brown Act in 2016 as codified in Government Code §54954.2 (see also Assembly Bill 2257). These new Brown Act requirements are detailed in in Volume II - Chapter 1. RES provides a dedicated agenda webpage with the most current agenda located at the top of the page. The District’s website complies with the requirements of the Brown Act 2016 Updates described in AB 2257. Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20 suspended parts of the Brown Act that require in-person attendance of Board members and citizens at public meetings as described in Volume II - Chapter 1. During this timeframe, from March 2020 to March 2021, the District continued to hold in-person meetings. If stakeholders felt uncomfortable attending in-person meetings, they had the option to email public comments to admin@rescuefiredepartment.org. Comments submitted via email were read aloud at the meeting (not to exceed 3 minutes at staff’s cadence) and included in the public record. Special District Transparency Act (SB 929) The Districts website contains the current and past meeting agendas and associated agenda packets available for download. The District website offers an online form that the public can utilize to directly contact the RES to ask questions or to share information. RES contact information including the mailing address and an email address are also provided. The District’s annual budget and certified annual financial statements are shared on the District website, however the District does not provide compensation information in the form of either posting compensation of elected officials, officers, and employees on the District website or providing a link to the Controller’s Government Compensation website for California. Therefore, Rescue Fire Protection District partially complies with the requirements of the Special District Transparency Act (RES, 2021). More information on the SB 929 can be found in Volume II - Chapter 1. General Accountability The RES demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with El Dorado LAFCO. The District cooperated with LAFCO’s requests for information and participated in an interview with the MSR consultants. There are several laws, regulations, and guidelines which prescribe safety features associated with fire protection services including state laws and regulations exercised through the District’s cooperative agreement with CAL FIRE, the Safety Element of the County of El Dorado’s General Plan, and other County requirements and regulations. RES, along with all the fire protection districts in El Dorado County, have recently been the subject of a grand jury report (EDC, 2020a). The Grand Jury posits in Case No. 19-06 that, while it made sense historically, the only reason there are multiple fire agencies in El Dorado County is because of “strong Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-10 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final loyalty to a local home district,” coming “at the expense of the County as a whole.” The Grand Jury concludes that the insufficient revenues afforded to rural districts puts a strain on the mutual and automatic aid system as a whole; forcing more financially stable districts to “subsidize” the rural ones by having the former respond to calls when the latter is unable to do so. The issues raised in the grand jury report remain valid (LAFCO, 2020b). Changes to the governmental structure of some fire protection districts are needed to address these issues. 13.3.4 Management Efficiencies and Staffing The Fire Chief is appointed by and reports to the Board and is responsible for directing District operations and overseeing and implementing policies on behalf of the Board. An important part of management effectiveness includes the District adopting a District-wide mission statement and/or vision statement. The RES Mission statement is not readily available on the District’s website. 13.3.5 Staffing and Training RES staff includes paramedic firefighters and an emergency medical technician. Detailed full-time personnel information can be seen in Table 13-3 below including the staffing levels in relation to the Shared Services Agreement with the El Dorado Hills Fire Department. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) calls for a standard of four staff per engine and truck company (4-0) model (NFPA, 2020). A three staff per engine and truck company (3-0) model is acceptable as a minimum nationwide standard practice throughout the United States (EDC, 2020). The Rescue Fire Department currently follows a 2-0 staffing model with one Fire Captain and one Driver Operator staffed at the District’s Fire Station, Station No. 83 (LAFCO, 2020a). Overall, the RES staffing levels do not meet the NFPA standards. Lower staffing levels leave the community vulnerable to low frequency, high risk events, such as a working structure fire. Table 13-3: Current Staffing Levels for the RES by Type and Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Position FTE Count as of July 1, 2020 Compared to 2018 Fire Chief Shared Services Agreement 1 Battalion Chief Shared Services Agreement 0 Deputy Fire Chief/Fire Marshall Shared Services Agreement 0 Firefighter/EMT 2 1 Captain/Paramedic 3 0 Engineer/EMT 1 0 Engineer/Paramedic 1 0 Firefighter/Paramedic 1 5 Volunteer/Intern Firefighter 6 6 Training Officer Shared Services Agreement 0 Officer Support Staff Shared Services Agreement 1 Total 14 14 Source: LAFCO, 2020a; 2019 Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-11 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 13-3 lists the positions that manage the fire and emergency services provided by the District. However, some of the positions listed in Table 13-3 overlap. To better understand the ratio of full-time to part-time staff, consultants reviewed data the RES filed with the California State Controller’s Office to determine the District funded the following positions in 2019: • 3 Captain/Paramedic – full-time • 4 Engineer/Paramedic/EMT – part-time • 1 Administrative Assistant – part-time • 1 Fire Chief – part-time (Shared Services Agreement) Data Source: (SCO, 2021) In summary, RES had a total of nine paid staff comprised of a mixture of full-time and part-time according to the State Controller’s Office. The staff for the District that did not include staff from the Shared Service Agreement totaled six. Also, RES has several interns/volunteer firefighters as listed in Table 13-3, above. The salary and benefits paid to RES staff in the year 2019 are summarized in Figure 13-2, below. The District does maintain insurance, both a workers’ compensation policy and a general liability insurance policy (LAFCO, 2020a). Figure 13-2: RES Staff Salary and Benefits (2019) $200,000 $180,000 $160,000 Health Insurance $140,000 $120,000 Retirement Covered $100,000 Defined Benefit $80,000 Other Pay $60,000 Overtime Pay $40,000 Regular Pay $20,000 $0 Individual Employees When comparing staffing levels in Table 13-3 to the average call volume, District staff acknowledge that an additional firefighter position is needed to bring the daily staffing levels up to a total of three per day (3-0 model) to accommodate the existing workload (LAFCO, 2020a). Staffing for the RES is augmented by its participation in a boundary drop, mutual aid system that automatically deploys the closest available resource to respond to requests for aid from other fire agencies in the County of El Dorado (LAFCO, 2020a). The RES receives advantages from participating in this network of collaborating fire districts which decreases response times and assists in resource deployment. The RES does not meet the minimum (3-0) staffing model, and this could potentially impede fire companies in the District that wish to immediately begin fire suppression tactics without waiting for additional resources to arrive to the call. Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-12 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Training The Rescue Fire Protection District staff receive regular, structured training through the Shared Services Agreement with the El Dorado Hills Fire Department (EDH). There is no one regular day of training, but each employee is tracked to ensure that training is consistently completed. In addition to Department sponsored training, Captains provide additional company level training. Employees are also encouraged to seek training outside of the Department and are reimbursed for such training (LAFCO, 2020a). The EDH Training Division has committed to maintaining a high skill level and meeting industry standards for training. For example, the Insurance Service Office (ISO) industry-standard requires twenty hours of fire-based training per month. This standard is met through single-engine company and multi-company drills encompassing everything from hose evolutions and vehicle extrication to wildland fire drills. The Training Division also emphasizes continuous medical training for the crews, so they are current on new medical concepts and techniques (RES, 2019a). Complaints During the years 2018 and 2019, the District received no complaints for service (LAFCO, 2020a). 13.4 Growth and Population Forecasts The growth and population projections for the affected area are a determinations which LAFCO is required to describe, consistent with the MSR Guidelines from the Office of Planning & Research (OPR) as set forth in the CKH Act. This section provides information on the existing population and future growth projections for the RES. Historical and anticipated population growth are factors which affects service demand. 13.4.1 Existing Population There are approximately 4,763 residents within the District boundaries as of 2020, as shown in Table 13-4, based on the number of parcels in the District and the average number of persons per parcel of 1.67. The U.S. Census provides population estimates for communities. The District includes Census Tract No. 30801.00 including Block Groups No. 1 and No. 2 and this Census Tract has a total population of 4,667. However, since Census Tracts do not directly correspond with District boundaries, the population estimates for the two areas are slightly different than the total population estimated for the District. Detailed information regarding population demographics and socio-economic indicators in El Dorado County is provided in Volume I - Appendix A and Appendix B. Table 13-4: RES Existing Population (2020) Population existing Population in SOI No. of Registered boundary area only1, 2, 3 area only1, 2, 3 Voters4 Rescue Fire Protection District 4,763 154 3,472 Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-13 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Sources: 1California Department of Finance. May 2020. E-2. California County Population Estimates a Components of Change by Year – July 1, 2000-2010. Sacramento, California. 2California Department of Finance. May 2020. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011- 2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark. Sacramento, California. 3Calculated estimate based on an average of 1.67 persons per parcel in El Dorado County and 2,944 parcels within the RES boundary. 4LAFCO, 2019a According to District personnel, there are no special events or activities within the RES service area that cause population spikes (LAFCO, 2020a). 13.4.1 Existing Population in SOI The population in RES’s SOI and outside the District Boundary is estimated to be 154 people based upon an average number of 1.67 persons per Assessor’s Parcel (El Dorado County GIS Data, 2020). 13.4.2 Projected Population Growth Projecting future population for a District is complicated due to unknown factors associated with the annexation rate and census tracts that do not match with District boundaries. For purposes of this MSR, data from the California Department of Finance (DOF) was used to project population growth as shown in Table 13-5. The DOF provides population projections at the County level and the growth rate for the County of El Dorado is utilized to extrapolate population growth rates for the Rescue Fire Protection District. By the year 2040, it is estimated that RES’s existing boundary will encompass a population of 5,255 persons. This represents a projected average annual growth rate of 0.377 percent between the years of 2020 and 2040. Table 13-5: Total Estimated and Projected Population (2020 – 2045) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 The County of El Dorado1 193,227 201,041 207,496 211,537 213,033 Rescue Fire Protection District2 4,763 4,959 5,118 5,218 5,233 Sources: 1California 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. 2Population projection for RES calculated as a percentage (0.024665403) of The County of El Dorado. The projected growth rate for the County of El Dorado anticipates development throughout the entire County. The addition of 470 more people to the RES by 2040 is possible as the District has undeveloped areas within existing boundaries that could potentially be available for more intensive residential development, including infill and the construction of accessory dwelling units. Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-14 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 13.4.3 Existing Land Use Land-use is a factor that affects population growth and therefore demand for public services. However, the RES is not a land use authority. 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 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. 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. County General Plan The District’s boundary area is entirely unincorporated and subject to the land use policies and regulations of the County of El Dorado. Most land-use decisions, initiated by private property owners over the last decade, are secured via entitlements and land-use permits from the County and other agencies. The County plans for its future growth through its General Plan, which is a long-term comprehensive framework to guide physical, social, and economic development within the community’s planning area. The County of El Dorado’s General Plan was adopted in 2004. Individual elements have since been updated on an individual basis. The 2013-2021 Housing Element was adopted in October 2013, with the most recent update occurring to the Land Use Element in August 2019. The community of Rescue is designated as a “Rural Center” on the General Plan land use map and this designation also establishes an urban limit line. Rural Centers establish areas of higher intensity development throughout the rural areas of the County based on the availability of infrastructure, public services, existing uses, parcelization, impact on natural resources, etc. Boundaries of existing Rural Centers can be modified through a General Plan amendment (County of El Dorado, 2019). 13.4.4 Potential Future Development Future population growth within the Rescue community and surrounding areas is 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. Other residential development projects have been proposed by private developers, but are not yet approved. The following list of new, major private development projects which are in the planning stages or under development and are located within or nearby the District include1: • Blue Mountain Builders will be starting Silver Springs Phases II and III in 2021 (LAFCO, 2020a); • Summer Brook Phase 1 project is a proposed 29-lot subdivision breaking ground in July 2021 (LAFCO, 2020a); 1 A list of current and future projects for RES and EDH is maintained by EDH and can be found on the EDH District website at https://edhfire2019trial.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapTour/index.html?appid=50fcf38540764e1fa54afea24e940e57. Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-15 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • Silver Springs Subdivision Phase 1 is under construction to develop 53 lots with a total build out of 181 residential lots (LAFCO, 2020a); • Pomerol Vineyards Project No. PA 16-007 was approved as a tentative subdivision map creating 137 residential lots on a 130-acre site located to the west of Starbuck Road in the Cameron Park area (LAFCO, 2020a); and • Verde Vista Project No. TM97-1342 was approved as a tentative subdivision map allowing 84 residential lots on a 29.85-acre site, and now permitting 2.8 lots per acre. All of these projects are concentrated in the southwest area of the District, adjacent to the Cameron Park Community Services District (CAM) and EDH. 13.4.5 Open Space and Agriculture El Dorado LAFCO’s policies require that an MSR/SOI offer a determination about the effect that a district’s service provision will have on open space and agricultural lands. For purposes of this MSR analysis, open space data was derived from the County General Plan land-use data. The District’s boundary includes 1,663 acres of open space and 1,068 acres of agricultural lands. A breakdown of open space, natural resources, and agricultural land located within the District boundary and Sphere of Influence (SOI) can be seen in Table 13-6 below. Table 13-6: General Plan Designations for Open Space, Agriculture, and Natural Resources Boundary Only (in acres) SOI Only (by itself) (in acres) Open space Agriculture Natural Resources Open space Agriculture Natural Resources 1,663 1,068 0 1,275 0 0 Source: County of El Dorado GIS, 2019 Agricultural lands are calculated to be approximately 1,068 acres within the District. RES’s effect on open space lands is minimal. The District’s provision of fire protection services to open space areas (i.e., non- structural) within its boundaries occurs occasionally, but is the primary responsibility of CAL FIRE or the U.S. Forest Service. LAFCO has an interest in documenting the conversion of agricultural and open space lands to other land use types, such as residential use. RES fire protection services do not play a role in these types of land-use conversions. 13.4.6 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities As detailed in Chapter 3, a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) is an unincorporated area of a County in which the annual median household income (MHI) is less than 80 percent of the statewide MHI. This analysis uses Census Block Groups to determine DUCs because this level of analysis provides the most uniform income data available statewide. Data for this report was collected from the 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, at the census block group level. Within the boundaries of RES there are no Census Block Groups that meet the DUC threshold. Therefore, no considerations for services are necessary. Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-16 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 13.5 Public Services and Infrastructure 13.5.1 Service Overview The Rescue Fire Protection District is an established Fire Protection District and is the primary service provider for fire protection services within the District boundaries. The District provides fire suppression, fire prevention, emergency medical services, and rescue services. These services benefit local residents within its boundary as detailed in Table 13-7, below. Part of the District’s provision of service is accomplished through a Shared Services Agreement with EDH. Table 13-7: RES Public Services Service Provider Structural Fire Protection RES Wildland Fire Protection RES Emergency Medical Response El Dorado Joint Power Authority (JPA) Rescue/Extrication RES Hazardous Materials County HAZMAT Water Supply RES Dispatch Contract w/ CAL FIRE Camino ECC Training RES and Shared Services Contract with EDH Fire Safety Education Shared Services Contract with EDH Arson Investigations Shared Services Contract with EDH Source: (LAFCO, 2020a) Structural Fire Protection Post-fire investigation and research indicates that flying embers cause most home ignitions during wildfires. Individual homeowners can protect their property from the financial risk associated with structural fire by purchasing homeowner’s insurance with fire coverage. Purchasing this homeowner’s insurance has gotten more difficult in recent years. For example, in the County of El Dorado, during the year 2016, over 1,000 homeowners lost access to their homeowner’s insurance policy due to non-renewal by insurance companies (California Department of Insurance, 2018). 13.5.2 Fire and Emergency Response The District maintains automatic aid agreements with all fire service agencies located in El Dorado County for fire suppression and emergency management services. Under this system, the District responds to close proximity calls within adjacent fire jurisdictions, as well as receives assistance from neighboring agencies when requested. This type of agreement ensures the best possible emergency service is delivered by the most efficient means possible. The District also participates in a mutual aid system that responds to requests for aid from throughout the County and State. Because of these agreements, all firefighters within each fire agency in the County must be prepared for any type of emergency in any setting at all times. Every fire agency within the United States is rated by an independent risk assessment and standards authority for the purposes of establishing insurance policy premiums for homeowners and businesses. Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-17 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final California uses an independent national company called the Insurance Services Office, or ISO, for this purpose. The Insurance Services Office evaluates four broad categories of fire suppression when establishing a Public Protection Classification (PPC). These categories include: 1) Fire Department; 2) Emergency Communications; 3) Water Supply; and 4) Community Risk Reduction. ISO routinely conducts assessments of each fire agency in the United States. The rating scale from best to worse is One (1) — Ten (10). There is a possible score of 105.5 points from the total of the four categories listed above. An agency needs a score of 90-105.5 to receive a PPC of Class 1. The Rescue Fire Protection District received an ISO rating of “04/4Y” (LAFCO, 2020a). Other details about the ISO rating for RES are listed below: • Class 4 = Properties within five road miles of a fire station and within 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant; • Class 4y = Properties within five road miles of a fire station but beyond 1,000 feet of a hydrant; • Class 10 = Properties beyond five road miles of a fire station; and • Class 10w = Properties within five to seven miles of a fire station with a recognized water supply within 1,000 feet (LAFCO, 2020a). The District’s last ISO rating was completed in January 1, 2019 (Chief Johnson, personal communication, November 2021). Emergency Medical Services RES is a member agency of the El Dorado County Emergency Services Authority (West Slope JPA) that was formed for the purpose of providing pre-hospital emergency medical service and emergency dispatch service for the West Slope of the County of El Dorado. RES does not operate an ambulance for the West Slope JPA; and therefore, does not receive funding from the JPA for ambulance service. However, the District is reimbursed for all authorized medical supplies. Ambulance services in the area can deliver patients to Marshall Hospital in Placerville or to other hospitals in the greater Sacramento region such as UC Davis, Dignity Health, and Sutter Health. RES and EDH are encouraging conversations among JPA agencies to consider whether ambulance service is sustainable in the County by studying the model in effect today such as analyzing how can it be improved, changed, and made more sustainable or efficient. Additionally, RE S and EDH have suggested that a fresh operational review, utilizing spatial data through ESRI’s business analyst software, could analyze data for a given call for time period for each apparatus. In addition, the creation of heat maps and further study of unit hour utilization have also been suggested (District Staff, personal communication, September 2020). Additional information regarding emergency medical services can be found in Volume II – Chapter 15, County Service Area (CSA) 3 and CSA 7 MSR. Calls for Service According to CAL FIRE Camino ECC dispatch, the District responded to 989 unique incidents in 2019. Those incidents translated to 1,520 calls for service that year. A call for service refers to any apparatus or vehicle for the agency which responded to a call, and each apparatus or vehicle is counted as one “call for service.” The data includes incidents occurring both within and outside of the District’s jurisdiction that RES resources responded to. For more information on how consultants analyzed the dispatch data, refer to Volume II - Chapter 1. From 2010 to 2019, 2019 represents the busiest year for the District. On average, Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-18 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final RES receives approximately 1,179 calls for service per year (or 23 calls per week) (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). A breakdown of calls for service from 2010 to 2019 can be seen in Figure 13-3 below. Figure 13-3: RES Calls for Service from 2010-2019 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 From 2010 to 2019, calls for service have continued to trend steadily upward. There were 891 calls for service in 2010, representing the lowest number of calls. Call numbers have increased by 71 percent since 2010 with 10 percent increases occurring in years 2011, 2014, and 2016 when compared to the previous year. The majority of the calls in 2019 were for medical at 527 incidents (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). A break down in incident types for 2019 can be seen in Figure 13-4 below. Figure 13-4: RES Incidents by Type, 2019 11% 10% Assistance 7% 17% Fire Hazard Medical 2% Other Traffic Collision 53% The “Other” incident type includes mutual or automatic aid engine coverage for other fire agencies, aircraft down, arson, investigations, medical transfers, rescues, extractions, miscellaneous, radio and phone system failures, staffing pattern, call transfers, as well as other similar service types. The “Assistance” incident type includes public agency work such as demonstrations, assisting with a water Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-19 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final leak, assisting with an animal, assisting with an alarm or lockout, elevator rescue, physically assisting in lifting a person, and assisting with search and rescue (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). More information on incident categories can be found in Volume II - Chapter 1. Response Time El Dorado County’s General Plan (2004 as amended through 2019) Public Services and Utilities Element has several policies related to goals for average response time for new development as described in Volume II - Chapter 1. Consultants do not have the capability to break response time data out by County of El Dorado defined Community Region, Rural Center, or Rural Region standards (LAFCO, 2020a). In the year 2019, the District’s average response time was 8 minutes 45 seconds based on available data from CAL FIRE Camino Dispatch and calculated by the consultants. The response time data does not cover Interfacility Transfers (IFT), auto/mutual aid, and strike team/overhead (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Table 13-8: Average Response Times for CAM from 2010 to 2019 Average Response Time Year (Hr : Min : Sec) 2010 0:07:54 2011 0:08:08 2012 0:11:39 2013 0:12:05 2014 0:09:11 2015 0:08:55 2016 0:09:17 2017 0:09:52 2018 0:08:59 2019 0:08:45 Source: CAL FIRE Camino ECC Dispatch Data The District’s average response time appears to meet County response time goals for new discretionary projects in Rural Centers and Rural Regions. RES staff noted that given the current dispatch system, there is no accurate way to calculate true response times. Generally, the response time will depend on the call locations proximity to the District fire station (LAFCO, 2020a). Other Industry Standards In general, other industry standards applicable to the RES are established by the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA), the Insurance Services Office, Cal OSHA, and other CAM ordinances. All of these agencies, as well as many others, directly and/or indirectly affect the type of services, the quality and development of those services, expansion, reliability, facility design, and construction and environmental issues that the District provides. Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-20 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Forest Fuel Treatment Forest fuel treatment baseline information is described in Chapter 3, Introduction, and this issue typically relates to wildland fires, rather than the structural fires which are the focus of RES. However, within the RES’s boundaries there are multiple privately owned parcels which contain native vegetation (FSC-EDC, 2016). Although the RES is not directly responsible for forest fuel treatments, a community approach to safety that considers house-to-house transmission, structural safety, and forest fuel treatments is important. However, the Rescue community does not seem to be part of a local fire safe council and therefore may miss out on opportunities to enhance fire prevention activities. RES’s website includes information to educate homeowners regarding fire safety and prevention consistent with the El Dorado County General Plan Objective 6.2.5. 13.5.3 Mutual Aid, Automatic Aid, Other Agreements Mutual Aid The Rescue Fire Protection District provides resources under two separate Mutual Aid Agreements: 1) California Fire Assistance Agreement (CFAA), and 2) California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement. These agreements allow for giving and receiving of emergency resources (LAFCO, 2020a). Ideally, agreements for mutual aid or any other appropriate agreement (i.e., Revenue Sharing Agreement) are periodically reviewed to ensure fiscal neutrality. The District annually (each spring) review the California Fire Assistance Agreement (CFAA). The CFAA is the negotiated reimbursement mechanism for local government fire agency responses through the California Fire Service and Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid System. The District also updates the Salary Survey for the CFFA and monitors the terms and conditions. The RES Staff reviews all other mutual aid agreements annually. Automatic Aid The Rescue Fire Protection District maintains automatic aid, boundary drop, and closest resource agreements with all fire protection providers operating in the County of El Dorado including the U.S. Forest Service and CAL FIRE. Any resource provided by RES is available under these agreements (LAFCO, 2020a). RES Staff reviews all automatic aid agreements annually. According to the EDH Fire Chief, the local agreement with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has expired and the USFS will not renew the agreement despite multiple attempts by El Dorado Hills Fire Department (Chief Johnson, personal communication, November 2021). Consultants verified with CAL FIRE Camino ECC that USFS is still active in the Countywide automatic aid system, although there are some instances where they will not respond to incident due to capabilities or policies (Chief Newman, personal communication, November 2021). Through the current automatic aid 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. For this MSR/SOI Update, LAFCO requested an analysis of automatic aid provided to and received from each agency that provided and/or received aid. Consultants received a breakdown in automatic aid data directly from CAL FIRE Camino ECC dispatch in order to provide the following analysis. According to CAL Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-21 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final FIRE, this data shows who the first responder to the call was within another agency’s service area boundary. In the context of this analysis, automatic aid specifically refers to instances where an agency was first responder to a call within another agency’s jurisdictional boundary. CAL FIRE is a statewide organization that operates throughout the County of El Dorado. CAL FIRE ‘s jurisdiction encompasses all the State Responsibility areas within the County (unincorporated areas of private lands excluding the national forests) for wildland fires, essentially overlapping the jurisdictions of the local fire agencies. As mentioned previously, CAL FIRE operates within the County under the same automatic aid system as the other local fire agencies. As a result of CAL FIRE’s expansive service area in El Dorado County, the agency responds to a significant number of calls for service throughout the County for the local fire agencies. CAL FIRE automatic aid for each local fire agency is included in the following analysis because CAL FIRE operates within the automatic aid system and was first responder to calls for all of the local fire agencies in the study year 2019. It is important to note that the automatic aid data that was analyzed only included the first responder data and did not include the local fire agencies responses to statewide fires managed by CAL FIRE. Thus, it is not surprising that almost none of the agencies were first responders to CAL FIRE calls aiding CAL FIRE; which are handled through the assignment of strike teams by CAL FIRE. In 2019, the County of El Dorado experienced 151 wildland fires with a total of 266 acres burned (CAL FIRE, 2019). Only three local agencies provided first response aid to one of those incidents for CAL FIRE in 2019. It should be noted that a response by an agency resource to another agencies jurisdiction for a wildland fire could be considered automatic aid to both the fire agency and CAL FIRE. More information on the State Responsibility Areas can be found in Section 13.5.6. Information about CAL FIRE operations in the County can be found in Volume I - Appendix D. Through consultation with the ad hoc Fire Chiefs MSR group and LAFCO, consultants agreed to exclude the CAL FIRE automatic aid numbers from Table 13-9 below, due to the reasons stated above. However, the study cannot ignore the CAL FIRE automatic aid data as part of the contextual analysis. Doing so would make it appear that local agencies received less aid than they actually did in 2019 and paint an inaccurate picture of the amount of aid received and provided between fire agencies operating in the County in 2019. Thus, the following analysis and determinations include CAL FIRE aid in the contextual details while removing the numbers from Table 13-9 below. CAL FIRE automatic aid numbers are described countywide in greater detail in Volume I - Appendix D. RES received automatic aid 423 times and provided automatic aid 476 times in 2019. Table 13-9 below shows the individual agencies that provided aid to RES and those that received aid from RES in 2019, excluding CAL FIRE. The CAL FIRE Amador-El Dorado Unit provided automatic aid to RES 62 times in 2019 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Table 13-9: Aid Provided and Received from/to RES, 2019 Agency Providing/Receiving Amount of Aid Provided Amount of Aid Aid to/from RES to RES Received from RES CAM 167 130 DSP 3 134 ECF 58 139 EDH 192 55 GEO 1 2 Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-22 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Agency Providing/Receiving Amount of Aid Provided Amount of Aid Aid to/from RES to RES Received from RES GRV 0 15 MQT 0 1 PIO 1 0 Other Agencies2 1 0 Total 423 476 Source: Camino Dispatch Data, 2020 2Other Agencies include the fire department for the City of Ione. The CAL FIRE – Amador-El Dorado Unit aid provided to RES is described in Volume I - Appendix D. The RES received a similar amount of aid that it provided for 2019 suggesting that automatic aid for the District is balanced. The District received the majority of aid from EDH at about 45 percent of all aid received followed by CAM at 40 percent. The aid received from EDH is part of the Shared Services Agreement between the two Districts as described below. RES provided the most aid to ECF at 139 times followed closely by DSP at 134 times and CAM at 130 times (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). 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. A more detailed analysis of automatic aid is needed to determine the reasoning for variation in aid received versus provided for RES and other fire agencies in the County, factoring in the location of calls in relation to available resources for each agency. Of all of the calls for service in 2019, the District required aid for 32 percent of all calls when adding in CAL FIRE. With CAL FIRE aid removed, the District required aid for 28 percent of all calls in 2019 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). When reviewing automatic aid data, the District appears to be able to provide service to the communities within its boundaries and has capacity to assist neighboring agencies in providing those services due to the Shared Services Agreement with EDH. Joint Powers Authorities Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs) are joint decision-making efforts in which the District participates regarding fire protection or emergency services. The Rescue Fire Department is a member of the El Dorado County Emergency Services Authority (LAFCO, 2020a). Shared Services Agreement with EDH The Rescue Fire Protection District and El Dorado Hills Fire Department have maintained a Shared Services Agreement for over seven years. This agreement has evolved from a regular shared services relationship into an enhanced relationship where the EDH manages all aspects of the Rescue Fire Protection District. Separate governing Boards and separate finances are maintained by each respective District. The El Dorado Hills Fire Department provides operational oversight including a 24-hour Chief Officer response, Chief Financial Officer, Director of Human Resources, Training, and Fire Marshall. The Fire Chief of EDH also serves as the Fire Chief of RES. Both Districts are staffed separately, however fire engines regularly move between Districts to cover for training and emergency incidents (LAFCO, 2020a). Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-23 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 13.5.4 Dispatch Fire and emergency medical dispatching is through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the multiagency CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center (ECC), providing a single dispatch system for the entire Western Slope of the County. Additional details on County wide dispatch can be found in Volume I - Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. 13.5.5 Emergency Access Major access corridors within RES include Green Valley Road, Deer Valley Road, Lotus Road, Starbuck Road, Springvale Road, Luneman Road, and Kanaka Road. Other important roadways include Bass Lake Road, Ponderosa Road, Gold Hill Road, and North Shingle Road. The RES's boundary area does include ingress and egress challenges identified in the County's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. For example, access to Penny Lane, Fox Hollow Lane, or similar small sized streets can sometimes limited due to fallen trees, debris, or other blockages. District staff works with community stakeholders to remediate these ingress/egress issues as they are identified. However, an emergency access plan was not provided. More information on County wide roadway maintenance operations can be found in Volume I - Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. 13.5.6 Fire Hazard Zones The Fire Hazard Severity Zones, Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), and Community Risk Fire Map in which CAL FIRE categorizes spatial areas into different risk areas are described in Volume II – Chapter 1, Fire Agency MSR General Information. Areas of land within the District boundary are considered “Local Responsibility Area” (LRA), “State Responsibility Area” (SRA), and “Federal Responsibility Area” (FRA) for fire protection services. Areas are also identified from High to Very High fire hazard risk as seen in Table 13-10. See Figure 13-5 for a map of those areas on the next page and a breakdown in acreage for responsibility areas in Table 13-11. Table 13-10: RES Fire Hazard Severity Zone Acreage and Percentage Acreage in Very High % in Very High Acreage in High % in High Fire Total % in Very High Fire Risk Fire Risk Risk and High Fire Risk 1,510 7.1% 1,414 6.6% 13.7% Source: County GIS Data, 2020 derived from CalFire data Within the RES’s boundaries, approximately 1,510 acres are in Fire Hazard Severity zone “Very High” and 1,414 acres are in “High” based on GIS data provided by CAL FIRE Table 13-10 above. The rest of the District is located in a “Moderate” Fire Risk Zone. See Figure 13-5 for a map of those areas. CAL FIRE has mapped the WUI in El Dorado County and the RES is located within an identified WUI. Table 13-11 below shows acreages of land within the District boundary designated as LRA, SRA, and FRA. Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-24 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 13-5: Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Responsibility Areas for RES Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-25 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 13-11: RES Local, State and Federal Responsibility Area Acreage and Percentage Boundary Only (in acres) SOI Only (by itself) (in acres) LRA SRA FRA LRA SRA FRA 50 19,968 1,374 0.2 1,674 2,351 Source: GIS data from CAL FIRE Approximately 93 percent of the District boundary is within a State Responsibility Area (SRA) with CAL FIRE as the primary wildland fire response agency. CAL FIRE is legally and financially responsible to provide fire protection in all State Responsibility Areas. Approximately six percent is within a designated Federal Responsibility Area. Areas under the FRA are managed by a federal agency, such as the U.S. Forest Service. A very small amount of the District is located within a Local Responsibility Area, meaning that the District has fire protection responsibility for those 50 acres. 13.5.7 Infrastructure The Rescue Fire Protection District maintains infrastructure to support its fire protection services. This infrastructure includes fire stations, fire hydrants, fire apparatus and other vehicles, water hoses, and other equipment. RES has a total of two fire stations and the District owns both the land and associated buildings. The primary station (Station No. 83) is staffed 24 hours per day, 7 days per week (24/7/365) and Station No. 81 is not staffed (RES, 2020a). A list of fire stations is provided in Table 13-12, below. Table 13-12: RES Fire Stations Detail Station No. Address Staffing 1722 Lotus Road, 81 None Placerville Main Station, 5221 Deer Valley 83 24/7/365 Road, Rescue Source: LAFCO, 2020a Station No. 81 was constructed in 1989. This fire station is primarily used to store back-up equipment and offers a place for small maintenance procedures. Station 81 has living quarters and allows the ability for the District to staff additional apparatus using volunteers if needed (RES, 2019a). A Facility Assessment prepared in 2019 found that Station No. 81 needed both minor and major repairs and upgrades. The minor items include repainting and clearing away clutter. The major repairs and upgrades include improvements to HVAC, Exhaust Removal System, stair repair, and the power generator (EDH, 2019b). Station No. 83 is the main station for the District and was built in 1977 of concrete block construction. The station houses the first out staffed engine company. The District has identified the need for significant upgrades to Station No. 83 to bring up to modern standards and provide for future development demands. Changes to the station, such as an upgraded bay door, exterior painting of the building, etc. would be included in the remodel (RES, 2019a). The aim is to remodel the interior of Station No. 83 to improve functional space to support program needs and address health and safety issues as well as building code Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-26 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final compliance items. Interior improvements may potentially include the following (if existing conditions and budget allow): • Expand kitchen and dining while also adding a door to close off the Apparatus Bay; • Enclose room for turnouts and add extractor; • Replace Apparatus Bay doors with coiling rollups; • Reconfigure single group bunk room into individual bunk rooms, (3) minimum; • Reconfigure stair and walkway; • Fire pole will be considered if space is limited to accommodate improvements; • Add a second crew bathroom with shower; • Reconfigure two first floor bathrooms to larger bathroom and separate water heater/mop sink room; • Install automatic fire sprinkler system; and • Address all building codes and county codes. The most recent Board minutes available for the November 10, 2020 Board meeting identifies the Buildings and Grounds Committee has tasked staff to work with a couple of different architects to solicit bids for the project. Station No. 83 contains additional buildings at this location which are the Rose Springs Literary Society (RSLS) and U.S. Post Office building. Both buildings are owned by the Rescue Fire Protection District (LAFCO, 2020a). Lands The Rescue Fire Department owns four parcels as shown in Table 13-13, below. Two of the parcels are vacant and identified for future Fire Station locations. They are both located along Green Valley Road and they are referred to as Parcel No. 102-220-05-100 and No. 102-220-14-100 (LAFCO, 2020a). Table 13-13: RES Land Owned FY 2018/2019 Parcel No. Address Acreage Use 102-220-05-100 Green Valley Road, Rescue 1.21 Vacant Residential Land 069-150-01-100 5221 Deer Valley Road, Rescue 1.14 Improved Commercial Land 102-220-14-100 2395 Green Valley Road, Rescue 1.36 Vacant Residential Land 105-290-46-100 1722 Lotus Road, Placerville 0.58 Public Utility Source: LAFCO, 2020a Equipment and Apparatus Rescue Fire Protection District generally operates one fire engine out of Station No. 83 on a daily basis and this engine serves the entire District. In addition to its primary fire engine, RES maintains other firefighting and emergency management apparatus and vehicles from Station No. 83. Table 13-14 lists an inventory of the District apparatus. Type 1 Engines are used for structure fires, and Type 3 Engines are used for wildland fires (RES, 2019a). Daily apparatus checks are completed the morning of the first shift change by the Engineer and if available, an intern Firefighter, to ensure each unit is safe for response. After Unit No. 8370 underwent major engine failure in 2019, RES made the purchase of Engine No. 8371. Engine No. 8371 was a former OES Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-27 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final engine that has been transformed into RES as the new first out Type 1 Engine for the District. Engine No. 8360 is a Type 3 engine and was staffed during the process of getting a new Type 1 Engine. RES is also looking into selling old apparatus that is stored at volunteer Station No. 81 (RES, 2019a). Table 13-14: Apparatus and Light Vehicles, 2020 Water Capacity Equipment Type Identifier Year Make/Model (gallons) Type 3 E-383 2007 Pierce 542 Type 3 E-381 1999 Westmark/Hale (Reserve) 550 Support Water Tender (Type 2) WT-83 1995 Hi-Tech 3000 Type 1 E-83 2001 HME 800 Utility Vehicle U-83 2007 Chevy/Vortex N/A Source: RES, 2019a RES provided consultants with an Apparatus Replacement Schedule as of July 1, 2020. Table 13-15 shows the age, cost to replace, anticipated fiscal year to replace and annual savings per year required in order to replace each apparatus and vehicle identified. RES will need to save $427,479 to replace all apparatus and vehicles by FY 2028/2029 (RES, 2020b). Table 13-15: Apparatus and Light Vehicles Replacement Schedule Annual Years Cost to FY to Identifier Savings/Yr Comments/Feedback Old Replace Replace Required E-383 13 $500,000 2026/2027 $71,428.57 Good condition, 7 years left online E-381 20 $0 2024/2025 $0 Good as a reserve, new motor <2000 miles WT-83 24 $500,000 2024/2025 $100,000 Keep for additional 5 years at least E-83 20 $750,000 2024/2025 $250,000 5 year reserve engine U-83 11 $60,000 2028/2029 $6,000 Good condition Total Annual Savings $427,479 (required to maintain schedule) Source: RES, 2020b Addendum – New Information from RES RES Staff informed consultants that the following apparatus have been sold or donated: • Type 1 Engine (2007) • Type 1 Engine (1987) • Type 6 Engine (1984) (Chief Johnson, personal communication, November 2021). These apparatus have been removed from the Table 13-14 above. Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-28 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Water and Hydrants In RES, water service is provided by the El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) which provides piped water to the southeastern portion of the District. More than 200 fire hydrants are used and maintained by EID, in conjunction with RES. RES reports that since every hydrant is different, given its location in the system, it is difficult to estimate the capacity of each hydrant. Generally, where hydrants exist, they are sufficient for fire protection (LAFCO, 2020a). The limited spatial distribution of the fire hydrants can affect the District’s ISO rating. Also, the majority of the District relies on rural, privately owned water tanks and wells for water supply (LAFCO, 2020a). In the past, there was a 60,000-gallon water tank with enough pressure to supply one fire hydrant located at Calle De Vino and Fria Springs Roads. This tank and hydrant are checked by District personnel annually. The tank is full and the hydrant is functional (Chief Johnson, personal communication, November 2021). Water can also be obtained from local, natural, or neighborhood sources such as rivers, lakes, ponds and/or swimming pools. For example, RES maintains a water draft site at Winchester Drive to access a pond and a second drafting location to access water from the South Fork of the American River. The District’s fire engines also contain water storage. Overall, the provision of water sufficient for fire flows to all areas of the RES is an issue that needs further study (District Staff, personal communication, September 2020). 13.5.8 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies As previously noted, both Station No. 81 and Station No. 83 require upgrades and remodeling. Specifically, Station No. 83 needs significant upgrades to comply with modern day standards and provide for future development demands. For apparatus, the front-line fire engine for the District was lost to a fire last year and a temporary replacement is in service. EDH prepared a 24-page Facility and Fleet Assessment for the RES on May 2, 2019. This Assessment found that funding will need to be identified to replace the District’s aging fleet of fire apparatus (LAFCO, 2020a and EDH, 2019b). Challenges Fire districts in California often face regulatory issues, infrastructure, equipment, or other challenges. The Rescue Fire Protection District like many smaller districts have significant financial issues that will threaten its solvency in the future. The Shared Services Agreement with the El Dorado Hills Fire Department has helped shore up administrative and operational gaps at RES, however, a long term and permanent solution must be sought. The District does not have the available financial resources to fund an effective capital replacement program or sufficiently staff its stations to service a growing residential community. The District responds to over 1,000 calls for service annually and based on historic factors, the number of calls is anticipated to continue to grow as the community continues to develop (LAFCO, 2020a). Overall, the MSR consultants concur with EDH in the recommendation that RES should continue to pursue a full annexation into the El Dorado Hills Fire Department (LAFCO, 2020a). Additionally, it is noted that funding is a concern. One option to address funding gaps would be for the County of El Dorado to consider supporting funding for those districts willing to consolidate in an effort to become more efficient and deliver a higher level of service (LAFCO, 2020a). Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-29 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 13.5.9 Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing Over the past several years, RES has taken specific actions to save money, lower expenses, and improve services at the same costs. For example, the District entered into a Shared Services Agreement with the El Dorado Hills Fire Department. This Agreement allowed RES to access the infrastructure and staffing support of EDH. Today, RES receives the following services as part of this 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, but has not provided for a more efficient service in that two separate systems must still be maintained. A full annexation would eliminate this duplication, creating more efficiency. The Rescue Professional Firefighters’ Association has also agreed to a contract extension with no raises in an effort to assist with the impact on the budget (LAFCO, 2020a). This Shared Services Agreement was extended in 2019 for five additional years, at which time the decision to continue will be reevaluated. Jurisdictional Reorganization Given the financial constraints facing RES, it is important for the District to consider functional or structural reorganizations that may benefit local taxpayers or improve the provision of fire protection services locally. The RES is in the process of exploring annexation into EDH. 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). At the time of this document being submitted, both Boards have authorized the Fire Chief to file a Notice of Intent with LAFCO. A full annexation into the El Dorado Hills Fire Department will stabilize and increase the level of service within the Rescue Community. This annexation will also add capability and depth of resources (LAFCO, 2020a). 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: 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. Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-30 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 13.6 Financial Ability to Provide Services This section provides an overview of the financial health of the Rescue Fire Protection District (RES or District) and a context for LAFCO’s financial determinations. The audited financial statements from the District for the fiscal years (FY) 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 are the primary source of all information for this section. The Preliminary and Final Budgets for the FY 2019/2020 and FY 2020/2021 are also used in order to provide the most recent context to the analysis. In California, special districts are classified as either enterprise or non-enterprise based on their source of revenue. The RES generally operates as a non- enterprise district, collecting and utilizing property tax revenue to fund fire and emergency services (RES, 2018; RES, 2019a; RES, 2019b; RES, 2019c; RES, 2020a). 13.6.1 Financial Policies & Transparency The RES Investment Policy No. 100-032 establishes how the District invests all financial assets of the District; and the Bids and Contracts Policy No. 100-014 provides for purchasing procedures (RES, 2007a; RES, 2007b). However, no primary policy document was provided to the consultants that describes the rules for the District’s business operations including budget and financial policies. The District adopts a one-year budget and conducts a six-month review to determine any changes that might be needed. The FY 2020/2021 Final Budget was adopted by the Board of Directors on Sept. 9, 2020. The District publishes audited financial statements every fiscal year. California Government Code and District policy require an annual independent audit of the District’s financial records by a certified public accountant. The independent audits for FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 were performed by Robert W. Johnson, an accountancy corporation. The auditors determine whether the District’s financial statements are presented in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). The Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is responsible for establishing GAAP for state and local governments through its statements and interpretations. The District uses the accrual basis of accounting, where revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recorded when liabilities are incurred. The FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 auditor reports indicated that the District has not presented Management’s Discussion and Analysis, or budgetary comparison information. Based on accounting principles generally accepted, this information is required to be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the GASB who consider it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context (RES, 2018; RES, 2019a; RES, 2019b; RES, 2019c; RES, 2020a). 13.6.2 District Revenues and Expenditures The District’s largest recurring revenue source is property taxes in FY 2018/2019. Salaries & Benefits represent the Districts largest expense. A breakdown in revenues and expenditures for the District can be seen in Figure 13-6. A breakdown of revenues and expenditures is also available in table format in Volume II - Appendix A, Financial Tables by Agency. Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-31 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 13-6: RES Total Revenues and Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-32 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Revenues As mentioned previously, the District’s largest recurring revenue source is property taxes. The second largest recurring revenue source is a Fire/EMS Special Tax (Election of June 5, 1990, Measure L) which adds $50 per parcel per year for 24 hour Paid Firefighter Protection; and a Fire Suppression Assessment (Public Hearing on July 28, 2004) which adds $102.10 per improved parcel and $7.41 per acre for unimproved parcels in FY 2021/2022. This Assessment passed with 53 percent of residents voting yes and 47 percent voting no. These recurring revenue sources, Property Taxes; Fire/EMS Special Tax; and the Fire Suppression Assessment, have increased by 2.96% percent between FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019. The special tax is fixed and does not escalate; however, the benefit assessment can escalate by up to 2% per year at the discretion of the Board of Directors. Property taxes and revenue from the special tax and assessment have steadily increased year over year since a 10-year low in FY 2011/2012 due to the annual two percent increase in ad valorum taxes and new development in the District. The District’s main sources of revenue are used to obtain, furnish, operate, and maintain fire suppression services and apparatus and to pay the cost of firefighting personnel. This is accomplished through a Shared Services Agreement between RES and the El Dorado Hills County Water District (EDH). The Shared Services Agreement includes joint leadership of the EDH Fire Chief, Deputy Chiefs, and Battalion Chiefs, as well as the joint assistance for the Community Risk Reduction and Training Divisions from EDH for RES. RES pays EDH $75,000 Annually for services provided under the Shared Services Agreement. EDH also employs temporary admin support that is reimbursed through a pass through to RES. The Agreement was extended in 2019 for five additional years (RES, 2019e). Other revenues, not including Property Taxes, the special tax, and assessment, are rather low. In FY 2017/2018 other revenues made up just 15.4 percent of total revenues and 13 percent in FY 2018/2019. The District forecasts “other” revenues to continue to stay low, budgeting just 5 percent in additional revenue from other sources in FY 2019/2020 and 10 percent in FY 2020/2021. The District’s property tax revenue is expected to increase by 6.3 percent for FY 2019/2020. Property tax revenue for the District has increased an average of 5.2 percent per year over the past five years and 2.65 percent per year over the past 10 years. Permits issued in 2019 for residential development added approximately $7.15 million in assessed value to the District, with the District billing for a total of $56,920 in development impact fee revenue during the 2019 calendar year (RES, 2019d). Expenditures As seen in Figure 13-6, Salaries & Benefits represent the Districts largest expense, accounting for between 88 percent and 84 percent of the Budget since FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019. Per the FY 2019/2020 Final budget, Salaries & Benefits are expected to lower to 82 percent of expenditures and decrease by $159,221 when compared to FY 2018/2019. The District is currently staffed at (2-0) staffing model, meaning there are two firefighters for every engine. The National Fire Protection Agency recommends (4- 0) staffing, meaning there are four firefighters per engine on shift. The minimum standard for this MSR/SOI Update is (3-0) staffing, meaning there are three firefighters per engine on shift. The Shared Services Agreement with EDH includes joint leadership of the Fire Chief, Deputy Chiefs, and Battalion Chiefs, as well as support from the Fire Marshall, Training Officer, and support staff of EDH. The District is a signatory to the West Slope JPA for emergency medical services but does not qualify for Emergency Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-33 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Services Authority Funding for emergency medical positions because the District does not provide ambulance service. The District used 6 volunteer firefighters in 2020. The Rescue Volunteer Fire Department (RVFA) has played a vital role in the Rescue community and EDH plans to continue supporting and involving the RVFA in community and Department events (LAFCO, 2020a). The Services, Supplies, and Refund's category is a collection of all other expense categories listed on the District’s Financial Audited Statements. The largest expenses in each respective year (FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019) was the District’s Maintenance expenditures which accounted for $68,894 in FY 2018/2019. The second largest expenditure in the FY 2018/2019 was for “Fixed Assets'' which accounted for $40,000 and was used to purchase a Fire Engine. This expense was an expense that was budgeted for. RES purchased a Type 1 Engine from CA OES through the State Assistance for Fire Equipment Act (SAFE Act) Program. This apparatus was totaled due to damage sustained by reoccurring motor fires and was sold (Chief Johnson, personal communication, November 2021). Overall, expenditures for the District have remained relatively consistent year over year, with a spike in FY 2016/2017 due to large grant expenditures that were offset by grant revenue. Salaries and Benefits, amounting to approximately 82 percent of projected total expenses in fiscal year 2019/2020, have decreased steadily since fiscal year 2016/2017. This steady decrease is mostly attributed to the Shared Services Agreement with EDH, which has allowed RES to save money by not filling the vacant Fire Chief position (RES, 2019d). Revenues (Over/Under) Expenditures Revenues (Over/Under) expenditures can be seen in Figure 13-7 below. The District has two consecutive years of Revenue over Expenditures. It is estimated that for FY 2019/2020 and FY 2020/2021 this trend may continue based on proper management of Revenues in alignment with Expenditures. Figure 13-7: RES Net Revenues Over/Under Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 The Districts revenues have exceeded expenditures by $72,400 in FY 2017/2018 and $25,081 in FY 2018/2019. The District anticipates the final budget for FY 2019/2020 will show revenues exceeding expenditures by $125,072, with fund balances projected to increase by another $125,072 by the end of Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-34 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final FY 2019/2020 as a result of savings from the vacant Fire Chief position (RES, 2019e). This appears to be driven based on an anticipated reduction in Salaries & Benefits of $138,615 or 10 percent. The District preliminary FY 2020/2021 budget nets to zero. 13.6.3 District Assets and Liabilities District Assets On June 30, 2019, the District had $2.4 million in Assets and Deferred Outflows as shown in Figure 13-8. Fifty seven percent of the District’s Assets are based on a strong Cash Position. This is a decrease of $108,014, or 4 percent from the previous year, FY 2017/2018. This slight decrease between FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 was driven by an increase in the District’s pension related deferred outflows. Figure 13-8: District Assets as of June 30, 2019 The District uses reserve balances to fund some future expenditures. The Board has allocated funds specifically for Other Post-Employment Benefit (OPEB) liabilities and capital replacements. The District also has a restricted Development Fee Fund, which can only be used for qualifying capital expenditures as needed as a result of District growth. Undesignated funds are used to supplement ongoing District operations when needed (RES, 2019d). Liabilities and Debt The majority (or $3.7 million of the approximately $4 million) of the District’s long-term liabilities consist of the Net Pension and OPEB Liabilities. The District does not have any other outstanding debt in the form of loans or financing. District liabilities and debts as of June 30, 2019 are shown in Figure 13-9 below. Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-35 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 13-9: District Liabilities and Debt as of June 30, 2019 13.6.4 Net Position The Statement of Net Position provided in Figure 13-10 includes a summary of the District’s assets, deferred outflows of resources, liabilities, and deferred inflows of resources, which provide information about the nature, and amounts of investments in assets and obligations to District creditors. It also provides the basis for computing rates of return, evaluating the capital structure of the District, and assessing financial flexibility of the District. Figure 13-10: District Net Position as of June 30, 2019 As of June 30, 2019, the District was operating at a net deficit position of about $1.6 million. This is an increase in the deficit by 15 percent from June 30, 2018 when the net position was about $1.4 million. The primary driver of the large deficit for the District is due to the Net Pension and OPEB liabilities of $3.7 million. 13.6.5 Asset Maintenance and Replacement The District continues efforts to renovate aging equipment and facilities as funds become available. The District relies on reserve funds for apparatus replacement needs. As of June 30, 2019, the Designated Future Capital Replacement Fund Reserve had $78,978 available for apparatus replacement. The District has no debt and has not entered into any lease agreements. The District’s Station No. 83 needs upgrades and modernization to meet current-day regulations and provide for a higher level of employee safety. EDH is committed to ensuring that these modifications occur in a timely manner if RES is annexed into EDH. In addition, EDH intends on staffing Rescue Fire Protection District Station No. 81 during periods of increased wildland fire potential. As mentioned in Section 13.5.8, Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-36 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final the District has an Apparatus and Replacement Schedule provided to the consultants, last updated in July of 2020 that outlines a replacement schedule for the District’s vehicles over the next 3-10 years (RES, 2020b). 13.6.6 Cost Avoidance EDH and RES have maintained the previously mentioned Shared Services Agreement for over seven years. The current Agreement was entered into in January of 2020 in which EDH agreed to provide the following services to RES: ● Interim Fire Chief services; ● Administrative support services; ● 24/7/365 Chief Officer coverage through the on-duty Battalion Chief, including daily operational support; ● Training services; ● Fire Prevention/Community Risk Reduction services; ● Human resources support; ● Serve as JPA Representative and County Operations Representative; and ● Attend monthly and Special Board meetings and provide support to the RES Board of Directors Under this Agreement, RES agrees to provide $75,000 per year to EDH for these services from FY 2020/2021 to FY 2023/2024. The combined operation of RES and EDH is designed to maximize available resources resulting in service enhancements for RES. This agreement has also allowed RES to reduce expenses, such as utilizing the Fire Chief for EDH, instead of hiring a new Fire Chief for RES (RES, 2019e). 13.6.7 Financial Summary and Ability to Provide Services Based on the data presented above, the District is able to provide limited service to the residents of RES. Currently the District operates at a 2-0 staffing model, meaning there are two personnel for every engine. The Rescue Fire Protection District's long-term fiscal sustainability remains a challenge. The District 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 unfunded. The District does have a minimum of 50 percent total operating expense in the general fund as of June 30, 2019. Annexation of the District to the El Dorado Hills Fire Department would formalize the shared operations between EDH and RES into a single agency and help realize the vision for annexations and consolidations among fire agencies as a strategy to ensure adequate community protection and long-term financial sustainability. Alternative Financing The Shared Services Agreement with EDH works to maximize financial opportunities and reduce overhead costs. The District has reached the peak of finding alternative ways to meet their needs and the next step would be annexation into the EDH. RES is currently working on establishing a Community Facilities District (CFD) to help increase staffing in response to current and future development. The District also continuously looks for grant opportunities Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-37 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final and has recently applied for the SAFER grant, which would fund 3 positions for 3 years (Chief Johnson, personal communication, November 2021). Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-38 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 13.7 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 the Rescue Fire Protection District 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. Scoring for the determinations in Table 13-16 below are as follows: ▲ ● ▼ ◆ Above Average (compared to similar Districts), Average, Below Average, Statement of Fact (not rated). Table 13-16: Summary of MSR Determinations for the RES Indicator Score Determination Population and Growth The Rescue Fire Protection District’s (RES) approximately 21,385-acre boundary area is located in unincorporated County of El Dorado and serves ◆ Existing Boundary. the rural unincorporated community of Rescue, including the areas of Kanaka Valley, Gold Hill, Luneman, Jergens, Arrowbee, and Starbuck Road. RES serves approximately 2,500 homes and other structures. The District’s SOI was last affirmed in the 2011 MSR/SOI for the District. In ◆ Existing Sphere of Influence addition to the approximately 21,385-acre boundary area, the District’s SOI covers approximately 4,025 acres for a total of approximately 25,410 acres. The RES does occasionally provide extra-territorial services outside of its District boundary. The District provides services to two designated SOI Extra-territorial Services the District provides as described in ◆ areas. This situation can be remedied by utilizing Section 65133(b) of the Government Code Section 56134. CKH Act. This section allows a special district to provide services outside its boundary, but within its SOI and in anticipation of a later change of organization. By the year 2040, it is estimated that RES’s existing boundary will ◆ encompass a population of 5,233 persons. This represents a projected Projected population in years 2020 through 2040. average annual growth rate of 0.37 percent between the years 2020 and 2040. Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-39 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination Currently, the District’s boundary area supports an average of 0.22 persons per acre which is considered to be very low population density. The County General Plan suggests that growth may occur in those areas of the RES District boundaries contain sufficient land area to accommodate ◆ boundary near major roads and near existing development. The analysis projected growth. described in this MSR suggests that the RES has sufficient land area to accommodate projected growth. However, it might not have adequate capacity to provide fire and emergency services that accommodate new population growth. Government Structure and Accountability RES’s elected Board members submit required forms and generally receive required trainings as prescribed by the three state laws regarding Do elected Board members submit required forms and receive accountability and ethics including: 1) the Political Reform Act; 2) Assembly required trainings as prescribed by the three state laws regarding Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005) which requires ethics training; and 3) Government accountability and ethics including: Code 53237 et. seq. ▼ (1) RES has an adopted Conflict of Interest Policy No. 100-029 which is (1) the Political Reform Act; reviewed regularly. RES Board members have filed the required (2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005); and Statement of Economic Interest with the County. (3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. (2) The Board is in compliance with AB 1234. (3) The Board is partially in compliance with GC 53237 et. seq. Only one Board member has completed the required training. RES along with all the fire protection districts in El Dorado County have recently been the subject of a grand jury report, Case No. 19-06. The issues Involved in current litigation and/or has the District been the subject ▼ raised in the grand jury report remain valid. Changes to the governmental of a recent grand jury inquiry. structure of some fire protection districts are needed to address these issues. The District’s website does provide information to homeowners regarding fire safety and prevention consistent with General Plan Objective 6.2.5. Does the District work to inform and educate homeowners regarding ● Specifically, the website provides information regarding defensible space, fire safety and prevention consistent with General Plan Objective vegetation management, and links to the fire safe council. However, 6.2.5? information on home hardening or other modern tools to protect structures is not provided. Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-40 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination The RES partially complies with the Special District Transparency Act (Gov. Code, §6270.6 and 53087.8). The District’s annual budget and certified Compliance with the Special District Transparency Act (SB 929 or annual financial statements are shared on the District website, however California Government Code, §6270.6 and 53087.8) which requires ● the District does not provide compensation information in the form of special districts to have a functional website that lists contact either posting compensation of elected officials, officers, and employees on information and contains financial statements, compensation the District website or providing a link to the Controller’s Government reports, and other relevant public information. Compensation website for California. Improvements to the District website are needed in order to more fully comply with the SB 929. Terms of office and next election date are disclosed for District Board ▲ The terms of office and next election date for RES Board members are members and committee appointments are online. disclosed on the District website as well as committee appointments. Does the District’s website comply with the 2016 updates to the ▲ The District’s website agenda distribution does comply with the Brown Act described in Government Code §54954.2 and enacted by requirements of the Brown Act 2016 Updates described in AB2257. Assembly Bill 2257? Disadvantage Communities The median household income is identified. The DUC threshold MHI California’s median household income was $71,228 in 2018. This yields a ◆ (80 percent of the statewide MHI) is clearly stated. The MHI in the DUC threshold MHI of less than $56,982. There are no census block groups Agency’s boundary is described. that meet the DUC threshold within the RES boundary. Potential DUCs are considered. The provision of adequate water, ◆ wastewater, and structural fire protection services to DUCs is There are no DUCs within the RES boundary. considered. Shared Facilities and Services Over the past several years, RES has taken specific actions to save money, lower expenses, and improve services at the same costs. For example, the District entered into a Shared Services Agreement with the El Dorado Hills Other practices and opportunities that may reduce or eliminate Fire Department. This Agreement allowed the Rescue Fire Protection unnecessary costs are examined by the District periodically. Ideally, ● District to access the services of the El Dorado Hills Fire Department. Also, there is a balance between cost efficiency and risk reduction RES participates in automatic aid and mutual aid agreements. However, strategies. the District is staffed at a 2-0 model with one Fire Captain and one Driver Operator staffed at Station No. 83 with Station No. 81 unstaffed. This staffing level does not meet the NFPA standards and contributes to risk. Agreements for mutual aid or any other appropriate agreement (i.e., ▲ The RES Staff reviews all agreements annually, including automatic aid and Tax Sharing Agreement) are periodically reviewed by the District mutual aid agreements. Board to ensure fiscal neutrality. Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-41 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination The RES collaborates with multiple other agencies for the delivery of The District collaborates with multiple other agencies for the delivery ▲ services within its boundary through its participation in aid agreements and of services within its boundary. participation in the JPA. Additionally, RES has a Shared Services Agreement with EDH. Public Services and Infrastructure The District would benefit from improving these three indicators to provide sufficient services to meet current and future demands: (1) RES actively recruits Board members and staff and vacancies sometimes occur; Does the District provide sufficient services to meet current and (2) Although RES participates in the countywide mutual aid and automatic future demands with: aid program, it only has one staffed fire engine to cover the entire ▼ District. The District is only able to provide a similar amount of aid to (1) recruitment; what it received in 2019 due to the Shared Services Agreement with (2) mutual aid; and EDH; and (3) water supply for fire protection. (3) Water service is provided through hydrants from EID to the southeastern portion of the District only. Private water sources (tanks, ponds, lakes) are also located throughout the District, although the spatial distribution of these resources and the quantity of these water resources needs further study. RES does have limited capacity to assist with and/or assume services provided by other fire protection agencies, based on the following factors: (1) overall, the RES’s level of transparency and organizational accountability is adequate; Evaluation of the District’s capacity to assist with and/or assume ▼ (2) RES’s (2-0) staffing model can sometimes leave the community services provided by other agencies. vulnerable; and (3) With only one staffed fire station, one fire engine, and limited staff, it is difficult for RES to independently serve both its own needs and to potentially collaborate with other agencies. RES ability to respond to aid requests is due to the Shared Services Agreement with EDH. The District’s maintenance strategy is to complete work using in-house staff to the extent possible. RES lacks sufficient funding for all the future The District has preventative maintenance measures and planned for ▼ maintenance, improvements, or upgrades. EDH prepared a Facility and replacement of aging infrastructure. Fleet Assessment for the RES on May 2, 2019. This Assessment found that funding will need to be identified to replace an aging fleet of Fire Apparatus. Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-42 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination In the year 2019, the District’s average response time was 8 minutes and 45 seconds. RES average for 2019 appears to meet response time goals for new discretionary projects in Rural Centers and Rural Regions. RES does not currently meet NFPA staffing standards nor the minimum The District complies with County General Plan policies in relation to standard. Staffing levels are within budget constraints. Lower staffing levels ▼ response times. The District meets the minimum standard for leave the community vulnerable to low frequency, high risk events, such as staffing. a working structure fire. Given the geographical layout of the District, which is not in a typical city grid, RES Fire Station No. 83 is not centrally situated to reach all District areas equally and new development might necessitate the construction of new fire stations or rehabilitation of Station No. 81. Rating for the District from the neutral third-party Insurance Services ● Office (ISO) where the rating scale from best to worse is One (1) to RES received an ISO rating of 04/4Y. Ten (10). EDH prepared a Facility and Fleet Assessment for the RES on May 2, 2019. Has the District has been diligent in developing plans to This Assessment found that funding will need to be identified to replace an accommodate the infrastructure and service needs of current and ● aging fleet of fire apparatus. Also, Fire Stations 81 and 83 are aging and future constituents? Regularly reviews and updates its service plans may require upgrades in order to meet the current requirements for fire to help ensure that infrastructure needs and deficiencies are equipment and OSHA standards. The District's deferred maintenance addressed in a timely manner. strategy is to prioritize needs and allocate funds as they become available. Although RES currently meets minimum infrastructure needs, there is room for improvement as follows: The District meets infrastructure needs for (1) One of the District's two stations is unstaffed and neither station (1) facilities (stations); meets seismic codes; (2) rolling stock (engines, apparatus, and emergency medical ● (2) Rolling stock [engines, apparatus, and emergency medical response response units;) units] are aging; (3) dispatch systems; and (3) Dispatch is provided by the ECC operated by CAL FIRE; and (4) roadways for emergency access. (4) Roadways for emergency access are paved, but narrow and sometimes lack shoulders. Also, an emergency access plan was not provided. The nearest staffed fire station is Station No. 88 at 2961 Alhambra Dr in ◆ Is there duplicate infrastructure by other agencies nearby? Cameron Park operated by the Cameron Park Fire Department. The station is 3.5 miles southeast of the District and is staffed 24/7/365 by CAM. Financial Accountability ▼ The District operated at a deficit of $1.6 million negative Net Position in FY The District had a positive Net Position for FY 2018/2019. 2018/2019. Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-43 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination District finances are sufficient to apply a staffing model that meets or ▼ exceeds the minimum standard of three staff per engine and truck The District operates at a 2-0 staffing model within budget constraints. company (3-0) model (or at NFPA 1720 standards if applicable). The primary policy document for RES was not found on the agency’s website. A primary policy document was not provided to consultants that The District has a published policy for reserve funds, including the ● describes the rules for the District’s business operations including budget, size and purpose of reserves and how they are invested. procurement, and financial policies. The District did provide the consultants with the District Investment Policy No. 100-032, which sets how the District invests all financial assets. The District has an updated Strategic Plan that addresses financial ● The District provided consultants with an apparatus replacement plan, goals. however a District wide 5-year Strategic Plan was not provided. A minimum of 50% total operating expense is kept on hand in the ▲ The District does not have a reserve policy. For FY 2018/2019 the District General Reserve Fund in FY 2018/2019. had a minimum of 50 percent total operating expense in the General fund. District Revenues exceed expenditures in FY 2017/2018 and FY ▲ The District operated with $72,000 and $25,000 in revenues over 2018/2019 expenditures in FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 respectively. The District conducts an audit of District finances every year. Government Code and District policy require an annual independent audit of the Summary financial information presented in a standard format and ◆ District’s financial records by a certified public accountant. The simple language. independent audits on FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 were performed by Robert W. Johnson, independent auditors. The District entered into a Shared Services Agreement with El Dorado Hills Fire Department. This agreement allows the District to use EDH staff Alternative financing opportunities were explored and pursued by ◆ resources for general administrative duties including human resources, the District. administrative services, and training. This reduces overhead for the District and more closely aligns the two Districts for annexation efforts. Effect on Agriculture and Open Space The District’s boundary includes approximately 1,663 acres of open space Effect that the District’s service provision will have on open space ◆ and 1,069 acres of agricultural lands. A vineyard actively operates within and agricultural lands. the District boundary. Fire protection and emergency medical services generally have minimal effects on open space and agricultural land. Key Score: ▲ Above Average (compared to similar Districts), ● Average, ▼ Below Average, ◆ Statement of Fact (not rated) Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-44 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-45 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 13.8 References 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/. _____. 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/. _____. 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 online 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 online at: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/FIreHazardZone_NonTechnical_Prim er.pdf _____. 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. _____. Fire and Resource Protection Program (FRAP). December 2019. Map of Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). MAPID: WUI_19DATA SOURCES:WUI_12_315TY_18. Available online at: https://frap.fire.ca.gov/media/10300/wui_19_ada.pdf. CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center (ECC). 2020. CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center Dispatch Data. Received October 2020. California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). August 2003. Local Agency Formation Commission Municipal Service Review Guidelines Final. California State Controller's Office (SCO). 2021. Government Compensation in California. Special District Detail for the Rescue Fire Protection District, FY2019 by Betty Yee, State Controller. Available online at: https://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/SpecialDistricts/SpecialDistrict.aspx?entityid=1188&year=201 9. County of El Dorado (EDC). Grand Jury. June 8, 2020a. West Slope Fire Protection Update. Case No. 19- 06. Available online at: https://edcgov.us/Government/GrandJury/Documents/2019- 2020%20Reports/West%20Slope%20Fire%20Protection%20Update.pdf. _____. Sherriff’s Department Office of Emergency Services. July 2018. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available online at: Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-46 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final https://eldorado.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3923674&GUID=C562ECEB-7E9F-446D- AE6B-3AC56E13F465. _____. Emergency Services Authority. 2017. Strategic Plan 2017 – 2022. Available online at: http://edcjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/EDC-JPA-Strategic-Plan-2017-Master.pdf. El Dorado Hills Fire Department (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. _____. May 2, 2019b. Facility and Fleet Assessment. 24-pages. El Dorado Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). August 2011. Countywide Fire Suppression and Emergency Services Municipal Service Review. Available online at: <https://www.edlafco.us/municipal-service-reviews-and-spheres-of-influence>. _____. September 11, 2019a. Rescue Fire Protection District Detail. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/files/78039f36b/RescueFire_Sep+2019.pdf. _____. 2019b. Fire District Survey: Fire Suppression Agency Questionnaire. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. 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 No. 19- 06. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/. Fire Safe Council for El Dorado County (EDCFSC). April 2021. EDCFSC Community Councils Map. Available online at https://www.edcfiresafe.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Councils-Map- Upate-4.28.21.pdf. Rescue Fire Protection District (RES). January 10, 2007a. Administration Investment Policy 100-032. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. August 8, 2007b. Administration Bids and Contracts Policy 100-014. _____. June 30, 2018. Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report for the year ended June 30, 2018. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. 2019a. Annual Report. Available online at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/589a3e8d46c3c43e71818b08/t/5ed7d0550138d73f55e5 0ee8/1591201883246/Rescue+Fire+Protection+District+Annual+Report+2019.pdf. _____. June 30, 2019b. Report on Accounting Controls and Procedures. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. June 30, 2019c. Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Report for the year ended June 30, 2018. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-47 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final _____. 2019d. Final Budget for Fiscal Year 2019-2020. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. 2019e. Annual Report. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. 2019f. Shared Services Agreement between El Dorado Hills County Water District and the Rescue Fire Protection District. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. 2020a. Preliminary Budget for Fiscal Year 2020-2021. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. 2020b. Apparatus Replacement Schedule. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. May 2021a. Rescue Fire Department Website. Available online at: https://www.rescuefiredepartment.org/. _____. May 12, 2021b. Board Of Directors Agenda Regular Meeting. Available online at: https://www.rescuefiredepartment.org/board-meeting-information. Volume II of II Rescue Fire Protection District Page 13-48 of 13-48 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Chapter 14. City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue This chapter details the formation, boundary, government structure, population and land use, disadvantaged communities, financial ability to provide services, and the provision of fire protection facilities and services provided by the City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue (SLT or City Fire Rescue, or Department), as it relates to fire protection and related services only. Municipal Service Review (MSR) determinations for the City’s fire protection and related services are provided at the end of this chapter. Table of Contents 14.1 Agency Profile ................................................................................................................ 14-4 14.1.1 Agency Overview ............................................................................................................................ 14-4 14.2 Agency Formation and Boundary .................................................................................... 14-5 14.2.1 Formation ....................................................................................................................................... 14-5 14.2.2 City Boundary.................................................................................................................................. 14-5 14.2.3 Existing Sphere of Influence ........................................................................................................... 14-5 14.2.4 Extra-Territorial Services ................................................................................................................ 14-7 14.3 City Governance and Accountability................................................................................ 14-8 14.3.1 Government Structure .................................................................................................................... 14-8 14.3.2 City Council ..................................................................................................................................... 14-8 14.3.3 Accountability ............................................................................................................................... 14-10 14.3.4 Management Efficiencies and Staffing ......................................................................................... 14-11 14.3.5 Staffing and Training ..................................................................................................................... 14-12 14.4 Growth and Population Forecasts ................................................................................. 14-15 14.4.1 Existing Population ....................................................................................................................... 14-15 14.4.1 Existing Population in SOI ............................................................................................................. 14-16 14.4.2 Projected Population Growth ....................................................................................................... 14-16 14.4.3 Existing Land Use .......................................................................................................................... 14-17 Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-1 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 14.4.4 Potential Future Development ..................................................................................................... 14-19 14.4.5 Open Space and Agriculture ......................................................................................................... 14-20 14.4.6 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ............................................................................. 14-20 14.5 Public Services and Infrastructure ................................................................................. 14-21 14.5.1 Service Overview .......................................................................................................................... 14-21 14.5.2 Fire and Emergency Response ...................................................................................................... 14-22 14.5.3 Mutual Aid, Automatic Aid, Other Agreements ........................................................................... 14-27 14.5.4 Dispatch ........................................................................................................................................ 14-29 14.5.5 Emergency Access ......................................................................................................................... 14-29 14.5.6 Fire Hazard Zones ......................................................................................................................... 14-30 14.5.7 Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................ 14-32 14.5.8 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies ......................................................................................... 14-34 14.5.9 Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing .......................................................................................... 14-35 14.6 Financial Ability to Provide Services .............................................................................. 14-36 14.6.1 Financial Policies and Transparency ............................................................................................. 14-36 14.6.2 City Revenues and Expenditures .................................................................................................. 14-37 14.6.3 City Assets and Liabilities .............................................................................................................. 14-44 14.6.4 Net Position .................................................................................................................................. 14-46 14.6.5 Asset Maintenance and Replacement .......................................................................................... 14-47 14.6.6 Cost Avoidance ............................................................................................................................. 14-47 14.6.7 Financial Summary and Ability to Provide Services ...................................................................... 14-47 14.7 Determinations ............................................................................................................ 14-48 14.8 References ................................................................................................................... 14-55 Table of Tables Table 14-1: Geographic Summary (2020) of the City of South Lake Tahoe ........................................... 14-5 Table 14-2: City of South Lake Tahoe City Council .................................................................................. 14-8 Table 14-3: Current Staffing Levels for Fire Rescue by Type and Full-time Equivalent (FTE)................ 14-13 Table 14-4: City of South Lake Tahoe Existing Population .................................................................... 14-15 Table 14-5: Total Estimated and Projected Population (2020 – 2040) ................................................ 14-17 Table 14-6: TRPA Land Use Planning Designations ............................................................................... 14-18 Table 14-7: MHI in Census Block Groups for City of South Lake Tahoe ............................................... 14-21 Table 14-8: City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department Public Services ................................................ 14-21 Table 14-9: City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Hazard Severity Zone By Acreage and Percentage............. 14-30 Table 14-10: City of South Lake Tahoe Local, State and Federal Responsibility Area By Acreage and Percentage ............................................................................................................................................. 14-30 Table 14-11: SLT Fire Stations Detail ..................................................................................................... 14-32 Table 14-12: Apparatus and Light Vehicles, 2020 ................................................................................. 14-33 Table 14-13: Maintenance of Fire Department Infrastructure ............................................................. 14-34 Table 14-14: Summary of MSR Determinations for the City of South Lake Tahoe ............................... 14-48 Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-2 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table of Figures Figure 14-1: City of South Lake Tahoe Service Area and SOI .................................................................. 14-6 Figure 14-2: Overlap Areas for Service within the City Limits and LAV Boundary .................................. 14-7 Figure 14-3: Stipend and Benefits for City Council Members (2019) ...................................................... 14-9 Figure 14-4: Salary and Benefits for SLT Fire Department Staff (2019) ................................................ 14-14 Figure 14-5: Maximum Peak Population in the City of South Lake Tahoe ............................................ 14-16 Figure 14-6: Calls for Service from 2010-2019 ...................................................................................... 14-24 Figure 14-7: SLT Calls for Service by Type, 2019 ................................................................................... 14-24 Figure 14-8: SLT Number of Calls by Station 2015-2019 ....................................................................... 14-25 Figure 14-9: Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Responsibility Areas for SLT............................................ 14-31 Figure 14-10: City Total Revenues & Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 to FY 2020/2021....................... 14-38 Figure 14-11: SLT Fire Department Total Revenues for FY 2017/2018 to FY 2020/2021 ..................... 14-40 Figure 14-12: SLT Fire Department Total Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 to FY 2020/2021 ................ 14-41 Figure 14-13: City Net Revenues Over/Under Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 .. 14- 44 Figure 14-14: City Assets as of June 30, 2019 ........................................................................................ 14-45 Figure 14-15: City Liabilities and Debt as of June 30, 2019 ................................................................... 14-46 Figure 14-16: City Net Position as of June 30, 2019 .............................................................................. 14-46 Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-3 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 14.1 Agency Profile 14.1.1 Agency Overview As an incorporated municipality, the City of South Lake Tahoe is empowered to provide a full range of municipal services including: airport administration, cable television franchise administration, capital investment/improvement program, fire suppression and rescue, police protection, landscaping and lighting, parks and recreation, road maintenance, snow removal, public transportation, flood control/drainage, and animal control. These public services are described in the City of South Lake Tahoe MSR/SOI Update approved by El Dorado LAFCO in 2016 (LAFCO, 2016). This report focuses only on the provision of fire suppression, emergency medical, and related public services. The City is located along the south shore of Lake Tahoe, directly north west of the Heavenly Mountain ski resort and adjacent to the California-Nevada border, in the eastern portion of the County of El Dorado. Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-4 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 14.2 Agency Formation and Boundary 14.2.1 Formation The City of South Lake Tahoe is a General Law City and was incorporated on November 30, 1965. The formation of the City was approved by the County of El Dorado Board of Supervisors through Resolution No. 286-65 on November 18, 1965. This resolution also established the municipal services to be provided by the City (LAFCO, 2019). The City Fire Department (now called Fire Rescue), specifically, was formed in 1966 by the City. 14.2.2 City Boundary The City of South Lake Tahoe geographic boundary encompasses approximately 11,425 acres (or 17.85 square miles) as seen in Figure 14-1. A portion of the City (approximately 4,775 acres) encompasses the waters of Lake Tahoe. The remaining 6,650 acres of the City are land areas. The boundary area includes the neighborhoods of Bijou, Gardner Mountain, Al Tahoe and Tahoe Keys. The City is bounded by the Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LAV) to the west and the south. Within the City boundary are 16,018 assessor parcels (EDC GIS, 2020). City Fire Rescue provides fire suppression and related services to all areas within the City boundary. No new annexations have occurred since the last MSR was approved for the City in 2016. 14.2.3 Existing Sphere of Influence This section briefly describes the existing Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the City of South Lake Tahoe. El Dorado LAFCO updated 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 in the north to State Route 89 south of Meyers in the south, and from Lake Tahoe Boulevard/North Upper Truckee Road on the west to the California-Nevada state line on the east. The City’s SOI is larger than the current City boundary and encompasses 13,956 acres and includes 11,391 parcels as shown in Table 14-1 below. Table 14-1: Geographic Summary (2020) of the City of South Lake Tahoe Boundary Area SOI Total Boundary (All Services) (All Services) & SOI Total Acres 11,425 13,956 25,381 Square Miles 17.9 21.8 39.65 Number of Assessor Parcels 16,018 11,391 27,409 Source: EDC GIS Data, 2020 Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-5 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 14-1: City of South Lake Tahoe Service Area and SOI Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-6 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Please note that LAFCO’s 2016 MSR/SOI Update and the City’s General Plan Background Report indicate that the Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LAV) serves areas within the 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 LAV District boundary as shown in Figure 14-2 below. Figure 14-2: Overlap Areas for Service within the City Limits and LAV Boundary Consultants reviewed tax records for properties in all three areas through the County of El Dorado Treasure-Tax Collector. Properties within these areas are not providing funding to Lake Valley Fire Protection District (El Dorado County, 2021). Consultants recommend that LAV consider removing these areas from the District boundary in the future. 14.2.4 Extra-Territorial Services The City does provide extra-territorial services outside of its boundary through the South Shore Agreement Plan, specifically to Heavenly Ski Resort and Highway 89 north of Emerald Bay Road and Lake Tahoe Boulevard. The City has separate mutual aid agreements with regard to fire protection or emergency medical services with Lake Valley Fire District and Tahoe Douglas Fire District as described below in Section 14.5.3 (LAFCO, 2020a). Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-7 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 14.3 City Governance and Accountability This section describes how performance, accountability, transparency, and public engagement relate to the public’s trust in local government. LAFCO is required by the CKH Act to make specific determinations regarding a municipality’s government structure and accountability. 14.3.1 Government Structure The City of South Lake Tahoe is a General Law city per the California Constitution, operating under its own municipal code. The City has five elected Council Members who reside within the community. All registered voters, who reside within the City boundaries are eligible to vote for and/or run for a seat on the City Council. The City Council appoints the City Manager and City Attorney. Department heads are appointed by the City Manager with concurrence from City Council. The City is organized into several departments including airport, development services, finance, fire (fire rescue), parks and recreation, police, and public works among others as described in the MSR/SOI Update approved by LAFCO in 2016. City Ordinance No. 82, established the City Fire Department. 14.3.2 City Council The City operates under the direction of the elected City Council. Each elected Council Member serves for an at-large term of four years with two City Council Member seats running two years apart from the remaining three seats. A new Mayor is selected by the Council Members each year. The City has several active committees and a full list of all committee assignments and other Board/Commission appointments is posted on the City’s website. The current City Council members, their committee appointments and the expiration dates of their terms are available on the City’s website and summarized in Table 14-2 below. Table 14-2: City of South Lake Tahoe City Council Name Title Term End Committee Appointments EDC2x2, Charter City, Transformational Cody Bass Council Member Dec. 2022 Change, Multi-Cultural Alliance. STPUD, LTUSD2x2. Cristi Creegan Council Member Dec. 2024 Finance, Cannabis, LTUSD2x2, Housing, LT- John Friedrich Council Member Dec. 2024 Comm-College2x2, Economic-Recovery, Multi-Cultural Alliance. Cannabis, LT-Comm-College2x2, Charter Devin Middlebrook Mayor Pro Tem Dec. 2022 City, Transformational Change. Finance, STPUD, EDC2x2, Housing, Tamara Wallace Mayor Dec. 2022 Economic-Recovery. Source: SLT, 2021b The City Council’s meeting schedule is approved by resolution for each calendar year and posted on the City’s website. The City Council holds regular public meetings on the first and third Tuesday of each month at 9:00 AM and 5:30 PM; however, there are several exceptions to this schedule during the calendar year Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-8 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final as listed on the Council’s annual calendar. Council meetings are held at City Hall - City Council Chambers1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe. The Council’s Finance Subcommittee meets on an as needed basis and the Council’s Housing Subcommittee meets on an as needed basis. City staff provided monthly financial reports to the City Council in 2020 and will provide quarterly updates to City Council throughout 2021. City staff has provided housing updates to City Council on a near monthly basis throughout 2020 and 2021. Council salaries are established by resolution (See Ordinance 2020-1149). California Government Code Section 36516 authorizes and provides specific information for adjusting Council salaries. The City Council Member’s current salary is $1,147.27 per month. Council Members are eligible to participate in group benefits such as medical, dental, vision and life insurance plans available pursuant to the current compensation plan for the City of South Lake Tahoe. Miscellaneous expenses such as printed business cards, cell phone, and travel may also be reimbursed. Payments to City Council Members were analyzed for the year 2019 from Transparent California as shown in Figure 14-3. The highest payment package received (including base pay, benefits, and pension contribution) by a Council Member totaled $39,074 for 2019. Figure 14-3: Stipend and Benefits for City Council Members (2019) $45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 Pension $20,000 Benefits $15,000 Base Pay $10,000 $5,000 $0 Individual Council Members In California, elected members are required to comply with three laws regarding accountability and ethics: 1) the Political Reform Act; 2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005), which requires ethics training; and 3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. which mandates sexual harassment prevention training. A detailed description of these three state laws is provided in Volume II - Chapter 1, Fire and Emergency Medical Services Agency MSR General Information. Political Reform Act Each city in California is required to have ethics and conflict of interest code/policies. The City does have a conflict-of-interest code which was updated on December 11, 2012 through Resolution No. 2012-77. The City’s conflict of interest policies are available to the public on the City’s website. The Political Reform Act also requires City Council members and certain staff members to disclose all personal economic Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-9 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final interests by filing a “Statement of Economic Interests” with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). Compliance with this law was assessed by querying the FPPD Complaint and Case Information Portal. Query results show that in 2016 one complaint (No. COM-09122016-09295) was filed against T. Wallace. However, that complaint did not result in a Case Number. In 2019 the FPPC initiated and then rejected a complaint (No. COM-02132019-00408) regarding C. Bass. This complaint also did not result in a Case Number. Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005) Local government officials are required to take ethics training every two years. Compliance with this law was assessed for each of the fourteen fire agencies studied in this MSR by asking the City Clerk for the dates and other documentation of training events. The City Clerk reports that training has been conducted on a regular basis and specifically on the January 29, 2019 and March 9, 2021. Therefore, the City Council is in compliance with AB 1234. Government Code 53237 et. seq. City Council members must receive required sexual harassment prevention, two-hour training, every two years. Compliance with this law was assessed for each of the fourteen fire agencies studied in this MSR by asking the City Clerk for the dates and other documentation of training events. The City Clerk reports that training was available to all City Council members through the City’s NeoGov portal on March 26, 2021. As of July 27, 2021, three of the five City Council members have completed this online course. Therefore, City Council is not in full compliance with Gov. Code 53237 et. seq., but continues to request compliance from Council members. 14.3.3 Accountability Brown Act The details of the Brown Act are described in Volume II - Chapter 1. All meetings of the City Council and committees are open to the public in accordance with the Brown Act. The agenda for each meeting includes a public comment period and agendas are made available 72 hours before meetings. Any written document that relates to an agenda item is available for public inspection at the same time the document is distributed to the members of the Council. Written documents are made available at the City Office and on the City website. Agendas are also distributed via email upon request. The City and its representatives have a solid record of adherence to the requirements of the Brown Act (LAFCO, 2016). The State Legislature updated the Brown Act in 2016 as codified in Government Code §54954.2 (see also Assembly Bill 2257). These new Brown Act requirements are detailed in Volume II - Chapter 1. The City makes its current agenda directly available from the homepage of its website. The City website agenda distribution complies with the requirements of the Brown Act 2016 Updates described in AB2257. Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20 suspended parts of the Brown Act that require in-person attendance of Board members and citizens at public meetings as described in Volume II - Chapter 1. In response to these events, the City implemented Teleconference/Electronic Meeting Protocols effective April 2020 which allow for public participation through the following media access: Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-10 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 1. Utilizing an on-line video platform called “Zoom”; 2. Live-streaming City Council meetings on Channel 21; and 3. Showing live-streaming on the City’s website at www.cityofslt.us. To join the City Council meeting via ZOOM Webinar, citizens may use a link to the zoom website or participate by telephone. Written public comment may be sent to PublicComment@cityofslt.us. Council meeting agendas contain detailed information and instructions about how citizens can fully participate in meetings. Meeting agendas are posted on the City’s Website at www.cityofslt.us. The City also makes reasonable efforts to accommodate any person needing special assistance to participate. Special District Transparency Act (SB 929) The City is not required to comply with SB 929. SB 929 only applies to independent special districts in California. This metric was not rated for the City. General Accountability The City demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with El Dorado LAFCO. The City cooperated with LAFCO’s requests for information and participated in an interview with the MSR consultants. There are several laws, regulations, and guidelines which prescribe safety features associated with fire protection services including state laws and regulations exercised through the City’s cooperative agreement with CAL FIRE; the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan, and other City and County requirements and regulations. The City, along with all the fire protection agencies in El Dorado County, were the subject of a Grand Jury Report (EDC, 2018). The Grand Jury posits in Case No. 17-04 that “consolidating fire protection agencies could provide safer, more efficient and more comprehensive fire service.” The Grand Jury also noted that Proposition 13 significantly reduced revenues for local governments including fire protection districts/departments. Many El Dorado County fire protection districts have struggled to survive while continuing to provide service to their districts. Compelling reasons to consolidate fire agencies in El Dorado County exist, from cost savings to operational efficiency. The issues raised in the Grand Jury Report remain valid (LAFCO, 2020b). Changes to the governmental structure of some fire protection agencies are needed to address these issues. 14.3.4 Management Efficiencies and Staffing The City Manager is appointed by and reports to the City Council; and is responsible for directing City operations and overseeing and implementing policies on behalf of the City Council. An important part of management effectiveness includes the adoption of a strategic plan which outlines goals. The City’s 2021 Strategic Plan lists specific strategic priorities related to the City’s Fire Department as outlined: • Strategic Priority: Built Environment o Goal: minimize the impact our built environment has on Lake Tahoe including stormwater pollution, litter, and wildfire threats. • Strategic Priority: Economic Development Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-11 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final o Goal: develop better management tools and resources to reduce negative impacts such as traffic, crowding, litter, increased wildfire risk, lake degradation, and COVID-19 recovery efforts. o Goal: identify ways to support Lake Tahoe Community College and the ADVANCE workforce development program, along with private workforce training programs, and the development of a talents and flexible workforce, such as but not limited to the fire academy. • Strategic Plan: Continuous Improvement o Goal: Ensure substantial investment in public safety by investing in police, fire and snow removal operations and equipment needs and develop engagement opportunities for residents to participate in meaningful dialogue with first responders to improve community trust o Goal: Develop a wildfire preparedness and emergency evacuation plan in coordination with neighboring jurisdictions (Source: SLT, 2021). The City Fire Department’s Fire Chief serves as the Department head. The Fire Department (Fire Rescue) has developed six primary planning documents as listed below. Each of these planning documents is available on the Department’s website at: http://cityofslt.us/566/Chiefs-Message. • Annual Report (2020); • Strategic Plan (2017 – 2022); • Business Plan (2017); • Career Development Guide; • Standards of Cover (2018); and • Lake Tahoe Basin Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2015). These six documents form the basis for much of the analysis contained within this chapter. The Department’s Mission Statement is: Serving our community with compassion, professionalism, and honor. The Fire Department’s Strategic Plan (2017-2022) contains goals and guiding principles for the City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue Department (SLT, 2017). The Department’s document entitled “Standards of Cover” describes City wide risks including earthquakes, hazardous materials, sever weather, flooding, utility failure, avalanche, structural fires, and public health events. Fire Suppression Service delivery issues described in the document include structural hazards, building hazards, automatic fire sprinklers, emergency medical services, wildland fires, dispatch, mutual aid, response times, staffing, and statistics (SLT, 2018b). The Lake Tahoe Basin Community Wildfire Protection Plan describes the implementation of the Lake Tahoe multi-jurisdictional fuel reduction and wildfire prevention strategy (TFFT, 2015). 14.3.5 Staffing and Training The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) calls for a standard of four staff per engine and truck company (4-0) model (NFPA, 2020). A three staff per engine and truck company (3-0) model is acceptable as a minimum standard for this MSR/SOI Update as detailed in Volume II - Chapter 1. The City Department uses a (3-0) staffing model for all three fire stations with the ability to staff the ladder truck at a (4-0) Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-12 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final staffing model if no personnel call in sick or take a vacation (Chief Savacool, personal communication, April 14, 2021). Therefore, the Department does meet the minimum standard practice and may meet the NFPA standard at one station. All Fire Department staff are paid employees (i.e., there are no volunteers). Table 14-3 lists the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) positions by type as of July 1, 2020 for the City Fire Department. Table 14-3: Current Staffing Levels for Fire Rescue by Type and Full-time Equivalent (FTE) Position FTE Count as of July 1, 2020 Fire Chief 1 Battalion Chief 3 Paid Firefighter 31 Office Support Staff 2 Total 37 Data Source: LAFCO, 2020a; Chief Savacool, personal communication, April 14, 2021 The 2018 Standards of Cover report acknowledges that the City’s fire protection system is based upon the normal suburban area population, between 10,000 and 29,999 citizens. However, with the large number of visitors the area experiences what are considered “urban populations” in the summer and winter months with 30,000+ people or 2,000 people per square mile. Unfortunately, regardless of this increase, the Department is staffed on a suburban level (SLT, 2018a). Since March of 2020, the City has been able to hire additional personnel to re-staff Station No. 2 with 4-0 staff 24/7/365 where the ladder truck is currently housed. Seven of the firefighters were hired through a SAFER grant, totaling approximately $1.4 million, awarded in 2019 to cover this additional staff through 2023. In addition, Measure S was passed by the voters in November 2020 which added a 1-cent local sales tax to fund fire protection, emergency response, and City services. Through the passage of this measure, the Department will be able to staff Station No. 2 and retain the seven firefighters currently staffed through the SAFER grant indefinitely (Chief Savacool, personal communication, April 14, 2021). The 2018 Standards of Coverage Report also reviewed the City’s ability to respond to structure fires. At that time, staffing levels for the Department were only able to adequately respond to a low-risk fire (defined as an outside dumpster fire away from exposures or a vehicle fire away from exposures) and were not able to respond to moderate-risk or high-risk structure fires without neighboring assistance. Since the Department added staffing back to Station No. 2 and increased the number of personnel from two crews with 3-0 staffing at two stations, to three crews with 3-0 to 4-0 staffing at all three stations, the City is now equipped to respond to not only a low-risk structure fire, but also a moderate-risk structure fire (defined as a structure fire in an un-sprinklered 1,000-2,000 square foot building) assuming all City resources are available. In addition to higher staffing levels, the City has entered into a South Shore Response Plan with the neighboring fire agencies of Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LAV), Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District (FLL), Tahoe-Douglas Fire Protection District (TDOX), CAL FIRE, and North Tahoe Fire Protection District (NTF) as described in Section 14.5.3. This Plan helps improve automatic and mutual aid response, increasing the number of resources that respond to specific call types and priority. A high-risk structure fire (defined as a structure fire in an un-sprinklered 2,000+ square foot building) still Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-13 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final relies heavily on mutual aid depending on the stage of the fire (Chief Savacool, personal communication, April 14, 2021). The 2018 report concluded that the City Fire Department is limited by available on duty resources, and the availability of any other mutual aid responders. Responses to requests for service are limited by how busy the call volume is at any given time and how far a mutual aid company must travel (SLT, 2018a). The City’s ability to restaff Station No. 2 since this report was prepared in 2018 reduces the need for mutual aid and allows the City to handle more simultaneous calls than it could under the previous staffing levels (Chief Savacool, personal communication, April 14, 2021). Salaries and benefits provided to Fire Department staff were analyzed for the year 2019 as shown in Figure 14-4. In 2019, the highest paid Fire Department employee received $127,738 in base pay, $29,791 in overtime pay, $33,337 in other pay, $75,281 in benefits, and $61,135 as a pension contribution for a total of approximately $327,000. Fifteen of the 33 staff analyzed were paid over $200,000 in 2019. Office support staff data are not included. Figure 14-4: Salary and Benefits for SLT Fire Department Staff (2019) $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 Individual Employees Base Pay Overtime Pay Other Pay Benefits Pension Debt Training A Battalion Chief is assigned to oversee the training regime. The Department uses a classroom located at 1100 Lyons Avenue to conduct training. The classroom is a double wide portable classroom rented from the Lake Tahoe Unified School District for $500 per month, plus an additional $800 per year for security and a portable restroom. City Fire personnel train regularly (approximately two hours per day, every workday). Additionally, annual training exercises, specialized training, academy, and classes include ice rescue, swift water rescue, auto extrication, high rise, crash rescue kit RT 130, boat operations, Active Shooter, EMS-ALS and BLS skills, fire suppression, performance standards, mass casualty incident (MCI), and wildland tactics and strategy (LAFCO, 2020a). Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-14 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final According to the 2017 Fire Department Strategic Plan, SLT personnel are equipped to attack small (less than one acre) wildland fires. However, if personnel encounter a scenario where the wildland fire is threatening structures, the City must rely heavily on mutual aid for assistance which can include aircraft, multiple engines, hand crews, bulldozers and well-developed overhead management of the incident command system (ICS) (SLT, 2017). Complaints The City Fire Department began sending out a minimum of two customer surveys per shift. The vast majority of surveys are not returned. Of the surveys that are sent back, the Department receives overwhelmingly positive reviews. In the year 2018 and 2019 the Fire Department did not have any negative reviews returned to them. Complaints are resolved through referral to a Battalion Chief who will contact the person immediately and resolve the issue if and when possible (LAFCO, 2020a). 14.4 Growth and Population Forecasts The growth and population projection for the affected area is a determination which LAFCO is required to describe, consistent with the MSR Guidelines from the Office of Planning & Research (OPR) as set forth in the CKH Act. This section provides information on the existing population and future growth projections for the City of South Lake Tahoe as it affects service demand. The historical population growth within the City is described in LAFCO’s 2016 MSR approved for the City (LAFCO, 2016). 14.4.1 Existing Population The South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue Department provides fire suppression and emergency medical services to 22,525 permanent residents within the City boundaries as of 2020, based on data from the CA Department of Finance as shown in Table 14-4 (DOF, 2020). The permanent population for the City Fire Department is a small fraction of the total population served due to the high number of overnight visitors staying in vacation homes, campgrounds, hotels/motels, along with daytime visitors. The Lake Tahoe Region experiences a significant seasonal influx of visitors seeking recreational opportunities. 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 see the greatest number of visitors to the region (Placer LAFCO, 2018). There are 19,023 permanent residents within the City’s SOI. Detailed information regarding population demographics and socio-economic indicators in El Dorado County is provided in Volume I - Appendix A and Appendix B. Table 14-4: City of South Lake Tahoe Existing Population Permanent Overnight Visitor Registered Population in SOI Population existing Population Voters2 area only 3 boundary area only1 (Estimated) City of South Lake 22,525 22,530 9,146 19,023 Tahoe Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-15 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Sources: 1: Population from City boundary is sourced from CA Dept of Finance Demographic Research Unit, Table E-1. 2: LAFCO, 2019 3: Population for SOI area derived by calculation of 1.67 average number of persons per parcel based on GIS Data from the County of El Dorado. In addition to permanent residents and overnight visitors, there are several special events or activities within or adjacent to the City that creates population spikes of daytime visitors including: • 4th of July / Labor Day +100,000 population increase • Snowglobe / New Year’s Eve +50,000 population increase • Any Summer weekend +50,000 population increase (Source: LAFCO, 2020a) Adding together the permanent population, overnight visitors, and special event daytime visitors leads to an estimated peak population of 145,055 persons during holidays as shown in Figure 14-5. Figure 14-5: Maximum Peak Population in the City of South Lake Tahoe 15% Permanent Population 16% Overnight Visitor 4th of July/Labor Day 69% 14.4.1 Existing Population in SOI The permanent population in the City’s SOI (outside the City Boundary) is estimated to be 19,023 people based upon an average number of 1.67 persons per Assessor’s Parcel (El Dorado County GIS Data, 2020). 14.4.2 Projected Population Growth For purposes of this MSR, data from the California Department of Finance (DOF) was used to project population growth for the City as shown in Table 14-5. The DOF provides population projections at the County level and the growth rate for the County of El Dorado is utilized to extrapolate population growth rates for the City of South Lake Tahoe. By the year 2040, it is estimated that the City’s existing boundary will encompass a permanent population of 24,599 persons. This represents a projected average annual growth rate of 0.46 percent between the years of 2020 and 2040. Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-16 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 14-5: Total Estimated and Projected Population (2020 – 2040) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 The County of El Dorado1 193,227 201,041 207,496 211,537 213,033 City of South Lake Tahoe2 22,525 23,043 23,562 24,080 24,599 Sources: 1: 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. 2: Population projection for the City is calculated as a percentage of (0.004603704) based on 2018-2045 TRPA growth estimates through SACOG. The addition of 2,074 more people to the City by 2040 has a moderate probability of occurring. The City has undeveloped areas within the existing City Limits that could potentially be available for more intensive residential development. Of the total vacant lots identified in the City’s Housing Element, 783 parcels (or 191.5 acres) are considered highly developable, with Individual Parcel Evaluation System (IPES) scores greater than 726 (SLT, 2014a). Development of these parcels at a low density would lead to permanent population increase of more than 1,000 persons. Variations on the density of any future development allowed would be subject to the City’s General Plan and other regulations. There are barriers to new development including the risks of developing in a very-high wildfire hazard area, transportation barriers, the need to protect environmental resources, and TRPA regulations. 14.4.3 Existing Land Use Land-use is a factor that affects population growth and therefore demand for public services. Additionally, the City is a land use authority with the ability to approve new development within the Fire Department’s service area (i.e., the City limits). 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 (LAFCO, 2020a). The City’s most densely developed area is found along the corridors of Highways 50 and 89 to the north and Pioneer Trail along the southern edge. 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 (LAFCO, 2016). 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 (LAFCO, 2016). Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Land-use and associated future population growth within the Tahoe Basin is under the jurisdiction of several agencies, including the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and the County of El Dorado, as well as various State agencies due to the fact that the Lake straddles California and Nevada. TRPA was jointly created in 1969 as a bi-state compact by the states of California and Nevada to meet Lake Tahoe basin-wide planning needs, including the development of general plans and other planning documents. Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-17 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 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. Areas over which the TRPA has authority include new construction, erosion control, storm water runoff, shore-zone development and protection, road construction, land-use, and tree conservation and harvesting. Through its 1987 Regional Plan, TRPA provides environmental quality standards and ordinances designed to achieve these thresholds. The Code of Ordinances within the 1987 Regional Plan regulates land-use, density, land coverage, excavation, and scenic impacts with the intention of bringing the region into conformance with specified environmental thresholds (TRPA, 2012). In December 2012, the TRPA Governing Board adopted the Lake Tahoe Regional Plan Update. The Regional Plan Update leaves many of the policies of the 1987 Regional Plan in place while providing more autonomy to local governments through adoption of Area Plans. The 2012 Regional Plan identifies goals and policies to guide decision making as it affects the Tahoe Region's resources and environmental thresholds. Goals and policies are addressed in six major elements, including land-use, transportation, conservation, recreation, public services and facilities, and implementation. The Regional Plan Update initiated a Region-wide transition to a planning and permitting system where all requirements—TRPA, local, state, and federal—are addressed in coordinated Area Plans (TRPA, 2012). TRPA assigned planning and land-use designations to the City boundary and SOI as listed in Table 14-6. Table 14-6: TRPA Land Use Planning Designations TRPA Plan Designation Acres in City Boundary Acres in City SOI Conservation 813 9,111 Mixed-Use 1,000 1,392 Recreation 548 1,629 Residential 3,571 7,629 Resort Recreation 26 57 Tourist 281 281 Backcountry 0 535 (blank) 217 372 Grand Total 6,456 21,006 Source: GIS data from TRPA as queried by Consultants, 2021 Note: The City of South Lake Tahoe boundary land use total will be significantly smaller here than the total acreage since the City boundary counts a large portion of the Lake and the TRPA does not. County General Plan The City’s Sphere of Influence area is entirely unincorporated and subject to the land-use policies and regulations of the County of El Dorado. Over the last decade, most land-use decisions, initiated by private property owners, are secured via entitlements and land-use permits from the County of El Dorado and other agencies. The County plans for its future growth through its General Plan, a long-term comprehensive framework to guide physical, social, and economic development within the community's planning area. The County of El Dorado’s General Plan was adopted in July 2004. Individual elements have since been updated on an individual basis. The 2013-2021 Housing Element was adopted in October 2013, Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-18 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final with the most recent update occurring to the Land Use Element in August 2019. The County of El Dorado General Plan serves as the County’s vision for long-term land use development and conservation (County of El Dorado, 2019). City Planning Documents The City Council has adopted several long-range planning documents including the 2011 General Plan; Tourist Core Area Plan; South Lake Tahoe Parks, Trails, and Recreation Master Plan; the Tahoe Valley Area Plan; and the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Details about each of these planning documents are provided in the MSR/SOI Update approved by LAFCO in 2016 for the City (LAFCO, 2016). City General Plan The City’s boundary area is entirely incorporated and subject to the land use policies and regulations of neighborhoods the City General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Most land-use decisions, initiated by private property owners over the last decade, are secured via entitlements and land-use permits from the City and other agencies. The City plans for its future growth through its General Plan, which is a long-term comprehensive framework to guide physical, social, and economic development within the community’s planning area. The City’s Land Use and Community Design vision is: In 2030 the Highway 50 corridor has been transformed into an interconnected series of compact mixed‐ use (commercial, office, residential, and tourist accommodation) districts that serve the needs of residents and visitors alike. The corridor is the heart of the community and contains year‐round sidewalks and bike paths. The transformation of the corridor has been fueled by the cooperative efforts of local, regional, and State governments, and private investors who share the vision for a prosperous and healthy region. The City planning designations include high density residential, low density residential, recreation, conservation, neighborhood center, town center, tourist, and special district. The City’s General Plan was adopted on May 17, 2011. The Housing Element was updated in May 2014. The City’s General Plan has several policies that guide new development, and those policies are described in the 2016 MSR/SOI Update for the City. In the SOI, adjacent to the City boundaries, land use is regulated by the El Dorado County General Plan and is primarily characterized by open space with some moderate residential and mixed-use potentially allowed, subject to permit requirements. 14.4.4 Potential Future Development Future population growth within the City is dependent upon Zoning and City General Plan policies and land-use designations. The General Plan for the City of South Lake Tahoe serves as the City’s vision for long-term land use development and conservation. The City’s Planning Commission holds regular meetings to review and consider future residential and commercial building projects. There are several new developments proposed to be built in the near-term within the City, including: • Sugar Pine Village: A 248-unit affordable housing development approved by the Council in January 2021. The project is located along Lake Tahoe Blvd, near the intersection with Hwy 89. Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-19 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • A six-unit condominium project located at 906 Emerald Bay Road near the “Y". The six residential units will likely be used as vacation rentals. • Hampton Inn: A new 120 room hotel, a restaurant, and a pool located at 3838 Lake Tahoe Blvd. • A new 20 room hotel to replace the demolition of Tahoe Villa Motel located at 933 Poplar St. • A 70-unit residential townhome development at 2070 Lake Tahoe Blvd. with 4,000 square feet of medical/office space. • A 20-unit residential apartments at 941 Silver Dollar. • Four detached condominiums at 3794 Montreal Road. • 14 residential townhomes at 3708 Lake Tahoe Blvd. • Zalanta Phase 2: Construction of a 60-unit hotel/condominium project at 4104 Lake Tahoe Blvd. Given the large size of the City (4,775 acres in aquatic area and 6,650 acres terrestrial area) and give that several new developments are proposed, the City boundaries contain sufficient land area to accommodate projected growth. 14.4.5 Open Space and Agriculture El Dorado LAFCO’s policies require that an MSR/SOI offer a determination about the effect that a City’s service provision will have on open space and agricultural lands. For purposes of this MSR analysis, data on open space, agriculture, and natural resource areas are typically derived from the El Dorado County General Plan Map GIS data. However, in this case for the City of South Lake Tahoe, data was derived from TRPA information as listed in Table 14-6. “Conservation” designated lands comprise approximately 813 acres in the City boundary and 9,111 acres in the SOI. The “Backcountry” designated lands comprise approximately 535 acres of the SOI. The City’s provision of fire protection services to open space areas (i.e., non-structural) within its boundaries occurs occasionally, but is the primary responsibility of CAL FIRE, the U.S. Forest Service, or LAV. LAFCO has an interest in documenting the conversion of agricultural and open space lands to other land use types, such as residential use. The provision of fire protection services by the City are typically not a major factor in decision-making about these types of land-use conversions. 14.4.6 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities As detailed in Volume II - Chapter 1, a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) is an unincorporated area of a County in which the annual median household income (MHI) is less than 80 percent of the statewide MHI. Within the City’s SOI are located portions of three Census Block Groups that meets the DUC threshold and are therefore classified as disadvantaged unincorporated communities as listed in Table 14-7. In addition, there are three other Census Block Groups (Census Tract 032000, Block Group 2; Census Tract 032000, Block Group 3; and Census Tract 030603, Block Group 4) within the City SOI that may qualify as a DUC. However, no information is available for median household income for these areas (DWR, 2018). Therefore, it is not known whether there are additional disadvantaged unincorporated community within the City boundary apart from those listed below. Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-20 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 14-7: MHI in Census Block Groups for City of South Lake Tahoe Identification Census Block Group Number of Median Household Population Number Number Number Households Income (2018) 304022 030402 2 1,186 484 $38,125 302002 030200 2 1,005 448 $55,417 316001 031600 1 777 322 $41,726 Source: US Census, 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; DWR, 2018 A rural area may be considered to be a disadvantaged unincorporated community (DUC) if inadequate services are provided for domestic water supply, sewage disposal, and structural fire protection. These census tracts currently receive these three essential municipal services. Due to these areas receiving the essential municipal services of water, wastewater, and structural fire protection, there are no communities within or adjacent to the City’s SOI that lack public services, and no health or safety issues have been identified. 14.5 Public Services and Infrastructure 14.5.1 Service Overview The City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department (Fire Rescue) provides a range fire protection and related services year-round, such as fire suppression, plan checking for building permits with inspections, hazardous material response, rescue services, and community programs such as public education or animal rescue. The City is an established City/Municipality and is the primary service provider for fire protection and emergency medical services within the City boundaries. A portion of the City boundary, 4,775 acres, covers the waters of Lake Tahoe and the Fire Department provides water rescue services to recreational visitors and other users of the Lake. The remaining 6,650 acres within the City Limits cover terrestrial areas and the Fire Department provides fire suppression, fire prevention, emergency medical, and other services in this to residents/visitors. A list of services and providers can be seen in Table 14-8. Table 14-8: City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department Public Services Service Provider Structural Fire Protection SLT Fire Department Wildland Fire Protection SLT Fire Department Emergency Medical Response SLT and Cal Tahoe JPA Rescue/Extrication SLT Fire Department Hazardous Materials SLT Fire Department Water Supply South Tahoe Public Utility District among others Dispatch South Lake Tahoe Police Department Training SLT Fire Department Fire Safety Education SLT Fire Department Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-21 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Service Provider Arson Investigations SLT Fire Department Plan Review SLT Fire Department Source: (LAFCO, 2020a) Structural Fire Protection SLT’s firefighters consider the age and the anatomy of structures to prepare for fire suppression work. Most homes within the City were built prior to the 1970’s and older structures do not comply with current safety codes including lack of fire sprinklers. The 2018 Standards of Cover Report outlines the typical construction features that Department staff might encounter. For example, it is noted that fires in mobile homes generally burn quite rapidly and pose a life safety hazard due to construction and limited access into the home (SLT, 2018a). The key task in structural fire suppression is to arrive within a short period of time with adequate resources to do the job. Since the 2018 Standards of Cover Report, the City purchased a new Ladder Truck which will allow firefighters to reach taller roofs and windows. The additional staffing also allows crews to arrive within a shorter period of time. Post fire investigation and research tells us that most home ignitions during wildfires are caused by flying embers. Individual homeowners can protect their property from the financial risk associated with structural fire by purchasing homeowner’s insurance with fire coverage. Purchasing this homeowner’s insurance has gotten more difficult and more expensive in recent years. For example, in the County of El Dorado, during the year 2016, over 1,000 homeowners lost access to their homeowner’s insurance policy due to non-renewal by the insurance company (California Department of Insurance, 2018). 14.5.2 Fire and Emergency Response The City maintains mutual aid agreements with fire service agencies located in the Lake Tahoe Basin for fire suppression and emergency medical services. Under this system, the City responds to close proximity calls located in adjacent fire jurisdictions, as well as receives assistance from neighboring agencies when requested so long as resources are available and not committed elsewhere. This type of agreement ensures the best possible emergency service is delivered by the most efficient means possible. The City also participates in a mutual aid system that responds to requests for aid from throughout the State. Because of these agreements, all firefighters within each fire agency in the County must be prepared for any type of emergency in any setting at all times. Every fire agency within the United States is rated by an independent risk assessment and standards authority for the purposes of establishing insurance policy premiums for homeowners and businesses. California uses an independent national company called the Insurance Services Office, or ISO, for this purpose. The Insurance Services Office evaluates four broad categories of fire suppression when establishing a Public Protection Classification (PPC). These categories include: 1) Fire Department; 2) Emergency Communications; 3) Water Supply; and 4) Community Risk Reduction. ISO routinely conducts assessments of each fire agency in the United States. The rating scale from best to worse is One (1) — Ten (10). There is a possible score of 105.5 points from the total of the four categories listed above. An agency needs a score of 90-105.5 to receive a PPC of Class 1. The City of South Lake Tahoe received an ISO rating of 4 (LAFCO, 2020a). Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-22 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Emergency Medical Services Emergency medical service includes both paramedics who can render first aid and other emergency medical attention and ambulance service. Paramedics are provided by SLT for fire apparatus. The Department has at least one state licensed / locally accredited first-responder paramedic on its first-line response vehicles. SLT’s emergency response personnel are certified as Emergency Medical Technician 1 with accreditation to operate cardiac defibrillators. The Fire Department trains as many personnel as possible in all phases of emergency medical care. Department Firefighters have varying emergency medical responsibilities, either as a Firefighter/EMT-D (Emergency Medical Technician-Defibrillator) or Firefighter EMT-P (Emergency Medical Technician Paramedic). Emergency Medical Technician 1 and Paramedic initial training and scope of practice is defined in the California Health and Safety Code Chapter 2.5, Division 9, Title 22 (SLT, 2018a). Ambulance service for the South Lake Tahoe area is provided by the California Tahoe Emergency Services Operations Authority (or "Cal Tahoe"), which is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) formed in 2001 as a transport contractor for ambulance service under a contract with the County of El Dorado. Cal Tahoe JPA serves the Lake Tahoe South Shore area and parts of northwestern Alpine County. The JPA has four member agencies including: Lake Valley Fire Protection District, City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department, El Dorado County Emergency Medical Services, and Fallen Leaf Lake Community Service District. Cal Tahoe JPA operates three full-time ambulances and maintains two reserve ambulances that are dispatched by the City of South Lake Tahoe Police Department. This contract for ambulance service is funded thru County Service Area No. 3. Additional information is available at: https://www.ctesoa.org/. The SLT Fire Department transitioned out of staffing ambulances for the Cal Tahoe JPA in 2015. This move benefited the Department by reducing costs associated with employing additional medical emergency personnel. By eliminating ambulance staff that would be gone for long periods of time transferring patients to other area hospitals, sometimes as far as the Bay Area, turnover of Fire Department staff has dramatically decreased (Chief Savacool, personal communication, September 4th, 2020). SLT is still a signatory partner in the JPA. The JPA’s ambulances maintain a System Status Planning and Deployment method. The ambulances transport patients to hospital emergency rooms. Cal Tahoe JPA is bound by the JPA contract to bring patients to the closest, most appropriate hospital facility. In South Lake Tahoe, the closest hospital is Barton Memorial which serves as a Level 3 Trauma Center. In some cases, the most appropriate facility might be the Carson Tahoe Hospital, located in Carson City, due to their cardiac catheter lab, which does not exist in Tahoe (SLT, 2018a). There are two dedicated transport ambulances (Medic 1 and Medic 3) staffed by the Cal Tahoe JPA and they respond by designated zone. When both ambulances are committed, a third ambulance (Medic 7) is dispatched from Lake Valley Fire Station No. 7. Through funding the JPA has begun staffing Medic 2 for 12 hours a day and at times 24 hours a day. This medic also serves as the Interfacility Transfer (ITF) ambulance to move patients from one hospital to another. More information regarding emergency medical services including types of responses by ambulance can be found in Volume II - Chapter 15, County Service Area (CSA) 3 and CSA 7 MSR. Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-23 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Calls for Service According to City of South Lake Tahoe Dispatch, the City Fire Department responded to 3,299 calls for service in 2019. A call for service refers to any apparatus or vehicle for the agency which responded to a unique incident, and each apparatus or vehicle is counted as one “call for service.” This the highest number of calls for the Department since 2010 (SLT, 2020a). A breakdown of calls for service from 2010 to 2019 can be seen in Figure 14-6 below. Figure 14-6: Calls for Service from 2010-2019 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 From 2010 to 2019, calls for service have continued to trend upward with 2014, 2017, and 2018 showing the highest number of calls before 2019. There were 3,295 calls for service in 2017, representing the second highest number of calls since 2010. There was a small decline in calls from 2015 to 2016 (SLT, 2020a). According to SLT Dispatch data, the majority of the calls were for medical aid at 1,832 calls for service. A break down in call types for 2019 can be seen in Figure 14-7. Figure 14-7: SLT Calls for Service by Type, 2019 1% 9% 2% 5% Medical Fire Other Traffic Collision 56% 27% Assistance Mutual Aid Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-24 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The “Other” service type includes aircraft down, bomb threat, rescues, water flow alarm, strike team, hazards, law enforcement calls, transfers, miscellaneous, and informational calls such as controlled burns. The “Assistance” service type includes citizen assists such as assisting with an animal, assisting with an alarm or lockout, and physically assisting in lifting a person. The “Mutual Aid” service type identifies instances where the SLT Fire Department responded to mutual aid requests from neighboring agencies outside of the County of El Dorado such as Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District in Douglas County, Nevada or in Alpine County, California. Medical calls made up over half of all calls in 2019 with the fire service calls being the next most frequent call type with 27 percent of all calls. The City assisted neighboring fire agencies in other counties 35 times. Dispatch data did not include specific information as to which fire agencies received this mutual aid. In 2019, the City completed five rescues, six transfers, and answered 17 hazard calls (SLT, 2020a). A breakdown in number of calls per station can be seen in Figure 14-8. Station No. 1 was the busiest station for the City from 2015 to 2019 with approximately 200 to 300 more calls than Station No. 3. No data is available for Station No. 2 from 2015 to 2019 because this station stopped being staffed by Department personnel in 2015 due to staffing changes. Figure 14-8: SLT Number of Calls by Station 2015-2019 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 2015 1,200 2016 1,000 2017 800 2018 600 2019 400 200 0 Station No. 1 Station No. 2 Station No. 3 As mentioned, Station No. 2 has since re-opened with 24/7/365 staff in March of 2020. Prior to 2014, Station No. 2 averaged 871 calls from 2010 to 2014 which was about 157 calls less than Station No. 1 and 104 calls less than Station No. 3 over the same period (SLT, 2020a). The 2018 Standards of Cover Report provides information related to simultaneous calls that occurred from 2012 to 2016 for the City’s Fire Department. Simultaneous calls are defined as one or more emergencies that occurs within a given time frame. This could be two distinctly different calls occurring at the same time or a single call requiring multiple resources. There is no set time on how long an emergency takes, and when a resource is assigned to a call it remains at that call until released by the incident commander. When simultaneous calls occur, and the resources within the City have been used up, another emergency would require the use of mutual aid. From 2012 to 2016, the number of Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-25 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final simultaneous calls has gone from 19 percent of all calls to 27 percent of all calls. That equates to an eight percent increase over a four-year period (SLT, 2018a). Consultants were not able to gather detailed information from SLT Dispatch related to simultaneous calls for recent years, however if this trend were to continue, the Department could be seeing an additional 16 percent increase in simultaneous calls by 2020. The City Fire Chief states that as far as simultaneous calls it seems to happen more frequently, but they have no way of saying it has increased as much as 16 percent with objective statistics. COVID had an impact on call volume in 2020 due to the State’s “Travel Ban” in March, April, May and June. During those time periods, the call volume for the region dropped significantly. COVID then had a contrary affect following those months with the influx of visitors, avoiding air-travel for vacation, traveling to Lake Tahoe. The number of tourists was very high throughout the summer, fall and winter of 2020. There was no “Shoulder Season” as previous years had experienced (Chief Savacool, personal communication, July 39, 2021). Response Time The City General Plan establishes a goal for a four-minute travel time for 90 percent of calls for the Fire Department’s initial responding engine/apparatus. Subsequent engines/apparatus have a goal to arrive within a 10-minute travel time 90 percent of the time (SLT, 2018a). The City’s average response time in 2019 was five (5) minutes 50 seconds in 2020 (SLT, 2020a). The response time data does not cover interfacility transfers (IFT), auto/mutual aid, and strike team/overhead. Other Industry Standards In general, other industry standards applicable to The City are established by the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA), the Insurance Services Office, Cal OSHA, and City ordinances. All of these agencies, as well as many others, directly and/or indirectly affect the type of services, the quality and development of those services, expansion, reliability, facility design, and construction and environmental issues that the City provides. The Fire Rescue Department published a detailed study of its compliance with these standards available on the City’s website. Forest Fuel Treatment Forest fuel treatment typically relates to wildland fires, rather than the structural fires which are the focus of the City. However, within the City’s boundaries there are multiple privately owned parcels which contain native vegetation. In the Lake Tahoe Basin, the Tahoe Forest and Fuels Team (TFFT)1 manage prescribed burning and other vegetation management practices to reduce the risk of wildland fires (TFFT, 2019). Although the City is not directly responsible for forest fuel treatments, a community approach to safety that considers house-to-house transmission, structural safety, and forest fuel treatments is important. 1 Detailed information about TFFT can be found at: < https://www.tahoelivingwithfire.com/>. Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-26 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Public Education It is important for all fire agencies within the County to inform and educate homeowners regarding fire safety and prevention. One key element of the Department’s public education program is the “South Tahoe Action Team” which was developed through a grant from the El Dorado County Disaster Council. SLT Fire Rescue personnel train members of the community who participate in the South Tahoe Action Team in basic emergency skills such as fire safety, disaster plans, disaster medical operations, and the Incident Command System. In addition, the Al Tahoe neighborhood has begun the process of becoming a certified Firewise USA ® recognized neighborhood. Additionally, the City Fire Rescue Department: • Participates in wildfire awareness month; • Alerts residents about red flag warnings; • Provides defensible space inspections; • Facilitates chipping requests; and • Makes the Lake Tahoe Basin Community Wildfire Protection Plan available to the public via its website. It is recommended that SLT Fire Department improves its public education program to educate residents and tourists about disaster preparedness, fire prevention, hardening of homes, and overall life safety issues. 14.5.3 Mutual Aid, Automatic Aid, Other Agreements A discussion regarding the amounts of automatic aid given and received for the West Slope fire agencies could not be replicated for the fire agencies in the County within the Lake Tahoe basin. The City of South Lake Tahoe Dispatch was not able to provide the consultants with a breakdown in automatic aid received versus given for each agency in the County due to the reports available to dispatch staff. Data is available for mutual aid provided to neighboring agencies outside of the County, but only in the amount of mutual aid provided and not who it was provided to. As mentioned previously, the City provided mutual aid 35 times in 2019 to neighboring fire agencies for which the City does not have an automatic aid agreement (SLT, 2021a). As a result of lack of data, this section will discuss general mutual aid information for the City Fire Department. The City provides resources through mutual and automatic aid agreements. These agreements allow for giving and receiving of emergency resources (LAFCO, 2020a). Ideally, agreements for mutual aid or any other appropriate agreement (i.e., Tax Sharing Agreement) are periodically reviewed to ensure fiscal neutrality. The City does not evaluate mutual aid and auto-aid agreements for cost neutrality. Mutual Aid As mentioned previously, the City has entered into a South Shore Response Plan with the neighboring fire agencies of LAV, FLL, TDOX, CAL FIRE, and NTF. This Plan operates just like an automatic aid agreement would, meaning aid is dispatched automatically by a contractual agreement between all fire agencies. The Plan establishes move up and cover assignments, and the number of resources, resource types, and which fire agencies should respond to specific types of services calls and by priority call. For example, under a Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-27 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final residential first alarm fire the following resources are dispatched: three Engines, one truck, one ambulance, and two battalion chiefs would respond with a second truck dispatched from LAV on request. The City Fire Department participates in a Joint Powers Authorities (JPA) with the Cal Tahoe Emergency Services Operations Authority (Cal Tahoe JPA) regarding fire protection or emergency services (LAFCO, 2020a; Chief Savacool, personal communication, April 14, 2021; SLT, 2021a). The City has a separate Mutual Aid agreement with Tahoe-Douglas Fire Protection District to request additional resources for incidents. In addition, the agreement allows for the automatic dispatch of resources from each agency in certain geographic areas for the City and TDOX. The agreement is active and was executed in January 2016. Additionally, the City participates in a Mutual Aid agreement with the Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chiefs’ Association (LTRFCA). A list of the agencies included in the LTRFCA can be found in Volume I – Appendix E. Each agency has an initial attack agreement that provides personnel and apparatus. An expanded list of resources is available on an as needed basis from the Association. Due to the regional geography, the small size of fire agencies within the Lake Tahoe area, and the narrow roadway system, getting help to the City of South Lake Tahoe is difficult and time consuming (SLT, 2018a). Through the agreements with the Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chiefs’ Association, all agencies agree to support one another with Initial Attack (IA) resources should a major incident break out in the Basin and surrounding areas. Under the LTRFCA Agreement, member agencies provide support and aid for 24 hours to agencies within two hours distance at no charge. The LTRFCA works collaboratively on regional issues relating to the delivery of fire, rescue, and emergency medical services in the greater Lake Tahoe Region (LTRFCA, 2020). The City participates in the California Master Mutual Aid Program that was developed in 1950 that all fire agencies are signatory to (LAFCO, 2020a). Through the State and Federal mutual aid agreements the City receives funding for strike team resources. The Statewide Mutual Aid System is managed by The California Office of Emergency Services, Fire and Rescue Branch. The City also has agreements with USFS and CAL FIRE that would cover nearly the entire City in the event of an emergency, as part of a mutual threat zone (SLT, 2018a). The agreement with CAL FIRE was reaffirmed in June 2020. Automatic Aid Automatic aid is a voluntary agreement between the fire agencies. The City does not currently have automatic aid agreements with nearby fire agencies with regard to fire protection or emergency medical services. However, the South Shore Response Plan technically operates as an automatic aid agreement with five neighboring fire agencies (LAFCO, 2020a; Chief Savacool, personal communication, April 14, 2021). Joint Agreements The City Fire Department does not jointly own or share fire protection services, capital facilities, or services with other agencies. The City Fire Department does not provide fire protection services to other agencies by contract (LAFCO, 2020a). Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-28 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) The City entered into an MOU with LAV in February 2014. This MOU was created in order to streamline the process for landowners and homeowners seeking aid in eliminating fire hazards and creating defensible space. Both the City and LAV, through the MOU, desire to cooperate to eliminate the mutual threat of catastrophic wildfire (SLT, 2014b). 14.5.4 Dispatch For the City Fire Department, dispatching is provided the City Police Department Dispatch Center (LAFCO 2020a). Additional details regarding dispatch services for the South Lake Tahoe area can be found in Volume I - Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. One issue raised in the Department’s 2018 Standard of Cover report is communication with the CAL FIRE Camino ECC Dispatch for vegetation fires/smoke investigation, etc. A protocol or a general understanding is needed to aid communications between the City’s Fire Department, CAL FIRE Camino ECC Dispatch, and SLT Dispatch in the event there is some cross- over situation which requires coordination (SLT, 2018a). In addition, the Fire Chief has indicated the dispatch system is antiquated and the City is allocating resources towards updating the system software and equipment (Chief Savacool, personal communication, April 2021) More information on the dispatch system for SLT can be found in Volume I – Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. 14.5.5 Emergency Access Major access roads to the City of South Lake Tahoe include California Highways 50 and 89, and Nevada Highway 207. The City's boundary area does include ingress and egress challenges identified in the County's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, such as construction within a pine forest and existence of narrow streets. Subdivisions that have only one way in or out are at higher risk should a wildfire close the road. In that case there could be no access to the neighborhood or homes. SLT Fire Department has studied emergency access within their boundary and the 2018 Standard of Cover Report classifies local roadways by function as Arterial, Collector, Local, or Driveway. Currently the City of South Lake Tahoe has not installed traffic signal preemption for any emergency services and this issue should be considered in the future by the Department. City staff does work with community stakeholders to remediate roadway ingress/egress issues as they are identified. However, more work on this issue remains to be done. The City’s Airport aids in emergency access by allowing aircraft contributing to emergency services and disaster relief in the Lake Tahoe Basin area. The City is scheduled to adopt the evacuation plan that was first created by the County of El Dorado Sheriff’s Office (EDSO) and Office of Emergency Services (OES) and was modified to fit SLT. The goal was to not reinvent the wheel, and if there was an evacuation ordered, City staff would work with EDSO. The updated evacuation plan was designed to be adopted regionally by all the stakeholders in the Tahoe Basin rather than an isolated evacuation plan for just the City. This was also accomplished by developing an evacuation map that breaks down both the City and unincorporated areas by neighborhood so that a coordinated evacuation could be done collaboratively with all fire and law enforcement agencies. This would likely occur at an Emergency Operations Center (EOC), either the City’s or the County’s under a unified command. Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-29 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 14.5.6 Fire Hazard Zones The Fire Hazard Severity Zones, Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), and Community Risk Fire Map in which CAL FIRE categorizes spatial areas into different risk areas are described in Volume II - Chapter 1. Areas of land within the City boundary are considered “Local Responsibility Area” (LRA), “State Responsibility Area” (SRA), and “Federal Responsibility Area” (FRA) for fire protection services. Areas are also identified from Moderate to Very High fire hazard risk within the City boundary and SOI as seen in Table 14-9. See Figure 14-9 for a map of those areas on the next page and a breakdown in acreage for responsibility areas Table 14-10. Table 14-9: City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Hazard Severity Zone By Acreage and Percentage Acreage in Very High % in Very High Acreage in High % in High Fire Total % in Very High Fire Risk Fire Risk Risk and High Fire Risk 18,206 71.7% 1,276 5.0% 76.8% Source: County GIS Data, 2020 derived from CalFire data Because approximately 4,775 acres in the City Limits include the waters of Lake Tahoe, the percentage of area within the City of “Very High” and “High” Fire Risk are skewed. When the acreage comprised of the Lake is removed, 88 percent of the City is within “Very High” and six percent is in “High” with a total of 95 percent of the City within both “Very High” and “High” Fire Risk. This means that essentially all but five percent of the City is within areas of significant fire risk. CAL FIRE has mapped the WUI in El Dorado County and the City is located within an identified WUI. Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference. shows acreages of land within the City boundary and SOI designated as LRA, SRA, and FRA. Table 14-10: City of South Lake Tahoe Local, State and Federal Responsibility Area By Acreage and Percentage Within City Limits Only (in acres) SOI Only (by itself) (in acres) LRA SRA FRA LRA SRA FRA 10,468 0 528 435 6,433 7,515 Source: GIS data from CAL FIRE, 2020 As expected, the majority of the City is within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) meaning that the City Fire Department is responsible for responding to wildfires within that area. Approximately four percent is within a designated Federal Responsibility Area (FRA). Areas under the FRA are managed by a federal agency, such as the U.S. Forest Service. No part of the City is located within a State Responsibility Area (SRA), meaning that there is no area within the City that is the responsibility of CAL FIRE. The SOI is made up of areas located within the LRA, SRA and FRA. The majority of the SOI is within the SRA and FRA making up 25 and 29 percent respectively. Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-30 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 14-9: Fire Hazard Severity Zones and Responsibility Areas for SLT Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-31 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 14.5.7 Infrastructure The City of South Lake Tahoe maintains infrastructure to support its fire protection services. This infrastructure includes fire stations, fire hydrants, fire trucks and other vehicles, water hoses, and other equipment. Stations The City owns four fire stations including the land as well as the Training Center and the Airport (LAFCO, 2020a). Fire Department currently operates out of three of the four fire stations located in the City as listed in Table 14-11. Table 14-11: SLT Fire Stations Detail Station Number Address Staffing 1252 Ski Run Boulevard, South 1 24/7/365 Lake Tahoe 2951 Lake Tahoe Boulevard, 2 24/7/365 South Lake Tahoe 2101 Lake Tahoe Boulevard, 3 24/7/365 South Lake Tahoe 1901 Airport Road, South Lake 4 None Tahoe Source: LAFCO, 2020a; Chief Savacool, personal communication, April 14, 2021 Station No. 1 was built in 1994 and was the first station built by the City. This station is 5,216 square feet, is in good condition, and meets the requirements for seismic standards. This station houses a Battalion Chief, three-person engine company (Captain, Engineer, and Firefighter/Paramedic) and has room for one Type 1 Engine, one Type 3 Engine, and one Battalion Vehicle (SLT, 2017). Station No. 2 was constructed in 1960 and was formerly a Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LAV) station before the City incorporated in 1965. This station is 3,234 square feet and houses one four-person engine company (Captain, Engineer, and Firefighter/Paramedic) and the City ladder truck. This station is outdated, but in a good central location of the City (SLT, 2017). Station No. 3 was constructed in 1957 and was also formerly a LAV station. The station is 5,000 square feet and houses the administrative offices of the Fire Department. This station houses a three-person paramedic engine company (Captain, Engineer, and Firefighter/Paramedic). SLT staff have provided consultants with information regarding station needs and deficiencies for Stations No. 2 and 3 as described in Section 14.5.8 below. Station No. 4 is a hanger located at the City of South Lake Tahoe Airport that houses reserve fire apparatus, and reserve police apparatus and equipment. The Fire Department does not consider this station to be a functioning fire station. The fire stations often need many repairs throughout the year and are maintained by the City’s Building Maintenance Staff. As mentioned previously, Fire Station No. 2 closed in 2015 due to staffing changes. Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-32 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final However, with assistance from the City’s building maintenance department as well as additional funding, Fire Station No. 2 was re-opened in March of 2020 (LAFCO, 2020a). Equipment and Apparatus The City Fire Department owns and maintains a wide variety of apparatus, vehicles, and specialty equipment as listed in Table 14-12 below. Table 14-12: Apparatus and Light Vehicles, 2020 Equipment Water Capacity Identifier Year Make/Model Type (gallons) Type 1 E2 1999 HME/Central States Pumper, 1500 GPM pump 750 Unstaffed Type 1 E203 2003 HME/Ferrara Pumper, 1500 GPM pump 750 (Reserve) Type 1 E1 2014 Ferrara Pumper, 1500 GPM pump 750 Type 1 E3 2017 Pierce, 1500 GPM pump 500 Ladder Truck T2 2020 Pierce 107-foot, 250 GPM pump 200 Type 3 B1 2009 International Wildland Engine, 500 GPM pump 500 Type 3 B3 2009 International Wildland Engine, 500 GPM pump 500 Air Trailer Air Trailer 2009 Bauer Compressor Mobile Air Trailer N/A Squad Truck S3 2008 Ford 350 – low angle, ice rescue, water rescue N/A Rescue Boat Marine 17 2018 SAFE Boat 27-foot N/A Vehicle B3 2011 Chevrolet Tahoe Command Vehicle N/A (Reserve) Vehicle BC 301 2020 Chevrolet 2500 Command Vehicle N/A Vehicle BC 302 2020 Chevrolet 2500 Command Vehicle N/A Vehicle BC 303 2018 Chevrolet Tahoe – Fire Chief’s Vehicle N/A Vehicle Chief 303 2018 Chevrolet 2500 Utility/Strike Team N/A vehicle/tow vehicle Vehicle P1 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe N/A Vehicle U3 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe N/A Source: LAFCO, 2020a The City also has a full complement of Hurst eDraulic Auto extrication tools purchased in 2016. The most important new piece of equipment that the Department has recently obtained is the new Ladder Truck, called “Truck 2”, which serves to further boost the capabilities of Station 2. The process to obtain this new ladder truck took several years. The truck was put into service at the beginning of December 2020. Given the complexities of operating a ladder truck, the Fire Department reached out to industry experts and Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-33 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final hosted a “Truck Academy” in November of 2020 to ensure staff had the skills they needed to maximize the use of Truck 2, as well as to ensure firefighter safety remained a top priority (SLT, 2020b). Water 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. In the City, water service is provided by four water purveyors. The South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) is the largest purveyor with three other smaller purveyors including the Tahoe Keys Water District, Lakeside Water District, and Lukins Water District (LAFCO, 2020a; SLT, 2018a). The City’s water system relies on groundwater for the majority of its water supply. The water systems within the City are generally able to meet current demands for domestic service, although there are areas of the City 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. Detailed information regarding the water services for STPUD are described in LAFCO’s 2013 South Tahoe Public Utility District MSR. The Tahoe Keys Water District relies on three wells and is responsible for providing water to residents of the Tahoe Keys neighborhood (approximately 1,195 single family homes and 335 townhomes plus common areas). There are numerous hydrants within the Tahoe Keys system available to the City Fire Department. The Lakeside Water District serves an area approximately 90 acres in size and draws water directly from the lake. Treated water is stored on site in a 220,000-gallon storage tank. The Lukins Water District provides domestic water service to 950 customers and provides fire protection through fire hydrants in its service area. Water can also be obtained from local natural or neighborhood sources such as rivers, lakes, ponds and/or swimming pools. The City’s fire engines may also contain water storage. A very robust hydrant system is provided by South Tahoe Public Utility District (LAFCO, 2020a). Infrastructure Maintenance The City Fire Department has three approved plans to maintain its equipment as listed in Table 14-13. Table 14-13: Maintenance of Fire Department Infrastructure Name of Plan Notes Capital Improvement Plan On File with the Building Dept Existing operating/capital improvement 2019-2020 Annual Budget CSLT budget Cityofslt.us/595/City-Budget Current and planned financing plan for City staff is exploring several options to service upgrades & capacity improvements finance improved public safety programs. Source: LAFCO, 2020a 14.5.8 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The City has prepared a Master Plan and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), which describes planned facility and equipment upgrades. As part of the analysis, the City looked at station location and facility sufficiency. Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-34 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The Fire Department has a strong vehicle replacement plan and as a result, there are no pressing needs for new vehicles, apparatus, or equipment. As part of this MSR’s Request for Information, the City Fire Department staff considered infrastructure, and facilities needs or deficiencies. Staff noted Station No. 2 and 3 were built in 1947 and early 1950s respectively. Neither station meets the criteria under the State’s Essential Services Buildings Seismic Safety Act (ESBSSA) and are well past their service life. Both stations do not have enough space for modern apparatus or the modern needs of a fire station. There is no proper separation between living quarters and the apparatus bays; neither station has proper weight or fitness rooms; there is minimal storage making it difficult to maintain equipment; and many vehicles and apparatus must be stored outside or in a hangar at the airport. Other station needs include but are not limited to: proper ventilation of turnout gear storage; classrooms; dedicated space for radio storage and repair; and apparatus bays large enough and tall enough to fit apparatus inside during inclement weather (LAFCO, 2020a). The only other infrastructure need identified was a proper training facility. Currently the Fire Department uses a small building/classroom to provide training. In order to accomplish any engine/truck company evolutions and training, the Department staff search for space in the community suitable for training. The open space available at the airport is sometimes used; however, it is located at one end of the service area which takes two engine companies out of their response area. A centralized training facility with a draft pit and water reclamation as well as a tower or burn prop would greatly benefit the Department and neighboring agencies. A facility like this could also benefit the City as a whole by offering space for community meetings, CPR classes, and an alternate location for the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) (LAFCO, 2020a). City staff do not anticipate any regulatory issues which would affect the Fire Department. However, infrastructure needs have been identified and include replacing Station No. 2 and the provision of new a Training Center. The Department’s equipment needs at this point are limited to maintaining the current inventory and replacing equipment as it breaks or needs updating. City staff did not identify potential actions by LAFCO or others that could assist in addressing potential future challenges (LAFCO, 2020a). 14.5.9 Cost Avoidance and Facilities Sharing The City Fire Department has taken several actions during the last five years to save money, lower expenses or improve services at the same costs. Specifically, the Department participates in several mutual aid and automatic aid agreements as previously described. The neighboring fire agency (LAV) provides service to the City’s SOI and this saves the City money that would have been necessary to service this SOI area. Also, the Department has been in a process of rebuilding over the last five years. Due to past City budget cuts, the Department lost the funding required to staff Station No. 2. Through a long process the Department has been able to re-staff Station No. 2 as of March 2020 by gaining support from the community as well as City leadership. Some of this staffing was also made possible through a SAFER grant for seven new firefighters. The Department has utilized the competitive bidding process for all major purchases including fire apparatus and other equipment (LAFCO, 2020a). A Shared Service Agreement with Lake Valley Fire Protection District is something both the City and LAV could consider in the future. Such an Agreement has the potential to save costs for both organizations. Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-35 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final For example, such an agreement could share Chief Officer staff from both departments to reduce costs to each agency (LAFCO, 2020a). It is recognized that such a proposal also poses many challenges. 14.6 Financial Ability to Provide Services LAFCO is required to make determinations regarding the financial ability of the City of South Lake Tahoe to provide public services, specifically in this case to provide fire and emergency medical services. This section provides an overview of the financial health of the City’s Fire Department and a context for LAFCO’s financial determinations. For the City, the audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal years (FY) 2017/2018, FY 2018/2019, and FY 2019/2020 were used as the primary source of all information for this section as well as the annual budget for FY 2020/2021 (SLT, 2018b; 2019; 2020c). Since the SLT operates as a City, the CAFRs for the City combine police and fire department services into one line item called “Public Safety.” This makes it difficult to pull out specific Fire Department financial information. Therefore, the City will be analyzed as a whole, including all services the City provides when reviewing the debts, liabilities and net position. The FY 2020/2021 Annual Budget provided a breakdown in revenues and expenditures specific to the Fire Department from FY 2016/2017 to FY 2020/2021. This document will provide the basis for the revenues and expenditures analysis specifically for the Fire Department. This is a deviation from the financial analysis completed for other fire agencies within the County and may affect the ability to fairly compare the City to other agencies. More information regarding the financial status for the fire agencies throughout the County can be found in Volume I - Chapter 5, Countywide Finances. 14.6.1 Financial Policies and Transparency The primary policy document for the City which provides the rules for the City’s business operations including budget, procurement, and financial policies is the City of South Lake Tahoe Financial Policies available on the City’s website at: https://www.cityofslt.us/493/Financial-Policies. The City publishes a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) every year. The City’s financial records are audited by Eide Bailly LLP, an independent Certified Public Accounting firm. In FY 2018/2019 the Auditors issued a “Clean Opinion,” stating that the basic financial statements are presented fairly, in all material respects. The Government Finance Officers Association of the Unites States and Canada (GFOA) awarded a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the City of South Lake Tahoe for the CAFR for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018. This was the twelfth consecutive year that the City has achieved this prestigious award. In order to be awarded a Certificate of Achievement, a government entity must publish an easily readable and efficiently organized CAFR. The report must satisfy both generally accepted accounting principles and applicable legal requirements. The City provides a wide range of services including: police and fire protection; public improvements; recreational facilities; and general administration. The CAFR reflects the city’s finances as a whole and does not break down finances specific to the Fire Department within the CAFR. As mentioned previously, consultants completed an analysis for the Fire Department revenues and expenditures in Section 14.6.2 based on information from the revenues and expenditures sections of the City’s fiscal year budget, which was the only extractable data consultants could utilize. Consultants spent multiple months requesting actuals for the Fire Department from the City as well as the Fire Department. What data was provided was sent in formats that the consultants could not analyze. The City adopts a fiscal year budget and Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-36 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final conducts an annual cycle review to determine any changes that might be needed. The FY 2020/2021 budget was adopted by the City Council on August 25, 2020 (SLT, 2020c). 14.6.2 City Revenues and Expenditures The City’s largest revenue source is transient occupancy taxes followed by charges for services. The City’s biggest expense is Public Safety, which includes Police and Fire Departments. A breakdown for revenues and expenses can be seen in Figure 14-10. A breakdown of revenues and expenditures is also available in table format in Volume II - Appendix A, Financial Tables by Agency. City Revenues The City of South Lake Tahoe’s largest revenue source in FY 2018/2019 was transient occupancy taxes (32%), followed by charges for services (16%), sales taxes (14%), and property taxes (12%), making up 74 percent of total city-wide revenues. At the end of FY 2018/2019, total revenues for government activities amounted to $68.7 million; an increase of approximately $4.26 million or 6.1 percent from the previous year. FY 2019/2020 saw a large decrease (approximately $500,000 less than FY 2018/2019) in “Charges for Services” revenue due to COVID-19 closures, which accounts for the large drop in revenue between FY 2018/2019 and FY 2019/2020. The City collects a transient occupancy tax (TOT) from visitors staying for 30 days or less in a lodging facility. TOT has been the top source of revenue for the General Fund since FY 2013/2014. Revenue from this source tends to be volatile and subject to multiple economic conditions and weather. In addition, the passage of Measure T in 2018 effectively banned vacation home rentals within City limits except for certain exceptions. Despite this volatility, tourism continues to be a primary economic driver for the City. In FY 2020/2021, TOT revenue is projected to recover from the economic decline caused by the COVID‐19 pandemic and continue to grow at a modest rate of 1.2 percent per year on average. Property tax, the third largest revenue source for the General Fund in FY 2018/2019, was approximately $8.4 million, or 12 percent of the City’s total revenues. This is an increase of 4.5 percent over the prior year. The City of South Lake Tahoe receives 22 percent of every property tax dollar paid by property owners in the City. In the FY 2020/2021 budget, the top three revenue sources are forecasted to be Property Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax (excluding Project Area TOT), and Sales Tax (including Measure Q) and comprise approximately 59 percent of the total General Fund Revenues. Property tax revenue for FY 2020/2021 is anticipated to be 4.2 percent higher than the previous year original estimate and is projected to grow at a rate of 3.0 percent in the five years beyond. The line items from the FY 2020/2021 Budget don’t align exactly with the previous year’s CAFR however consultants believe that the budgeted $40.5 million for the General Fund Operating Revenue is made up of TOT, Property Taxes, and Sales Taxes. City total revenues and expenditures for FY 2017/2018 to FY 2020/2021 can be seen in Figure 14-10. Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-37 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 14-10: City Total Revenues & Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 to FY 2020/2021 Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-38 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Measure S, a general sales tax measure approved by voters during the November 3, 2020 election, adds a one-cent sales tax to maintain fire protection and 9-1-1 emergency response as well as reduce wildfire threats among other things2. This sales tax took effect on April 1, 2021, increasing South Lake Tahoe's sales tax rate from 7.75 percent to 8.75 percent. The State of California retains six percent, with one- quarter percent for the local transportation fund, one percent for the City General Fund and one percent for the fire protection and 9-1-1 response under Measure S. It is anticipated that Measure S will provide approximately $5.4 million annually (SLT, 2021c). City Expenditures As seen in Figure 14-10, expenses in FY 2018/2019 totaled $59.4 million, a decrease of $2.2 million from the previous year. Public Safety, which includes Police and Fire Departments, accounted for $21.3 million or 36 percent of the total expenses in FY 2018/2019. This is an increase of 12 percent from FY 2017/2018 to FY 2018/2019. The second largest expense is the Public Works Department which accounted for 20 percent of the FY 2018/2019 expenditures. Please see SLT Fire Department Expenditures below for additional details on the specific expenses of the SLT Fire Department. SLT Fire Department Revenues Per the City’s FY 2020/2021 annual budget, the Fire Department revenue totaled approximately $4.1 million in FY 2018/2019. Figure 14-11 shows the Fire Department revenues from FY 2017/2018 to FY 2020/2021 as outlined in the City’s FY 2020/2021 annual budget and Figure 14-12 shows Fire Department expenditures. This revenue was distributed into separate funds including approximately $3.5 million to the General Fund Operative Revenue, $600,094 to the Special Fund Operating Revenue, and approximately $2.0 million to Other Financing Sources. According to Department Staff, the City received $277,726.39 in strike team reimbursements in FY 2018/2019 and $146,108.13 in FY 2017/2018 (Chief Savacool, personal communication, December 2021). The City was awarded a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant in FY 2018/2019 of approximately $1.5 million in funding for a three‐ year term. The goal of SAFER is to enhance the local fire departments’ abilities to comply with staffing, response and operational standards established by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). The reimbursement schedule of the FEMA SAFER Grant is: $654,065 for FY 2018/2019; $654,740 for FY 2019/2020; and $305,545 for FY 2020/2021. Per the FY 2020/2021 annual budget, revenue for the Fire Department is comprised of the EMS‐General Fund division, the fire vehicle replacement program, and the fire Proposition 172 safety sales tax funds. The Emergency Medical Services (EMS) division receives revenue from fees for ambulance services. The other two special revenue funds are used to provide funds for the City’s fire prevention program and the vehicle replacement program. 2 Full language for the passage of Measure S can be found here: https://www.csltbusiness.com/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=46096&dbid=0&repo=cityclerk&cr=1 Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-39 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 14-11: SLT Fire Department Total Revenues for FY 2017/2018 to FY 2020/2021 Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-40 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 14-12: SLT Fire Department Total Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 to FY 2020/2021 Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-41 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-42 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Total Fire Department special revenue was programmed at $800,000 for FY 2020/2021, a decrease of 43.2 percent from the prior year budget primarily due to a reduction in other financing sources (transfer in from the general fund) for fire vehicle replacement. SLT Fire Department Expenditures Of the approximately $21.6 million in public safety expenditures in FY 2018/2019, approximately $9.7 million was allocated to the Fire Department or 45 percent. Personnel Services expenditures for the SLT Fire Department is the primary expenditure in each of the analyzed fiscal years. As mentioned previously, Fire Department uses a (3-0) staffing model at two stations and a (4-0) staffing model at one station. Therefore, the Department does meet NFPA standards and the minimum standard. Fire Administration is staffed with the Fire Chief and Administrative Assistant and is responsible for budget management, personnel management, and administrative oversight of the Fire Department. Fire Administration manages a workforce of 40 employees as of the FY 2020/2021. Fire Administration also represents the Department and City in regional endeavors, such as cooperative response agreements with State and Federal Forest agencies, mutual aid agreements, local and county preparedness groups, and other regional approaches to services. The Fire Chief serves as the City of South Lake Tahoe’s emergency operations center manager and coordinates annual Emergency Operations Center drills and trainings. In FY 2018/2019 the Personnel Services expense rose by approximately $1.02 million or 14.8 percent over the previous year, due to the addition of seven new firefighter positions funded by a Fire SAFER Grant. In FY 2019/2020, Personnel Services expense rose another 5 percent to approximately $7.3 million. For the FY 2020/2021 budget, Personnel Services is forecasted to decrease to FY 2019/2020 levels or approximately $6.9 million. Salaries and benefits are projected to decrease primarily due to a decrease in total CalPERS Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) resulting from the transition to monthly CalPERS UAL payments. Previously, the City utilized an annual pre-funding method. This change will save at least $100,000 in interest per year for the City. City Revenues (Over / Under) Expenditures The City of South Lake Tahoe operated with Revenues over Expenditures of $2.7 million in FY 2017/2018, $9.2 million in FY 2018/2019, and $5.3 million in FY 2019/2020, as shown in Figure 14-13. For FY 2019/2020, the City added $887,599 in “Special Items” so that the net became $5.3 million as shown in Figure 14-13. For FY 2020/2021, the budget indicates a negative $4.9 million net position. This is primarily driven from a shortfall of $3,631,995 million in the budgeted “Capital Improvement Program” fund category and a $1,997,853 million shortfall in the “Special Revenue” Fund category due to the use of existing accumulated fund balance in those fund categories for grant and non-grant funded projects began in prior years and being completed and using their accumulated fund balance for payments in the current year, as part of normal operations (Chief Savacool, personal communication, December 2021). Revenues over/under Expenditures for the Fire Department specifically could not be estimated based on the comingling of fire department finances with the City of South Lake Tahoe in the CAFR and FY 2020/2021 budget. Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-43 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 14-13: City Net Revenues Over/Under Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 through FY 2020/2021 14.6.3 City Assets and Liabilities City Assets As of June 30th, 2019, the City’s assets totaled $229.5 million as shown in Figure 14-14. Capital assets make up the majority of the total assets at $120,757,374 (or 53 percent of the net of accumulated depreciation). Capital assets are defined as having an initial cost of more than $7,000 and an estimated life greater than three years. This investment in capital assets for the City includes land, intangibles, construction in progress, buildings, improvements, machinery and equipment, bike paths, streets and streetscape, runways, and basin and stream environment zone construction. The City also plans and budgets for ongoing maintenance, long-term renovations and/or replacement of capital assets as necessary. The City of South Lake Tahoe uses these capital assets to provide services to citizens; consequently, these assets are not available for future spending. Major capital asset events in governmental activities during FY 2018/2019 included the addition of $9.1 million in construction in progress for street overlay and building remodel capital projects, as well as $1.1 million in vehicles and equipment purchases. Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-44 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 14-14: City Assets as of June 30, 2019 City Liabilities and Debt As of June 30th, 2019, the City’s total long-term debt outstanding decreased by approximately $4.5 million (or 12 percent) from the previous year. The decrease resulted from routine debt service payments as well as the payoff of several capital lease obligations. City liabilities and debt as of June 30, 2019 can be seen in Figure 14-15. The City has various capital lease obligations for the Fire Department, including Fire Department Pumper Trucks, Street and Motor Pool Equipment, and a Computer Hardware/Software Upgrade, under a Master Equipment Lease Purchase Agreement that the City entered into with Bank of America on December 13, 2013. The principal balance for the Fire Department Ladder Truck and Street and Motor Pool Equipment was paid off as of September 30, 2019. The outstanding balance on the Computer Hardware/Software Upgrade was $159,196. On October 10, 2014, the City entered into an agreement in the amount of $565,526 with U.S. Bancorp Government Leasing and Financing, Inc. for the lease of Fire Department Pumper Truck. The lease, bearing an interest rate of 2.4 percent, is due in ten equal annual payment of $62,793 (principal and interest) commencing on October 10, 2014. The principal balance outstanding as of September 30, 2019 was $292,515. Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-45 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 14-15: City Liabilities and Debt as of June 30, 2019 The City also leases two fire engines through two 7-year lease agreements with Umpqua Bank with one beginning in January 2016 and the other beginning in April 2021. Engine lease payments were expected to be approximately $175,150 in FY 2020/2021. There is an additional $13,000 in payments on two utility trucks. 14.6.4 Net Position The City of South Lake Tahoe’s Net Position including total assets and deferred outflows of resources of the City exceeded its total liabilities and deferred inflows of resources at the close of the FY 2018/2019 by approximately $109 million. Figure 14-16 shows the City’s Net Position for FY 2018/2019. Figure 14-16: City Net Position as of June 30, 2019 Of this amount, $177,122 (or one percent), is unrestricted and approximately $20.8 million (or 19.1 percent), is restricted for specific purposes and subject to external restrictions. Approximately $87.4 million is net investment in capital assets. The City’s total net position increased by $29,012,267 (or 36.2 percent) in FY 2018/2019 when compared to the previous year, mostly as a result of the adjustment to nonexchange financial guarantee as well as due to overall revenues exceeding expenses when presented on a full accrual basis. Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-46 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 14.6.5 Asset Maintenance and Replacement The Fire Department 2017-2022 Strategic Plan outlines an asset maintenance and replacement schedule for all apparatus and equipment in the department. Many of the City’s apparatus will need to be replaced in the next few years. This plan also includes anticipated costs for the replacement of equipment. 14.6.6 Cost Avoidance The City takes proactive steps to strengthen and preserve its General Fund revenues by promoting a diversified economic base through commercial and industrial development and redevelopment opportunities. The City encourages the expansion of businesses that will provide opportunities for residents to work and live in the community. The City’s cash management system monitors and forecasts expenditures and revenues enable the City to invest funds to the fullest extent possible. The City also successfully passed Measure S to fund priority services for the Fire Department. The City Fire Department has taken several actions during the last five years to save money, lower expenses or improve services at the same costs. Specifically, the Department participates in several mutual aid agreements to augment City staffing. The neighboring Lake Valley Fire Protection District provides service to the City’s SOI and this saves the City the money that would have been necessary to service this SOI area. Also, the Fire Department received a SAFER grant to fund seven new firefighters. The Department has utilized the competitive bidding process for all major purchases including fire apparatus and other equipment. 14.6.7 Financial Summary and Ability to Provide Services Based on the data presented above, the City of South Lake Tahoe is well positioned to continue to adequately fund the SLT Fire Department with the staff and infrastructure required. The City Department uses a (3-0) staffing model at two stations and a (4-0) staffing model at one station. Therefore, the Department does meet the NFPA standards and minimum standards for staffing. Alternative Financing The City has pursued alternative financing as evidenced by the SAFER Grant mentioned above as well as the passing of Measure S to further support City priorities. The Fire Department is utilizing grants for the defensible space programs, which will cover two part-time defensible space inspectors for six years, and a $32,000 grant for a drone that will be used in FY 2021/2022. Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-47 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 14.7 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 the City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department 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. Scoring for the determinations in Table 14-14 below are as follows: ▲ ● ▼ ◆ Above Average (compared to similar Agencies), Average, Below Average, Statement of Fact (not rated). Table 14-14: Summary of MSR Determinations for the City of South Lake Tahoe Indicator Score Determination Population and Growth The City’s 11,425-acre boundary area is located in the eastern portion of the ◆ County of El Dorado adjacent to Lake Tahoe. A portion of the City boundary, Existing Boundary. 4,775 acres, covers the waters of Lake Tahoe. The remaining 6,650 acres of the boundary cover terrestrial areas. The City’s SOI is larger than its actual boundary and the SOI encompasses 13,956 acres and includes 11,391 parcels. The City’s SOI surrounds its boundary area and ◆ extends from Lake Tahoe in the north to SR 89 south of Meyers in the south, and Existing Sphere of Influence from Lake Tahoe Boulevard/North Upper Truckee Road on the west to the Nevada state line on the east. The SOI overlaps with Lake Valley Fire Protection District boundary areas. The City does provide extra-territorial services outside of its boundary through Extra-territorial Services the City provides as described in ◆ the South Shore Agreement Plan, specifically to Heavenly Ski Resort and Highway Government Code Section 56134. 89 north of Emerald Bay Road and Lake Tahoe Boulevard. By the year 2040, it is estimated that the City’s existing boundary will encompass ◆ Projected population in years 2020 through 2040. a permanent population of 24,599 persons. This represents a projected average annual growth rate of 0.46 percent between the years of 2020 and 2040. Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-48 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination The City boundary contains sufficient land area to accommodate projected growth, given the following factors: • the large size of the City (4,775 acres in Lake area and 6,650 acres land City boundaries contain sufficient land area to accommodate ◆ area), projected growth. • several new developments are proposed within the boundary, • the City’s Housing Element identified several vacant parcels, and • boundary area supports an average of 3.39 persons per acre which is considered to be low population density. Government Structure and Accountability The City’s Fire Department has not been subject to litigation recently. The City, along with all the fire protection agencies in the County of El Dorado, were the Is the City Fire Department involved in current litigation and/or ▼ subject of a Grand Jury Report (Case No. 17-04) that posits: “consolidating fire has the City Fire Department been the subject of a recent protection agencies could provide safer, more efficient and more comprehensive grand jury inquiry. fire service.” Changes to the governmental structure of some fire protection agencies are needed to address the issues raised. SLT’s elected Council members submit required forms and sometimes receive required trainings as prescribed by the three state laws regarding accountability and ethics as follows: (1) CA Political Reform Act: The City does have a conflict-of-interest code Do elected City Council members submit required forms and adopted on December 11, 2012 via Resolution No. 2012-77. The conflict-of- receive required trainings as prescribed by the three state laws interest policies is available to the public on the City’s website. There have regarding accountability and ethics including: been two complaints to the CA FPPC regarding filing of Economic ▼ Statements of Interest required under the Political Reform Act, however (1) the Political Reform Act; both instances did not result in a Case Number. (2) Assembly Bill 1234 (Salinas, 2005); and (2) Assembly Bill 1234: The City Clerk reports training has been conducted on a (3) Government Code 53237 et. seq. regular basis and that Council Members are in compliance with AB 1234. (3) Government Code 53237: The City Clerk reports training was available to all Council Members on March 26, 2021. As of July 27, 2021, three of the five Council Members have completed the training. Therefore, City Council is not in full compliance with GC 53237. Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-49 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination SLT undertakes several activities on a regular basis to education homeowners regarding fire safety and prevention. One key part of the Department’s public education program is the “South Tahoe Action Team” which provides training to residents in basic emergency skills such as fire safety, disaster plans, disaster Does the City work to inform and educate homeowners ● medical operations, and the incident command system. Another public education regarding fire safety and prevention? program is the Al Tahoe neighborhood, which has begun the process of becoming a certified Firewise USA ® recognized neighborhood. Recommendation: It is recommended that SLT Fire Department improve its public education program to educate residents and tourists about disaster preparedness, fire prevention, hardening of homes, and overall life safety issues. Terms of office and next election date are disclosed for City ▲ The current City Council members, their committee appointments and the Council members and committee appointments are online. expiration dates of their terms are available on the City’s website. Compliance with the 2016 updates to the Brown Act described in Government Does the City’s website comply with the 2016 updates to the Code §54954.2 were evaluated in this MSR. The City makes its current agenda ▲ Brown Act described in Government Code §54954.2 and directly available from the homepage of its website. The City website agenda enacted by Assembly Bill 2257? distribution complies with the requirements of the Brown Act 2016 Updates described in AB2257. Compliance with the Special District Transparency Act (SB 929 or California Government Code, §6270.6 and 53087.8) which ◆ The City is not required to comply with SB 929. This metric is not rated for the requires special districts to have a functional website that lists City. contact information and contains financial statements, compensation reports, and other relevant public information. Disadvantage Communities The median household income is identified. The DUC threshold California’s median household income was $71,228 in 2018. This yields a DUC ◆ MHI (80 percent of the statewide MHI) is clearly stated. The threshold MHI of less than $56,982. There are portions of three census block MHI in the Agency’s boundary is described. groups that meet the DUC threshold within the City’s SOI boundary. There are portions of Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within the City’s SOI, including three census block groups. The DUCs described in this Potential DUCs are considered. The provision of adequate ◆ chapter do receive adequate water and wastewater service from city water and water, wastewater, and structural fire protection services to wastewater purveyors. Fire protection services to the DUCs within the City’s SOI DUCs is considered. are provided by LAV as they are within the LAV service area boundary. No public health and safety issues have been identified. Shared Facilities and Services Agreements for mutual aid or any other appropriate agreement The City provides resources through mutual and automatic aid agreements. ● (i.e., Joint Operating Agreement) are periodically reviewed to These agreements allow for giving and receiving of emergency resources. The ensure fiscal neutrality. City does not evaluate mutual aid and auto-aid agreements for cost neutrality. Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-50 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination The City Fire Department (Fire Rescue) has taken several actions during the last five years to save money, lower expenses or improve services at the same costs. Other practices and opportunities that may reduce or eliminate Specifically, the Department participates in several mutual aid agreements to unnecessary costs are examined by the City periodically. ▲ augment City staffing. The neighboring fire agency (LAV) provides service to the Ideally, there is a balance between cost efficiency and risk City’s SOI and this saves the City the money that would have been necessary to reduction strategies. service this SOI area. Also, the Fire Department received a SAFER grant to fund seven new firefighters. The Department has utilized the competitive bidding process for all major purchases including fire apparatus and other equipment. SLT Fire Rescue maintains mutual aid agreements with regard to fire protection or emergency services with the following agencies: 1) Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chiefs Association- Mutual Aid, 2) CAL Fire Amador El Dorado Annual Operating The City collaborates with multiple other agencies for the ▲ Contract/Plan- Mutual Aid, 3) Agencies under the South Shore Response Plan, delivery of services within its boundary. and 4) U.S. Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Annual Operating Agreement- Mutual Aid. The City does not participate in any automatic aid agreements at this time, however the South Shore Response Plan operates as an automatic aid agreement. Public Services and Infrastructure Although the City currently meets its rolling stock needs, there is room for improvement for facilities as follows: (1) Two of the City’s three functioning stations are inadequate to meet the The City meets infrastructure needs for: needs of a modern fire department and do not meet seismic codes; (2) Rolling stock [engines, apparatus, and emergency medical response units] (1) facilities (stations); ● are sufficient; (2) rolling stock (engines, apparatus, and emergency medical (3) Dispatch is provided by the SLT Police Dispatch Center. The Fire Chief has response units;) indicated that the dispatch system is antiquated and the City is allocating (3) dispatch systems; and resources towards updating the system software and equipment; and (4) roadways. (4) Roadways for emergency access appear to be sufficient, and department staff works with the community to mitigate any ingress and egress issues that may arise. Infrastructure needs have been identified by the City and include the The City has preventative maintenance measures and planned ● replacement of Fire Station No. 2 and the provision of new a Training Center. It is for replacement of aging infrastructure. not clear how the City plans to fund these needs or plan for their replacement/development. Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-51 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination It appears that the City has the capacity to assist with and/or assume services provided by other fire protection agencies based on the following factors: (1) Overall, the City’s Fire Rescue is a well-run organization; (2) Due to recent increases in funding the City is able to staff two stations at a (3-0) model, which is at minimum standard practice, and staff one station at Evaluation of agency's capacity to assist with and/or assume ▲ a (4-0) model, meeting NFPA standard practice, assuming no personnel call services provided by other agencies. in sick or takes a vacation; and (3) SLT has a sufficient number of fire stations and equipment to serve its own needs, however, its maintenance practices are not clear and infrastructure may not be sufficient to potentially support or collaborate with other agencies. The City and its partners provide adequate services to meet current and future demands in all three indicators: (1) A battalion chief is responsible for recruitment and promotions. Vacant positions are subject to active recruitment to fill them, consistent with the City’s hiring practices; (2) The City has a mutual aid agreement with regard to fire protection and Does the City provides sufficient services to meet current and emergency services with five neighboring fire agencies through the South future demands with: Shore Response Plan. The Department participates in a Joint Powers ▲ Authorities with the Cal Tahoe JPA. Additionally, the City participates in the (1) recruitment; Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chief Association. With the additional staffing (2) mutual aid; and added in 2020, the Department is better equipped to respond to mutual aid (3) water supply for fire protection calls from its partners; and (3) Water service is provided by South Tahoe Public Utility District as well as three other small water purveyors. The water systems within the City are generally able to meet current demands for firefighting needs, although there are areas of the City where fire flow and reliability are inadequate and need to be upgraded. The City Department uses a (3-0) staffing model at two stations and a (4-0) Compliance with safety standards of state and national ▲ staffing model at one station. Therefore, the Department does meet the NFPA organizations in relation to response time and staffing. standards and minimum standards. The City’s average response time was about five (5) minutes in 2020. Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-52 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination The City has demonstrated its ability to accommodate the infrastructure and service needs of current and future constituents by developing six primary planning documents: Has the City has been diligent in developing plans to • Annual Report 2020 accommodate the infrastructure and service needs of current • Strategic Plan 2017 – 2022 ▲ and future constituents? Regularly reviews and updates its • Business Plan 2017 service plans to help ensure that infrastructure needs and • Career Development Guide deficiencies are addressed in a timely manner. • Standards of Cover 2018 • Lake Tahoe Basin Community Wildfire Protection Plan 2015 Additionally, the City has a Capital Improvement Plan to address infrastructure needs and deficiencies. Most, approximately 96 percent, of the SLT boundary area is classified as a Local ◆ Responsibility Area by CAL FIRE. The remaining 4+ percent is made up of state Is there duplicate infrastructure by other agencies nearby? and federal responsibility area, indicating minimal overlap in services with other nearby agencies. LAV does provide fire suppression service to the City’s SOI. Financial Accountability The City has a published policy for reserve funds, including the ▲ The City has a published policy for reserve funds, including the size and purpose size and purpose of reserves and how they are invested. of reserves and how they shall be invested included in each annual report. The total assets and deferred outflows of resources of the City exceeded its total ▲ The City had a positive Net Position for FY 2018/2019. liabilities and deferred inflows of resources at the close of the FY 2018/2019 by $109,091,066. City finances are sufficient to apply a staffing model for the fire The City Department uses a (3-0) staffing model at two stations and a (4-0) department that meets or exceeds the generally accepted ▲ staffing model at one station. Therefore, the Department does meet the NFPA minimum standard of three staff per engine and truck company standards and minimum standards. (3-0) model (or at NFPA 1720 standards if applicable). City Fire Department has an updated Strategic Plan that ▲ The City published a five year Strategic Plan for FY 2017 – 2022 that addresses addresses financial goals. the City’s financial goals. City Revenues exceed expenditures in FY 2017/2018 and FY ▲ The City of South Lake Tahoe operated with Revenues over Expenditures of $2.7 2018/2019 million in FY 2017/2018 and $9.2 million in FY 2018/2019. The City maintains a reserve of 25 percent of General Fund operating A minimum of 50% total operating expense is kept on hand in ◆ expenditures, which would allow the City to continue operations and provide the General Reserve Fund in FY 2018/2019. public services for at least 90 days in the event of a natural or economic disaster. The City publishes a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) every year Summary financial information presented in a standard format ◆ and lists it on their website. The City’s financial records are audited by Eide Bailly and simple language. LLP, an independent Certified Public Accounting firm. Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-53 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Indicator Score Determination The City has pursued alternative financing as evidenced by the SAFER Grant Alternative financing opportunities were explored and pursued ◆ mentioned above as well as the passing of Measure S to further support City by the City. priorities. The City is currently in a good financial position and does not need to pursue alternative financing. Effect on Agriculture and Open Space “Conservation” designated lands comprise 813 acres in the City boundary and 9,111 acres in the SOI. The “Backcountry” designated lands comprise 535 acres Effect that the City’s service provision will have on open space ◆ of the SOI. There are no designated agricultural lands within the boundary. Fire and agricultural lands. protection and emergency medical services generally have minimal effects on agricultural land and open space. Key Score: ▲ Above Average (compared to similar Agencies), ● Average, ▼ Below Average, ◆ Statement of Fact (not rated) Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-54 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 14.8 References 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/. _____. 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/. _____. 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). November 7, 2007. Map of Fire Hazard Severity Zones for El Dorado County. Available online at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6670/fhszs_map9.pdf. _____. May 2007a. Fact Sheet: Fire Hazard Severity Zone Model A Non-Technical Primer. 4-pages. Available online at: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/FIreHazardZone_NonTechnical_Prim er.pdf. _____. April 21, 2014. Unit Strategic Fire Plan Amador-El Dorado Unit. 57-pages. Available online at: https://www.edcfiresafe.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2014-Unit-Strategic-Fire-Plan_CAL- FIRE-Amador-El-Dorado-Unit.pdf. _____. Fire and Resource Protection Program (FRAP). December 2019. Map of Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) – Map ID: WUI_19DATA SOURCES: WUI_12_35TY_18. Available online at: https://frap.fire.ca.gov/media/10300/wui_19_ada.pdf. _____. State Responsibility Areas for Fire Protection. July 2020. Map of State Responsibility Areas (SRA), Federal Responsibility Areas (FRA), and Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) – SRA20_2. Available online at: https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=5ac1dae3cb2544629a845d9a19e83991. California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). August 2003. Local Agency Formation Commission Municipal Service Review Guidelines Final. 107-pages. City of South Lake Tahoe (SLT). May 2014a. City of South Lake Tahoe 2014–2022: Housing Element Update Draft. Available online at: https://www.cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/5641/SLTGPU_PD_4- Housing_Placeholder_Final_2011-05-17?bidId=. _____. 2014b. Memorandum of Understanding between the City of South Lake Tahoe and the Lake Valley Fire Protection District. Available from LAFCO files upon request. _____. 2017. Fire Rescue Strategic Plan 2017-2022. Available online at: http://cityofslt.us/566/Chiefs- Message. Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-55 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final _____. August 21, 2018a. Community Risk Assessment & Standards of Cover. 391-pages. Available online at: http://cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/11362/Standards-of-Cover-2018?bidId=. _____.2018b. City of South Lake Tahoe Comprehensive Annual Financial Report: Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2018. Available online at: https://www.cityofslt.us/Archive.aspx?AMID=41&Type=&ADID=. _____. 2019. City of South Lake Tahoe Comprehensive Annual Financial Report: Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2019. Available online at: https://www.cityofslt.us/Archive.aspx?AMID=41&Type=&ADID=. _____. 2020a. SLT Dispatch Data. Received November 2020. _____. 2020b. Annual Report. Clive Savacool, Fire Chief. 68-pages. Available online at: https://www.cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/15206/Annual-Report-2020?bidId=. _____. August 2020c. City of South Lake Tahoe Annual Budget: FY 2020-2021. Available online at: https://www.cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/14985/City-of-South-Lake-Tahoe-CA-2020-21- Budget?bidId=. _____. 2021a. South Shore Response Plan – Policy/Procedure. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. 2021b. 2021 City Council Assignments. 3-pages. Retrieved on March 23, 2021 from: http://www.cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/12266/2021-City-Council-Assignments?bidId=. _____. 2021c. Measure S Sales Tax Fiscal Accountability. Available online at: https://www.cityofslt.us/1152/Measure-S-Sales-Tax-Fiscal-Accountabilit. County of El Dorado (EDC). Sherriff’s Department Office of Emergency Services. July 2018. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. 256-pages. Available online at: https://eldorado.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3923674&GUID=C562ECEB-7E9F-446D- AE6B-3AC56E13F465. _____. Grand Jury. June 8, 2020. West Slope Fire Protection Update. Case 19-06. Available online at: https://edcgov.us/Government/GrandJury/Documents/2019- 2020%20Reports/West%20Slope%20Fire%20Protection%20Update.pdf. _____. Treasurer-Tax Collector. 2021. Find Property. Available online at: https://common3.mptsweb.com/MBC/eldorado/tax/search#. Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2018. Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) Mapping Tool. Available online at: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/dacs/. El Dorado County Emergency Services Authority. 2017. Strategic Plan 2017 – 2022. 21-pages. Available online at: http://edcjpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/EDC-JPA-Strategic-Plan-2017- Master.pdf. Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-56 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final El Dorado Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). August 2011. Countywide Fire Suppression and Emergency Services Municipal Service Review. 253-pages. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/municipal-service-reviews-and-spheres-of-influence. _____. August 2016. City of South Lake Tahoe Municipal Services Review and Sphere of Influence Update. Authored by QK Consultants. 105-pages. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/municipal- service-reviews-and-spheres-of-influence. _____. 2019. Response to LAFCO’s Request for Information. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. September 2020a. Response to LAFCO’s Request for Information. 14-pages. 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 . 2-pages. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/. The Tahoe Fire & Fuels Team (TFFT). August 2015. Lake Tahoe Basin Community Wildfire Protection Plan. 550-pages. Available online at: http://cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/Index/27. Transparent California and Nevada Policy Research Institute. 2020. Wage data download for the year 2018. Available online at: https://transparentcalifornia.com/. Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-57 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II City of South Lake Tahoe Page 14-58 of 14-58 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Chapter 15. County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 This chapter details the formation, boundary, government structure, population and land use, disadvantaged communities, financial ability to provide services, and the provision of emergency medical services provided by the two County Service Areas within the County of El Dorado: County Service Area No. 3 (CSA 3) in the Lake Tahoe Basin; and County Service Area No. 7 (CSA 7) on the West Slope. Municipal Service Review (MSR) determinations will also be presented for each CSA. Table of Contents 15.1 Agency Overview ........................................................................................................... 15-5 15.1.1 Formation ....................................................................................................................................... 15-7 15.1.2 District Boundary/Sphere of Influence ........................................................................................... 15-7 15.1.3 Extra-Territorial Services ................................................................................................................ 15-8 15.2 District Governance and Accountability .......................................................................... 15-8 15.2.1 Government Structure .................................................................................................................... 15-8 15.2.2 Joint Powers Agency Boards ......................................................................................................... 15-11 15.2.3 Accountability ............................................................................................................................... 15-13 15.2.4 Management Efficiencies and Staffing ......................................................................................... 15-14 15.2.5 Staffing and Training ..................................................................................................................... 15-15 15.3 Growth & Population Forecasts .................................................................................... 15-15 15.3.1 Existing Population ....................................................................................................................... 15-16 15.3.2 Existing Population in SOI ............................................................................................................. 15-17 15.3.3 Projected Population Growth ....................................................................................................... 15-17 15.3.1 Existing Land Use .......................................................................................................................... 15-18 15.3.2 Potential Future Development ..................................................................................................... 15-19 15.3.3 Open Space & Agriculture ............................................................................................................ 15-20 15.3.4 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ............................................................................. 15-21 Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-1 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 15.4 Public Services and Infrastructure ................................................................................. 15-23 15.4.1 Service Overview .......................................................................................................................... 15-23 15.4.2 Mutual Aid, Automatic Aid, Other Agreements ........................................................................... 15-24 15.4.3 Dispatch ........................................................................................................................................ 15-25 15.4.4 Emergency Access ......................................................................................................................... 15-25 15.4.5 Emergency Response .................................................................................................................... 15-25 15.4.6 Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................ 15-30 15.4.7 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies ......................................................................................... 15-31 15.4.8 Cost Avoidance & Facilities Sharing .............................................................................................. 15-31 15.5 Financial Ability to Provide Services .............................................................................. 15-31 15.5.1 Financial Policies and Transparency ............................................................................................. 15-32 15.5.2 CSA 3 Revenues and Expenditures ............................................................................................... 15-32 15.5.3 CSA 7 Revenues and Expenditures ............................................................................................... 15-35 15.5.4 Revenues (Over/Under) Expenditures.......................................................................................... 15-37 15.5.5 CSA 3 and 7 Assets and Liabilities ................................................................................................. 15-39 15.5.6 Net Position .................................................................................................................................. 15-39 15.5.7 Asset Maintenance and Replacement .......................................................................................... 15-39 15.5.8 Cost Avoidance ............................................................................................................................. 15-39 15.5.9 Financial Summary and Ability to Provide Services ...................................................................... 15-39 15.6 Determinations ............................................................................................................ 15-41 15.6.1 Summary MSR Determinations for County Service Area No. 3 .................................................... 15-41 15.6.2 Summary MSR Determinations for County Service Area No. 7 .................................................... 15-43 15.7 References ................................................................................................................... 15-47 Table of Tables Table 15-1: Geographic Summary (2020) of CSA 3 & CSA 7 Boundary/SOI ............................................ 15-8 Table 15-2: Members of the West Slope JPA ........................................................................................ 15-10 Table 15-3: Members of the Cal Tahoe JPA ........................................................................................... 15-11 Table 15-4: West Slope JPA Board of Directors ..................................................................................... 15-12 Table 15-5: Cal Tahoe JPA Board of Directors ....................................................................................... 15-13 Table 15-6: El Dorado County, CSA 3 & CSA 7 Historic Population (2010 & 2018) ............................... 15-16 Table 15-7: Total Estimated & Projected Population (2020 – 2040) .................................................... 15-17 Table 15-8: Allocation Performance Table for 2015-2032 by Jurisdiction ............................................ 15-20 Table 15-9: Acreage Designated in the General Plan as Open Space, Agriculture, and Natural Resources within CSA 3 and CSA 7 Boundaries....................................................................................................... 15-21 Table 15-10: MHI in Census Block Groups for CSA 3 & CSA 7 .............................................................. 15-21 Table 15-11: West Slope Ambulance by District ................................................................................... 15-23 Table 15-12: Cal Tahoe Ambulance by District ...................................................................................... 15-24 Table 15-13: CSA 3 - Ambulance Calls for Service by Medic Number by Type, 2019 ........................... 15-26 Table 15-14: CSA 7 - Ambulance Incidents by Identifier by Type, 2019 ................................................ 15-28 Table 15-15: West Slope JPA Maximum Response Times Per Contract in Minutes ............................. 15-29 Table 15-16: Cal Tahoe JPA Maximum Response Times Per Contract in Minutes ................................ 15-29 Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-2 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table of Figures Figure 15-1: CSA 3 & CSA 7 Service Areas, Ambulance Locations, and Hospital Locations .................... 15-6 Figure 15-2: Organizational Structure ..................................................................................................... 15-9 Figure 15-3: CSA 3 - Calls for Service from 2010-2019 .......................................................................... 15-26 Figure 15-4: CSA 3 - Ambulance Calls for Service by Medic Number by Type, 2019 ............................ 15-27 Figure 15-5: CSA 7 - Calls for Service from 2010-2019 .......................................................................... 15-27 Figure 15-6: CSA 7 - Ambulance Calls for Service by Medic Number by Type, 2019 ............................ 15-28 Figure 15-7: CSA 3 - Total Revenues and Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 to FY 2020/2021 ................ 15-33 Figure 15-8: CSA 7 - Total Revenues and Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 to FY 2020/2021 ................ 15-36 Figure 15-9: CSA 3 - Revenues (under/over) Expenditures ................................................................... 15-38 Figure 15-10: CSA 7 - Revenues (under/over) Expenditures ................................................................. 15-38 Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-3 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-4 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 15.1 Agency Overview County Service Areas authorize counties to provide specialized services in unincorporated areas of the County where services are needed. Under CSA law (Government Code §25210 et seq.), the County of El Dorado Board of Supervisors has the authority to perform the services and functions of a CSA. All CSA power resides in the Board of Supervisors. Both CSA 3 and CSA 7 serve as administrative vehicles for the collection of revenue needed for the provision of services for which the CSAs are empowered to provide throughout the entire incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County of El Dorado (El Dorado LAFCO, 2011). There are two base hospitals for the County of El Dorado. Marshall Medical Center is the designated paramedic-base hospital for CSA 7 located in Placerville. Marshall is a verified and designated Level III Trauma Center with 103 beds and a team of 860 employees. Barton Memorial Hospital is the designated paramedic-based hospital for CSA 3 located in South Lake Tahoe. Barton is a verified and designated Level III Trauma Center providing 24-hour emergency care, childbirth, ambulatory surgery, physical therapy, and rehabilitation services. The boundaries for both CSAs as well as ambulance station locations and hospital locations can be seen in Figure 15-1. County Service Area No. 3 (CSA 3) CSA 3 covers the eastern portion of the County, bordering on the State of Nevada to the east, Lake Tahoe to the east and north, and Alpine County and Amador County to the south as seen in Figure 15-1. CSA 3 encompasses the County of El Dorado area of the Lake Tahoe Basin and parts of the High Sierras. CSA 3 is empowered to provide the following services: emergency medical services; drainage and erosion control; mosquito abatement and vector control; and snow removal and equipment. County Service Area No. 7 (CSA 7) CSA 7 covers all of the Western Slope of the County. The CSA encompasses the largest concentration of El Dorado County residents, including the City of Placerville and the communities of Diamond Springs, El Dorado Hills, Cameron Park and Shingle Springs as seen in Figure 15-1. Rural communities such as Georgetown, Grizzly Flat, Mosquito and Rescue are also within CSA 7. CSA 7, also referred to as the West Slope, encompasses all of El Dorado County west of the Great Basin & Pacific Watershed Divide Line, including that portion of the western slope within the boundaries of the City of Placerville. CSA 7 is empowered to provide only emergency medical services. Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-5 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 15-1: CSA 3 & CSA 7 Service Areas, Ambulance Locations, and Hospital Locations Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-6 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 15.1.1 Formation County Service Area No. 3 (CSA 3) was formed in 1963 and County Service Area No. 7 (CSA 7) was formed in 1976. The County of El Dorado considers the CSAs to be administrative units of county government for the provision of governmental services. 15.1.2 District Boundary/Sphere of Influence This section briefly describes the existing boundaries and Spheres of Influence (SOIs) for CSA 3 and CSA 7. CSA 3 comprises approximately 161,007 acres or 252 square miles as shown in Table 15-1 on the next page. CSA 3 was formed in 1963 by Resolution No. 9-63 of the County of El Dorado Board of Supervisors. El Dorado LAFCO affirmed the Sphere of Influence (SOI) for CSA 3 in September 2011 via Resolution No. L-2011-09. The SOI for CSA 3, is coterminous with its current boundaries. The CSA serves all of the incorporated and unincorporated areas on the east slope of the County of El Dorado, including the Lake Tahoe Basin. This area includes the communities of Meeks Bay, Fallen Leaf Lake, South Lake Tahoe, Meyers, Phillips, and Twin Bridges. The fire agencies located within this CSA include: • Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LAV) • Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District (FLL) • The City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department (SLT) • Meeks Bay Fire Protection District (MEK)1 CSA 7 comprises approximately 982,100 acres or 1,535 square miles as shown in Table 15-1 below. CSA 7 was formed in 1976 by Resolution No. 316-76 of the County Board of Supervisors. El Dorado LAFCO 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 Sierra Nevada Mountains and foothills. The area includes the communities of Strawberry, Sciots Camp, Kyburz, White Hall, Pollock Pines, Camino, Quintette, 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 (CAM) • El Dorado Hills County Water District (consolidated with Latrobe FPD in 2015) (EDH) • El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF) • Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District (DSP) • Georgetown Fire Protection District (GEO • Garden Valley Fire Protection District (GRV) 1 Meeks Bay Fire Protection District is a fire protection district which operates within CSA 3 boundaries. MEK does not provide ambulance service through the Cal Tahoe JPA. Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-7 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • Mosquito Fire Protection District (MOS) • Pioneer Fire Protection District (PIO) • Rescue Fire Protection District (RES) Table 15-1: Geographic Summary (2020) of CSA 3 & CSA 7 Boundary/SOI CSA 3 Area Boundary/SOI CSA 7 Area Boundary/SOI Total Acres 161,007 982,100 Square Miles 252 1,535 Number of Assessor Parcels 33,132 81,841 Source: El Dorado County GIS Data, 2020 15.1.3 Extra-Territorial Services Ambulances throughout the County respond to calls for service in areas outside of the County through mutual and automatic aid agreements administered through each fire agency that operates an ambulance service through two Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs). Detailed information regarding these services can be found in the relevant MSR chapters for each agency in Volume II – Agency Municipal Service Reviews. 15.2 District Governance and Accountability This section describes how performance, accountability, transparency, and public engagement relate to the public’s trust in local government. LAFCO is required by the CKH Act to make specific determinations regarding a public agency’s government structure and accountability. 15.2.1 Government Structure As mentioned previously, CSAs are not separate independent governmental entities but are administrative areas of county government for the provision of governmental services by counties. County Service Area Law (Government Code §25210 et seq.), was enacted to address growth problems and service needs in unincorporated areas within counties. Both CSAs serve as an administrative vehicles for the collection of revenue needed for the provision of the services they provide (El Dorado LAFCO, 2011). Both CSAs contract with Joint Powers Agencies (JPAs) to provide emergency medical services. These are the El Dorado County Regional Prehospital Emergency Services Operations Authority (West Slope JPA) for CSA 7, and the California Tahoe Emergency Services Operations Authority (Cal Tahoe JPA) for CSA 3. The JPAs are made up of two types of member agencies: transporting and non-transporting agencies. Transporting agencies are sub-contracted by the JPAs to operate the medic units and are paid an annual fixed rate. The transporting agencies are responsible for personnel, operating expenses, and administrative overhead. Non-transporting agencies are signatories to the JPA but do not receive funds from the CSAs because they do not operate medic units for the CSAs. The organizational structure for ambulance services in the County of El Dorado can be seen in Figure 15-2. The County Board of Supervisors is responsible for the fiscal management of the CSAs, and function as the CSAs Board of Directors. County staff manage the CSAs. The CAO is responsible for the preparation and Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-8 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final execution of provider contracts between the County and the JPAs. The contracts define the roles and responsibilities of the County and the JPA. The Contract Officer is responsible for administering the master contract between the County of El Dorado and the JPA. These responsibilities include contract compliance, development of policies and procedures affecting the JPA and the County, inspection of equipment, and ride-a-long with paramedics (County staff, personal communication, November 2021). The County contracts out ambulance billing services for the processing of all patient care reports which includes reviewing for accuracy; billing the appropriate health insurance carrier; and following up to assure that payment has been received for services provided. If a bill is not paid in a timely manner, the bill is forwarded to an outside contractor (County staff, personal communication, November 2021). The El Dorado County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Agency is responsible for medical oversight of ambulance services within the County of El Dorado. These responsibilities include the development of medical protocols, policies, and procedures. The EMS Agency Medical Director is responsible for medical quality assurance programs that monitor the performance of the medical providers and system. Figure 15-2: Organizational Structure Government El Dorado County Board of Supervisors CSAs 3 & 7 Oversite Funding Chief Administrative Office Emergency Medical Services Agency Contract Officer Contractual Cal Tahoe & West Slope JPAs Oversite Medical Director Ambulance Billing Provision of Ambulance Services The responsibility of the JPA is to interface with the Chief Administrative Office to implement the provisions of the Master Contract to provide ambulance services to the CSAs. The JPAs sub-contract to the fire agencies to operate the medic units and hire the EMT & EMT-Paramedic personnel. In addition, North Tahoe Fire Protection District in Placer County is contracted to provide ambulance services to the West Shore Zone of the Lake Tahoe Basin area of the County. This arrangement will not be reviewed in this report. El Dorado County Emergency Services Authority (West Slope JPA) In 1996, the El Dorado County Emergency Services Authority (West Slope JPA) was formed for the purpose of ensuring automatic aid between fire agencies for the delivery of an extensive, prehospital emergency medical service in an efficient manner without regard to jurisdictional boundaries. Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-9 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final A joint Emergency Command Center (ECC) operated by CAL FIRE Camino ECC dispatches the closest fire unit and simultaneously dispatches the closest medic unit (ambulance). Key components of the West Slope JPA system include: • Medical Control; • Centralized Dispatch Center with Emergency Medical Dispatch Trained Personnel; • Single West Slope of the County Emergency and Non-Emergency Transport System; • Cross Training of EMS Personnel; • Daily Training; • Equipment Maintenance & Management; • Firefighter/Paramedic Personnel from Sub-contracting Fire Agencies Staffing the Ambulances; and • Compliance with Standards. Members of the West Slope JPA include the agencies listed in Table 15-2 below. Those agencies that operate ambulances for the JPA are identified as “transporting agencies,” and those that are signatories, but do not operate ambulances are identified as “non-transporting agencies.” Table 15-2: Members of the West Slope JPA Agency Role Ambulances CAL FIRE Camino ECC Dispatch None Cameron Park Community Services District Transporting Agency Medic 89 Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection Transporting Agency Medic 49 District El Dorado County Fire Protection District Medic 17, Medic 19, Medic Transporting Agency 25, Medic 28 El Dorado Hills County Water District Transporting Agency Medic 85 Georgetown Fire Protection District Transporting Agency Medic 61 Garden Valley Fire Protection District Non-Transporting Agency None Mosquito Fire Protection District Non-Transporting Agency None Pioneer Fire Protection District Non-Transporting Agency None Rescue Fire Protection District Non-Transporting Agency None Marshall Medical Center Hospital None The Transporting Agencies are sub-contracting fire agencies to the JPA and operate the medic units based on an annual fixed rate for costs with funds from CSA 7. These costs include personnel, operating expenses, equipment, and administrative overhead. Non-transporting fire agencies may receive funds from CSA 7 for medical supplies and training. Some of these agencies operate advanced life support engine companies under approval with the El Dorado County Emergency Medical Services Agency (EDCJPA, 2020a). Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-10 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final California Tahoe Emergency Services Operations Authority (Cal Tahoe JPA) The California Tahoe Emergency Services Operations Authority (Cal Tahoe JPA) is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) formed in 2001 as a transport contractor for ambulance service. CSA 3 contracted with the Cal Tahoe JPA to provide ambulance service to the Lake Tahoe South Shore service area and a small portion of northwestern Alpine County. The area of Alpine County includes a portion of State Route 89 from the El Dorado-Alpine County line south to its intersection with State Route 88, then west on State Route 88, to and including the community of Kirkwood. Only incidental ambulance services are provided to residential properties in Kirkwood that are located in Amador County when requested through Alpine County Dispatch. Members of the Cal Tahoe JPA include the agencies listed in Table 15-3. Those agencies that operate ambulances for the JPA are identified as “transporting agencies” and those that are signatories, but do not operate ambulances are identified as “non-transporting agencies.” Table 15-3: Members of the Cal Tahoe JPA Agency Role Ambulances Cal Tahoe JPA Medic 1, Medic 2, Medic 3, Transporting Agency Medic 5 (Reserve) City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department Non-Transporting Agency None City of South Lake Tahoe Dispatch Dispatch None Fallen Leaf Lake Community Service District Non-Transporting Agency None Lake Valley Fire Protection District Transporting Agency Medic 7, Medic 6 (Reserve) Cal Tahoe JPA operates three full-time ambulances and maintains one reserve ambulance that are dispatched by the City of South Lake Tahoe Police Department Dispatch Center. Paramedics from the Cal Tahoe JPA and Lake Valley Fire Protection District responded to 3,468 emergency medical calls in 2018. This contract for ambulance service is funded through CSA 3. Cal Tahoe JPA had a $3.2 million operating budget for FY 2019-20. The Cal Tahoe JPA was awarded a two-year contract for 911 ambulance services effective September 1, 2019 (CTESOA, 2019). 15.2.2 Joint Powers Agency Boards West Slope JPA The West Slope JPA operates under the direction of the Board of Directors comprised of one representative from each of the nine fire agencies, plus Marshall Medical Center and CAL FIRE – ECC as listed in Table 15-2 above. Each Board Member is appointed to the Board by the individual fire district Board of Directors or from the agency they represent (EDCJPA, 2020). There are no term limits for Board members. The new Board Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson is selected by the Board Members each year. The Board Chairperson assigns directors to the JPA’s committees. The West Slope JPA’s active committees include the Controlled Substance, Finance, and Emergency Medical Operations (EMSOC) Committees. The current Board of Directors members, the agencies they represent, and committee appointments are shown in Table 15-4 below. Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-11 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 15-4: West Slope JPA Board of Directors Name Title Representative Agency Committee Appointments Mike Blankenheim Division Chief CAL FIRE - ECC None Sherry Moranz Assistant Chief CAM Finance and EMSOC Finance, EMSOC, and Controlled Matthew Gallagher Fire Chief DSP Substances Finance, EMSOC, and Controlled Tim Cordero Fire Chief ECF Substances Finance, EMSOC, and Controlled Maurice Johnson Fire Chief EDH Substances Glen Brown Fire Chief GEO Finance and EMSOC Wes Norman Fire Chief GRV None Jack Rosevear Fire Chief MQT None Mark Matthews Fire Chief PIO None Michael Lilienthal Fire Chief RES None Cynthia Rice Fire Chief Marshall Medical Center None Source: West Slope JPA, 2021 The West Slope JPA Board of Directors meets on a bi-monthly schedule, unless a special meeting is called, usually at 9:00 AM. The meeting location is the El Dorado Hills Fire Department Employee Development Center, 4640 Golden Foothill Parkway, Suite 10, El Dorado Hills, CA 95762. The Board of Directors is responsible for: the development of an annual budget; establishing policies, procedures, and oversight; and authorizing overall policy direction to the Executive Director. The most recently approved Joint Powers Agreement in January 2019 did not provide a provision for stipends to Board Members other than for transportation to be reimbursed at the IRS mileage rate (West Slope JPA, 2020c; LAFCO, 2020a) Cal Tahoe JPA The Cal Tahoe JPA operates under the direction of the Board of Directors comprised of two members from City of South Lake Tahoe, two members from Lake Valley Fire Protection District, and one elected official from Fallen Leaf Lake Community Service District Fire Department. In addition, the Fire Chief of each agency is also involved on the Board. Each Board Member is appointed to the Board by the individual fire district Board of Directors or from the agency they represent for a period of two years. The new Board Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, and a Secretary/Treasurer are selected by the Board Members at the last meeting of each year for assumption of office at the beginning of the next year. The Board Chair assigns Directors to the JPA’s committees and appoints Committee Chair’s and Vice Chair’s. The Cal Tahoe JPA does not have any active committees. The current Board of Directors members, their committee appointments, and their term of office expiration dates are shown in Table 15-5 on the next page. Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-12 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Table 15-5: Cal Tahoe JPA Board of Directors Name Title Term End Representative Agency Tamara Wallace Board Chair Nov. 2022 City of South Lake Tahoe Mike Cathcart Vice Chair N/A Fallen Leaf Lake CSD John Rice Director Dec. 2024 Lake Valley FPD Leona Allen Director Dec. 2024 Lake Valley FPD Cody Bass Director Nov. 2022 City of South Lake Tahoe Ryan Wagoner Executive Director/Secretary N/A N/A Robert Merritt Treasurer N/A Robert Merritt Accounting Firm Source: Cal Tahoe JPA, 2021 Regular Board Meetings for the Cal Tahoe JPA are held on the second Monday of each quarter. The Executive Director of the Cal Tahoe JPA is a person selected by the board and is an employee of the JPA to provide operational oversight of financial operations, contract negotiations and compliance in collaboration with the Fire Chiefs and member agencies. The Executive Director, organizes, directs, coordinates, and evaluates the operations of the JPA. Under the direction of and in collaboration with the Board of Directors, the Executive Director conducts on-going opportunity analysis to determine key performance management issues and to provide sound financial management. 15.2.3 Accountability Brown Act The Brown Act is described in Volume II – Chapter 1, Fire and Emergency Medical Services Agency MSR General Information. JPAs are a type of local agency for purposes of the Brown Act, and are therefore required to meet the requirements of the Brown Act. All meetings of the two JPA Boards and committees are open to the public in accordance with the Brown Act. The agenda for each meeting includes a time for “Communications from the Audience on Non-agenda Items” and a period for the public to speak on any non-agenda items. Agendas are made available at least 72 hours before meetings. Written documents are made available on the individual JPA websites. The Boards of Directors for each JPA has a solid record of adherence to the requirements of the Brown Act. The State Legislature updated the Brown Act in 2016 as codified in Government Code §54954.2 (see also Assembly Bill 2257). These new Brown Act requirements are detailed in Volume II – Chapter 1. The Cal Tahoe JPA provides for a direct link to the most current Board meeting agenda on the home page as well as provides past agendas and minutes on the agency’s website. Therefore, the Cal Tahoe JPA meets all requirements of the Brown Act 2016 Updates’ technical requirements described in AB2257. The West Slope JPA does not provide a direct link to the most current Board meeting agenda on the home page, but rather has agendas and minutes accessible within the contextual menu of the site. This does not meet with the requirements of AB225; therefore the West Slope JPA does not meet the requirements of the Brown Act 2016 Updates (West Slope JPA, 2021; Cal Tahoe JPA, 2021). The JPA is currently under contract with Streamline to update the website for compliance with ADA and posting regulations. The Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-13 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final new website is anticipated to be launched on November 1, 2021 (West Slope JPA Staff, personal communication, September 2021). Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20 suspended parts of the Brown Act that require in-person attendance of Board members and citizens at public meetings as described in Volume II – Chapter 1. In response to these events, the Cal Tahoe JPA Board of Directors implemented Teleconference/Electronic Meeting Protocols effective April 13, 2020 which allow for public participation through video conferencing and by telephone. Participants may call into the meeting on the phone number published on the Agenda. All meetings are streamed live via Zoom, a video conferencing platform, which is accessible by the public for free (Cal Tahoe JPA, 2020a). The West Slope JPA implemented COVID-19 protocols effective April 22, 2020 which respectfully requests members of the public planning to address the Board who are feeling ill to submit comments in writing to admin@edcjpa.com to be entered into the public record. The JPA asks those from the public that do attend to maintain a six-foot distance between themselves and others. A teleconference line is also available for members of the public to participate via telephone (West Slope JPA, 2020d). General Accountability There are several laws, regulations, and guidelines which prescribe medical services associated with ambulance services, including state laws and regulations exercised through the JPAs cooperative agreement with the County, the County Emergency Medical Service, and the Medical Transportation Ordinance, as well as other County requirements and regulations. Both JPAs demonstrated accountability and transparency in its disclosure of information and cooperation with El Dorado LAFCO. The JPA’s cooperated with LAFCO’s requests for information. The JPA ambulance services along with all the fire protection agencies in El Dorado County have recently been the subject of a grand jury report, West Slope Fire Protection Update, Grand Jury Case 19-06, June 8, 2020. The Grand Jury posits in Case No. 19-06 that, while it made sense historically, the only reason there are multiple fire agencies in El Dorado County is because of "strong loyalty to a local home district," coming "at the expense of the County as a whole." The Grand Jury concludes that the insufficient revenues afforded to rural districts put a strain on the mutual and automatic aid system as a whole, forcing more financially stable districts to "subsidize" the rural ones by having the former respond to calls when the latter is unable to do so. The issues raised in the grand jury report remain valid (LAFCO, 2020). Changes to the governmental structure of some fire protection districts are needed to address these issues. 15.2.4 Management Efficiencies and Staffing The Cal Tahoe JPA Executive Director is an employee of the JPA and reports to the JPA Board of Directors and is responsible for directing JPA operations and overseeing and implementing policies on behalf of the Board. An important part of management effectiveness includes the JPAs adopting a mission and vision statement. The Cal Tahoe JPA Mission statement is: to work collaboratively with fire districts, hospitals, air ambulance services and other stakeholders to ensure high quality services (CTESOA,2020d). Additionally, the JPA does have adopted policies which describe roles and responsibilities. The West Slope JPA Executive Director is appointed by and reports to the JPA Board of Directors, and is responsible for directing JPA operations and overseeing and implementing policies on behalf of the Board. Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-14 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final An important part of management effectiveness includes the JPAs adopting a mission and vision statement. The West Slope JPA Mission statement is: Providing administrative, financial, and operational assistance to member agencies for a coordinated, fully integrated fire-based pre-hospital emergency medical and dispatch services for the Western Slope of El Dorado County (EDCJPA, 2020e). 15.2.5 Staffing and Training The Cal Tahoe JPA operates a total of five ambulances, on a 24/7/365 basis. One ambulance is maintained through a sub-contracting agreement with the following transporting fire agency: • Lake Valley Fire Protection District The Cal Tahoe JPA maintains the other three (3) Paramedic ambulances. The JPA maintains a Transporting Agreement with Lake Valley Fire Protection District to staff Medic 7. For all ambulances under contract with the Cal Tahoe JPA, a minimum of two prehospital care personnel are assigned to an ambulance at all times. The transporting agencies are responsible for hiring firefighter/paramedic personnel to staff and operate the ambulances and provide ambulance service. Staffing levels for Lake Valley Fire Protection District are detailed within that agency’s chapter of Volume II of this report. All paramedic ambulance staff must be capable of providing advanced life support (ALS) care and must be staffed at all times with, at a minimum: one (1) state licensed and locally accredited paramedic at all times, and one (1) certified and locally accredited EMT-1 (Cal Tahoe JPA, 2021). The West Slope JPA operates a total of eight ambulances, on a 24/7/365 basis through sub-contracting agreements with the following transporting fire agencies: • 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) A minimum of two prehospital care personnel are assigned to an ambulance at all times. The transporting agencies are responsible for hiring firefighter/paramedic personnel to staff and operate the medic units and provide ambulance service. Staffing levels for each agency are detailed within that agency’s chapter of Volume II of this report. All ambulances must be staffed at all times with, at a minimum: one (1) state licensed and locally accredited paramedic at all times; and one (1) certified and locally accredited EMT-1 (West Slope JPA, 1999). 15.3 Growth & Population Forecasts The growth and population projections for the affected areas are a determinations which LAFCO is required to describe, consistent with the MSR Guidelines from the Office of Planning & Research (OPR) as set forth in the CKH Act. This section provides information on the existing population and future growth projections for the two CSAs which make up the entirety of the County of El Dorado. Historical and anticipated population growth is a factor which affects service demand. Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-15 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 15.3.1 Existing Population According to the U.S. Census estimates, there were 190,678 people residing in the County of El Dorado in 2018. Table 15-6 below shows historic population the County of El Dorado and the two CSAs. Data for the two CSAs was extrapolated from US Census data utilizing zip code areas as a reference for CSA 7. Zip code boundaries most closely align with the boundary delineations between the two CSAs. The population for CSA 3 was derived from finding the difference between the County-wide population number and the CSA 7 population. Detailed information regarding population demographics and socio-economic indicators in El Dorado County is provided in Volume I - Appendix A and Appendix B. Table 15-6: El Dorado County, CSA 3 & CSA 7 Historic Population (2010 & 2018) 2010 2020 The County of El Dorado1 181,058 193,227 CSA 33 30,874 30,457 CSA 72 150,184 162,770 Source: 1California Department of Finance. May 2020. E-2. California County Population Estimates and Components of Change by Year – July 1, 2000-2010. Sacramento, California. 2 US Census, 2010: DEC Summary File 1, Total Population – Table P12 by Zip Code (95721, 96142, 96150, 96155) US Census, 2018: ACS 5-Year Estimates, Age & Sex – Table S0101 by Zip Code (95721, 96142, 96150, 96155). 3 Difference between County of El Dorado population and CSA 7. As shown in the above table, between the years 2010 and 2020, the population increased by approximately 12,169 for the entire County, which equates to an average annual growth rate of 0.067 percent. The population of the County has continued to increase with additional developments occurring in the Cameron Park and El Dorado Hills portions of the County over the last 10 years. CSA 7 has also experienced growth from 2010 to 2018, with an average annual growth rate of 1.068 percent. CSA 3 has experienced a slight decline in population by about 695 persons from 2010 to 2018. This is most likely due to existing housing transitioning from permanent residential use to seasonal or vacation rental use in the Lake Tahoe Basin as well as the reduction in job opportunities and lack of new residential development generally over the past decade. Additionally, growth in the South Lake Tahoe area (CSA 3) is governed by the Tahoe Regional Planning Area (TRPA). Within El Dorado County, the median age in 2018 was 46.6 years, placing El Dorado County in the category of one of the oldest counties in the United States (see Volume I - Appendix A). As people age, medical and physical related complications rise, leading to increased levels of service for ambulances and fire responses to medical emergencies. Tourism CSA 3 includes the areas of El Dorado County that surround South Lake Tahoe, a prime tourist destination within the State of California. The Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) estimates that approximately 24 million visitors come to the Lake Tahoe Basin each year, of which 40 percent are day visitors. Peaks in visitors to the Basin generally occur on skier days, holidays, and weekends in the summer months (Tahoe Prosperity Center, 2018). Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-16 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final CSA 7 also sees a rise in daytime population from tourism as visitors travel throughout the County to destinations that revere the County’s history such as Coloma and Placerville as well as the seasonal popularity of the Apple Hill area from September to November that brings approximately 1.2 million visitors annually to the Camino Area (SACOG, 2018). Additionally, visitors frequent the Crystal Basin Recreation Area where service is provided without any additional revenue other than service billing (no property tax, PILT, ect.) (West Slope JPA staff, personal communication, September 2021). 15.3.2 Existing Population in SOI The SOI for both CSAs are coterminous with their prospective boundaries. 15.3.3 Projected Population Growth Projecting future population for both CSAs is complicated due to varying areas of development within each CSA’s boundaries. Growth projections between the two CSAs vary widely due to development in CSA 3 being tightly regulated by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). For purposes of this MSR, data from the California Department of Finance (DOF) was used to project population growth for CSA 7 while data from TRPA was used to project population growth for CSA 3 as shown in Table 15-7 below. The DOF provides population projections at the County level and the growth rate for the County of El Dorado is utilized to extrapolate population growth rates for CSA 3. By the year 2040, it is estimated that CSA 7’s existing boundary will encompass a population of 179,797 persons. This represents an average annual growth rate of 1.104 percent between the years of 2020 and 2040. Table 15-7: Total Estimated & Projected Population (2020 – 2040) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 County of El Dorado1 193,227 201,041 207,496 211,537 213,033 CSA 33 30,457 31,152 31,846 32,541 33,930 CSA 72 162,770 169,889 175,650 178,996 179,797 Source: 1California Department of Finance. July 2019. E-2. California County Population Estimates and Components of Change by Year – July 1, 2000-2010 2Estimated population based on the difference between the County of El Dorado and CSA 3 3TRPA, Linking Tahoe 2020 Regional Transportation Plan Draft, September 2020 – Extrapolated from Appendix G: Data & Forecasting. Using growth rate data for the entire Tahoe Basin at 12.4% from 2018-2045 and known population data for the CSA in 2018. The projected growth rate for the County of El Dorado anticipates development throughout the entire County. The addition of 17,027 more people to CSA 7 by 2040 is possible as the CSA has undeveloped areas within existing boundaries that could potentially be available for more intensive residential development. Areas located in the western portion of CSA 7 have a high probability of developing over the next twenty years as they are located near El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park. The addition of 3,473 more people to CSA 3 by 2040 is possible as the CSA has undeveloped areas within existing boundaries that could potentially be available for more intensive residential and tourism development, although the Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-17 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final TRPA regulates growth in this area. Areas located in CSA 3 have a lower probability of developing over the next twenty years as they are located in a geographically and politically constrained area. The COVID-19 pandemic has changed some trends in the CSA 3 area. With tech-companies in the Bay Area allowing employees to work remotely, many are moving to the Lake Tahoe region and purchasing second homes or primary homes. During the summer of 2020, home sales in South Lake Tahoe almost doubled compared to 2019 (Alexander and Holder, 2020). Preliminary housing purchasing trends for July to December 2020 suggest that the percentage of purchasers who are planning to live locally after purchasing a home in the County is down six percent from the same time period in 2018 and 2019. Therefore, the population in CSA 3 may trend upwards slower than anticipated, or begin to decline (Old Republic Title, 2020; 2019; 2018). 15.3.1 Existing Land Use Land-use is a factor that affects population growth and therefore demand for public services. However, the two JPAs are not land use authorities. 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, which operates under the authority of the states of California and Nevada and the federal government through the Bi- State Compact, which was ratified by Congress in 1969 and signed by the President of the United States. The Bi-State Compact as revised in 1980, gave TRPA authority to adopt environmental quality standards, called thresholds, and to enforce ordinances designed to achieve these thresholds. The TRPA Governing Board adopted the thresholds in 1982. TRPA was the first bi-state regional environmental planning agency in the country (TRPA, 2020). To implement the direction of the Compact, TRPA uses two main tools to protect and restore Lake Tahoe: • An Environmental Improvement Program that implements restoration projects to heal past damage to the ecosystem; and • A regulatory program that works to minimize the impact of developed properties on the watershed. Although the Compact designates TRPA as the leader of environmental standards in the Basin, they work in cooperative partnership with other organizations, agencies, and many private property owners to implement their programs. 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) (LAFCO, 2011). 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. Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-18 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 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 east portion of the County. County General Plan The boundary area for CSA 7 is within unincorporated County of El Dorado, plus the City of Placerville, and is subject to the land use policies and regulations of the County and the City. CSA 3 boundary area includes unincorporated area, plus the City of South Lake Tahoe, and is subject to the land use policies and regulations of the County and the City as well as the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). Most land- use decisions, initiated by private property owners over the last decade, are secured via entitlements and land-use permits from El Dorado County and other agencies. The County plans for its future growth through its General Plan, which is a long-term comprehensive framework to guide physical, social, and economic development within the community’s planning area. Within the General Plan, Community Regions establish urban limit lines and provide those areas which are appropriate for highest intensity of self-sustaining compact urban-type development or suburban type development. CSA 7 includes Community Regions El Dorado Hills, Cameron Park, El Dorado, Diamond Springs, Shingle Springs, and the City of Placerville and immediate surroundings. Land uses within the CSA boundaries encompass all land use types available throughout the County and City including single-family residential, rural residential, agricultural, and open space. Community Region boundaries shall generally be coterminous with the Sphere of Influence boundaries of incorporated cities. Community Region boundaries may extend beyond a city’s sphere of influence to recognize existing and anticipated development patterns consistent with that of Community Regions. However, cities should be encouraged to expand their spheres of influence to be contiguous with Community Region boundaries (EDC, 2004; EDCGOV, 2015). Development within Community Regions, as with development elsewhere in the County, may proceed only in accordance with all applicable General Plan Policies, including those regarding infrastructure availability as set forth in the Transportation and Circulation Element and the Public Services and Utilities Elements. Accordingly, development in Community Regions and elsewhere may be constrained in some cases until such time as adequate roadways, utilities, and other public service infrastructure become available, and wildfire hazards are mitigated as required by an approved Fire Safe Plan. In CSA 3, the adopted plan for the Tahoe Basin is the Regional Plan for the Tahoe Basin and the Plan Area Statements, both adopted by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), and the Meyers Area (Community) Plan, adopted by El Dorado County and TRPA. Future population growth within the Lake Tahoe Region is dependent upon zoning and General Plan policies and land-use designations in the region. 15.3.2 Potential Future Development 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. The highest potential for new development to occur includes the areas of El Dorado Hills, Diamond Springs, and Cameron Park where new subdivisions are anticipated to be developed over the next ten years. The following projects are in the planning stages within the CSA and have completed a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EDCGOV, 2020a): Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-19 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • Creekside Village – 208 acres – 926 units – 60.6 acres of Open Space (Residential) • Cool General Retail Project – 9,100 sq. ft. – parking for 33 vehicles – Western theme • Montano De El Dorado existing Phase I and proposed Phase II Master Plan: Phase I project site is an existing commercial center consisting of 5 structures totaling 39,645 square feet on 4 parcels totaling 20.1 acres. Includes retail, restaurants, and a bank. The proposed Phase II project site is approximately 16.8 acres (731,808 square feet) of undeveloped nonnative grassland, adjacent to Creekside Greens Development (east/southeast) and the commercial development of El Dorado Hills Town Center. Development within CSA 3 is more complex due to the policies that limit development overseen by the TRPA throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin. 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 15-8 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 15-8: 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 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 in CSA 3. This is assuming both the County and the City do not receive any deductions in allocations over the next twelve years. Through these policies potential development is much more restrictive than in CSA 7. 15.3.3 Open Space & Agriculture El Dorado LAFCO’s policies require that an MSR/SOI offer a determination about the effect that a district’s service provision will have on open space and agricultural lands (El Dorado LAFCO 2019). For purposes of this MSR analysis, open space data was derived from the County General Plan land-use data. Land designated as Open Space within the CSA 7 boundary calculates to 34,381 acres, with 5.8 acres in CSA 3. A breakdown of open space, natural resources, and agricultural land located within each CSA can be seen in Table 15-9 below. Within CSA 7, there are 98,381 acres within area plans which may include open space, Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-20 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final natural resources, and agricultural land. However, this breakdown was not available to consultants. For CSA 3, there are 19,410 acres located within area plans. Table 15-9: Acreage Designated in the General Plan as Open Space, Agriculture, and Natural Resources within CSA 3 and CSA 7 Boundaries CSA 3 (in acres) CSA 7 (in acres) Open space Agriculture Natural Resources Open space Agriculture Natural Resources 5.8 0.00 26,157 34,381 57,949 609,997 Source: County of El Dorado GIS, 2019 Agricultural lands are calculated to be approximately 57,949 acres within CSA 7. The effect on open space lands for both CSAs is minimal. The CSAs provide ambulance services to all areas within their boundaries. LAFCO has an interest in documenting the conversion of agricultural and open space lands to other land use types, such as residential use. The CSAs provide ambulance services throughout the County and do not play a role in these types of land-use conversions. 15.3.4 Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities As detailed in Volume II – Chapter 1, a Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) is an unincorporated area within a County in which the annual median household income (MHI) is less than 80 percent of the statewide MHI. Within the boundaries of CSA 7 are located 11 Census Block Groups that meets the DUC threshold as well as 16 Census Block Groups located in CSA 3. Therefore, these areas are classified as disadvantaged unincorporated communities as listed Table 15-10 below. Table 15-10: MHI in Census Block Groups for CSA 3 & CSA 7 Identification Census Block Group Number of Median Household Population Number Number Number Households Income (2018) CSA 3 304022 030402 2 1,186 484 $38,125 302002 030200 2 1,005 448 $55,417 304014 030401 4 880 343 $48,467 304024 030402 4 1,087 449 $30,136 303021 030302 1 642 302 $26,926 303022 030302 2 724 310 $48,833 303023 030302 3 530 277 $41,125 303024 030302 4 623 309 $33,533 303011 030301 1 947 289 $55,789 303012 030301 2 893 307 $44,519 Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-21 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Identification Census Block Group Number of Median Household Population Number Number Number Households Income (2018) 303013 030301 3 974 365 $51,518 302005 030200 5 969 261 $55,255 316001 031600 1 777 322 $41,726 316003 031600 3 405 220 $34,643 316004 031600 4 916 349 $38,375 316005 031600 5 736 276 $41,630 CSA 7 308101 030810 1 2,622 969 $46,146 315022 032502 2 2,570 1,173 $49,653 315041 031504 1 1,496 666 $44,231 315043 031504 3 1,013 381 $49,637 314021 031402 1 2,518 889 $53,828 314023 031402 3 1,596 644 $51,136 306031 030603 1 923 305 $55,966 313023 031302 3 1,961 904 $23,712 313022 031200 2 2,012 828 $56,737 312002 031100 2 903 389 $56,625 310004 031000 4 1,040 515 $50,707 Source: US Census, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; DWR, 2018 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), South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD), other small water service providers, or by individual wells. Wastewater services are provided by EID, STPUD, other small wastewater service providers, or by individual septic systems. Fire protection services are provided by the 13 fire agencies within the County as well as the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) and the U.S. Forest Service in the wildland areas located within the State Responsibility Areas and the US Forest Service Federal Responsibility Areas. 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 and CSA 7 that lack public services and no health or safety issues have been identified. Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-22 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 15.4 Public Services and Infrastructure 15.4.1 Service Overview CSA 7 and CSA 3 ambulance and emergency medical functions are administered through the County of El Dorado Chief Administrative Officer (EDCCAO). The standards for emergency medical care are set by the County of El Dorado Emergency Medical Services Agency (EDCEMSA). The CSAs have agreements for the operation and staffing of ambulances with the West Slope JPA and Cal Tahoe JPA. The JPAs in turn disburse budget appropriations to the fire districts that operate the ambulances and pay for and manage emergency services employees. West Slope JPA The West Slope JPA operates eight ambulances in total with El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF) operating the bulk of the ambulance service at four ambulances. The remaining four are assigned to four separate fire agencies as shown in Table 15-11 below. Table 15-11: West Slope Ambulance by District Ambulance Active/ Agency Address (Identifier) Reserve Medic 89 (M89) CAM Active 3200 Country Club Drive, Cameron Park Medic 28 (M28) ECF Active 3860 Ponderosa Road, Shingle Springs Medic 25 (M25) ECF Active 3034 Sacramento Street, Placerville Medic 19 (M19) ECF Active 4429 Pleasant Valley Road, Placerville Medic 17 (M17) ECF Active 6430 Pony Express Trail, Pollock Pines Medic 85 (M85) EDH Active 1050 Wilson Boulevard, El Dorado Hills Medic 49 (M49) DSP Active 501 Pleasant Valley Road, Diamond Springs Medic 61 (M61) GEO Active 6283 Main Street, Georgetown Source: EDC, 2020 The current contract between the County of El Dorado and the West Slope JPA outlines a detailed scope of services for staff and equipment of ambulances to meet Advanced Life Support levels which includes response time requirements; number and type of minimum staffing levels for each ambulance; training requirements; quality assurance activities; vehicle, equipment, and supply requirements; vehicle and equipment maintenance and repair requirements; as well as other reporting requirements and policies (EDC, 2018). Contract parameters ensure necessary vehicle, staffing, and equipment levels for each agency operating ambulances for the JPA. Contracts are managed by the County of El Dorado Emergency Medical Services Agency. Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-23 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Cal Tahoe JPA The Cal Tahoe JPA operates the bulk of the ambulance service with three ambulances (and two reserve ambulances) dispatched by the City of South Lake Tahoe Police Department. Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LAV) operates one ambulance out of the main station in Meyers through a subcontract with the JPA. The locations of the ambulances and their operating agencies are shown in Table 15-12 below. Table 15-12: Cal Tahoe Ambulance by District Ambulance Active/ Agency Address (Identifier) Reserve Medic 1 (M1) Cal Tahoe JPA Active 3066 Lake Tahoe Boulevard, South Lake Tahoe Medic 2 (M2) Cal Tahoe JPA Active 3066 Lake Tahoe Boulevard, South Lake Tahoe Medic 3 (M3) Cal Tahoe JPA Active 3066 Lake Tahoe Boulevard, South Lake Tahoe Medic 6 (M6) LAV (Subcontractor) Reserve 2211 Keetak Street, South Lake Tahoe Medic 7 (M7) LAV (Subcontractor) Active 2211 Keetak Street, South Lake Tahoe Source: EDC, 2020; County staff, personal communication, November 2021 Cal Tahoe JPA is under contract for ambulance service with the County of El Dorado and a portion of northwestern Alpine County. The current contract between the County of El Dorado and the Cal Tahoe JPA outlines a detailed scope of services for staff and equipment of ambulances to meet Advanced Life Support levels which includes response time requirements; number and type of minimum staffing levels for each ambulance; training requirements; quality assurance activities; vehicle, equipment, and supply requirements; vehicle and equipment maintenance and repair requirements; as well as other reporting requirements and policies (EDC, 2019). Contract parameters ensure necessary vehicle, staffing, and equipment levels for each agency operating ambulances for the JPA. Contracts are managed by the County of El Dorado Emergency Medical Services Agency. 15.4.2 Mutual Aid, Automatic Aid, Other Agreements The fire agencies on the West Slope maintain mutual aid, automatic aid, boundary drop, and closest resource agreements with each other as well as other providers operating in the County of El Dorado including the U.S. Forest Service and CAL FIRE. The three fire agencies in the Lake Tahoe Basin also maintain automatic aid agreements with each other and other fire agencies in the Basin through membership in the Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chief’s Association. In addition, fire agencies within the County will also respond to calls in areas outside the County, including but not limited to: Amador County, Placer County, the City of Folsom, the City of Ione, Sacramento County, and the counties of Washoe and Douglas on the Nevada side of the Lake Tahoe Basin. Through the contract with the County, each JPA is able to provide mutual aid to agencies outside of their designated response areas with approved mutual aid agreements. Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-24 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 15.4.3 Dispatch For CSA 7, fire and emergency medical dispatching is through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the multiagency CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center, providing a single dispatch system for the entire Western Slope of the County. CSA 3 fire and emergency medical dispatching is through the City of South Lake Tahoe Dispatch Center for LAV, FLL, and SLT and through the CAL FIRE Grass Valley Emergency Command Center for MEK. Additional details on County-wide dispatch can be found in Volume I – Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. 15.4.4 Emergency Access Major access roads to CSA 3 include US Highway 50, State Highway 89, Bridge Road, North Upper Truckee Road, and Bryant Creek Road. Major access roads to CSA 7 include US Highway 50, State Highway 49, County Road 193, Starkes Grade Road, Rock Creek Road, and Peavine Ridge Road. More information on county wide roadway and maintenance operations can be found in Volume I – Chapter 4, Countywide Infrastructure. 15.4.5 Emergency Response Though the ambulances between CSA 3 and CSA 7 operate through mutual aid, automatic aid, boundary drop and closest resource, the ambulance response details in this section for both CSAs will be broken out into their respective areas. Calls for Service According to CAL FIRE Camino Dispatch report and South Lake Tahoe Dispatch data provided to consultants, the ambulances throughout the county responded to 22,142 calls for service in 2019. For CAL FIRE Camino Dispatch data, consultants only show calls for service for ambulances within the data identified as “M17”, “M19”, “M25”, “M28”, “M49”, “M61”, “M85”, and “M89” (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). CSA 3 In CSA 3, ambulances responded to 4,184 calls for service in 2019. This is a roughly 1.6 percent decrease in calls for service from 2018 (SLT Dispatch, 2020). A breakdown of calls for service from 2010 to 2019 can be seen in Figure 15-3 below. From 2010 to 2019, calls for service have continued to trend very slightly upward with a fluctuation in calls since 2010, culminating in the highest number of calls in 2015 at 4,989 calls. The total calls for service in 2019 represent the lowest number of calls for ambulance service throughout CSA 3 since the peak in 2015 (SLT Dispatch, 2020). According to the City of South Lake Tahoe Dispatch Center data, the majority of the calls in 2019 were for medical at 2,634 calls for service (SLT Dispatch, 2020). A break down in call types for 2019 can be seen in Table 15-13 on the next page. The number of calls in Table 15-13 include incidents where multiple ambulances were dispatched. Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-25 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 15-3: CSA 3 - Calls for Service from 2010-2019 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Table 15-13: CSA 3 - Ambulance Calls for Service by Medic Number by Type, 2019 Incident Type M1 M2 M3 M6 M7 Total Assistance 7 0 13 2 36 58 Fire 10 7 13 0 130 160 Hazard 1 0 0 0 1 2 Medical 910 324 922 1 477 2,634 Other 21 19 25 0 94 159 Rescue 3 2 2 0 17 20 Traffic Collision 70 33 99 0 80 282 Transfer 146 402 154 0 163 865 Total 1,168 787 1,228 3 998 4,184 Source: SLT Dispatch, 2020 The majority of calls for service for all ambulances were medical (63 percent), followed by medical transfers (21 percent) in 2019. The next highest calls for service were for traffic collisions (7 percent). M2 conducted by far the most transfers of any ambulance, with the remaining transfers fairly evenly spaced between the other active ambulances. Ambulance M6 conducted no transfers in 2019 as the reserve ambulance (SLT Dispatch, 2020). Figure 15-4 shows a breakdown in total calls by ambulance by medical calls, transfers, traffic collision, and combines the other types into an “other” category. Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-26 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 15-4: CSA 3 - Ambulance Calls for Service by Medic Number by Type, 2019 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 M1 M2 M3 M6 M7 Ambulance by Medic Number Medical Other Traffic Collision Transfer Ambulance M3 completed the majority of the calls for 2019 at 1,228 calls for service, followed by M1, M7, and M6. Ambulances M7 and M6 are operated by Lake Valley Fire Protection District (LAV) with ambulances M1, M2, and M3 operated by the JPA. The top two ambulances made up 57 percent of all calls in 2019, or 2,396 calls. Calls for service are fairly evenly spaced throughout the ambulances in the Lake Tahoe Basin side of the County of El Dorado when compared to the West Slope (SLT Dispatch, 2020). CSA 7 In CSA 7, ambulances responded to 17,958 calls for service in 2019. This is an approximately 2.4 percent increase in calls from 2018 (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). A breakdown in calls for service from 2010 to 2019 can be seen in Figure 15-5 below. Figure 15-5: CSA 7 - Calls for Service from 2010-2019 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 From 2010 to 2019, calls have continued to trend upward since 2010, culminating in the highest number of calls in 2019. According to the Cal Fire Camino Dispatch Center data, the majority of the calls in 2019 Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-27 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final were for medical at 13,404 calls for service (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). A breakdown in call types for 2019 can be seen in Table 15-14 below. Table 15-14: CSA 7 - Ambulance Incidents by Identifier by Type, 2019 Incident Type M17 M19 M25 M28 M49 M61 M85 M89 Total Aircraft Down 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 Assistance 16 10 42 14 24 33 16 20 175 Extrication 13 15 11 16 17 7 7 5 91 Fire 57 55 97 77 97 72 71 75 601 Hazard 1 5 2 4 1 31 0 0 44 Medical 1,214 1,052 2,429 1,638 2,126 870 1,892 2,183 13,404 Other 1 1 1 2 4 5 1 3 18 Rescue 3 4 3 4 1 4 1 0 20 Traffic Collision 143 135 173 179 192 110 182 161 1,275 Transfer 275 274 434 275 325 237 250 236 2,306 Water Rescue 4 2 4 5 2 2 2 0 21 Move-up-and-cover 1,285 1,504 600 1,169 78 922 556 514 6,628 Total 3,013 3,057 3,797 3,383 2,867 2,293 2,978 3,198 24,586 Source: CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020 The majority of calls for service for all ambulances were medical (75 percent), followed by medical transfers (13 percent) in 2019. The next highest calls for service were for traffic collisions (7 percent). Ambulance M25 conducted the most transfers; however, transfers appear to be fairly evenly spaced between all medical units. Ambulance M61 conducted the least transfers in 2019, with 184 less transfers than M25. Error! Reference source not found. shows a breakdown in total calls by ambulance by medical calls, transfers, traffic collision, and combines the other types into an “other” category (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Figure 15-6: CSA 7 - Ambulance Calls for Service by Medic Number by Type, 2019 Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-28 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 M17 M19 M25 M28 M49 M61 M85 M89 Ambulance by Medic Number Medical Other Traffic Collision Transfer Move-Up-and-Cover Ambulance M25 completed the majority of the calls for 2019 at 3,197 incidents followed by ambulance’s M49, M89 and M85. These four ambulances combined made up 61 percent of all calls in 2019, or 4,226 more calls than the remaining four ambulances. Ambulance M25 is centrally located within CSA 7 in the City of Placerville and is stationed with El Dorado County Fire Protection District (ECF). Ambulance M89 is located in the Cameron Park area and is stationed with the Cameron Park Community Services District (CAM), ambulance M85 is located in El Dorado Hills and is stationed with El Dorado Hills County Water District (EDH), and ambulance M49 is located in Diamond Springs and is stationed with Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District (DSP). These four ambulances are located in the largest population centers within CSA 7. Ambulance M61 responded to the lowest number of calls in 2019 and is stationed at Georgetown with the Georgetown Fire Protection District (GEO) (CAL FIRE Camino ECC, 2020). Move-up- and-covers represent the second highest call type (27 percent of calls) with M17, M19, and M28 completing the highest number of move-up-and-covers. Response Time El Dorado County’s General Plan (2004 as amended through 2019) Public Services and Utilities Element has several policies related to goals for average response time. The West Slope JPA ambulances are required, through contract with the County of El Dorado, to meet the following response time standards as detailed in Table 15-15. Table 15-15: West Slope JPA Maximum Response Times Per Contract in Minutes Response Area Population per Square Mile Time (in Minutes) Compliance Percentage Urban 1,000 or greater 11:00 90% Semi-Rural 100 to 999 16:00 90% Rural 10 to 99 24:00 90% Wilderness Less than 10 90:00 90% Source: County of El Dorado, 2018 Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-29 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Response times per the contract are defined as from the time of dispatch to arrival at the scene. Ambulances for the West Slope JPA must meet up to the maximum response time 90% of the time per month in order to stay within the requirements of the contract. Certain circumstances are exempt from meeting the response time requirements, and the JPA can submit exemption reports for specific instances that could led to excessive response times such as delays attributed to geographic location or inaccurate dispatch information. In the year 2019, the West Slope JPA met the response time requirements per response area at least 90% of the time for all twelve months. There were 482 exemption reports filed, with 192 of those accepted during this period (County Staff, personal communication, January 2021). The Cal Tahoe JPA ambulances are required, through the contract with the County of El Dorado, to meet the following response time standards as detailed in Table 15-16. Table 15-16: Cal Tahoe JPA Maximum Response Times Per Contract in Minutes Priority Priority Definition Urban Semi-Rural Rural Wilderness 1 Life Threatening Emergencies 10:00 20:00 20:00 90:00 2 Non-Life-Threatening Emergencies 12:00 22:00 22:00 90:00 Urgent (Or Emergency Transfer from 3 15:00 25:00 25:00 90:00 Healthcare Facility) Scheduled Transfer (4-hour Advanced 4 On Time1 30:00 60:00 90:00 Notice) 5 Unscheduled Transfer 60:00 60:00 90:00 N/A 6 Critical Care Transport 30:00 45:00 N/A N/A Source: County of El Dorado, 2018 1 On Time is defined as arriving on-scene for a scheduled transport no later than the scheduled time. Response times must be achieved 90 percent of the time or better for each priority for the entire term of the contract with the County. As with the West Slope JPA, certain circumstances are exempt from meeting the response time requirements and the JPA can submit exemption reports for specific instances that could lead to excessive response times such as those caused by extraordinary adverse traffic conditions or severe weather conditions including dense fog, snow, or ice. In the year 2019, the Cal Tahoe JPA data was not available from the County of El Dorado staff. According to discussions with 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. Thus, the County does not know if the ambulances for CSA 3 met contract requirements for 2019 (County Staff, personal communication, January 2021). As a result, the consultants looked at response times for 2018 and found that the Cal Tahoe JPA met the response time requirements for each priority at least 90 percent of the time for all months except for September and November for which no data was provided (County Staff, personal communication, January 2021). The City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department staff indicated that the current system is antiquated, and the City is in the process of updating the South Lake Tahoe Dispatch Center to incorporate modern dispatch technology such as geolocation of all resources at any one time. Currently, it is not possible to review response time data for the Cal Tahoe JPA contract. Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-30 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Other Industry Standards In general, other industry standards applicable to the CSAs are established by the Emergency Medical Services Agency for the County of El Dorado, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Commission on Accreditation of Ambulance Services (CAAS), Cal OSHA, and other County ordinances. All of these agencies, as well as many others, directly and/or indirectly affect the type of services, the quality and development of those services, expansion, reliability, facility design, and construction and environmental issues that the fire agencies provides as it relates to ambulance service. 15.4.6 Infrastructure As an administrative function for the collection of revenues, the CSAs do not maintain infrastructure to support ambulance services in the County. 15.4.7 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies Through interviews with the various fire chiefs throughout the County, 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) 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 the West Slope JPA contract to assist this area during peak call times. As mentioned in Section 15.4.5 above, these four ambulances combine made up 62 percent of all calls in 2019, or 4,226 more calls than the remaining four ambulances. However, all ambulances for the West Slope continue to maintain required response times. Due to the high volume of calls, staff for these ambulances may be overworked, which could lead to some disruption in the quality of care. The West Slope JPA could consider adding a part-time ambulance to the area to assist these four ambulances during peak call times, alleviating some of the burden carried by paramedic staff for ambulances M25, M49, M85, and M89. As confirmed by County staff, the contract for ambulance services does not specify how many ambulances the JPA must keep in service. It only specifies response times. It is the JPA's responsibility to maintain enough in-service ambulances to meet contractual response time requirements (County staff, personal communication, November 2021). Recommendation: Consultants recommend an update to the 2010 Fire and Emergency Services Study review ambulance activity during peak call times to assess the need for a reserve ambulance. Also, an extensive review of response and transport data should occur. Consultants understand that the West Slope JPA has contracted for a strategic review and the development of a strategic plan, which is currently in progress. 15.4.8 Cost Avoidance & Facilities Sharing Per the contract with the County of El Dorado, ambulances may be staffed with a minimum staffing level of no less than one (1) EMT and one (1) paramedic. In many cases, the fire agencies that are transporting Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-31 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final agencies are choosing to staff both positions on each ambulance with firefighter/paramedic positions instead of staffing one position as an EMT. Districts may want to consider providing both EMT and paramedics on ambulances in order to provide a full range of care as well as reduce costs by as much as $30,000 per position by switching from paramedic to EMT. 15.5 Financial Ability to Provide Services The El Dorado County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is required to make determinations regarding the financial ability of County Service Area (CSA) 3 and 7 to provide public services. This section provides an overview of the financial health of the CSAs and a context for LAFCO’s financial determinations. Initially consultants attempted to utilize audited financial statements for the CSAs to provide consistency in line with the other fire agencies discussed in this report. However, the audited financial statements for the CSAs from the County Auditor-Controller’s office included large fund transfers. These large fund transfers made it appear that the CSAs were operating with massive deficits, which is not the case. As a result, the budgets from the County Chief Administrative Office (CAO) for the fiscal year (FY) 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 are the primary source of all information for this section. These were provided to consultants from the County’s internal financial system in order to analyze financial information related to ambulance services only for each CSA (EDC, 2021a; 2021b). The County is responsible for the provision of pre-hospital EMS ambulance services within CSA 7 for the West Slope and within CSA 3 for the Tahoe Basin areas of the County. The County provides these services through funding from the CSAs and contracts with Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs) for operational services. The CSAs are funded through property taxes, special taxes, benefit assessments, payments from the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians for the West Slope, ambulance service fees, and other minor various sources of revenue. 15.5.1 Financial Policies and Transparency The County adopts a fiscal year budget and conducts a quarterly cycle review to determine any changes that might be needed. The FY 2020/2021 Recommended budget was adopted by the Board on July 13, 2020. The California Tahoe Emergency Services Operations Authority (or "Cal Tahoe" JPA) is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) formed in 2001 as a transport contractor for ambulance service under contract with CSA 3. The current contract with Cal Tahoe JPA was awarded in September 2019 and runs for two years. The contract totals approximately $6.63 million (plus inflation) with an additional two lump sum payments of $120,000 for capital asset acquisition, lease, and/or maintenance (EDC, 2019). The El Dorado County Emergency Services Authority (or “West Slope” JPA) has a contract with the County for ambulance services for CSA 7. The current contract for the West Slope JPA was awarded in July 2018 and runs for five years. The contract totals $56.5 million (plus inflation) with an additional $500,000 annually for the first three (3) years for repair and replacement of capital assets (EDC, 2018). 15.5.2 CSA 3 Revenues and Expenditures The largest revenue source for CSA 3 is “Ambulance Fees” which accounts for 72 to 77 percent of the revenue budget and has remained rather consistent year over year. The largest expenditure is Ambulance Services. A breakdown in revenues and expenditures for the CSA can be seen in Figure 15-7 below. A Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-32 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final breakdown of revenues and expenditures is also available in table format in Volume II – Appendix A, Financial Tables by Agency. Revenues For CSA 3, “Charges for Services” is made up of revenue from the Fire/EMS Special Tax (Measure E approved in January 2002) for Ambulance Service Zone 5 – West Shore and the Charges for Services Ordinance – Ambulance Services, South Shore Zone (dated 1997) classified as a “Benefit Assessment.” The Special tax levies $25 to $300 per parcel. A breakdown in percentages are as follows: • Only one (1) percent of parcels are levied a tax under $50; • Two (2) percent are over $100; and • The vast majority (96 percent) are taxed at $50. Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-33 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 15-7: CSA 3 - Total Revenues and Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 to FY 2020/2021 Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-34 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final This page is left intentionally blank. Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-35 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The Benefit Assessment is considered a “Service Charge” on property tax bills for parcels in CSA 3 and is assessed on parcels on the south shore of Lake Tahoe ranging from $0.34 to over $12,000 per parcel. The approximate breakdown of the assessment is: • 63 percent of parcels have assessments under $22; • 35 percent are assessed between $22 and $25; • One (1) percent have assessments between $25 and $100; and • Less than one (1) percent are assessed over $100. (Source: EDC staff, personal correspondence, May 5, 2021) A larger portion of revenue comes from “Ambulance Fees” which accounts for approximately 77 percent of the revenue budget. This revenue includes a fee schedule for standby services. In FY 2019/2020 the CSA had an additional $185,166 in Miscellaneous Revenue. This line item consists of the allocation of prior year Ground Emergency Medical Transport funding, which was previously held by a County special revenue fund, to the CSA. Expenditures CSA 3’s largest expenditure is Ambulance Services which account for between 90 and 93 percent of all Expenditures. This expenditure is the contract that the CSA has with the Cal Tahoe JPA for ambulance services and is set to expire in 2036. The County has already opened Request for Proposal No. 21-990-036 to request proposals for emergency ambulance services in CSA 3. The Ambulance Services expenditure increased by 37 percent between FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 and is expected to increase another 16 percent from FY 2019/2020 to FY 2020/2021. The current contract with Cal Tahoe JPA is a fixed contract. According to County staff, the expected 16 percent budgeted increase is based primarily on two factors: 1) two months of the prior year were under the old contract, at a lower rate; and 2) the budget accounted for a possible inflation factor of 3.0 percent. The actual inflation factor was 0.2 percent, and therefore actual costs will be under budget (EDC Staff, personal communication August, 2021). 15.5.3 CSA 7 Revenues and Expenditures The largest revenue source for CSA 7 is “Ambulance Fees” which accounts for 55 to 60 percent of the revenue budget and has remained rather consistent year over year. The largest expenditure is identified as “WS JPA Base Funding with Capital Assets.” A breakdown in revenues and expenditures for the CSA can be seen in Figure 15-8. A breakdown of revenues and expenditures is also available in table format in Volume I - Appendix A, Financial Tables by Agency. Revenues CSA 7’s primary source of revenue is “Ambulance Fees” which is made up of payments from medical insurance providers, government payers (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Affairs, etc.), and self-pay patients. Patients are billed pursuant to an adopted rate schedule for ambulance services. Additional sources of revenue include Property Taxes and a Fire/EMS Special Tax (passed November 1997) for Ambulance Services on the West Slope (EDC, 2020). This Special Tax ranges from $3 to over $6,000 per parcel or unit type. Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-36 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 15-8: CSA 7 - Total Revenues and Expenditures for FY 2017/2018 to FY 2020/2021 Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-37 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final The approximate breakdown of this special tax for parcels is as follows: • under $25 for two (2) percent of parcels; • $25 for 94 percent of parcels; • Between $26 and $99 for three (3) to five (5) percent of parcels; and • Over $100 for one (1) percent of parcels. (Source: CAO staff, personal correspondence, May 5, 2021) Unit types include per bed in a hospital/skilled nursing facility, per guest room in motels and hotels, and per store in commercial/retail uses. A breakdown of the tax rate schedule can be found in EDC Resolution No. 172-97. This Special Tax allowed CSA 7 to fund additional ambulances throughout the West Slope (West Slope JPA, 2017). Property taxes make up another significant portion of revenue, approximately 25 percent annually. In FY 2019/2020 a Fund Balance (Transfer In) in the amount of $608,083 was made. The Fund Balance (Transfer In) revenue consists of an allocation of prior year Ground Emergency Medical Transport funding, which was previously held by a County special revenue fund, to the CSA (EDC staff, personal communication, August 2021). Expenditures CSA 7’s primary expenditures are identified as “WS JPA Base Funding with Capital Assets” in documents provided by the CAO’s office and make up 91 to 95 percent of total expenditures between FY 2017/2018 and FY 2020/2021. “West Slope JPA Funding with Capital Asse ts” represents all payments to the El Dorado County Emergency Services Authority JPA for ambulance services. The “WS JPA Base Funding with Capital Assets” expenditure increased by two (2) percent between FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019 and is expected to increase another five (5) percent from FY 2019/2020 to FY 2020/2021. The budgeted increase reflects the budget anticipating an inflation factor of 3 percent. The actual inflation factor was 0.9 percent. Additionally, the standby and disaster services are budgeted each year, but typically are not incurred. Therefore, an actual to budget comparison will show an increase (EDC Staff, personal communication, August 2021). 15.5.4 Revenues (Over/Under) Expenditures CSA 3 CSA 3 operated with revenues exceeding expenditures in FY 2017/2018 by $6,993 and by $213,314 in FY 2018/2019. Net Revenues over/under Expenditures can be seen in Figure 15-9 below. In FY 2019/2020 the CSA operated in the negative with expenditures over revenues by $679,641. This is largely due to the 37 percent increase in the “Ambulance Services” expense line item. Despite an increase in revenue that same year, CSA 3 did not have enough revenue to cover all expenditures. Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-38 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Figure 15-9: CSA 3 - Revenues (under/over) Expenditures The forecasted FY 2020/2021 budget expects another, greater, deficit of approximately $1.48 million (EDC, 2021a). This is a 118 percent increase in expenditures exceeding revenues from FY 2019/2020 to FY 2020/2021. Consultants queried County staff as to the expected deficit in FY 2020/2021, but received no response. CSA 7 CSA 7 operated with expenditures exceeding revenues by $136,988 in FY 2017/2018 and revenue over expenditures by approximately $1.03 million and $1.48 million in FY 2018/2019 and FY 2019/2020 respectively. Net Revenues over/under Expenditures for CSA 7 can be seen in Figure 15-10. Figure 15-10: CSA 7 - Revenues (under/over) Expenditures In FY 2020/2021 CSA 7 expects to operate with expenses exceeding revenues of $593,853. The dramatic increase from FY 2018/2019 to FY 2019/2020 can be attributed to the Fund Balance (Transfer In) revenue source of a little over half a million dollars (EDC, 2021b). The budget projection is conservative and there is more than sufficient fund balance to support the program (EDC Staff, personal communication, November 2021). Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-39 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 15.5.5 CSA 3 and 7 Assets and Liabilities Assets and liabilities will not be reviewed for the CSA’s because the CSA’s do not maintain or manage the ambulatory assets or liabilities for the County. Management of assets and liabilities are performed and accounted for by the JPA’s with staffing included for CSA 3, but not CSA 7. However, it is important to note that both CSA’s have a significant fund balances as follows: • CSA 3 had a fund balance of approximately $2.85 million as of FY 2018/2019; and • CSA 7 had a fund balance of approximately $9.53 million in the same year. Fund balances can only be used to provided ambulance transport services. The County does not have a policy for reserve funds including size and purpose of reserves, or how they are invested (EDC Staff, personal communication, August 2021). 15.5.6 Net Position Because assets and liabilities are not analyzed and because this report only reviews ambulance services provided by the CSA’s, the net position for the CSAs will not be analyzed here. 15.5.7 Asset Maintenance and Replacement As mentioned previously, the CSA’s do not maintain or manage assets including medic units, equipment, and supplies. Management of the assets are performed by the Cal Tahoe JPA for CSA 3 and the West Slope JPA for CSA 7. 15.5.8 Cost Avoidance The JPA’s for each CSA provide ambulance transport services based on a fixed contract that is determined by the Board of Supervisors. It is the responsibility of the Board of Supervisors to enforce the fixed rate contract between the CSA’s and the JPA’s and not to reduce the cost of services. Therefore, cost avoidance measures are not applicable to the CSA’s. Contracts with the CSA’s do account for inflation costs and rates are adjusted with the JPA’s accordingly. Per the contract with the County of El Dorado, ambulances operating in both CSA’s may be staffed with a minimum staffing level of no less than one (1) EMT and one (1) paramedic. In many cases, the fire agencies are choosing to staff both positions with each ambulance as firefighter paramedic positions instead of staffing one position as an EMT. Fire agencies may want to consider providing both EMT and paramedics on ambulances in order to provide a full range of care as well as reduce costs by as much as $30,000 per position switched from paramedic to EMT. 15.5.9 Financial Summary and Ability to Provide Services Based on the data presented above, CSA 3 has operated with a surplus of Revenues exceeding Expenditures in FY 2017/2018 and FY 2018/2019. However, the County experienced a deficit in FY 2019/2020 and is expecting a deficit for FY 2020/2021. In light of the large reserve funds available for the Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-40 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final CSA, CSA 3 funding is able to provide adequate ambulatory transport services to the Lake Tahoe region of the County. CSA 7 operated at a deficit in FY 2017/2018 of $136,988, but operated with a surplus in FY 2018/2019 of approximately $1.03 million. In light of large reserve funds available for the CSA, CSA 7 funding is able to provide adequate ambulance transport services to residents on the West Slope of the County. Alternative Financing Due to the large reserve funds available for both CSAs and the variability of revenues exceeding expenditures or vice versa year over year, there does not appear to be any need for the County to find alternative financing. The existing recurring revenue sources appear to be adequate to maintain service needs in the County. Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-41 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 15.6 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 both CSA 7 and CSA 3, 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. 15.6.1 Summary MSR Determinations for County Service Area No. 3 Population and Growth • CSA 3 comprises approximately 161,007 acres or 252 square miles. • El Dorado LAFCO most recently reviewed and approved the CSA 3 SOI through Resolution No. L- 2011-09 adopted on August 24, 2011. The CSA 3 SOI is coterminous with its boundary. • Ambulances for CSA 3 do provide extra-territorial services to areas in neighboring counties. Detailed information regarding these services can be found in the relevant MSR chapters for each agency in Volume II of this report. • The population for CSA 3 in 2020 is estimated to be 30,457 persons. • By the year 2040, it is estimated that CSA 3’s existing boundary will encompass a permanent population of 33,930 persons. In addition to its permanent population, CSA 3 also experiences a significant number of overnight and daytime visitors which adds to the total population served by CSA 3. • The CSA boundary encompasses the entire Lake Tahoe Basin of the County of El Dorado. Government Structure and Accountability • The Cal Tahoe JPA operates under the direction of the Board of Directors comprised of two members from City of South Lake Tahoe, two members from Lake Valley Fire Protection District, and one elected official from Fallen Leaf Lake Community Service District. Each Board Member is appointed to the Board by the individual fire agency Board of Directors or from the agency they represent for a period of two years. As appointees, the Board members are not subject to elections. • The Cal Tahoe JPA provides for a direct link to the most current Board meeting agenda on the home page as well as provides past agendas and minutes on the agency’s website. Therefore, the Cal Tahoe JPA meets all requirements of the Brown Act 2016 Updates’ technical requirements described in AB2257. Disadvantaged Communities • There are portions of 16 census block groups that meet the DUC threshold within CSA 3. A rural area may be considered a DUC if inadequate services are provided for domestic water supply, sewage disposal, and structural fire protection. These census tracts currently receive these three essential municipal services, and no health or safety issues have been identified. Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-42 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Shared Facilities and Services • CSA 3 does not maintain agreements with other agencies for the delivery of services or facilities within its boundary. The subcontracting fire agencies for the Cal Tahoe JPA maintain mutual aid, automatic aid, boundary drop, and closest resource agreements as well as shared facilities and services agreements with other providers operating within El Dorado County, including the U.S. Forest Service and CAL FIRE. In addition, fire agencies within the County will also respond to calls in Amador County, Placer County, the City of Folsom, the City of Ione, the City of Sacramento, and the counties of Washoe and Douglas on the Nevada side of the Lake Tahoe Basin. • CSA 3 contracts for ambulance services in 10-year increments, which are reviewed by County staff and approved by the Board of Supervisors. Public Services and Infrastructure • CSA 3 ambulance and emergency medical functions are administered through the County of El Dorado Chief Administrative Office (EDCCAO). The standards for emergency medical care are set by the County of El Dorado Emergency Medical Services Agency (EDCEMSA). The CSA has agreements for the operation and staffing of ambulances with the Cal Tahoe JPA. The JPA in turn disburse budget appropriations to the fire agencies that operate the medic units and pay for and manage emergency services employees. • The Cal Tahoe JPA operates the bulk of the ambulance service with three ambulances (and two reserve ambulances). Lake Valley Fire Protection District operates one ambulance out of the main station in Meyers. • The current contract between the County of El Dorado and the Cal Tahoe JPA outlines a detailed scope of services for staff and equipment of ambulances to meet Advanced Life Support levels which includes response time requirements; number and type of minimum staffing levels for each ambulance; training requirements; quality assurance activities; vehicle, equipment, and supply requirements; vehicle and equipment maintenance and repair requirements; as well as other reporting requirements and policies (EDC, 2018). • Contract parameters ensure necessary vehicle, staffing, and equipment levels for each agency operating ambulances for the JPA. Contracts are managed by the County of El Dorado Emergency Medical Services Agency. • Calls for service are fairly evenly spaced throughout the ambulances in the Lake Tahoe Basin side of the County of El Dorado when compared to the West Slope. • In the year 2019, the Cal Tahoe JPA data was not available from the County of El Dorado staff. According to discussions with 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. The County does not know if the ambulances for CSA 3 met contract requirements for 2019. Consultants reviewed response times for 2018 and found that the Cal Tahoe JPA met the response time requirements for each priority at least 90 percent of the time for all months except for September and November for which no data was provided. The City is in the process of updating the South Lake Tahoe Dispatch Center to incorporate modern dispatch technology such Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-43 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 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. • Per the contract with the County of El Dorado, ambulances may be staffed with a minimum staffing level of no less than one (1) EMT and one (1) paramedic. In many cases, the fire agencies that are transporting agencies are choosing to staff both positions with each ambulance as firefighter paramedic positions instead of staffing one position as an EMT. LAV may want to consider providing both EMT and paramedics on ambulances in order to provide a full range of care as well as reduce costs by as much as $30,000 per position by switching from paramedic to EMT. Financial Ability to Provide Services • Budgets provided to consultants for CSA 3 were from the County Chief Administrative Office internal financial system. The Audited Statements from the Controller’s website included large fund transfers displayed in the Audited Statements which made it appear that CSA 3 was operating at a massive deficit, which is not the case. • The County does not have a policy for reserve funds. • In FY 2017/2018 expenditures exceeded revenues by $136,988, however in FY 2018/2019 revenue exceeded expenditures by $213,314. • Total Operating Expense in FY 2017/2018 was $2,929,469. In that same year, the CSA had $2,851,302 in the General Fund which is more than 50 precent of funds needed to cover operating expenses. • While CSA 3 does not manage the assets and liabilities for ambulatory services, the CSA has a large fund balance of $2,851,302 as of FY 2018/2019. • Due to the large reserve funds available for CSA 3 there does not appear to be any need for the County to find alternative financing. The existing recurring revenue sources appear to be adequate to maintain service needs in CSA 3. Effect on Agriculture and Open Space • The CSA 3 provides ambulance services to all areas within the CSA boundary. LAFCO has an interest in documenting the conversion of agricultural and open space lands to other land use types, such as residential use. The CSA provides ambulance services only and does not play a role in these types of land-use conversions. 15.6.2 Summary MSR Determinations for County Service Area No. 7 Population and Growth • CSA 7 comprises approximately 982,100 acres or 1,535 square miles. • El Dorado LAFCO most recently reviewed and approved the CSA 7 SOI through Resolution No. L- 2011-09 adopted on August 24, 2011. The CSA 7 SOI is coterminous with its boundary. Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-44 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final • Ambulances for CSA 7 do provide extra-territorial services to areas in neighboring counties. Detailed information regarding these services can be found in the relevant MSR chapters for each agency in Volume II of this report. • The population for CSA 7 in 2020 is estimated to be 162,770 persons. • By the year 2040, it is estimated that CSA 7’s existing boundary will encompass a permanent population of 179,797 persons. In addition to its permanent population, CSA 7 also experiences a significant number of overnight and daytime visitors which adds to the total population served by CSA 7. • The CSA boundary encompasses the entire West Slope of the County of El Dorado. Government Structure and Accountability • The West Slope JPA Board is comprised of one member from each of the provider and non- provider fire districts, one member from CAL FIRE Emergency Command Center – Amador-El Dorado Unit and one member from Marshall Medical Center. Each member of the JPA Board of Directors is appointed to the JPA Board by the individual fire district Board of Directors or from the agency they represent for a period of no less than two years. As appointees, the Board members are not subject to elections. • The West Slope JPA website agenda distribution does not comply with the requirements of the Brown Act 2016 Updates because there is not a direct link to the current agenda on its primary homepage. Disadvantaged Communities • There are portions of 11 census block groups that meet the DUC threshold within CSA 7. A rural area may be considered a DUC if inadequate services are provided for domestic water supply, sewage disposal, and structural fire protection. These census tracts currently receive these three essential municipal services, and no health or safety issues have been identified. Shared Facilities and Services • CSA 7 does not maintain agreements with other agencies for the delivery of services or facilities within its boundary. The subcontracting fire agencies for the West Slope JPA maintain mutual aid, automatic aid, boundary drop, and closest resource agreements as well as shared facilities and services agreements with each other as well as other providers operating within El Dorado County, including the U.S. Forest Service and CAL FIRE. In addition, fire agencies within the County will also respond to calls in Amador County, Placer County, the City of Folsom, the City of Ione, Sacramento County; and the counties of Washoe and Douglas on the Nevada side of the Lake Tahoe Basin. • CSA 7 contracts for ambulance services in five-year increments, which are reviewed by County staff and approved by the Board of Supervisors. Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-45 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Public Services and Infrastructure • CSA 7 ambulance and emergency medical functions are administered through the County of El Dorado Chief Administrative Office (EDCCAO). The standards for emergency medical care are set by the County of El Dorado Emergency Medical Services Agency (EDCEMSA). The CSA has agreements for the operation and staffing of ambulances with the West Slope JPA. The JPA in turn disburse budget appropriations to the fire agencies that operate the medic units and pay for and manage emergency services employees. • The West Slope JPA operates eight ambulances in total through contract with CSA 7. • The current contract between the County of El Dorado and the West Slope JPA outlines a detailed scope of services for staff and equipment of ambulances to meet Advanced Life Support levels which includes response time requirements; number and type of minimum staffing levels for each ambulance; training requirements; quality assurance activities; vehicle, equipment, and supply requirements; vehicle and equipment maintenance and repair requirements; as well as other reporting requirements and policies (EDC, 2018). • Contract parameters ensure necessary vehicle, staffing, and equipment levels for each agency operating ambulances for the JPA. Contracts are managed by the County of El Dorado Emergency Medical Services Agency. • In the year 2019, the West Slope JPA met the response time requirements per response area at least 90% of the time for all twelve months. There were 482 exception reports filed, with 192 of those accepted during this period. • Through interviews with the various fire chiefs throughout the County, 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) 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. Recommendation: Consultants recommend an update to the 2010 Fire and Emergency Services Study review ambulance activity during peak call times to assess the need for a reserve ambulance. Also, an extensive review of response and transport data should occur. Consultants understand that the West Slope JPA has contracted for a strategic review and the development of a strategic plan, which is currently in progress. • Four ambulances (Medics 25, 49, 85, and 89) combined responded to 62 percent of all calls in 2019, or 4,226 more calls than the remaining four ambulances. However, ambulances for the West Slope continue to maintain required response times. Due to the high volume of calls, staff for these ambulances may be overworked which can lead to some disruption in the quality of care. 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 for ambulances M25, M49, M85, and M89. • Per the contract with the County of El Dorado, ambulances may be staffed with a minimum staffing level of no less than one (1) EMT and one (1) paramedic. In many cases, the fire agencies that are transporting agencies are choosing to staff both positions with each ambulance as Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-46 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final firefighter/paramedic positions instead of staffing one position as an EMT. Districts may want to consider providing both EMT and paramedics on ambulances in order to provide a full range of care as well as reduce costs by as much as $30,000 per position by switching from paramedic to EMT. Financial Ability to Provide Services • Budgets provided to consultants for CSA 7 were from the County Chief Administrative Office internal financial system. The Audited Statements from the Controller’s website included large fund transfers which made it appear that CSA 7 was operating at a massive deficit, which is not the case. • The County does not have a policy for reserve funds. • Total Operating Expense in FY 2017/2018 was $12,704,181. In that same year, the Agency had $9,530,500 in the General Fund which is more than 50 percent of funds needed to cover operating expenses. • In FY 2017/2018 revenues exceeded expenditures by $6,993. In FY 2018/2019 revenue exceeded expenditures by $1,033,861. • While CSA 7 does not manage the assets and liabilities for ambulatory transport services, the CSA has a large fund balance of $9,530,500 as of FY 2018/2019. • Due to the large reserve funds available for CSA 7 there does not appear to be any need for the County to find alternative financing. The existing recurring revenue sources appear to be adequate to maintain service needs in CSA 7. Effect on Agriculture and Open Space • The CSA 7 provides ambulance services to all areas within the CSA boundary. LAFCO has an interest in documenting the conversion of agricultural and open space lands to other land use types, such as residential use. The CSA provides ambulance services only and does not play a role in these types of land-use conversions. Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-47 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final 15.7 References Alexander, S. and Holder, S. September 2020. “Work-anywhere shift has tech crowd invading Lake Tahoe.” The Detroit News. Available online at: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/2020/09/18/work-anywhere-shift-has-tech- crowd-invading-lake-tahoe/5830107002/. CAL FIRE (formerly California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection) Office of the State Fire Marshal. May 2007. Fact Sheet: Fire Hazard Severity Zone Model A Non-Technical Primer. 4- pages. https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/FIreHazardZone_NonTechnical_Prim er.pdf. Accessed September 2020. _____. 2020d. CAL FIRE Camino Emergency Command Center Dispatch Data. Received October 2020. California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). August 2003. Local Agency Formation Commission Municipal Service Review Guidelines Final. 107-pages. California Department of Finance (CDF). July 2019. E-2. California County Population Estimates a Components of Change by Year – July 1, 2000-2010. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-2/. Accessed August 2020. California Tahoe Emergency Services Operations Authority (Cal Tahoe JPA). 2021. Policies & Procedures. Available online at: https://www.ctesoa.org/about/public-file- library/file/JPA/policies/Policies%20%26%20Procedures.docx. City of South Lake Tahoe (SLT). 2020. City of South Lake Tahoe Dispatch Data. Received November 2020. County of El Dorado (EDC). July 2018. Contract #2298 for Prehospital Advanced Life Support, Ambulance, and Dispatch Services Between County of El Dorado and El Dorado County Emergency Services Authority. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. August 28, 2019. Contract #4238 for Prehospital Advanced Life Support, Ambulance, and Dispatch Services between County of El Dorado and California Tahoe Emergency Services Operations Authority. Available from LAFCO’s files upon request. _____. Office of the Auditor-Controller. September 2020. Direct Charge Master – Contact by Description. Available online at: https://www.edcgov.us/Government/Auditor- Controller/proptaxreports/Documents/DirectChargeMaster-ContactByDescription.pdf. _____. Chief Administrative Office (CAO). April 2021a. Emergency Medical Services Agency, County Service Area #3: 13530100 – 5-year Revenue/Expenditure Summary. File: CSA 3 5 YR History Mid-FY 20.21.xlsx. Available from LAFCO’s records upon request. _____. Chief Administrative Office (CAO). April 2021b. Emergency Medical Services Agency, County Service Area #7: 13570001 – 5-year Revenue/Expenditure Summary. File: CSA 7 5 YR History Mid-FY 20.21.xlsx. Available from LAFCO’s records upon request. Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-48 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Division of Integrated Regional Water (DWR) Water Management. 2018. DAC Mapping Tool – Disadvantaged Communities Block Groups 2018. Available online at: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/dacs/. El Dorado County Emergency Medical Services Authority (West Slope JPA). February 1999. Medic Unit Staffing Requirements. Available online at: http://edcjpa.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/08/Medic-Unit-Staffing-Requirements-Policy.pdf. _____. 2017. 2017-2022 Strategic Plan. Available online at: http://edcjpa.org/wp-content/uploads /2016/02/EDC-JPA-Strategic-Plan-2017-Master.pdf. _____. 2020. Ambulance Agencies. Available online at: https://www.edcgov.us/Government/EMS/Maps/Pages/m-85.aspx. El Dorado County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). August 2011. Countywide Fire Suppression and Emergency Services Municipal Service Review. Available online at: https://www.edlafco.us/municipal-service-reviews-and-spheres-of-influence. _____. Revised April 2019. El Dorado LAFCO Policies and Guidelines, Adopted November 1988. https://www.edlafco.us/files/bfdbebe86/El+Dorado+LAFCO+Policies+%26+Guidelines.pdf. Accessed on July 2020. _____. July 2020. Agenda Item #7: 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/files/6c3cc2643/20_July_22_Item_7_Staff_Memo_%28Consider_Respo nse_to_Grand_Jury%29.pdf. El Dorado County, Recorder’s Office. June 1961. Resolution No. 97-61: Resolution and Order Canvassing Vote of Election, Declaring Establishment of Cameron Park Community Services District, Setting Forth the Boundaries of Said District, the Names of the Persons Elected Directors Thereof, and the Purposes for Which Said District is Formed. Available online at: https://www.cameronpark.org/files/82c7c2119/EDC-BOS-Resolution-97-61.pdf. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). 2020. NFPA 1710: Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. Accessed November 2020. Tahoe Prosperity Center. 2018. 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. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 2016. Attachment A – Recommended 2017 and 2018 Residential Allocation Distribution. Table 50.5.2-2: Allocation Performance Table for 2015-2032. Available online at: http://www.trpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2.-Attachment- A_RecommendedDisbursement_Final.pdf. Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-49 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. American Community Survey, 2010: ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables & 2018: ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?t=Populations%20and%20People&g=1600000US0610256 &tid=ACSST5Y2018.S0101&hidePreview=false. Accessed September 2020. Volume II of II County Service Area No. 3 and No. 7 Page 15-50 of 15-50 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Appendix A Financial Tables by Fire Agency Volume II of II Appendix A Page A-1 of A-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Cameron Park Community Services District Volume II of II Appendix A Page A-2 of A-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Diamond Springs/El Dorado Fire Protection District Volume II of II Appendix A Page A-3 of A-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final El Dorado County Fire Protection District Volume II of II Appendix A Page A-4 of A-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final El Dorado Hills County Water District Volume II of II Appendix A Page A-5 of A-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Fallen Leaf Lake Community Services District Volume II of II Appendix A Page A-6 of A-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Georgetown Fire Protection District Volume II of II Appendix A Page A-7 of A-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Garden Valley Fire Protection District Volume II of II Appendix A Page A-8 of A-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Lake Valley Fire Protection District Volume II of II Appendix A Page A-9 of A-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Meeks Bay Fire Protection District Volume II of II Appendix A Page A-10 of A-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Mosquito Fire Protection District Volume II of II Appendix A Page A-11 of A-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Pioneer Fire Protection District Volume II of II Appendix A Page A-12 of A-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Rescue Fire Protection District Volume II of II Appendix A Page A-13 of A-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final City of South Lake Tahoe Volume II of II Appendix A Page A-14 of A-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final County Service Area 3 Volume II of II Appendix A Page A-15 of A-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final County Service Area 7 Volume II of II Appendix A Page A-16 of A-16 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Appendix B Dispatch Call Types by Center Volume II of II Appendix B Page B-1 of B-8 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final CAL FIRE Camino ECC Call Types to Corresponding Category CAL FIRE Camino Call Type CAL FIRE Camino Description MSR/SOI Corresponding Category PAA PA, AGENCY Assistance PAD PA, DEMO Assistance PAF PA, FLOODING Assistance PAO PA, OTHER Assistance PAO1 PA, ELEVATOR Assistance PAP PA, PERSON Assistance PSR PA, SEARCH & RESCUE Assistance FAA FIRE, AIRCRAFT DOWN Fire FCS FIRE, SMOKE CHECK Fire FFA FIRE, FALSE ALARM Fire FFAS FIRE, FALSE ALARM SMOKE Fire FOA FIRE, ASSIST Fire FOD FIRE, DEBRIS Fire FODCB FIRE, CHECK CONTROL BURN Fire FODI FIRE, DEBRIS ILLEGAL Fire FODR FIRE, DEBRIS/CAMPFIRE Fire FOI FIRE, IMPROVEMENT Fire FOO FIRE, OTHER MISC Fire FOOD FIRE, DUMPSTER Fire FSC FIRE, COMMERCIAL Fire FSCA FIRE, COMMERCIAL ALARM Fire FSCW FIRE, COMMERCIAL WILDLAND Fire FSM FIRE, APARTMENT Fire FSMA FIRE, APARTMENT ALARM Fire FSMW FIRE, APARTMENT WILDLAND Fire FSO FIRE, STRUCTURE OTHER Fire FSR FIRE, RESIDENTIAL Fire FSRA FIRE, RESIDENTIAL ALARM Fire FSRC FIRE, CHIMNEY Fire FSRO FIRE, OVEN Fire FSRW FIRE, RES STRUCT WILDLAND Fire FVC FIRE, VEH COMMERCIAL Fire FVCW FIRE, VEH COM WILDLAND Fire FVP FIRE, VEH PASSENGER Fire FVPW FIRE, VEH PASS WILDLAND Fire FWL FIRE, WILDLAND Fire FWLT FIRE, WILDLAND LIGHTNING Fire Volume II of II Appendix B Page B-2 of B-8 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final CAL FIRE Camino Call Type CAL FIRE Camino Description MSR/SOI Corresponding Category HAS HAZ, AIRCRAFT Hazard HFS HAZ, FIRE MENACE STANDBY Hazard HFSP HAZ, PETRO SPILL SM Hazard HOA HAZ, ASSIST Hazard HSB HAZ, BOMB THREAT Hazard HSE HAZ, ELECTRICAL Hazard HSG HAZ, GAS Hazard HSGCO HAZ, CARBON MONOXIDE Hazard HTT HAZ, TERRORIST THREAT Hazard HZM HAZMAT Hazard MED MEDICAL Medical MED*** MEDICAL, PROQA Medical MEDC MEDICAL, CPR Medical MEDC2 MEDICAL, CODE 2 Medical MEDE MEDICAL, ECHO RESPONSE Medical MEDF MEDICAL, FLIGHT Medical MEDFM MEDICAL, FLIGHT MISSED Medical MEDINQ MED, INQUIRY Medical MREBC MED, BUILDING COLLAPSE Medical MRECS MED, CONFINED SPACE Medical MVI MED, VIOLENCE INVOLVED Medical MVISTG MED, STAGING REQUIRED Medical MED01 Medical MED01A Medical MED02 Medical MED03 Medical MED03A Medical MED04 Medical MED05 Medical MED05A Medical MED06 Medical MED07 Medical MED08 Medical MED09 Medical MED10 Medical MED11 Medical MED12 Medical MED12A Medical Volume II of II Appendix B Page B-3 of B-8 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final CAL FIRE Camino Call Type CAL FIRE Camino Description MSR/SOI Corresponding Category MED13 Medical MED13A Medical MED14 Medical MED15 Medical MED16 Medical MED17 Medical MED17A Medical MED18 Medical MED19 Medical MED20 Medical MED20A Medical MED21 Medical MED21A Medical MED22 Medical MED23 Medical MED24 Medical MED25 Medical MED26 Medical MED26A Medical MED27 Medical MED28 Medical MED30 Medical MED30A Medical MED31 Medical MED31A Medical MED32 Medical MED33 Medical LEB LE, ARSON BOMB Other LEI LE, INVESTIGATION Other LEO LE, STOP/POLICE ACTION Other OAC OTH, COVER Other OACA OTH, COVER AMBULANCE Other OACE OTH, COVER ENGINE Other OAF OTH, FLIGHT FOLLOWING Other OAFMHA OTH, MED COPTER ACTIVITY Other OAM OTH, MISCELLANEOUS Other OAMD OTH, DISPLAY Other OAMADM OTHER - Unknown Other Volume II of II Appendix B Page B-4 of B-8 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final CAL FIRE Camino Call Type CAL FIRE Camino Description MSR/SOI Corresponding Category OAMPHN OTH, PHONE SYSTEM DOWN Other OAMRAD OTH, RADIO Other OAMSO OTH, ASO MEDICS Other OAP OTH, STAFFING PATTERN Other OAR OTH, REFERRAL Other OAT OTH, TRANSFER Other OAV OTH, VEG MGMT Other OES OTH, SERVICES Other OESA OTH, ALARM TEST Other OESK OTH, KNOX BOX Other OEST OTH, TRNG ANNOUNCEMENT Other OOA OTH, ASSIST Other OOAOFS OTH, FS CAMPFIRE Other OOU OTH, OUT OF UNIT Other OUT OUT OF SERVICE Other MRE MED, RESCUE Other MREM MED, MINE/CAVE RESCUE Other MREOTS MED, RESCUE - OVER THE SIDE Other MRERA MED, REMOTE AREA RESCUE Other MRETR MED, TRENCH RESCUE Other MREW WA RESCUE Other MEDINT MED, INTERFACILITY Other MEDT MED, TRANSFER Other MTC MED, TRAFFIC COLLISION Traffic Collision MTCA MED, TRAFFIC COLLISON CODE 2 Traffic Collision MTCOTS MED, TC OVER THE SIDE Traffic Collision MTCS MED, T/C INTO STRUCTURE Traffic Collision MTCW MED, T/C WATER RESCUE Traffic Collision MTX MED, T/C WITH EXTRICATION Traffic Collision TR Traffic Collision Traffic Collision Volume II of II Appendix B Page B-5 of B-8 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final South Lake Tahoe Dispatch Center Call Types to Corresponding Group SLT Dispatch Call Type SLT Dispatch Description MSR/SOI Corresponding Category Assistance FASSIST PA Assistance FFASSIST PA Assistance Assistance FFTREE PA Assistance Assistance FALARM FIRE Fire FCOALARM FIRE Fire FFALARM FIRE Fire FFBOAT FIRE Fire FFBONFIRE FIRE Fire FFCHIMNEY FIRE Fire FFCOALARM FIRE Fire FFDUMPSTER FIRE Fire FFGAS LEAK FIRE Fire FFIREWORKS FIRE Fire FFREDFLAG FIRE Fire FFSMOKE IN FIRE Fire FFSMOKEO/S FIRE Fire FFSTRCTR FIRE Fire FFVEHFIRE FIRE Fire FFVEHLARGE FIRE Fire FFWILDLAND FIRE Fire FGAS LEAK FIRE Fire FIRE FIRE Fire FIREALARM FIRE Fire FIREWORKS FIRE Fire FSMOKE IN FIRE Fire FSMOKE O/S FIRE Fire FSTRIKE FIRE Fire FSTRUCTURE FIRE Fire FVEHFIRE FIRE Fire FWILDLAND FIRE Fire LVFIRE FIRE Fire FFHAZMAT Hazard Hazard HAZMAT HAZARD Hazard MEDICAL MEDICAL Medical MED MEDICAL Medical TRANSF MEDICAL Medical FFMUTUAL MUTUAL Aid Mutual Aid Volume II of II Appendix B Page B-6 of B-8 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final SLT Dispatch Call Type SLT Dispatch Description MSR/SOI Corresponding Category FFAIRCRAFT Other Other FFBOMB Other Other FFSTRIKE Other Other FFWATER Other Other FLOOD Other Flood Other FWATER Other Other INFO Other Other TEST Other Other FFICE/WTR Rescue Rescue FFSAR Rescue Rescue FFWTR/ICE Rescue Rescue FFTCINJURY TC Traffic Collision Traffic Collision FFTCNON TC Traffic Collision Traffic Collision FTCINJURY TC Traffic Collision Traffic Collision TCI BIKE TC Traffic Collision Traffic Collision TCI VEH TC Traffic Collision Traffic Collision TCINJ TC Traffic Collision Traffic Collision TCIPED TC Traffic Collision Traffic Collision TCN VEH TC Traffic Collision Traffic Collision TCNON TC Traffic Collision Traffic Collision TCUNK TC Traffic Collision Traffic Collision IFT TRANSFER - Interfacility Transfer TRANSFER TRANSFER Transfer Volume II of II Appendix B Page B-7 of B-8 Countywide Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services MSR & SOI Update – Final Grass Valley ECC Call Types to Corresponding Group The call types listed below were added to the CAL FIRE Camino ECC Call type list and the combined lists were used to analyze Meeks Bay Fire Protection District incident data. MSR/SOI CAL FIRE Grass CAL FIRE Grass Valley Description Corresponding Valley Call Type Category FOO FIRE, OTHER Fire MTC MED, VEHICLE ACCIDENT Medical MEDC2 MED, CODE 2 MEDICAL Medical LEO LE, OTHER Other MEDFSS MED, SSV SCENE FLIGHT Medical FSM FIRE, MULTI FAMILY Fire FWL FIRE, VEGETATION Fire OOUOES OTH, OUT OF UNIT OES Other FODCB FIRE, CHECK CONTROL BURN Fire HAS FIRE, AIRCRAFT Fire HSGCO HAZ, CARBON MONOXIDE Hazard MEDE MEDICAL, ECHO RESPONSE Medical FSMA FIRE, MULTI FAMILY ALARM Fire MREW MED, WATER RESCUE Medical MEDFSM MED, SSV MISSED FLIGHT Medical Volume II of II Appendix B Page B-8 of B-8