Fire Protection and Emergency Services

FINAL REPORT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY SERVICES Prepared for: Local Agency Formation Commission of Nevada County 950 Maidu Avenue Nevada City, California 95959 Prepared by: Dudek and Associates, Inc. 605 Third Street Encinitas, California 92024 In conjunction with: Management Partners, Inc. Thomas A. Parilo & Associates 2107 North First Street, Suite 470 10320 Tillicum Way San Jose, California 95131 Nevada City, California 95959 Andy Vanderlaan 5455 West Lilac Road – PO Box 921 Bonsall, California 92003 January 31, 2005 Table of Contents TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS LAFCO RESOLUTION................................................................................................................i I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................I NEVADA COUNTY REGIONAL DETERMINATIONS.............................................................................................7 II. REGULATORY SETTING................................................................................................8 A. FEDERAL LEVEL................................................................................................................................9 B. STATE LEVEL...................................................................................................................................10 C. LOCAL LEVEL..................................................................................................................................11 D. NON-GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES.....................................................................................................12 III. MATCHING INFRASTRUCTURE TO GROWTH......................................................13 A. GROWTH SCENARIOS.......................................................................................................................13 B. GROWTH AREAS..............................................................................................................................13 C. MATCHING INFRASTRUCTURE AND GROWTH...................................................................................26 IV. FINANCING AND ECONOMICS OF SERVICE.........................................................33 A. FINANCING OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS..............................................................................33 B. SUMMARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF NEVADA COUNTY FIRE DISTRICTS........................................35 V. GOVERNANCE.................................................................................................................55 A. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS...............................................................................................55 B. SHARED FACILITIES/MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES..........................................................................65 C. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY................................................................................................................71 VI. AGENCY PROFILES.......................................................................................................77 CITY OF GRASS VALLEY................................................................................................................................77 CITY OF NEVADA CITY..................................................................................................................................78 DONNER SUMMIT PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT.................................................................................................79 HIGGINS AREA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT..................................................................................................80 NEVADA COUNTY CONSOLIDATED FIRE DISTRICT.........................................................................................81 NORTH SAN JUAN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT.............................................................................................82 OPHIR HILL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT.......................................................................................................83 PEARDALE – CHICAGO PARK FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT.............................................................................84 PENN VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT...................................................................................................85 ROUGH & READY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT..............................................................................................86 TRUCKEE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT...........................................................................................................87 WASHINGTON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (FIRE PROTECTION)......................................................................88 VII. DETERMINATIONS........................................................................................................89 CITY OF GRASS VALLEY – FIRE DEPARTMENT...............................................................................................89 CITY OF NEVADA CITY – FIRE DEPARTMENT.................................................................................................91 DONNER SUMMIT PUBLIC UTILITIES DISTRICT / CSA #31 - FIRE PROTECTION..............................................93 HIGGINS AREA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT..................................................................................................95 NEVADA COUNTY CONSOLIDATED FIRE DISTRICT.........................................................................................97 NORTH SAN JUAN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT.............................................................................................99 OPHIR HILL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT.....................................................................................................101 PEARDALE – CHICAGO PARK FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT...........................................................................103 PENN VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT.................................................................................................105 ROUGH & READY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT............................................................................................107 TRUCKEE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT.........................................................................................................109 WASHINGTON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT – FIRE SERVICES........................................................................111 APPENDICES...........................................................................................................................112 APPENDIX A – NEVADA COUNTY RESOLUTION 81-316: MASTER FORMULA FOR TAX APPORTIONMENT...112 APPENDIX B – COMMENTS AND RESPONSES................................................................................................112 Final Report January 31, 2005 LAFCo Resolution Page i Final Report January 31, 2005 LAFCo Resolution Page ii Final Report January 31, 2005 I. Executive Summary Page 1 II.. EEXXEECCUUTTIIVVEE SSUUMMMMAARRYY The Municipal Service Review for Fire Protection and Emergency Services in Nevada County considers services provided by both municipal and special district fire agencies throughout the county. Fire and emergency services are undergoing fundamental changes in the economics and levels of service due to funding limitations, population growth, social trends and land use changes. Agencies are finding that the traditional approach to funding and delivering fire services is increasingly challenging, and a number of agencies operated at a deficit in FY 2003. The provision of fire and emergency services within Nevada County is complex and diverse. The service area characteristics of the agencies are highly varied, including densely developed urban areas, lightly populated rural areas, and areas with a significant influx of recreational visitors. Some districts rely on volunteers, others on career firefighters, or a combination of both. Some have opted to contract for services from an adjacent district or the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). Despite challenging circumstances, agencies have generally been able to maintain service levels as they absorb new service areas and higher levels of population growth without any compensating increase in revenue. The agencies included in this Municipal Service Review are shown in the following table. Population estimates are based on data from the 2000 US Census: FFiirree aanndd EEmmeerrggeennccyy SSeerrvviicceess MMuunniicciippaall SSeerrvviiccee RReevviieeww AAggeennccyy LLiisstt Agency Resident Size of Service Population Area (2003 est.) Western County North San Juan FPD 2,311 70 sq miles Penn Valley FPD 11,542 92 sq miles Higgins Area FPD 9,609 90 sq miles Rough & Ready FPD 2,300 9.5 sq miles Central County Ophir Hill FPD 3,281 9 sq miles Peardale-Chicago Park FPD 3,754 21 sq miles Washington County Water District 225 2.5 sq miles Nevada County Consolidated FD 32,062 143 sq miles City of Grass Valley 12,000 5 sq miles City of Nevada City 3,000 1.5 sq miles Eastern County Donner Summit PUD 3,375* 100 sq miles Truckee FPD 20,000 66 sq miles * Includes contract service areas Final Report January 31, 2005 I. Executive Summary Page 2 SERVICE REVIEW PROCESS LAFCo must conduct service reviews prior to or in conjunction with the mandated five-year schedule for updating Spheres of Influence (SOIs). The service review report must include an analysis of the issues and written determinations for each of the following: • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies; • Growth and population projections for the affected area; • Financing constraints and opportunities; • Cost avoidance opportunities; • Opportunities for rate restructuring; • Opportunities for shared facilities; • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or reorganization of service providers; • Evaluation of management efficiencies; and • Local accountability and governance. The service review process began with initial meetings with representatives from the fire and emergency service agencies to discuss both the service review process and local issues regarding service constraints, funding sources and financial trends for fire agencies. A service review questionnaire was prepared and distributed to the agencies and follow-up interviews with staff and board members were conducted. A copy of the preliminary report and findings was forwarded to Nevada LAFCo staff and affected agencies. Changes and comments were incorporated into the public review draft report. FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES – ISSUES The provision of fire and emergency services is highly dependent on local conditions, staffing models, funding, and land uses within the service area. In preparing the fire and emergency services municipal service review report, the Nevada LAFCo population model was used to project growth for each agency. The model includes four growth scenarios: Expected Growth; Expected Infill; High Expected Growth; and, High Expected Infill. The results of the model were used to estimate future fire and emergency service demands. (It should be noted that accurate population projections are always difficult and in some situations may be inaccurate.) Projected population growth within each district provides a measure of analysis for future service needs. With the Expected Growth Scenario, the population of the Grass Valley planning area is projected to increase to an estimated 29,643 by 2027. Similarly, the population within Nevada City’s current area is projected to reach 3,926 by 2027. The other agencies will see varying degrees of growth depending on their proximity to Development Areas and major transportation corridors. It is important to note that Nevada County has a high percentage of second or vacation homes in comparison to other counties, which can skew the population projections for some areas. This is particularly the case for the Truckee Final Report January 31, 2005 I. Executive Summary Page 3 Fire Protection District and Donner Summit Public Utility District in the eastern county. Both districts have a significant transitory population due to the number of resorts and lodges within their service areas. Similarly, the county has two primary urban centers (Grass Valley and Nevada City) that are impacted by a significantly higher daytime population due to employment within city boundaries. One factor impacting fire and emergency services is that large areas of the county remain outside the boundaries of any fire district. Growth in the unincorporated areas of the county has resulted in increased service needs for these areas, while the County’s tax apportionment formula discourages their annexation. Financing is the most critical issue for the fire agencies in Nevada County. Most fire protection agencies operate as “leanly” as possible, but the underlying problem is that fire protection, like other municipal services, is under-funded. As Nevada County grows, the public’s need and expectation for more fire and emergency medical services and shorter response times also increase. The increase in demand is motivated by rising insurance costs as well as concern to protect homes and property. However, there is a lack of understanding among the public about the direct link between more and/or better fire and emergency medical services and the cost of providing those services. Public understanding of how fire and emergency services agencies are financed is also limited, as evidenced by a widespread misconception that the County funds them. A concerted public education effort is needed. Expenses of the agencies are trending upwards faster than revenues. This is largely due to insurance as well as labor costs, the largest component of most agency operational budgets. Some stabilization can be expected if pension fund returns improve and benefit costs stabilize. Paid call and volunteer staff provide significant labor cost savings to some agencies; however, increasing professional standards in the fire industry, changes in community demographics and development, and rising service level expectations make it more difficult for agencies to rely on paid call and volunteer staff. As insurance costs and requirements for professional standards increase, the fire agencies may find fewer and fewer volunteers ready to dedicate the time required although some agencies have maintained high volunteer participation. The economic imbalance between revenues and expenditures for fire agencies does not merely indicate a lag time in revenue streams. Funding sources are limited, especially for those agencies that do not have revenue from property taxes. Obtaining additional sources or increasing current assessments and taxes is nearly impossible. As an example, Penn Valley FPD’s November 2004 ballot measure to increase the special tax for fire services failed by 1.45%. The future trend for funding fire and emergency services only appears to be further limiting, with no broad-based corrective measures on the horizon. For Nevada County, reorganizing service provider responsibilities might realize some efficiency improvements and maintain levels of service. An economic and operational feasibility study would be the next logical step to take in this regard. LAFCo may consider reorganization of fire protection districts where necessary, as well as additional means of sharing resources, facilities, and services; the formation of a county-wide ambulance service is another option needing serious exploration. Final Report January 31, 2005 I. Executive Summary Page 4 No significant issues for shared facilities, management efficiencies or local accountability or governance were noted for the fire agencies responding to the service review questionnaire. The fire agencies in Nevada County have developed numerous ways of sharing services, training and facilities which help to decrease costs and increase efficiencies. The agencies noted some opportunities for additional sharing of resources; the most frequently mentioned was sharing vehicle maintenance. The following figures, Figure ES.1, Regional Map and ES.2, Vicinity Map indicate the regional context of Nevada County as well as the service areas of each of the agencies in this review. Final Report January 31, 2005 I. Executive Summary Page 5 Final Report January 31, 2005 I. Executive Summary Page 6 Final Report January 31, 2005 I. Executive Summary Page 7 NEVADA COUNTY REGIONAL DETERMINATIONS • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. That the fire agencies in Nevada County serve both rural and urban development. 2. That growth is projected for portions of Nevada County by LAFCo population models. 3. That fire agency resources may be strained by efforts to provide service to scattered areas associated with the County’s continued large-lot, low density residential development, resulting in higher insurance costs to homeowners. • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. That the fire agencies in Nevada County adequately address infrastructure needs and deficiencies within current budget limitations. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. That the fire agencies in Nevada County face severe financing constraints. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. That the fire agencies in Nevada County avoid costs through all possible means; the agencies apply stringent cost containment measures, keeping expenditures as low as possible given the increased demands for service. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. That opportunities for rate restructuring are limited by the reluctance of voters to approve new fees/assessments. 2. That a public education effort is critical to ensure that residents in Nevada County understand that increased services require increased costs. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. That the fire agencies in Nevada County have extensive Automatic Aid and Mutual Aid agreements throughout the county. 2. That the fire agencies share facilities and equipment wherever possible. 3. That the fire agencies cooperate jointly on dispatching services. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or reorganization of service providers 1. That there are several options for changes in governmental structure for fire agencies in Nevada County. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. That the fire agencies in Nevada County have efficient management operations. • Local accountability and governance 1. That the fire agencies in Nevada County are locally accountable. Final Report January 31, 2005 II. Regulatory Setting Page 8 IIII.. RREEGGUULLAATTOORRYY SSEETTTTIINNGG Traditionally, the Federal, State, and local fire protection agencies have had the service areas and responsibilities for fire protection described below. (cid:131) Federal agencies, such as the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) United States Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), are responsible primarily for wildland fire protection of federally owned wildlands. The Tahoe National Forest (TNF) also has wildland fire protection responsibility for State/private lands inside its Direct Protection Area by agreement with CDF through the Cooperative Fire Protection Agreement and the local operating plan with CDF Nevada/Yuba/Placer Unit. This is due to the “checkerboard” ownership pattern. There are 1.6 million acres of land inside the TNF Direct Protection Area. 841,689 acres are National Forest System lands. (cid:131) The State Fire Marshal is responsible for developing minimum building standards that apply at both the state and local levels for all occupancies designated in the building and fire codes. (cid:131) The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) is responsible primarily for protecting private or state-owned wildlands that have natural resource values as designated in the Public Resources Code. (cid:131) Local government fire agencies (city and special district fire agencies) are responsible primarily for protection of homes, other structures and wildlands within their boundaries. These agencies provide fire prevention services (by ensuring that new construction complies with existing fire standards) and usually also provide vital emergency response services (including first responder and ambulance services). In the aftermath of the 2003 fires, the Governor’s Blue Ribbon Fire Commission was asked to conduct a thorough review of the southern California wildfires and present recommendations to policymakers to promote a fire-safe environment for both wildland and urban settings. One of the first findings was that “numerous conflicting land management and environmental laws and regulations at all levels of government”1 could result in jurisdictional and operational barriers. Training for firefighters was also noted as being complex and diverse with “many agencies participating in the development and delivery of training programs. While California has led the way in developing new training programs, the programs have yet to be brought together in a coordinated manner.” There are “no minimum statewide service levels or training standards mandated by law for California firefighters, nor are there statewide man- dates for continuing training or maintenance of performance standards.”2 1 “Governor’s Blue Ribbon Fire Commission Report to the Governor”. April 5, 2004 www.oes.ca.gov 2 Ibid. Final Report January 31, 2005 II. Regulatory Setting Page 9 As noted in the Blue Ribbon Fire Commission report, the welter of regulations that fire agencies must comply with is daunting. This section attempts to briefly describe some of the regulations but should not be considered definitive or complete. A. FEDERAL LEVEL Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA is a regulatory agency under the U.S. Department of Labor which requires employers to comply with mandatory minimum workplace health and safety protections. Violations of Federal and State occupational safety and health (OSHA) regulations can expose fire and rescue departments to civil fines and occasionally criminal liability. The Federal OSHA law gives each state the option to operate under its own occupational health and safety programs. California is one of the 23 states that have chosen to operate their own OSHA-type program. These states are required by Federal law to cover State and local government employees in the same manner as they do private sector employees. In addition, California has issued its own regulations that apply specifically to fire and rescue departments. State and local government rescue teams in State OSHA jurisdictions are required to comply with all applicable OSHA standards, as are volunteer teams in California. OSHA regulations on hazardous ma- terials training also apply to all volunteers. This is because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) incorporates OSHA standards into its regulations, and the EPA regulations are applicable to all fire- fighters, volunteer or paid. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH): NIOSH establishes permissible exposure limits to chemicals and other workplace hazards; the agency also tests and approves self- contained breathing apparatus. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The EPA has created several regulations that affect fire agencies’ response to hazardous material incidents. Training and response planning are mandatory for all fire departments that respond to hazardous materials incidents. EPA regulations also require businesses and citizens who store hazardous materials to inform the fire department about the types of materials, their quantities, and their hazards. U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT): DOT regulates compressed gas cylinders and hazardous materials transportation safety policy. It provides sources of funding for hazardous materials training and has established standards for training of emergency medical responders and for equipment carried on ambulances. The National Interagency Incident Management System (NIIMS): A National Interagency Incident Management System has been in place and in use since 1983. This system is currently used by all fire agencies in Nevada County. The Secretary of Homeland Security is responsible for developing and administering a new updated system called the National Incident Management System (NIMS). This system is intended to provide a consistent nationwide approach for Federal, State, tribal, and local Final Report January 31, 2005 II. Regulatory Setting Page 10 governments to prepare for, prevent, respond to, and recover from incidents. Federal departments and agencies will make adoption of the NIMS by state and local organizations a condition for Federal preparedness assistance beginning in FY 2005. B. STATE LEVEL California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF): In Nevada County territory outside of incorporated cities and Federal lands is the responsibility of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) and local fire districts. CDF is responsible for wildland fire control in State Responsibility Areas, which comprise more than 31 million acres of California's privately owned wildlands. In addition, CDF provides varied emergency services in 35 of the State's 58 counties via contracts with local governments (including Higgins Fire Protection District in Nevada County). Statewide, CDF responds to an average of 6,300 wildland fires each year. The CDF State Fire Training Program also provides training education and certification programs. In addition, it enforces California's forest practice regulations guiding timber harvesting on private lands. The CDF also determines the extent of the fire hazard in a particular area based upon three factors: fuel load, weather, and topography. After fire hazard areas are classified, they are delineated on USGS topographic maps, which are distributed to promote more effective administration of fire control efforts. Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM): The Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM) develops fire prevention engineering programs, law and code enforcement and education. The OSFM enforces fire- related laws in state-owned or operated buildings, investigates arson fires, licenses inspectors and services fire protection systems, approves the use of fireworks, regulates the use of chemical flame retardants, evaluates building materials against fire safety standards, regulates hazardous liquid pipelines, and tracks incident statistics for local and state governments. The OSFM publishes a complete list of rules and regulations applicable to fire and emergency medical agencies. The list is approximately 150 pages and includes laws and regulations governing all aspects of fire department responsibilities, equipment, interaction with other agencies, arson and a multitude of other topics. The following regulations, codes, and standards are just a few that apply in the State of California: (cid:131) Title 19, California Code of Regulations (cid:131) Title 24, 2001 California Fire Code (cid:131) California Health & Safety Code (cid:131) California Codes: Building, Electrical, Mechanical and Plumbing (cid:131) National Fire Codes, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) (cid:131) NFPA Fire Protection Handbook, latest edition (cid:131) California Laws Relating to Fires and Fire Fighters (cid:131) International Urban-Wildland Interface Code Final Report January 31, 2005 II. Regulatory Setting Page 11 State of California Office of Emergency Services (OES): The State of California Office of Emergency Services (OES) maintains a 24-hour disaster warning system and a statewide emergency plan and helps local jurisdictions develop compatible plans. In addition, the agency distributes Federal and State disaster aid funds. OES coordinates mutual aid agreements among state and local fire, rescue, and law enforcement agencies, and maintains a state nuclear power plant emergency response plan. The office has developed a program that uses the state's 24-hour warning system to alert appropriate agencies in emergencies involving toxic or hazardous substances. C. LOCAL LEVEL Nevada County Fire Marshal: The Nevada County Fire Marshal is responsible for enforcing the County’s codes and regulations relating to fire prevention and protection as well as for fire management planning and program implementation. Most counties include by reference the 2001 California Fire Code and the 2000 Uniform Fire Code in their local ordinances, which include standards for fire flow, water supply, and other protective measures. The County Fire Marshal has the authority to enforce these regu- lations for new construction and development. In addition, the County Fire Marshal is responsible for implementing the newly adopted Nevada County Fire Plan (2004). In September 2003, the Board of Supervisors directed that a county fire plan be prepared. To accomplish this, the Board appointed a committee comprised of representatives of the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District, US Forest Service, Nevada County Fire Safe Council, Nevada County Office of Emergency Services, and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. In a parallel effort, the Board requested a review of relevant County regulations and recommended changes. Those regulations were reviewed in a separate process, again involving professionals and stakeholders. The recommended revisions are included as a part of the Nevada County Fire Plan. Government Code §65302(i) requires all counties and cities to include fire safe standards in the safety element of their general plan. The Safety Elements must include evacuation routes, peak load water supplies, minimum road widths and clearances around structures. Local Fire Agencies: Structural fire protection in Nevada County is provided by local fire protection agencies or municipal departments with associated localized funding. Nevada County’s fire service providers include municipal and special district, urban and rural, career and volunteer fire agencies. Currently, ten special districts, two cities, one state agency and one federal agency provide structural and wildland fire protection within Nevada County. Profiles of each agency can be found in Section VI, Agency Profiles. Nevada County Fire Safe Council: The Nevada County Fire Safe Council is a voluntary organization (with a salaried Executive Director) that is comprised of businesses, homeowners and state, federal and local government agencies located in Nevada County. Many of the Council's activities address public education and outreach. The Council mission statement is: Final Report January 31, 2005 II. Regulatory Setting Page 12 Our Vision is a county where we are prepared for a catastrophic fire. We will have homes that have defensible space, adequate access and evacuation routes identified, response plans that citizens and responders know, fuel breaks at strategic points, and communication among agencies. The outcome will be that most of us will keep our homes; we will look around and see the damage, but not the blackened devastation catastrophic fires create. Our community will still attract visitors and pride, and no one will die while escaping with their loved ones. These are important goals and real concerns that will take a cooperative effort with many people and players to convert this vision into reality. Fire prevention is assumed to be the responsibility of the agencies and the Council and is beyond the scope of this service review. D. NON-GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES A number of non-governmental organizations have issued voluntary consensus standards that are relevant to fire and rescue operations. Such organizations include the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Training materials from other organizations such as the International Fire Service Training Association (IFSTA) and the National Association for Search and Rescue (NASAR) also establish standards to evaluate the training and performance of fire and rescue personnel. These standards are not binding on fire and rescue departments, although frequently federal and state authorities incorporate these standards in regulations that may make them legally binding under some circumstances. Fire and rescue departments must also consider the impact upon private litigation of the federal and state laws and regulations, as well as the "voluntary" standards. The courts will frequently apply "voluntary" standards issued by organizations in civil lawsuits. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA): The NFPA writes and updates standards for firefighting and fire protection. The NFPA generally protects fire and rescue personnel from workplace hazards. Compliance with NFPA standards is voluntary although federal and state authorities sometimes incorporate these standards in regulations which may make them legally binding. American National Standards Institute (ANSI): ANSI is a clearinghouse for nationally coordinated voluntary standards on a wide variety of topics. ANSI gives the status of American National Standards to those standards developed by agreement from all groups concerned. Final Report January 31, 2005 III. Matching Infrastructure to Growth Page 13 IIIIII.. MMAATTCCHHIINNGG IINNFFRRAASSTTRRUUCCTTUURREE TTOO GGRROOWWTTHH A. GROWTH SCENARIOS The Nevada LAFCo population model is based on the General Plans of Nevada County and the cities, and includes the four following growth rate/development scenarios: (cid:131) Expected Growth General Plan (cid:131) Expected Infill (cid:131) High Growth General Plan (cid:131) High Growth Infill EXPECTED GROWTH This scenario is based upon development potential as allowed by existing General Plans and upon California Department of Finance (DOF) projections of a 2.2% annual growth for Nevada County. Different growth rates for each of the cities were developed to reflect their historic growth rates. Special Development Areas in Grass Valley’s sphere of influence were assumed to be fully built-out by 2017 and in the unincorporated areas after 2017. No development in the New Town area was assumed. EXPECTED INFILL The variation in this scenario, as compared to the Expected Growth scenario, is that development for the City of Grass Valley’s Special Development areas is assumed to start in 2007 and to proceed at higher densities than those specified in the City’s General Plan. While Nevada County’s Special Development areas would develop in the later stages of the cycle, the New Town area was assumed to develop by 2027. HIGH GROWTH In this scenario the Special Development areas in the City of Grass Valley’s SOI were assumed to develop consistent with the City’s General Plan and would be fully built-out by 2017. Nevada County’s Special Development areas would develop later; no development in the New Town area was included. Under this scenario Nevada County does not reach its targeted growth, since there is not enough infrastructure capacity in the current General Plan to support this level of growth. HIGH GROWTH INFILL This scenario used many of the same basic assumptions as the High Growth scenario but assumes development in the City of Grass Valley’s Special Development areas at higher densities than those specified in the City’s General Plan. The County’s Special Development areas as well as the New Town area would develop in later years. B. GROWTH AREAS The following Figures III.1-III.4 depict the growth by 2027 in density (expressed in residential units) for each of the four growth scenarios projected by the Nevada LAFCo model. There are similarities in projected growth areas for several of the fire agencies in all four scenarios. Under all four scenarios, the Final Report January 31, 2005 III. Matching Infrastructure to Growth Page 14 LAFCo model projects substantial growth in dwelling units for the Truckee FPD. This will result in an increased demand for fire protection services both inside and outside that agency’s boundaries and sphere. Another growth area is the central part of western Nevada County, including the Cities of Nevada City and Grass Valley and south along Highway 49. If development proceeds as projected under any of the four scenarios, the fire agencies most impacted would be the municipal fire departments of the cities, Nevada County Consolidated FD and Ophir Hill FPD. The Higgins Area FPD could also expect some growth due to the proximity of the Combie Corridor (particularly if the area’s present wastewater system is expanded), but the four fire districts serving the central part of western Nevada County are projected to have a disproportionately larger increase in the number and density of residential units. It should be noted that the fire agencies have very limited ability to control population growth and development patterns. The districts do participate in the planning process, but primarily respond to decisions made by land use agencies. For example, increasing capacity of a wastewater treatment system has the potential to significantly increase population within the area served. Potential capital improve- ments of this nature are not factored into the growth models, but they should be considered when evaluating the provision of fire and emergency services within a given area. Note: Figures III.1 – 4 are based on Nevada County GIS data. The data has not been reconciled or updated with the fire station numbers and locations provided by the agencies. Final Report January 31, 2005 III. Matching Infrastructure to Growth Page 15 Final Report January 31, 2005 III. Matching Infrastructure to Growth Page 16 Final Report January 31, 2005 III. Matching Infrastructure to Growth Page 17 Final Report January 31, 2005 III. Matching Infrastructure to Growth Page 18 Final Report January 31, 2005 III. Matching Infrastructure to Growth Page 19 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 Year Final Report January 31, 2005 )erca/stinu( ytisneD The projected growth in residential units and population for each fire agency for the High Expected and High Infill scenarios is depicted in the following figures. Figure III.5, High Growth-Density vs. Year, and Figure III.6, High Growth Infill-Density vs. Year, depict the relative increase in density of residential units for each fire agency. The next two graphs, Figure III.7 High Growth-Population vs. Year, and Figure III.8, High Growth Infill-Population vs. Year, illustrate growth in population using the 2000 United States Census figure of 2.47 people per household in Nevada County. FFiigguurree IIIIII..55 HHiigghh GGrroowwtthh--DDeennssiittyy vvss.. YYeeaarr Grass Valley Nevada City Ophir Hill Truckee Donner SummitPUD GrassValley Higgins FD Nevada City NCCFD+49er North San Juan Ophir Hill Peardale-Chicago Park Penn Valley Rough-n-Ready Truckee Washington III. Matching Infrastructure to Growth Page 20 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 Year Final Report January 31, 2005 )erca/stinu( ytisneD Grass Valley Nevada City Ophir Hill Truckee Donner SummitPUD GrassValley Higgins FD Nevada City NCCFD+49er North San Juan Ophir Hill Peardale-Chicago Park Penn Valley Rough-n-Ready Truckee Washington 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 Year noitalupoP FFiigguurree IIIIII..66 HHiigghh GGrroowwtthh IInnffiillll--DDeennssiittyy vvss.. YYeeaarr FFiigguurree IIIIII..77 HHiigghh GGrroowwtthh--PPooppuullaattiioonn vvss.. YYeeaarr NCCFD Truckee Grass Valley Penn Valley Higgins FD Ophir Hill Donner SummitPUD GrassValley Higgins FD Nevada City NCCFD+49er North San Juan Ophir Hill Peardale-Chicago Park Penn Valley Rough-n-Ready Truckee Washington III. Matching Infrastructure to Growth Page 21 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 Year Final Report January 31, 2005 noitalupoP FFiigguurree IIIIII..88 HHiigghh GGrroowwtthh IInnffiillll--PPooppuullaattiioonn vvss.. YYeeaarr NCCFD Penn Valley Truckee Grass Valley Higgins FD Ophir Hill Donner SummitPUD GrassValley Higgins FD Nevada City NCCFD+49er North San Juan Ophir Hill Peardale-Chicago Park Penn Valley Rough-n-Ready Truckee Washington Several trends are evident. First, the fire agencies with projected higher density are not the same as those with the highest projected growth in population. For example, the Cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City have the highest increases in density under both scenarios depicted in the figures. However, the agencies with the highest growth in population are the Truckee, Nevada County Consolidated, Higgins Area and Penn Valley FPDs. The primary reason for the differences between density and population growth is that in the five fire agencies (Truckee, Nevada County Consolidated, Higgins Area and Penn Valley FPDs) the land use pat- tern projected is large lot, low-density development which increases population but not density. This can have significant impacts on the cost of providing fire protection and on the “intermix” zone where suburban development and rural lands are adjacent. In previous studies of fire agency consolidations (“San Mateo County Fire Agency Consolidation, Threshold Analysis.” Andrew Belknap, Management Partners, 2004) a relationship between cost of service and population density has been noted. A higher density in the fire agency’s service area trans- lated into lower costs per capita relative to fire agencies with lower density service areas. Financial infor- mation about the impacts from this pattern of growth is provided in Section V, Financing and Economics of Service. Fire protection agencies with a land use pattern of large-lot development usually have a higher service cost due to larger “intermix” zones where residential development and wildlands are adjacent. III. Matching Infrastructure to Growth Page 22 Most of Nevada County has been designated as a wildland fire area, as shown on Figure III.9, Designated Wildland Fire Areas. The wildland fire area designation was the result of Assembly Bill 337, enacted in 1992, which added to the Government Code Sections 51175-51188 relating to Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ). The VHFHSZs were identified by local fire authorities on Local Responsi- bility Area lands (LRA) through a ranking process based on fuels, topography, dwelling density, and weather. These zones were digitally mapped based on the county boundaries and merged to create a single statewide database. It is evident from Figure III.9, Designated Wildland Fire Areas, that continued large-lot, low density residential development as projected by both the Expected Growth and High Expected Growth scenarios will have significant impacts on the “intermix” areas and, to some degree, on all Nevada County fire agencies. The growth of low-density development should prompt regional discussions about fire protection in those areas of Nevada County currently protected by the California Department of Forestry (CDF) and the United States Forest Service (USFS). Generally, the CDF and the USFS protect wildland resources while the fire agencies protect life and property. While the agencies work together closely in Nevada County, current budget constraints will result in all of Nevada County—fire protection agencies, Nevada County and the public—having to make difficult decisions in allocating limited resources for fire protection and emergency medical services. The type of regional growth pattern has a direct impact on the funding, cost of service and level of service fire agencies provide, as well as on the insurance costs of local residents. Residents generally pay higher insurance premiums if living in high fire risk areas. Some potential solutions, such as statewide enforcement of existing laws and changes in the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), are beyond the scope of local jurisdictions. However, the inherent conflict between the need to protect environmental resources and reduce the risk of fire is a critical factor in local land use decisions. Final Report January 31, 2005 III. Matching Infrastructure to Growth Page 23 Final Report January 31, 2005 III. Matching Infrastructure to Growth Page 24 Other solutions are within the ability of local jurisdictions to implement. For example, Public Resources Code §4290 established regulations implementing minimum fire safety standards applicable to all residential, commercial, and industrial buildings constructed after 1991 in State Responsibility Areas (which include most of the unincorporated areas in the County) as shown in the following Figure III.10. The regulations include road standards for fire equipment access, standards for signs identifying streets, roads, and buildings, minimum private water supply reserves for emergency fire use, and standards for fuel breaks and greenbelts. Nevada County has a fire safe ordinance that is equal to or more stringent than the Public Resources Code §4290 standards, and the Town of Truckee has even more stringent standards. Public Resources Code §4291 establishes minimum vegetation management standards for structures with- in the State Responsibility Areas. Specifically, it requires that any person that owns, leases, controls, operates, or maintains any building or structure in, upon, or adjoining any land which is covered with flammable material shall do the following: (cid:131) Maintain a firebreak of not less than 30 feet (cid:131) Remove all flammable vegetation located from 30 feet to 100 feet if extra hazardous conditions exist (cid:131) Maintain trees and roofs Section 4291 of the Public Resources Code covers existing structures and §4290 sets standards for new construction. (It incorporates the language in §4291 and also specifies some land-use requirements such as road requirements and water.) However, neither §4290 or §4291 contains minimum standards for fire flow (generally, the code is designed to address wildfire issues and does not focus on structural fire- related issues). Cities and counties can and do require sprinklers and hydrants for new construction. The CDF is the primary agency responsible for enforcing §4291 on SRA lands within their jurisdiction. Counties in California are responsible for developing an ordinance equal to or greater than §4290 or must use §4290 should they choose not to develop an ordinance for development on SRA lands. It is the responsibility of the counties to use the language in §4290, but CDF is involved in the interpretation as it applies to development. It does not appear that these standards are always enforced uniformly within Nevada County, which can create hazardous conditions. Final Report January 31, 2005 III. Matching Infrastructure to Growth Page 25 Final Report January 31, 2005 III. Matching Infrastructure to Growth Page 26 C. MATCHING INFRASTRUCTURE AND GROWTH The fire service review questionnaire included a series of questions regarding current staff, response times, station locations and anticipated infrastructure needs. The agencies were also asked to note anticipated infrastructure needs in the next 5-, 10- and 20-year periods. STAFFING Figure III.11a, Fire Agency Staff, compares the number of career, paid-call, and volunteer staff for each fire agency. Figure III.11b, Per Capita Staffing Levels, compares staffing levels per capita among the agencies. FFiigguurree IIIIII..1111aa FFiirree AAggeennccyy SSttaaffff ((FFiirreeffiigghhtteerrss oonnllyy)) 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Gr a ss V all e y N e v a d n a n e C r i t S y u m mit P U D Tr u ck e H e i F g P gi D n s Ar e C a o F u P n D ty C o n s. N F . P S D a n J u a n F P O D p hir H C ill h F i c P a D g o P ar k P F e P n n D V all e y u g F h P & D R e a d W y F a P s h D i n gt o n C W D D o e v a d a ar d al e- R o N e P Agency Final Report January 31, 2005 ffatS fo # Career Paid Paid Call Volunteer The different staff categories are defined as follows: • Volunteers receive a stipend per call in some cases as “reimbursement” for their expenses to get to the call. • Paid Call staff receives an hourly rate at the time of hire and are in fact part-time employees. They must pay into social security or an equal plan. • Career staff is generally full-time personnel, paid a salary or hourly wage III. Matching Infrastructure to Growth Page 27 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Gr a s s V all e y N e v a n d n a e r C S it y u m mit P U T D r u c k e H e i g F g P i n D s Ar e C a o u F n P t y D C o n s N . . F S P a D n J u a n F O P p D hir H C il h l i F c a P g D o P ar P k e F n P n D V all e u y g h F P & D R e a d W y a F s P h D i n gt o n C W D D o e v a d a ar d al e- R o N e P Agencies Final Report January 31, 2005 rebmeM ffatS rep noitalupoP FFiigguurree IIIIII..1111bb PPeerr CCaappiittaa SSttaaffffiinngg ((FFiirreeffiigghhtteerrss oonnllyy)) Differences in the staffing types and levels are evident. In Nevada County, most agencies use career, paid-by-call and volunteer staff. Volunteers serve as a pool of applicants for firefighters paid by call and the paid-by-call staff serves as a pool of applicants for career staff. It was noted that the pool of volunteers is shrinking due to a variety of factors, such as training demands, lack of full-time employment with a district, competition with paid-call fire districts, etc. As the demand for service grows, agencies with trained and experienced staff have a greater opportunity to maximize efficiencies. Several agencies, such as Ophir Hill, North San Juan, Washington, and Rough and Ready, rely primarily on volunteers. Higgins FPD and Donner Summit PUD contract with CDF for administrative services and staff. All of the fire agencies responding noted current and future staffing needs. A majority also noted that the primary constraint to hiring additional staff, either career or paid-by-call, is a lack of funding. RESPONSE TIMES The service review questionnaire also asked fire agencies for number of responses, average response times and target response time. Approximately 69% of all calls to fire agencies in Nevada County are emergency medical service/ advanced life support (EMS/ALS), 22% are fire, 8% are rescue and 1% hazardous material responses. The breakdown of calls to Nevada County fire agencies is consistent with national trends. The number of fire-related calls is decreasing nationwide due to improved building standards and stricter regulations III. Matching Infrastructure to Growth Page 28 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 - Gr a s s V all N e y e v n a n d e a r S C u it m y mit P U D Tr u c k H e i g e g i n s Ar e a N C C N F . D S a n J u a n O d a p l h e i - r C H h i i l c l a g o P a P r e k n n R V o al u l e g y h W & a R s e h a i n d g y t o n C W D D o e ar P Agency Final Report January 31, 2005 sllaC launnA # (although current construction materials and techniques result in fires that are more difficult to fight and more dangerous to citizens and firefighters). During the past twenty years, while the number of paid fire- fighters increased by 20%, the number of home/building fires decreased by approximately 40%. The number and type of emergency responses for each agency is shown in the following chart, Figure III.12 Emergency Responses. FFiigguurree IIIIII..1122 EEmmeerrggeennccyy RReessppoonnsseess EMS/ALS Fire Hazard Rescue Note: From 01/01/04 through 11/29/04, the TNF responded to the following: 185 fires, 117 medical aids, 95 public assists, 1,271 law enforcement calls, 31 vehicle accidents, 9 hazardous materials, 2 search & rescues, and 106 miscellaneous incidents. The percentage of medical emergency calls nationwide has been increasing as the general population ages, and perhaps as an indirect result of the rising cost of healthcare. (The higher proportion of uninsured must rely upon emergency services for primary health services.) In large metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles and Chicago, 90% of calls to fire agencies are for auto accidents and other medical emergencies. In most communities senior citizens generate the majority of responses, with some areas of the country experiencing an overloaded 911 system. Most responders are forearmed with knowledge of local refer- rals or how to direct caregivers to an agency or organization that can provide additional services. In other parts of the country, fire agencies may respond daily to retirement communities, residential care facilities, convalescent hospitals, and Alzheimer's facilities. Finally, due to tighter Medicare reimbursements, stricter managed care restrictions and increased insurance costs, many small ambulance companies have III. Matching Infrastructure to Growth Page 29 gone out of business or consolidated. In areas with small populations, it may not be cost effective for private ambulance companies to operate. Since public agencies are generally able to provide service on tighter cost margins, they fill a critical role in the public health network. These trends have led some municipalities to explore various forms of private/public partnerships to reduce emergency service costs. Pinellas County (Florida) is expected to save between $13 and $15 million a year through a competitive bidding contract. Bidders included public and private competitors; the firm selected was a private company. San Mateo County formed a public-private partnership between a private company and the local fire agencies. The contract is performance-based with penalties for non- performance and revenue sharing between the agencies and the private company.3 While the limited research seems to indicate that private EMS providers may use more advanced technology and equipment and can provide services at a lower cost than fire agencies (due to lower wages), communities typically are protective of and committed to the local fire agencies. In addition, the quality and equity of medical service provided by some private companies is occasionally a concern to residents. In terms of service responsibility in Nevada County, firefighters respond first to emergency calls, arriving on scene in fire engines or rescue vehicles. Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital is western Nevada County's only acute care facility. The hospital offers 24-hour emergency medical services and a medical transportation service. Penn Valley FPD also provides an advanced life support emergency medical transportation service. While no issues with the provision of emergency medical services were noted during the service review process, it may be useful for agencies in Nevada County to discuss alternative means of providing services to determine if greater economies of scale can be reached. In eastern Nevada County, Tahoe Forest Hospital District serves the communities of Truckee, North Lake Tahoe, Donner Summit and Sierra Valley. The Tahoe Forest Hospital District is also associated with the Incline Village Community Hospital, a four-bed healthcare facility located 18 miles southeast of Truckee in Incline Village, Nevada. Neither facility provides ambulance service at this time; this is provided by Truckee FPD and by Donner Summit PUD. Most Nevada County fire agencies also receive a significant number of calls for rescue services, presumed to be the result of the County’s recreational amenities, such as skiing and hiking. How to recover more or even the full cost of rescue services was suggested as a future topic of discussion among the agencies. In addition to the number of calls fire agencies receive, the service review questionnaire also asked the fire agencies to note their average and target response time for each of the four types of calls. It must be 3 The Reason Foundation, “The Future of Local Emergency Medical Services”. August 2001 Final Report January 31, 2005 III. Matching Infrastructure to Growth Page 30 borne in mind that response times for each fire agency are dependent on the topography of the service area, road conditions, financing levels, type of staffing and other factors unique to that organization. Response times are, at best, only a rough means of assessing an agency’s infrastructure needs and deficiencies. Response times for EMS/ALS and fire services are shown in the following graph: Figure III.13, Emergency Response Data. FFiigguurree IIIIII..1133 EEmmeerrggeennccyy RReessppoonnssee TTiimmeess 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Gr a s s V all N e y e v n a n d e a r S C u it m y mit P U D Tr u c k H e i g e g i n s Ar e a N C C F N D . S a n J u a n O d a p l h e i - r C H h i i l c l a g o P P ar e k n n V R o al u l e g y h W & a R s e h a i n d g y t o n C W D D o e ar P Agency Final Report January 31, 2005 setuniM Target Response Time Average Response Time Note: Response times for TNF are not included; the baseline for responding to and fighting wildland fires outside of an urban setting is not comparative to response times by local agencies. The agencies exceeding the target response time for EMS/ALS and fire response were North San Juan, Peardale-Chicago Park, Penn Valley and Washington County Water District FPDs. For the Nevada County Consolidated FD, the target response times were expressed as a range of 4-8 minutes with a response time of 6.44 minutes. The lower target was used to display data but the agency is within its targeted responses times for both fire and EMS/ALS. In any discussion of response times, it should be noted that the presence of automatic and mutual aid agreements impacts the response time to a fire or medical emergency. The distance from the site of a fire or medical emergency to a fire station, if staffed, is also important in evaluating the provision of service. III. Matching Infrastructure to Growth Page 31 STATIONS Another critical infrastructure need is for stations with adequate equipment in each station. Stations also need to be located near population centers to reduce response times. The service area of a fire station can vary tremendously according to the surrounding land uses, density, topography, road conditions and a variety of other factors. As growth and density increase, the service areas of some fire stations may start to overlap. There may be cost reductions and economies of scale achieved if some stations are consolidated. Both the Penn Valley and Peardale-Chicago Park FPDs noted a lack of funding to relocate a fire station (Penn Valley) and to hire additional staff to reduce average response times. Nevada County Consolidated noted that it has recently sold one station that was no longer in use. Fire station locations are listed in Table III.1 and indicated on the figures used throughout the report. The maps rely on the County’s GIS station location data. There are some discrepancies between the County’s data and the agencies’ reported information. This should be reconciled so that the County has current information. TTaabbllee IIIIII..11 CCuurrrreenntt FFiirree SSttaattiioonn LLooccaattiioonnss SSttaattiioonn AAggeennccyy SSttaattiioonn LLooccaattiioonn NNuummbbeerr 21 10106 Combie Road (with CDF) Higgins Area FPD 22 20233 Morning Sun Drive 23 20604 McCourtney Road 91 10049 Donner Pass Road 92 11473 Donner Pass Road 93 15572 Donner Pass Road Truckee FPD 94 12986 Northwoods Blvd. 95 10900 Manchester Dr. 96 10277 Truckee Tahoe Airport Road (with CDF) 43 10513 Spenceville Road Penn Valley FPD 44 18989 Lake Forest Drive 45 12370 Bitney Springs Road Nevada City Nevada County Consolidated 80 13376 Quaker Hill Road Fire District 81 16528 Pasquale Road 82 18969 Scotts Flat Road 83 14700 North Bloomfield Road 84 10135 Coyote Street (at Highway 49) 86 12337 Banner Lava Cap (at Valley View) 87 13103 Ridge Road Final Report January 31, 2005 III. Matching Infrastructure to Growth Page 32 TTaabbllee IIIIII..11 CCuurrrreenntt FFiirree SSttaattiioonn LLooccaattiioonnss SSttaattiioonn AAggeennccyy SSttaattiioonn LLooccaattiioonn NNuummbbeerr 14518 Highway 49 South (at La Barr Meadows 88 Road) 89 1183 Tammy Way 90 10095 East Lime Kiln Road (at Highway 49) 92 14811 McCourtney Road (at Wolf Mountain) 81 53823 Sherritt Lane Donner Summit PUD 82 8200 Short Street (Placer County) 83 750 Mule Ears Court (Placer County) 1 472 Brighton Street (with NCCFD) City of Grass Valley 2 213 Sierra College Drive 3 127 E. Main (reserve only) 1 10057 Reservoir Road North San Juan FPD 2 20399 Pleasant Valley Road 3 13200 Tyler Foote Crossing Road Ophir Hill FPD 1 12668 Colfax Highway 1 15057 Colfax Hwy Peardale-Chicago Park FPD 2 18934 Colfax Hwy. Rough & Ready FPD 1 11042 Rough & Ready Road City of Nevada City 54 201 Providence Mine Road (with NCCFD) Washington CWD 1 15408 Washington Road 20 10242 Ridge Road, Nevada City 21 10106 Combie Road, Auburn CDF 40 8839 Highway 20 (Smartsville) 42 19076 Tyler Foot Crossing Road Nevada City 50 10277 Truckee-Airport Road, Truckee Final Report January 31, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Service Page 33 IIVV.. FFIINNAANNCCIINNGG AANNDD EECCOONNOOMMIICCSS OOFF SSEERRVVIICCEE A. FINANCING OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS FUNDING SOURCES FOR FIRE AGENCIES Across California there are several funding sources for fire agencies. PROPERTY TAX All property is taxable unless otherwise provided for by the California Constitution or federal laws. Real property may also be subject to annual assessment and taxation. In addition, private interest in publicly owned lands (i.e., contractual use of USFS property for ski resorts, cabins, etc.) is also taxable. Prior to the passage of Proposition 13, property tax was the primary source of local revenue. On average, counties received 33% of their total revenues from property taxes, cities 24%, and special districts approximately 40%. For some fire agencies, approximately 90% of all revenues came from property tax. State law determines the exchange of property tax revenues among local agencies in conjunction with jurisdictional boundary changes. When territory is detached or annexed to a district or a new fire agency is formed, the County Board of Supervisors negotiates an exchange of property tax revenue on behalf of the districts. If a jurisdictional change results in a fire agency providing services to a previously unserved area, districts may negotiate on their own behalf. The exchange is limited to revenue from the annual increase in assessed value that is attributable to the affected tax rate area, referred to as the annual tax increment (ATI). The ATI for fire agencies is dependent on whether the district was formed before or after Proposition 13. Generally, the statewide allocation formula creates funding issues for fire districts. First, fire protection agencies formed after 1978 typically do not receive property tax or if they do, the share is minimal. Secondly, annexation of previously unserved territory does not automatically result in a transfer of property tax unless a portion of the revenue from the annual growth in property valuation for annexed territory is negotiated with the County. It should be noted that provisions in state law permit fire protection districts to refuse to annex new territory; however, most fire agencies comply with annexation requests to protect the public, absorbing the cost of providing service to additional territory. In 1981, Nevada County’s Board of Supervisors adopted a Master Formula for property tax appor- tionment when annexation occurs. The resolution is included as Appendix A. When a district annexes and serves territory that has not been served, it receives a portion of the increment. As many of the fire districts rely heavily upon property tax revenues, the formula effectively discourages annexations to serve new areas. SPECIAL TAXES Section 4, Article XIII A, of the California Constitution authorizes cities, counties, and special districts to impose non-ad valorem special taxes with a two-thirds approval of the voters. The two-thirds requirement Final Report January 31, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Service Page 34 was reinforced in 1986 by Proposition 62 and in 1996 by Proposition 218, the Right to Vote on Taxes Act, and has been the practice in Nevada County. FEES Fire districts impose fees for a variety of services. The California Constitution defines fees as charges that do not exceed the reasonable cost incurred by local governments in providing the regulation, product or service for which they are charged. Proposition 218 introduced procedural requirements on fees that are imposed due to property ownership. ASSESSMENTS Assessments are levies against real property, based on special benefit conferred upon the property. Proposition 13 restrictions concerning voter approval of taxes do not apply to special assessments. However, in 1996, Proposition 218 introduced requirements for new and existing assessments. BONDS Bonds are used to finance the acquisition and construction of public facilities and real property and may not be used for equipment purchases or to pay for operations and maintenance. Each bond measure requires the approval of two-thirds of the voters. MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES ACT OF 1982 The 1982 Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act enables local governments to establish community facilities districts (CFDs) to levy special taxes to fund facilities and services. Under the Fire Protection District Law of 1987, fire districts are specifically authorized to finance any capital facility or pay for fire protection services under the Mello-Roos Act. The Act allows fire protection agencies to issue bonds, backed by voter-approved special taxes. A Mello-Roos tax is not affected by the requirements of Proposition 218; however, the Act has its own specific requirement for two-thirds voter approval. The following table summarizes voting requirements for different types of taxes and assessments. TYPE VOTE NEEDED WHO VOTES VOTE REQUIREMENT TAXES General Yes All voters in affected area Majority Special Yes All voters in affected area 2/3 ASSESSMENTS All Yes Property Owners Majority FEES Property Related Yes Either property owners or Majority of property voters owners or 2/3 voters Final Report January 31, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Service Page 35 B. SUMMARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF NEVADA COUNTY FIRE DISTRICTS This section provides a brief analysis of the current economic setting of individual fire service providers in Nevada County. It begins with objectives and limitations and provides a general overview. Individual financial profiles of the fire agencies follow. LIMITATIONS This portion of the service review does not attempt to evaluate service levels, or adjust for differences in service levels. While comparisons are provided using objective measures typically utilized in fire service benchmarking studies, care must be exercised in generalizing from such comparisons, as they are affected by a variety of factors which cannot be controlled. Sources of data include a variety of government entities. Therefore these are not precise comparisons and may not, in all instances, represent an accurate comparison. The results of a cursory analysis such as this can only be used to gauge overall direction and bring focus on areas which merit more in-depth analysis. One basic assumption is that per capita costs, which are often used in comparing municipal service costs, are affected by the population base. Smaller service providers typically have higher per capita costs, as a result of cost components which are fixed or not highly variable. A portion of this analysis represents a “snapshot in time”, which may not accurately portray the financial trends and condition of any given agency. It is desirable to have multi-year financial data presented, and LAFCo intends to incorporate this methodology in future service review reports. SETTING AND OVERALL COMPARISONS Traditional fire suppression and rescue services are labor intensive and deployed mainly at a station level. Service delivery is accomplished using full-time career staff, paid-call staff (essentially part-time employees), volunteers or some combination of the above. Training and certification standards, risk management practices, changing employment patterns, workforce unionization and increasing workloads are all driving the industry towards the career/professional firefighter model, although rural areas such as Nevada County still depend greatly on paid-call and volunteer firefighters. Research has suggested that for fire service delivery most economies of scale are captured at relatively low population levels of approximately 30,000. After a population of 30,000 is reached, costs per capita generally do not decrease significantly as population grows. This is because the traditional service delivery approach is not capital intensive, nor does it require extensive managerial, technical or administrative support. Stations are deployed geographically and staffing is often formula driven. All of these factors combine to result in a service which relatively quickly reaches an efficient scale (in terms of population served) and generally stays at this level as the population increases. The “tipping point” of a service population of 30,000 is, however, only a general guide and many other factors may affect the economics of service delivery. Final Report January 31, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Service Page 36 This relationship can be seen graphically in Figure IV.1, which shows costs per capita for a variety of different sized fire service providers in San Mateo County, California, where an in-depth study was conducted. These departments for the most part serve similar areas and have similar service delivery approaches, which is an important distinction when considering the situation in Nevada County, where there is a great deal of variation in terms of service area and the means of service delivery. FFiigguurree IIVV..11 EExxaammppllee ooff EEccoonnoommiieess ooff SSccaallee iinn TTrraaddiittiioonnaall FFiirree SSeerrvviiccee DDeelliivveerryy Per Capita Fire Costs Fall as Population Increases $700.00 $600.00 Woodside Fire Protection City of Brisbane District $500.00 CDF – San Mateo City Hillsborough $400.00 Half Moon Bay / Point $300.00 Montara FPD City of Burlingame Foster City South County Fire JPA Menlo Park Fire Protection $200.00 District City of Millbrae City of Pacifica City of San Bruno Redwood City City of San Mateo $100.00 City of Daly City $0.00 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 Population Final Report January 31, 2005 atipaC reP tsoC Population density also impacts costs. Generally speaking fire services that serve a large area with a low population have higher costs and/or reduced service levels relative to a more urban setting. Finally, the manner of fire service delivery, particularly the mix of volunteer/paid-call staffing and career or profes- sional staffing, has a major impact on costs. Within Nevada County all these factors come into play and have an impact on relative costs. This analysis relies on data provided by nine service providers in Nevada County. Collectively these fire departments serve a population base of almost 100,000. However, there are significant variations of setting and environment among the service providers in Nevada County. Table IV.1 below shows fire service providers by population and also includes information on annual 2003 operating costs per capita and the estimated population density (in persons per square mile). Mainly because of variations in the way service is delivered, there is no readily apparent relationship between population served and costs for the service providers in the County. IV. Financing and Economics of Service Page 37 TTaabbllee IIVV..11 CCoommppaarriissoonn ooff FFiirree SSeerrvviiccee PPrroovviiddeerr CCoossttss aanndd RReellaatteedd FFaaccttoorrss iinn NNeevvaaddaa CCoouunnttyy FFYY 22000033 RReessiiddeenntt EExxppeennddiittuurreess PPeerrssoonnss// AAggeennccyy OOppeerraattiinngg PPooppuullaattiioonn ppeerr CCaappiittaa ssqq.. mmii.. EExxppeennddiittuurreess Donner Summit** 3,3754 $713,950 $211.54 33.8 Rough & Ready 2,300 $141,258 $61.42 242.1 North San Juan 2,311 $133,845 $57.92 33.0 Peardale-Chicago Park 3,754 $285,965 $76.18 178.8 Higgins 9,609 $1,065,316 $110.87 106.8 City of Grass Valley 12,000 $1,165,873 $97.16 2400.0 Nevada City* 3,000 $311,799 $103.93 2,000 Penn Valley 11,542 $993,917 $86.11 125.5 Truckee 20,0005 $4,545,000 $227.25 303.0 Nevada Consolidated 32,062 $2,264,962 $70.64 224.2 Ophir Hill* 3,281 $253,833 $77.36 364.6 Washington 225 $3,400 $15.11 90.0 Total 102,900 $11,943,265 * Information not provided by agency; data obtained from 2001-2002 State Controller’s Report **DSPUD provides service to CSA #31 in Nevada County and CSA #28 in Placer County; the expenditures per capita include expenditures and population for both CSAs. It should be noted that local service delivery can easily assume a regional scale. Donner Summit provides response to vehicular accidents on I-80, as does the Truckee FPD. Similarly, Penn Valley FPD operates an advanced life support ambulance system, the only such service offered in western Nevada County. The additional cost associated with providing service on a regional basis increases expenditures per capita. It is apparent that there is no obvious connection between population served and costs per capita for these Nevada County service providers. This is a result of the diversity of areas served, demand for service, and staffing model used. For example, the high expenditures per capita for the Truckee FPD are related to the wide variety of areas it serves (urban, rural and high-demand recreational areas), the range of services provided (rescue, emergency medical, structural fire, wildland fires and hazardous material) and the necessity of having staff trained for all types of service demand. 4 Includes population of the two CSAs served by contract; does not include peak transitory population. 5 Includes population in Placer County portion of the District; does not include peak transitory population Final Report January 31, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Service Page 38 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 D on n er S u m m R i o t* u g h & R ea N d o y rt h e S a a r d n a J le u - a C n hic a g o P ark H C ig it y g i o n f s Gr ass V all ey P e nn V alley N e T v r u a d ck a e C e o n s oli d at ed Wa s hin gt o n P Agency Final Report January 31, 2005 serutidnepxE 3002 $250.00 $200.00 $150.00 $100.00 $50.00 $0.00 serutidnepxE atipaC rep As shown in Figure IV.2, some of the providers serving the smallest populations have low per capita costs, while larger service providers may have higher per capita costs. FFiigguurree IIVV..22 CCoossttss aanndd PPooppuullaattiioonn SSeerrvveedd –– NNeevvaaddaa CCoouunnttyy FFiirree SSeerrvviiccee PPrroovviiddeerrss Population Expenditures per Capita Note: Ophir Hill FPD and City of Nevada City did not provide financial data for this review. The variation is due to differences in level of service and delivery approach. For example, the Truckee FPD mainly provides services using full-time career staff, while the Rough & Ready FPD is mainly volunteer and paid-call based. The type and degree of services provided also varies considerably and has an impact on relative costs. It is difficult to compare costs with other comparable areas because of data limitations. There are hundreds of fire districts in the State of California, and reliable data on the population of each district are difficult to obtain. Therefore, fire service costs in cities of similar population size in the state were examined. Reliable data on 58 cities with a mix of service delivery mechanisms (including paid-call, all professional and contracts with other jurisdictions) were obtained from the most recent State Controller’s Report and updated for the observed average increase in fire costs in the State through 2003. The results of this analysis are shown below in Table IV.2: IV. Financing and Economics of Service Page 39 TTaabbllee IIVV..22 CCoommppaarriissoonn ooff CCoossttss ppeerr CCaappiittaa –– CCAA CCiittiieess aanndd NNeevvaaddaa CCoouunnttyy bbyy PPooppuullaattiioonn MMeeaann AAvveerraaggee SSaammppllee AAvveerraaggee PPooppuullaattiioonn RRaannggee EExxppeennddiittuurreess// AAnnnnuuaall SSiizzee PPooppuullaattiioonn CCaappiittaa EExxppeennddiittuurreess CA Cities < 10,000 33 $123.00 5,837 $719,730 CA Cities 10,000 - 30,000 25 $104.00 16,746 $1,736,722 Nevada County < 10,000 8 $76.77 3,482 $363,671 Nevada County 10,000 – 4 $91.64 18,901 $2,242,438 32,000 In general the costs for service providers in Nevada County are comparable with these averages, indicating that the County is, from a cost standpoint, performing as well as peer agencies. Local government in general, and fire service providers in particular, are currently in a difficult fiscal environment. The recession of 2001-2002 reduced tax revenues and, more significantly, created pension fund losses that now have to be recouped as part of labor costs. This is a particularly acute problem for agencies for which pension costs are a higher percentage of payroll. In addition, workers compensation cost increases and medical insurance premiums have escalated. As a result, total fire service labor costs have increased significantly. Overall expenditures are therefore higher, as labor is usually 80% or more of a fire agency budget. Statewide, annual increases in fire department costs have averaged 6-8%, con- siderably above typical general fund revenue growth, which was negligible or even negative in the 2001- 2003 timeframe. The data for fire service providers in Nevada County clearly show the financial strain. Some of the agencies ran a deficit in fiscal year 2003, which is probably typical on a statewide level as well. ECONOMIC PROFILES BY SERVICE PROVIDER Truckee FPD The Truckee Fire Protection District serves the Town of Truckee and a significantly larger surrounding area with a population of approximately 20,000 in the eastern portion of Nevada County, as well a significant area in the Placer County portion of the Martis Valley. It operates six stations with a career staff of 28 and approximately 14 paid-call personnel. It is bordered on the west by territory served by the Donner Summit PUD and Placer County to the south. Trend data through FY 2004 were used based on the information provided. Final Report January 31, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Service Page 40 The budget snapshot for this district is shown below. TTrruucckkeeee FFPPDD EEccoonnoommiicc PPrrooffiillee (cid:131) Population 20,000 (cid:131) Population Density (Fire Service, per square mile) 303 (cid:131) Property Tax Revenue as a % of Total Revenue 73% (cid:131) 2003 Expenditures per Capita $227.25 (cid:131) 2003 Ratio of Expense to Revenue .99 (cid:131) Revenue Trend – annual average change for data +7.3% available (cid:131) Expenditure Trend – annual average change for data +8.6% available (cid:131) 2003 Reserve as a % of Expenditures 8.6% IMPORTANT COST AND REVENUE FACTORS The major revenue source for Truckee FPD is the District’s property tax share. This amounts to approxi- mately $3.3 million of the District’s $4.5 million in annual revenues. The other major revenue source is ambulance services. Per capita expenditures for Truckee FPD are relatively high, reflecting the relatively high percentage of career staff, the variety of service demands, significant transitory population, and the large, sparsely populated but diverse territory served. BUDGET TRENDS Tax revenues surged by 24% in FY 2003 relative to FY 2002, but this growth slowed to about 5% in FY 2004. Personnel costs increased by 22% in 2003 and by 15% in 2004. If personnel costs continue to grow at a rate greater than property tax revenues, the District could face a structural deficit at some point in the future. However, at this time the District has a balanced budget and appears to be in relatively stable condition. Assuming labor costs, which have been impacted by health benefit and pension costs, remain moderate, the District will continue to be on a sound economic footing. FISCAL ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY The Truckee FPD is operating below the “minimum efficient scale” based on the data available and may be able to benefit from a pooling of resources with an adjacent district such as Donner Summit PUD. However, the financial and service implications of such an arrangement would need further study. For example, Donner Summit’s General Fund (fire and emergency services) operated at a deficit in FY 2003, a situation that the Truckee FPD may not find tenable. Donner Summit PUD Donner Summit is a public utilities district that provides fire, medical and rescue services in addition to water and sewer services. The District has a contract with CDF for fire and paramedic services and some limited career staff for fire/rescue service management. The area served by Donner Summit includes its own jurisdiction and other jurisdictions by contract, west of the Truckee FPD service area. The District Final Report January 31, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Service Page 41 provides fire and emergency medical services to two County Service Areas (CSAs) #31 (PlaVada- Kingvale) located in Nevada County and #28, located in Placer County. The area served by Donner Sum- mit has a resident population of 3,375 and relatively low population density. However, the service area includes four ski resort complexes, significant back country recreational opportunities, and I-80, all of which contribute to a high degree of transitory population. The combination of these factors tends to make fire service delivery more expensive. Donner Summit PUD operates with three funds: Governmental (General) which is exclusive to the fire, medical and rescue operations; Proprietary (Enterprise) for sewer, water and administrative operations; and Fixed Assets, which accounts for the fixed assets of the district. The District received revenue from a fidelity bond which has offset, or is expected to offset, fraudulent transactions that occurred prior to 2003. The General Fund has been included in this analysis; a large capital expenditure and grant have not been included, however, as they represent one-time revenue/expense activity. The budget snapshot for this district is shown below. DDoonnnneerr SSuummmmiitt PPUUDD –– FFiirree EEccoonnoommiicc PPrrooffiillee (cid:131) Population 3,375 (cid:131) Population Density (per square mile) 33.8 (cid:131) Property Tax Revenue as a % of Total Revenue 11% (cid:131) 2003 Expenditures per Capita $211.54 (cid:131) 2003 Ratio of Expense to Revenue 1.023 (cid:131) Revenue Trend – annual average change for data 5.1% available (cid:131) Expenditure Trend – annual average change for data 5.9% available (cid:131) 2003 Reserve as a % of Expenditures 0% (the District does not have reserves) IMPORTANT COST AND REVENUE FACTORS Expenditures per capita are high, which is not unexpected with such a small resident population base, large service area, and a service model that includes career firefighters. The staff has estimated that 83% of the calls the District receives are for emergency medical services. Although it is not possible to esti- mate the decrease in emergency medical calls if, and when, Sugar Bowl begins to provide medical service facilities at their operation, the District is estimating a potential loss of revenue of up to $125,000 if this change occurs. In addition, Donner Ski Ranch is undergoing financial problems that could result in either a temporary or long-term closure. DSPUD responds to approximately 35 requests for medical transport per year from the Ranch, which generate approximately $35,000 in revenue. Final Report January 31, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Service Page 42 The General Fund receives relatively little in the way of property tax revenues. Most General Fund revenue is derived from ambulance service fees and contract fees for service provided to the CSAs. The reliability of these contract revenues is of importance to the District, as such revenues account for over 80% of the total. There is also a small amount of assessment revenue (less than 5% of total revenue). The District’s current assessment rate is $100 for improved residential parcels and $250 for improved commercial parcels. BUDGET TRENDS The District’s Board has discussed proposing an increase in the assessment rate at some point in 2005 to $200 for residential parcels and $500 for commercial parcels. Any proposed change would require a two- thirds majority vote of the registered voters within the district. There has been little growth in the District and limited growth is projected, keeping property tax revenue generally stable. Excluding capital outlay and grant funding, it appears District expenditures in fiscal year 2003 exceeded revenues. The District reported significant reserve-funded deficits in both the General and Enterprise funds in FY 2003. In large part these deficits are due to depreciation and capital expenditures, so a struc- tural deficit may not be occurring. The District does not currently have a reserve fund due to fraudulent activity that occurred prior to 2003. This places increased importance on the balance of revenue and expenses within the General Fund; because of the financial constraints associated with the provision of fire and emergency services, establishing a reserve fund in the future will be challenging. FISCAL ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY The District segregates fire department expenditures and revenues from its enterprise services, ensuring that costs and trends related to the provision of service can be identified and tracked. The General Fund, which supports fire services, is dependent on service and contract fees. For example, ambulance transport fees are approximately $1,000 due to the large service area and distance to medical care facilities. Approximately 50-55% of the fire department’s revenue is generated from ambulance transports. The District has been able to increase this revenue significantly and therefore keep pace with salary increases. More information about the stability of this revenue source would be important in making any final recommendations, especially in light of the construction of medical facilities at Sugar Bowl and the bankruptcy of Donner Ski Ranch. If demand for this service is substantially reduced, revenues will decline without a replacement funding source. The DSPUD also provides contract services to two CSAs, which is an important source of revenue for district operations. The District is evaluating the adequacy of its current rate structure with respect to the cost of fire and emergency services within the area and may determine that modifications are necessary to ensure the long-term financial stability of the district. Final Report January 31, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Service Page 43 North San Juan FPD The North San Juan FPD serves the unincorporated community of North San Juan, with a population of approximately 2,300. The District’s service area is in the northwest portion of the county, bordering Yuba and Sierra Counties on the west and north; the District responds to calls as far as Graniteville on the east, while Penn Valley and Nevada County Consolidated FPDs are to the south. The District has one part-time career firefighter, the Chief, and operates three stations. The budget snapshot for this district is shown below. NNoorrtthh SSaann JJuuaann FFPPDD EEccoonnoommiicc PPrrooffiillee (cid:131) Population 2,311 (cid:131) Population Density (per square mile) 33.0 (cid:131) Property Tax Revenue as a % of Total Revenue 72.3% (cid:131) 2003 Expenditures per Capita $57.92 (cid:131) 2003 Ratio of Expense to Revenue 80% (cid:131) Revenue Trend – annual average change for data 4.06% available (cid:131) Expenditure Trend – annual average change for data 23.7% available (cid:131) 2003 Reserve as a % of Expenditures 38% IMPORTANT COST AND REVENUE FACTORS Expenditures per capita are about 64% lower than the average observed for a service provider of this size, mainly due to the extensive volunteer/paid call firefighter staff. The District is dependent on an historical share of the property tax and a small special assessment. Proposition 172 funds are also a significant portion of total revenue. The District’s mitigation fee income has increased in the past few years, reflective of District growth, and is spent exclusively on servicing capital purchase debt. Recently the District has received some one-time monies from State and Federal grants that provided fire fighting equipment and apparatus and also required matching funds that will not be expended in future years. The District has added a part-time administrative position to perform work previously done by volunteers. In the past two years, the District’s capital debt has been consolidated and reduced while its apparatus and equipment have been upgraded and/or replaced. BUDGET TRENDS Revenue trends over the past five years show an average increase of about 4% while expenditure increases during the same time reflect an increase of about 23%. The District had high reserves which it has been spending down in an approved plan to purchase and upgrade equipment and apparatus. In the 2004/05 year, the District’s goals have been met and it will budget future years in an attempt to keep expenditures within revenues. However, given the increase in the cost of doing business across the board, the District may face fiscal difficulty within the next few years. Final Report January 31, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Service Page 44 FISCAL ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY Based on the rapidly increasing costs of doing business and the failure of tax revenues to keep astride, the District will need to augment its revenues in the near future in order to continue to provide its current level of service. As an alternative, the District may find ways to reduce its expenses, although it currently operates at a relatively low level of expenditure per capita. Penn Valley FPD The Penn Valley Fire Protection District was formed in 1974 and provides ambulance, fire and rescue services to the residents of the Penn Valley area on the western edge of the county. The population in the service area is approximately 11,540. The population density is low, but not as low as in some of the other rural areas of the county. Historically, services were provided through a combination of directly hired firefighters and a contract with the California Department of Forestry (CDF). The District did not renew its contract with CDF for FY 2005. Within the context of the county, this is a medium sized district. It shares a boundary with four other fire service districts and nearly surrounds the smaller Rough & Ready District. The budget snapshot for this district is shown below. PPeennnn VVaalllleeyy FFPPDD EEccoonnoommiicc PPrrooffiillee (cid:131) Population 11,542 (cid:131) Population Density (per square mile) 125.5 (cid:131) Property Tax Revenue as a % of Total Revenue 25% (cid:131) 2003 Expenditures per Capita $86.11 (cid:131) 2003 Ratio of Expense to Revenue 1.039 (cid:131) Revenue Trend – annual average change for data +0.49% available (cid:131) Expenditure Trend – annual average change for data +5.4% available (cid:131) 2003 Reserve as a % of Expenditures 19.1% IMPORTANT COST AND REVENUE FACTORS From a revenue standpoint this District is dependent on both a share of the property tax as well as a special tax and an assessment. The special tax and the assessment for fire and rescue account for approximately 29% of total revenues. Another major revenue source is ambulance service fees. Per capita expenditures compare favorably with other similarly sized districts and are generally below the average. On November 2, 2004, the voters of the Penn Valley Fire Protection District narrowly rejected an increase to their current variable special tax rate which is $58.22 for residential units, multi-family, mobile home parks and $34.87 for commercial and industrial, per 1000 square feet. The proposed new annual tax rates were $45.00 for unimproved parcels, $48.84 per 1000 square feet for non-residential uses, $70.00 for multi-family and mobile home park spaces, and $95.00 for single-family dwellings and campground Final Report January 31, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Service Page 45 recreation facilities. The measure also included an annual adjustment tied to the Consumer Price Index not exceeding 5 percent and would have increased the spending cap. As to the latter, to the extent that the revenue from the special property tax exceeds the spending limit for the District as calculated in accordance with the provision of Article XIII B of the California Constitution and applicable statutory provisions, the approval by the voters would have constituted approval to increase the District's spending limit in an amount equal to all revenues generated and received by the District. A two-thirds majority was required, but only 64.55 % voted for approval. BUDGET TRENDS The District ran a surplus in both FY 2002 and 2001. In FY 2003, however, expenditures exceeded revenues by approximately $86,000, which is significant on a budget of approximately $1 million. As is common in the industry, the District has seen significant increases in labor costs over the last three years. These cost increases have outpaced the growth in revenues. The District noted that they have no General Fund reserves and it is challenging to meet the cash flow requirements as revenue is not received until January. Penn Valley FPD’s cost per capita is low compared to other districts. In addition to all services provided by the other agencies, Penn Valley also provides an advanced life support ambulance service which requires a large staffing commitment. This service generates revenue on average of $200,000-$250,000 per year but does not cover the expense of the operation. The District will be evaluating levels of service and rates during the budgeting process for the next fiscal year. FISCAL ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY This District appears to be operating at a relatively low cost level and is sized to obtain most economies of scale. The District will have to find ways to decrease general fund expenses, increase general fund revenue, or a combination of the two if it is to maintain the current level of service. Rough & Ready FPD The Rough and Ready FPD is a small fire protection district serving the unincorporated community of Rough and Ready, with a population of approximately 2,300 in 9.5 square miles. The District has one full-time career staff and provides fire fighting and rescue services. The District’s service area is bordered by the larger Penn Valley FPD to the north, west and south, and Nevada County Consolidated FD to the east. Final Report January 31, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Service Page 46 The budget snapshot for this district is shown below: RRoouugghh && RReeaaddyy FFPPDD EEccoonnoommiicc PPrrooffiillee (cid:131) Population 2,300 (cid:131) Population Density (per square mile) 242.1 (cid:131) Property Tax Revenue as a % of Total Revenue 60% (cid:131) 2003 Expenditures per Capita $103.79 (cid:131) 2003 Ratio of Expense to Revenue .710 (cid:131) Revenue Trend – annual average change for data + 8.51% available (cid:131) Expenditure Trend – annual average change for data + 4.34% available (cid:131) 2003 Reserve as a % of Expenditures 134% (including capital reserve) IMPORTANT COST AND REVENUE FACTORS Rough and Ready has generally low expenditures per capita, which is reflective of the low number of career staff. The State Controller’s Report indicates cities with a population of less than 10,000 have fire service costs per capita that average $123; Rough and Ready is considerably below this average. The District is largely dependent on its historical share of property tax revenues, and Proposition 172 funding is also important. Part of the District’s growth in revenue can be attributed to grants. BUDGET TRENDS Even in difficult economic times the District has been able to hold expenditures well within revenues. The observed rate of growth in operating expenditures is considerably less than has been typical for fire ser- vice providers. Again, this is a reflection of the staffing profile. Revenues have met or exceeded the rate of growth in expenditures. When compared with other fire districts both within Nevada County and around the State, Rough and Ready has a relatively positive budget situation. FISCAL ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY While the District is in generally good shape from a financial standpoint, it will be impacted if there is a need to transition to a more full-time career-based department. It is difficult for a small district to make such a change in service delivery approach on its own; it is often accomplished through district consoli- dation. Higgins Area FPD The Higgins Area FPD provides fire fighting and rescue services to approximately 9,600 and operates three fire stations. It has 16 full-time career staff and 23 paid-call staff. The CDF currently administers and operates the agency. The District’s service area is bordered on the north by the Penn Valley and Final Report January 31, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Service Page 47 Nevada County Consolidated Districts; Placer County is to the south. Population density is low, similar to but slightly less than that of Penn Valley. The budget snapshot for this district is shown below. HHiiggggiinnss AArreeaa FFPPDD EEccoonnoommiicc PPrrooffiillee (cid:131) Population 9,609 (cid:131) Population Density (per square mile) 106.8 (cid:131) Property Tax Revenue as a % of Total Revenue 66% (cid:131) 2003 Expenditures per Capita $110.87 (cid:131) 2003 Ratio of Expense to Revenue 1.049 (cid:131) Revenue Trend – annual average change for data +4.4% available (cid:131) Expenditure Trend – annual average change for data +6.1% available (cid:131) 2004 Reserve as a % of Expenditures 51.8% IMPORTANT COST AND REVENUE FACTORS The District is primarily funded by its share of the property tax. It also has special tax revenues amounting to approximately 10% of total revenues. Other significant funding sources are a Proposition 172 allocation and interest earnings. District costs per capita appear to be average or slightly below average for a service provider of this size. The District has a healthy level of reserve funding, which can be seen in the relatively significant interest earnings revenue. The Higgins FPD adopted a special tax in 1980. It includes a $25 per parcel charge for residential properties, $30 per 1,000 square feet on all commercial structures, and $35 per 1,000 square feet on industrial structures. Voters defeated an attempt to increase the rate in FY 2002-2003. BUDGET TRENDS The District ran a deficit of approximately $50,000 in 2003, primarily due to a planned mid-year expenditure for increased staffing. The District had a strong reserve position in 2001 and 2002 and is expecting to maintain reserve levels in the future. However, the District has experienced significant labor cost increases since 2001 as a result of adding staff. Consequently, total expenditures have been increasing faster than revenues. Representatives from the agency believe that future revenues will keep pace with increasing labor costs and the agency expects to maintain staffing at acceptable levels. In the past two years, the agency has experienced approximately a 14% increase in building, which has increased revenues as well as service demands. The one-time use of reserve funds in 2003 to support increased staffing was to add four entry-level firefighters to attain two-person staffing at each of the three stations for annual cost of approximately $100,000 excluding benefits. The monies were originally intended for the Capitol Replacement Fund; however, with the high rate of growth in the latter part of FY 2002-2003 and projections for tax revenue and special taxes for FY 2003-2004, the Board of Directors approved the use of funds to increase staffing levels. Final Report January 31, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Service Page 48 Preliminary results for FY 2003-2004 indicate that the District has an excess of revenue over expenditures of $60,656. AB1600 revenue (mitigation fees) exceeded the budgeted amounts by nearly 55%. Expenditures were significantly under budget and capital expenditures were less than budgeted. FISCAL ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY This District is being impacted by significant increases in labor costs, but it is insulated to some degree by a healthy reserve level and a history of spending less than received in revenues. Cost levels appear reasonable, and the service population is large enough to obtain some economies of scale. Given that labor costs are unlikely to decline, the District will need to seek additional revenue sources or consider service reductions. This problem will probably not become acute until the District’s reserves are exhausted. Peardale-Chicago Park FPD The Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Protection District serves approximately 3,750 residents in a rural unincorporated area. It has a career staff of 2.75 full-time employees and operates two stations. The area served has a relatively low population density. The District is bordered on the north and southwest by the Nevada County Consolidated FD; the District also shares a border at the western edge of its jurisdiction with the Ophir Hill FPD. The budget snapshot for this district is shown below. PPeeaarrddaallee--CChhiiccaaggoo PPaarrkk FFPPDD EEccoonnoommiicc PPrrooffiillee (cid:131) Population 3,754 (cid:131) Population Density (per square mile) 178.8 (cid:131) Property Tax Revenue as a % of Total Revenue 35% (cid:131) 2003 Expenditures per Capita $76.18 (cid:131) 2003 Ratio of Expense to Revenue 1.0 (cid:131) Revenue Trend – annual average change for data 7.20% available (cid:131) Expenditure Trend – annual average change for data 7.20% available (cid:131) 2003 Reserve as a % of Expenditures NA IMPORTANT COST AND REVENUE FACTORS The Peardale-Chicago Park FPD shows a cost per capita served of $76.18, which is below the observed mean cost per capita of $123 for city fire departments serving populations of less than 10,000. The District is supported by property tax and special assessment revenues, in roughly equal amounts. It also receives some Prop 172 monies. Final Report January 31, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Service Page 49 BUDGET TRENDS Expenditures and revenue trends over the period examined have been kept in balance. The District did have a major labor cost increase in 2002 relative to 2001, but in 2003 labor costs dropped slightly. Property tax revenues have shown moderate growth. FISCAL ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY With relatively stable expenditures and revenues, this District does not appear to face any immediate economic problems. It is small in size and there is some potential for economy of scale savings and perhaps service improvements via contractual or other sharing of resources with an adjacent district. It is unlikely that the District’s tax base will continue to grow as much as it has over the last several years due to unprecedented property value increases. Additional revenues may be necessary if costs continue to escalate at the pace of the last few years. Information on District reserve levels was incomplete, but the District does appear to have a relatively healthy capital reserve of around $200,000. City of Grass Valley The Grass Valley Fire Department, established in 1853, is a city fire department serving a much more densely populated area than the rural fire districts that serve most of Nevada County. The Department has a blend of career staff and paid-call fire fighters and operates three stations. CCiittyy ooff GGrraassss VVaalllleeyy FFDD EEccoonnoommiicc PPrrooffiillee (cid:131) Population 12,000 (cid:131) Population Density (per square mile) 2,400 (cid:131) 2003 Expenditures per Capita $97.16 (cid:131) 2003 Ratio of Expense to Revenue NA (cid:131) Revenue Trend – annual average change for data +7.7% available (cid:131) Expenditure Trend – annual average change for data +12.9% available (cid:131) 2003 Reserve as a % of Expenditures NA IMPORTANT COST AND REVENUE FACTORS The Department is funded by the City General Fund and a special fire tax. The special fire tax revenues cover only approximately 14% of Department expenditures. Overall expenditures per capita are slightly below average for a city of this population. Grass Valley has a special tax in place which provides $32.59 per residential unit, $11.62 for unimproved parcels, and $34.60 per 1000 square feet for commercial facilities. It includes a provision for increases based upon the CPI. Final Report January 31, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Service Page 50 BUDGET TRENDS As with most fire service providers, Grass Valley has seen a significant increase in expenditures over the last several years, driven by rising labor costs. It is likely that fire service expenditures are taking a greater share of overall city revenues, since increased revenues from the fire tax have not kept pace with expenditure increases. FISCAL ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY Because the Department is part of City government, it will be funded according to the City’s overall fiscal situation and other needs. The Department appears to be operating at a reasonable cost level when measured against other similar size city fire departments. If other city revenues are not sufficient to meet the needs of the city, including the Fire Department, some consideration may need to be given to seeking an increase in the special fire tax. Nevada County Consolidated FD The Nevada County Consolidated Fire District is the largest fire district within the County in terms of population served. It has an estimated population of 32,000, a career staff of 31, and 15 stations. The area served has a low population density, but it is somewhat more densely populated than the territory of other fire districts in the county. Nevada County Consolidated took over the operation of the Forty-Niner Fire Protection District in October 2003; however, this consolidation is not reflected in the budget analysis. With a service area in the central part of the western county, Nevada County Consolidated shares boundaries with eight other fire departments, more than any other service provider. The budget snapshot for this district is shown below. NNeevvaaddaa CCoouunnttyy CCoonnssoolliiddaatteedd FFDD EEccoonnoommiicc PPrrooffiillee (cid:131) Population 32,062 (cid:131) Population Density (per square mile) 224.2 (cid:131) Property Tax Revenue as a % of Total Revenue 70% (cid:131) 2003 Expenditures per Capita $70.64 (cid:131) 2003 Ratio of Expense to Revenue 1.062 (cid:131) Revenue Trend – annual average change for data +2.84% available (cid:131) Expenditure Trend – annual average change for data +4.03% available (cid:131) 2003 Reserve as a % of Expenditures 1.3% (general fund) IMPORTANT COST AND REVENUE FACTORS About 70% of Nevada County Consolidated FD’s revenues are derived from the District’s share of the property tax. Another important revenue source for the District is assessment proceeds, constituting about Final Report January 31, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Service Page 51 15% of total revenue. The District’s expenditures per capita are average to below average for a district of this size. One reason for this positive financial situation is that career staffing levels appear to be relatively low, given the relatively large area served and the number of stations. The District has consolidated the territory of four smaller districts (Watt Park, Alta-Oaks Sunset, 49er and Old Consolidated) over the past several years. Each of those districts had its own special fire assessment ranging from $20 to $59 per year, many of which would have expired soon. The District recently secured voter approval for a uniform $89 per year assessment throughout its service area. BUDGET TRENDS Like most fire service providers, Nevada County Consolidated has experienced increasing labor expenses in the last three years. Costs have risen approximately 30% since 2000. Property tax revenues have shown good growth as well, but have not kept pace with expenditures. For fiscal year 2003 the District ran a slight deficit. General District reserves are less than 10% of annual expenditures, showing that expenditures could not continue to increase at the rate observed over the last few years without additional revenues. Approval of the District’s assessment measure, however, will alleviate that concern. FISCAL ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY This District is operating at a relatively low cost level, but nonetheless faced the need to either generate additional revenues or reduce expenditures in the next year or so. Because of relatively low reserve levels, the difficulty of reducing expenditures quickly, and inconsistent rates applied in different parts of its territory, the District elected to seek approval for an increased uniform assessment. Further study does not appear to be warranted at this time. City of Nevada City The City of Nevada City Fire Department serves an area of 1.5 square miles with a resident population of 3,000. The Department has two paid staff and shares staff and equipment with the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District. The Department did not provide financial data for this review; financial data was obtained from the 2001-2002 State Controller’s Report for Cities. CCiittyy ooff NNeevvaaddaa CCiittyy FFDD EEccoonnoommiicc PPrrooffiillee (cid:131) Population 3,000 (cid:131) Population Density (Fire Service, per square mile) 2,000 (cid:131) Property Tax Revenue as a % of Total Revenue NP (cid:131) 2002 Expenditures per Capita $103.93 (cid:131) 2003 Ratio of Expense to Revenue NP (cid:131) Revenue Trend – annual average change for data available (cid:131) Expenditure Trend – annual average change for data available (cid:131) 2003 Reserve as a % of Expenditures NP – Not Provided Final Report January 31, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Service Page 52 Ophir Hill Fire Protection District The Ophir Fire Protection District provides fire protection services to a 9 square mile area. The resident population is projected at 3,281. The District has three fire service career staff and 15 volunteers. The District did not provide financial data for this review; financial data was obtained from the 2001-2002 State Controller’s Report for Special Districts. OOpphhiirr HHiillll FFPPDD EEccoonnoommiicc PPrrooffiillee (cid:131) Population 3,281 (cid:131) Population Density (Fire Service, per square mile) 364.6 (cid:131) Property Tax Revenue as a % of Total Revenue 62% (cid:131) 2002 Expenditures per Capita $77.36 (cid:131) 2002 Ratio of Expense to Revenue 69% (cid:131) Revenue Trend – annual average change for data NP available (cid:131) Expenditure Trend – annual average change for data NP available (cid:131) 2003 Reserve as a % of Expenditures NP NP – Not Provided Washington County Water District The Washington County Water District provides fire protection services to a 2.5 square mile area. The resident population is projected at 225. The District has seven fire service volunteers. The District indicated its annual revenues and expenditures were $3400, but did not provide financial details for this review. WWaasshhiinnggttoonn CCoouunnttyy WWaatteerr DDiissttrriicctt ((FFiirree)) EEccoonnoommiicc PPrrooffiillee (cid:131) Population 225 (cid:131) Population Density (Fire Service, per square mile) 90 (cid:131) Property Tax Revenue as a % of Total Revenue NP (cid:131) 2003 Expenditures per Capita $15.11 (cid:131) 2003 Ratio of Expense to Revenue NP (cid:131) Revenue Trend – annual average change for data available (cid:131) Expenditure Trend – annual average change for data available (cid:131) 2003 Reserve as a % of Expenditures NP – Not Provided Final Report January 31, 2005 IV. Financing and Economics of Service Page 53 CONCLUSION TO FINANCIAL ANALYSIS This analysis supports a conclusion that the largest economic issue facing fire service providers in Nevada County is the fact that expenditures are trending upwards faster than revenues. Figure IV.3 below shows the trend in revenues and expenditures by district, based on the data available. In all cases but one, expenditures have increased faster than revenues. FFiigguurree IIVV..33 CCoommppaarriissoonn ooff AAvveerraaggee AAnnnnuuaall RReevveennuuee aanndd EExxppeennddiittuurree TTrreennddss ffoorr YYeeaarrss iinn WWhhiicchh DDaattaa wwaass SSuupppplliieedd 25 20 15 10 5 0 Gr a s s V all e N y e v n a n d e a r S C u it m y mit P U D Tr u c k H e i e g gi n s Ar e a N C C N F . D S a n J u a n O d a p l h e i - r C H h i i l c l a g o P P ar e k n n V R a o l u l e g y h W & a R s e h a i n d g y t o n C W D D o e ar P Agency Final Report January 31, 2005 egnahC % Revenue Expense This is largely due to labor costs; some stabilization can be expected if pension fund returns improve and benefit costs stabilize. On the other hand, increasing professional standards in the fire industry, changes in community demographics, and rising service level expectations are all making it more difficult to field paid-call and volunteer staff, so Nevada County may find this model increasingly difficult to sustain. There are basically three ways to address the problem: 1) reduce expenditures by streamlining operations, 2) reduce expenditures by reducing services, or 3) obtain additional revenues. Revenue increases will require voter or landowner approval. Merging service provider responsibilities may produce some operational efficiencies while maintaining levels of service. An economic and operational feasibility study would be the next logical step to take in this regard. In general, Nevada LAFCo may consider reorganization of rural fire protection districts where it is necessary to do so, as well as other means of sharing resources, facilities, and services. IV. Financing and Economics of Service Page 54 It is apparent that some of the districts which are currently operating at a relatively low cost level and are already big enough to obtain most size-related economies will need to seek additional revenues. Several districts did seek authorization for an increase in 2002, but none of the measures passed. The recent success of the Nevada County Consolidated FD measure may herald a change in the reception of such efforts; however, the narrow margin by which the Penn Valley measure was defeated in November 2004 reveals how challenging this approach is. Although revenue measures might be more favorably received as alternatives to proposals for service reduction or targeted mergers and consolidations, the greatest need appears to be for improved public education regarding the sources and uses of fire agency funds. Final Report January 31, 2005 V. Governance Page 55 VV.. GGOOVVEERRNNAANNCCEE This section of the service review addresses the determinations of: • Opportunities for Shared Facilities • Government Structure Options • Evaluation of Management Efficiencies • Local Accountability and Governance Two determinations, “Opportunities for Shared Facilities” and “Evaluation of Management Efficiencies” have been combined. To address both determinations, agencies were asked to identify ways that they currently cooperate with other agencies to maximize opportunities for sharing facilities and to suggest ways to increase the use of shared facilities which might also increase the efficiency of the management of the fire districts. In addressing “Local Accountability and Governance,” the service review questionnaire also asked each agency to provide current information about the governing board, the expiration date of each member’s term and the compensation, if any, for board or City Council members as well as information about regularly scheduled meetings, locations of meetings, and the use of legally required notices. This information was entered into the database and may be used to maintain current information. No significant issues for shared facilities, management efficiencies, or local accountability or governance were noted for the fire agencies responding to the service review questionnaire. The fire agencies in Nevada County have developed numerous ways of sharing services, training and facilities which help to decrease costs and increase efficiencies. Such means of sharing resources can be seen as a sort of functional reorganization, analogous to and supportive of the sharing of responsibilities accomplished by Automatic Aid and Mutual Aid Agreements. The agencies noted some opportunities for additional cooperative enhancement of resources; the most frequently mentioned was sharing vehicle maintenance. No issues were noted for local accountability and governance. Of those fire agencies responding, all hold regularly scheduled meetings and at times and locations accessible to the public. Only Grass Valley, Nevada City, Nevada County Consolidated and North San Juan maintain websites; however, most of the fire agencies have email to communicate with residents. In addition, the web pages for Nevada County and for the Nevada County Fire Safe Council include contact information for some of the fire agencies. A. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS In addressing “Government Structure Options” agencies were asked to identify past, present and current discussions or efforts to reorganize or cooperate with other agencies. Sphere of influence updates for each district will be addressed in subsequent reports. One of the purposes of the service review is to list all possible government structure options including advantages and disadvantages of potential reorganizations. In the service review questionnaire, the fire agencies were asked if they had been Final Report January 31, 2005 V. Governance Page 56 involved in a reorganization study with other service providers in the previous two years and if they were currently considering any reorganization. They were also asked to identify any possible government structure options, including functional reorganization. Those options are described below. For the purposes of this service review report, a reorganization is defined as two or more changes of organization (i.e., consolidation, merger, dissolution, annexation and/or detachment) which are initiated in a single proposal before Nevada LAFCo. “Functional reorganization” applies when an agency obtains essential services, administration, training and other functions from another agency. A functional reorganization simply increases the current level of shared resources that exists among agencies. The fire agencies in Nevada County routinely explore possible governmental structure options. A majority of the agencies reported some potential reorganizations, which are described below. In this regard there are several potential opportunities to reorganize service provider responsibilities to realize some efficiency and maintain services. Because of increasing professional requirements within the industry, it is becoming more important for fire service providers to realize any economies they can. Many of the service providers in Nevada County may be too small to achieve many such economies through reorganization. In the case of city departments this issue is mitigated by the fact that other city operations can provide the desired scale, although very small cities (like Nevada City) may not have the overall economic scale to sufficiently minimize the marginal operational costs of their fire department. In considering a realignment of service responsibilities within the county, there are three concepts that bear some consideration from an economic perspective: the creation of two or three larger service providers to serve the unincorporated areas of the County or the creation of a single authority to serve the entire county. A rough tipping point of a service population of 30,000 has been used to evaluate three scenarios. These concepts should be considered evolutionary rather than accomplished through a wholesale change at a particular point in time. Historically, fire agency reorganizations have occurred on an agency-by- agency basis, and should be evaluated as interim steps taken as a means to the end. It is difficult to determine from the generalized discussion required by a service review report the exact economies or efficiencies that could be gained from any reorganization, and it should be noted that other logical scenarios may emerge that would address specific financial and political circumstances. Option 1: One Large District on Each Side of the County Under this option all western and central fire districts would join to form a single agency, and populated areas not currently within a fire district would be annexed. Service to the community of Washington could possibly be accomplished by means of a cooperative agreement between the Final Report January 31, 2005 V. Governance Page 57 new agency, the County, and the USFS6, utilizing the Forest Service station at Whitecloud to respond both to Washington and to the Highway 20 corridor. There may be some benefit to such an agency providing ambulance service throughout the service area. In the eastern county, the unserved populated areas would be annexed. Additionally, the fire functions of Donner Summit PUD would be merged with the Truckee FPD, as well as other Tahoe/Martis Valley agencies, possibly including Northstar Community Services District, Alpine Springs County Water District, Squaw Valley Public Services District, and North Tahoe Fire District. The necessary involvement of Placer LAFCo and perhaps both Nevada and Placer Counties could make this scenario difficult to realize. The result would be a large agency serving nearly 70,000 residents in the west and central areas of the county, and one provider for the entire eastern portion of Nevada County and the Tahoe Basin portion of Placer County. This scenario might result in a larger than optimal district in terms of population in the west and central county, and scale economies may not be as readily attainable. Option 2: Three Medium-Sized Districts in the West, Central and East areas of the County Under this potential option a fire agency serving western Nevada County would be formed by a reorganization of the North San Juan, Penn Valley, Higgins, and Rough and Ready districts. The resulting agency would have a service population of about 30,000. In the central county, a new fire service provider could be formed from a combination of Ophir Hill, Peardale-Chicago Park, Washington CWD and Nevada County Consolidated. This agency would have a service population of around 35,000. A fire service provider in the eastern portion of Nevada County would result from allocating the fire service functions of Donner Summit PUD to Truckee FPD. This would result in Nevada County having three fire districts, each large enough to operate an agency staffed by career firefighters. Option 3: A Countywide Fire / Rescue Agency Under this option all the existing districts as well as the city departments would be reorganized as an independent agency. This would arguably result in the highest level of coordination, but the result would be a service provider much larger than necessary to operate efficiently, which might even become inefficient due to bureaucracy. Further, this would tend to erode the sense of com- 6 Per the USFS manual, the USFS responds to wildland incidents and incidents that may pose a threat of a wildland fire to National Forest System lands or private/State lands inside USFS Direct Protection Area. The USFS cannot be considered a primary responder to non-wildland incidents. Final Report January 31, 2005 V. Governance Page 58 munity fostered by having a local fire department, a problem that would be faced to some degree by any consolidation effort. A common difficulty with any of the options is fact that large areas of the county remain outside the boundaries of any fire district. Growth in the unincorporated areas of the county has resulted in increased service needs for these areas, while the County’s tax apportionment formula discourages their annexation. Finding a means of funding service to these areas in the coming years will be critical to the health of fire and emergency medical services in the County. While each of the options outlined above may not be desirable for a host of reasons, maintaining the status quo is not optimal. Over time the smaller districts in the County have been merging with larger departments, and this will probably continue with or without LAFCo involvement. Currently the agencies have mutual/automatic aid agreements, joint training and joint dispatch which can be seen as a type of functional reorganization. The problem with taking a “hands off” approach is that some district service providers that would benefit from reorganization are not viewed as particularly attractive candidates, primarily due to fiscal concerns of the other larger service providers. This is, of course, a policy issue for LAFCo and the districts themselves, involving much more than economic considerations. Of all the options discussed below, the reorganization of the Truckee FPD and the Donner Summit PUD would appear to be the most likely. Both agencies have been considering various possibilities and changes in the sphere of influence for each agency have been discussed between agency staff. The primary factors that stimulate fire agencies to consider other government structure options are limited budgets, increased service demands, increased regulatory requirements, and rising costs. The agencies in Nevada County have explored and are considering possible reorganizations, and it is expected that if functions among the agencies continue to be refined to gain efficiencies in the future, a “tipping” point will be reached where a formal reorganization plan is submitted to LAFCo. The tipping point may be financial, political or service-related. In this service review report, a service population of 30,000 has been used as a tipping point; many other factors may be relevant, however. It is suggested that Nevada LAFCo update the fire agency profiles and database annually to track financial and service data. During the next cycle of service reviews and sphere of influence updates, Nevada LAFCo would have a five-year record of changes in fiscal performance and service-related data. This would both reduce the effort needed to conduct a service review as well as provide a record of changes, if any, in the fire agencies, thus helping to determine if a different tipping point can be identified. The range of options mentioned by the fire agencies in the service review responses and in subsequent interviews and research has been included below. If the agencies and Nevada LAFCo chose to pursue one of the options, a formal proposal would need to be initiated by the agencies involved or LAFCo. Potential changes in the sphere of influence for each individual agency will be addressed in the separate Sphere of Influence Review documents. Final Report January 31, 2005 V. Governance Page 59 TRUCKEE FPD/DONNER SUMMIT PUD The Truckee FPD serves areas in Nevada and Placer Counties as well as the Town of Truckee, portions of the Donner Summit area as well as unincorporated area extending to the California state line. The Truckee FPD provides both fire and rescue services to all of eastern Nevada County east of the Sierra Crest; much of this area is not within the agency’s current boundaries. It also provides ambulance services to eastern Placer, Nevada, and Sierra Counties. The agency provides fire protection service to 66 square miles and emergency medical services to approximately 300 square miles. It has a resident population of 20,000 with an additional 10,000 in visitors. The Donner Summit PUD provides fire service to the Donner Summit area extending to the Yuba Gap as well as emergency medical services to the Blue Canyon/Bear Valley area which is not within the agency boundaries. Its service area is approximately 100 square miles and it has a resident population of approximately 3,375 people and a transitory population of over 15,000. The Nevada LAFCo model projects substantial growth for the Truckee FPD service area with fewer growth areas and lower density development for the Donner Summit PUD service area. However, it should be noted that the Nevada LAFCo model did not include growth in transitory population resulting from the vacation facilities in the area. This would add significant service demands on both agencies without a stable funding source. The two agencies have considered a reallocation of fire and emergency medical services in the PUD’s service area. Both districts are below “minimum efficient scale” based on the data available and may be able to benefit from a pooling of resources. The Truckee FPD noted that there have been discussions between Truckee and Donner Summit regarding this option. The Donner Summit PUD has stated it remains committed to pursuing a possible reorganization. It identified several issues which a governmental structure option would have to consider, including property tax allocation, per parcel special assessment, asset transfers, leasing of facilities, disposition of current fire employees and the extension of fire and emergency medical services to areas currently contracting with the Donner Summit PUD. Possible disadvantages include the perceived loss of local control, unverified cost savings, continued loss of federal and state monies, and opposition from residents. In particular, the volume of calls from the resort areas could impact the potential costs savings. However, the Truckee FPD and the Donner Summit PUD are the primary providers of fire and emergency medical services in the region and there are few other possible government structure options. The Donner Summit PUD did consider contracting for services with the CDF but found few cost savings. The Truckee FPD noted that other possible government structure options could include merger with the Town of Truckee or reorganization with service providers in Placer County. The District pre-dates the incorporation of the Town, and absent the existence of the District the Town would have responsibility for this service, as well as the property tax share attributable to development in the City. However, Final Report January 31, 2005 V. Governance Page 60 Truckee FPD serves areas outside the Town and outside the county; this option would have to be further analyzed to consider potential benefits, cross-county agreements, and revenue allocation. There are six fire agencies serving eastern Placer County. The Donner Summit PUD Fire Department serves the communities of Soda Springs, Norden, Cisco Grove, Kingvale, and Serene Lakes. The Martis Valley itself is served by the Truckee FPD and the Northstar Community Services District. The Highway 89 area is served by the Squaw Valley and Alpine Springs CWDs. Finally, the North Tahoe FPD serves the lake front areas of north Lake Tahoe. Nevada LAFCo has jurisdiction over changes in both governmental structure and spheres of influence for the Truckee FPD and the Donner Summit PUD pursuant to Government Code Section §56066, which states that a "Principal County" is the county having all or the greater portion of the entire assessed value of all taxable property within a district for which a reorganization is proposed. Nevada LAFCo is the principal county for both districts. However, the Northstar Community Services District is located adjacent to the Truckee FPD’s service area in Placer County. A reorganization of the fire service areas for the Truckee FPD and the Donner Summit PUD should include discussions with Placer County and with the Northstar CSD. While the Truckee FPD has an automatic aid agreement with the Northstar CSD, additional economies of scale and efficiencies may be gained through a reorganization of all three agencies. The service review for fire agencies in this region of Placer County noted the following: One potential change to be considered is removing fire protection services from these multiple service agencies and creating new districts to focus solely on fire protection. By removing fire districts from the jurisdiction of multiple use special districts, administration of a consolidated fire district could be more efficient given the potential knowledge and experience held by a consolidated board of directors. However there are several factors limiting such a consolidation including strong local desire for autonomy, the benefits associated with a multiple use versus a single use special district, as well as potential loss of funding. Reorganization of fire departments throughout the region would benefit most parties through the provision of consolidated services, which would result in decreased funding costs. However, the majority of the fire departments prefer the benefits of autonomy above the cost saving benefits that would result from a major consolidation. Nevada LAFCo should work with the Truckee FPD and the Donner Summit PUD to evaluate reorganization of the fire service areas of both agencies. Detailed study would be required regarding the financial implications of such an arrangement, especially distribution of ad valorem taxes, special assessments and taxes, and the need to ensure that both Districts remain fiscally “whole” as a result of any possible change in government structure. While it appears that the fire agencies in Placer County are not interested in a regional reorganization, the Northstar CSD should be approached to determine if its Board and staff might consider a reorganization that would include all three agencies. Final Report January 31, 2005 V. Governance Page 61 PENN VALLEY FPD / ROUGH & READY FPD The Penn Valley FPD provides fire and emergency services to an area bounded by Bridgeport in the north, the Nevada/Yuba County line near Camp Far West in the south, Jones Bar Road, Kentucky Flat, Rex Reservoir, and Long Valley Road areas to the east, and the Yuba County line near Mooney Flat Road to the west. It includes the Lake Englebright and Big Oak Valley areas. Its service area is approximately 92 square miles and it has a service population of approximately 11,540. The Penn Valley FPD also provides mutual aid fire and emergency medical services to the Rough & Ready FPD, the Smartsville FPD in Yuba County and the Nevada County Consolidated FD service area along Highway 20 west of Grass Valley. Rough & Ready is a small fire protection district, serving the unincorporated community of Rough & Ready, with a population of approximately 1,360. The District is contiguous to the Penn Valley FPD service area. The Nevada LAFCo model projects scattered, low density growth under the Expected and High Expected growth scenarios; it also projects a substantial growth in the New Town area south of Highway 20 under both infill growth models. The Penn Valley FPD did not identify any possible formal reorganizations with specific agencies. It did note that the Board of Directors has discussed options with other fire districts including that of contracting for fire and emergency medical services with other agencies. It also noted possible savings by sharing some functions with Nevada County Consolidated FD or with CDF. It noted that residents had not been in favor of reorganizations in the past and that could be a significant barrier. However, as growth continues in the region one long-term possible solution may be a reorganization with the Rough & Ready FPD. Rough & Ready FPD is in generally good shape from a financial standpoint, primarily due to the fact that residents seem satisfied with the level of service the mostly volunteer agency provides. However, because of its relatively small size and the fact that it is surrounded by other larger fire districts, some consideration should be given to changes in governmental structure based on revenue/expenditure trends for all fire agencies. This is particularly true if there is a need for Rough & Ready FPD to transition to a more full-time career based department. Any reorganization would probably result in higher operating costs, but they would probably be lower than those of a small district attempting to transition to such a service delivery approach on its own. Given these considerations and clear cost/delivery trends for fire and emergency services, it is suggested that Nevada LAFCo consider the option of declining any future annexations to the Rough & Ready FPD and of actively encouraging exploration of functional reorganization for the Rough & Ready and Penn Valley Fire Districts. Final Report January 31, 2005 V. Governance Page 62 OPHIR HILL FPD /PEARDALE-CHICAGO PARK FPD The Ophir Hill FPD serves the communities of Cedar Ridge, Union Hill and Grand View Terrace. It has a service area of approximately nine square miles and a service population of 3,500 residents. It is bounded by Nevada County Consolidated to the north and south, the City of Grass Valley to the northwest, and Peardale-Chicago Park FPD to the east. The Peardale-Chicago Park FPD serves the communities of Peardale and Chicago Park which are located on the Highway 174 corridor. The service area of the agency extends from You Bet Road to the boundary of the Tahoe National Forest. The Peardale-Chicago Park FPD has a service area of 21 square miles and a resident population of approximately 3,280 with approximately 500-1,000 people camping at Rollins Lake during the summer. The Nevada LAFCo model projects little growth for either agency under the two “Infill” scenarios but increases in lower density development are projected for the “Expected” and “High Expected” scenarios. More significantly, the growth that is projected by the “Expected” and “High Expected” scenarios is scattered throughout the agencies’ territories. Scattered, low density development in an “intermix” zone where suburban and rural wildland land use meet is more difficult and frequently more expensive to serve. Both agencies identified a reorganization between the two agencies as a possible government structure option. The agencies have consolidated some functions through joint training, mutual aid/first responder agreements, and equipment/apparatus sharing, with the Peardale-Chicago Park FPD providing those services. The Ophir Hill FPD estimated that a complete reorganization might occur within ten years and did not list any possible impediments to it. A possible reorganization would need to examine the comparability or improvement in levels of service, personnel issues, the desire for local control, and potential financial benefits including the adequacy of current revenue sources. The advantages that might result include cost savings, simplification of boundaries and service provision, and increased efficiencies. Potential disadvantages include resistance of the residents and Boards, a perceived loss of local control, and a lack of specific information regarding the potential for improved and less expensive services. The lack of specific information regarding savings remains an impediment to any reorganization of fire agencies. In order to present adequate information to the governing bodies, staffs, public and Nevada LAFCo, fire agencies would need to allocate their limited staff and/or resources to studies and analysis. The Peardale-Chicago Park FPD also noted that it has considered other possible reorganizations in previous years, including a contract with CDF for management services. Currently the agency is not considering other government structure options. The Ophir Hill FPD did not provide any financial data for this study so it was not possible to evaluate its financial condition. However, given the considerations outlined above and clear cost/delivery trends for Final Report January 31, 2005 V. Governance Page 63 fire and emergency services, it is suggested that Nevada County LAFCo consider the option of reorganizing Ophir Hill FPD with another agency. NEVADA COUNTY CONSOLIDATED FD/ CITY OF GRASS VALLEY/CITY OF NEVADA CITY The Nevada County Consolidated FD and the Cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City serve the central portion of western Nevada County. The Nevada County Consolidated FD serves the Alta, Oaks, and Sunset communities as well as the area bordering Watt Park and Penn Valley, Gold Flat, Glenbrook Basin, Loma Rica industrial area, Nevada County Airpark and portions of the rural areas between Grass Valley, Nevada City and Banner Mountain. Its service area is approximately 143 square miles and it provides fire protection and emergency medical services to 32,062 people. The Grass Valley Fire Department serves the city and has automatic/mutual aid arrangements with the Nevada County Consolidated FD, Ophir Hill and Penn Valley FPDs. Its service area is approximately 5 square miles with approximately 12,000 residents. The Nevada City Fire Department serves the city as well as areas outside its boundaries. Due to its shared staffing/equipment arrangement with Nevada County Consolidated FD, one staff member from the City Fire Department and one staff member from the Consolidated FD go out on the County engine for each call. The Consolidated FD has first response for a larger area, so city staff provides service outside the City’s boundaries, including east to Greenhorn Road, north to Bear Valley, west to Rough & Ready, and south to the county line. The Department’s service area is approximately 1.5 square miles with 3,000 residents and a transitory population of 10,000. The Department shares Station 54 with Nevada County Consolidated FD, which currently serves the northern portion Nevada City. (This exemplifies the sort of functional reorganization that may serve other agencies well, too.) All four growth scenarios show substantial growth in and around the service areas of the three agencies. In general the growth areas are located in and near both cities as well as in areas located south along Highway 49. Currently Nevada County Consolidated FD has a joint staffing arrangement with the fire departments of both cities. It noted in its service review response that it has considered several forms of reorganization including consolidation and annexation as well as finding greater efficiencies and lower costs through its joint staffing with the Grass Valley and Nevada City Fire Departments. In addition the agency has considered the long range potential for joint staffing at White Cloud with US Forest Service. The Nevada County Consolidated FD noted that while it does not pursue changes in its governmental structure, it would consider other options with interested agencies upon a written request to study alternatives. The City of Grass Valley also noted the merger of some functions with the Nevada County Consolidated FD. It also reported considering various government structure options involving other service providers including the City of Nevada City and the Ophir Hill FPD. The City suggested a joint fire authority comprised of interested fire protection agencies to reach greater economies of scale and efficiencies. Final Report January 31, 2005 V. Governance Page 64 The advantages that might result include cost savings, simplification of local government boundaries and possibly greater efficiencies. Both agencies noted differing service demands, financial limitations, the pace of development, and political issues as possible barriers/ disadvantages. NORTH SAN JUAN FPD The North San Juan FPD serves the unincorporated area between the south and middle forks of the Yuba River as well as between Bridgeport and the Cruzon Grade. The agency serves 70 square miles and approximately 2,300 residents. It has a mutual aid agreement with the Camptonville community in Yuba County; approximately 10% of calls to the North San Juan FPD are from this area and another 5% of the total calls are from the nearby State Park. The Nevada LAFCo model projects limited growth for the agency under either Infill model; more substantial but low-density growth is projected for the Expected and High Expected Growth scenarios. The board of the North San Juan FPD has discussed several possible governmental structure options including reorganization with other Nevada County FPDs or with FPDs in Yuba and/or Sierra Counties. It has also discussed the possibility of contracting with CDF/USFS for services or with a private, for- profit enterprise like North Tree Fire. The board and staff have also considered different ways to share some functions with other fire agencies. The disadvantages to a reorganization of the North San Juan FPD include its distance from other service providers which might increase rather than reduce the cost of operations. Other disadvantages include differences in budgets, operations, service areas and goals/leadership. The agency, like most fire agencies, is viewed by residents as a local asset and the perceived loss of local control could also prove to be a barrier to reorganization. Finally, there may be efficiencies to be gained through reorganization with fire agencies in Yuba and/or Sierra Counties, but the difficulty of validating gains in efficiency, service levels and savings are further complicated by cross-county issues. Reorganization advantages might include administrative and greater economies of scale. HIGGINS AREA FPD The Higgins Area FPD provides fire service to the southern portion of the western county. Its service area is approximately 90 square miles and the District claims a resident service population of approximately 9,500. Nevada LAFCo models project growth for the area under all four scenarios; however, the growth areas are significantly different. The Expected and High Expected Growth scenarios project the same pattern of scattered low-density development with some smaller pockets of higher density development along Highway 49. Both Infill models project increased density predominantly along the Highway 49 corridor. Final Report January 31, 2005 V. Governance Page 65 The Higgins Area FPD did not identify any potential formal reorganizations with specific agencies but did note that it has considered contracts with CDF (which currently administers and operates the agency). It noted that potential barriers include political, financial, operational and local control issues. WASHINGTON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (FIRE PROTECTION) Washington County Water District (CWD) operates a volunteer fire department and has recently appointed an interim Fire Chief. This department was audited by the CDF, which noted that the fire department’s equipment is not "response-ready," that volunteer firefighters are not certified to provide emergency medical assistance, and that there is a lack of communications equipment, including a phone or base radio. The community is divided over the audit, and it is uncertain whether current volunteers will continue to staff the fire department. Without the volunteer department, it is unclear which fire agency could provide fire service to the community. Nevada LAFCo should work with the existing fire agencies, including Nevada County Consolidated and the California Department of Forestry, to determine if an alternative fire service provider is needed. As with all fire agencies, a primary issue will be the lack of adequate funding. B. SHARED FACILITIES/MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES RESOURCE SHARING The fire service agencies in Nevada County rely upon other agencies for assistance during emergencies. While the agencies provide structural fire protection and related emergency medical services primarily within their service areas, each of them participates in numerous cooperative efforts. It was suggested that the Nevada County Fire Agency provide leadership in developing, maintaining and circulating a list of sharable equipment and resources among the fire agencies. STATEWIDE MUTUAL AID The California Fire Service and Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid Plan was first prepared and adopted in 1950. Since then, the plan has been reviewed and received ultimate adoption by the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) Fire and Rescue Service Advisory Committee/FIRESCOPE Board of Directors. The purpose of the California Fire Service and Rescue Mutual Plan is: • To provide for systematic operation of necessary fire and rescue resources of state and federal agencies during disasters. • To provide for the expeditious use of available fire and rescue personnel for all levels of government. • To establish guidelines for recruiting and training auxiliary personnel. • To provide an annual inventory of all fire and emergency personnel, apparatus and equipment in California. • To provide a plan and communication facilities, fire and rescue data, directives, and information. • To promote annual training and/or exercises between plan participants. Final Report January 31, 2005 V. Governance Page 66 This plan defines various forms of mutual aid and establishes sectors of mutual aid readiness with the goal of coordinating fire and emergency resources throughout the state. The state is divided into six mutual aid regions to coordinate mutual aid. Nevada County is in Region IV, which also includes ten other counties—San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tuolumne, Amador, Calaveras, Sacramento, Yolo, Placer, Alpine and El Dorado. Individual agencies may invoke mutual aid depending on the nature and scope of the emergency. Routine requests for mutual aid typically occur between neighboring agencies and result in an expeditious response, coordinated by local communications centers. Larger incidents may involve the Operational Area or the even the Mutual Aid Region. The agencies in Nevada County addressed in this service review participate in the California Fire Service and Rescue Emergency Mutual Aid plan. LOCAL MUTUAL AND AUTOMATIC AID AGREEMENTS Fire and emergency service agencies often sign individual mutual aid agreements, voluntary and reciprocal agreements which provide services, resources and facilities in emergencies. Most of the agencies in Nevada County have signed mutual aid agreements. Another type of agreement signed is an automatic aid agreement which agencies use to ensure that the closest resource responds to an incident regardless of jurisdiction. The following Table V.1 Automatic and Mutual Aid Agreements shows the various mutual and automatic aid agreements existing among fire agencies in Nevada County. In addition to the agreements noted above, several Nevada County fire agencies have mutual and/or automatic aid agreements with fire agencies in Placer, Yuba and Sierra Counties. The Higgins Area FPD has agreements with Placer County, the North San Juan FPD has agreements with Camptonville, Pike City and Graniteville FPDs, the Peardale-Chicago Park FPD has an agreement with the City of Colfax and the Truckee FPD has an agreement with Northstar CSD. The local Cooperative Fire Protection Agreements that the TNF has with the fire agencies in Nevada County are Ma, Ma/Aa or assistance –by-hire. Assistance-by-hire agreements are made with hose fire departments without adjacent or intermingled jurisdictions with National Forest System lands. If the USFS responds to a wildland fire assignment inside local jurisdictions with assistance-by-hire agreements only, the USFS will respond as master mutual aid only if ordered through the CDF cooperative agreement. Otherwise, the local department may incur charges for reimbursement. Final Report January 31, 2005 76 egaP ecnanrevoG .V 11..VV eellbbaaTT ssttnneemmeeeerrggAA ))ttssiissssaa(( eerriiHH--yybb--eeccnnaattssiissssAA ddnnaa ,,))aaMM(( ddiiAA llaauuttuuMM ,,))aaAA(( ddiiAA cciittaammoottuuAA 5002 ,13 yraunaJ tropeR laniF SFSU FDC DPF eekcurT DUP timmuS rennoD DPF .ytnC .hsaW DPF kraP ogacihC - eladraeP DPF lliH rihpO DPF sniggiH DPF ydaeR & hguoR DPF yellaV nneP DPF nauJ naS htroN detadilosnoC ytnuoC adaveN ytiC adaveN yellaV ssarG aM aM aM/ aM aM aM aM/aA aM aM aM/aA aM aM/aA aM/aA X yellaV ssarG aM/aA aM/aA aM/aA aM/aA aM/aA aM/aA aM/aA aM/aA aM/aA aM/aA aM/aA aM/aA X aM/aA ytiC adaveN ytnuoC adaveN aM/aA aM/aA aM/aA aM/aA aM/aA aM/aA aM/aA aM/aA aM/aA aM/aA aM/aA X aM/aA aM/aA detadilosnoC nauJ naS htroN aM aM/aA aM aM aM aM aM aM aM aM/aA X aM aM aM DPF aM aM/aA aM aM aM aM aM aM/aA aM/aA X aM/aA aM/aA aM aM DPF yellaV nneP ydaeR & hguoR PN aM/aA aM aM PN aM aM aM X aM/aA aM aM/aA aM/aA aM DPF aM/aA aM/aA aM aM aM aM aM X aM aM aM aM/aA aM aM DPF sniggiH aM aM/aA aM aM aM aM/aA X aM aM aM aM aM/aA aM aM/aA DPF lliH rihpO ogacihC - eladraeP aM aM/aA aM aM aM X aM/aA aM aM aM aM aM aM aM DPF kraP PN PN PN PN X PN PN PN PN PN PN PN PN PN DWC notgnihsaW timmuS rennoD aM aM/aA aM/aA X aM aM aM aM aM aM aM aM aM aM DUP aM aM/aA X aM aM aM aM aM aM aM aM aM aM aM DPF eekcurT aM X aM/aA aM/aA aM aM/aA aM/aA aM/aA aM/aA aM/aA aM/aA aM/aA aM aM FDC X aA/aM aM aM aM tsissA tsissA tsissA tsissA tsissA aM aM tsissA tsissA SFSU dedivorP toN - PN V. Governance Page 68 OTHER COOPERATIVE EFFORTS Fire protection and emergency service agencies often share resources other than those used to directly provide service. For instance, one agency may contract with another for vehicle maintenance, dispatching services, training or administrative services. These types of cooperative efforts often increase organizational efficiency by sharing the financial burden of operations. The fire agencies in Nevada County have developed multiple ways of sharing resources. The nine agencies in western Nevada County all participate in the Nevada County Joint Powers Agreement (NCJPA). The NCJPA is governed by a nine member board comprised of one board member from each agency and is funded by dues from each agency and by grants for special projects. The NCJPA assembled the financing for a regional system of emergency communications and for dispatching which is operated by the CDF. They also maintain an air station for the fire agencies and are currently testing a regional program called FastMap. FastMap is a software system that provides key data to fire fighters responding to emergencies. Through “rugged” computers carried in the responding vehicles, emergency crews can display in-vehicle maps, positions of the deployed unit and all other units in the area, and get key data on roads, water features (including rivers, lakes, tanks and swimming pools), hydrants, pre-fire plans, and hazardous materials records. The NCJPA is currently testing the system which is expected to be fully operational for the JPA agencies by 2005. The Nevada County Consolidated, Higgins, Peardale-Chicago Park, Penn Valley and Truckee FPDs all have Cooperative Fire Protection Agreements with CDF. Cooperative Fire Protection Agreements can be used for a wide variety of services depending upon local needs. In addition, the Town of Truckee has a Wildland Fire Protection Agreement with CDF that augments existing city fire department resources specifically for wildland fire fighting services The following Table V.2, Nevada County Fire Agency Cooperative Efforts, shows the other various means the fire agencies use to increase management efficiencies through shared facilities and cost avoidance opportunities. The agencies were asked to note any facilities and internal services that could be shared with other agencies to further increase management efficiencies. Vehicle maintenance was the most commonly cited way management efficiencies might be increased among the agencies. The North San Juan FPD noted potential for increased management efficiencies in purchasing, equipment sharing, insurance, fund raising, training, and district coverage. The Nevada County Consolidated FD suggested it could share its Live Fire Simulator Training and its Fire Prevention Bureau with other agencies. The Donner Summit PUD noted that management efficiencies might be increased through sharing vehicle maintenance and training with the Truckee FPD. The CDF also noted that it exchanges protection responsibilities with USFS where efficiencies can be gained. Final Draft January 31, 2005 96 egaP ecnanrevoG .V 22..VV eellbbaaTT ssttrrooffffEE eevviittaarreeppooooCC yyccnneeggAA eerriiFF yyttnnuuooCC aaddaavveeNN hhccttaappssiiDD ggnniinniiaarrTT ttnniiooJJ nnooiissiivvoorrPP eecciivvrreeSS ggnniirraahhSS eerruuttccuurrttssaarrffnnII ggnniirraahhSS yyttiilliiccaaFF ttcciirrttssiiDD //yyttiiCC stcartnoc noitcetorp eriF sniggiH ot noitcetorp erif lautcartnoC dnammoC ycnegremE noitcetorP eriF eekcurT seicnega llA FDC )timmuS rennoD/ sniggiH( DUP timmuS rennoD & DPF )SFSU htiw erahs( retneC tcirtsiD htroN htiw APJ ;ASC ytnuoC recalP noitatS eekcurT-FDC noitatS( ASC ytnuoC recalP yellaV ssarG - FDC ,yellaV wauqS ,yaB skeeM ,eohaT DUP timmuS rennoD )dnaldliW( )28 sDPF eekcurT dna ratshtroN dna noitats gnillif riA erif rehto 81 ,SFSU ,FDC rehto htiw metsys oidar DFCCN DFCCN DFCCN yellaV ssarG seicnega eriF ytnuoC adaveN seicnegA dna noitats gnillif riA rehto htiw metsys oidar FDC DFCCN DFCCN )45 noitatS( DFCCN ytiC adaveN eriF ytnuoC adaveN seicnegA dna noitats gnillif riA riA APJ ,tcartnoC rodamA FDC ytnuoC adaveN dna FDC rehto htiw metsys oidar FDC dedivorp ecnanetniam emoS ;noitatS noitatS FDC DPF aerA sniggiH ymedacA eikooR eriF ytnuoC adaveN seinapmoc etavirp yb seicnegA dna eriF ytnuoC adaveN APJ ecivreS ycnegremE ;ytiC adaveN ;yellaV ssarG dna noitats gnillifer ria rof ytnuoC adaveN FDC hguoR ;DPF yellaV nneP ytiC adaveN ;yellaV ssarG ytiC adaveN ,yellaV ssarG ycnegreme detadilosnoC DPF ydaeR & ssarG ;snoitacinummoc yellaV dna noitats gnillif riA adaveN dna arreiS ,abuY lacidem - latipsoH adaveN arreiS rehto htiw metsys oidar FDC ellivetinarG dna FDC DPF nauJ naS htroN stnemtraped erif ytnuoC tnemhsinelper tnempiuqe eriF ytnuoC adaveN seicnegA dna noitats gnillif riA rehto htiw metsys oidar FDC kraP ogacihC-eladraeP kraP ogacihC-eladraeP DPF lliH rihpO eriF ytnuoC adaveN seicnegA gnisahcrup tnempiuqE riA ;lliH rihpO htiw hguorht CCE yellaV ssarG lliH rihpO htiw ylkeeW kraP ogacihC-eladraeP DPF lliH rihpO htiw esnopser tnioJ oidar dna noitats gnillif FDC htiw tcartnoc DPF DPF adaveN rehto htiw metsys seicnegA eriF ytnuoC 5002 ,13 yraunaJ tropeR laniF 07 egaP ecnanrevoG .V dd’’ttnnoocc 22..VV eellbbaaTT ssttrrooffffEE eevviittaarreeppooooCC yyccnneeggAA eerriiFF yyttnnuuooCC aaddaavveeNN hhccttaappssiiDD ggnniinniiaarrTT ttnniiooJJ nnooiissiivvoorrPP eecciivvrreeSS ggnniirraahhSS eerruuttccuurrttssaarrffnnII ggnniirraahhSS yyttiilliiccaaFF ttcciirrttssiiDD //yyttiiCC dna eriF ytnuoC adaveN ycnegremE & eriF ytnuoC adaveN ydaeR & hguoR ,DFCCN APJ ecivreS ycnegremE dna eriF ytnuoC adaveN loot PAM rof APJ ecivreS ,DPF ellivstramS ,DPF dna noitats gnillifer ria rof DPF yellaV nneP APJ ecivreS ycnegremE ;ecnanetniam dna tnempoleved FDC ycnegreme FDC yb dedivorp noitartsinimda snoitacinummoc dna noitats gnillif riA nneP morf ecivres ecnalubma evieceR rehto htiw metsys oidar ediw ytnuoc CCE ,FDC DFCCN dna VP DPF ydaeR & hguoR yellaV eriF ytnuoC adaveN seicnegA nretsae lla ot secivres eucser & eriF arreiS eht fo tsae ytnuoC adaveN gniniarT eohaT htroN ,recalP nretsae ot ecnalubma ;tserC kcap ria ;ymedaca sreciffO ,slliM traboH seitnuoC arreiS ,adaveN eohaT htroN ;FDC htiw gnitset dna riaper ,sliarT derebmiT ,S 98 ,talF ekidnolK FDC DPF eekcurT yellaV wauqS ,ratshtroN eriF recalP nretsaE ;yellaV llessuR .DUPSD dna sDPF htiw maet evid tnioJ ;SPJ sfeihC htiw maeT TAMZAH ;ecilop eekcurT seicnega erif lacol dna ytnuoC recalP 5002 ,13 yraunaJ tropeR laniF V. Governance Page 71 C. LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY CITY OF GRASS VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENT The Grass Valley Fire Department is a department of the City of Grass Valley, which was incorporated in 1893. The City Council and their terms are listed in the following table, Table V.3, Grass Valley City Council and Terms. TTaabbllee VV..33 GGrraassss VVaalllleeyy CCiittyy CCoouunncciill aanndd TTeerrmmss EExxppiirraattiioonn NNaammee ooff MMeemmbbeerr TTiittllee CCoommppeennssaattiioonn DDaattee ooff TTeerrmm Gerard Tassone Mayor 2006 Stipend Mark Johnson Vice Mayor 2008 Stipend Dean Williams Council Member 2008 Stipend Lisa Swarthout Council Member 2008 Stipend Patti Ingram Council Member 2006 Stipend Compensation is for all City Council responsibilities The regularly scheduled meeting days for the City of Grass Valley are the second and fourth Tuesday of each month at 7:00 PM. The City Council meets in the Council chambers at the Grass Valley City Hall, located at 125 E. Main Street. The City gives the public notice of their meetings through posting, email, website and newspapers. The City’s website is www.cityofgrassvalley.com. CITY OF NEVADA CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT The City of Nevada City Fire Department is a department within the City of Nevada City. The City Council and their terms are listed in the following table, Table V.4, City of Nevada City Council and Terms. TTaabbllee VV..44 CCiittyy ooff NNeevvaaddaa CCiittyy CCoouunncciill aanndd TTeerrmmss EExxppiirraattiioonn NNaammee ooff MMeemmbbeerr TTiittllee CCoommppeennssaattiioonn DDaattee ooff TTeerrmm Conley Weaver Mayor 2006 NP Kerry Arnett Vice Mayor 2006 NP Dave McKay Council Member 2004 NP Steve Cotrell Council Member 2004 NP Sally Harris Council Member 2004 NP NP – Not Provided Compensation is for all City Council responsibilities The regularly scheduled meeting days for the City of Nevada City are the second and fourth Monday of each month at 7:00 PM. The City Council meets in the Council chambers at the City Hall, located at 317 Broad Street. The City gives the public notice of their meetings through posting and newspapers. The Nevada City Fire Department maintains a website at www.nevadacityfire.org. Final Report January 31, 2005 V. Governance Page 72 DONNER SUMMIT PUD The Donner Summit PUD is an independent special district formed in 1947. Its board of directors and their terms are listed in the following table, Table V.5, Donner Summit PUD Board of Directors and Terms. TTaabbllee VV..55 DDoonnnneerr SSuummmmiitt PPUUDD BBooaarrdd ooff DDiirreeccttoorrss aanndd TTeerrmmss EExxppiirraattiioonn NNaammee ooff MMeemmbbeerr TTiittllee CCoommppeennssaattiioonn DDaattee ooff TTeerrmm Julie R. Davies President of the Board 12-31-06 $184.72/meeting Vice President of the Leo Dale Verner 12-31-04 $142.50/meeting Board of Directors Robert Sherwood Board Member 12-31-04 $142.50/meeting Phillip Gamick Board Member 12-31-06 $142.50/meeting Shannon May Board Member 12-31-04 $142.50/meeting The DSPUD Board meets eighteen times a year; its regularly scheduled meeting day during odd numbered months is the third Tuesday and, during even number months, on the first and third Tuesday. All meetings begin at 6:00 PM, and the regular location for meetings is 53823 Sherritt Lane in the community of Soda Springs. The District gives the public notice of meetings through posting and newspapers but does not maintain a website. HIGGINS AREA FPD The Higgins Area FPD is an independent special district formed in 1979. Its board of directors and their terms are listed in the following table, Table V.6, Higgins Area FPD Board of Directors and Terms. TTaabbllee VV..66 HHiiggggiinnss AArreeaa FFPPDD BBooaarrdd ooff DDiirreeccttoorrss aanndd TTeerrmmss EExxppiirraattiioonn NNaammee ooff MMeemmbbeerr TTiittllee CCoommppeennssaattiioonn DDaattee ooff TTeerrmm Don Luis Chairperson 11-06 None Michael Bryant Vice Chair 11-04 None Rick Buschmann Treasurer 11-06 None Joe Sherron Director 11-06 None John Boykin Director 11-04 None The regularly scheduled meeting day for the Higgins Area FPD is the third Wednesday of the month starting at 7:00 PM with the regular meetings held at 10106 Combie Road in Auburn. The District gives the public notice of meetings through posting and newspapers but does not maintain a website. Final Report January 31, 2005 V. Governance Page 73 NEVADA COUNTY CONSOLIDATED FD The Nevada County Consolidated FD is an independent special district formed in 1991. Its board of directors and terms are listed in the following table, TableV.7, Nevada County Consolidated FD Board of Directors and Terms. TTaabbllee VV..77 NNeevvaaddaa CCoouunnttyy CCoonnssoolliiddaatteedd FFDD BBooaarrdd ooff DDiirreeccttoorrss aanndd TTeerrmmss EExxppiirraattiioonn NNaammee ooff MMeemmbbeerr TTiittllee CCoommppeennssaattiioonn DDaattee ooff TTeerrmm John Leonard Chairman 12-08 $75 stipend* Sherm Hanley Vice Chairman 12-08 $75 stipend* David Hanson Treasurer 12-06 $75 stipend* Ralph Hitchcock Director 12-08 $75 stipend* Russ Moorhouse Director 12-06 $75 stipend* Mel Mouser Director 12-08 $75 stipend* Ron Nulph Director 12-06 $75 stipend* *Directors voluntarily suspended their stipends in January 2004 The regularly scheduled meeting day for the Nevada County Consolidated FD is the third Thursday of the month starting at 7:00 PM, and the regular meeting location is 10135 Coyote Street in Nevada City. The District gives the public notice of meetings through posting, newspapers, radio announcements and email. The Nevada County Consolidated FD’s website is www.nccfire.com. NORTH SAN JUAN FPD The North San Juan FPD is an independent special district formed in 1986. Its board of directors and terms are listed in the following table, Table V.8, North San Juan FPD Board of Directors and Terms. TTaabbllee VV..88 NNoorrtthh SSaann JJuuaann FFPPDD BBooaarrdd ooff DDiirreeccttoorrss aanndd TTeerrmmss EExxppiirraattiioonn NNaammee ooff MMeemmbbeerr TTiittllee CCoommppeennssaattiioonn DDaattee ooff TTeerrmm Mileage and conference Robert E. Paulus Jr. Chair 12-08 registration Bruce E. Boyd Director 12-06 Same Bruce Sturm Treasurer 11-06 Same Patricia Leach Director 12-08 Same Ed Beckenbach Director 12-08 Same The regularly scheduled meeting day for the North San Juan FPD is the third Tuesday of the month starting at 7:00 PM, and the regular meeting location is 13200 Tyler Foote Crossing Road in Nevada City. The District gives the public notice of meetings through posting, newspapers and email. The agency has a website at www.nsjfire.org. Final Report January 31, 2005 V. Governance Page 74 OPHIR HILL FPD The Ophir Hill FPD is an independent special district formed in 1965. Its board of directors and terms are listed in the following table, Table V.9, Ophir Hill FPD Board of Directors and Terms. TTaabbllee VV..99 OOpphhiirr HHiillll FFPPDD BBooaarrdd ooff DDiirreeccttoorrss aanndd TTeerrmmss EExxppiirraattiioonn NNaammee ooff MMeemmbbeerr TTiittllee CCoommppeennssaattiioonn DDaattee ooff TTeerrmm Lois Engle Chairperson 12-31-07 NP Al Hoffmeyer Vice Chair 12-31-07 NP Andrew Goodrich Treasurer 12-31-04 NP Anne Sousa Director 12-31-04 NP Beverly Martin Director 12-31-04 NP NP – Not Provided The regularly scheduled meeting day for the Ophir Hill FPD is the second Tuesday of the month starting at 5:00 PM, and the regular meeting location is 12668 Highway 174, Ophir Hill Fire Station, in the community of Cedar Ridge. The District posts public notices of regular meetings but does not have a website. PEARDALE-CHICAGO PARK FPD The Peardale-Chicago Park FPD is an independent special district formed in 1964. Its board of directors and their terms are listed in the following table, Table V.10, Peardale-Chicago Park FPD Board of Directors and Terms. TTaabbllee VV..1100 PPeeaarrddaallee--CChhiiccaaggoo PPaarrkk FFPPDD BBooaarrdd ooff DDiirreeccttoorrss aanndd TTeerrmmss EExxppiirraattiioonn NNaammee ooff MMeemmbbeerr TTiittllee CCoommppeennssaattiioonn DDaattee ooff TTeerrmm Benedict Baretta Chairman 12-1-04 None Alvin Urke Vice Chairman 12-1-04 None Jon Hayes Board Member 11-30-06 None Phil Voelz Board Member 11-30-06 None Cheryl Domnitch Board Member 12-1-04 None The regularly scheduled meeting day for the Peardale-Chicago Park FPD is the second Wednesday of the month starting at 7:00 PM, and the regular meeting location is 15057 Colfax Highway in Grass Valley. The District gives the public notice of meetings through posting and fax but does not maintain a website. Final Report January 31, 2005 V. Governance Page 75 PENN VALLEY FPD The Penn Valley FPD is an independent special district formed in 1974. Its board of directors and their terms are listed in the following table, Table V.11, Penn Valley FPD Board of Directors and Terms. TTaabbllee VV..1111 PPeennnn VVaalllleeyy FFPPDD BBooaarrdd ooff DDiirreeccttoorrss aanndd TTeerrmmss EExxppiirraattiioonn NNaammee ooff MMeemmbbeerr TTiittllee CCoommppeennssaattiioonn DDaattee ooff TTeerrmm Kurt Grundel Chairperson 12-3-07 None George Mueller Director 12-3-04 None Hank Weston Director 12-1-06 None Roberto Garcia Director 12-1-06 None Randy Casto Director 12-3-04 None The regularly scheduled meeting day for the Penn Valley FPD is the first Tuesday of the month starting at 6:30 PM, and the regular meeting location is 10513 Spenceville Road in the community of Penn Valley. The District gives the public notice of meetings through posting and email but does not maintain a website. ROUGH & READY FPD The Rough & Ready FPD is an independent special district formed in 1963. Its board of directors and their terms are listed in the following table, Table V.12, Rough & Ready FPD Board of Directors and Terms. TTaabbllee VV..1122 RRoouugghh && RReeaaddyy FFPPDD BBooaarrdd ooff DDiirreeccttoorrss aanndd TTeerrmmss EExxppiirraattiioonn NNaammee ooff MMeemmbbeerr TTiittllee CCoommppeennssaattiioonn DDaattee ooff TTeerrmm Harold Varnie Chairman 12-01-06 None Jack Henderson Vice Chairman 12-03-04 None H. Bruce Davison Director 12-01-06 None Art Grosse Director 12/01-04 None Sheridan Loungway Director 12/01-04 None The regularly scheduled meeting day for the Rough & Ready FPD is the second Tuesday of the month starting at 7:30 PM, and the regular meeting location is 11042 Rough & Ready Road in the community of Rough & Ready. The District gives the public notice of meetings through posting, mail and email but does not maintain a website. Final Report January 31, 2005 V. Governance Page 76 TRUCKEE FPD The Truckee FPD is an independent special district formed in 1894. Its board of directors and their terms are listed in the following table, Table V.13, Truckee FPD Board of Directors and Terms. The regularly scheduled meeting day for the Truckee FPD is the third Tuesday of the month starting at 5:30 PM with the regular meetings held at 12304 Joerger Drive in the Town of Truckee. The District gives the public notice of meetings through posting and newspapers and maintains a website at www.truckeefire.org. TTaabbllee VV..1133 TTrruucckkeeee FFPPDD BBooaarrdd ooff DDiirreeccttoorrss aanndd TTeerrmmss EExxppiirraattiioonn NNaammee ooff MMeemmbbeerr TTiittllee CCoommppeennssaattiioonn DDaattee ooff TTeerrmm Gary Waters Chairman 11-06 $100 per mtg.* Jerry Goulding Director 11-06 $100 per mtg.* Joe Straub Director 11-06 $100 per mtg.* Michael Mohr Vice Chairman 11-04 $100 per mtg.* Lloyd Everett Director 11-04 $100 per mtg.* * limited to $400 per month WASHINGTON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT The Washington CWD is an independent special district formed in 1963. Its board of directors and their terms are listed in the following table, Table V.14, Washington CWD Board of Directors and Terms. TTaabbllee VV..1144 WWaasshhiinnggttoonn CCWWDD BBooaarrdd ooff DDiirreeccttoorrss aanndd TTeerrmmss EExxppiirraattiioonn NNaammee ooff MMeemmbbeerr TTiittllee CCoommppeennssaattiioonn DDaattee ooff TTeerrmm Judi Stewart President 12-08 None Lyla Tracy Vice President 12-06 None Director, Debbie Shipley 12-08 None Fire Commissioner Henry DeCorte Director 12-06 None George Price Director 12-06 None The regularly scheduled meeting day for the Washington CWD is the third Tuesday of the month starting at 7:00 PM at the Washington School House. Final Report January 31, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 77 VVII.. AAGGEENNCCYY PPRROOFFIILLEESS CITY OF GRASS VALLEY Fire Chief Hank Weston Mailing Address: 125 East Main Street, Grass Valley, CA 95945 Site Address: NP Phone Number: 530-274-4370 Fax Number: 530-274-4379 Hank@cityofgrassvalley.com Email/Website www.cityofgrassvalley.com Fire Prevention, Fire Suppression, Hazardous Types of Services: Materials, Emergency, Planning, Rescue, Public Assistance Population Served: Resident: 12,000 Transitory: 3,000 to 5,000 per week (work in city) Size (sq miles): 5 Date of Formation 1893 STAFF AND FACILITIES Fire Stations: Station: Number of Staff 1 2 2 3 3 NP Total Number of Fire Personnel: Paid: 14.5 career/18 paid call Volunteer: 0 SERVICE INFORMATION Annual Calls: EMS/ALS: 1,345 Fire: 106 Hazardous Material 51 Rescue: 132 Average Response Time (Minutes) EMS/ALS: 3 Fire: 3 Hazardous Material 3 Rescue: 3 Target Response Time (Minutes) EMS/ALS: 3 Fire: 3 Hazardous Material 3 Rescue: 3 ISO Rating: 4 FINANCIAL INFORMATION Actual: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues: Expenses Reserves General/Operating $222,016 $1,327,242 $61,637 Capital $515,013 $337,335 $243,818 Total $737,029 $1,664,577 $305,455 NP – Not Provided Final Report January 31, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 78 CITY OF NEVADA CITY Fire Chief Sam Goodspeed Mailing Address: 317 Broad Street, Nevada City, CA 95959 Site Address: 201 Providence Mine Road, Nevada City, CA 95959 Phone Number: 530-265-2351 x11 Fax Number: 530-265-8640 Sam.goodspeed@nevadacityfire.org; Email/Website www.nevadacityfire.org Fire Prevention, Fire Suppression, Hazardous Types of Services: Materials, Emergency, Planning, Rescue, Public Assistance Population Served: Resident: 3,000 Transitory: 10,000 Size (sq miles): 1.5 Date of Formation NP STAFF AND FACILITIES Fire Stations: Station: Number of Staff 54 2 Total Number of Fire Personnel: Paid: 4 Volunteer: 21 SERVICE INFORMATION Annual Calls: EMS/ALS: 0 Fire: 17 Hazardous Material 0 Rescue: 339 Average Response Time (Minutes) EMS/ALS: 3 Fire: 3 Hazardous Material 3 Rescue: 3 Target Response Time (Minutes) EMS/ALS: 3 Fire: 3 Hazardous Material 3 Rescue: 3 ISO Rating: 5 FINANCIAL INFORMATION Actual: (FY 2001-2002) Revenues: Expenses Reserves $33,029 $340,046 NP Financial information obtained from 2001-2002 State Controller’s Report for Cities NP – Not Provided Final Report January 31, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 79 DONNER SUMMIT PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT Fire Chief Tony Clarabut Mailing Address: P.O. Box 610, Soda Springs, CA 95728 Site Address: 53823 Sherritt Lane Phone Number: 530-277-2300 Fax Number: 530-426-0307 Email/Website Tony.clarabut@fire.ca.gov Types of Services: Ambulance, Fire Prevention, Fire Suppression, Hazardous Materials Population Served: Resident: 3,375 (including two CSAs) Transitory: 15,000 Size (sq miles): 100 Date of Formation 1947 STAFF AND FACILITIES Fire Stations: Station: Number of Staff 81 6 (2 per shift) 82 2 (resident paid by call; station owned by Placer Co.) Total Number of Fire Personnel: Paid: 7 Volunteer: 13 SERVICE INFORMATION Annual Calls: EMS/ALS: 650 Fire: 150 Hazardous Material 10 Rescue: 10 Average Response Time (Minutes) EMS/ALS: 8 Fire: 8 Hazardous Material 8 Rescue: 18 Target Response Time (Minutes) EMS/ALS: 8 Fire: 8 Hazardous Material 8 Rescue: 18 ISO Rating: Majority a 5 (hydrant within 1000’) 9 otherwise FINANCIAL INFORMATION Actual: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues: Expenses Reserves General/Operating $697,792 $713,950 $0 Capital/AB1600 $240,429 $402,328 $0 Total $938,221 $1,116,278 $0 Financial data includes Donner Summit PUD, CSA #31, and CSA #28 – Zones 143 and 16 Final Report January 31, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 80 HIGGINS AREA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Fire Chief Tony Clarabut Mailing Address: 10106 Combie Road, Auburn, CA 95602 Site Address: Same Phone Number: 530-269-2488 Fax Number: 530-268-7737 Email/Website Tony.clarabut@fire.ca.gov Types of Services: Fire Prevention, Fire Suppression, Hazardous Materials, Emergency, Planning, Rescue, Public Assistance Population Served: Resident: 9,609 Transitory: 3,000 Size (sq miles): 90 Date of Formation 1979 STAFF AND FACILITIES Fire Stations: Station: Number of Staff 21 3 22 2 23 2 Total Number of Fire Personnel: Paid: 16 career / 23 paid call Volunteer: 0 SERVICE INFORMATION Annual Calls: EMS/ALS: 387 Fire: 60 Hazardous Material 8 Rescue: 128 Average Response Time (Minutes) EMS/ALS: 6.5 Fire: 6.5 Hazardous Material 6.5 Rescue: 6.5 Target Response Time (Minutes) EMS/ALS: 5 to 8 Fire: 5 to 8 Hazardous Material 5 to 8 Rescue: 5 to 8 ISO Rating: 4/8/9 FINANCIAL INFORMATION Actual: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues: Expenses Reserves Operating/General Fund $1,575,639 $1,065,316 $510,323 Capital (Bldgs/Equip) $23,744 $1,100 $923,519 Mitigation (AB 1600) $189,744 $9,435 $795,366 Total $1,789,127 $1,075,851 $2,229,208 Final Report January 31, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 81 NEVADA COUNTY CONSOLIDATED FIRE DISTRICT Fire Chief Tim Fike Mailing Address: 11329 McCourtney Road, Grass Valley, CA 95949 Site Address: Same Phone Number: 530-273-3158 Fax Number: 530-273-1780 Email/Website nccfire@nccn.net, www.nccfire.com Fire Prevention, Fire Suppression, Hazardous Materials, Types of Services: Emergency, Planning, Rescue, Public Assistance Population Served: Resident: 32,062 Transitory: 0 Size (sq miles): 143 Date of Formation 1991 STAFF AND FACILITIES Fire Stations: Number of Staff Jointly Staffed Grass Valley Stn 1 3 Jointly Staffed Nevada City Stn 54 3 80 Unstaffed 81 Unstaffed 82 Unstaffed 83 Unstaffed 84 9 85 Unstaffed 86 Unstaffed 87 Seasonal 88 6 89 4 Seasonal 90 Unstaffed 91/Administration Unstaffed 92 Unstaffed Total Number of Fire Personnel: Paid: 36 (inc. 8 seasonal) Volunteer: 33 (paid call + volunteers SERVICE INFORMATION Annual Calls: EMS/ALS: 1,856 Fire: 437 Hazardous Material 29 Rescue: 294 Average Response Time (Minutes) EMS/ALS: 6.44 Fire: 6.44 Hazardous Material 6.44 Rescue: 6.44 Target Response Time (Minutes) EMS/ALS: 4-8 Fire: 4-8 Hazardous Material 4-8 Rescue: 4-8 ISO Rating: Dwelling Class 4/8 FINANCIAL INFORMATION Actual: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues: Expenses Reserves General /Operating $2,132,442 $2,264,962 $12,346 Capital/AB1600 $297,371 $198,337 $305,782 Total $2,429,813 $2,463,299 $318,128 Final Report January 31, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 82 NORTH SAN JUAN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Fire Chief Boyd Johnson Mailing Address: P.O. Box 299, North San Juan, CA 95960 13200 Tyler Foote Crossing Rd Nevada City, CA Site Address: 95959 Phone Number: 530-292-9159 Fax Number: 530-292-1417 Email/Website nsjf@jps.net, www.nsjfire.org Fire Prevention, Fire Suppression, Hazardous Types of Services: Materials, Emergency, Planning, Rescue, Public Assistance Population Served: Resident: 2,311 Transitory: 0 Size (sq miles): 70 Date of Formation 1986 STAFF AND FACILITIES Fire Stations: Station: Number of Staff 1 Unstaffed 2 Unstaffed 3 Resident Volunteer Total Number of Fire Personnel: Paid: 0 Volunteer: 28 SERVICE INFORMATION Annual Calls: EMS/ALS: 148 Fire: 32 Hazardous Material 1 Rescue: 52 Average Response Time (Minutes) EMS/ALS: <10 Fire: <10 Hazardous Material <10 Rescue: <10 Target Response Time (Minutes) EMS/ALS: 10 Fire: 10 Hazardous Material 10 Rescue: 10 ISO Rating: 8 FINANCIAL INFORMATION Actual: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues: Expenses Reserves Operating/General Fund $168,041 $133,845 $59,797 Capital/AB 1600 $27,959 $63,989 $14,575 Total $196,000 $197,834 $74,372 Final Report January 31, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 83 OPHIR HILL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Fire Chief Robb Rothenberger Mailing Address: P.O. Box 940, Cedar Ridge, CA 95924 Site Address: 126687 Highway 174, Cedar Ridge Phone Number: 530-273-8351 Fax Number: 530-273-0453 Email/Website ophirhill@infostations.com, NA Types of Services: Fire Prevention, Fire Suppression, Emergency, Rescue, Public Assistance Population Served: Resident: 3,281 Transitory: 0 Size (sq miles): 9 Date of Formation 1956 STAFF AND FACILITIES Fire Stations: Station: Number of Staff 1 2 Total Number of Fire Personnel: Paid: 3 Volunteer: 15 SERVICE INFORMATION Annual Calls: EMS/ALS: 180 Fire: 80 Hazardous Material 2 Rescue: 5 Average Response Time (Minutes) EMS/ALS: 5 Fire: 5 Hazardous Material 5 Rescue: 5 Target Response Time (Minutes) EMS/ALS: 5 Fire: 5 Hazardous Material 5 Rescue: 5 ISO Rating: 4; 8 in hydrant areas Annual Calls: FINANCIAL INFORMATION Actual: (FY 2001-2002) Revenues: Expenses Reserves $368,136 $253,833 NP Financial information obtained from 2001-2002 State Controller’s Report for Special Districts NP – Not Provided Final Report January 31, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 84 PEARDALE – CHICAGO PARK FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Fire Chief James W. Bierwagen Mailing Address: P.O. Box 697, Chicago Park, CA 95712 Site Address: 15057 Colfax Highway, Grass Valley, CA 95945 Phone Number: 530-273-2503 Fax Number: 530-273-4835 Email/Website pcpfpd@infostations.com, NA Types of Services: Fire Prevention, Fire Suppression, Hazardous Materials, Emergency, Rescue, Public Assistance Population Served: Resident: 3,754 Transitory: 750 Size (sq miles): 21 Date of Formation 1964 STAFF AND FACILITIES Fire Stations: Station: Number of Staff 1 1 (10 hrs. during day) 2 0 Total Number of Fire Personnel: Paid: 2.5career/12 paid call Volunteer: 0 SERVICE INFORMATION Annual Calls: EMS/ALS: 167 Fire: 58 Hazardous Material 0 Rescue: 0 Average Response Time (Minutes) EMS/ALS: 8 Fire: 8 Hazardous Material 8 Rescue: 8 Target Response Time (Minutes) EMS/ALS: 5 Fire: 5 Hazardous Material 5 Rescue: 5 ISO Rating: 5/8 FINANCIAL INFORMATION Actual: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues: Expenses Reserves Operating/General Fund $298,767 $249,717 $110,721 Capital (Bldgs/Equip) $4,409 $31,724 $224,766 Mitigation (AB 1600) $50,498 $17,749 $219,953 Total $353,673 $299,190 $555,440 Final Report January 31, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 85 PENN VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Fire Chief Gene Vander Plaats Mailing Address: P.O. Box 180, Penn Valley, CA 95946 Site Address: 10513 Spenceville Road, Penn Valley, CA 95946 Phone Number: 530-432-2630 Fax Number: 530-432-4561 Email/Website Pvfpd.chief@sbcglobal.net Types of Services: Advanced life support (paramedics), Fire Prevention, Fire Suppression, Hazardous Materials, Emergency, Planning, Rescue, Public Assistance Population Served: Resident: 11,542 Transitory: 100 Size (sq miles): 92 Date of Formation 1974 STAFF AND FACILITIES Fire Stations: Station: Number of Staff 43 Paid call only 44 3 – 24 hrs/7 days per week 45 Paid call only Total Number of Fire Personnel: Paid: 8 career/20 paid call Volunteer: 0 SERVICE INFORMATION Annual Calls: EMS/ALS: 789 Fire: 200 Hazardous Material 1 Rescue: 10 Average Response Time (Minutes) EMS/ALS: 9 Fire: 9 Hazardous Material 9 Rescue: 9 Target Response Time (Minutes) EMS/ALS: 4-8 Fire: 4-8 Hazardous Material 4-8 Rescue: 4-8F ISO Rating: 5 in hydrant areas, 8 outside, 9 vacant land FINANCIAL INFORMATION Actual: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues: Expenses Reserves Operating/General Fund $956,275 $993,917 $189,522 Capital (Bldgs/Equip) $91,095 $240,969 $(23,004) Mitigation (AB 1600) $146,209 $731,576 $133,977 Total $1,193,579 $1,966,462 $300,495 Final Report January 31, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 86 ROUGH & READY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Fire Chief Don W. Gannon Mailing Address: P.O. Box 10, Rough & Ready, CA 95975 Site Address: 11042 Rough & Ready Road, Rough & Ready, CA 95975 Phone Number: 530-432-1140 Fax Number: 530-432-9076 Email/Website Don5900@yahoo.com, NA Types of Services: Fire Prevention, Fire Suppression, Hazardous Materials, Emergency, Planning, Rescue, Public Assistance Population Served: Resident: 2,300 Transitory: 50 Size (sq miles): 9.5 Date of Formation 1963 STAFF AND FACILITIES Fire Stations: Station: Number of Staff 1 15 Total Number of Fire Personnel: Paid: 0 Volunteer: 15 SERVICE INFORMATION Annual Calls: EMS/Rescue: 80 Fire: 60 Hazardous Material 0 Rescue: -- Average Response Time (Minutes) EMS/ALS: 5 Fire: 5 Hazardous Material 5 Rescue: 5 Target Response Time (Minutes) EMS/ALS: 5 Fire: 5 Hazardous Material 5 Rescue: 5 ISO Rating: 5-8B FINANCIAL INFORMATION Actual: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues: Expenses Reserves Operating/General Fund $199,071 $141,258 $1,238 Capital (Equip) $3,432 0 $185,667 Building Fund $21,670 0 $30,578 Mitigation (AB 1600) $29,723 0 $74,593 Total $253,896 $141,258 $292,076 Final Report January 31, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 87 TRUCKEE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Fire Chief Michael S. Terwilliger Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2768, Truckee, CA 96160 Site Address: 10049 Donner Pass Road, Truckee, CA 96160 Phone Number: 530-582-1225 Fax Number: 530-582-7854 Email/Website mterwilliger@sbcglobal.net, NA Types of Services: Ambulance, Fire Prevention, Fire Suppression, Hazardous Materials, Emergency, Planning, Rescue, Public Assistance Population Served: Resident: 20,000 Transitory: 30,000 Size (sq miles): Fire – 66; ALS – 300 Date of Formation 1894 STAFF AND FACILITIES Fire Stations: Station: Number of Staff 91 Admin only 92 4 93 2, resident staff 94 2, resident staff 95 2 96 3 Total Number of Fire Personnel: Paid: 40 Volunteer: 10 SERVICE INFORMATION Annual Calls: EMS/ALS: 1,100 Fire: 900 Hazardous Material 12 Rescue: 100 Average Response Time (Minutes) EMS/ALS: 4-6 Fire: 4-6 Hazardous Material 4-6 Rescue: 4-6 Target Response Time (Minutes) EMS/ALS: 4-6 Fire: 4-6 Hazardous Material 4-6 Rescue: 4-6 ISO Rating: 6 FINANCIAL INFORMATION Budget: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues: Expenses Reserves $4,080,000 $3,236,000 NP NP – Not Provided Final Report January 31, 2005 VI. Agency Profiles Page 88 WASHINGTON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (FIRE PROTECTION) Fire Chief Mike Stewart Mailing Address: P.O. Box 34, Washington, CA 95986 Site Address: 15405 Washington Road, Washington, CA 95986 Phone Number: None as yet Fax Number: None as yet Email/Website mike@highlandrescue.com Types of Services: Emergency, Public Assistance, Public Education Population Served: Resident: 225 Transitory: 250 Size (sq miles): 2.5 Date of Formation 1968 STAFF AND FACILITIES Fire Stations: Station: Number of Staff 1 unstaffed Total Number of Fire Personnel: Paid: 0 Volunteer: 7 SERVICE INFORMATION Annual Calls: EMS/ALS: 50 Fire: 6 Hazardous Material 0 Rescue: 15 Average Response Time (Minutes) EMS/ALS: 12 Fire: 12 Hazardous Material 12 Rescue: 12 Target Response Time (Minutes) EMS/ALS: 7 Fire: 7 Hazardous Material 7 Rescue: 7 ISO Rating: 10 FINANCIAL INFORMATION Budget: (FY 2002-2003) Revenues: Expenses Reserves $3,400 $3,400 $0 Final Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 89 VVIIII.. DDEETTEERRMMIINNAATTIIOONNSS CITY OF GRASS VALLEY – FIRE DEPARTMENT • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. That the Grass Valley Fire Department serves a resident population of 12,000 with an additional 3,000 to 5,000 per week who work within the city boundaries. 2. That the population within the City of Grass Valley is projected to increase to 29,642 by 2027. 3. That the City of Grass Valley is considered a growth area in all four of the population models. • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. That the Grass Valley Fire Department operates from three fire stations and has 33.5 paid staff. 2. That the Fire Department serves a five square mile area and responded to 1,634 calls in 2003. 3. That the Fire Department’s average response time met its target response time in all categories of service. 4. That the Fire Department’s equipment and capital needs are included in the Department’s internal planning documents as well as those of the City. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. That the Grass Valley Fire Department is funded through the City’s General Fund as well as a special tax. 2. That the City’s special fire tax only covers 14% of the Department’s budget. 3. That future revenue for the Department may be impacted by the upcoming shift of property tax revenues to the State. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. That the Grass Valley Fire Department avoids costs through planning, shared facilities, and cross training with other fire agencies. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. That the Grass Valley Fire Department special tax rate is $32.54 for each single family residence and $34.90 for commercial property. 2. That any increase in the tax would require a two-thirds majority vote of the voters within the city. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. That the Grass Valley Fire Department has Automatic Aid and Mutual Aid agreements with Nevada County Consolidated, Ophir Hill and Penn Valley FPDs. 2. That the Fire Department shares Fire Station #1 with the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District. 3. That the Fire Department uses CDF for dispatching services. Final Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 90 • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or reorganization of service providers 1. That the Grass Valley Fire Department should participate in discussions with the City of Nevada City, Nevada County Consolidated, Peardale-Chicago Park and Ophir Hill regarding consolidation or establishment of a Joint Fire Authority. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. That the Grass Valley Fire Department is operated under the direction of a career fire chief. • Local accountability and governance 1. That issues related to the Grass Valley Fire Department are addressed during City Council meetings and the City has procedures in place to ensure local accountability. Final Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 91 CITY OF NEVADA CITY – FIRE DEPARTMENT • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. That the Nevada City Fire Department serves a resident population of 3,000 with an additional transitory population of 10,000. 2. That the population within the City of Nevada City is projected to increase to 3,926 by 2027. 3. That the City of Nevada City is considered a growth area in all four of the population models. • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. That the Nevada City Fire Department operates from one shared fire station and has four paid staff and 21 volunteers. 2. That the Fire Department serves a 1.5 square mile area and responded to 356 calls in 2003. 3. That the Fire Department’s average response time met its target response time in all categories of service. 4. That the Fire Department would need an additional ladder truck in order to increase its current ISO rating of 5. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. That the Nevada City Fire Department relies on tax assessments, the City’s General Fund, and capital improvement contributions for its revenue. 2. That future revenue for the Department may be impacted by the upcoming shift of property tax revenues to the State. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. That the Nevada City Fire Department avoids costs through regularly scheduled equipment maintenance. 2. That the Fire Department has an apparatus replacement program to avoid maintenance costs on equipment that is past its useful life. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. That the Nevada City Fire Department assessment rate structure is <<NP>>. 2. That any increase in the assessment would require a two-thirds majority vote of the voters within the city. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. That the Nevada City Fire Department has Automatic Aid and Mutual Aid agreements with agencies throughout the county. 2. That the Fire Department shares its only station, Fire Station #54, with the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District. 3. That the Fire Department uses CDF for dispatching services. Final Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 92 • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or reorganization of service providers 1. That the Nevada City Fire Department serves the following areas outside its boundaries: east to Greenhorn Road, north to Bear Valley, west to Rough & Ready, and south to County Line. 2. That the Nevada County Consolidated FD serves the northern portion of Nevada City. 3. That the Nevada City Fire Department should participate in discussions with the City of Grass Valley, Nevada County Consolidated, Peardale-Chicago Park and Ophir Hill regarding consolidation or establishment of a Joint Fire Authority. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. That the Nevada City Fire Department is operated under the direction of a career fire chief. 2. That the Fire Department provides staff training on a regular basis. • Local accountability and governance 1. That issues related to the Nevada City Fire Department are addressed during City Council meetings and the City has procedures in place to ensure local accountability. 2. That the Department maintains its own website for public information. NP – Not Provided Final Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 93 DONNER SUMMIT PUBLIC UTILITIES DISTRICT / CSA #31 - FIRE PROTECTION • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. That the Donner Summit PUD serves a resident population of 3,375 and an estimated transitory population of 15,000. 2. That the District serves adjacent County Service Areas in Nevada County and in Placer County. 3. That the District’s service area includes four ski resorts and the I-80 corridor. 4. That the District’s service area is projected to have a modest amount of growth in each of the LAFCo population model scenarios. • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. That the Donner Summit PUD operates from two fire stations and has 7 paid staff and 13 volunteers. 2. That the District provides fire services to a 100 square mile area. The District responded to 820 calls in 2003. 3. That the District’s average response time of 8 minutes (18 for rescue) meets its target response time. 4. That the District has identified future equipment and staff needs with 5-, 10-, and 20- year horizons. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. That the Donner Summit PUD fire and emergency services are funded by the General Fund; revenue sources are primarily ambulance service fees and contract service fees. The District receives very little property tax. 2. That the District’s water and sewer utilities are operated as an enterprise utility with separate funds. 3. That future revenue from ambulance service charges may be impacted by the changes in medical services offered at one ski resort and closure of another ski resort. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. That the Donner Summit PUD avoids costs through paid staff at the management level and the use of volunteers. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. The Donner Summit PUD has a current special assessment rate structure of $100 for improved residential parcels and $250 for improved commercial parcels. 2. The District’s Board has discussed proposing a rate increase in 2005. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. That the Donner Summit PUD has Automatic Aid and Mutual Aid agreements with CDF, TNF, and Truckee FPD. 2. That the District shares Station 82 with the Placer County CSA. 3. That the District shares training programs with CDF – Truckee Station. 4. That the District uses CDF for dispatching services. Final Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 94 • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or reorganization of service providers 1. That the Donner Summit PUD should continue to participate in discussions with Truckee FPD and other agencies in the same region regarding consolidation • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. That the Donner Summit PUD is operated under the direction of a career fire chief. • Local accountability and governance 1. That the Donner Summit PUD is governed by a five-member board of directors. 2. That the District gives the public notice of meetings through posting and newspapers but does not maintain a website. Final Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 95 HIGGINS AREA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. That the Higgins Area Fire Protection District serves a resident population of 9,609 and a transitory population of 3,000. 2. That the District’s service area is projected to have a moderate level of growth in the High Growth LAFCo population model and little growth in the other scenarios. • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. That the Higgins Area Fire Protection District operates from three fire stations and has 39 paid call staff. 2. That the District serves a 90 square mile area and responded to 583 calls in 2003. 3. That the District’s average response time of 6.5 minutes falls within its target range of 5 to 8 minutes. 4. That the District has noted infrastructure needs for equipment and staff within a five- year horizon. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. That the Higgins Area Fire Protection District is primarily funded by property tax. A special tax comprises 10% of the District’s revenue. 2. That the District incurred an operating deficit of approximately $50,000 in FY 2003. 3. The District maintains an adequate level of reserves for capital needs and temporary revenue shortfalls. 4. That the District implements a capital improvement fee on all new development within its service area to fund capital improvements. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. That the Higgins Area Fire Protection District avoids costs through planning, training and equipment maintenance programs. 2. That the District contracts with CDF for dispatch services. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. That the Higgins Area Fire Protection District has a current tax rate of $25 per residential parcel, $30 per 1,000 square feet for commercial structures, and $35 per 1,000 square feet for industrial structures. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. That the Higgins Area Fire Protection District has Automatic Aid and Mutual Aid agreements with numerous agencies including Nevada County Consolidated, CDF, USFS, and BLM. 2. That the District shares training programs with CDF. 3. That the District uses CDF for dispatching services as well as for agency administration and operations. 4. That the District shares Station 21 on Combie Road at Higgins Corner with CDF. Final Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 96 • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or reorganization of service providers 1. That the Higgins Area Fire Protection District should participate in discussions with any interested or adjacent fire agency, including those in other counties, regarding consolidation or establishment of a Joint Fire Authority. 2. That the District noted a possible government structure option of a CDF Schedule A Contract. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. That the CDF currently administers and operates the Higgins Area Fire Protection District under contract. 2. That the District has one Fire Chief, one Division Chief, and one Battalion Chief. • Local accountability and governance 1. That the Higgins Area Fire Protection District is governed by a five-member board of directors. 2. That the District gives the public notice of meetings through posting and newspapers but does not maintain a website. Final Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 97 NEVADA COUNTY CONSOLIDATED FIRE DISTRICT • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. That the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District serves a resident population of 32,062 in an area that includes both rural and urban development. 2. That the District’s service area is considered a growth area in all four of the Nevada LAFCo population models. • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. That the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District operates from 15 fire stations and has 36 paid staff (including 8 seasonal) and 33 paid call/volunteers. Nine of the fire stations are not staffed and two are seasonal. 2. That the District serves a 143 square mile area and responded to 2,921 calls in 2003. 3. That the District’s average response time of 6.44 minutes is within its target response time range of 4 to 8 minutes. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. That the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District relies on property taxes for 70% of its revenue. Special assessments constitute an additional 15% of revenue. 2. That the District incurred an operating loss of approximately $191,000 in FY 2003, which impacted reserves. 3. That the District’s reserve levels are less than 10% of annual expenditures, which may be a financial constraint. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. That the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District avoids costs through regularly scheduled equipment maintenance. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. That previously the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District consolidated four smaller districts and now receives their special fire assessments ranging from $20 to $59 per year. 2. That the special fire assessments related to the former districts will be retired soon and the District is considering a new assessment of $89 per year throughout its service area. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. That the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District has Automatic Aid and Mutual Aid agreements with agencies throughout the county. 2. That the District shares Fire Station #1 with Grass Valley and Station #54 with Nevada City. 3. That the District uses CDF for dispatching services. 4. That the District has identified a long range potential for joint staffing at White Cloud with the USFS. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or reorganization of service providers 1. That the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District serves the following areas outside its boundaries: Yuba River Corridor and TNF Hwy 20 corridor to Lowell Hill. Final Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 98 2. That the District serves the northern portion of Nevada City. 3. That the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District should participate in discussions with the City of Nevada City, City of Grass Valley, Peardale-Chicago Park and Ophir Hill regarding consolidation or establishment of a Joint Fire Authority. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. That the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District is operated under the direction of a career fire chief and three battalion chiefs. • Local accountability and governance 1. That the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District is governed by a seven-member board of directors. 2. That the District maintains a website and gives the public notice of meetings through posting, newspapers, etc. Final Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 99 NORTH SAN JUAN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. That the North San Juan Fire Protection District serves a resident population of 2,311. 2. That the District’s service area is projected to have little to no growth in all four of the LAFCo population models. • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. That the North San Juan Fire Protection District operates from three fire stations and with 28 firefighter volunteers. Two stations are not staffed and one is staffed by a resident volunteer. 2. That the District serves a 70 square mile area and responded to 233 calls in 2003. 3. That the District’s average response time of less than 10 minutes is within its target response time. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. That the North San Juan Fire Protection District is dependent on property tax as well as a small special assessment. 2. That the District’s 2004 budget includes an operational deficit of $20,510. 3. That the District maintains reserves for debt service and fixed assets. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. That the North San Juan Fire Protection District avoids costs through the planning and implementation of its 2001 Master Plan. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. That the North San Juan Fire Protection District receives a small assessment of $19 for undeveloped parcels and $26.50 for developed parcels. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. That the North San Juan Fire Protection District has Automatic Aid and Mutual Aid agreements with Camptonville, Graniteville, Penn Valley, CDF and Pike City. 2. That the District shares a facility with CDF and Graniteville. 3. That the District shares training programs with Yuba, Sierra and Nevada County agencies. 4. That the District uses CDF for dispatching services. 5. That the District shares services with Sierra Nevada Hospital for medical equipment replenishment. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or reorganization of service providers 1. That the North San Juan Fire Protection District should participate in discussions with any interested and adjacent fire agency, including those in other counties, regarding consolidation or establishment of a Joint Fire Authority. 2. That the District provides service outside its boundaries as follows: mutual aid to Camptonville in Yuba County; State Parks; unprotected county territory east to Graniteville, Penn Valley/Bridgeport areas. Final Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 100 3. That the District identified the potential to contract with USFS/CDF or with a private service provider. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. That the North San Juan Fire Protection District is operated under the direction of a fire chief who is paid a small salary for administrative and management duties. He works as a volunteer for his firefighting responsibilities. 2. That the District has adopted a Master Plan to guide future planning and operations through 2011. 3. That the District provides weekly training for its staff. • Local accountability and governance 1. That the North San Juan Fire Protection District is governed by a five-member board of directors. 2. That the District maintains a website, gives the public notice of meetings through posting, newsletters and email, and is as locally accountable as possible. Final Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 101 OPHIR HILL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. That the Ophir Hill Fire Protection District serves a resident population of 3,281 in an area that is primarily rural. 2. That the District’s service area is projected to have minimal growth in all four of the LAFCo population models. • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. That the Ophir Hill Fire Protection District operates from one fire station and has four career staff and 15 volunteers. 2. That the District serves a nine square mile area and responded to 267 calls in 2003. 3. That the District’s average response time of five minutes meets its target response time. 4. That the District is projecting the need for additional apparatus in both the 10- and 20- year planning horizons. 5. That the District has identified a service deficiency due to staffing needs that cannot be accommodated by the budget. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. <<no financial data provided to date>> • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. That the Ophir Hill Fire Protection District avoids costs through its apparatus replacement program and its operational arrangements with Peardale-Chicago Park. • Opportunities for rate restructuring <<no financial data provided to date>> • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. That the Ophir Hill Fire Protection District has Automatic Aid and Mutual Aid agreements with Peardale-Chicago Park, Nevada County Consolidated, Grass Valley, and CDF. 2. That the District shares a joint response and training program, as well as equipment and apparatus, with Peardale-Chicago Park. 3. That the District uses CDF for dispatching services. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or reorganization of service providers 1. That the Ophir Hill Fire Protection District works closely with Peardale-Chicago Park, and the Board of Directors has considered consolidation within the next ten years. 2. That Ophir Hill Fire Protection District anticipates that it will have a zero sphere of influence following the next SOI update. 3. That the Ophir Hill Fire Protection District should participate in discussions with the City of Nevada City, City of Grass Valley, Peardale-Chicago Park, Nevada County Consolidated or any other interested agencies regarding consolidation or establishment of a Joint Fire Authority. Final Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 102 • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. That the Ophir Hill Fire Protection District is operated under the direction of a career fire chief. 2. That the District provides weekly training for its staff. • Local accountability and governance 1. That the Ophir Hill Fire Protection District is governed by a five-member board of directors. 2. That the District gives the public notice of meetings through posting. Final Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 103 PEARDALE – CHICAGO PARK FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. That the Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Protection District serves a resident population of 3,754 and an additional 500 to 1,000 recreational users during the summer. 2. That the District’s service area is projected to have little to no growth in all four of the LAFCo population models. • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. That the Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Protection District operates from two fire stations and has 2.75 career staff and 12 paid call staff. One station is not staffed. 2. That the District serves a 21 square mile area and responded to 225 calls in 2003. 3. That the District’s average response time of 8 minutes exceeds its target response time of 5 minutes. 4. That the District’s apparatus replacement program is 25% funded. 5. That the District has identified deficient service to the You Bet Red Dog Road area with longer than a 10-minute response time. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. That the Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Protection District receives property taxes, special assessments, and some Prop. 172 monies. 2. That the District maintains an adequate level of reserves to address future capital needs or decreases in operating revenue. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. That the Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Protection District avoids costs through its apparatus replacement program and operational agreements with Ophir Hill. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. That the Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Protection District special assessment rate is <<NP>>. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. That the Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Protection District has Automatic Aid and Mutual Aid agreements with Ophir Hill and CDF Colfax. 2. That the District shares a joint response and a training program, as well as equipment and apparatus, with Ophir Hill. 3. That the District uses CDF for dispatching services. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or reorganization of service providers 1. That the Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Protection District works closely with Ophir Hill FPD. 2. That the Peardale-Chicago Fire Protection District should participate in discussions with the City of Nevada City, City of Grass Valley, Ophir Hill, Nevada County Consolidated and any other interested agencies regarding consolidation or establishment of a Joint Fire Authority. Final Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 104 • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. That the Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Protection District is operated under the direction of a career fire chief. 2. That the District provides weekly training for its staff. • Local accountability and governance 1. That the Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Protection District is governed by a five-member board of directors. 2. That the District gives the public notice of meetings through posting and fax and is as locally accountable as possible. NP – Not Provided Final Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 105 PENN VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. That the Penn Valley Fire Protection District serves a resident population of 11,542. 2. That the District’s service area is projected to have its highest level of growth in the High Growth – Infill LAFCo population model. 3. That the District noted two new subdivisions – Wildwood Estates and Vilaggio de Vigneto – as areas that might require agency services in the future. • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. That the Penn Valley Fire Protection District operates from three fire stations and has 8 career and 20 paid call firefighters. 2. That the District serves a 92 square mile area and responded to approximately 1,000 calls in 2003. 3. That the District’s average response time of 9 minutes exceeds its target response time of 8 minutes. 4. That the District has identified infrastructure needs for equipment and staff with 5-, 10- and 20-year horizons. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. That the Penn Valley Fire Protection District receives property taxes, a special tax and an assessment. The special tax and the assessment account for 29% of revenues. 2. That the District incurred an operating deficit of $86,000 in FY 2003, significantly impacting reserves. 3. The District maintains a level of reserves for capital needs and revenue shortfalls. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. That the Penn Valley Fire Protection District avoids costs through planning, training and equipment maintenance programs. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. That the Penn Valley Fire Protection District has a current special tax rate of $34.87 per 1,000 square feet of commercial or industrial space, and $58.22 per single or multi- family residential unit, mobile home parks, and all other parcels with structures. 2. That the voters rejected a rate increase in the November 2004 election. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. That the Penn Valley Fire Protection District has Automatic Aid and Mutual Aid agreements with Nevada County Consolidated, Rough & Ready, Smartsville, Higgins, North San Juan and Sierra Nevada Ambulance. 2. That the District shares training programs with Nevada County Consolidated, Rough & Ready, Smartsville and CDF. 3. That the District uses CDF for dispatching services. Final Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 106 • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or reorganization of service providers 1. That the Penn Valley Fire Protection District should participate in discussions with North San Juan, Higgins Area and Rough & Ready, or any other appropriate or interested parties, regarding consolidation or establishment of a Joint Fire Authority. 2. That the District provides service outside its boundaries to the following: mutual aid fire and EMS to Rough & Ready FPD, Smartsville FPD, and Nevada County Consolidated for Hwy 20 west of Grass Valley. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. That the Penn Valley Fire Protection District is operated under the direction of a career fire chief. 2. That the District operates with trained paid staff only and does not use volunteers. • Local accountability and governance 1. That the Penn Valley Fire Protection District is governed by a five-member board of directors. 2. That the District gives the public notice of meetings through posting and email but does not maintain a website. Final Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 107 ROUGH & READY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. That the Rough & Ready Fire Protection District serves a resident population of 2,300. 2. That the District’s service area is projected to have little growth in any of the LAFCo population models. • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. That the Rough & Ready Fire Protection District operates from one fire station and has 15 volunteers and no paid firefighting staff. 2. That the District serves a 9.5 square mile area and responded to 140 calls in 2003. 3. That the District’s average response time of 5 minutes meets its target response time. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. That the Rough & Ready Fire Protection District is primarily funded by property tax. The District also receives some revenue from a special assessment. 2. That District revenues consistently exceed expenditures. 3. That the District maintains an adequate level of reserves for capital needs and temporary revenue shortfalls. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. That the Rough & Ready Fire Protection District avoids costs through use of volunteers. 2. The District avoids future costs through the proper allocation of resources per its Capital Improvement Plan. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. That the Rough & Ready Fire Protection District has a current assessment rate of <<NP>>. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. That the Rough & Ready Fire Protection District has Automatic Aid and Mutual Aid agreements with numerous agencies including Penn Valley, Grass Valley, Nevada County Consolidated, and Nevada County OES. 2. That the District shares training programs with Penn Valley and Nevada County Consolidated. 3. That the District uses CDF for dispatching services. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or reorganization of service providers 1. That the Rough & Ready Fire Protection District should participate in discussions with North San Juan, Penn Valley, Higgins Area, or any other appropriate or interested parties, regarding consolidation or establishment of a Joint Fire Authority. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. That the Rough & Ready Fire Protection District is operated under the direction of a volunteer fire chief. Final Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 108 • Local accountability and governance 1. That the Rough & Ready Fire Protection District is governed by a five-member board of directors. 2. That the District gives the public notice of meetings through posting, mail and email but does not maintain a website. NP – Not Provided Final Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 109 TRUCKEE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. That the Truckee Fire Protection District serves a resident population of 20,000 and an estimated transitory population of 30,000. 2. That the District’s service area includes the I-80 corridor. 3. That the District’s service area is projected to have significant growth in each of the LAFCo population models. • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. That the Truckee Fire Protection District operates from six fire stations and has 40 paid staff and 10 volunteers. 2. That the District provides fire services to a 66 square mile area and advanced life support services to 300 square miles. The District responded to 2,112 calls in 2003. 3. That the District’s average response time of 4-6 minutes meets its target response time. 4. That the District has identified equipment and staff needs on 5-, 10- and 20-year horizons. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. That the Truckee Fire Protection District is primarily funded by property tax, which comprises 73% of its revenue. The other major revenue source is ambulance fees. 2. That the District has a balanced budget. • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. That the Truckee Fire Protection District avoids costs through paid staff at the management level and the use of volunteers. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. None were noted. • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. That the Truckee Fire Protection District has Automatic Aid and Mutual Aid agreements with Northstar Fire, CDF, REMSA for ambulance and NDF for fire. 2. That the District shares a fire station with CDF. 3. That the District uses CDF for dispatching services. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or reorganization of service providers 1. That the Truckee Fire Protection District should continue to participate in discussions with Donner Summit PUD and other agencies in the region regarding consolidation of fire and emergency service functions. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. That the Truckee Fire Protection District is operated under the direction of a career fire chief. Final Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 110 • Local accountability and governance 1. That the Truckee Fire Protection District is governed by a five-member board of directors. 2. That the District maintains a website and gives the public notice of meetings through posting, mail and newspapers. Final Report January 31, 2005 VII. Determinations Page 111 WASHINGTON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT – FIRE SERVICES • Growth and population projections for the affected area 1. That the Washington County Water District serves a resident population of 225 and a transitory population of 250. 2. That the District’s service area is projected to have little to no growth in all four of the LAFCo population models. • Infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1. That the Washington County Water District operates from one fire station and has no paid staff and seven volunteers. 2. That the District serves a 2.5 square mile area and responded to 71 calls in 2003. 3. That the District’s average response time of 12 minutes exceeds its target response time of 7 minutes. • Financing constraints and opportunities 1. That the Washington County Water District balanced revenue and expenditures in FY 2003. 2. <<no other financial data provided to date>> • Cost avoidance opportunities 1. None were noted. • Opportunities for rate restructuring 1. <<no rate information provided to date>> • Opportunities for shared facilities 1. None were noted. • Government structure options, including advantages and disadvantages of the consolidation or reorganization of service providers 1. That the Washington County Water District should participate in discussions with the other service providers in the central county regarding consolidation or establishment of a Joint Fire Authority. • Evaluation of management efficiencies 1. That the Washington County Water District has appointed an interim fire chief. • Local accountability and governance 1. That the Washington County Water District is governed by a five-member board of directors; one of the directors serves as the fire commissioner. 2. That the District is instituting procedures to improve local accountability. Final Report January 31, 2005 VIII. Appendix Page 112 AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX AA NEVADA COUNTY RESOLUTION 81-316: MASTER FORMULA FOR TAX APPORTIONMENT Final Report January 31, 2005 VIII. Appendix Page 113 Final Report January 31, 2005 VIII. Appendix Page 114 Final Report January 31, 2005 VIII. Appendix Page 115 Final Report January 31, 2005 VIII. Appendix Page 116 Final Report January 31, 2005 VIII. Appendix Page 117 Final Report January 31, 2005 VIII. Appendix Page 118 Final Report January 31, 2005 VIII. Appendix Page 119 Final Report January 31, 2005 VIII. Appendix Page 120 AAPPPPEENNDDIIXX BB COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Final Report January 31, 2005 VIII. Appendix Page 121 From: Gene Haroldsen [mailto:gene@cityofgrassvalley.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 10:24 AM To: 'cshaffer@dudek.com' Cc: 'hank@cityofgrassvalley.com'; 'Joe Heckel'; 'Carol Fish'; 'srjones@co.nevada.ca.us' Subject: Comments regarding Fire Protection and Emergency Services MSR To Whom It May Concern: In reviewing the Public Review Draft for the Municipal Service Review of Fire Protection and Emergency Services, I noted the following items needed correction or clarification: 1) Page 2 and Section III - The MSR states that under “the Expected Growth Scenario, the population of Grass Valley is projected to increase to an estimated 18,000 by 2027.” This appears to be inconsistent with the City of Grass Valley’s General Plan which projects in the year 2020 the Grass Valley Planning Area will have a population of 23,395. It is suggested that the consultant review the City’s General Plan which is available on line at www.cityofgrassvalley.com and work with Joe Heckel, the City’s Community Development Director (530-274- 4330), on population projections for the City and the Grass Valley planning area. Response: The base year population was corrected to 12,000 and the LAFCo growth model was recalculated. Corrections have been made within the report. 2) Table III.1 Current Fire Station Locations (and elsewhere in the report) - The City of Grass Valley has two staffed stations at 472 Brighton Street and 213 Sierra College Drive. 139 East Main and 108 Race Street are not in use operationally other than for fire vehicle storage. Response: The report has been corrected. 3) It may be helpful to include a table that identifies the resources (fire engines, trucks and other response vehicles) that each Fire Department or District has available for use and providing assistance to other agencies. The consultant could contact Hank Weston, Fire Chief (530-274-4370), to discuss the value and presentation of such a table. Response: Comment noted. The data provided was not sufficient to complete this analysis. LAFCo will attempt to incorporate this information into any future studies on fire and emergency services prepared by LAFCo. 4) Table V.3 Governance does not take in account that the Grass Valley City Council recently reorganized with the election of three new members, a new mayor and vice mayor. Below is the update of its membership: Gerard Tassone Mayor 12-12-06 Mark Johnson Vice Mayor 12-9-08 Patti Ingram Council Member 12-12-06 Lisa Swarthout Council Member 12-9-08 Dean Williams Council Member 12-9-08 Response: The report has been updated. 5) VI. Agency Profiles shows the City of Grass Valley Fire Department has revenues of $537,000 for FY2002-03. This number appears to be distorted due to a one-time donation from an estate. This number needs an appropriate footnote or to be adjusted to remove this one time donation in order to provide a more accurate indication of annual revenue. The consultant could contact Carol Fish, Director of Finance (530-274-4302), to further discuss annual revenues attributable to the Fire Department. Final Report January 31, 2005 VIII. Appendix Page 122 Response: The report has been corrected. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document and provide input. Gene Haroldsen City Administrator City of Grass Valley 530-274-4312 Final Report January 31, 2005 VIII. Appendix Page 123 From: SR Jones [SR.Jones@co.nevada.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 1:36 PM To: jcrosthwaite@cox.net; Carolyn Schaffer Cc: hank@cityofgrassvalley.com Subject: fire comments Joyce, Carolyn Hank called with the following corrections: Figure III 11a (page 26) - doesn't show career paid staff for NCCFD Page 27 - Discussion incorrectly states that Ophir Hill has an admin. contract with CDF. Table III.1 (page 32) - Delete Station 3 at 108 Race Street, and add 127 E. Main Street (but designate it "Reserve"). SR Response: The report has been updated per these corrections. Final Report January 31, 2005 VIII. Appendix Page 124 From: Carolyn Schaffer" <cschaffer@dudek.com> 12/16/2004 9:42:16 AM >>> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 1:24 PM To: SR Jones Cc: jcrosthwaite@cox.net Subject: Re: Fire MSR: Corrections from Penn Valley I just talked with Gene Vander Plaats from PV. He had a few number corrections on his determinations. Career staff is 8 and the first bullet under rate restructuring is incorrect. He sent me their special tax rate schedule (attached as an FYI for you). We will make the changes along with the others on the final document. Sincerely, Carolyn Schaffer Sr. Project Manager Dudek & Associates, Inc. (800) 450-1818 x316 Response: The report has been updated as requested. Final Report January 31, 2005 VIII. Appendix Page 125 From: Gene Vander Plaats [pvfpd.chief@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 11:44 AM To: Carolyn Schaffer Subject: Re: aditional comments on MSR for Nevada County Carolyn: Our general fund "bank account" right know is about $150,000 in the red. However, if we look at the past two years, we are spending between $10,000 and $20,000 more than we take in for each of the actual fiscal years. We receive our major funding (for the general fund) from property taxes and our special taxes. Those taxes are due November and April of each year. So basically we need to have enough "left over" on June 30th to pay bills from July 1 through the end of the year (until we actually receive the fist installment of property taxes). We do not have enough carryover to cover the "dry period" expenses (July through December) So it is not true that we are $150,000 in the hole; it is probably more accurate to say we have spent $30,000+ more in general fund operations that received in general fund income. This trend can not continue. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Gene ----- Original Message ----- From: Carolyn Schaffer To: Gene Vander Plaats Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 10:52 AM Subject: RE: aditional comments on MSR for Nevada County I think I agree Gene - and I appreciate your comments as you review. (Feel free to piece-meal them. We are gathering all and will do one final revision just before it needs to be printed for the Commission so there is time.) Please confirm - Penn Valley is $150,000 in the red (not $15,000) Carolyn Schaffer Sr. Project Manager Dudek & Associates, Inc. (800) 450-1818 x316 -----Original Message----- From: Gene Vander Plaats [mailto:pvfpd.chief@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 10:50 AM To: Carolyn Schaffer Subject: aditional comments on MSR for Nevada County Ms. Schaffer: I apologize for feeding you one comment at a time but each time I read the report something else catches my eye. Under Economic Profiles by Service Provider (Penn Valley starts on page 43) the last sentence in our profile I do not feel is accurate. It states: "Fortunately, the District does have adequate resources in place for at least the next few years". I think if we separate income into two appropriate funds (General Funds and Capital Outlay Funds) that is not a true statement. As you know, funds from AB 1600 have restrictions on how they can be spent. They can not be used for operational or General Fund expenses. Our General Fund accounts have no reserve and we again this year are "borrowing" from other sources to cover "dry period" expenses. As of today we are nearly $150,00 in the red until we receive out property tax allotment next month. We strongly feel we do not have adequate resources in place for the next few years. I think it is also interesting to note that Penn Valley cost per capita is Final Report January 31, 2005 VIII. Appendix Page 126 relatively low ($79.51 per capita) compared to other Districts and we also, in addition to all services provided by others, provide an advanced life support ambulance service which requires a large staffing commitment. This service also brings in an income (average between $200,000 and $250,000 per year) but does not cover the expense of that operation. This service, since it is not required, would be a service our Board would have to look at if we continue down the current path of spending more in General Fund operations that is received from General Fund income sources. I would think a statement like "The District will have to find ways to decrease general fund expenses, increase general fund income, or a combination of the two if they are to maintain the current level of service". What do you think? Gene Response: The report has been updated per these comments. Final Report January 31, 2005 VIII. Appendix Page 127 TO: Carolyn Schaffer Dudek & Associates, Inc. cschaffer@dudek.com January 6, 2005 Dear Carolyn: In response to your request, following are the comments and revisions in writing to the December 3, 2004, public review draft of the Municipal Service Review. We discussed these issues on the phone on Tuesday. On page 1, change Resident Population for NSJFPD from 1800 to 2500 Response: A population of 2,311 has been used, based on the 2000 US Census data. On page 3, paragraph #4, we would add to the last sentence the following comment: …agencies may find fewer and fewer volunteers ready to dedicate the time required although some agencies have maintained high volunteer participation. Response: The comment has been added. On pages 15-18, the maps do not show Stations 2 and 3 of our District. Please add them. Response: The maps were prepared using Nevada County GIS data. This data has not been reconciled with the Fire District information yet. Not all fire stations are shown. Chapter III. Our comment on this section: We think it is not reasonable to project no growth for our district (and the other small districts in the county) which is the picture presented by the maps and text. Response: Comment noted. On page 26, please define “Fire Agency Staff” (firefighters only or all staff including admin and clerical) and also include a definition of the terms presented in the chart, especially “Paid Call” and “Volunteer”. (Since you have now provided that definition, please be advised that NSJFPD has only volunteer firefighters. Our Chief is paid a small salary per month for his administrative and management duties, but when he goes out on call, he is paid the same as everyone else. So I believe that if the chart on page 26 deals only with firefighters and not admin/clerical too, it should show ALL of our firefighters as volunteers and none as paid call. We have no career paid staff.) Response: The definition has been added and North San Juan information corrected. On page 27, please define “Staffing” so that it is clear what staff is represented (firefighters, administrative/clerical). Response: The definition has been added. On page 37, please change the chart for NSJFPD as follows: Resident Population from 1800 to 2500; 2003 Expenditures from $280,178 to $197,799; Expenditures per Capita from $155.65 to $79.12; Persons/sq.mi from 25.7 to 35.7. Final Report January 31, 2005 VIII. Appendix Page 128 Response: The corrections have been made using a base population of 2,311. On page 38, I wondered about the interpretation of the chart which did not seem to reflect the text and other charts. However, now that we are changing our district’s population from 1800 to 2500, the picture presented in the chart is probably fairly accurate. However, you did say that you would verify the status of that chart. Please make sure it correctly reflects our revised data. Response: The figure has been updated. On page 42, under NSJFPD, please change population from 1800 to 2500. Response: A population of 2,311 has been used, based on the 2000 US Census data. On page 43, please change the NSJFPD Economic Profile as follows: Population from 1800 to 2500 Population Density (per sq mi) from 25.7 to 35.7 Property Tax Revenue as % of Total Rev from 51% to 72.3% 2003 Expends per Capita from $155.65 to $79.12 2003 Ratio of Expense to Revenue from 1.005 to 1.009 Revenue Trend from 8.7% to 4.06% Expenditure Trend from 9.4% to 23.7T 2003 Reserve as % of Expend from 31% to 38% Response: The corrections have been made using a base population of 2,311. I also submitted to you in writing on January 4 revision to the text about NSJFPD on page 43. Please substitute it for what is written in the draft. If you need another copy, let me know. Response: The section has been revised based on the input received. . On page 53/54 (last paragraph/first paragraph), we wish to comment that the conclusion drawn by the report may not be valid and that other conclusions could be formed as well. Response: Comment noted. On page 55, please note that NSJFPD also maintains a web site. Response: The report has been corrected. On pages 63/64 under NSJFPD section, in first paragraph change number of residents from “nearly 2000” to 2500. In the last paragraph on that page, please revise as follows: …its distance from other service providers which might increase rather than reduce the cost of operations. The agency, like most...could also prove to be a barrier to reorganization. DELETE LAST SENTENCE OF PARAGRAPH (We already have an auto-aide relationship with Penn Valley.) Also change last sentence of NSJ section to the following: Reorganization advantages might include administrative and greater economies of scale. Response: The report has been revised as suggested. On page 80, revise the Agency Profile as follows: Resident population serviced from 1800 to 2500; Date of Formation from 1958 to 1986; FY 02/03 Budget Revenues from $278,667 to $211,240; Final Report January 31, 2005 VIII. Appendix Page 129 Expenses from $280,178 to $240,229; Reserves from $87,308 to $39,933. Revise the asterisk statement as follows: Includes both general and mitigation funds; does not include federal or state one-time grants. Response: The corrections have been made using a base population of 2,311. On page 97, please revise 1. under Government structure options….. as follows: …should participate in discussions with any interested and adjacent fire agency, including those in other counties regarding consolidation or…. Response: The report has been revised as suggested. On page 98, as explained earlier, our fire chief is paid a small salary for administrative and management duties. Although his responsibilities are commensurate with a career fire chief, his pay is not related to labor law; he is not eligible for comp time, retirement or other employee welfare benefits, etc. What other descriptors could be applied to our chief? Response: The report has been revised to describe the Chief’s compensation. We believe that the above covers our concerns for now. Thanks again, Carolyn, for working with us on this project. Liz Walsh Business Manager Final Report January 31, 2005 VIII. Appendix Page 130 From: SR Jones [SR.Jones@co.nevada.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 12:07 PM To: al@hoffmeyers.com Cc: Carolyn Schaffer Subject: Re: LAFCO report on fire districts Thanks, Al. We also got the word from Hank Weston - and will correct the final version of the report. SR >>> Al Hoffmeyer <al@hoffmeyers.com> 12/16/2004 7:19:12 PM >>> Ophir Hill DOES NOT use CDF for Adm. Services... Response: The report has been corrected. -- * From: SR Jones [SR.Jones@co.nevada.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 12:12 PM To: al@hoffmeyers.com Cc: Carolyn Schaffer Subject: Re: LAFCO report on fire districts Thanks for this comment, too, Al. I'll pass it on to the consultant - although I'd expect to hear from the Sheriff that the County would have to cut law enforcement programs to finance the transfer. SR >>> Al Hoffmeyer <al@hoffmeyers.com> 12/16/2004 7:23:37 PM >>> The Fire Service in Nevada County CAN MEET National Standards ( THE DO not NOW) with the stroke of a pen.. All the County Supervisors have to do is give the Fire Districts half of the millions of tax dollars received every year from prop. 172 to the Fire Service LIKE THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA VOTED FOR... Response: Comment noted. Final Report January 31, 2005 VIII. Appendix Page 131 Final Report January 31, 2005 VIII. Appendix Page 132 Final Report January 31, 2005 VIII. Appendix Page 133 Final Report January 31, 2005 VIII. Appendix Page 134 Response to Comments in USFS letter dated December 17, 2004 The comments have been incorporated into the report as appropriate. Final Report January 31, 2005 VIII. Appendix Page 135 The following letter and related information were received at the Final Public Hearing, too late for a formal response. Final Report January 31, 2005 VIII. Appendix Page 136 Final Report January 31, 2005 VIII. Appendix Page 137 Final Report January 31, 2005 VIII. Appendix Page 138 Final Report January 31, 2005