Mammoth Lakes Fire Protection District MSR & SOI

MAMMOTH LAKES FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Review Draft Report | March 2025 PREPARED FOR: Mono County Local Agency Formation Commission PO Box 347 Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546 (760) 924-1800, fax (760) 924-1801 commdev@mono.ca.gov PREPARERS: Project Oversight: Brent Calloway, LAFCO Executive Officer Project Manager: Kelly Karl, Planning Analyst Contract Staff: Erin Bauer, BPES Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Municipal Service Review .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Prepared for: .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Preparers: .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 Glossary of Terms .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 List of Figures & Tables .................................................................................................................................................. 4 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................ 6 Municipal Service Review Determinations .................................................................................................................... 6 Sphere of Influence Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Sphere of Influence Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 9 Reorganization Recommendation ................................................................................................................................. 9 II. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 10 Municipal Service Reviews .......................................................................................................................................... 10 Combined Municipal Service Review and Spheres of Influence Update ..................................................................... 10 Revised Requirements ................................................................................................................................................. 11 Other Applicable Laws ................................................................................................................................................. 11 Project Area ................................................................................................................................................................. 12 Residential Hazard Zones......................................................................................................................................... 14 III. SERVICE REVIEW ..................................................................................................................................................... 15 1. Growth and population projections for the affected area. ..................................................................................... 16 Recommended Determinations .............................................................................................................................. 16 2. The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. ..................................................................................................................................................... 17 Recommended Determinations .............................................................................................................................. 17 3. Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. .. 17 Services Provided ..................................................................................................................................................... 17 ISO Rating ................................................................................................................................................................ 17 Emergency Communications ............................................................................................................................... 18 Response Times ................................................................................................................................................... 19 Training ................................................................................................................................................................ 21 Incident Types and frequency ................................................................................................................................. 21 Facilities and Equipment .......................................................................................................................................... 26 Communications .................................................................................................................................................. 26 Fire stations ......................................................................................................................................................... 26 Other Property ..................................................................................................................................................... 26 Vehicles ................................................................................................................................................................ 26 Administration and Staffing ..................................................................................................................................... 27 Recommended Determinations .............................................................................................................................. 28 4. Financial ability of agencies to provide services ...................................................................................................... 28 Measure F ................................................................................................................................................................ 31 Recommended Determinations .............................................................................................................................. 32 5. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. .................................................................................................. 32 Recommended Determinations .............................................................................................................................. 33 2 6. Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. .... 34 Recommended Determinations .............................................................................................................................. 34 7. Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. ................. 34 Recommended Determinations .............................................................................................................................. 34 IV. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ........................................................................................................................................... 36 1. The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands. .............................. 36 Finding ..................................................................................................................................................................... 36 2. The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. ........................................................ 37 FindingS ................................................................................................................................................................... 37 3. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. ................................................................................................................................................................... 37 4. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. .................................................................................................................................. 37 Finding ..................................................................................................................................................................... 38 5. For an update of a sphere of influence of a city or special district that provides public facilities or services related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire protection, that occurs pursuant to subdivision (g) on or after July 1, 2012, the present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere of influence. ...................................................................... 38 Finding ..................................................................................................................................................................... 38 Sphere of Influence Recommendation ........................................................................................................................ 38 Reorganization Recommendation ............................................................................................................................... 38 V. Endnotes .................................................................................................................................................................. 39 3 GLOSSARY OF TERMS ACS – American Community Survey BLM – Bureau of Land Management CalEPA – California Environmental Protection Agency Cal Fire – California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalOES – California Office of Emergency Services CFAA – California Fire Assistance Agreement CKH - Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 CRIS – California Radio Interoperable System CWPP - Community Wildfire Prevention Plan DOF – Department of Finance DUC – Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities EMS – Emergency Medical Services ESSCCRP – Eastern Sierra Climate and Communities Resilience Project FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency FHSZ- Fire Hazard Safety Zone ISO – Insurance Services Office LAFCO - Local Agency Formation Commission MAFFS – Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System MLCWD – Mammoth Lakes Community Water District MLFPD – Mammoth Lakes Fire Protection District MSR – Municipal Service Review NFPA – National Fire Protection Association No-HARM – National Hazard and Risk Model OFM – Office of the Fire Marshal PPE – Personal Protection Equipment SOI – Sphere of Influence SRA – State Responsibility Area TOML – Town of Mammoth Lakes USFS – U.S. Forest Service WI – Wildland Intermix WUI – Wildland-Urban Interface LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES FIGURES Figure 1: Mammoth Lakes Fire Protection District Sphere of Influence Figure 2: Town of Mammoth Lakes Urban Growth Boundary within the municipal boundary Figure 3: CalOES Mutual Aid Regions Figure 4: Residential Hazard Zones Figure 5: Countrywide ISO Rating Distribution Figure 6: First Unit Response Time, 80% spread Figure 7: Total Incidents, 2003-2023 Figure 8: Structure Fires, 2003-2023 4 Figure 9: Significant Fire Perimeters 2000-2018 Figure 10: 2020 Creek Fire Figure 11: Gas Leaks, 2003-2023 Figure 12: Annexation Area, showing Ski Lifts Figure 13: Annedation Area, showing County lines TABLES Table 1: 2022 ISO Ratings Summary Table 2: ISO Emergency Reporting Table 3: NFPA 1710 Response Time Benchmarks Table 4: First Unit Response Time 7/1/2022 through 7/31/2023 Table 5: Revenues vs. Expenses Table 6: General Revenues as a Percentage of Total Revenues Table 7: Cost of Labor Table 8: Capital Assets Table 9: Long-Term Debt Table 10: Assets, Liabilities, and Government-Wide Net Position 5 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Mammoth Lakes Fire Protection District (MLFPD) consists of a corps of part-time and volunteer firefighters and a small number of full-time employees. The district sends first responders to a wide range of emergencies, including medical emergencies, fires, and gas leaks. The past decade has seen a steady rise in the number of incidents reported to the MLFPD, as the Town of Mammoth Lakes (TOML) remains a popular tourist destination even as the population of permanent residents declines. Large wildfires have become more common in the Eastern Sierra, and several large fires have burned within ten miles of town. While state designated fire hazard is low to moderate in some parts of the district, others are rated as high, very high, and extremely high hazard. The MLFPD sought a ballot measure (Measure F) in 2020 in an attempt to raise additional revenue. The measure failed, receiving 65.37% of vote, 26 votes short of the 66.67% required to pass.i In 2024, Measure M authorizing a special parcel tax for the benefit of the district passed with 72% of the vote. The MLFPD proposes to expand its sphere of influence to include approximately 400 acres of land in Eastern Madera County, owned by the USFS and leased as part of the Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, and accessible primarily by ski lift Chairs 13 and 14 in the winter and dirt roads in the summer. MLFPD has served this area for decades and no change in services is considered. MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS 1. GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR THE AFFECTED AREA • Population declined from 8,234 in 2010 to 7,191 in 2020 according to the US Census and is projected to hold steady in the coming decades. • As a destination resort, the TOML experiences high visitor populations. During peak season, the effective population (including part-time residents and visitors in hotels) can rise to 28,594, four times higher than the Census count of permanent residents. • Vacancy in TOML housing stock fluctuates between a year-round vacancy rate of 72% to a seasonal vacancy rate of 10%. 6 2. LOCATION & CHARACTERISTICS OF ANY DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES IN OR CONTIGUOUS TO THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE. • LAFCO has not identified any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within the project area. 3 PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES, ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, AND INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES INCLUDING NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES RELATED TO SEWERS, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER, AND STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION IN ANY DISADVANTAGED, UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES WITHIN OR CONTIGUOUS TO THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE. • The MLFPD provides fire prevention and suppression services, emergency medical response services, search and rescue, wildland firefighting, hazardous materials handling, technical rescue, fuel reduction programs, permit approvals and development proposal reviews. • All county first responders are due to switch from the existing county dispatch system to the new state- run CRIS system in the fall of 2025. • The MLFPD’s median first unit response time during the 2022-2023 FY was 6:30, one minute higher than the recommended standard set by the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA). • Because the nearest accredited fire academy is more than 100 miles away, attendance is impractical. The MLFPD runs its own training academy, teaching local firefighters necessary skills but forfeiting the official certifications offered by the State Fire Marshal. • Total alarm calls within the district have increased steadily over time, despite a declining population . • More than half of all incidents handled by the MLFPD are medical in nature. Only 10.5% of incidents concern fires; between 2 and 25 structure fires occur within the district in a given year. • Current MLFPD staff consists of four Chief Officers (three full-time and one retired annuitant), two full- time firefighters, one administrative aide, twenty-three part-time firefighters, ten volunteer firefighters, and two volunteer dispatchers. • The median turnout per incident, between 2018 and 2023, was 16 people. This meets NFPA recommended standards for dwellings, but because most MLFPD first responders are on-call rather than on-duty, lowers the district’s ISO rating of 3/3X. 4. FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES. • A majority of district revenues derive from property taxes. • Supplemental revenue derived from grants and other non-recurring sources generally constitutes less than 10% of total revenues. • The district put fundraising measures on the ballot in 2020 and in 2024. Measure F failed in 2020, but Measure M passed in 2024. 5. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES. • The district maintains mutual aid agreements with neighboring fire departments, Cal Fire, and the USFS. • Typically Cal Fire and the USFS will not respond to structure fires or traffic incidents within the district. • The district is working with the Eastern Sierra Climate and Communities Resilience Project (ESCCRP) and the Whitebark Institute. 7 6. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES. • The District is in compliance with the Brown Act, holds monthly board meetings that are open to the public, and publishes both annual budgets and yearly audits to its website. 7. ANY OTHER MATTER RELATED TO EFFECTIVE OR EFFICIENT SERVICE DELIVERY, AS REQUIRED BY COMMISSION POLICY. • The MLFPD proposes to expand its SOI and district boundary to include approximately 400 acres of land in Eastern Madera County owned by the USFS and leased as part of the Mammoth Mountain Ski Area. The area is accessible via dirt roads in the summer and by ski lift Chairs 13 and 14 in the winter. MLFPD has served this area for decades and no change in services is considered. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE FINDINGS 1. THE PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES IN THE AREA, INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN-SPACE LANDS • The tourism-based economy attracts outdoors enthusiasts year-round. 2. THE PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES IN THE AREA. • The MLFPD has recorded a steady rise in alarm calls over the past decade, an increase that continues even as the population declines. • Extreme events strain the department. 3. THE PRESENT CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES THAT THE AGENCY PROVIDES OR IS AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE. • The district maintains an above-average ISO score of 3/3X. • Limited resources have hindered the department at a time when demand for services is on the rise and fires pose an increasing risk in the region. The 2024 passage of Measure M is expected to improve the situation. 4. THE EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST IN THE AREA IF THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT THEY ARE RELEVANT TO THE AGENCY. • Local communities of interest are not relevant to the MLFPD. 5. FOR AN UPDATE OF A SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF A CITY OR SPECIAL DISTRICT THAT PROVIDES PUBLIC FACILITIES OR SERVICES RELATED TO SEWERS, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER, OR STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION, THAT OCCURS PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION (G) ON OR AFTER JULY 1, 2012, THE PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR 8 THOSE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OF ANY DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE. • LAFCO has not identified any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within the existing district boundary or proposed SOI. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RECOMMENDATION The Sphere of Influence for the Mammoth Lakes Fire Protection District should be expanded to include the Reds Lake area, also known as the “Outpost at the Ski Area,” or just “the Outpost,” approximately 400 acres of land owned by the USFS and leased as part of the Mammoth Mountain Ski Area and accessible primarily via ski lift Chairs 13 and 14 in the winter and dirt roads in the summer. The MLFPD has served this area since 1994. A Memorandum of Understanding between Mono and Madera counties acknowledges that access from Mono County is far more practical than from Madera County. No change of services is being considered. Expanding the SOI would formalize a long standing arrangement, and require the approval of both counties as well as the MLFPD. REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATION Section 56001 of the California Government Code states that: “The Legislature finds and declares that a single multipurpose governmental agency is accountable for community service needs and financial resources and, therefore, may be the best mechanism for establishing community service priorities especially in urban areas. Nonetheless, the Legislature recognizes the critical role of many limited purpose agencies, especially in rural communities. The Legislature also finds that, whether governmental services are proposed to be provided by a single-purpose agency, several agencies, or a multipurpose agency, responsibility should be given to the agency or agencies that can best provide government services.” The feasibility of such a reorganization should be determined by a reorganization committee consisting of representatives of the district, the Town, and Mono LAFCO. 9 II. INTRODUCTION MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEWS The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg (CKH) Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) to conduct comprehensive reviews of all municipal services in each county—or other appropriate area designated by the commission—in California and to periodically update that information. Municipal Service Reviews (MSRs) are conducted by the commission documenting and analyzing the services in a particular geographic region or jurisdictional area pursuant to the requirements of §56430. The purpose of the MSR is to gather detailed information on public service capacities and issues in order to prepare written determinations pursuant to §56430 of the CKH. The formation of local agency boundaries fits into the state’s larger goal of encouraging orderly growth and development. §56001 of the CKH recognizes that: “the logical formation and determination of local agency boundaries is an important factor in promoting orderly development and in balancing that development with sometimes competing state interests of discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open-space and prime agricultural lands, and efficiently extending government services.” COMBINED MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW AND SPHERES OF INFLUENCE UPDATE The CKH requires LAFCOs to develop and determine the Sphere of Influence (SOI) for each applicable local governmental agency that provides services or facilities related to development. CaLAFCO defines a SOI as: “a planning boundary outside of an agency’s legal boundary (such as the city limit line) that designates the agency’s probable future boundary and service area. Factors considered in a sphere of influence review focus on the current and future land use, the current and future need and capacity for service, and any relevant communities of interest. With the passage of the CKH Act, spheres for all cities and special districts are reviewed every five years. “The purpose of the sphere of influence is to ensure the provision of efficient services while discouraging urban sprawl and the premature conversion of agricultural and open space lands by preventing overlapping jurisdictions and duplication of services. Commissions cannot tell agencies what their planning goals should be. Rather, on a regional level, LAFCOs coordinate the orderly development of a community through reconciling differences between agency plans so that the most efficient urban service arrangements are created for the benefit of area residents and property owners.”ii 10 The information and determinations contained in a MSR are intended to guide and inform SOI decisions. Service reviews enable LAFCO to determine SOI boundaries and to establish the most efficient service provider for areas needing new service. They also function as the basis for other government reorganizations. Section 56430, as noted above, states that LAFCO can conduct these reviews “before, in conjunction with, but no later than the time it is considering an action to establish a SOI.” SOIs should be reviewed and updated every five years (§56425). LAFCO can conduct MSRs before, or in conjunction with, but no later than the time it is considering an action to establish or update an SOI (§56430). The Mammoth Lakes Fire Protection District’s MSR is being conducted in conjunction with a review and update of the district’s SOI. REVISED REQUIREMENTS California Senate Bill 244, passed in 2011 and in effect since 2012, significantly revised the requirements for MSRs. Since the previous MSR for the Mammoth Lakes Fire Protection District dates to 2009, this is the first review written to the new requirements. The 2003 Local Agency Formation Commission MSR Guidelines detailed nine determinations necessary to an MSR, each consisting of between five and forty-nine elements.iii These requirements have been streamlined to a list of seven, including land use, demographics, present and future service needs as compared with capacity, and the financial ability of agencies to provide services. Additionally, MSRs now require analysis of Communities of Interest and Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs). OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS The Reciprocal Fire Protection Act of 1955 (42 USC 1956) is a federal law aimed at facilitating cooperation among firefighting agencies across jurisdictions. The law encourages mutual aid agreements between federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial firefighting agencies, allowing them to share resources and provide assistance during wildfire emergencies. The act encourages the establishment of mutual aid agreements and includes liability protections to encourage the sharing of resources. The Stafford Act, enacted in 1988 and since amended, establishes the framework for federal response to natural disasters and emergencies. The Stafford Act allows the federal government to declare national disasters, provide assistance to the affected state or local government, and created the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Cooperative Funds and Deposits Act of 1975 authorizes the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to enter into cooperatively performed, mutually beneficial projects with public and private agencies, organizations, institutions, or persons, for the purpose of pollution abatement, job training and development, education, or forestry protection.iv The Fire Protection District Law of 1987 (Health & Safety Code 13800 et seq) governs the formation, organization, powers and operations of fire protection districts in the state of California. Government Code section 23000 et seq outlines the formation, organization, powers and operations of special districts within the state of California. 11 All properties in Mono County must comply with the California Public Resource Code 4291, to achieve defensible space. Enforcement of this code and adherence to nationally recognized defensible space recommendations such as those provided by the California Fire Safe Council limit damage and possible loss of life from large fires. PROJECT AREA The Mammoth Lakes Fire Protection District (MLFPD) was established in 1948 as a combined water and fire district known as the North Mammoth Fire Protection District. In 1956, the water and fire districts separated, and in 1976 the fire district’s name was changed to the Mammoth Lakes Fire Protection District. The district boundaries are coterminous with the TOML boundaries with one exception (see Figure 1). The Mammoth Yosemite Airport, which is included in the Town’s boundaries is not within the MLFPD but rather in the Long Valley Fire Protection District boundary. Figure 1: MLFPD Sphere of Influence The town’s municipal boundary is 24.4 square miles. The town adopted an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in 1993, a 4.6 square mile area of privately-owned land which sets the maximum extent of the municipality. Within the UGB, more than 90% of the privately-owned land is developed with over 7,500 permanent residents and 1.5 million square feet of commercial development. Land outside of the UGB, but still within the municipal boundary, consists largely of public lands administered by the Inyo National Forest, 80 acres of patented mining claims (on top of Sherwin ridge), Valentine Reserve of the University of California, Mammoth Mountain Ski Area (leased from Inyo National Forest), and the City of Los Angeles’ Camp High Sierra. 12 Figure 2: UGB within the municipal boundary The California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) divides the state into regions to facilitate efficient multi- agency emergency management and coordination. Mono County is part of Mutual Aid Region VI (see Figure 3) within the Southern Region, which includes 226 incorporated cities, numerous tribal nations, small unincorporated communities, and special districts, and a total population of approximately 22,885,880.v The closest fire protection district to the MLFPD is the Long Figure 3: CalOES Mutual Aid Regions Valley Fire Protection District. The Long Valley FPD’s main station is in Crowley Lake, approximately 10 to 15 miles south of the district via SR 203 and US 395. The westernmost boundary of the Long Valley FPD is approximately 2 miles east of the TOML. The MLFPD operates in an area where human development and natural, wildland environments come into contact. Such terrain can be broadly divided into two types: Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) or Wildland Intermix (WI). A WUI is a zone where communities of residential neighborhoods, commercial areas, and industrial sites intermingle with wildland or natural vegetation. Most of the developed land within the TOML’s Urban Growth Boundary can be described as a WUI. A WI is an area where wildland vegetation and human development are extensively mixed or interwoven. In WI zones, structures such as homes, shops, or hotels blend with natural landscapes, with little distinction between developed and undeveloped areas. Many of the neighborhoods and recreational facilities within the MLFPD’s area of operations are WI. 13 The Office of the State Fire Marshal has released Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps that assign one of three designations to fire-prone areas: Moderate, High, and Very High. A significant portion of the MLFPD’s service area qualifies as High or Very High. RESIDENTIAL HAZARD ZONES The 2019 Mammoth Lakes Community Wildfire Prevention Plan (CWPP) maps the area according to the National Hazard and Risk Model (No-HARM), a predictive model used to assess the risk of significant fire events.vi The model repeatedly simulates the progress of a significant wildfire. Over the course of hundreds or thousands of simulations, patterns emerge which are predictive of real-life events. Areas where fires ‘stack’ in the simulations, occurring in the same place over and over again, are considered to be at higher risk. No-HARM generally rates Frequency within the MLFPD’s area of operation between one and nine out of fifty, where a value of one indicates the lowest probability of damaging fires and 50 the highest. This range indicates that the likelihood of a significant fire occurring is low to moderate. However, predictive models are strongly influenced by historical conditions. The trend over the past two years is toward an increasing number of large fires in the Eastern Sierra. If this trend continues, ratings are likely to increase. The district has been divided into ten “hazard zones,” as displayed in Figure 3, where they are color-coded by their No-Harm Risk. The rating ranges from low in zones C, D, and I to extreme in J, the WI zone around Lake Mary. 14 Figure 4: Residential Hazard Zones III. SERVICE REVIEW In order to prepare and to update SOIs in accordance with California law, §56430(a) requires LAFCO to conduct a service review of the municipal services provided in the county or other appropriate area designated by the commission. The commission shall include in the area designated for service review the county, the region, the subregion, or any other geographic area as is appropriate for an analysis of the service or services to be reviewed, and shall prepare a written statement of its determinations with respect to each of the following seven factors: 1. Growth and population projections for the affected area. 2. Location & characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities in or contiguous to the sphere of influence. 3. Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural 15 fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. 4. Financial ability of agencies to provide services. 5. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. 6. Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. 7. Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission policy. These seven factors are listed below and analyzed in the discussions that follow. 1. GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR THE AFFECTED AREA. The 2020 U.S. Census counted 7,191 permanent residents in the TOML, down from 8,234 as recorded in the 2010 Census.vii This marks a decrease of 1,043 residents or 12.7%. Population data provided by the American Community Survey (ACS) suggests that the majority of this drop took place between 2020viii and 2021ix. The California Department of Finance (DOF) also publishes yearly demographic data which is benchmarked to the most recent decennial census. A 2022 press release nevertheless warns against making direct comparisons between the two surveys,1 even during the same year, as they “refer to different points of time” and significant events (such as a major fire, or a global pandemic) can cause measurable changes. With this caution, the Department of Finance’s E-5 Population and Housing Estimate published in 2022 registers growth between 2020 and 2022, with the 2020 estimate of 7,213 rising to 7,365 in 2022.x Their long-term projections, using data from 2019 captured before the outbreak of Covid-19,xi forecast a population of 7,799 in 2020, of 8,125 in 2040 and 8,101 in 2060.2 The 2022 E-5 Population and Housing Estimate divided the 9,415 total housing units in the town into 2,918 occupied and 6,497 vacant units.xii As a destination resort, the TOML experiences high visitor populations. According to the September 2019 update to the General Plan the vacancy rate fluctuates between a year-round vacancy rate of 72% to a seasonal vacancy rate of 10%.xiii Assuming the seasonal vacancy rate the maximum population in town at buildout would be 48,582.xiv The steady influx of visitors creates an effective population up to four times higher than the Census count of permanent residents. A 2015 study that included part-time residents calculated a peak population of 25,546, and adding visitors in hotels increased the total to 28,594.xv According to the Housing Element, updated in 2019 and using data from 2016, 39.6% of housing units are owner- occupied and 60.4% of housing units are renter-occupied.xvi The average occupied household size is 2.46 persons per household.xvii RECOMMENDED DETERMINATIONS 1 “Comparing Census Bureau’s recently released July 1, 2021 estimates with Finance’s January 1, 2022 estimates should generally be avoided since they refer to different points in time. In addition, there are numerous differences between the two series including the effects of the wildfires, changes in migration patterns, accelerating slowdown in births, and excess deaths due to the COVID-19 pandemic that make comparisons difficult.” https://dof.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/sites/352/Forecasting/Demographics/Documents/E-1_2022PressRelease.pdf 2 Using the data from P-2A Total Population for California and Counties (https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/Demographics/projections/) and data from the 2010 Census to measure the population of Mammoth Lakes as 58% of the population of Mono County. The population projections for the TOML presented here are 58% of the Department of Finance’s projections for the county as a whole in that year. 16 • The population declined from 8,234 at the 2010 Census to 7,191 at the 2020 Census, and is projected to hold steady in the coming decades. • As a destination resort, the TOML experiences high visitor populations. During peak season, the effective population (including part-time residents and visitors in hotels) can rise to 28,594, four times higher than the Census count of permanent residents. • Vacancy in TOML housing stock fluctuates between a year-round vacancy rate of 72% to a seasonal vacancy rate of 10%. 2. THE LOCATION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF ANY DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES WITHIN OR CONTIGUOUS TO THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE. Senate Bill 244, passed in 2011, requires LAFCO to make determinations regarding Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs). DUCs are defined in the bill as “a fringe, island, or legacy community in which the median household income is 80 percent or less than the statewide median household income.”xviii CaLAFCO created an online map identifying DUCs in every California county based on the most recent and accurate household income data released by the Census Bureau on December 10, 2020. The purpose of CaLAFCO’s DUC Map is to enable any LAFCO that has not already identified DUCs within their respective county to utilize it as the source of the most recent household income data and DUC designations. No part of the TOML, nor any area contiguous to it, is designated as a DUC. RECOMMENDED DETERMINATIONS • No part of the TOML, nor any area contiguous to it, is designated as a DUC per the CaLAFCO statewide DUC map. 3. PRESENT AND PLANNED CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES, ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES, AND INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES INCLUDING NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES RELATED TO SEWERS, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER, AND STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION IN ANY DISADVANTAGED, UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES WITHIN OR CONTIGUOUS TO THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE. SERVICES PROVIDED The district provides fire prevention and suppression services, emergency medical response services, search and rescue, wildland firefighting, hazardous materials handling, technical rescue, fuel reduction programs, permit approvals and development proposal reviews. ISO RATING The Insurance Services Office (ISO) is a private organization that supplies information used by underwriters to evaluate and price risks, including fire protection. The ISO gathers information that insurers use when underwriting personal and commercial property insurance, commercial liability and workers compensation policies. The ratings range from a score of 10 (no fire protection at all) to 1 (best fire protection possible). 17 In 2010, when the previous MSR was written, the ISO rating for MLFPD was 3/9. In 2016, the rating was 3/3X and in 2022 the rating remained 3/3X.xix The first number in the split class applies to properties within five road miles of the responding fire station and within 1,000 feet of a creditable water supply, such as a fire hydrant. The second number in the split class (with the “X” or “Y” designation) applies to properties within five road miles of a fire station but beyond 1,000 feet of a creditable Figure 5: ISO Rating Distribution water supply. The change from 2010’s score of 3/9 and 2022’s score of 3/3X Is due to revisions made to the ISO’s classification system in 2014. In 2014, the ISO revised its classification system and departments with the split class of 9 (as the MLFPD received in 2010) were instead given the new split class of X. While the MLFPD services the entire area encompassed by the TOML, the Mammoth Community Water District (MCWD) installs and maintains fire hydrants within the service area. The MCWD’s service area aligns with the Town’s Urban Growth Boundary. Within the MCWD’s service area, hydrants are plentiful; beyond it, significantly less so. As a result, much of the Mammoth Lakes Fire Protection District’s service area falls into the split class of X.xx As evidenced by the chart in Figure 5, Class 3 indicates above-average performance. During a March 2022 board meeting, Chief Frievalt (now retired) noted that advancing from the district’s current position as a mid-range category 3 into category 2 would be “extremely difficult.”xxi As discussed throughout this MSR, some impediments to a rating change reflect constraints imposed by budget, while others are inherent to the district’s location. EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS Currently, fires and medical emergencies are dispatched to the MLFPD from the Mono County Sheriff’s Office in Bridgeport, via the county’s 911 emergency system. Though the MLFPD has its own Very High Frequency (VHF) system that it uses and maintains, and utilizes FirstNet for preplan and incident on-scene applications, it depends on the county dispatch to forward alarms. The county system dates to the 1970s and frequently experiences technical problems, including glitchy radios and occasionally a total loss of communications. After surveying alternatives, Mono County committed to join the California Radio Table 1: ISO Ratings Summary Interoperable System (CRIS),xxii a state-wide 18 program established in 2019 to provide advanced radio technologies to first responders. A report from the April 2022 Board meeting described the state’s intention to install the new system along major transportation routes through rural areas, adding that Mono would be the first county to add infrastructure enabling coverage beyond the U.S. Highway 395 corridor.xxiii All of the county’s first responders, including fire districts, sheriff and police, CalOES, and CalTrans, are scheduled to complete the transition in the fall of 2025. Built-in redundancies and state-level tech support promise a “vast improvement”xxiv over the old system. EARNED CREDIT 2016 2022 Credit Emergency 2.85 2.85 Reporting (out of 3) Credit for 3.76 3.76 Telecommunicators (out of 4) Credit for Dispatch 2.10 2.25 Circuits (out of 3) Total 8.71 8.86 Table 2: ISO Emergency Reportingxxv For the ISO category of emergency reporting (Table 1), MLFPD received full credit for its enhanced 911 system, static and dynamic location identification over wireless, VoIP functionality, and its geographic information system. It fell short regarding computer aided dispatch. Telecommunicators are scored according to their compliance with the standards in NFPA 1221 on the installation, maintenance and use of emergency services communications systems. MLFPD received full credit for its alarm receipt, alarm processing, and emergency dispatch protocols. It fell short regarding telecommunicator training and certification, telecommunicator continuing education, and quality assurance. Dispatch Circuits transmit alarms to fire department members, notifying firefighter personnel of the location of a reported fire. The score indicates whether there are sufficient dispatchers in relation to district call volume, automatic fault and failure detection, and emergency power supplies. RESPONSE TIMES The National Fire Protection Association Code 1710 sets standards for response times, breaking down the response into its constituent parts, as seen in Figure 6. Response times directly impact outcomes. Studies have evaluated the correlation between emergency response and mortality during medical emergencies.xxvi Responding within 8 minutes or less has become a benchmark of quality EMS (Emergency Medical Services) care, though some studies suggest the target should be as low as 5 minutes.xxvii Where fires are concerned, longer response times correlate to increases in flame spread and greater structural damage.xxviii The MLFPD provided records of First Unit Arrival Response Times from 7/1/2022 through 7/31/2023, tracking what is considered in the fire service as the “total” response time, measured from the time a call is received by the emergency communications center to the arrival of the first apparatus at the scene.xxix 19 Total response time combines turnout time (ideally 80 seconds or less) and travel time (ideally 240 seconds or less), so that first responders arrive within 5 minutes and 30 seconds or less, at least 90% of the time.xxx The median response time for MLFPD teams is between six and seven minutes—approximately one minute higher than the standard set by the NFPA. More than 80% of the time, the first unit arrived on-scene in between two and eleven minutes, as shown in Figure 7. First Unit Response Times: 80% between 2 and 11 minutes 200 150 100 50 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Count Figure 6: First Unit Response time, 80% spread The MLFPD scores relatively low on Deployment Analysis (6.66 out of 10 points) in the most recent ISO report, which takes response times into account. It is important to note that the response time data reproduced here is entered manually and excludes dispatch, an aspect of emergency response that is expected to improve with upgrades to existing technology. Table 4: FIRST UNIT RESPONSE TIME, 7/1/2022 THROUGH 7/31/2023 MINUTES COUNT PERCENTAGE MINUTES COUNT PERCENTAGE <1 21 1.6% 21 2 0.1% 1 12 0.9% 22 4 0.3% 2 46 3.6% 23 4 0.3% 3 70 5.5% 24 1 0.0% 4 125 9.9% 25 2 0.1% 5 146 11.6% 28 1 0.0% 6 187 14.8% 31 1 0.0% 7 163 12.9% 32 1 0.0% 8 136 10.8% 33 1 0.0% 9 104 8.2% 34 1 0.0% 10 51 4.0% 36 1 0.0% 11 44 3.4% 45 1 0.0% 12 24 1.9% 56 1 0.0% 13 26 2.0% 20 14 17 1.3% 15 13 1.0% 16 17 1.3% 17 14 1.1% 18 7 0.5% 19 6 0.4% 20 3 0.2% TRAINING The ISO gives MLFPD a relatively low training score: 6.41 out of 9 in 2016 and 6.48 out of 9 in 2022, tracking a fairly consistent performance. In both cases, the MLFPD lost the most points for ‘Company Training,’ which requires firefighters to receive sixteen hours of structure-fire-related training per month. Two factors make this quota impractical for the MLFPD. One is that the majority of MLFPD’s firefighters are volunteers. They have full-time jobs in addition to their volunteer duties and cannot commit to sixteen hours of training every month.xxxi The other, however, is that certifications offered by the Office of the State Fire Marshal require attending classes in person at accredited local or regional academies, the nearest of which are in Lake Tahoe (140 miles distant from Mammoth Lakes) and Bakersfield (254 miles). The MLFPD has reached out to Cerro Coso Community College to discuss setting up a local training academy, but preliminary discussions have indicated that attendance would not be sufficient to justify the investment. Instead, the MLFPD runs its own academy for firefighters wishing to advance their skills, using a Jones and Bartlett curriculum supplemented by CA State Fire Marshall Skills Sheets. Jones and Bartlett courses mirror the training provided by the National Fire Academy’s Fire and Emergency Services Higher Education Initiative.xxxii The MLFPD is able to work around the schedule of students, accommodating at-home learning and offering credits for on-the-job training. The department offers certifications in the Incident Command System, hazardous materials, the operation of specialized emergency response vehicles, and officer training courses. INCIDENT TYPES AND FREQUENCYxxxiii Total alarm calls within the district have increased steadily over time. xxxiv The increase doesn’t correlate with changes in population, which declined over the same period. 21 Incidents Total 1500 1000 500 0 Incidents Total Figure 7: Total Incidents, 2003-2023 A review of the incidents called in to the MLFPD between 7/01/2018 and 6/30/2022 reveals that the most common request, by a significant margin, is for medical aid. 52% of all incidents can be described as medical, and the great majority of medical incidents are EMS calls.3 The second most common occurrences, comprising 28% of all incidents, are false alarms. Only 10.5% of all calls concerned the incidents for which firefighters are specially trained: 5.8% of all incidents were related to fire, while 4.7% concerned hazardous materials. The MLFPD keeps a record of alarms, categorized by type. While it doesn’t separate out incidents that led to severe property damage or casualties, the district records between two and twenty-five structure fires every year: xxxv Figure 8: Structure Fires, 2003-2023 3 MLFPD’s record of incident types is quite granular. Sorting them into broad categories required some subjective reckoning, and resulted in a tally 1654 medical incidents, 910 false alarms, 185 related to fire of any kind, 151 to any sort of hazard. Other categories (rescue, car trouble, weather) were significantly fewer. 22 Meanwhile, significant wildfires are becoming more frequent. Since 2000, the only fire larger than 100 acres to burn within three miles of the study area was the Sherwin fire, which started in the Sherwin Lakes area in 2008 and burned at least 347 acres.xxxvi However, the list of fires to come within ten miles of the town is much longer.xxxvii Three such fires occurred in 2016: the Rock Creek Fire burned 122 acres and came within a mile of Swall Meadows, the Clark Fire burned 2,819 acres in and around Bald Mountain, and the Owens River Fire burned 5,443 acres approximately seven miles to the north of Mammoth Lakes. In 2018 the Owens Fire burned 228 acres of Inyo National Forest while the Lions Fire, centered in Madera County seven miles to the east of Mammoth Lakes, remained active for 207 days and burned 4,014 acres before being put out in 2019. 23 Figure 9: Significant Fire Perimeters 2000-2018xxxviii In 2020, the Creek Fire—pictured below in Figure 12—at the time the largest single blaze in California history, though it has since been surpassed—burned 379,000 acres across two counties and lasted for more than three months. It destroyed more than 800 structures, injured more than 25 people, and came within 4 miles of the TOML.xxxix 24 Figure 10: 2020 Creek Firexl Hazards, like fires, can be seasonal and subject to unpredictable spikes. For example, between 2017 and 2023 the median number of gas leaks (such as leaking propane tanks) per year was 15. During the period stretching from July 2022 to June 2023, with its record winter snowfall, the number of gas leaks rose to 172. 25 Gas Leaks 200 150 100 50 0 Gas Leaks ((412) Figure 10: Gas Leaks, 2003-2023 FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT COMMUNICATIONS • MLFPD replaced its phone system with fiber in 2020. The copper wires in the old system were failing and employees often utilized personal cell phone numbers while responding to incidents.xli • MLFPD will transition to the new statewide CRIS radio system in fall of 2023. FIRE STATIONS • Fire Station #1, at the corner of Main Street (SR 203) and Forest Trail. Station #1 houses the district’s administrative offices and the Mono County paramedic unit stationed in Mammoth Lakes. It is manned 24/7. • Station #2, located on Old Mammoth Road in the Snowcreek area, is a two-story, 2-bay station with a training area and a drill tower. Fire Station #2 houses equipment year-round, and the new summer wildfire team seasonally. OTHER PROPERTY • MLFPD owns an undeveloped lot on Joaquin road. The department has considered building up to twelve units of workforce housing, but no firm plans have yet been made. VEHICLES Fire Engines are on a 20-year replacement schedule. Trucks and Tenders are on a 25-year replacement schedule. Staff and command vehicles are replaced when the odometer reaches 80,000 miles. Ambulances are on a 30-year replacement schedule. Utility and other vehicles are on a 20-year replacement schedule.xlii UTILITY & PERSONAL VEHICLES • Five Ford Expeditions, four of which are assigned to individuals. 26 • Two Ford f-350 utility vehicles. • One Ford explorer. HEAVY EQUIPMENT/EARTH MOVING EQUIPMENT • Case loader. A case loader is used for material transport, digging, loading, and similar tasks. • Bobcat. A small, maneuverable vehicle used for digging, grading, and earthmoving. • Morbark wood chipper. • Case 721G Front End Loader. A vehicle with a hydraulic loader arm that can scoop, lift, and transport loose materials, such as soil, gravel, and debris. • Dump Truck. FIRE TRUCKS • Spartan Gladiator. A fire truck, of the Gladiator model, custom manufactured by Spartan.xliii • Kenworth make, 3000-gallon capacity water tender. A water tender transports water to remote locations where hydrants are unavailable. A replacement water tender, made by Rosenbauer, was ordered in 2022 but will take between one and two years to arrive in Mammoth Lakes.xliv • 2002 Westates Hoffman Manufacturing Engineering. • 2006 West-Mark. • Pierce 100ft Aerial, a fire truck equipped with a 100ft aerial ladder • Pierce Ultimate Configuration 4x4, a multi-purpose vehicle built for off-roading. Combines a pump, water tank, foam system, and other components into an integrated unit. • BME Type 3. A rugged firefighting truck built for off-road wildland firefighting. Purchased in 2022. EMERGENCY RESPONSE/MEDICAL VEHICLES • Ambulance • Ford Rosenbauer Squad. Emergency response vehicle. ADMINISTRATION AND STAFFING Current MLFPD staff consists of 3.6 full-time Chief Officers (four officers, one of whom is a retired annuitant), two full-time firefighters (with the goal of hiring a third by the end of calendar year 2023), and one full-time administrative aide, totaling seven (rounding up from six-and-a-half) full-time staff. Twenty-three part-time firefighters are supplemented by seven seasonal hires who, for the duration of their half- year term, work full-time on the recently launched wildland program. Ten volunteer firefighters and two volunteer dispatchers complete the roster.xlv Firefighters are divided into eight engine crews, each of which includes a captain, an engineer (trained to drive the department’s specialized vehicles), and up to four additional firefighters. MLFPD scored 6.71 on the ISO’s evaluation of Company Personnel in 2022. This category analyzes the number of existing firefighters and company officers available to respond to fires, divided into ‘on duty’ and ‘on call’ staff. On- 27 duty officers can respond to alarms faster, assemble faster, and act a team from the moment they’re deployed. On-call officers are slower to arrive and coordinate, and so they are accorded a reduced point value. NFPA 1710 recommends a minimum of 16 members be deployed to a structure fire of a single-family dwelling, and during the five-year period spanning from July 2018 through June 2023, the median turnout per incident was 16.xlvi Response times, as analyzed in Section 4.3.3, are very near the NFPA’s targets. MLFPD loses points in this category because the majority of its firefighters are on-call, rather than on-duty. Relying on part-time and volunteer firefighters is a strategic and economic necessity for the MLFPD, allowing the department to provide a good response at a savings to the community.xlvii However, the cost of housing within the TOML is high. Only firefighters who live in town can be on-call for emergencies overnight. Volunteer and part-time staff are generally unable to live in the district. Board Members have contemplated building employee housing on an undeveloped lot the department owns on Joaquin Road. Affordable employee housing would keep more firefighters in-district and improve hiring and retention efforts. Hiring and retaining staff remains a top challenge and priority for the department. RECOMMENDED DETERMINATIONS • The MLFPD provides fire prevention and suppression services, emergency medical response services, search and rescue, wildland firefighting, hazardous materials handling, technical rescue, fuel reduction programs, permit approvals and development proposal reviews. • All county first responders are due to switch from the existing county dispatch system to the new state- run CRIS system in the fall of 2023, rectifying one of the MLFPD’s primary weaknesses. • The MLFPD’s median first unit response time during the 2022-2023 FY was 6:30, one minute higher than the recommended standard set by the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA). • Because the nearest accredited fire academy is more than 100 miles away, attendance is impractical. The MLFPD runs its own training academy, teaching local firefighters necessary skills but forfeiting the official certifications offered by the State Fire Marshal. • Total alarm calls within the district have increased steadily over time, while the overall population has declined. • More than half of all incidents handled by the MLFPD are medical in nature. Only 10.5% of all calls made to the MLFPD concern fires; between 2 and 25 structure fires occur within the district in a given year. • Current staff consists of four full-time Chief Officers (one is a retired annuitant), two full-time firefighters, one administrative aide, twenty-three part-time firefighters, ten volunteer firefighters, and two volunteer dispatchers. • The median turnout per incident, between 2018 and 2023, was 16 people. This meets NFPA recommended standards for dwellings, but because most MLFPD first responders are on-call rather than on-duty, lowers the district’s ISO rating of 3/3X. 4. FINANCIAL ABILITY OF AGENCIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES The independent audit of the MLFPD’s 2022-2023 fiscal year summarizes the district’s financial position: 28 The district has a long-standing history of being good stewards of public funds through conservative budgeting. That stated, there is a lack of public understanding of the district, in general, as well as its financial condition, specifically. As an example, while the Mammoth Lakes Fire Protection District is a special district, the majority of the messaging from the district reads Mammoth Lakes Fire Department. This leads to confusion on oversight, resources, and financial implications. In line with this, while the district has had sound financial practices, it needs improve communication of the financial situation to the public. Founded in 1948, the district has seen substantial growth over the past 20 years. This growth has come with a significant increase in operational and financial complexity, but the district capacity has remained limited by staff and financial resource constraints. While a fire department can lean on support departments such as finance or legal, a fire district often must work through processes with staff that are asked to meet multiple diverse needs. Primarily, the district has managed the budget in a process that attempts to balance budgeting detail and complexity against sensible time and cost. This has come at a cost in the past when members of the public did not understand how the fire district budgets and allocates funds for services. Having the public understand the district’s finances is instrumental towards retaining long term public support.”xlviii The MLFPD budget has three components: annual operating budget (which accounts for yearly expenses such as labor), capital replacement/repair (which accounts for significant expenses such as new fire trucks, water tenders, etc.), and emergency reserves. Table 5: Revenues vs. Expenses 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total $3,099,141 $3,375,696 $3,694,513 $3,593,943 $3,891,654 $3,998,896 $5,440,877 Revenues Total $2,948,078 $2,890,906 $3,279,810 $3,757,853 $4,025,040 $2,681,977 $4,460,106 Expenses Delta +151,063 +484,790 +414,703 -163,910 -133,386 +1,316,919 +980,771 Both revenues and expenses have increased over the past six years. Deficits in 2020 and 2021 reflect the strain placed on the department by a succession of extreme events. The bulk of district revenues derive from property taxes. Other sources of income, such as filing fees and reimbursements from Assistance for Hire (mutual aid agreements), are added to the tax revenues and classed by the district as General Revenues. The district budgets around its General Revenues, keeping separate accounts for income from non-recurring sources such as grants.xlix Both sources are folded into the total revenues reported by the yearly audits, which also track what percentage of the total is made up by the general revenues. The difference between general revenues and total revenues is made up with grants, state and federal reimbursements (such as FEMA reimbursements), and, in one case, a draw- down from a TOML fund. Table 6: General Revenues as a Percentage of Total Revenues l 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 General $3,082,474 $3,173,346 $3,450,419 $3,534,616 $3,654,809 $3,967,748 $5,317,916 Revenues Percentage 99.46% 94% 93.39% 98.35% 93.91% 99.22% 97.74% of Total 29 Table 7: Cost of Laborli July 19- July 20- July 21- July 22-June July 23-June 24 July 24-June 25 June 20 June 21 June 22 23 Personnel $2,037,695 $2,139,864 $2,491,124 $2,543,492 $2,955,793 $3,430,486 Costs Labor is the district’s primary operating expense. Additional expenses include administrative expenses, logistics, preventative action (such as participation in the Fire Safe Council), training, and utilities. The second major component of the budget is capital replacement/repair. The department owns and maintains two Fire Stations, along with a fleet of highly specialized vehicles. Fire trucks, water tenders, and the like are expensive and often custom-built. There can be a lag time of one to two years between the date when a new truck is ordered and when it is delivered to the department. Table 8: Capital Assets 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Land 879,811 879,811 879,811 879,811 879,811 989,586 Structures and 8,669,182 8,663,680 8,663,680 8,663,680 8,663,680 8,694,719 improvements Equipment 5,255,959 4,638,785 4,674,545 4,651,500 4,795,903 4,795,903 Accumulated (7,035,743) (6,688,340) (7,169,337) (7,610,271) (7,856,508) (8,300,643) depreciation The majority of the district’s liabilities are tied up in employee benefits and pensions. During FY 2020-2021 the MLFPD paid off the entirety of its mortgage on Fire Station #1, dropping the ‘Notes Payable’ line on its ledger down to zero. Table 9: Long-Term Debt 2019 2020 2021 Notes Payable $2,100,340 $1,911,004 - Compensated Absences $114,360 $155,771 $184,247 Post-Employment Benefits $1,729,740 $1,712,403 $1,839,247 Pension Plan Liability $1,653,651 $1,951,748 $2,821,843* *with note that liability is offset by pension assets of $567,388 The 2022-2023 audit analyzes the district’s long-term debt as follows: “The district’s compensated absences during the year ended June 30, 2023, totals $231,246. The other postemployment benefit obligation as of June 30, 2023 was $1,255,618. The pension plan net liability has a total of $2,586,725. This, however, is a balance of a $3,211,161 safety program liability and a $624,436 miscellaneous program asset. CalPERS does not allow for the district to move funds between the safety and miscellaneous programs therefore the safety program liability is worth noting as much as the net amount.”lii Table 10: Assets, Liabilities, and Government-Wide Net Positionliii 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 30 Total Assets $13,202,669 $13,666,345 $13,193,232 $13,478,521 $13,467,460 $11,966,616 Total Liabilities $5,227,650 $5,540,263 $6,532,399 $6,267,140 $6,416,270 $5,046,262 Deferred inflows 287,734 269,878 354,326 371,575 (subtract) Deferred 683,557 529,856 610,585 625,283 outflows (add) Government- $7,975,019 $8,126,082 $7,056,656 $7,471,359 $7,307,449 $7,174,062 wide Net Position Note: The district calculates the difference between liabilities and assets to arrive at its government-wide net position. District audits added deferred inflows and deferred outflows as categories in 2018, noting that these expenses relate to the district pension plan and will be allocated to future fiscal years. Taking them into account as indicated makes it possible to quickly calculate the government-wide net position.4 The 2022-2023 audit’s outlook for the future summarizes stressors on department finances, and outlines next steps. One of the proposed steps, formalizing the budgeting process, is reflected in the improved quality of financial audits for 2022 and 2023: “The community of Mammoth Lakes continues to increase tourist visitation. The district works to support the core services that it provides but its mission is being strained by increased call volume and difficulties with staff retention. If these service demands from the community continue to place pressure on the district, then further funding sources will be needed. To obtain support for this, the district will have to articulate its current position. Returning to the goal of external communication, the district will continue work on communicating its financial position. Moving forward, the district will work to formalize more of the budgeting process as well as the long-term capital outlay plan. This includes the formation of financial policies, more visible delineation of funds and reserves, and a reassessment of the chart of accounts to better reflect the district’s current programs.”liv MEASURE F In March of 2020, the MLFPD put Ballot Measure F to the vote,lv hoping to increase permanent funding for the department. The text of Measure F read:lvi “MAMMOTH LAKES FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT MEASURE ADOPTING A SPECIAL TAX FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES” To maintain and improve rapid response times for emergency services, train new & retain experienced firefighters, and provide defensible space inspections, shall the Mammoth Lakes Fire Protection District adopt a new annual special tax at $85 per residential unit, $20 per vacant parcel, and $34 per 10th of an acre for other improved property, raising approximately $854,000 annually; with an optional yearly increase not to exceed CPI, until ended by voters? 4 The 2021 Audit report notes that “Gains and losses related to changes in total pension asset/liability and fiduciary net position are recognized in pension expense systematically over time. The first amortized amounts are recognized in pension expense for the year the gain or loss occurs. The remaining amounts are categorized as deferred outflows and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions and are to be recognized in future pension expense. The amortization period differs depending on the source of gain or loss.” 31 The measure required a two-thirds majority to pass, and failed by a 1% margin.5 The Board presented a new measure, Measure M, to voters for consideration in November of 2024. The text of Measure M read: MAMMOTH LAKES FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT SPECIAL TAX FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES MEASURE M To reduce the risk of wildfires, maintain and improve rapid response times for 9-1-1 emergency services, attract, retain, and train qualified firefighters, and fund defensible space programs to improve wildfire prevention, shall the Mammoth Lakes Fire Protection District ordinance levying $98 per parcel for nine years be adopted, providing approximately $925,000 annually in locally controlled funding, an optional yearly increase not to exceed CPI, with senior and low-income exemptions, independent oversight, annual audits and all money spent locally?lvii With 2,117 votes in favor and 806 votes against, Measure M passed with 72% of the vote.lviii RECOMMENDED DETERMINATIONS • The bulk of district revenues derive from property taxes. • Supplemental income derived from grants and other non-recurring sources generally constitutes less than 10% of total revenues. • In March of 2020, the MLFPD put Measure F to the vote, hoping to raise additional funds through a new tax. The measure failed narrowly. • In November of 2024, the MLFPD put Measure M to the vote, hoping to raise additional funds through a new tax. Measure M passed. 5. STATUS OF, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR, SHARED FACILITIES. The TOML is surrounded on all sides by lands managed by the USFS. The USFS operates Fire and Aviation Management teams to wildfires, and maintains a mutual aid agreement with the MLFPD. However, the USFS does not respond to structural fires within the district.lix The MLFPD signed a mutual aid agreement with the Owens Valley Division of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) in 2017. The agreement outlines when aid will be offered and reimbursed, but the agreement applies only to wildland fire management. Cal Fire will not respond to structural fires, vehicle fires, or traffic accidents within the district. Cal Fire occasionally provides manpower for fuels mitigation projects conducted by MLFPD on town-owned undeveloped parcels, but because there are no State Responsibility Areas 5 The Sheet tallied the initial results at 1,040 votes in favor and 584 against, 42 votes short of passing with 59% turnout during a March election. (https://thesheetnews.com/2020/03/06/results-are-in/) Ballotpedia reports 1,293 in favor to 685 against, 26 votes short of passing. (https://ballotpedia.org/Mammoth_Lakes_Fire_Protection_District,_California,_Measure_F,_Parcel_Tax_(March_2020) At the April 2020 board meeting, members discussed a 26 vote shortfall. 32 (SRAs) in or adjacent to the MLFPD, Cal Fire does not participate in wildfire operations or mitigation planning within the District. The mutual aid agreement with Cal Fire is scheduled for renewal every five years. As of August 2023, the renewal was overdue but in process. MLFPD participates in the California Fire Assistance Agreement (CFAA), along with the state CalOES, Cal Fire, the USFS, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The CFAA 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 and emergency assistance to the State of California and to Federal Fire Agencies. CFAA also allows agencies to request the deployment of volunteer firefighters to emergencies throughout the state. Volunteer firefighters make up more than 30% of available local government firefighting personnel in California. The MLFPD maintains mutual aid agreements with Mono County, Antelope Valley, Bridgeport, Lee Vining, Mono City, June Lake, Mammoth Lakes, Long Valley, Paradise, Wheeler Crest, White Mountain and Chalfant Valley Fire Protection Districts. The upcoming launch of a new radio system, in cooperation with the California Office of Emergency Services, demonstrates interagency collaboration within the County. A Memorandum of Understanding between Madera County, Mono County, and the TOML regarding law enforcement and first responder activities for areas of Madera County east of the Sierra Crest was first made in 1994. Portions of Madera County east of the Sierra crest and the San Joaquin River and adjacent to Mono County are accessible by paved roadway only from Mono County by way of Highway 203. Backcountry areas of Madera County east of the Sierra Crest and west of the San Joaquin River are also most easily accessible from Mono County. The MLFPD collaborates with the Whitebark Institute and the Eastern Sierra Climate and Communities Resilience Project (ESCCRP), which aim to restore the forests of the Eastern Sierra to historic densities—a project with the dual benefit of protecting local ecology while reducing the threat posed by out-of-control wildfires.lx The MLFPD relies on the MCWD to install and maintain fire hydrants within the district. In 2020, the two special districts worked together to track hydrants in a GIS database.lxi In high severity periods, agreements with the California Military Department allow for California National Guard resources to provide aid in wildfire response including their Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System (MAFFS), helicopters, support personnel, communications equipment and other resources.lxii RECOMMENDED DETERMINATIONS • The district maintains mutual aid agreements with neighboring fire departments, with Cal Fire, and with the USFS. • Neither Cal Fire nor the USFS will respond to structure fires within the district, nor to vehicle fires or traffic accidents. • The district is working with the ESCCRP and the Whitebark Institute as it expands its wildfire-fighting capacity. 33 6. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE NEEDS, INCLUDING GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES. The MLFPD abides by the Brown Act and publishes the minutes to its monthly board meetings as well as its budgets and audits to its website. The MLFPD participates in the Fire Safe Council and has, in the past, sent representatives to the Wildfire Initiative Insurance Summit.lxiii The department also engages with the press. RECOMMENDED DETERMINATIONS • The District abides by the Brown Act, holds monthly board meetings that are open to the public, and publishes both annual budgets and yearly audits to its website. 7. ANY OTHER MATTER RELATED TO EFFECTIVE OR EFFICIENT SERVICE DELIVERY, AS REQUIRED BY COMMISSION POLICY. The MLFPD proposes to expand its SOI to include Reds Lake, or “the Outpost,” approximately 400 acres of land in Eastern Madera County owned by the USFS and leased as part of the Mammoth Mountain Ski Area and accessible primarily by ski lift Chairs 13 and 14 in the winter and dirt roads in the summer. In 1994, Madera County, Mono County, and the TOML signed a Memorandum of Understanding regarding law enforcement and first responder activities for areas of Madera County east of the Sierra Crest. Portions of Madera County east of the Sierra Crest and the San Joaquin River, and adjacent to Mono County, are accessible by paved roadway only from Mono County by way of Highway 203. Backcountry areas of Madera County east of the Sierra Crest and west of the San Joaquin River are also most easily accessible from Mono County. The MLFPD wishes to expand its SOI to include an area the department has served for decades. No change in services is considered. A map of the proposed annexation area is below. RECOMMENDED DETERMINATIONS • The MLFPD proposes to expand its Sphere of Influence to include approximately 400 acres of land in Eastern Madera County owned by the USFS and leased as part of the Mammoth Mountain Ski Area and accessible primarily by ski lift Chairs 13 and 14 in the winter and dirt roads in the summer. 34 Figure 11: Annexation Area, showing ski lifts Figure 12: Annexation Area, Showing County Lines 35 IV. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE California Senate Bill 244 §56425(e) requires the commission to consider and prepare a written statement of its determinations with respect to the following five factors: 1. The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands. 2. The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. 3. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. 4. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. 5. For an update of a sphere of influence of a city or special district that provides public facilities or services related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire protection, that occurs pursuant to subdivision (g) on or after July 1, 2012, the present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere of influence. These five factors are listed below and analyzed in the discussions that follow. 1. THE PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES IN THE AREA, INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN-SPACE LANDS. The MLFPD serves the TOML, an incorporated community in southwest Mono County, in the eastern Sierra Nevada mountains. Development within the Town is restricted to its 4.5 square mile Urban Growth Boundary,lxiv of which slightly less than 4 square miles are privately owned. The remaining incorporated area is publicly owned and managed by the Inyo National Forest. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area lies northwest of the developed portion of the Town, on leased USFS lands and some private land within the municipal boundaries. The Lakes Basin, in the southwest portion of the incorporated area, is a recreation destination with cabins, lodges, and campgrounds. Beyond the Town’s municipal boundary, the majority of the land surrounding Mammoth Lakes is publicly owned and managed by the USFS. The National Park Service manages Devil’s Postpile National Monument to the west of the Town while the BLM and LADWP manage lands adjacent to Lake Crowley. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and BLM own and manage a significant amount of land to the east of Mammoth Lakes. FINDING • The tourism-based economy attracts outdoors enthusiasts in the summer, skiers and snowboarders in the winter. • Development within the TOML is restricted to its 4.5 square mile Urban Growth Boundary. • Surrounding lands are owned and managed by publicly owned and managed. 36 2. THE PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES IN THE AREA. The MLFPD has recorded a steady rise in alarm calls across the last decade, an increase that continues even as the population charts a downward turn. Meanwhile, the department has been central in helping the community through a succession of crises—encroaching wildfires, a global pandemic, and severe winter weather. If trends continue, the need for the MLFPD’s services will increase in the coming years while unpredictable but increasingly common extreme weather events place additional burdens on the department. FINDINGS • The MLFPD has recorded a steady rise in alarm calls over the past decade, an increase that continues even as the population declines. • Extreme events, such as the severe winter of 2022-2023, the Covid-19 pandemic, and increasing frequency of large wildfires in the Eastern Sierra place additional burdens on the department. 3. THE PRESENT CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES THAT THE AGENCY PROVIDES OR IS AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE. The MLFPD maintains an above average ISO Rating of 3/3X. In recent years demand for services within the district have strained capacity. However, significant improvements to emergency communications and the passage of Measure M in 2024 should ensure that the MLFPD can continue to provide adequate services to the district. 4. THE EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST IN THE AREA IF THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT THEY ARE RELEVANT TO THE AGENCY. The California Constitution, Article XXI, §2(d)(4) defines a community of interest as: “a contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. Examples of such shared interests are those common to an urban area, a rural area, an industrial area, or an agricultural area, and those common to areas in which the people share similar living standards, use the same transportation facilities, have similar work opportunities, or have access to the same media of communication relevant to the election process. Communities of interest shall not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates.”lxv Proposition 11, passed in 2008, made maintaining Communities of Interest a key requirement for drawing political districts. Both the Citizens Redistricting Commission and the Legislature are required to take Communities of Interest into account when drawing the boundaries of Congressional, State Senate, State Assembly, and State Board of Equalization districts.lxvi 37 The California Citizens Redistricting Commission is instructed to keep communities together whenever possible when drawing new districts. In order to learn about and identify such communities, the Commission encourages the public to draw and submit maps of their own communities in advance of each decennial redistricting.6 The 2011 Citizens Redistricting Advisory Committee Report to the Board of Supervisors grouped communities of interest within the county around watersheds, school districts, racial groups, proximity to medical and retail services, and economic concerns—specifically agriculture, tourism, skiing, fishing, recreation, and the service industry.lxvii FINDING • Local communities of interest are not relevant to the MLFPD 5. FOR AN UPDATE OF A SPHERE OF INFLUENCE OF A CITY OR SPECIAL DISTRICT THAT PROVIDES PUBLIC FACILITIES OR SERVICES RELATED TO SEWERS, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER, OR STRUCTURAL FIRE PROTECTION, THAT OCCURS PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION (G) ON OR AFTER JULY 1, 2012, THE PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR THOSE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OF ANY DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE. FINDING • LAFCO has not recognized any DUCs within the existing or proposed SOI. SPHERE OF INFLUENCE RECOMMENDATION The Sphere of Influence (SOI) for the MLFPD should be expanded to include the Reds Lake area, also known as the “Outpost at the Ski Area,” or just “the Outpost,” approximately 400 acres of land owned by the USFS and leased as part of the Mammoth Mountain Ski Area and accessible primarily by ski lift Chairs 13 and 14 in the winter and dirt roads in the summer. The MLFPD has served this area since 1994, when a Memorandum of Understanding between Mono and Madera counties first acknowledged that accessibility made access from Mono far more practical than from Madera. No change of services is being considered. Expanding the sphere of influence formalizes an arrangement of long standing, with the accord of both counties as well as the MLFPD. REORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATION Section 56001 of the California Government Code states that: “The Legislature finds and declares that a single multipurpose governmental agency is accountable for community service needs and financial resources and, therefore, may be the best mechanism for establishing community service priorities especially in urban areas. Nonetheless, the Legislature recognizes the critical role of many limited 6 For example, the California Citizens Redistricting Commission launched the Draw My California page: https://drawmycalifornia.org/drawmycacommunity.html 38 purpose agencies, especially in rural communities. The Legislature also finds that, whether governmental services are proposed to be provided by a single-purpose agency, several agencies, or a multipurpose agency, responsibility should be given to the agency or agencies that can best provide government services.” The feasibility of such a reorganization should be determined by a reorganization committee consisting of representatives of the district, the Town, and Mono LAFCO. V. ENDNOTES i Ballotpedia, “Mammoth Lakes Fire Protection District, California, Measure F, Parcel Tax (March 2020),” https://ballotpedia.org/Mammoth_Lakes_Fire_Protection_District,_California,_Measure_F,_Parcel_Tax_(Mar ch_2020) accessed 12/12/2024. ii CALAFCO. https://calafco.org/lafco-law/faq/what-are-sphere-influence-studies iii CALAFCO. https://calafco.org/sites/default/files/resources/MSRGuidelines-FINAL.pdf iv USFS Powerpoint Presentation on Partnership Authorities and Instruments, available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5227867.ppt v CalOES Southern Region: https://www.caloes.ca.gov/office-of-the-director/operations/response- operations/regional-operations/southern-region/ vi AnchorPoint Wildland Fire Solutions. Mammoth Lakes, CA, Community Wildfire Protection Plan Update, 2019. Accessed 12/13/24 from https://www.townofmammothlakes.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12544/Mammoth-Lakes-CWPP- vii US Census. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/mammothlakestowncalifornia viii US Census. https://data.census.gov/table?q=Mammoth+Lakes+town,+California&tid=ACSDP5Y2020.DP05 ix US Census. https://data.census.gov/table?q=Mammoth+Lakes+town,+California&tid=ACSDP5Y2021.DP05 x CA Department of Finance population and housing projections. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities- counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/ xi CA Department of Finance projection methodology. https://dof.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/Forecasting/Demographics/Documents/Projections_Methodology.pdf xii CA Department of Finance population and housing projections. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities- counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/ xiii Town of Mammoth Lakes General Plan. https://www.townofmammothlakes.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9579/General_Plan-Updated-Sep-2019 xiv 2015 Tischler Bise Draft Development Impact Fee Study https://www.townofmammothlakes.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9435/R15-32 xv Tischler Bise. June 20, 2015. DRAFT Development Impact Fee Study, prepared for Mammoth Lakes, California. Retrieved on February 9, 2024 from: https://www.townofmammothlakes.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9435/R15-32, p. 49 and 50 xvi Town of Mammoth Lakes Housing Element Update. https://www.townofmammothlakes.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9140/Draft-Housing-Element-Update_4- 5-19 39 xvii CA Department of Finance population and housing projections. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities- counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/ xviii Text of the Bill: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB244 xix ISO reports from 2016 and 2022. xx “Split Classifications,” Verisk. Visited on 12/30/2024 at https://www.isomitigation.com/ppc/program- works/split-classifications/ xxi March 2022 board meeting minutes xxii https://www.caloes.ca.gov/office-of-the-director/operations/logistics-management/public-safety- communications/radio-communications-branch/california-radio-interoperable-system-cris/ xxiii April 2022 minutes xxiv Conversation with chief xxv Public Protection Classification Summary Report prepared by Insurance Services Offices in 2022. xxvi A landmark article from 1976: Cobb LA, Alvarez H 3rd, Kopass MK. “A rapid response system for out-of- hospital cardiac emergencies.” Med Clin North Am. 1976 Mar;60(2):283-93. doi: 10.1016/s0025- 7125(16)31909-5. PMID: 1256113. xxvii Pons, P.T., Haukoos, J.S., Bludworth, W., Cribley, T., Pons, K.A. and Markovchick, V.J. (2005), Paramedic Response Time: Does It Affect Patient Survival?. Academic Emergency Medicine, 12: 594- 600. https://doi.org/10.1197/j.aem.2005.02.013 xxviii “Do Response Times Matter?” by Graham Holland, Fire Magazine, Sept 19 2019. https://www.fire- magazine.com/do-response-times-matter correlates response times to damage but not to casualties; “Structure Fire Response Times” in the Topical File Research Series published by the US Fire Administration for relationship between response time and flame spread. https://apps.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v5i7.pdf xxix U.S. Fire Administration / National Fire Data Center, “Structure Fire Response Times,” Topical Fire Research Series, Vol. 5, Issue 7, 2006. https://apps.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v5i7.pdf xxx https://fems.dc.gov/page/fire-response-time and the linked powerpoint https://fems.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/fems/FY%202016%20Response%20Time%20Performance% 20Measures_0.pdf xxxi 10-19 board meeting minutes xxxii For JB Learning’s firefighting materials: https://www.jblearning.com/ss360-search- results?ss360Query=firefighting and for information about the Fire and Emergency Services Higher Education Initiative: https://www.usfa.fema.gov/nfa/about/feshe/ xxxiii Mammoth Lakes Incident Type Period Comparisons Alarm Date Between { 07/01/2021} and {06/30/2022}, provided by MLFPD to author. Tallying the incident types into broader categories (i.e., medical, fire, false alarm) required some subjective analysis. xxxiv Provided by Fire Chief Ales Tomaier xxxv Graph provided by Fire Chief Ales Tomaier. xxxvi Southern California Interagency Incident Management Team August 6, 2008 Sherwin Fire Update. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_003949.pdf xxxvii See CalFire’s Incidents page for records of individual fires: https://www.fire.ca.gov/Incidents xxxviii Anchorpoint Wildland Fire Solutions, Mammoth Lakes CA Community Wildfire Protection Plan Update, 2019. Accessed on 1/2/2025 at Mammoth-Lakes-CWPP- xxxix “Creek Fire updates: Blaze is largest single wildfire in state history; Yosemite to open Friday,” by Joshua Tehee, September 23, 2020, Fresno Bee. https://www.fresnobee.com/news/california/fires/article245943640.html and “How the 2020 California Wildfires are Affecting Mammoth Lakes for the Weekend of 9/25/20,” September 25, 2020, American Sports Outpost. https://asomammoth.com/how-the-2020-california-wildfires-are-affecting-mammoth-lakes/ xl Wikipedia, “Creek Fire (2020)” visited on 1/2/2025 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creek_Fire_(2020) xli 10-20 Agenda. xlii January 2022 agenda packet for replacement schedule summary. 40 xliii https://spartaner.com/products/cabs-and-chassis/gladiator/ xliv Numerous agendas in 2022 discuss the purchase of a new water tender. Rusting has made maintenance and repair of the Kenworht costly. xlv Conversation with Ales Tomaier xlvi ISO Turnout Per Incident (Structure Fire 11) FY 2003-2023, PDF provided by MLFPD. xlvii 10-19 agenda xlviii Don Cole & Company Certified Public Accountant. Mammoth Lakes Fire Protection District Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Reports for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2023. Completed January 6, 2025. xlix Conversation with Ales Tomaier l Taken from yearly audits, 2016-2021. li Cost of labor includes wages, overtime, retirement benefits, insurance, payroll taxes, volunteer salaries and incentives, extra help and assistance for hire. Note that wages for the 6.5 full time employees totaled $1,026,694 in the 2022-2023 FY budget, as compared to $324,178 for 23 part time employees. Figures taken from MLFPD annual budgets, available on request and online. (https://mlfd.ca.gov/administration/district-finances/). More information can be found in the annual audits, where labor expenses are folded into ‘public protection – operations’. lii Don Cole & Company Certified Public Accountant. Mammoth Lakes Fire Protection District Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Reports for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2023. Completed January 6, 2025. liii Taken from yearly audits, 2016-2021. liv Don Cole & Company Certified Public Accountant. Mammoth Lakes Fire Protection District Financial Statements and Independent Auditor’s Reports for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2023. Completed January 6, 2025. lv The MLFPD called a Special Election, and Resolution R19-81 of the Board of Supervisors consolidated the Special Election with the Presidential Primary Election to be held on the same date. lvi https://www.monocounty.ca.gov/elections/page/measure-fF lvii List of Local Measures, November 5 2024 General Election. Measure M. Visited on 12/30/2024 at: https://www.monocounty.ca.gov/elections/page/measures lviii Ballotpedia. Mammoth Lakes Fire Protection District, California, Measure M, Fire Prevention Services Parcel Tax Measure (November 2024). Visited 12/30/2024 at https://ballotpedia.org/Mammoth_Lakes_Fire_Protection_District,_California,_Measure_M,_Fire_Prevention _Services_Parcel_Tax_Measure_(November_2024) lix Conversation with Fire Chief Ales Tomaier on July _____ lx September 2022 agenda meeting, conversation with Ales Tomaier. lxi July 2020 agenda lxii https://mlfd.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Mammoth-Lakes-CWPP-Update_Final.pdf lxiii January 2020 agenda lxiv Town of Mammoth Lakes General Plan. https://www.townofmammothlakes.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9579/General_Plan-Updated-Sep-2019 lxv §2(d)(4) of Article XXI: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/ lxvi We Draw the Lines https://wedrawthelines.ca.gov/transition/faq/ lxvii 2011 Citizens Redistricting Advisory Committee Report to the Board of Supervisors. https://webapps.mono.ca.gov/documents/Redistricting/Redistricting.CommitteeReport.Final.pdf 41