Final MSR of Fire and Emergency Response Services in Nevada County - Updated February 20, 2025

Nevada LAFCo Nevada County, California Fire and Emergency Response Services MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW & Sphere of Influence Update FINAL REPORT Updated by the Commission - February 20, 2025 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Contents Contents .......................................................................................................................................... i Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................ ii Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................... iv Preface ......................................................................................................................................... vii SECTION I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STUDY FOCUS .......................................................... 1 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 2 Fire District Funding Limitations .................................................................................................. 14 Spheres of Influence ................................................................................................................... 21 Key Findings and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 24 Reorganization Options .............................................................................................................. 27 SECTION II: AGENCY PROFILES ........................................................................................ 35 Grass Valley Fire Department .................................................................................................... 36 Higgins Fire Protection District .................................................................................................... 78 Nevada County Consolidated Fire District ............................................................................. 116 North San Juan Fire Protection District .................................................................................... 166 Ophir Hill Fire Protection District ............................................................................................... 204 Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Protection District ..................................................................... 232 Penn Valley Fire Protection District .......................................................................................... 264 Rough and Ready Fire Protection District ............................................................................... 307 Truckee Fire Protection District ................................................................................................. 340 Washington County Water District ........................................................................................... 386 SECTION III: APPENDICES ............................................................................................... 418 Appendix A: Stakeholder Interviews ...................................................................................... 419 Appendix B: Table of Figures ................................................................................................... 427 Appendix C: Commission Resolutions .................................................................................... 437 i MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Acknowledgments Countywide Fire Service Review October 2024 Prepared for: Local Agency Formation Commission of Nevada County by AP Triton. Nevada County LAFCo Commissioners • Josh Susman, Chair (Public) • Gordon Mangel, Vice Chair (Districts) • Bob Branstrom (Cities) • Ricki Heck (Districts) • Sue Hoek (County) • Gary Petersen (Cities) • Lisa Swarthout (County) Alternate Commissioners • Hardy Bullock (County) • Rich Johansen (Districts) • Erin Minett (Public) • Jan Zabriskie (Cities) LAFCo Staff • SR Jones, Executive Officer • Deborah Gilcrest, Commission Clerk/Analyst AP Triton Staff • Don Jarvis, Project Manager • Kathleen McDonald, LAFCo Determinations, SOI reviews, and Governance Options • Kate Turnbull, Finance • Laura Schmidt, Service Delivery and Performance • Eric Schmidt, GIS and Mapping • Melissa Vazquez Swank, Director of Project Operations and Support ii MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo AP Triton extends our gratitude to the LAFCo staff, the stakeholders who participated in our interviews, and the local Fire Chiefs and their teams for their invaluable cooperation in the development of this report. Stakeholder Interviews Fire Chiefs and Staff • Chief Don Wagner, Penn Valley Fire District • Chief Jason Robitaille, Nevada County Consolidated Fire District • Chief Jason Flores, North San Juan Fire District • Chief Jim Bierwagen, Peardale-Chicago Park Fire District • Chief Joel Tam, Higgins Area Fire District • Chief Rob Rothenberger, Ophir Hill Fire District • Chief Mike Stewart, Washington Fire Department • Chief Kevin Mckechnie, Truckee Fire District • Chief Mark Buttron, Grass Valley Fire Department • Chief Sam Goodspeed, Nevada City LAFCo Commissioners • Sue Hoek • Lisa Swarthout iii MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Acronyms ALS Advanced Life Support APCO Association of Public Communication Officers AVL Automatic Vehicle Location BLS Basic Life Support CAD Computer Aided Dispatch CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CIP Capital Improvement Plan CKH Act Cortese Knox Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act CPSE Center for Public Safety Excellence CWPP Community Wildfire Protection Plan DUC Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities EMS Emergency Medical Services EOP Emergency Operations Plan EV Electric Vehicle FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FRA Federal Responsibility Area GEMT Ground Emergency Medical Transport GIS Geographical Information Systems GRS Grass Valley Fire Department iv MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo GVECC CAL FIRE Grass Valley Emergency Command Center H&S California Health and Safety Code HIT Hazardous Incident Team HGF Higgins Area Fire Protection District IGT Medical Transportation Intergovernmental Transfer IHFR Integrated Hazardous Fuel Reduction ISO Insurance Services Office JPA Joint Powers Agreement/Authority LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan LRA Local Responsibility Area MDC Mobile Data Computer NENA National Emergency Number Association NCC Nevada County Consolidated Fire Protection District NFIRS National Fire Incident Reporting System NFPA National Fire Protection Association NSJ North San Juan Fire Protection District OA Operational Area OEM Office of Emergency Management OES Office of Emergency Services OPEB Other Post Employment Benefit Cost liabilities OPH Ophir Hill Fire Protection District v MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo PA Participating Agency PCP Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Protection District PNV Penn Valley Fire Protection District PPC Public Protection Classification PSAP Public Safety Answering Point RMS Records Management System RNR Rough and Ready Fire Protection District SACOG Sacramento Area Council of Governments SDLF Special District Leadership Foundation SFM State Fire Marshal SOI Sphere of Influence SRA State Responsibility Area SSV Sierra-Sacramento Valley EMS Agency TRK Truckee Fire Protection District UAL Unfunded Actuarial Liability US&R Urban Search and Rescue UHU Unit Hour Utilization WAF Washington County Water District Fire Department WFA Wildland Fire Agreement WUI Wildland Urban Interface vi MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Preface Nevada County LAFCo enlisted the services of AP Triton to conduct a comprehensive Fire Service Review for Nevada County. The study area encompasses two cities and one town, each with a unique approach to delivering fire and emergency response services. Specifically, the Town of Truckee is served by the independent Truckee Fire Protection District; Grass Valley operates its own city Fire Department; and Nevada City contracts with Grass Valley for fire service. This review also examines nine independent special districts providing fire services within the study area. Among these special districts, two offer ambulance transport services, and one provides management services to another district. Additionally, the Washington County Water District operates a volunteer fire department in its isolated rural community. In total, ten agencies are responsible for delivering fire and emergency services to residents and businesses in the study area. There are eight distinct service providers: Grass Valley (serving both Grass Valley and Nevada City), Truckee Fire Protection District, and the independent special districts, with Penn Valley operating the Rough and Ready Fire District in collaboration with Nevada County Consolidated Fire District and Nevada County. This review aims to provide a thorough assessment of these diverse agencies and their capacities to meet the fire and emergency response needs of Nevada County. vii MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Section I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STUDY FOCUS 1 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Executive Summary Introduction Roles and Responsibilities of LAFCo The fundamental role of a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) is to implement the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg (CKH) Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code Section 56000, et seq), which provides for the logical, efficient, and affordable organization of local governments. These governments under the jurisdiction of LAFCo include municipalities and special districts, such as county service areas. The CKH Act mandates the establishment and regular updating of spheres of influence for each agency under LAFCo's purview, requiring updates at least every five years or as necessary. A key requirement within this mandate is the conduct of a municipal service review (MSR) prior to considering any sphere of influence updates, detailing specific elements to be included in the review. The concept of a municipal service review was codified in 2000 following the "Growth Within Bounds" study, which determined that for a sphere of influence to effectively fulfill its planning function and identify the probable physical boundary for each agency, it must be supported by appropriate analytical studies. These studies provide the necessary criteria for sphere of influence designation. The focus of this MSR is to equip Nevada LAFCo with essential and pertinent information regarding fire protection and emergency medical response services within the County, enabling it to make informed and appropriate sphere of influence determinations. Purpose of the Municipal Service Review The purpose of the Municipal Service Review (MSR) is to collect data and provide a comprehensive analysis of fire protection and emergency services within Nevada County. This analysis will assess the capabilities of each fire protection district in the county, evaluating their service provision and future configurations, while addressing the ongoing discussion of service consolidation. It will encompass the services provided by both municipalities and fire protection districts, which continue to evolve due to factors such as funding limitations, population changes, land use changes, and the transition from volunteer to full-time professional firefighting staff. 2 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Fire protection and emergency medical services in Nevada County are characterized by complexity, diversity, and change. Since the 2014 sphere of influence update, the area has faced significant challenges, including major fires, the COVID-19 pandemic, and persistent staffing issues stemming from the shift to professional firefighters. Despite these challenges, fire agencies have made substantial efforts to address issues sustainably, even when lacking consistent support from their constituents. The 2005 MSR and the 2014 Sphere of Influence Update highlighted concerns about rising service costs amid relatively static revenue streams. Although several districts have since passed special taxes or increased assessments, these measures have not always kept pace with cost increases, and other measures have failed. Both studies suggested consolidation of some or all fire protection districts as a solution to funding and staffing challenges. Interest in consolidation has fluctuated over the past decade until the spring of 2023, when the Rough and Ready Fire Protection District decided to close and dissolve due to ongoing financial difficulties. This unprecedented step rekindled the consolidation discussion. The Penn Valley and Nevada County Consolidated Fire Protection Districts, with support from Nevada County, intervened to maintain fire protection and emergency response services for the community, leading to a consolidation proposal submitted to LAFCo. This MSR aims to provide the necessary analysis to define the sphere of influence for these consolidation efforts and the remaining fire entities, ensuring informed decision-making and sustainable service provision for the future. Service Review Legislation and Requirements The Cortese Knox Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act (CKH Act) mandates that LAFCo conduct service reviews prior to, or in conjunction with, sphere of influence updates. It also requires that LAFCo review and update the sphere of influence of each city and special district once every five years, as necessary [Government Code § 56430]. The Service Review must include an analysis and written statement of determination regarding each of the following seven categories: • Growth and population projections for the affected area. • Location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. 3 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo • Present and planned capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services, and infrastructure needs or deficiencies, including needs or deficiencies related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged, unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence. • Financial ability of agencies to provide services. • Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities. • Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies. • Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by commission. Purposes of the Service Review This Countywide Fire Service Review will be a vital resource for LAFCo, the county, cities, special districts, and the public to gain a comprehensive understanding of how fire protection, emergency medical services (EMS), and related services are provided within Nevada County. The review serves multiple purposes, including: • Updating spheres of influence. • Initiating or considering jurisdictional boundary changes. • Evaluating other types of LAFCo applications. • Providing a foundation for further studies. LAFCo will utilize this report as a basis for updating the spheres of influence for fire protection districts. For cities providing fire protection and emergency medical response, their Municipal Service Reviews (MSRs) will be incorporated into this report. The document discusses various alternative government structures to ensure efficient service provision. While LAFCo is not obligated to initiate boundary changes based on service reviews, this report can be used by LAFCo, local agencies (including cities, special districts, or the county), and the public to support jurisdictional boundary changes when combined with additional research and analysis. Government Code Section 56375(a) grants LAFCo the authority to initiate certain boundary changes consistent with a service review and sphere of influence study, such as: 4 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo • Consolidation of districts (joining two or more districts into a single new successor district). • Dissolution (termination of the existence of a district and its corporate powers). • Merger (termination of the existence of a district by merging it with a city). • Establishment of a subsidiary district (designating the city council as the board of directors of the district). • Reorganization that includes any of the above. Additionally, LAFCo may use the information from service reviews to assess future proposals for annexations, extensions of services beyond an agency’s jurisdictional boundaries, or proposals to amend sphere of influence boundaries of districts. Since the last service review conducted for fire protection in Nevada County, adopted in January 2014, new legislation has been enacted regarding the delivery of fire protection services by contract. Effective January 1, 2016, Government Code Section 56134 (SB 239) outlines the review responsibilities for fire protection contracts. These provisions require a LAFCo review and approval process for new or extended fire protection services, detailing application requirements and review methods. This legislation does not mandate that the area be part of the agency’s sphere of influence but does require sufficient revenue to fund the provision of services sustainably. This service review will evaluate existing contracts and identify potential future contracts under the analysis of mandatory determinations for shared facilities and operational efficiencies. Other entities and the public may also use this report as a foundation for further studies and analysis of issues related to fire protection, EMS, and other related services within the county. Structure of the Report The report is structured to provide a comprehensive review of the Nevada County fire service system, organized into distinct sections for clarity and ease of reference. It begins with the Executive Summary & Study Focus, presenting an overview of the key findings, service review legislation, and the purposes of the service review, establishing the foundation for the report. This section also outlines the structure of the report, details on fire service providers, growth and population trends, land use, fire district funding limitations, financial health, levels of service, spheres of influence, key findings, recommended actions, governance structure options, and sphere of influence updates. 5 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Following this, the Agency Profiles delves into detailed profiles of the fire districts within Nevada County. Each profile includes an overview, background, boundaries and sphere of influence, types and extent of services, governance and administration, land use and population data, financial overview, demand for services, emergency response performance, staffing details, governance structure options, service review determinations, and sphere of influence updates for the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District, Ophir Hill Fire Protection District, Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Protection District, Penn Valley Fire Protection District, Rough and Ready Fire Protection District, and the Washington County Water District. The final section, Section III: Appendices, provides supplementary materials, including Stakeholder Interviews, which compiles input from various stakeholders involved in the fire service system. Fire Service Providers Nevada County is served by ten local government fire service providers, all of which are subject to LAFCo's mandate to conduct Service Reviews. These providers include eight independent Fire Protection Districts, one County Water District, and one city Fire Department. The fire service providers reviewed in this study are: • City of Grass Valley Fire Department (GRS): Also provides service to Nevada City. • Higgins Area Fire Protection District (HGF) • Nevada County Consolidated Fire Protection District (NCC) • North San Juan Fire Protection District (NSJ) • Ophir Hill Fire Protection District (OPH) • Penn Valley Fire Protection District (PNV) • Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Protection District (PCP) • Rough and Ready Fire Protection District (RNR) • Truckee Fire Protection District (TRK) • Washington County Water District Fire Department (WAF) 6 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo In addition to the local government providers, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) and the United States Forest Service (USFS) provide wildland fire protection within their respective jurisdictions. CAL FIRE and USFS are crucial components of the fire protection system in Nevada County and work in coordination with the local government providers to ensure comprehensive coverage. However, as these agencies are not subject to LAFCo oversight, they are not reviewed in detail in this report. Figure 1: Nevada County LAFCo Study Area 7 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Fire Service Responsibility Areas In Nevada County, as in all of California, responsibility for wildland fire suppression is divided between Federal Responsibility Area (FRA), State Responsibility Area (SRA), and Local Responsibility Area (LRA). These areas of responsibility are important not only from the standpoint of delineating which agency has the primary obligation to respond to fires, but also which agency has the financial responsibility to pay for the cost of suppressing wildland fires. The US Forest Service (USFS) has the responsibility for responding to and paying for the suppression of wildland fires within FRA. This is true whether the FRA is within the boundaries of a fire district or not. The USFS does not have a responsibility to respond to other types of emergency incidents and is typically not trained or equipped to provide municipal type services. In practice, USFS resources will respond to assist local or state agencies with other types of incidents when requested and if an appropriate unit is available. CAL FIRE has the statutory responsibility for responding to and paying for wildland fire protection within areas designated SRA. Again, this is true regardless of the existence of a fire district. CAL FIRE’s mission does not include providing municipal type services, although CAL FIRE resources are trained and equipped to provide all-risk response and will respond to assist other agencies when requested and available. In addition to the state mission, CAL FIRE also provides contract services to local governments through its Cooperative Fire Protection program. Many fire districts, cities, and counties across California contract with CAL FIRE for services ranging from dispatch (as in Nevada County) to full operation of a municipal or county fire department. The costs of these contracts are borne by the local agencies and are dependent upon the local agency’s ability to fund the service and CAL FIRE’s willingness and ability to provide the local agency’s desired level of service. In cases where CAL FIRE has existing infrastructure and resources in place, the local agency may be able to leverage the State-funded engines to provide local service; Higgins Fire District has such a contract. In another common scenario, a local government will contract with CAL FIRE to provide staff to operate locally owned stations and apparatus. Nevada County agencies could consider such arrangements if funding were available and both CAL FIRE and the local agency found benefit in the specific proposal. 8 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) are lands that do not meet the criteria for designation as either FRA or SRA. Land within the boundaries of an incorporated city is, by definition, LRA. Within the LRA, it is the responsibility of the local agency having jurisdiction to respond to and pay the cost of suppressing wildland fires. The Town of Truckee, Grass Valley, and Nevada City are LRA, and those cities are financially liable for the cost of suppressing fires originating within the incorporated territory. Strategies for Limiting Financial Exposure in LRA Given the terrain and fuel types found within Nevada County, the risk of catastrophic wildfire is present, regardless of whether a particular area is within the city or town limits. Serious wildland fires are very expensive to combat, requiring the use of aircraft, bulldozers, hand crews, and other specialized equipment and personnel. Fire suppression and recovery can go on for many days, even after the forward progress of the fire has been stopped. Recognizing this risk, Nevada County’s incorporated cities have taken steps to limit their financial exposure to fire suppression costs resulting from wildfires occurring within their boundaries. LAFCo addressed the wildland fire problem as a condition of the incorporation of the Town of Truckee. Currently, the Town has a Wildland Fire Agreement (WFA) with CAL FIRE. A WFA acts as an insurance policy; for a fixed price, CAL FIRE agrees to assume responsibility for the costs of suppressing wildland fires within a defined incorporated area that is adjacent to the SRA or FRA. Truckee’s WFA is renewed annually and has evolved over time. The current agreement includes 8,644 acres at an effective cost of $47.73 per acre. The 2024 contract amount is $412,578.12. Grass Valley and Nevada City utilize a different approach to addressing the problem. In these two cities, a Mutual Threat Zone (MTZ) agreement provides that CAL FIRE will respond with all necessary force to suppress any fire originating within either city that poses a threat to the SRA. CAL FIRE views it as cost-effective to eliminate the threat before it impacts the SRA; thus, service provided under the MTZ agreement is at no cost to the cities. The limitation, however, is that once the threat to the SRA is abated, the CAL FIRE resources must either be released, or the city must pay for their continued use. This is important because, as stated earlier, it is possible that several days’ worth of labor-intensive work can remain after the forward progress of the fire has been stopped and the threat to SRA abated. The following figure details the fire service responsibility areas in Nevada County. 9 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 2: Fire Service Responsibility Areas 10 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Growth and Population Identifying historical population estimates for the unincorporated areas of Nevada County presents challenges, as these communities’ populations are not readily available through the California Department of Finance or the U.S. Census Bureau. This report primarily utilizes population projections derived from historical interpolations based on American Community Survey estimates for the individual fire protection districts. These calculations indicate slight overall population decreases across the county, except for the Town of Truckee which experienced a slight increase in population. On May 1, 2024, the demographics division of the State Department of Finance released its projections for counties in California, including Nevada County. An excerpt from this report provides the following population estimates and annual percent changes for January 1, 2023, and January 1, 2024: Figure 3: City/County Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change January 1, 2023, and 2024 Total Population State/County/City 1/1/2023 1/1/2024 Change Nevada 100,474 100,177 -0.3% Grass Valley 13,478 13,400 -0.6% Nevada City 3,350 3,347 -0.1% Truckee 16,702 16,778 0.5% Balance of County 66,944 66,652 -0.4% This trend is expected to persist through 2035, impacting the service requirements of fire providers and their ability to effectively serve the community moving forward. Demographic changes, including an aging population, will necessitate adjustments in resource allocation and strategic planning to ensure that fire protection and emergency services can meet the evolving needs of Nevada County’s population. 11 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 4: Population Distribution 12 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Land Use The great majority of the land within Nevada County is classified as Forest/Rural or Open Space/Recreation. Mixed uses are found primarily in the incorporated cities, with pockets of mixed use also found in the Penn Valley and Higgins areas. Figure 5: Land Use Categories 13 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Fire District Funding Limitations Fire districts in California, and Nevada County in particular, face systemic challenges in balancing revenue and expenditures. Fire district funding was primarily based on a share of the property tax; as limitations on property tax have manifested over time, the districts have come to increasingly rely on voter-approved assessments to bridge the gap between revenue and expenditures. Some of the independent districts in Nevada County have enacted two or even three rounds of assessments. There exist significant differences in the allocation of property tax share to the districts, and vast differences in the levels of assessments. Totals for assessments range from zero to $416 annually in the fire districts. There is not a direct correlation between the amount of assessment and the level of service- in fact, some of the highest assessments are in districts with the lowest levels of service. The following figure illustrates the funding sources for each of the study agencies, including the various zones within the agency boundaries. Figure 6: Fire District Funding Matrix Share of 1% ERAF Property PT per PT per Agency Property Tax (Loss) Tax1 Parcel Capita HGF 0.73996 (7.872%) $1,798,083 $340 $180 NCC 1.49605 (11.798%) $3,635,324 $209 $110 NSJ 0.06426 0.00% $156,152 $72 $61 OPH 0.20409 (12.295%) $495,939 $292 $131 PCP 0.10177 (11.797%) $247,285 $104 $67 PNV 0.20037 (22.33%) $486,895 $72 $39 RNR 0.11426 (12.571%) $277,645 $388 $189 TRK 3.39304 0.00% $8,244,938 $3672 $417 WAF 0.01551 Unknown $37,6853 $179 $297 1 FY 2022–23. 2 4,528 parcels in Placer County and 17,927 parcels in Nevada County. 3 Washington County Water District does not allocate property tax for fire services. 14 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 7: Assessments, Special Taxes, and Proposition 172 Current Percent Agency Initial Amount COLA Prop 1724 Assessment of 172 HGF (1980) $25/parcel $25 No $115,383 11.437% HGF (2024) $179/unit $179 3% — — NCC (2012) $52/parcel $65 3% $510,827 50.634% NCC (2004) $80/unit $143 3% — — NSJ (1986) $27.50/parcel $27.50 No $51,220 5.077% NSJ (2014) $61.50/parcel $65.25 3% — — OPH (2006) $113/unit $173 5% $76,643 7.597% PCP (1998) $58/parcel $58 No $36,289 3.597% PCP (2023) $236/unit $236 No — — PNV (Rescue-2010) $98/parcel $129 3% $154,931 15.357% PNV (Fire-2005) $57/unit $88 3% — — RNR (2019) $221/unit $237 CPI $42,645 4.227% TRK Varies Multiple Varies $0 0.00% WAF None None N/A $9,150 0.907% Graniteville5 None None N/A $11,773 1.167% TOTAL $1,008,861 100% As is the case with most fire districts in California, Nevada County’s independent fire districts were historically staffed by volunteers. The districts had very low costs, and the locally elected Boards of Directors typically kept property tax rates as low as possible. 4 FY 2024–25. 5 Graniteville Volunteer Fire Co. supports the community of Graniteville, a historic mining town in northern Nevada County. 15 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo California’s property tax system is based on a constitutional amendment adopted in 1978 known as Proposition 13. Under this law, all property has an established base year value that restricts assessment increases to a maximum of 2% each year. The base year value stays in effect until the property changes ownership or new construction is added. Therefore, it is important to consider that increases in annual property tax growth are limited and should not be expected to exceed 3% to 4% in normal years. It is also worth noting that many districts have elected to receive 100% of the annual assessment under the Teeter Plan, foregoing any penalties and interest on delinquent tax receipts. After Proposition 13 was approved by voters in 1978, the State Legislature adopted AB-8, which implemented the provisions of Proposition 13. AB-8 essentially froze the districts’ property tax allocations at their 1978 levels in perpetuity. The lasting effect is that a fire district that had a volunteer workforce in 1978 is still funded at a level that would support a volunteer workforce today. As voluntarism declined, districts were forced to hire paid staff to preserve their ability to provide service. The property tax allocations soon became insufficient; one by one the fire districts sought voter approval for special taxes and assessments. Beginning in 1992/1993, the State began shifting property tax revenue away from cities, counties, and special districts and placing it in the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). The ERAF shifts are calculated each fiscal year by the Auditor/Controller in accordance with state law and are audited periodically by the state. The ERAF shift grows as a function of the growth in property tax receipts. Statewide, ERAF represents a permanent funding loss to California’s fire protection districts of over $94 million per year (2022). Multi-county districts, such as Truckee Fire District, are statutorily exempt from ERAF. Speaking broadly, California’s (and Nevada County’s) once-rural, volunteer fire districts have adapted to these challenges by seeking additional revenue sources, by sharing resources, by consolidating or contracting for service, by reducing services (closing stations) and in an increasing number of cases, dissolving. Pressed by increased expectations for service and by increases in equipment and labor costs that far exceed growth in revenue, the districts collectively have reached the point where additional revenue must be found to avoid collapse. 16 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Financial Health All the fire districts in Nevada County are struggling financially. This is a common theme across California’s fire districts that is especially acute among rural fire districts. A sharp decline in the availability of volunteers and steep increases in the costs of personnel, goods, and services have costs rising much faster than revenue. Many of the fire districts in Nevada County have received voter approval for supplemental assessments, but the funds derived are not sufficient to keep pace with rising costs. Fire district funding is uneven and inequitable, both in terms of supplemental assessments and in base property tax funding. The inequity in the distribution of property tax revenue has led to disparity in assessments; the result is property owners across the unincorporated areas contributing wildly differing amounts to fund fire services. These funding challenges directly lead to a fire service that is significantly understaffed in the unincorporated areas. Two-person crews are the norm; the commonly accepted industry standard is a three-person engine company. Level of Service None of the fire agencies are meeting their adopted emergency response standard or goal. Where local agencies have not adopted a response time standard, NFPA 1710 was used to determine the appropriate standard to evaluate effectiveness. In addition to a response time goal, agencies should consider adopting a baseline total response time that defines the expectation of service for the community. None of the agencies is exceeding its capacity for service based on existing demand, however, Grass Valley Fire Department (which also serves Nevada City) is nearing the limits of its ability to manage the service demand with existing resources. Most stations across the county have excess capacity to handle additional calls. However, they are not necessarily located to meet the service demand. Performance on adopted response standards could degrade with the growth in more populated areas unless the number of staffed apparatus increases incrementally to keep pace. 17 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Mutual aid agreements and automatic aid arrangements are in place between fire agencies in the county to facilitate resource sharing and response to service calls in adjacent jurisdictions. However, the lack of written policies and standards for staffing, equipment, training and the absence of Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) hinders the ability to fully capitalize on a closest-resource “boundary-drop” system. The Grass Valley Fire Department is impacted by the large number of automatic aid responses they provide from the city stations to adjacent unincorporated areas. Figure 8: Call Density—All Agencies 18 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 9: 8-Minute Effective Response Force 19 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 10: Fire Station 5-Mile Travel Distance 20 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Spheres of Influence LAFCo is charged with developing and updating the sphere of influence (SOI) for each city and special district within the county. An SOI is a LAFCo-approved plan that designates an agency’s probable future boundary and service area. Spheres are planning tools used to provide guidance for individual boundary change proposals and are intended to encourage efficient provision of organized community services, discourage urban sprawl and premature conversion of agricultural and open space lands, and prevent overlapping jurisdictions and duplication of services. Every determination made by a commission must be consistent with the SOIs of the local agencies affected by that jurisdictional change. For example, a territory may not be annexed to a city or district unless it is within that agency's sphere. In other words, the SOI essentially defines where and what types of government reorganizations (e.g., annexation, detachment, dissolution, and consolidation) may be initiated. If a government reorganization is initiated, there are a number of procedural steps that must be conducted for a reorganization to be approved. Such steps include additional in-depth analysis of the Plan for providing the services, LAFCo consideration at a noticed public hearing, and processes by which affected agencies and/or residents may voice their approval or disapproval, and ultimately a process whereby the success of the change is determined by the level of protest received. SOIs should discourage the duplication of services by local governmental agencies, guide the Commission’s consideration of individual proposals for changes of organization, identify the need for specific reorganization studies, and provide the basis for recommendations to particular agencies for government reorganizations. The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg (CKH) Act requires LAFCo to develop and determine the SOI of each local governmental agency within the county and to review and update the SOI every five years, as necessary. LAFCOs are empowered to adopt, update, and amend the SOI. They may do so with or without an application, and any interested person may submit an application proposing an SOI amendment. 21 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo LAFCo may recommend government reorganizations to agencies in the county, using the SOIs as the basis for those recommendations. In determining the SOI, LAFCo is required to complete a service review and adopt the seven determinations previously discussed. In addition, in adopting or amending an SOI, LAFCo must make the following determinations [Government Code § 56425(e)]: • Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands; • Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area; • Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public service that the agency provides or is authorized to provide; • Existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines these are relevant to the agency; and • Present and probable need for water, wastewater, and structural fire protection facilities and services of any DUCs within the existing sphere of influence. • In the case of special districts, the nature, location, and extent of any functions or classes of services provided by existing districts. By statute, LAFCo must notify affected agencies 21 days before holding the public hearing to consider the SOI and may not update the SOI until after that hearing. The LAFCo Executive Officer must issue a report including recommendations on the SOI amendments and updates under consideration at least five days before the public hearing. Nevada LAFCo has established its policies for spheres of influence to address local conditions and circumstances as authorized by statute. These special designation policies include, but are not limited to: 1. Address the sphere planning horizon for extension of service, estimated to be a 20- year timeframe; 2. The establishment of near- and long-term expansion horizons for the delivery of services; 3. Allow for the establishment of areas of interest beyond a sphere of influence boundary where other governmental action may impact directly or indirectly upon another local agency; and, 22 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo 4. If the Commission determines that the public service functions of an agency are either non-existent, no longer needed, or should be reallocated to some other agency of government, it may adopt a “zero” sphere of influence (encompassing no territory) for the agency, thus indicating the Commission’s position that the agency should ultimately be dissolved. The policies outlined under Number 1 through 3 have been typically used to address service issue for cities within Nevada County. However, during this review it appears they may be applicable to the discussion of the potential for consolidation of service providers to provide for a more efficient and sustainable means for service delivery in the southwestern county area. 23 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Key Findings and Recommendations • The fire service providers are working very well together to meet the needs of their communities. We observed a very high level of cooperation and coordination amongst the agencies. • The fire service in Nevada County is significantly under-staffed, with two-person companies being the norm. The commonly accepted industry standard is three- person fire companies. • The fire agencies have collectively become very efficient within the constraints of the current governance, organizational, and funding model. • The fact that all fire agencies are dispatched by the CAL FIRE Grass Valley Emergency Command Center (GVECC) is a tremendous advantage in ensuring the most effective response to calls for service. • Both Truckee Fire Protection District and Penn Valley Fire Protection District operate ambulance services in ground zones assigned by Sierra-Sacramento Valley Emergency Medical Services Agency. PNV provides ambulance service to the Rough and Ready Fire District territory through a mutual-aid agreement with Sierra Nevada Ambulance, which is the ambulance service provider for the remainder of Nevada County. • The Rough and Ready Fire Protection District (RNR) is in distress. The Board of Directors voted to dissolve the district early in 2023. Since that time, PNV has been managing the district’s affairs, while PNV and Nevada County Consolidated Fire District (NCC) are collaborating on staffing the RNR fire station. The County of Nevada has been providing funding to enable PNV and NCC to continue to staff the station. • There are a significant number of fire stations within the county that are unstaffed. The responsible agencies should determine which facilities may be needed in the future and develop plans to dispose of surplus real estate. • The presence of the Sierra College Fire Training Center, co-located with Grass Valley Fire Station 2, is a tremendous asset to the fire services in western Nevada County. The fire agencies should continue to collaborate to take full advantage of the opportunities presented by their proximity to the facility. 24 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo • The funding structure underlying fire districts is unsound and unsustainable. Property tax allocations are uneven and based on a volunteer service model which is no longer viable. Special taxes and assessments are unevenly applied across the unincorporated areas of Nevada County. Costs continue to increase faster than revenue growth. • Many of the fire agencies have not adopted response time standards or goals. • Grass Valley Fire Department is impacted by the number of responses the three stations are handling. The system may be nearing capacity. The service demand is, in part, driven by the number of Automatic aid calls into adjacent unincorporated areas. Recommended Actions AP Triton recommends that the Nevada County Consolidated, Penn Valley, Rough and Ready, and Ophir Hill fire districts reorganize into a single fire district as soon as practical. It is further recommended that the Peardale-Chicago Park Fire District join with the consolidated district when the timing is appropriate. We believe this should occur within a five-to-10-year timeframe. In conjunction with the reorganization of the fire districts, AP Triton recommends that the property tax transfer agreement required by Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99 be utilized within the limitations of state law to negotiate an increase in the property tax allocation to the reorganized fire district. An agreement to shift enough property tax revenue from the County to the District to make the reorganization financially feasible is a policy decision that the Board of Supervisors can make to support the emergency response system in the west county. AP Triton recommends that the reorganized fire district place a single, consistent supplemental assessment that includes a cost-of-living allowance before the voters or landowners, as the case may be, within 3 years of the date the reorganization Certificate of Completion is recorded. The funding derived from the new assessment structure should provide for three-person engine crews at least at key fire stations. Triton recognizes that three-person crews may not be practical at all stations in the short-term, but achieving this level of service should be a long-term community-wide goal. 25 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo The fire agencies should incorporate Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) into the dispatch system to ensure the dispatch of the closest available resource to high-priority calls. A key component of this recommendation will involve discussions with the Grass Valley Fire Department relative to the demand Automatic Aid is placing on the GRS system. The reorganized fire district should immediately begin discussions with Sierra Nevada Ambulance to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of the ambulance transport system within western Nevada County. The Grass Valley Fire Department should undertake a Standards of Cover study to determine the optimal deployment model for the agency and to quantitatively determine the impact auto aid is having on performance within the cities. 26 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Reorganization Options For Penn Valley, Rough and Ready, Nevada Consolidated, Ophir Hill, and Peardale- Chicago Fire Protection Districts: Beginning with the MSR conducted in 2000 and in each of the subsequent reviews, the option of consolidation of fire and emergency medical response services has been reviewed and advocated. Interest in the consolidation of these services for the western Nevada County area waned through the ensuing years. While supportive of the concept, the actual development of such a proposal never got off the ground. Beginning in July 2023, this discussion took on a renewed emphasis when the Rough and Ready Fire Protection District decided it would need to close its doors and dissolve as a fire protection entity. This prompted the Penn Valley FPD, Nevada County Consolidated FPD, and the County of Nevada to enter into a contract to continue the provision of fire protection and emergency medical service at the Rough and Ready station while other options were studied. It also began a more earnest discussion of the future of fire protection and emergency medical response for the overall area. It is now being proposed that the Penn Valley FPD, Rough and Ready FPD, Nevada County Consolidated FPD, and Ophir Hill FPD reorganize into a single fire protection district in the near future, with the Peardale-Chicago FPD joining at a future date. This reorganization would include, but not be limited to, the following: • Consolidating the spheres of influence of the affected districts into a single sphere with an anticipated timeframe of one to five years for reorganization. The consolidation would include the amended sphere of influence for Nevada County Consolidated along its northeastern boundary. • Rough and Ready would be designated a zero sphere of influence identifying the Commission’s position that it be absorbed by another fire entity. • Identification of the Commission’s position that future annexations by either the Cities of Grass Valley or Nevada City address the loss of revenue to the fire protection district through conditions of approval allowing for a five-to-ten-year absorption of the loss. • Identifying the Peardale-Chicago Park FPD boundary as a long-term sphere for the consolidated district, meaning that a future reorganization is anticipated within the next ten to 20 years. 27 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo • As currently envisioned, the four districts will jointly propose a reorganization that would annex the Rough and Ready, Nevada County, and Ophir Hill FPDs area and spheres of influence to the Penn Valley FPD, dissolve the three FPDs being annexed, and rename the district to reflect its new orientation. The Plan for Service and Transition Plan for the reorganization will need to identify the timelines and actions necessary to effectuate this change. Governance • The proposed reorganization will necessarily include a discussion of the structure for the new board of directors. Fire Protection District Law provides for two options for a governance structure: ▪ A dependent district, where the county Board of Supervisors is designated as, or appoints, the board of directors; or, ▪ An independent district with an elected board of directors chosen either at- large or by division. The choice of governance type was discussed with decision-makers during stakeholder interviews. Stakeholders did not express any interest in the dependent district model. By default, should the reorganization move forward, it would be as an independent fire protection district. The question to be resolved will be whether the Board of Directors of the reorganized district will be chosen at-large (by all the voters within the district) or by division, where the voters within the division chose the representative. While both options are technically available, the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (CVRA) makes the choice of at-large elections fraught with the peril of potential litigation. Election of the board of directors by division in accordance with the CVRA eliminates this concern and allows for the reorganized district to move forward with the transition. • Provisions of the Fire Protection District law provide that the initial board of directors for the reorganized district can be made up of 5, 7, 9, or 11 members, which can be permanent or temporary for a period of transition as the new district takes over the operations of the former agencies. In addition, the composition of the board from the existing district directors will need to be determined and included in the transition plan. 28 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo • Identification of the structure of the reorganized district (dependent or independent); how the board elections will be managed (at-large or by division); the number of board members; and the constitution of the initial board of directors will be a condition of LAFCo approval (authorized by Government Code Section 56886(n). The preference for each of these choices by the affected agencies should be a part of the transition plan and/or plan for service submitted to LAFCo for review. • The Plan for Service will need to address the financial implications of the change of organization as required by statute and commission policy. One element of that discussion will be existing ad valorem property taxes and the transfer of those taxes to the new entity. Each of the affected fire protection districts within the proposal area receive a share of ad valorem property tax which will be the subject of the negotiation. As with all proposals before LAFCO, it will be subject to the requirements of Revenue and Taxation Code 99, which specifies that for all special district changes in organization, the County Board of Supervisors shall adopt a resolution outlining the transfer. Existing County policies adopted by Resolution 06- 162 guide this negotiation process; however, there remains the ability to deviate from the policy based upon the unique circumstances of the change. The proposal cannot be heard by the Commission until this determination is made. • Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99.02 allows any agency within a given Tax Rate Area (TRA) to exchange property tax revenue with another agency within the TRA. The code section specifies a process for such a transaction which mandates that certain determinations regarding the affected agencies be made: (a) there are revenues available for the purpose proposed, (b) the transfer will not change the ratio of fees, charges, or assessments in relation to other revenues of the County; (c) the transfer will not impair the ability of the local agency to provide existing services; and (d) the transfer will not result in the reduction of property tax revenues to schools. There is no requirement that this process be implemented for the change of organization for the fire protection districts to proceed to be heard. The sphere of influence proposed is shown in the following figure. 29 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 11: Consolidated Sphere of Influence It is anticipated that the reorganization of these districts will help address several key issues identified in this review: recruitment and retention of fire personnel, stabilization of funding, and capital equipment replacement. One critical aspect that must be addressed in this process is securing conditional approval for annexations by either the City of Grass Valley or Nevada City. Such annexations could potentially remove funding from the proposed fire district by taking over primarily developed, high property tax value areas. 30 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Maintaining the procedures used in prior annexations will help mitigate the financial impact, allowing the district to manage the funding reduction as permitted by Government Code Section 56855. While this change in governance is supported by LAFCo law and desired by the affected agencies, its success ultimately depends on the support of the community members. They will decide if this is the best choice for the future of their fire and emergency response services. Sphere of Influence Update This report proposes a new type of sphere of influence determination for the fire protection districts in the southwestern area of Nevada County. Nevada LAFCo's policies allow for the development of both near-term and long-term spheres of influence. Although this option has typically been used for city spheres of influence, it is now being applied to address the transitional spheres of influence for reorganizing the fire protection districts. The spheres of influence were initially confirmed through the Municipal Service Review for fire protection and emergency services presented to Nevada LAFCo in January 2005 and subsequently adopted by the Commission. These spheres were later updated in January 2014 with the adoption of the report titled “SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATES 2014 Nevada County Fire Service Providers.” Existing SOI The spheres of influence (SOI) for the Penn Valley, Rough and Ready, Ophir Hill, and Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Protection Districts are coterminous with their existing boundaries and remained unchanged through the original Municipal Service Review (MSR) in 2005 and the Sphere of Influence Update in 2014. In contrast, the sphere of influence for the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District includes additional areas beyond its existing boundaries to address service needs along its northeastern edge. SOI Modification In the effort to facilitate the reorganization of fire protection districts in western Nevada County to reorganize into a single fire protection district the following information is presented to support the consolidation of the Penn Valley, Rough and Ready, Nevada Consolidated, and Ophir fire districts into a near term sphere of influence (to be reorganized within five years) and that the Peardale-Chicago Park FPD be included as a long-term sphere of influence (anticipated to be reorganized within 10 years). 31 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo • The sphere of influence determination is to consolidate the spheres of influence of the affected districts into a single sphere with an anticipated timeframe of one to five years for reorganization. Rough and Ready would be designated a zero sphere of influence identifying the Commission’s position that it be absorbed by another fire entity. • Identification of the Commission’s position that future annexations by either the Cities of Grass Valley or Nevada City address the loss of revenue to the fire protection district through conditions of approval allowing for a five-to-ten-year absorption of the loss. • The four districts would jointly propose a reorganization that would annex the Rough and Ready, Nevada County Consolidated, and Ophir Hill FPDs area and spheres of influence into the Penn Valley FPD, dissolve the three FPDs being annexed and rename the district to reflect its new orientation. The Plan for Service and Transition Plan for such a change would need to identify the timelines and actions necessary to effectuate this change. Recommended SOI The recommended sphere of influence determination would consolidate the spheres of influence of the five districts (four short-term sphere of influence and one long-term sphere of influence) and make the determinations as outlined in Government Code Section 56425. Proposed SOI Determinations Government Code Section 56425(e) requires that for any sphere of influence amendment determinations shall be made for the following items: 1. The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands; 2. The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area; 3. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agencies provide or are authorized to provide; 4. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area; and, 5. The present and probable need of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities for the district’s public facilities and services. The following provides the determinations for the proposed sphere of influence amendment: 32 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Determination #1: The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. A review of the materials provided for each of the districts identifies a range of land uses including, but not limited to, urban, suburban, rural, commercial, agricultural, forest, and conservation as defined by the Nevada County General Plan (updated 2014). This represents the full range of land use designations. There will be no change in these land use determinations because of the sphere of influence consolidation. Determination #2: The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. Based upon the range of land uses associated with the consolidated sphere of influence the present and probable need for the fire protection, emergency medical response and ambulance (provided at present to a portion of the area by the Penn Valley FPD) will remain acute. The combined population of the district is 54,049 as of 2023 (based upon extrapolation of data from the American Community Survey). The determination of need is due to the existing land uses and the intensification of some land uses in and around the cities as well as the forest environment of the area. The communities have a number of parks and tourist destinations which will have a transitory population which will need the range of services available from the districts. Determination #3: The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agencies provide or are authorized to provide. Each of the agencies is authorized to provide fire protection and emergency medical response as defined by the Fire Protection District law of 1987. Penn Valley is also authorized the service of ambulance service whose service area is defined by the Sierra- Sacramento Valley EMS Agency to an area which is within the proposed consolidated sphere of influence. The MSR information for each of the agencies within the consolidated sphere of influence has identified that there are adequate stations, personnel, and apparatus to meet current demands but not at industry standards. The proposed reorganization of service is anticipated to address this area of concern. 33 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Determination #4: The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area. There is no single distinct community of interest for the area; however, these combined agencies address the unincorporated territory of the southwestern county area. The total population for Nevada County outside the three cities, as identified by the California Department of Finance, is 66,994 as of 2023. The population of the consolidated sphere is estimated to be 54,049, which is roughly 80% of the county population, which is a significant community. Determination #5: The present and probable need of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities for the district’s public facilities and services. There is one identified DUC within the central Rough and Ready FPD and western portion of the Nevada Consolidated FPD service areas. Another DUC is identified in the central portion of the Penn Valley FPD. These areas receive the same level of service as the surrounding district areas. The services available through the consolidated sphere of influence will meet the needs of these areas as they remain the same as the present day. 34 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Section II: AGENCY PROFILES 35 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Grass Valley Fire Department GRS Overview The Grass Valley Fire Department (GRS) provides fire protection, Basic Life Support (BLS) emergency medical services, and community risk reduction to a population of 16,966 within an area of approximately 9 square miles. This service area includes 3,349 residents from neighboring Nevada City, which receives services from GRS under a contractual agreement. GRS operates three fire stations staffed by 28 full-time career personnel. Background GRS developed a Strategic Plan in 2018, which was subsequently updated in 2022. However, the department has not yet completed a Master Plan or a Standards of Cover analysis. In February 2023, GRS received a Class 2 ISO Rating from the Insurance Services Office (ISO) during its most recent evaluation. Over the last ten years, the department has not engaged in cost minimization efforts. Instead, the city has expanded its staff and equipment. However, the service contract between Grass Valley and Nevada City has arguably resulted in efficiencies that have allowed both cities to avoid or reduce certain costs. Additional revenue measures, including Measure E—a 1% sales tax—have been implemented to expand funding for general city services, including fire protection. As a result, the department was able to add two Battalion Chiefs in September 2021. GRS implemented an Advanced Life Support (ALS-Paramedic) first responder program in July 2023. According to the Fire Chief, there is minimal potential for further facility, personnel, or equipment sharing, as GRS already provides automatic aid response to many areas adjacent to the city limits. This service is facilitated through the Joint Operations Agreement (JOA) between the Grass Valley/Nevada City Fire Department and the Nevada County Consolidated Fire Protection District, which has been in place since 2014. The Fire Chief's top three critical issues: • Need to increase staffing. • Funding capital improvements. • Fire Prevention and vegetation management. 36 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo The Fire Chief's top three opportunities to increase value and/or efficiency for the public: • A single fire agency for the unincorporated areas of Nevada County. • Additional staffing on fire resources throughout the county to relieve the impact on city resources responding into unincorporated areas. • Standardized staffing and training for all fire resources in the County. Boundaries and Sphere of Influence The cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City are substantially surrounded by the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District; with the Ophir Hill Fire District situated to the east of Grass Valley. The irregular shape of the city boundaries, combined with the strategically advantageous locations of city fire stations, leads to GRS responding as the closest resource to many calls outside the city limits of both cities under the provisions of the JOA. The City of Grass Valley’s SOI was last reviewed by Nevada LAFCo in June 2024. The City’s boundaries contained 3,985 acres at that time, with an additional 2,766 acres within the SOI. It is important to note that any territory potentially annexed to either city would consist of parcels that are already in either the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District (NCC) or the Ophir Hill Fire District (OPH). Detachment of a substantial number of developed parcels from NCC and/or OPH could have a negative effect on those districts’ ability to sustain operations at the current level due to the relatively higher property tax values of those areas. The City of Nevada City’s SOI was last reviewed by Nevada County LAFCo in 2020. The adopted SOI increases the size of the city from the current 1,470 acres to a planned 2,140 acres. It is important to note that territory potentially annexed to the city would consist of nearly 1,000 parcels that are currently in the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District (NCC); most of these parcels are already developed. Detachment of a substantial number of developed parcels from NCC could have a negative effect on the district’s ability to sustain operations at the current level due to the loss of property tax revenue from these developed parcels. 37 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 12: GRS Service Area GRS service area includes the City of Grass Valley and the City of Nevada City. GRS is not directly responsible for service in the SOI outside of either city’s boundaries. 38 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Type & Extent of Services Services Provided GRS provides a full range of services for its residents in Grass Valley and Nevada City. The following figure represents each of the services and the level performed. Figure 13: Overview of Services Provided Service Y/N Level Fire Suppression Yes Wildland engine-based suppression (Type Wildland Fire Suppression Yes 3) Available for Cal OES Statewide Statewide Mobilization Yes Mobilization (Type 1 and Type 6 OES Engine Assignee) Advanced scope EMT. Advanced Life EMS First Response Yes Support (ALS) when qualified personnel are available. Ambulance Transport Yes Sierra Nevada Ambulance Swift Water, Confined Space, High Angle, Specialized/Technical Rescue Yes Low Angle in conjunction with NCC HazMat Response Yes First Responder Operational (FRO) Fire Inspection/Code Enforcement Yes Small project in house, others to third Plan Reviews Yes party review service Public Education/Prevention Yes Fire & Arson Investigation Yes Training Center shared with Sierra College and County Fire Agencies, 5 acres with Training Center Yes tower, ventilation props (City Owned), burn rooms Service Area The first fire company in Grass Valley was established in 1853. The City of Grass Valley was incorporated in 1893, at which time it assumed responsibility as the fire protection agency. The Grass Valley Fire Department is legally responsible for providing fire and emergency services within the city limits. 39 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo In November 2020, Nevada City entered into a Fire Protection Services agreement with the City of Grass Valley, wherein Grass Valley provides full-service fire protection, assumes most of Nevada City’s fire employees, and manages its fire facilities. AP Triton believes this contract constitutes a Fire Protection Contract under Government Code (GC) 56134, which would require review and approval by LAFCo. However, the contract itself claims an exemption from the provisions of GC 56134. AP Triton asserts that only LAFCo has the authority to determine whether the contract is exempt from these provisions, not the parties involved in the contract. While this MSR does not directly address the sphere of influence, the impacts of Grass Valley’s service area on the future operations of fire protection districts serving the surrounding unincorporated areas could be significant. Both Grass Valley and Nevada City have adopted general plans that outline land use, sphere of influence, and planning areas. The planning areas are regions outside the sphere of influence that may affect the cities and their provision of services. The planning areas for Grass Valley and Nevada City, as depicted in their respective General Plans, are shown in the following figures. 40 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 14: Grass Valley 2020 Planning Areas 41 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 15: Nevada City Planning Areas 42 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Collaboration • Closest resource response with Nevada County Consolidated Fire District • Mutual Threat Zone (MTZ) agreement with CAL FIRE • Auto Aid agreements with HIG, NSJ, OPH, PNV, and RNR • Collaborative program with NCC for specialized teams (swiftwater, confined space, etc.) • GRS is party to The Nevada County Fire and Emergency Joint Powers Agency which provides for Emergency Communications; Emergency Dispatch; an Air Filling Station; and MAPTool Development and Maintenance • GRS hosts the regional training center in cooperation with Sierra College Contracts to Provide Services to Other Agencies • Contract fire service provided to Nevada City Contracts for Services from Other Agencies • Dispatch service provided by CAL FIRE Governance & Administration The City of Grass Valley operates under a Council-Manager form of government. The City Council, comprising five elected members, serves as the city's governing body. Each November, the City Council members vote to select a new Mayor and Vice Mayor. The Council appoints the City Manager, who, along with the City Attorney and City Clerk, forms the Administration Department. The Fire Chief is a member of the City’s Management Team and, like other department heads, reports directly to the City Manager. Under the terms of the Fire Protection Services Agreement, the Grass Valley Fire Chief reports to both the City Manager of Grass Valley and the City Manager of Nevada City. However, it is important to note that voters in Nevada City do not have direct input into the overall management of these fire protection services. 43 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 16: Grass Valley Fire Department Organizational Chart City Manager Fire Chief Deputy Fire EMS Captain Marshal Battalion Chief Battalion Chief Battalion Chief A-Shift B-Shift C-Shift Captains (3) Captains (3) Captains (3) 44 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Accountability for Community Services—Transparency The following figure identifies the City of Grass Valley's efforts to meet State laws designed to ensure transparency and accountability, as well as efforts beyond legal requirements to make information available to the public. Figure 17: Transparency and Accountability Transparency and Accountability Available Agency website:6 Yes Adopted budget available on website: Yes Notice of public meetings provided: Yes Agendas posted on website:7 Yes Public meetings are live streamed: Yes Minutes and/or recordings of public meetings available on Yes website: Master Plan (fire service specific) available on website: No Strategic Plan (fire service specific) available on website: No Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover documents No available on website: SOC performance reports available on website: No Efforts to engage and educate the public on the services to the Yes community: Staff and governing board member ethics training and Yes economic interest reporting completed: Compliance with financial document compilation, adoption, Yes and reporting requirements: Adherence to open meeting requirements: Yes The City of Grass Valley engages in various efforts to educate and inform the public about fire and emergency services. These efforts include participation in local events, offering tours of fire stations, providing access to fire department information on the City’s website, and conducting educational programs focused on fire prevention and preparedness. 6 As of January 1, 2020, independent special districts are required to maintain websites according to Government Code Sections 6270.6 and 53087.8 to provide the public easily accessible and accurate information about the district. Government Code Section 53087.8 lists what must be included in the website. 7 Government Code §54954.2. 45 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Land Use and Population Land Use The City of Grass Valley and the City of Nevada City have both adopted zoning systems to guide future development. These cities have implemented special regulations across various areas, ensuring that transitions from residential to commercial uses occur smoothly, without negatively impacting property values or the surrounding community. The General Plans of both cities outline a diverse range of land use types, including urban high-density residential, urban estate, commercial, industrial, mixed-use, business park, institutional, public, and open space lands. Some areas within these categories are designated for special development, requiring specific plans to address future land uses. Fire protection and emergency medical response are essential elements in maintaining the quality of life within these combined areas. Current Population According to the 2020 Decennial Census, the combined population of Grass Valley and Nevada City is estimated at 16,966, with 13,617 residents in Grass Valley and 3,349 in Nevada City. As of January 1, 2023, the California Department of Finance (CDOF) estimated the combined population to be 16,830. Projected Population The CDOF provides population estimates at the state, county, and city levels, covering the years 2010 to 2023. Using these historical data, population projections for the Grass Valley jurisdiction have been calculated through 2035. The population is expected to experience a cumulative increase of 5% from 2023 to 2035, representing an annual growth rate of approximately 0.4%. The projected population for 2035 is 17,706. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) A Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) is an unincorporated, inhabited area with an annual median household income that is less than 80% of the statewide median ($60,188).8 LAFCo is required to identify the location and characteristics of any DUCs during the Service Review and Sphere of Influence (SOI) update process.9 8 Government Code §56033.5. 9 Government Codes §56425(e)(5) and §56430(2). 46 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo No DUCs were identified by LAFCo at the Census Block Group level within or contiguous to the Nevada City SOI. However, the City of Grass Valley identified the Alta Hill area as a disadvantaged unincorporated community, a designation recognized by Nevada LAFCo during its June 2024 sphere of influence update. This area is predominantly developed with residential uses and receives fire protection services from NCC, with automatic aid provided by Grass Valley. The following figure is excerpted from the adopted Sphere of Influence Plan for the City of Grass Valley. 47 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 18: GRS DUC 48 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Financial Overview GRS operates as a department within the City of Grass Valley and is funded through several sources, including the General Fund, Measure E Fund, Fire Reserve Fund, and the Impact Fee Fund. To develop a financial trend analysis for the past five years, a substantial amount of data was reviewed. This analysis revealed that GRS experienced minimal impact on its revenues during the COVID-19 pandemic. Revenues GRS is funded by several income sources, with the largest direct funding coming from a supplemental sales tax designated to support fire and police services, as well as parks and street projects. Initially, Measure N, approved in 2012, established a 0.5% sales tax. This was replaced by Measure E in 2018, which increased the sales tax to 1.0%. Total revenues from Measure E have grown alongside city sales, increasing from $4.9 million in FY 2019 to $6.9 million in FY 2023. In addition to funding capital projects, this tax supports a portion of personnel costs in both the Fire and Police departments, with staffing levels rising from 5.2 and 7 FTEs in FY 2019 to 10.2 and 10.9 FTEs in FY 2023 for Fire and Police, respectively. In December 2021, Grass Valley and Nevada City entered into a ten-year agreement under which the GRS provides fire administration, firefighting, rescue, EMS, and emergency management services to Nevada City. Nevada City retained its Fire Marshal and covers the associated costs. The initial annual cost for these services was $895,000, with annual increases tied to assessed valuation growth, capped at 3%. GRS also generates revenue from a fire assessment, which totals approximately $250,000 annually. Reimbursements for strike team responses are recorded in the Fire Reserve Fund and vary depending on seasonal conditions and demand, ranging from a low of $3,767 in FY 2020 to a five-year high of $131,212 in FY 2021. Additionally, GRS collects fire prevention fees for inspections, permits, and other services. Fire impact fees, recorded within the Impact Fee Fund, have fluctuated, with a five-year low of $14,461 in FY 2022 and a high of $64,197 in FY 2021. The following figure provides a detailed breakdown of these revenues. 49 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 19: Grass Valley Fire Department Revenues, FY 2019–FY 202310 Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Revenue FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Fire Assessment 248,147 248,920 253,492 256,710 253,750 Fire Fees/Permits 105,356 99,987 560,256 948,650 965,550 Total General Fund 353,503 348,907 813,748 1,205,360 1,219,300 Strike Team Reimbursements 50,162 3,767 131,212 107,231 — Fire Impact Fees 32,532 23,233 64,197 14,461 — Interest Income 2,521 1,961 825 899 1,000 Fire Reserve & Impact Fee Funds 85,215 28,961 196,234 122,591 1,000 Total Fire Revenues 438,718 377,868 1,009,982 1,327,951 1,220,300 Revenue from the Nevada City contract is categorized under Fire Fees/Permits. FY 2021 reflects six months of contract revenue, while a full year of revenue is included beginning in FY 2022. The following figure illustrates the overall growth in fire revenues for the Grass Valley City Fire Department, incorporating the data mentioned above. Figure 20: Historical Fire Department Revenues 10 Grass Valley City Fire Department Adopted Budgets, FY 2021/FY 2022; FY 2022–FY 2023. 50 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Expenses Salaries and benefits account for approximately 84% of the recurring costs for GRS. Salaries and wages have increased significantly, rising from $1.3 million in FY 2019 to $2.4 million in FY 2023, an 83% increase. A substantial portion of this increase occurred in FY 2021, driven by the service agreement with Nevada City for fire, EMS, and emergency management services. A significant portion of the benefits program is the CalPERS pension, which represents about 10% of total personnel costs. Retirement costs have risen by 84% from FY 2019 to FY 2023, aligning with salary increases over the same period. Health insurance, which also accounts for approximately 10% of personnel costs annually, has increased by 60% from FY 2019 to FY 2023. GRS participates in strike team response, with costs fluctuating seasonally. These costs ranged from a low of nearly $147,000 in FY 2020 to a high of approximately $672,000 in FY 2021. Other recurring expenses include contractual services, operating materials, facility costs, apparatus and equipment maintenance, fuel, insurance, utilities, training costs, debt service, and various other expenses. Non-recurring expenses cover equipment (both capital and non-capital), strike team costs, as well as communications and technology. Figure 21: Historical GRS Expenditures Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Expenditures FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Salaries & Wages 1,342,550 1,432,005 1,715,038 2,299,037 2,461,131 Overtime 367,828 365,693 317,463 559,678 939,557 CalPERS 232,428 251,500 293,091 384,391 428,231 Insurance 249,381 282,104 362,158 412,136 399,242 Other Employee Benefits 156,556 184,721 210,774 267,813 280,750 Total Salaries & Benefits 2,348,743 2,516,023 2,898,524 3,923,055 4,508,911 Other Recurring Expenditures 335,912 686,223 710,288 905,101 828,097 Total Recurring Expenditures 2,684,655 3,202,246 3,608,811 4,828,156 5,337,008 Capital Expenditures 0 0 0 103,828 0 Other Non-Recurring Expenditures 191,372 801,165 265,391 95,984 239,926 Non-Recurring Expenditures 191,372 801,165 265,391 199,812 239,926 Total Expenditures: 2,876,027 4,003,411 3,874,203 5,027,968 5,576,934 51 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo The following figure graphically illustrates the overall growth of Grass Valley City Fire Department expenditures, incorporating the information outlined above. Figure 22: Historical Fire Department Expenditures Government agencies have limited capacity to quickly adjust their revenue streams in response to significant events within their jurisdiction, such as the loss of apparatus or critical equipment, or during rapid and severe economic downturns. Therefore, it is crucial for agencies to maintain an adequate level of reserves to be prepared for these unforeseen events. Financial Projections Revenues Fire assessments are expected to remain stable. Fire fees and permits, including revenues from the agreement with Nevada City, are projected to increase by nearly 2% annually. Other revenue streams are forecasted to remain consistent. Expenses Salaries and benefits, which account for over 80% of GRS's recurring expenditures, are projected to increase by approximately 7% annually. Other recurring costs, as previously described, are expected to escalate at a rate of 8% annually. 52 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Capital Planning GRS follows a scheduled plan for the replacement of vehicles, heavy apparatus, and equipment. These expenditures are incorporated into the city’s financial plan. Most of GRS’s capital purchases are funded through the Measure E Fund. The primary revenue sources for this fund are sales and use tax revenues, which are specifically allocated for public safety, parks, and street projects. Additional revenues include interest income and reimbursements. As of June 30, 2022, the assigned fund balance in the Measure E Fund was $4,410,378. Examples of capital projects in Grass Valley’s FY 2023 budget include the purchase of a fire engine ($930,000), radios and equipment ($25,000), and three utility vehicles ($290,000). Outstanding Debt Grass Valley City does not report its debt by department. Reserves As of June 30, 2022, Grass Valley City had $14,603,898 of fund balance in funds related to its fire department. Fund balances consisted of the following: • General Fund: ▪ $3,021 – Nonspendable (prepaid costs) ▪ $1,577,075 – Restricted ▪ $8,379,489 – Unassigned • Measure E Fund $4,410,378 – Assigned for public safety, parks, and streets • Fire Reserve Fund $221,710 – Assigned fund balance for fire equipment maintenance and replacement • Fire Impact Fees Fund $12,225 53 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 23: City of Grass Valley Fund Balance Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Fund Balance FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Nonspendable 2,849 1,909 2,000 3,028 3,021 Restricted 1,631,530 1,631,530 1,552,075 1,552,075 1,577,075 Assigned (Measure E Fund total)* — 5,492,500 2,933,713 4,427,568 4,410,378 Assigned (Fire Reserve Fund) 87,303 99,141 82,234 186,912 221,710 Assigned (Impact Fees Fund – Fire) — — 35,960 101,592 12,225 Unassigned 9,641,999 12,434,411 5,977,432 7,717,528 8,379,489 Total Fund Balance 11,363,681 19,659,491 10,583,414 13,988,703 14,603,898 Demand for Services GRS operates as a moderately busy suburban/urban system, providing aid services to neighboring communities when requested. The data used in this report is a combination of incident data from the agency and RMS data from the California Office of the State Fire Marshal. The analysis covers the period from January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2022, except where explicitly stated otherwise. This analysis focuses on incidents of all types within the jurisdiction served by GRS, and where applicable, on incidents where GRS responds to adjacent areas by agreement. The following figure provides an overview of the statistics for incidents occurring within the Grass Valley City Fire Department jurisdiction, which includes Nevada City. Figure 24: GRS Overview Avg. Annual Incidents per 90th Percentile Agency Incident Vol. 1,000 Population Total Time Grass Valley Fire Department 4,647 276 08:58 Minutes Incident categories follow the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) code grouping, with incidents classified based on general hazards. Medical responses account for over 63% of GRS operations, making it the most common type of incident by a significant margin. This high proportion of medical calls is consistent with many fire departments that provide emergency medical services. 54 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo The following figure shows the incident volume by type between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2022, represented as a percentage of overall incidents. The "Good Intent" category includes calls where the reporting party believed assistance was needed, but upon investigation, it was determined that no action by the fire department was necessary. Examples include smoke from a properly operating chimney, a vehicle accident that could not be located, or an incident where the fire unit was canceled by another agency prior to arrival. Figure 25: Total Incident Response by Type with Percentage Special Incident Type, 19 Severe Weather and Fire, 410 Natural Disaster, 11 Overpressure, False Alarm, 11 679 Good Intent, 3,115 Service Call, 1,273 Rescue-Medical, 10,174 Hazardous Condition, 518 Typically, analyzing incidents by year can reveal trends and provide insights into future call volumes. The following figure shows the annual incident volume by year. In 2021, GRS began handling calls for Nevada City. To simplify the analysis, all calls reported by Nevada City (NEV) are included in the GRS dataset. Calls charted in the following figure include all calls responded to by GRS or NEV units. There was an 8% increase in demand from 2019 to 2022. 55 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 26: Total Incident Volume by Year 8,000 6,113 6,178 6,097 6,000 5,399 4,000 2,000 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 The following figure illustrates Aid Given and Aid Received counts which were provided directly by GRS beginning with 2021. Aid Given by GRS decreased 15.8% over the three years, and Aid Received from other agencies increased by 46.9% from 2021 to 2023. This could be an indication that the GRS units are becoming unreliable for calls in their own first- in area as they spend a larger percentage of their hours engaged in emergency response activity both inside and outside the cities. It appears that more calls are occurring with the closest GRS unit(s) being unavailable, resulting in an outside agency unit picking up the call as the closest available resource. Triton recommends that GRS undertake a Standards of Cover study to determine exactly what is stressing the system and develop empirically valid mitigation strategies. 56 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 27: Incidents with Aid Given and Aid Received by Year 1,600.00 1,400.00 1,200.00 1,000.00 800.00 600.00 400.00 200.00 0.00 2021 2022 2023 Aid Given Aid Received The following figure details the auto-aid and mutual-aid interaction between GRS and adjacent jurisdictions. Aid Given indicates that GRS units responded and provided aid to the Jurisdiction noted in the first column. Aid Received indicates responses into GRS by units from the jurisdiction noted. Figure 28: Aid Incidents by Jurisdiction (2021–2022 combined) Aid Given by GRS Received Aid Jurisdiction GRS from Jurisdiction NCC 2146 947 OPH 45 13 PNV 277 6 Rough and Ready 13 — Annual Average 1240 483 Additional temporal studies indicate that monthly variations in call volume are typically insignificant. However, April stands out with approximately 1.2% fewer calls than expected, while December experiences about 1% more calls. Although these percentages are small, they translate to 55 calls more or less per month, which could be noticeable depending on available staffing. 57 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 29: Incidents by Month 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Like many similar agencies, GRS experiences a significant increase in incident volume during daytime hours. In fact, nearly 70% of incidents occur between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. The following figure illustrates the general variation in incident volume by hour of the day, based on the complete incident data set. Figure 30: Incident Percentage by Hour 7% 6% s 5% t n e d ic 4% n I f o t 3% n e c r e 2% P 1% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour of the Day 58 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo This average daily fluctuation is typical and likely results from the number of people awake and active during the day. However, the day-to-day variation also plays a role in incident patterns. The following figure presents an incident heat map by hour of the day and day of the week. Figure 31: Day and Hour Incident Heat Map Hour Mon Tues Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun Color Incidents 0 199–220 1 165–199 2 139–165 3 102–139 4 68–102 5 47–68 6 38–47 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 In the previous figure, it is interesting to note the daytime elevated incident rates shift to later in the day on Saturday and Sunday to reflect differing schedules and activities between weekdays and weekends. There is not a significant increase in incidents on Friday and Saturday nights, which is typically seen in larger, more urbanized jurisdictions. 59 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Emergency Response Performance The performance of the fire department response in the service area was also evaluated. Response mode was not provided, so performance times are calculated using all incidents, excluding Service Calls. Results are presented using the 90th percentile statistic. The 90th percentile is typically used in the fire service and is considered the standard for measuring incident response performance. There are three unique time segments that are included when evaluating an agency's response performance. The first is the time it takes for the Dispatcher to answer the 911 call and notify the agency (call processing); the second is the time it takes for the agency to receive the call and go en route to the call (turnout time); and third is the time it takes for the unit to drive to the incident (travel time). All three segments combined make up the total response time. The unit type was not discriminated against, and the first arriving unit was used to determine the total response time. The timestamps in the data provided for each segment of the response time do not include seconds. This truncation of the data introduces potential for up to 2 minutes’ error in the total response time calculation. GRS did not indicate the adoption of a performance goal. Therefore, as a reference, the National Fire Protection Association’s NFPA 1710: Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments is used. Between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2022, GRS’s performance for incidents of all types, excluding Service calls, within the fire response area was a total response time of 8 minutes, 58 seconds (08:58) or less, 90% of the time. The following figure shows a comparison of the NFPA 1710 standard compared to the actual total response time for calls. Figure 32: NFPA 1710 vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance NFPA 1710 1/2019–12/2022 Performance Fire/Other 6:20 or less, 90% of the time 08:00 or less, 90% of the time EMS 6:00 or less, 90% of the time 07:14 or less, 90% of the time The following figure is the performance of total response time for each of the major incident types for all incidents within the data set, excluding Service Calls. 60 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 33: Incidents’ 90th Percentile Total Response Times, January 2019–December 2022 0:10:30 0:07:00 0:03:30 0:00:00 Percentile Goal The final analysis investigated the unit usage question for all apparatus within the system. Three dimensions are studied in this report. The first dimension is the unit hour utilization (UHU). This number represents the time a unit was committed to an incident as a percentage of the total time they were on duty. The next is the average time a unit was committed to an incident. And finally, the average number of incidents a unit was deployed per day. The data for each cross-staffed unit is combined into the entire station. The following figure shows the general statistics for each frontline unit at Stations 1, 2, and 5 within the GRS system. Calls with an NEV code are incorporated into the Station 5 statistics. Figure 34: Fire Unit Statistics Unit Hour Utilization Avg. Time per Avg. Incidents Unit (UHU) Incident Per Day Station 1 14.8% 43 Minutes 5.0 Station 2 16.7% 30 Minutes 8.0 Station 5 15.2% 58 Minutes 3.8 61 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo The unit hour utilization (UHU) calculation evaluates how much time a crew is committed to an incident versus the total time on duty during a specific time frame. The formula for this calculation is the total time committed to an incident divided by the sum of all time the unit is staffed. ∑𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑎 𝑆𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑒 𝑈𝐻𝑈 = ∑𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐼𝑛 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒 The desire is for the primary unit at a station to be under 10% UHU. Maintaining 10% UHU should indicate that the area has 90% availability from unscheduled events. Stations with multiple companies should aggregate to less than 10% UHU for all similar units. In addition, crews from the primary apparatus that cross-staff other units should avoid aggregated UHUs of over 10%. The data indicates that all three of the GRS stations are above the 10% UHU threshold. This signifies that the GRS response system may be at or near capacity, and that it may be necessary to either reduce the demand or increase the capacity of the system to manage the call volume by adding response assets. The data indicates that the system demand is, in part, driven by automatic aid. One critical piece of the discussion is that GRS has not established response time standards or goals. The significance of the 10% UHU is that it correlates with a 90% compliance to an adopted performance standard. Without an adopted standard, it cannot be definitively stated that the UHU is having a detrimental impact on system performance. Staffing The following figure shows the total number of personnel for GRS organized by the various divisions. Figure 35: Staffing Assignment Staffing Uniformed Administration 2 Non-Uniformed Administration 1 Fire Prevention 1(contract) Operations Staff 26 Emergency Communications Contract/JPA Volunteers, Reserve, On Call — Total Personnel 29 62 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo The following figure displays the daily operational staffing at each station and on each unit within the station. The operations staff work on a rotating schedule consisting of three shifts, with each shift working 48 hours on duty followed by 96 hours off. Figure 36: Daily Staffing Station Daily Staffing Unit Staffing 1 2 Engine (2 minimum, 3 typical) 2 2 Engine (2 minimum, 3 typical) 5 3 BC (1), Engine (2) Total 7 Minimum staffing 7, typically 9 are available 63 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo GRS Fire Stations The following figures outline the basic features of each of the GRS fire stations. The condition of the stations is rated based on the criteria identified in the introduction to this section of the report. Station 1 and Station 2 are owned by Grass Valley. Station 5 is owned by Nevada City. Figure 37: GRS Fire Station Locations Figure 38: GRS Fire Stations Station Name/Number: Fire Station 1 Address/Physical Location: 472 Brighton St. Grass Valley General Description: This facility meets many of the needs of a modern fire station. Structure Date of Original Construction Unknown, Remodel 2007/2008 General Condition Good Seismic Protection Yes Auxiliary Power Yes ADA Compliant Yes Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs Back-Ins 2 Total Bays: 4 Total Square Footage 5571 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 4 Beds 4 Dorm Beds Maximum Staffing Capability 4 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities 3 Gender Segregation Bathrooms Y Showers Y Bedrooms Y Exercise/Workout Facilities Yes Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned Yes Training/Meeting Rooms No Washer/Dryer/Extractor Yes Safety & Security Station Sprinklered Yes Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System Yes 64 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Minimum Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Unit Staffing* E1 2 Min staffing 2, Typical staffing 3 E201 Reserve OES 4609 State OES Engine Type 6, staffed as needed OES State OES Engine Type 1, staffed as needed Utility 1 Total Daily Staffing: 2–3 Min staffing 2, Typical staffing 3 *If an apparatus cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 65 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Station Name/Number: Fire Station 2 Address/Physical Location: 213 Sierra College Drive, Grass Valley CA General Description: The station meets the needs of a modern fire service facility. Station 2 is co-located with the Sierra College Fire Training Center which includes classroom space as well as a large drill ground with an apparatus building, a training tower, and several other training props. Structure Date of Original Construction 2001 General Condition Good Seismic Protection Yes Auxiliary Power Yes ADA Compliant Yes Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 3 Back-Ins Total Bays: 6 Total Square Footage 9750 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 4 Beds 6 Dorm Beds Maximum Staffing Capability 6 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities 3 Gender Segregation Bathrooms Y Showers Y Bedrooms Y Exercise/Workout Facilities Yes Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned Yes Training/Meeting Rooms Yes Washer/Dryer/Extractor Yes Safety & Security Station Sprinklered Yes Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System Yes 66 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Minimum Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Unit Staffing* E2 2 Minimum staffing 2, Typical staffing 3 T2 CS E202 Reserve Squad 2 CS Utility 2 0 Total Daily Staffing: 2–3 Minimum staffing 2; Typical staffing 3 *If an apparatus cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 67 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Station Name/Number: Fire Station 5 Address/Physical Location: 201 Providence Mine Road, Nevada City, CA General Description: This station meets the needs of a modern fire service facility. Structure Date of Original Construction Est. 1995 General Condition Fair Seismic Protection Met code at time of construction Auxiliary Power Yes ADA Compliant Yes Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 2 Back-Ins Total Bays: Total Square Footage 6640 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 3 Beds Dorm Beds Maximum Staffing Capability 3 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities 2 Gender Segregation Bathrooms 3 Showers 2 Bedrooms 3 Exercise/Workout Facilities Yes Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned Yes Training/Meeting Rooms No Washer/Dryer/Extractor Washer Dryer, Extractor at FS 1 or FS 2 Safety & Security Station Sprinklered Yes Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System Yes Minimum Unit Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Staffing* E5 2 Brush 5 CS Battalion Chief 1 Utility 5 0 Battalion Chief Reserve Total Daily Staffing: 3 *If an apparatus cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 68 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Fire Stations Discussion The two GRS fire stations were considered in "Good" condition. Fire Station 5 in Nevada City was rated as "Fair." Fire station ages range from 15 to 28 years, with an average of just over 21 years. The following figure summarizes the GRS fire stations and their features. Figure 39: Station Configuration and Condition Staffing General Station Apparatus Bays Station Age Capacity Condition 15 years since Station 1 4 4 Good remodel Station 2 6 6 Good 22 years Station 5 2 3 Fair 28 years Totals/Average: 12 13 21 years average The stations are generally older but still meet most of the requirements of modern firefighting. However, as the firefighting environment has evolved, so have the technology, equipment, and safety systems needed to address new demands. Older buildings often lack the space and engineering systems to accommodate these advancements. For instance, modern needs include significantly more access to electrical outlets than older buildings were designed to provide, including facilities for charging both agency and employee electric vehicles. The older GRS stations are no exception. One critical shortcoming of older buildings is their inability to meet the current requirements for decontaminating personnel and equipment after many types of responses. In today’s firefighting context, it is essential that every crew member has access to facilities that allow for immediate decontamination after a fire event, including showers designed to accommodate gender separation. Additionally, there needs to be sufficient partitioned space for thoroughly washing gear and equipment, with measures in place to control contamination within the station's living and working areas. While all structures require routine maintenance, staffed fire stations demand even more due to the continuous occupancy by a number of active adults. The frequent departures and returns of heavy apparatus also place additional strain on these structures. 69 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Facility Replacement and Maintenance Plan Fire stations typically have a service life of about 50 years. Agencies that operate essential service buildings, such as fire stations, should have a plan for the eventual replacement of these structures. Some stations can be remodeled to extend their service life, but regular maintenance and the scheduled replacement of specialized equipment are crucial for keeping them functional. Maintaining stations in good repair requires proactive planning for the updating and repairing of systems such as heating and air conditioning (HVAC), generators, roofs, driveways, parking areas, security gates, painting, carpet replacement, and small appliances. These efforts can help reduce costs and extend the buildings' service life. Establishing a facility replacement and maintenance plan enables cities to more efficiently plan for the ongoing service and upkeep of each station. Status of Shared Facilities GRS operates two stations in the City of Grass Valley and one station in Nevada City. Additionally, there is a modern training center located at the Station 2 site, developed in conjunction with Sierra College, which is utilized by many other agencies. Through an automatic aid/boundary drop agreement, all three GRS stations respond as the closest resource to emergency incidents in the unincorporated areas of the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District and the Ophir Hill Fire District, adjacent to both cities. Like all local fire agencies in Nevada County, GRS is a member of the JPA, which, among other functions, contracts with CAL FIRE for dispatch services. Apparatus GRS staff evaluated the department’s apparatus based on several factors, including age, mileage/hours, service history, condition, and reliability. The criteria for this evaluation are defined in the introduction section of this report. The following figures represent all apparatus and vehicles operated by GRS. 70 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 40: GRS Apparatus Unit Type Status Year Condition Features Engines & Aerial Apparatus Engine 1 Type 1 Frontline 2017 Excellent 1500 GPM/500 G Tank Engine 201 Type 1 Reserve 2003 Fair 1500 GPM/500 G Tank Engine 2 Type 1 Frontline 2019 Excellent 1500 GPM/500 G Tank Engine 202 Type 1 Reserve 2015 Good 1500 GPM/500 G Tank Truck 2 Quint Frontline 2009 Good 2000 GPM/300 G/ 105’ Engine 5 Type 1 Frontline 2021 Excellent 1500 GPM/500 G Tank Brush 5 Type 3 Frontline 2010 Good 1000 GPM/500 G Tank OES 4609 Type 6 OES Assigned 2021 Excellent 500 GPM/300 G Tank OES 4104 Type 1 OES Assigned 2006 Good 1000 GPM/800 G Tank Medics/Rescues/Other Squad 2 Light Rescue Frontline 2019 Excellent Figure 41: Supervisor & Command Vehicles Unit Assigned To Manufacturer Year Condition Battalion 1 Duty Battalion Chief Ford F350 2023 Excellent C1300 Fire Chief Chevy Tahoe 2023 Excellent U1 Station 1 Ford F150 2017 Good U5 Station 5 Ford F250 2015 Good BC Reserve Station 5 Ford F250 2019 Good Mech. Mechanic Dodge 5500 2021 Good Prevention Inspector Dodge 2500 2019 Excellent U2 Reserve Station 2 Ford F250 2015 Good Apparatus Discussion Fleet maintenance for the GRS apparatus is handled either in-house or through outsourcing. The department has a dedicated Fleet Mechanic who ensures that all apparatus are maintained in a timely manner. The city aims to replace fire engines at 10- year intervals. A new truck is currently being designed, with plans to place an order in 2024 and expected delivery in 2027. Staff vehicles are replaced as needed based on their condition and service requirements. 71 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Dispatch & Communications GRS is dispatched by the CAL FIRE Green Valley Emergency Command Center (GVECC), which serves all fire agencies in Nevada County. The GVECC has the capability to dispatch units using Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) technology; however, none of the local agencies, including GRS, are currently utilizing AVL for closest unit dispatch. Figure 42: PSAP and Dispatch Center Item Description CAD Application Northrop Grumman Altaris CAD Telephone System Motorola VESTA Radio System MODUCOM radio consoles Fire/EMS Notification Two-tone encoder system Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Mutual aid TAC channels, State-wide radio with other fire agencies in the county: interoperability channels Ability for fire agencies to communicate via State-wide Interoperability channels radio with police agencies in the county: Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Mutual aid TAC channels, State-wide radio with non-Fire EMS agencies in the county: interoperability channels CAD to cAD with other CAL FIRE ECCs – for Ability for PSAP to communicate CAD-to-CAD local government dispatch centers - phone (how do you transfer a call to another center): call only Priority Dispatch – Emergency Medical Criteria-based dispatch system in place: Dispatch Formal EMD quality assurance program in place: Priority Dispatch AQUA and EMD-Qs Options for non-emergent calls not requiring EMS: None AVL used on fire apparatus: Northrop Grumman AVL used on ambulances & EMS units: No RadioMobile Patriot or a tablet using MDTs/MDCs in all fire & EMS vehicles: RadioMobile IQMobile Closest unit dispatched via AVL: Yes No. of 911 calls: 2022 – 23,342 No. of 10-digit incoming emergency calls: 2022 – 31,891 Infrastructure Needs A comprehensive facility maintenance and replacement plan should be developed to help both cities effectively manage their infrastructure needs. This plan should include a scheduled replacement of major building systems and outline the expected life cycle of each facility, along with a timeline for eventual replacement. 72 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Governance Structure Options At present, there are limited opportunities for changes in the governance structure. The Cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City have contractually merged their fire services in an effort to control costs and ensure the continuity of services. The Fire Department currently receives automatic and mutual aid from surrounding agencies, as well as state and federal fire resources. One of the City Fire Chief's top priorities is the consolidation of all fire districts serving the unincorporated areas into a single agency. This report identifies a potential steppingstone toward that goal through the consolidated sphere of influence. Service Review Determinations LAFCo is required to prepare a written statement of determination regarding six specific areas as mandated by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. Based on the criteria outlined in Section I of this report, the following determinations are proposed for the Grass Valley Fire Department, which serves the cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City. MSR Determination #1: Growth and Population Projections Based on data from the 2020 Decennial Census, the combined population of Grass Valley and Nevada City is estimated to be 16,966, with Grass Valley accounting for 13,617 residents and Nevada City for 3,349 residents. As of January 1, 2023, the California Department of Finance (CDOF) estimated the combined population at 16,830. The CDOF provides population estimates at the state, county, and city levels, covering the years 2010 to 2023. Using these historical values, population projections for the Grass Valley Fire Department's jurisdiction were calculated through 2035. The population is expected to experience a cumulative increase of 5% from 2023 to 2035, equating to an annual growth rate of approximately 0.4%. The projected population for 2035 is 17,706. 73 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo MSR Determination #2: Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence No Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) were identified by LAFCo at the Census Block Group level within or contiguous to the Nevada City Sphere of Influence (SOI). However, the City of Grass Valley has identified the Alta Hill area, located west of the existing city boundary, as a disadvantaged unincorporated community. This designation was recognized by Nevada LAFCo during its June 2024 consideration of the SOI update. The Alta Hill area is primarily developed with residential uses and receives fire protection from the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District (NCC), with automatic aid provided by Grass Valley. The map excerpted from the adopted Sphere of Influence Plan for the City of Grass Valley (approved by LAFCo on June 20, 2024) follows. 74 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 43: City of Grass Valley SOI 75 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo MSR Determination #3: Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities, Adequacy of Public Services, and Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies, Including Those Related to Sewers, Water, and Structural Fire Protection in Any DUCs Within or Contiguous to the SOI GRS operates from three stations—two within the City of Grass Valley and one within the City of Nevada City. These stations are managed by GRS as part of the contractual consolidation of the two fire departments, approved in 2020. Two of the three stations are rated in good condition, while the third, Station 5 in Nevada City, is rated as fair. The stations are currently at approximately the midpoint of their expected 50-year service life, and a replacement plan should be developed. Implementing a facility replacement and maintenance plan would enable GRS and both cities to more efficiently plan for the ongoing operation and upkeep of each station, ensuring continued service reliability. All three of the stations in the GRS system are operating well above the recommended 10% Unit Hour Utilization (UHU) threshold, indicating that the system is strained, and that demand on the system should be reduced or response assets added. MSR Determination #4: Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services The financial position of the City of Grass Valley was not directly assessed in the sphere of influence update approved on June 20, 2024. However, the update of fire and emergency services identified that fire protection and emergency services are supported by the City’s General Fund and revenues from Measure N, passed in 2012. In 2018, voters approved Measure E, which replaced Measure N, and the adoption of Measure B during the March 2024 special election provided additional revenues for the City’s fire operations. Nevada City contributes an annual payment of $895,000 to the City of Grass Valley for fire and emergency medical services. The City of Grass Valley has demonstrated its financial ability to continue providing a full range of services to its residents and those of Nevada City. 76 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo MSR Determination #5: Status and Opportunities for Shared Services The primary effort in shared services is the functional consolidation of the fire departments of Grass Valley and Nevada City into a single department, operated under the City of Grass Valley. Additionally, the cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City, along with the Nevada County Consolidated Fire Protection District, entered into a Joint Operations Agreement, most recently approved in 2020, to provide closest unit response within their respective areas. A modern training facility located at Station 2 is jointly utilized by Sierra College and other agencies throughout the area, enhancing shared training resources. GRS is also a participant in the Nevada County Fire and Emergency Joint Powers Authority (JPA), which facilitates emergency communication and dispatch services, air filling stations, and the development and maintenance of MAPTool. MSR Determination #6: Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies No alternative governmental structures or operational options were identified for GRS. However, the fire protection services agreement between the Cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City, in AP Triton's opinion, falls under the provisions of Government Code 56134, which requires LAFCo review and approval prior to implementation. Despite this, the agreement approved in 2021 declared itself exempt from those provisions. AP Triton maintains that the determination of exemption from statutory provisions is a decision that LAFCo should make, not the parties to the contract. One key priority identified by the Fire Chief is the consolidation of fire services for the unincorporated areas of the county. The determinations within this MSR suggest a movement toward this goal, particularly for agencies in the western and southwestern areas of the county. 77 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Higgins Fire Protection District HGF Overview Higgins Fire Protection District (HGF) provides fire protection, Basic Life Support (BLS) emergency medical treatment, and community risk reduction to a population estimated at 9,979 in approximately 78 square miles. HGF operates three fire stations, two full-time and one unstaffed, with seven full-time career personnel, one non-uniformed employee, and 18 paid-on-call personnel, for a total of 26 members. Background HGF developed a Mission Statement, Vision, and Goals and Objectives in September 2022. HGF established a Strategic Plan in 2019 and a Standards of Cover in 2013. The Master Plan was developed in 1995. All planning documents have been adopted by the governing body. HGF received a Class 3/10 ISO Rating in its most recent rating from the Insurance Services Office (ISO) in 2022. Over the last ten years, most cost minimization efforts have resulted from unspecified pool purchasing. Additional revenue measures have been exercised, including mitigation fees on new construction. A special tax was approved by voters in 1980 at $25 per residential parcel. A proposal to increase the tax was defeated in 1996. Another proposal to increase the tax was defeated in 2011. Subsequent attempts to increase the special tax in 2014 and 2015 also failed. The HGF received a SAFER staffing grant in 2014, which expired two years later. Another proposed increase in the special tax in March 2020 again failed to receive the required 66.67% “yes” votes. In May 2024, an Engineer’s Preliminary Report was completed as part of a Benefit Assessment process; the HGF successfully passed the Benefit Assessment in June 2024. According to the Fire Chief, there is potential for personnel sharing with other agencies. One HGF-owned fire station, Station 21, is utilized by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to house two engine companies. There is an “Amador Plan” contract with CAL FIRE, whereby one of the CAL FIRE engine companies remains staffed in the off-season with funding provided by HGF. 78 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo The Fire Chief's top three critical issues: • Station 21 is over 50 years old and is deteriorating. • CAL FIRE has announced that they will build a new facility in the Higgins Fire Protection District to house their operations and will vacate Station 21. • Additional ongoing funding is needed to reopen Station 22 in Dog Bar. The Fire Chief's top three opportunities to increase value and/or efficiency for the public: • Potentially sell Station 21 site which is on prime commercial land and build a new Higgins Fire Protection District station on a more advantageous site in the vicinity. • Continue the Amador Plan contract with CAL FIRE at their new station. • Submit a revenue measure to the voters to increase ongoing funding. Boundaries and Sphere of Influence HGF serves approximately 78 square miles in southern Nevada County, including the communities of Lake of the Pines and Higgins Corner. The HGF is bounded by Penn Valley Fire Protection District and Nevada County Consolidated Fire Protection District on the north, Placer Hills FPD and Placer County Fire (CSA 28 Zone 137, CSA 28 Zone 76, and CSA 28 Zone 193) on the east and south, and Yuba County Fire on the west. Most of the developed areas in the HGF lie along Highway 49, within the area known as Higgins Corners with some commercial properties located along Combie Road. The majority of the population is based in the Lake of the Pines subdivision and surrounding area. Lake of the Pines is zoned for urban high density and is nearly built out at this time. An adjacent subdivision, Dark Horse, is not yet fully built out. An area currently within HGF is designated for detachment from HGF and annexation into Nevada County Consolidated Fire Protection District (Consolidated) if and when it is developed. A large planned development called “Wolf Creek Ranch Estates” consists of two parcels, approximately 135 acres, which lies within both fire districts. Per an agreement between the two districts, the portion located within HGF will be annexed into NCC so that the entire development will be located within NCC. This agreement will be implemented once a development plan for the area has been approved; at present, it is unknown when that may occur. The two districts have agreed upon a transition plan for the transfer, the details of which are articulated in a Memorandum of Understanding approved by both agencies in 1999. 79 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 44: HGF Service Area 80 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Type & Extent of Services Services Provided HGF provides a limited range of services for its residents. The following figure represents each of the services and the level performed. Figure 45: Overview of Services Provided Service Y/N Level Fire Suppression Yes Wildland engine-based suppression (Type Wildland Fire Suppression Yes 3) Available for Cal OES Statewide Statewide Mobilization Yes Mobilization EMS First Response Yes Basic Life Support Ambulance Transport No Sierra Nevada Ambulance Specialized/Technical Rescue Yes CAL FIRE contract HazMat Response Yes CAL FIRE contract Fire Inspection/Code Enforcement Yes CAL FIRE contract Plan Reviews Yes CAL FIRE contract Public Education/Prevention Yes CAL FIRE contract Fire & Arson Investigation Yes CAL FIRE contract Service Area The HGF was formed in 1978 and assumed fire protection agency status. HGF is statutorily responsible for fire and emergency services within the district boundary. HGF purchased Station 21 from Nevada County in 2007. HGF has had a cooperative agreement with CAL FIRE for use of Station 21 at Higgins Corner since its inception. The service area surrounding Higgins Corner, the Lake of the Pines, and Dark Horse developments is high-density residential uses with some commercial occupancies. The remainder of HGF consists of rural residential properties. 81 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Collaboration • Provides automatic and mutual aid to neighboring fire agencies. • Available for statewide mutual aid. Contracts to Provide Services to Other Agencies • None. Contracts for Services From Other Agencies Cooperative agreement with CAL FIRE for the use of Station 21 and provision of off-season services and for Dispatch services. CAL FIRE staffs one engine at Station 21 in the off- season. Governance & Administration HGF is an independent special district governed by a 5-member locally elected Board of Directors. The make-up of the Board is shown below. The Fire Chief reports to the Board of Directors. Figure 46: HGF Board of Directors Name Title Term End Committee Assignment Janice Buschmann Chair December 2024 Policy Richard Thickens Vice-Chair December 2024 Fiscal Marty Main Treasurer December 2026 Policy Bruce Jones Director December 2026 Strategic Planning Chuk Suszko Director December 2026 Fiscal 82 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 47: HGF Organizational Chart Board of Directors Fire Chief Captain Business Manager 83 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Accountability for Community Services—Transparency The following figure identifies HGF’s efforts to meet State laws designed to ensure transparency and accountability, as well as efforts beyond legal requirements to make information available to the public. Figure 48: Transparency and Accountability Transparency and Accountability Available Agency website:11 Yes Adopted budget available on website: No Notice of public meetings provided: Yes Agendas posted on website:12 Yes Public meetings are live streamed: No Minutes and/or recordings of public meetings available on website: Yes Master Plan (fire service specific) available on website: No Strategic Plan (fire service specific) available on website: No Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover documents No available on website: SOC performance reports available on website: No Efforts to engage and educate the public on the services to the Yes community: Staff and governing board member ethics training and economic Yes interest reporting completed: Compliance with financial document compilation, adoption, and No reporting requirements: Adherence to open meeting requirements: Yes Efforts to engage and educate the public on the fire and emergency services to the community consist of participation in local events, tours of the fire stations, and educational programs focused on fire prevention and preparedness. In addition, the district maintains a social media presence to assist in providing information to their constituents. 11 As of January 1, 2020, independent special districts are required to maintain websites according to Government Code Sections 6270.6 and 53087.8 to provide the public easily accessible and accurate information about the district. Government Code Section 53087.8 lists what must be included in the website. 12 Government Code §54954.2. 84 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo The Special Districts Transparency Act (SB 929) enacted in 2020 requires that all districts have a functional website containing information on the board, the finances of the district and how to contact members of the district’s representatives. The response provided by the HGF to the questionnaire on transparency and accountability identified that its financial documents were posted to the website (budgets, audits, compensation reports). However, a review of the website found that there are no financial documents present or searchable from the website. The current agenda is posted in compliance with the requirements, but no background documents are retrievable from the HGF site. Therefore, the HGF does not comply with these requirements and the deficiencies should be addressed. Land Use and Population Land Use Land use authority within the HGF lies with the County of Nevada as the entirety of the area is unincorporated. The land use element of the Nevada County General Plan was adopted in 2014 and the Greater Higgins Area Plan was adopted in March 2023. The County General Plan provides for a mix of development types within the HGF boundary ranging from Rural- 40 acres minimum lot size to Planned Development (which anticipates a higher level of urban development) and open space uses generally around Lake Combie. The recently adopted Greater Higgins Area Plan provides for land use direction for the Higgins Corner area working in concert with future developments in the south County area. It anticipates maintenance of the scenic corridor along Highway 49, residential agriculture around the periphery of the community, and commercial and medium-density residential within the core of the historic community. Current Population Based on information from the 2020 Decennial Census, through Esri’s interpolation of census tracts, the population of Higgins area is estimated to be 9,979. The estimated 2023 population from American Community Survey data is 10,007. 85 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Projected Population Though historic population estimates for the specific boundaries of the HGF jurisdiction were not available through the California Department of Finance and US Census Bureau, population projections were calculated out to 2035 using historic interpolations from American Community Survey estimates. The population is projected to experience a cumulative increase of 0.5% from 2023 to 2035, or 0.1% annually. The projected population in 2035 is 10,052. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) A DUC is an unincorporated, inhabited territory that constitutes all or a portion of a community with an annual median household income that is less than 80% of the statewide annual median household income (i.e., $60,188).13 LAFCo is required to identify the location and characteristics of any DUCs in the Service Review and SOI update process.14 There are no DUCs identified by LAFCo at the Census Block Group level which are located within or contiguous to the Higgins Fire Protection District and its SOI. 13 Government Code §56033.5. 14 Government Codes §56425(e)(5) and §56430(2). 86 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Financial Overview HGF operates through three funds; the General Fund, to manage its operations, a Special Revenue fund for AB1600 mitigation fees and related capital needs due to development, and a Capital Improvement Fund to accumulate certain fees and expend funds for capital outlay. A significant amount of information was reviewed to develop financial trend analysis for the five-year period; however, it did not include audit materials for FY 2021, 2022 or 2023. It is understood from the HGF that the audit for FY 2021 has been recently completed but not as yet provided for review. The audits for 2022 and 2023 have not been completed, but HGF has provided the necessary information to the auditors and they have begun work on the 2022 audit. The review which follows uses audit data where available and unaudited year-end financials for the last three years. An audit is an important tool for the HGF and its constituents to understand how their resources are spent. The budget identifies how the resources are intended to be expended and provides authority to do so; but only the audit identifies how that occurs. This review of the historical information revealed an impact on revenues received by HGF during the COVID pandemic, primarily due to a drop in strike team reimbursements. Revenues HGF is funded by several sources of income. Property taxes are allocated under Proposition 13, limiting total property tax assessments to 1% of the property’s value. The tax revenue is then apportioned between the various taxing units. Nevada County utilizes the “Teeter Plan” by which the County remits 100% of the property tax apportionment to the taxing unit, with the taxing unit agreeing to forego any penalties and interest collections on delinquently paid taxes. Property tax revenues are based on assessed property tax values and are the single largest source of revenue to HGF.15 This revenue source accounts for approximately 85% of General Fund recurring revenues annually. HGF’s second largest recurring revenue source (6%) is a special assessment. The assessment amounted to $119,800 being collected in FY 2023. Another significant source of revenue is Proposition 172 tax at 4% of General Fund recuring revenues. 15 HGF Adopted Budgets, FY 2018–FY 2023. 87 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Reimbursements for its Strike Team have been significant, typically averaging about 20% of annual General Fund revenue, but fluctuate based on seasonal conditions and need. These reimbursements have ranged from lowest in FY 2020 totaling $181,604 and highest of $1,044,769 in FY 2021. In July 2024, voters passed a special assessment of $178.78 per EDU, with a COLA not to exceed 3% annually, and is expected to generate $762,960. The following figure indicates a detail of those revenues. Figure 49: HGF Revenues, FY 2019–FY 202316 AUDITED AUDITED Actual Actual Actual Revenue Actual Actual FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2019 FY 2020 Property Taxes 1,463,005 1,548,974 1,638,869 1,782,876 1,803,482 Special taxes 121,300 121,825 119,850 123,645 119,800 Proposition 172 69,209 94,499 67,021 120,160 38,893 Strike Team 526,139 181,604 1,044,769 661,527 527,359 Reimbursements Interest 30,605 30,104 30,516 22,514 32,599 State station lease 38,500 47,180 49,260 59,426 43,603 Other Revenue 11,397 2,564 7,677 7,129 19,409 Total General Fund 2,260,154 2,026,750 2,957,962 2,777,278 2,585,143 Mitigation/Capital revenue 52,754 66,400 47,436 53,373 125,641 Total Revenues 2,312,909 2,093,150 3,005,398 2,830,651 2,710,785 16 HGF Adopted Budgets, FY 2018–FY 2023. 88 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Expenses Salaries and benefits account for over 70% of the recurring costs of the HGF. Overtime use appears to be budgeted at approximately 13% of total personnel cost. Salaries and overtime increased from $857,039 in FY 2019 to $879,405 in FY 2023 (2%) with a significant increase occurring in FY 2021. HGF operates a Strike Team with fluctuating cost depending on the season, with a high of approximately $193,568 in FY 2021 and a low of $13,305 in FY 2019. Retirement costs account for about 15% of total personnel costs, with a significant increase occurring in FY 2021. Insurance accounts for approximately 10% of personnel costs annually. HGF has a contract with CAL FIRE for shared funding of an engine at Station 21. Costs for HGF vary depending on the length of the fire season, weather, and fire activity, with the HGF funding the “wet season.” The maximum cost of the agreements for July 2019- June 2022 and July 2022–June 2025 is $745,921 and $810,092, respectively. Costs in the last five years have ranged from $178,755 in 2020 to $153,000. Other recurring expenses include professional fees, personal protective equipment, facilities costs, apparatus and equipment maintenance, fuel, insurance, utilities, communications and technology, training costs, and other expenses. Non-recurring expenses include capital outlay and miscellaneous costs. Figure 50: Historical HGF Expenditures AUDITED AUDITED Actual Actual Actual Expenditures Actual Actual FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2019 FY 2020 Salaries & Overtime 857,039 638,692 842,110 828,742 879,405 Strike Team Payroll 13,305 40,001 193,568 98,500 10,393 Employee Benefits 384,511 405,817 437,177 436,559 490,104 Total Salaries & Benefits 1,254,855 1,084,510 1,472,855 1,363,801 1,379,901 Other Recurring 400,443 546,006 522,479 488,105 525,447 Expenditures Non-Recurring Expenditures 2,284 20,385 73,418 19,870 50,878 Total General Fund 1,657,582 1,650,901 2,068,752 1,871,776 1,956,226 Expenditures Capital/Mitigation 157,994 205,426 90,048 335,303 183,842 expenditures Total Expenditures: 1,815,576 1,856,327 2,158,800 2,207,079 2,140,068 89 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Government agencies are limited in their abilities to make rapid changes in their revenue streams to offset significant events within their jurisdiction such as loss of apparatus or significant equipment, or rapid and significant economic downturn. It is important for agencies to maintain a certain level of reserves to prepare for those unforeseen events. The following summarizes the revenues and expenditures for HGF for FY 2019 through FY 2023. Figure 51: HGF Summarized Revenues and Expenditures AUDITED AUDITED Revenues & Actual Actual Budget Actual Actual Expenditures FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2019 FY 2020 Total revenues 2,312,909 2,093,150 3,005,398 2,830,651 2,710,785 Total expenditures 1,815,576 1,856,327 2,158,800 2,207,079 2,140,068 Surplus (Deficit) 497,333 236,823 846,598 623,572 570,717 Shown graphically below, the above information indicates the overall growth of HGF General Fund revenues and expenditures. Figure 52: Revenues Over Expenditures (2019–2023) $3,500,000 $3,005,398 $3,000,000 $2,830,651 $2,710,785 $2,500,000 $2,312,909 $2,093,150 $2,000,000 $2,158,800 $2,207,079 $2,140,068 $1,500,000 $1,815,576 $1,856,327 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Total revenues Total expenditures 90 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Financial Projections Revenues HGF anticipates property tax revenues to continue to increase, estimated at 5.8% annually. While housing inventory will continue to be low, prices will continue to rise increasing assessed valuations and property taxes. Special tax, Proposition 172, and other revenues are expected to remain consistent. On July 3, 2024, the HGF proposed Fire Protection Assessment (Assessment), pursuant to California Proposition 218, was approved by the requisite number of property owners. The Assessment will provide funds needed to maintain and enhance fire protection service capacity by providing funding fire suppression services and equipment as well as the ability to reopen Station 22 to provide for better coverage. Forecasted Assessment revenue totals $762,960. This revenue is not included in the projection figures in the table later in this section. The initial Assessment was set at $178.78 per Benefit Unit, with a maximum 3% annual COLA. A single-family home is assessed one Benefit Unit, with other occupancy types adjusted by a Benefit Factor. Expenses Salaries and benefits are the most significant of the costs of HGF, consuming over 80% of the recurring expenditures. Based on the last five-years’ history, most personnel costs are forecast to increase by approximately 1% annually, except for insurance with estimated growth of 3% annually. Other previously described recurring costs are forecast to escalate at 8% annually. The recently passed Fire Protection Assessment will make it possible to reopen Station 22, staffed with two personnel working three shifts, 24 hours per day, resulting in an estimated annual total cost of $733,000. These costs are not included in the projection figures in the table later in this section. The following figure is a forecast of HGF’s projected General Fund revenues and expenditures. 91 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 53: HGF General Fund Summarized Projected General Fund Revenues and Expenditures Revenue & FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Expenditures Revenue 2,782,100 2,892,769 3,009,857 3,133,736 3,264,799 Expenditures 2,069,073 2,131,164 2,197,143 2,267,306 2,341,973 Surplus (Deficit) 713,027 761,606 812,714 866,430 922,826 Capital Planning HGF anticipates vehicle, heavy apparatus, and equipment replacement on a scheduled basis. These expenditures and small station improvements are included in the financial plan of HGF. HGF operates a Capital Improvement Fund for capital purchases or structure improvements. Other revenues include interest income, and interfund transfers. Committed fund balance in the Capital Replacement Fund was $2,176,015 on June 30, 2023 (unaudited totals). HGF also operates a Special Revenue Fund, with its main revenue source consisting of mitigation fees restricted by California Law AB1600 for the purpose of offsetting increased capital costs due to development (impact fees). Funds are required to be spent and/or designated within five years only for new capital additions. Restricted fund balance in the Special Revenue Fund was $808,997 on June 30, 2023 (unaudited totals). Outstanding Debt HGF has no outstanding debt aside from compensated absences, other post-employment benefits, and pension liabilities. Reserves As of June 30, 2023, HGF had $5,802,415 in total fund balance. The fund balance amounts in this section are unaudited due to the fact that HGF is delayed in completion of their 2021, 2022, and 2023 audits. Fund balances consisted of the following: • General Fund: $2,811,800 – Unassigned fund balance • Capital Replacement Fund: $2,176,015 Committed for capital improvements • Special Revenue Fund: $808,997 – Restricted fund balance for mitigation fees to be used for capital needs related to development 92 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 54: HGF Fund Balance Actual Actual Unaudited Unaudited Unaudited Fund Balance FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Nonspendable prepaid costs — 5,003 5,603 5,603 5,603 (General Fund) Restricted for capital outlay 693,563 744,409 761,046 813,766 808,997 Committed for capital outlay 598,338 708,466 1,549,217 1,729,447 2,176,015 Unassigned 1,846,805 1,913,607 1,944,144 2,403,203 2,811,800 Total Fund Balance 3,138,706 3,371,485 4,260,010 4,952,019 5,802,415 Demand for Services HGF is a geographically large, rural system that provides aid services to other communities when requested. Data was provided by the agency and its dispatch center and included incident information from January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2022. This analysis focuses on incidents within the statutory and contractual areas where HGF responds. The following figure is the overview statistics for Higgins Fire Protection District. Figure 55: HGF Overview Avg. Annual Incidents per 90th Percentile Agency Incident Vol. 1,000 Population Total Time Higgins Fire Protection District 2,498 250 16:00 The following figure shows incident volume by type between January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2022, visually demonstrating the proportion of incident types. The incident categories follow the National Fire Incident Reporting System's code grouping. Medical responses account for over 56% of the HGF operations. This proportion is similar to many fire departments that provide emergency medical services. The category “Good Intent” includes calls where the reporting party may have believed help was needed, but upon investigation, it was determined that no action on the part of the fire department was necessary. Examples include smoke from a properly operating chimney, a vehicle accident that could not be located, or an incident where the fire unit was canceled by another agency prior to arrival. 93 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 56: Total Incident Response by Type Special, 9 Disaster, 6 Service, 538 False Alarm, 549 Fire, 375 Good Intent, 41 Hazardous Rescue-Medical, Condition, 395 2,454 Typically, an analysis of incidents by year can yield a trend or give an idea of what the call volume might look like in the next few years. Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, call volumes nationally were affected, and trends are not as easy to spot. There is a very small drop (1.3%) in call volumes from 2019 to 2020, but the trend of increasing call volumes resumes from 2020 to 2021 and 2022. Calls charted in the next figure as Service Area include calls handled in and by HGF. Aid Given includes call service provided by HGF in areas outside by Mutual or Automatic Aid. Aid Received includes calls occurring in HGF but handled by other agencies. Call volume in the service area has increased by 12% from 2019 to 2022, while Aid Given and Aid Received volumes have decreased by 3% and 8%, respectively. 94 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 57: Annual Incidents by Aid Type 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 Aid Received Aid Given Service Area Additional temporal studies show that the monthly call volume variation is typically insignificant. However, August stands out with 1.0% more calls than expected, while November has 1.3% fewer calls. Though the percentages are small, this works out to ~13 calls +/- each month, which may be noticed depending on available staffing. Figure 58: Incidents by Month 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 95 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo HGF, like many similar agencies, sees a significant increase in incident volume during the day. In fact, HGF sees over 68% of its incidents daily between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. The following figure shows the general variation of the complete incident data set by the hour of the day. Figure 59: Incident Percentage by Hour 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour of the Day This average daily swing is typical and likely due to the number of people awake and moving around. However, the day-to-day variation in this information does play a part. The following figure is the incident heat map by the hour of the day and day of the week. It is interesting to note there is very little difference between weekday and weekend trends. 96 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 60: Day and Hour Incident Heat Map Hour Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Color Incidents 0–1 55–68 1–2 39–55 2–3 34–39 3–4 26–34 4–5 17–26 5–6 10–17 6–7 6–10 7–8 8–9 9–10 10–11 11–12 12–13 13–14 14–15 15–16 16–17 17–18 18–19 19–20 20–21 21–22 22–23 23–24 97 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Emergency Response Performance The performance of HGF response was also evaluated. The performance times are calculated using Priority 1 incidents and the 90th percentile statistic. The 90th percentile is typically used in the fire service and is considered the standard for measuring incident response performance. There are three unique time segments that are included when evaluating an agency's response performance. The first is the time it takes for the Dispatcher to answer the 911 call and notify the agency (call processing); the second is the time it takes for the agency to receive the call and go en route to the call (turnout time); and third is the time it takes for the unit to drive to the incident (travel time). All three segments combined make up the total response time. The unit type was not discriminated against, and the first arriving unit was used to determine the total response time. The timestamps in the data provided for each segment of the response time do not include seconds. This truncation of the data introduces potential for up to 2 minutes’ error in the total response time calculation. HGF did not indicate the adoption of a performance goal. Therefore, as a reference, the National Fire Protection Association’s NFPA 1710: Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments is used. Between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2022, HGF’s performance for incidents of all types, excluding service calls, within the fire response area was a total response time of 15 minutes (15:00) or less, 90% of the time. The following figure shows a comparison of the NFPA 1710 standard compared to the actual total response time for calls. Figure 61: NFPA 1710 vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance NFPA 1710 1/2019–12/2022 Performance Fire/Other 6:20 or less, 90% of the time 19:00 or less, 90% of the time EMS 6:00 or less, 90% of the time 14:00 or less, 90% of the time The following figure is the performance of total response time for each of the major incident types within the data set. 98 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 62: Incidents’ 90th Percentile Total Response Times, January 2019–December 2022 32:50 24:37 16:25 08:12 00:00 Response Goal The final analysis investigated the unit usage question for all apparatus within the system. Three dimensions are studied in this report. The first dimension is the unit hour utilization (UHU). This number represents the time a unit was committed to an incident as a percentage of the total time they were on duty. The next is the average time a unit was committed to an incident. And finally, the average number of incidents a unit was deployed per day. The data for each cross-staffed unit is combined into the primary apparatus. The following figure shows the general statistics for the frontline units at stations within the HGF system. Figure 63: Fire Unit Statistics Unit Hour Utilization Avg. Time per Avg. Incidents Unit (UHU) Incident Per Day E21 3.7% 43 Minutes 1.24 E22 0.2% 65 Minutes 0.04 E23 4.0% 48 Minutes 1.21 99 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo The unit hour utilization (UHU) calculation evaluates how much time a crew is committed to an incident versus the total time on duty during a specific time frame. The formula for this calculation is the total time committed to an incident divided by the sum of all time the unit is staffed. ∑𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑎 𝑆𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑒 𝑈𝐻𝑈 = ∑𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐼𝑛 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒 The desire is for the primary unit at a station to be under 10% UHU. Maintaining 10% UHU should indicate that the area has 90% availability from unscheduled events. Stations with multiple companies should aggregate to less than 10% UHU for all similar units. In addition, crews from the primary apparatus that cross-staff other units should avoid aggregated UHUs of over 10%. Staffing The following figure shows the total number of personnel for HGF organized by the various divisions. Figure 64: Staffing Assignment Staffing Uniformed Administration 1 Non-Uniformed Administration 1 Fire Prevention Operations Staff 6 Emergency Communications CAL FIRE Contract Volunteers, Reserve, On Call 18 Total Personnel 26 The following figure shows the daily operational staffing at each station and on each unit in the station. 100 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 65: Daily Staffing Station Daily Staffing Unit Staffing 21 2/6* CAL FIRE (1 Engine) *(second engine seasonally) 22 0 Unstaffed 23 2/3** Engine (2) **(3 seasonally) Total 4/9 4 off-season, 9 during the fire season HGF Fire Stations The following figure outlines the basic features of each of the HGF fire stations. The condition of the stations is rated based on the criteria identified in the introduction to this section of the report. 101 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 66: HGF Fire Stations Station Name/Number: Station 21 Higgins Corner Address/Physical Location: 10106 Combie Rd, Auburn, CA 95602 General Description: The facility is owned by HGF and staffed by CAL FIRE. The Fire Chief’s office is located here. HGF volunteer equipment is also housed at this location. The site has numerous buildings and is showing signs of age and deferred maintenance. The facility has been identified as needing replacement, perhaps at a different location in the same general area. Structure Date of Original Construction 1970 General Condition Poor Seismic Protection Unknown Auxiliary Power Yes ADA Compliant No Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 2 Back-Ins 5 Total Bays: 7 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedroom Beds Dorm Beds 13 Maximum Staffing Capability 13 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities Yes Gender Segregation Bathroom Y Showers Y Bedrooms N Exercise/Workout Facilities Yes Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned Yes Training/Meeting Rooms Yes Washer/Dryer/Extractor Yes Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System Yes 102 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Apparatus/Vehicles Minimum Unit Staffing* Comments E 2372 3 CAL FIRE Contract E 2383 3 CAL FIRE Seasonal B 21 Paid-call staff WT 21 Paid-call staff E 21R Paid-call staff SQ 22 Paid-call staff E 21 2 Off Season Only Total Minimum Daily Staffing: 2 6 During Peak Fire Season *If an apparatus cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 103 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Station Name/Number: Station 22 Dog Bar Address/Physical Location: 20233 Morning Sun Lane, Grass Valley, CA 95949 General Description: This station meets the needs of a modern fire service facility. It is currently unstaffed. Structure Date of Original Construction 1986 General Condition Excellent Seismic Protection Unknown Auxiliary Power Yes ADA Compliant No Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 0 Back-Ins 2 Total Bays: 2 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 2 Beds 2 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 2 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities Yes Gender Segregation Bathrooms Y Showers Y Bedrooms Y Exercise/Workout Facilities No Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned Yes Training/Meeting Rooms No Washer/Dryer/Extractor No Safety & Security Station Sprinklered yes Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System Yes Apparatus/Vehicles Minimum Unit Staffing* Comments Brush 22 0 Type 6 engine Total Daily Staffing: 0 Paid-call staffing only *If an apparatus cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 104 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Station Name/Number: Station 23 McCourtney Address/Physical Location: 20604 McCourtney Rd, Grass Valley, CA 95949 General Description: Station meets most of the needs of a modern fire service facility. Rated in “Excellent” condition. Structure Date of Original Construction 1994 General Condition Excellent Seismic Protection Unknown Auxiliary Power Yes ADA Compliant Yes Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 0 Back-Ins 2 Total Bays: 2 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 2 Beds 3 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 3 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities Yes Gender Segregation Bathrooms Y Showers Y Bedrooms Y Exercise/Workout Facilities yes Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned Yes Training/Meeting Rooms No Washer/Dryer/Extractor No Safety & Security Station Sprinklered Yes Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System Yes Minimum Unit Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Staffing* E 23 2/3* Staffed Full-time WT 23 CS Total Daily Staffing: 2/3* *Third Firefighter Position Seasonally Staffed *If an apparatus cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 105 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Fire Stations Discussion Two of the HGF fire stations are considered in "Excellent" condition. The remaining fire station is rated as "Poor” condition. Fire station ages range from 29 to 53 years, with an average of about 40 years. The following figure summarizes the HGF fire stations and their features. Figure 67: Station Configuration and Condition Staffing General Station Apparatus Bays Station Age Capacity Condition Station 21 5 13 Poor 53 years Station 22 2 3 Excellent 37 years Station 23 2 3 Excellent 29 years Totals/Average: 9 19 40 years average Generally, the HGF stations are older and do not meet the requirements of modern firefighting. As the firefighting environment has changed, the technology, equipment, and safety systems have changed to meet new demands. Older buildings do not typically have the space or engineering systems to meet that new environment. Modern living also requires much more access to electrical outlets than was expected in older buildings, including charging stations for battery-operated equipment along with agency and employee Electric Vehicles. The older HGF stations are no exception. For example, older buildings do not meet the requirements due to the need to decontaminate personnel and equipment after many responses in the current firefighting context. Every crew member should have access to facilities to decontaminate immediately after a fire event, and showers should allow for gender separation. In addition, there needs to be enough partitioned space to allow for gear and equipment to be thoroughly washed and designed to control contamination in the living and working space of the station. While all structures require routine maintenance, staffed fire stations require even more maintenance due to the continuous occupancy by several adults. Multiple departures and returns of heavy apparatus also affect these structures. 106 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Facility Replacement With Station 21 over 50 years of age and occupying 3.5 acres of prime commercial real estate, HGF should evaluate the possibility of relocating Station 21 to a new site in the vicinity that would be more suitable for the district’s needs. If a new station is determined to be feasible, consideration should be given to designing the station to house at least four firefighters 24/7. HGF does not currently employ such a staffing model, but with a life expectancy of at least 50 years, changing community needs and the possibility (however remote) that the CAL FIRE Amador Plan contract may be discontinued should be recognized and the station designed to allow for a low-intensity remodel to accommodate 24-hour staff. With the other two stations each beyond the halfway point in a 50-year life cycle, there should be a facility replacement plan in place. Station maintenance is a priority for the district, and projects are evaluated annually. Over the past several years, the district has undertaken many small projects at all three stations, including work on HVAC systems, water heaters, bathrooms, exterior doors, flooring, and concrete work. The district has plans for upgrades to Station 22 in anticipation of its reopening in the coming months. The district does not have a written plan in place for the maintenance, repair, and eventual replacement of the older stations. Ensuring the stations are in good repair requires regular maintenance and replacement of specialized equipment, which the district has been accomplishing as the need becomes apparent. Plans for updating and repairing systems such as heating and air conditioning (HVAC), generators, roofs, driveways, parking areas, security gates, painting, carpet replacement, and major appliances on a scheduled basis can keep costs down and buildings in service longer. In addition, establishing a facility replacement and maintenance plan will enable HGF to plan for ongoing service from each station more efficiently. Status of Shared Facilities HGF shares Station 21 (Higgins Corner) with CAL FIRE. HGF purchased the station from Nevada County in 2007. CAL FIRE occupied Station 21 before Higgins Fire Protection District was formed and has continued to occupy it since ownership was transferred. CAL FIRE staffs two engines at Station 21 during the fire season; HGF houses three engines and a water tender there as well, staffed by paid-call personnel as available. HGF has an Amador Plan contract with CAL FIRE whereby HGF pays CAL FIRE to staff Station 21 during the off-season. 107 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo CAL FIRE recently announced that they are building a new facility in Higgins Corner to house their operations and will vacate Station 21 when the project is completed. It is possible that CAL FIRE may make some office space available for the HGF Fire Chief and staff, but it is not likely that space will be available to house the HGF fire apparatus currently assigned to Station 21. Apparatus Apparatus was evaluated by HGF staff based on age, miles/hours, service, condition, and reliability. The criteria are defined in the introduction section of this report. The following figures represent all apparatus and vehicles operated by HGF. Figure 68: HGF Apparatus Unit Type Status Year Condition Features Engines & Aerial Apparatus Engine 21 Type 1 Engine Frontline 2005 Good 1250 GPM/700 G Tank Engine 21R Type 2 Engine Reserve 1993 Good 750 GPM/600 G Tank Engine 23 Type 1 Engine Frontline 1999 Good 1250 GPM/800 G Tank Brush 22 Type 6 Engine Reserve 2019 Excellent 220 GPM/450 G Tank Brush 21 Type 6 Engine Frontline 2023 Excellent 300 GPM/450 G Tank Brush 23 Type 3 Engine Frontline 2022 Excellent 500 GPM/500 G Tank Medics/Rescues/Other Squad 22 Breathing Support Reserve 1997 Good WT 21 Water Tender Frontline 2023 Excellent 500 GPM/3000 G Tank WT 23 Water Tender Frontline 1996 Good 500 GPM/3000 G Tank Figure 69: Supervisor & Command Vehicles Unit Assigned To Manufacturer Year Condition C6200 Fire Chief Dodge 4x4 2020 Excellent C6202 BC Dodge 4x4 2005 Excellent 108 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Apparatus Discussion Fleet maintenance is outsourced, with daily checks performed by on-duty personnel. Current vehicle and apparatus maintenance manuals are available. Preventative maintenance checks are conducted regularly. Maintenance records are kept current for vehicles and apparatus. Pump tests are performed annually in accordance with industry best practices. Several of the apparatus have reached or exceed their expected life cycle and should be considered for replacement as soon as funding is available. The district has developed a capital replacement schedule that anticipates the replacement of each piece of apparatus. The fund had over $2 million available as of 2023. 109 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Dispatch & Communications HGF is dispatched by the CAL FIRE Grass Valley Emergency Command Center (GVECC). The center provides service for all the fire agencies in Nevada County. The GVECC has the ability to dispatch via Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL); some local agencies are beginning to utilize AVL for closest unit dispatch. Figure 70: PSAP and Dispatch Center Item Description CAD Application Northrop Grumman Altaris CAD Telephone System Motorola VESTA Radio System MODUCOM radio consoles Fire/EMS Notification Two-tone encoder system Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Mutual aid TAC channels, State-wide radio with other fire agencies in the county: interoperability channels Ability for fire agencies to communicate via State-wide Interoperability channels radio with police agencies in the county: Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Mutual aid TAC channels, State-wide radio with non-Fire EMS agencies in the county: interoperability channels CAD to CAD with other CAL FIRE ECCs – for Ability for PSAP to communicate CAD-to-CAD local government dispatch centers - phone (how do you transfer a call to another center): call only Priority Dispatch – Emergency Medical Criteria-based dispatch system in place: Dispatch Formal EMD quality assurance program in place: Priority Dispatch AQUA and EMD-Qs Options for non-emergent calls not requiring EMS: None AVL used on fire apparatus: Northrop Grumman AVL used on ambulances & EMS units: No RadioMobile Patriot or a tablet using MDTs/MDCs in all fire & EMS vehicles: RadioMobile IQMobile in all first out equipment Closest unit dispatched via AVL: Yes No. of 911 calls: 2022 – 23,342 No. of 10-digit incoming emergency calls: 2022 – 31,891 110 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Infrastructure Needs Station 21 is over 50 years old and in deteriorating condition. With CAL FIRE vacating the Station 21 site, HGF will be in a position to evaluate the feasibility of remaining on the current site or relocating to a more advantageous location. Governance Structure Options There are few opportunities for changes in the government structure of HGF available at this time. HGF currently receives automatic and mutual aid from the surrounding agencies within Nevada and Placer counties along with the State and Federal fire resources. A reassessment of the deployment model should take place following the activation of Station #22 based upon approval of the new Benefit Assessment and the development of the new CAL FIRE station in the Higgins Corner area. In addition, should the reorganization of the Penn Valley, Rough and Ready, Nevada Consolidated and Ophir Fire Protection Districts come to fruition, operational discussions should commence with HGF for a possible future reorganization with that entity. Service Review Determinations The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) is required to prepare a written statement of determination with respect to six areas as specified by Cortese-Knox- Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. Based on the criteria described in Section 1 of this report, the following determinations are proposed for HGF. MSR Determination #1: Growth and Population Projections The current population estimate is based upon information from the 2020 Decennial Census. Through Esri’s interpolation of census tracts, the population of Higgins Corner is estimated to be 9,979. The estimated 2023 population from the American Community Survey data is 10,007. The bulk of the population is located in the Higgins Corners area. The projected population estimates for the specific boundaries of the HGF jurisdiction were not available through the California Department of Finance or the U.S. Census Bureau. Therefore, population projections were calculated out to 2035 using historic interpolations from American Community Survey estimates. The population is projected to experience a cumulative increase of 0.5% from 2023 to 2035, or 0.1% annually. The projected population in 2035 is 10,052. 111 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo MSR Determination #2: Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence There is no legacy community identified by the Nevada County General Plan either within or adjacent to the sphere of influence. There are no known DUCs identified abutting the sphere of influence within Placer County. MSR Determination #3: Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities, Adequacy of Public Services, and Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies, Including Those Related to Sewers, Water, and Structural Fire Protection in Any DUCs Within or Contiguous to the SOI The Higgins Fire Protection District has three stations currently, two are actively in use (Stations 21 and 23), and one is closed (Station 22). A review of the stations shows that they are all in good condition. HGF jointly uses Station 21 with CAL FIRE and has an Amador Plan contract to provide for year-round staffing. However, the station is 53 years old, and the State has notified the district that it will be developing a new station of its own. The HGF Fire Chief has identified as a priority the maintenance of the Amador Plan contract with the State as it serves the most densely populated areas of the district. It is recommended that the HGF establish a facility replacement plan so it can adequately plan for the future MSR Determination #4: Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services The review of the financial position of HGF was more difficult to accomplish as it has not completed recent audits. The most current audit available to AP Triton staff is for Fiscal Year 2019-20. With that notation, the materials identify that through the cost saving measures implemented by HGF (i.e., closure of Station 22) it has been able to show a surplus in all five years reviewed. Financial projections show an ongoing surplus for the five years moving forward. In addition, on July 3, 2024, the voters of HGF approved a new special assessment, identified as “Fire Suppression Benefit Assessment District No. 2024-1” which will appear on the 2024-25 tax rolls. This will allow HGF to reopen Station 22 and continue to provide its full range of services to its constituents. 112 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo MSR Determination # 5: Status and Opportunities for Shared Services At present HGF shares Station 21(Higgins Corner) with CAL FIRE. HGF purchased the station in 2007 and it was being occupied by CAL FIRE at that time. CAL FIRE houses two engines at Station 21 during the fire season, HGF has three engines and a water tender there. HGF has an Amador Plan contract with CAL FIRE to provide for year-round staffing at the station. CAL FIRE has notified HGF that it plans on building a new facility in the Higgins Corner area and will vacate Station 21 once the new facility is completed. It is questionable as to whether this new station will accommodate personnel from HGF. HGF receives its dispatch services from CAL FIRE. It operates with mutual and automatic aid from other Nevada, Placer, and Yuba County fire agencies as well as State and Federal fire resources. MSR Determination #6: Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies Through the years, HGF has taken cost minimization efforts to maintain services levels, i.e., closing Station 22. HGF communicates with its constituents through its website and social media; however, it does not fully comply with the provision of the Special District’s Transparency Act. Its financial documents are not posted on its website, staff reports related to actions before the board of directors are not readily available, and it is not current on its required annual audits. No governmental structure or operational options were identified for HGF during this review other than its need to maintain the Amador Plan contract with CAL FIRE for the Higgins Corner area. However, should the fire reorganization with Penn Valley, Rough and Ready, Nevada Consolidated, and Ophir Fire Districts come to fruition, once operational, discussions could be undertaken to evaluate the advisability of HGF to join the reorganized district. Sphere of Influence Update The HGF sphere of influence (SOI) was confirmed through the Municipal Service Review for Fire Protection and Emergency Services presented in January 2005 and adopted by the Commission. The sphere of influence was updated in January 2014 through adopted of the report entitled “SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATES 2014 NEVADA COUNTY FIRE SERVICE PROVIDERS” with no change for HGF. 113 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Existing SOI With the completion of the Standing Rock annexation in 2016, HGF’s sphere of influence became generally coterminous with its boundaries. There is a small area along its northern boundary that has been included in the Nevada Consolidated Fire District sphere of influence (Wolf Creek Ranch Estates). This area is within HGF boundaries but not its sphere of influence. The sphere of influence remained unchanged through the Sphere of Influence Updates report in 2014. SOI Options Based upon this MSR, there are no options for the sphere of influence to be changed at this time. However, it has been acknowledged that should the Penn Valley, Rough and Ready, Nevada Consolidated and Ophir Fire Districts reorganization come to fruition, the potential for inclusion should be explored. Recommended SOI AP Triton has reviewed the sphere of influence and recommends that it be confirmed in its current configuration. Proposed SOI Determinations In confirmation of the existing sphere of influence, the following determinations are presented: Determination #1: The present and planned land uses in the area including agricultural and open space lands. A review of the materials provided for land use by the Nevada County General Plan and the Greater Higgins Area Plan identify the full range of land uses within HGF and its existing sphere of influence. These include, but are not limited to urban, suburban, and rural residential uses, recreation, commercial, agricultural, forest, and conservation as defined in the respective Plans. There will be no change in these land use determinations because of the sphere of influence confirmation. Determination #2: The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. Based upon the range of land uses associated with the confirmation of the sphere of influence the present and probable need for the fire protection, and emergency medical response will remain acute. The community has a number of parks and tourist destinations which will have a transitory population which will also need the range of services available from HGF. 114 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Determination #3: The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agencies provide or are authorized to provide. HGF is authorized the powers of fire protection and emergency medical response. Based upon the MSR information for HGF, it has identified that call volumes following the COVID pandemic era have returned to normal. With the passage of the new Assessment, “Fire Suppression Benefit Assessment District No. 2024-1” there will be sufficient funding to provide adequate stations, personnel, and apparatus to meet current demands. The Fire Chief has identified that HGF has an apparatus and capital replacement plan. HGF has three stations, two rated excellent and one poor; two stations are staffed full-time with Station 21 being a shared facility with CAL FIRE. CAL FIRE has notified HGF that it plans to develop a new station for its use in the Higgins Corner area and will move out of Station 21 upon completion. Station 22 is currently closed but is planned to be reopened due to passage of the new Assessment. There is a need to develop a formal written maintenance and replacement plan for these facilities. Determination #4: The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area. There are two distinct communities of interest within the overall HGF area: Higgins Corners, the community center and the most densely populated; and the surrounding area which consists of large ranches and agricultural uses. The area is also a resort/recreational destination. Determination #5: The present and probable need of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities for the district’s public facilities and services. There are no DUCs identified within and/or contiguous to the district and its sphere of influence. 115 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Nevada County Consolidated Fire District NCC Overview The Nevada County Consolidated Fire District (NCC) provides fire protection, basic life support (BLS) emergency medical treatment, and community risk reduction to a population of 32,928 in 139 square miles. NCC operates nine fire stations—4 full-time suppression staffed, one used as a Fleet Maintenance shop, 3 unstaffed, and one leased to the County of Nevada Sheriff’s Office. There is a total of 46 personnel. Background NCC was formed in 1991 through the consolidation of the Gold Flat and Bullion Fire Protection Districts. The Alta-Oaks-Sunset Fire District joined NCC in 1993, followed by Watt Park Fire District in 1998. Most recently, the 49er Fire District was added to NCC in 2003. NCC established a Strategic Plan in 2016 that was adopted by the governing body; however, the five-year plan horizon ended in 2021. NCC does not have a Master Plan nor a Standards of Cover. NCC’s Mission, Vision, and Goals and Objectives have been established and communicated. NCC received a Class 3/3Y Rating in its most recent review from the Insurance Services Office (ISO) in 2023 Over the past ten years, most cost-minimization efforts have resulted from reducing resources as a budget reduction strategy. The reductions include the following: • Beginning in 2011, NCC established a Joint Operational Agreement (JOA) with the Grass Valley/Nevada City Fire Department. The JOA featured closest-resource response, two jointly staffed stations, integrated duty-officer coverage, and some sharing of services, equipment, and facilities. The JOA is still in effect, although some provisions are no longer in use. • Three stations were declared surplus and sold, reducing ongoing maintenance and upkeep costs. NCC continues to evaluate the need to retain unstaffed stations, with consideration given to optimizing facilities through mixed or shared use by allied agencies. One additional station (83) was recently declared surplus and is in the process of being sold. 116 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo • It was assumed that the transition from twelve volunteer-staffed stations to four full- time-staffed stations resulted in the need for fewer fire apparatus, leading to reduced replacement and maintenance costs. Supplemental revenue sources have been implemented. In 2012 NCC service area voters approved a special tax of $52 per year on improved parcels. The Special Tax of 2012 includes a cost-of-living adjustment of no more than 3% annually, with no sunset clause. A Benefit Assessment was approved by property owners in 2004 at a rate of $106 per single- family equivalent (SFE) that also includes a COLA of up to 3% per year. The NCC Fire Chief identified potential areas for equipment-sharing from a joint fleet repair center and Prevention/Investigation Division. NCC also has the capacity to offer administrative services and battalion coverage to agencies that have contiguous borders. Joint special operations teams are also being explored. The NCC Fire Chief's top three critical issues are: • The need to increase engine staffing from 2/0 to 3/0 • The need to provide first response ALS services • The dramatic increase of costs for apparatus and equipment The NCC Fire Chief's top three opportunities to increase value and/or efficiency for the public are: • The potential for sharing programs with other agencies (e.g., fleet maintenance facility, special teams). • The potential for providing services to other agencies (administrative, Battalion Chief coverage, hazmat response). • The addition of a two-person Paramedic squad. 117 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Boundaries and Sphere of Influence NCC territory includes the Alta Sierra community and the areas surrounding Grass Valley and Nevada City. The district is bordered by the Penn Valley and Rough and Ready Fire Protection Districts on the west, the Ophir Hill and Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Protection Districts on the east, and the Higgins Area Fire Protection District on the south. The northern boundary of the district abuts mostly public lands along the south side of the South Yuba River, and the North San Juan Fire District lies to the north of NCC. The Washington Fire Department service area is also to the north, although the boundaries are not contiguous. The district’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) is substantially coterminous with its current boundary, with the exception of a portion (135 acres in two parcels) of a larger planned development, the Wolf Creek Estates subdivision. During the 1999 Sphere Plan Update for the Higgins and Consolidated districts, an agreement was reached to transfer the area to Nevada County Consolidated Fire so that the entire development will be in a single fire district. This agreement will be implemented when a development plan for the area has been approved; at present, it is not known when that may occur. The two districts have agreed upon a transition plan for the transfer, the details of which are articulated in a Memorandum of Understanding, approved by both agencies in 1999. The following figure displays the NCC service area. 118 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 71: NCC Service Area 119 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo During the MSR review for NCC, it was identified that three areas along the northeastern periphery of the district were outside the sphere of influence/boundaries of the district and contained a mix of private and public properties. The three areas shown on the Figure 2 map contain 32 parcels composed of 4,675 acres. In reviewing these areas with the Fire Chief, the NCC supported the inclusion of these areas in its SOI because it is providing first- in service at the present time. Therefore, it is recommended that the NCC sphere be expanded to include these areas. The following figure displays the potential SOIs for Nevada County Consolidated and North San Juan Fire Protection Districts. Figure 72: Potential SOIs for NCC and North San Juan FPDs 120 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Type & Extent of Services Services Provided NCC provides a range of services for its residents. The following figure shows each of the services and the levels performed. Figure 73: Overview of Services Provided Service Y/N Level Fire Suppression Yes Wildland engine-based suppression (Type Wildland Fire Suppression Yes 3 and 6) Available for Cal OES Statewide Statewide Mobilization Yes Mobilization EMS First Response Yes Basic Life Support Ambulance Transport No Sierra Nevada Ambulance Helicopter rescue team (with CHP), Cal OES Type 3 Swift Water, Cal OES Type 3 Specialized/Technical Rescue Yes USAR, Large Animal Rescue, Auto Extrication HazMat Response Yes Operational Fire Inspection/Code Enforcement Yes Plan Reviews Yes Public Education/Prevention Yes Fire & Arson Investigation Yes 121 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Service Area NCC was formed in 1991 and assumed fire protection agency status. The district is statutorily responsible for fire and emergency services within its boundaries. Much of the district has semi-rural/suburban, low-density residential development. A handful of agricultural areas persist, along with some forested and converted mining territories. The district identifies five distinct response areas: • The 49er Area (Stations 81, 82, 83, & 84*) includes the areas of Highway 20, Cement Hill, Wet Hill, Newtown Road, Cascade Shores, Lake Ridge Estates, Deer Creek Park, Banner Mountain, and Red Dog Road, and the areas around Nevada City. • The Gold Flat Area [Stations 5 (GRS) & 86*] covers the Glenbrook Basin and Loma Rica industrial areas, Nevada County Airpark, and a portion of the rural areas between Grass Valley, Nevada City, and Banner Mountain. • The Alta-Oaks-Sunset Area includes the Alta, Oaks, and Sunset areas, and borders the Watt Park, Penn Valley, Grass Valley, and Station No. 85 areas. • The Bullion Area (Stations 88*, 89*) includes the area south of McKnight to George Brewer Road along the Highway 49 corridor, and all of the Alta Sierra subdivision. • The Watt Park Area [Stations 1(GRS), 91, & 92] covers the area west of Grass Valley along McCourtney Road and south of Highway 20, including the Wolf Mountain area and the City of Grass Valley. *Staffed stations Collaboration • County-wide Mutual Aid Agreement, including a countywide response plan and drawdown/cover plan. • Participates in Statewide Mutual Aid. Contracts to Provide Services to Other Agencies • Party to an agreement with Penn Valley Fire District and the County of Nevada to staff Rough and Ready Station 59. • MOU with Nevada County for Defensible Space Inspectors Tech/Spec. Contracts for Services From Other Agencies • NCC receives dispatch services from CAL FIRE by cooperative agreement. 122 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Governance & Administration NCC is an independent special district governed by a seven-member, locally elected Board of Directors. The Fire Chief reports directly to the Board. The membership of the Board of Directors is shown in the following figure. Figure 74: NCC Board of Directors Committee Name Title Term End Assignment Board Policies & Keith Grueneberg Board President December 2026 Procedures Personnel, Public Patricia Nelson Board Vice-President December 2024 Information Personnel, Tom Carrington Director December 2024 Reorganization Barry Dorland Director December 2026 Reorganization Spencer Garrett Director December 2024 Personnel, JPA Jon Hall Director December 2026 Finance/Budget Marianne Slade-Troutman Director December 2024 Finance/Budget 123 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 75: NCC Organizational Chart Board of Directors Fire Chief Administrative Fire Marshal Services Manager Division Chief Operations Battalion Chiefs (3) Fleet and Facilities Supervisor Accountability for Community Services—Transparency The following figure identifies NCC’s efforts to meet State laws designed to ensure transparency and accountability, as well as efforts beyond legal requirements to make information available to the public. The following figure summarizes the district’s transparency and accountability. 124 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 76: Transparency and Accountability Transparency and Accountability Available Agency website:17 Yes Adopted budget available on website: Yes Notice of public meetings provided: Yes Agendas posted on website:18 Yes Public meetings are live streamed: As needed Minutes and/or recordings of public meetings available on Minutes website: Master Plan (fire-service-specific) available on website: No Strategic Plan (fire-service-specific) available on website: Yes Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover documents No available on website: Standards of Cover performance reports available on website: No Efforts to engage and educate the public on the services to the Yes community: Staff and governing board member ethics training and Yes economic interest reporting completed: Compliance with financial document compilation, adoption, Yes and reporting requirements: Adherence to open-meeting requirements: Yes NCC’s efforts to engage and educate the public on the fire and emergency services available to the community consist of meeting with HOA and civic groups, participation in local events, tours of the fire stations, access to fire department planning documents on the website, and educational programs focused on fire prevention and preparedness. There are two auxiliaries that operate in support of the district: Watt Park and Gold Flat Fire. The district maintains a website that provides the full range of information required by State law. 17 As of January 1, 2020, independent special districts are required to maintain websites according to Government Code Sections 6270.6 and 53087.8, in order to provide the public easily accessible and accurate information about the districts. Government Code Section 53087.8 lists what must be included on the website. 18 Government Code §54954.2. 125 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Land Use and Population Land Use Much of the district has semi-rural or suburban low-density residential development within the unincorporated County area. There are some agricultural, forest, recreational, and converted mining areas within the district boundaries. Current Population An interpolation of American Community Survey estimates at the census tract level using Esri’s GIS population enrichment places the NCC service area 2020 population at 32,668. Projected Population Though historic population estimates for the specific boundaries of the NCC jurisdiction were not available through the California Department of Finance or the U.S. Census Bureau, population projections were calculated out to 2035 using historic interpolations from American Community Survey estimates. The population is projected to experience a cumulative increase of 4% from 2023 to 2035, or 0.3% annually. The projected population for 2035 is 34,080. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) A DUC is an unincorporated, inhabited territory that constitutes all or a portion of a community with an annual median household income that is less than 80% of the statewide annual median household income (i.e., $60,188).19 LAFCo is required to identify the location and characteristics of any DUCs in the Service Review and SOI update process.20 Nevada LAFCo has one identified DUC within or adjacent to the NCC boundaries, as defined by the County General Plan. The DUC in question is referenced in the Rough and Ready Fire District profile, since it lies primarily within the RNR boundary. This area receives the same level of service as the surrounding district territory. The following figure shows the location of the Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community. 19 Government Code §56033.5. 20 Government Codes §56425(e)(5) and §56430(2). 126 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 77: NCC DUC Location 127 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Financial Overview The Nevada County Consolidated Fire District operates through five funds: the General Fund to manage operations; a Capital Improvement Fund to accumulate certain fees and expend funds for capital purchases and debt service; a Mitigation Fee fund; a Special Tax fund; and a Contingency Fund. A significant amount of information regarding the General Fund was reviewed to develop financial trend analysis for the required five-year period. This review of the historical information regarding General Fund (GF) revenues revealed a minimal impact on revenues received by NCC during the COVID-19 pandemic. Recurring Revenues NCC is funded by several sources of income. Property taxes are allocated under Proposition 13, limiting total property tax assessments to 1% of a property’s value. The tax revenue is then apportioned between the various taxing units. Nevada County utilizes the “Teeter Plan,” under which 100% of the property tax apportionment is remitted to the taxing unit, with the taxing unit foregoing penalties and interest collections on delinquently paid taxes. Property tax revenues are based on assessed property tax values and are the single-largest source of revenue to NCC.21 This revenue source accounts for approximately 44% of General Fund recurring revenues annually. NCC’s second-largest revenue source (25%) is a Benefit Assessment originally approved by voters in 2004. The assessment amount collected was $2,232,734 in FY 2023. The Single- Family Equivalent (SFE) rate for this assessment in FY 2023 was $142.75. Other significant sources of revenue include the special tax at 12%, reimbursements at 9%, the Proposition 172 tax at 6%, and other revenues at 3%. Reimbursements for the NCC strike team have been significant, most notably $1.2 million in FY 2021, but fluctuate based on seasonal conditions and need. NCC collects fees for administrative services, collects fire prevention fees for inspections and permits, receives reimbursements for strike team deployments, and collects other revenues. Included in its revenues is funding from the issuance of debt and capital lease proceeds. NCC also has been successful in obtaining grants for various purposes. The following figure indicates a detail of those revenues. 21 Nevada County Consolidated Fire District Adopted Budgets, FY 2018–FY 2023. 128 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 78: Nevada County Consolidated FPD Revenues, FY 2019–FY 202322 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Revenue FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Property Taxes 3,081,341 3,223,478 3,369,809 3,635,740 3,902,517 Special Assessment 1,950,856 2,009,531 2,074,173 2,139,583 2,232,734 Special Tax of 2012 935,229 962,567 985,282 1,007,351 1,028,542 Proposition 172 Tax 342,460 384,558 382,877 417,898 533,120 Reimbursements 921,942 344,013 1,325,492 1,017,953 761,297 Mitigation Fees 111,188 88,998 202,960 83,819 115,761 Interest Income 30,238 37,660 27,210 24,975 64,371 Grant Revenue 14,917 26,250 111,719 21,085 33,700 Other Revenue 138,454 62,115 55,040 28,497 27,814 Total General Fund 7,526,625 7,139,170 8,534,562 8,376,901 8,699,856 Capital Improvement Fund 145,964 9,650 54,237 577,578 12,064 Total Revenues 7,672,589 7,148,820 8,588,799 8,954,479 8,711,920 Expenses Salaries and benefits are approximately 83% of the recurring costs of the district. Overtime use appears to be budgeted at approximately 9% of total personnel cost. Base salaries for line positions have increased from $2.6 million in FY 2019 to $3 million in FY 2023 (4%), with a significant increase occurring in FY 2020. NCC operates a strike team that has fluctuating costs depending on the season, with a high of approximately $672,000 in FY 2021 and a low of approximately $147,000 in FY 2020. A significant portion of the benefits program is the CalPERS pension. The base retirement costs have increased from nearly $729,000 in FY 2019 to over $1.1 million in FY 2023. Health insurance accounts for approximately 10% of personnel costs annually. Other recurring expenses include professional fees, personal protective equipment, facilities costs, apparatus and equipment maintenance, fuel, insurance, utilities, communications and technology, training costs, and other expenses. Non-recurring expenses include capital outlay, debt service, transfers to reserves, and expenditure of grant funds. The following figure details historical expenditures. 22 Nevada County Consolidated Fire District Adopted Budgets, FY 2018–FY 2023. 129 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 79: Historical NCC Expenditures Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Expenditures FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Wages/OT/Training 3,006,282 3,422,990 3,573,626 3,820,389 3,867,024 Seasonal Payroll 137,242 137,631 0 178,220 154,135 Strike Team Payroll 559,967 146,544 672,061 605,903 420,485 Administrative 201,281 224,148 204,499 179,333 185,241 Payroll Taxes 61,111 59,126 63,941 70,665 67,911 Employee Benefits 1,400,052 1,584,948 1,676,167 1,764,064 1,784,483 Workers Compensation 179,533 188,898 190,494 140,320 204,884 Total Salaries & Benefits 5,545,468 5,764,285 6,380,788 6,758,894 6,684,163 Other Recurring 1,034,965 968,945 1,006,783 1,226,452 1,357,551 Expenditures Total Recurring Expenditures 6,580,433 6,733,230 7,387,571 7,985,346 8,041,714 Capital expenditures 860,494 497,516 341,164 490,517 558,579 Other Non-Recurring 34,524 23,631 98,818 59,659 41,655 Expenditures Total Non-Recurring 895,018 521,147 439,982 550,176 600,234 Expenditures Total Expenditures: 7,475,451 7,254,377 7,827,553 8,535,522 8,641,948 Government agencies are limited in their ability to make rapid changes in their revenue streams to offset significant events within their jurisdictions, such as loss of apparatus or significant equipment, or rapid and significant economic downturn. It is important for agencies to maintain a certain level of reserves to prepare for those unforeseen events. The following figure summarizes the revenues and expenditures for NCC for FY 2019 through FY 2023. Figure 80: Summarized Revenues and Expenditures for NCC Revenues & Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Expenditures FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Total Revenues 7,672,589 7,148,820 8,588,799 8,954,479 8,711,920 Total Expenditures 7,475,451 7,254,377 7,827,553 8,535,522 8,641,948 Surplus (Deficit) 197,138 (105,557) 761,246 418,957 69,972 Shown graphically in the following figure, the information indicates the overall growth of Nevada County Consolidated Fire District General Fund revenues and expenditures. 130 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 81: Revenues Over Expenditures (2019–2023) $9,000,000 $8,628,235 $8,500,000 $8,321,446 $8,278,770 $8,000,000 $8,228,804 $8,167,193 $7,500,000 $7,359,054 $7,778,159 $7,035,919 $7,000,000 $7,123,031 $7,093,705 $6,500,000 $6,000,000 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Total revenues Total expenditures Financial Projections Revenues The 5-year trend shows an average annual increase of 6.9% in property tax revenue; however, a larger-than-normal increase from 2022 to 2023 may have skewed the data. NCC is more conservative in projecting annual increases. While housing inventory will continue to be low, prices will continue to rise, increasing assessed valuations and property taxes. Special assessment is expected to continue to grow at a 3% annual rate, as permitted under the authorizing legislation. Proposition 172 receipts grew an average of 9.7% from 2018 to 2023, with an increase of over 27% from 2022 to 2023. Again, NCC uses more conservative growth projections in financial planning. Other revenues are forecast to continue to grow at a moderate rate. Expenses Salaries and benefits are the most significant of the costs of NCC, consuming over 80% of recurring expenditures. These costs are forecast to increase by approximately 6% annually. Other previously described recurring costs are forecast to escalate 8% annually. The following figure is a forecast of NCC’s projected revenues and expenditures. 131 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 82: Nevada County Consolidated FD General Fund Summarized Projected General Fund Revenues and Expenditures Revenues & FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Expenditures Revenues 9,490,087 10,503,777 11,006,432 11,540,673 12,108,727 Expenditures 9,109,296 10,141,331 10,720,682 11,334,794 11,985,753 Surplus (Deficit) 380,791 362,446 285,750 205,879 122,974 Capital Planning The Nevada County Consolidated Fire District anticipates vehicle, heavy apparatus, and equipment replacement on a scheduled basis. These expenditures and small station improvements are included in the financial plan of the district. NCC operates a Capital Improvement Fund for capital purchases and structure improvements. Its main revenues in this fund are mitigation fees restricted by California Law AB1600 for the purpose of offsetting increased capital costs due to development (impact fees). Funds are required to be spent and/or designated within five years only for new capital additions. Other revenues include interest income, and grants to fund purchases and debt service payments. The restricted fund balance of the Capital Improvement Fund was $120,715 on June 30, 2022. Outstanding Debt The Nevada County Consolidated Fire District had three outstanding debts as of June 30, 2022. In September 2017, the district financed a fire engine costing $461,904 at 2.49% interest, maturing in September 2022. In April 2020, the district issued a loan to purchase a rescue vehicle costing $280,267 at 2.40% interest, maturing in April 2025. In February 2021, the district issued a loan for a pumper costing $635,336 at 1.83% interest, maturing in February 2026. The following figure provides the maturity schedule as of June 30, 2022. Figure 83: NCC Debt Maturity Schedule Fiscal Year Principal Interest Total FY 2023 229,577 13,467 243,044 FY 2024 184,397 9,151 193,548 FY 2025 188,181 5,367 193,548 FY 2026 131,866 1,862 133,728 Total 734,021 29,847 763,868 132 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Reserves As of June 30, 2022, NCC had $4,591,378 in total fund balance. Fund balances consisted of the following: • General Fund: ▪ $21,340 – Unspendable (deposits and prepaid expenses) ▪ $167,047 – Restricted for post-employment ▪ $1,849,403 – Committed ▪ $2,432,873 – Unassigned fund balance • Capital Reserve Fund: ▪ $120,715 – Restricted fund balance for capital improvement The following figure details the NCC Fund Balance. Figure 84: NCC Fund Balance Actual Actual Actual Actual Act ual Fund Balance FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Unassigned (General Fund) 1,187,678 1,374,016 1,343,868 1,649,813 2,432,873 Restricted for capital 207,511 119,171 56,953 135,256 120,715 improvements Restricted for post-employment 150,354 160,261 167,414 189,711 167,047 Unspendable 18,201 35,269 16,507 92,403 21,340 Committed 1,806,617 1,806,617 1,714,696 1,995,517 1,849,403 Total Fund Balance 3,370,361 3,495,334 3,299,438 4,062,700 4,591,378 Total Expenditures 6,573,406 7,475,451 7,254,377 7,827,553 8,535,522 % of Unassigned Balance 51.3% 46.8% 45.5% 51.9% 53.8% 133 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Demand for Services Nevada County Consolidated (NCC) is a primarily rural system, with areas of suburban and urban populations, that provides aid services to other communities when requested. Data was provided by the agency and its dispatch center and included incident information from January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2022. This analysis focuses on incidents within the statutory and contractual areas where NCC responds. The following figure shows the overview statistics for NCC. Figure 85: NCC Overview Avg. Annual Incidents per 90th Percentile Agency Incident Vol. 1,000 Population Total Time Nevada County Consolidated FD 4,002 123 13:15 Incident categories closely follow the National Fire Incident Reporting System's code grouping, and incidents are classified based on general hazards. Medical responses account for nearly 60% of NCC’s operations; the incident demand in this category is significantly higher than all other call types. This proportion is similar to that of many fire departments that provide emergency medical services. The following figure shows incident volume by type between January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2022, visually demonstrating the proportion of incident types. The category “Good Intent” includes calls where the reporting party may have believed help was needed, but upon investigation, it was determined that no action on the part of the fire department was necessary. Examples include smoke from a properly operating chimney, a vehicle accident that could not be located, or an incident where the fire unit was canceled by another agency prior to arrival. The following figures detail the incident workload experienced by NCC. 134 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 86: Total Incident Response by Type with Percentage Special Disaster False Alarm Fire 12 14 471 452 0% 0% 4% 4% Good Intent Service 1600 1408 14% 12% Hazardous Condition 625 6% Rescue-Medical Overpressure 6848 60% Typically, an analysis of incidents by year can yield a trend or give an idea of what the call volume might look like in the next few years. Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, call volumes nationally were affected, and trends are not as easy to spot. While this is true in NCC's case, they were back on track in 2021 and 2022 to continue the expected trend in areas of population growth. Calls charted below as “Service Area” include calls handled in and by NCC. “Aid Given” includes call service provided by NCC in areas outside by mutual or automatic aid. “Aid Received” includes calls occurring in the district but handled by other agencies. Call volume in the service area increased by 12% from 2019 to 2022, while “Aid Given” and “Aid Received” volumes decreased by 25% and 9%, respectively. 135 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 87: Annual Incidents by Year 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 Aid Received Aid Given Service Area Additional temporal studies show that the monthly call volume variation is typically insignificant. However, April stands out with 1.2% fewer calls than expected, while December has 1.2% more calls. Though the percentages are small, this works out to ~40 calls +/- each month, which may be impactful depending on available staffing. Figure 88: Incidents by Month 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 136 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo NCC, like many similar agencies, sees a significant increase in incident volume during the daytime hours. In fact, NCC sees over 67% of its incidents daily between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. The following figure shows the general variation of the complete incident dataset by the hour of the day. Figure 89: Incident Percentage by Hour 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324 Hour of the Day This average daily swing is typical and likely due to the number of people awake and moving around during this time. However, the day-to-day variation in this information does play a part. The following figure is the incident heat map by the hour of the day and day of the week. 137 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 90: Day and Hour Incident Heat Map Hour Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Color Incidents 0–1 131–148 1–2 108–131 2–3 95–108 3–4 73–95 4–5 48–73 5–6 30–48 6–7 21–30 7–8 8–9 9–10 10–11 11–12 12–13 13–14 14–15 15–16 16–17 17–18 18–19 19–20 20–21 21–22 22–23 23–24 In the previous figure, it is interesting to note the mid-week increase in incident volume. NCC does not see the typical shift in peak times between weekdays and weekends; the demand is relatively consistent throughout the week. 138 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Emergency Response Performance Fire Department response performance in the service area was also evaluated. Response mode was not provided, so performance times are calculated using all incidents, excluding Service Calls. Results are presented using the 90th percentile statistic. The 90th percentile is typically used in the fire service and is considered the standard for measuring incident response performance. There are three unique time segments that are included when evaluating an agency's response performance. The first is the time it takes for the dispatcher to answer the 9-1-1 call and notify the agency (call processing); the second is the time it takes for the agency to receive the call and go en route to the call (turnout time); and third is the time it takes for the unit to drive to the incident (travel time). All three segments combined make up the total response time. The unit type was not discriminated against, and the first-arriving unit was used to determine the total response time. The timestamps in the data provided for each segment of the response time do not include seconds. This truncation of the data introduces the potential for up to 2 minutes’ error in the total response time calculation. NCC has adopted a response time performance goal, or benchmark, of arriving on scene in 6 minutes and 24 seconds or less, 90% of the time. The following figure shows a comparison of the adopted standard compared to the actual total response time for incidents in the district. Between January 1, 2019, through December 30, 2022, NCC's performance for 8,910 incidents within the fire response area was a total response time of 13 minutes, 15 seconds (13:15) or less, 90% of the time. Following is a figure comparing Actual Response Time Performance to the Adopted Standard. Figure 91: Adopted Standard vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance 1/2019–12/2022 Call Type Adopted Standard Performance Fire/Other 6:24 or less, 90% of the time 15:10 or less, 90% of the time EMS 6:00 or less, 90% of the time 12:58 or less, 90% of the time The following figure is the performance of total response time for each of the major incident types for all incidents within the district, excluding Service Calls. 139 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 92: Incidents’ 90th Percentile Total Response Times, January 2019–December 2022 19:59 15:59 12:00 08:00 04:00 00:00 Response Goal The final analysis investigated the unit usage question for all apparatus within the system. Three dimensions are studied in this report. The first dimension is the unit hour utilization (UHU). This number represents the time a unit was committed to an incident as a percentage of the total time it was on duty. The second dimension is the average time a unit was committed to an incident. The third dimension is the average number of incidents to which a unit was deployed per day. The data for each cross-staffed unit is combined into the primary apparatus. The following figure shows the general statistics for the frontline units at stations within the NCC system. 140 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 93: Fire Unit Statistics Unit Hour Utilization Avg. Time per Avg. Incidents Unit (UHU) Incident Per Day E81 0.0% 73 Minutes 0.01 E82 0.0% 25 Minutes 0.00 E83 0.0% 21 Minutes 0.00 E84 7.7% 36 Minutes 3.10 E86 2.7% 36 Minutes 1.09 E87 0.1% 26 Minutes 0.03 E88 6.2% 31 Minutes 2.90 E89 5.1% 32 Minutes 2.31 E90 0.1% 33 Minutes 0.05 E91 0.0% 19 Minutes 0.01 The unit hour utilization (UHU) calculation evaluates how much time a crew is committed to an incident versus the total time on duty during a specific time frame. The formula for this calculation is the total time committed to an incident divided by the sum of all time the unit is staffed. ∑𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑎 𝑆𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑒 𝑈𝐻𝑈 = ∑𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐼𝑛 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒 The desire is for the primary unit at a station to be under 10% UHU. Maintaining 10% UHU should indicate that the area has 90% availability for unscheduled events. Stations with multiple companies should aggregate to less than 10% UHU for all similar units. In addition, crews from the primary apparatus that cross-staff other units should avoid aggregated UHUs of over 10%. 141 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Staffing The following figure shows the total number of NCC personnel, organized according to the various divisions. Figure 94: NCC Staffing Assignment Staffing Uniformed Administration 4 Non-Uniformed Administration 3 Fire Prevention — Operations Staff 33 Emergency Communications Contract Fleet Mechanic 2 Volunteers, Reserve, On-Call 4 Total Personnel 46 The following figure shows the daily operational staffing at each station, and on each unit in each station. Operations staff have three shifts each working a 48/96 (48 hours on and 96 hours off) schedule. Figure 95: Daily Staffing Station Daily Staffing Unit Staffing 84 4 BC (1), Engine (3), Rescue (CS*), Water Tender (CS*) 86 2 Engine (2), Squad (CS*) 88 2 Engine (2), Water Tender (CS*) 89 2 Engine (2), Type 3 (CS*) 91 0 Unstaffed 82 0 Unstaffed 83 0 Unstaffed 81 0 Unstaffed Type 2 Reserve Engine 90 0 Fleet Mechanic Shop Total 10 * CS= Cross-Staffed 142 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo NCC Fire Stations The following figures outline the location and basic features of each of the NCC fire stations. The conditions of the stations are rated based on the criteria identified in the introduction to this section of the report. Figure 96: NCC Fire Station Locations 143 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 97: NCC Fire Stations Station Name/Number: Station 84 Address/Physical Location: 640 Coyote Street, Nevada City, CA 95959 General Description: This facility includes the district’s Headquarters offices. The building meets the needs of a modern fire station. Structure Date of Original Construction 2003 General Condition Good Seismic Protection Yes Auxiliary Power Yes ADA Compliant Yes Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 0 Back-Ins 4 Total Bays: 4 Total Square Footage 8,764 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 4 Beds 8 Dorm Beds 8 Maximum Staffing Capability 4 Bathroom/Shower Facilities Yes Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms 5 Showers 3 Bedrooms Exercise/Workout Facilities Yes Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned Yes Training/Meeting Rooms No Washer/Dryer/Extractor Yes Safety & Security Station Sprinklered Yes Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal Yes Security System Yes Apparatus Exhaust System Yes 144 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Minimum Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Unit Staffing* Engine 84 3 Type 1 Rescue 84 CS Type 6 WT 84 CS Water Tender BC 1 Command vehicle UTV 84 CS UTV Total Daily Staffing: 4 1 – BC, 1 – Capt, 1- Lt, 1- FF *If an apparatus is cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 145 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Station Name/Number: Station 91 Address/Physical Location: 11329 McCourtney Road, Grass Valley, CA 95949 General Description: This station was built for a volunteer-service model. It is 73 years old and not suitable for 24-hour staffing. The building is leased to the Sheriff’s Department to store search and rescue vehicles and equipment. The NCC Board of Directors meetings are held at this facility. Structure Date of Original Construction 1950 General Condition Fair Seismic Protection No Auxiliary Power No ADA Compliant Yes Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 0 Back-Ins 3 Total Bays: 3 Total Square Footage 3,200 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 0 Beds 0 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 0 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities Yes Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms 1 Showers 1 Bedrooms 0 Exercise/Workout Facilities No Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned No Training/Meeting Rooms Yes Washer/Dryer/Extractor No Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System No Minimum Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Unit Staffing* None 0 Total Daily Staffing: 0 *If an apparatus is cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 146 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Station Name/Number: Station 82 Address/Physical Location: 18967 Scotts Flat Road, Nevada City, CA 95959 General Description: This station is not staffed. It houses a safety house prevention trailer and the NCC Arson Task Force response trailer. The district is working in collaboration with the County to expand this parcel so a larger parking lot can be developed on-site to accommodate an area for school buses to turn around off the main roadway, as well as allow for additional passenger- vehicle parking due to the increased recreational use in the vicinity (mountain biking trailhead). Classified in “Poor” condition. Structure Date of Original Construction 1989 General Condition Poor Seismic Protection No Auxiliary Power No ADA Compliant No Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 0 Back-Ins 2 Total Bays: 2 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 1 Beds 0 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 0 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities Yes Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms 2 Showers 2 Bedrooms 1 Exercise/Workout Facilities No Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned No Training/Meeting Rooms No Washer/Dryer/Extractor No Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke & CO Detection No Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System No Minimum Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Unit Staffing* Surplus equipment storage Total Daily Staffing: 0 *If an apparatus is cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 147 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Station Name/Number: Station 83 Address/Physical Location: 14700 North Bloomfield Road, Nevada City, CA 95959 General Description: This station is used as a storage building. It currently houses district’s antique fire engine, which will soon be relocated to another station. NCC has deemed this station as surplus and is in process of selling. Structure Date of Original Construction 1989 General Condition Fair Seismic Protection No Auxiliary Power No ADA Compliant No Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 0 Back-Ins 2 Total Bays: 2 Total Square Footage 1,664 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 0 Beds 0 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 0 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities No Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms 0 Showers 0 Bedrooms 0 Exercise/Workout Facilities No Kitchen Facilities No Individual Lockers Assigned No Training/Meeting Rooms No Washer/Dryer/Extractor No Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke & CO Detection No Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System No Minimum Unit Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Staffing* Public education trailer Total Daily Staffing: 0 *If an apparatus is cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 148 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Station Name/Number: Station 81 Address/Physical Location: 16528 Pasquale Road, Nevada City, CA 95959 General Description: This station is basically a barn used to house apparatus designed for volunteer use. It does not meet the needs of a modern fire service facility. Structure Date of Original Construction 1978 General Condition Fair Seismic Protection No Auxiliary Power No ADA Compliant No Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 0 Back-Ins 2 Total Bays: 2 Total Square Footage 1,640 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 0 Beds 0 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 0 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities Gender Segregation Bathrooms 2 Showers 2 Bedrooms 0 Exercise/Workout Facilities No Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned No Training/Meeting Rooms No Washer/Dryer/Extractor No Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System No Minimum Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Unit Staffing* Engine 81 Type 2 Reserve Total Daily Staffing: 0 *If an apparatus is cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 149 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Station Name/Number: Station 92 Fleet and Facilities Shop Address/Physical Location: 14811 McCourtney Road, Grass Valley, CA 95949 General Description: This station is currently being used as a fleet/facility maintenance shop. The building meets most of the needs of a modern fire service facility. Structure Date of Original Construction 1985 General Condition Good Seismic Protection No Auxiliary Power Yes ADA Compliant Yes Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 2 Back-Ins 0 Total Bays: 2 Total Square Footage 4,576 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 2 Beds 2 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 2 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities Yes Gender Segregation Bathrooms 2 Showers 1 Bedrooms 2 Exercise/Workout Facilities Yes Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned Yes Training/Meeting Rooms Yes Washer/Dryer/Extractor Washer/Dryer Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System Yes Apparatus Exhaust System No Minimum Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Unit Staffing* Repair 5130 1 Non-firefighting Repair 5131 1 Non-firefighting Total Daily Staffing: 2* Fleet/facility staff *If an apparatus is cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 150 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Station Name/Number: Station 89 Address/Physical Location: 11833 Tammy Way, Grass Valley, CA 95949 General Description: This building is over 50 years old and rated in “Good” condition. It does not meet many of the needs of a modern fire service facility. Structure Date of Original Construction 1970 General Condition Good Seismic Protection No Auxiliary Power Yes ADA Compliant No Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 0 Back-Ins 3 Total Bays: 3 Total Square Footage 3,920 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 3 Beds 3 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 3 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities Yes Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms 2 Showers 1 Bedrooms 3 Exercise/Workout Facilities Yes Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned Yes Training/Meeting Rooms Yes Washer/Dryer/Extractor Yes Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System Yes Minimum Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Unit Staffing* Engine 89 2 Type 1 Brush 89 CS Type 3 Utility 89 CS Total Daily Staffing: 2 *If an apparatus is cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 151 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Station Name/Number: Station 88 Address/Physical Location: 14400 Golden Star Road, Grass Valley, CA 95949 General Description: This facility meets most of the needs of a modern fire station. Structure Date of Original Construction 1987 General Condition Good Seismic Protection No Auxiliary Power Yes ADA Compliant Yes Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 0 Back-Ins 3 Total Bays: 3 Total Square Footage 4,851 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 2 Beds 4 Dorm Beds Maximum Staffing Capability 2 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities Yes Gender Segregation Bathrooms 2 Showers 3 Bedrooms 2 Exercise/Workout Facilities Yes Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned Yes Training/Meeting Rooms Yes Washer/Dryer/Extractor Yes Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System Yes Minimum Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Unit Staffing* Engine 88 2 Type 1 WT 88 CS Cal OES 4610 CS Type 6 Total Daily Staffing: 2 *If an apparatus is cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 152 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Station Name/Number: Station 86 Address/Physical Location: 12337 Banner Lava Cap Road, Nevada City, CA 95959 General Description: This 53-year-old facility meets some of the needs of a modern fire station. It is rated in “Good” condition. Structure Date of Original Construction 1970 General Condition Good Seismic Protection No Auxiliary Power Yes ADA Compliant Yes Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 0 Back-Ins 2 Total Bays: 2 Total Square Footage 1,675 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 1 Beds 3 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 3 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities Yes Gender Segregation Bathrooms 1 Showers 1 Bedrooms N Exercise/Workout Facilities Yes Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned Yes Training/Meeting Rooms Yes Washer/Dryer/Extractor Yes Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System Yes Minimum Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Unit Staffing* Engine 86 2 Type 2 Squad 86 CS Type 6 Total Daily Staffing: 2 *If an apparatus is cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 153 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Fire Stations Discussion Most of the NCC fire stations were considered in "Good" condition, and three fire stations were rated as "Fair." Three of the stations were not designed for 24-hour staffing, and several others would need to be remodeled to accommodate additional staffing. Station 92 is currently being utilized as a fleet mechanic shop. The fire stations range in age from 20 to 73 years, with an average of just over 44 years. The following figure summarizes NCC's fire stations and their features. Figure 98: Station Configuration and Condition Staffing General Station Apparatus Bays Station Age Capacity Condition Station 81 2 0 Fair 45 years Station 82 2 0 Poor 44 Years Station 83 2 0 Fair 34 years Station 84* 4 4 Good 20 years Station 86* 2 3 Good 53 years Station 88* 2 2 Good 36 years Station 89* 3 3 Good 53 years Station 91 3 0 Fair 73 years Station 92 (Shop) 2 2 Good 38 years Totals/Average: 18 14 44 years average *Bold = Staffed stations Generally, NCC's stations are older and do not meet the requirements of modern firefighting. As the firefighting environment has changed, technology, equipment, and safety systems have changed to meet new demands. Older buildings do not typically have the space or engineering systems to meet that new environment. Modern living also requires much more access to electrical outlets than was expected in older buildings, including new demands for Electric Vehicle (EV) charging for agency and employee vehicles. The older NCC stations are no exception. 154 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo For example, older buildings do not meet the requirements due to the need to decontaminate personnel and equipment after many types of responses in the current firefighting context. Every crew member should have access to facilities to decontaminate immediately after a fire event, and showers should allow for gender separation. In addition, there needs to be enough partitioned space to allow for gear and equipment to be thoroughly washed, and the space must be designed to control contamination in the living and working spaces of the station. While all structures require routine maintenance, staffed fire stations require even more maintenance due to the continuous occupancy by a minimum of three adults. Multiple departures and returns of heavy apparatus also affect these structures. Facility Management With only four of the nine NCC stations being used as fire stations, there needs to be a facility management plan in place. The district should evaluate the age, condition, capacity, and location of each station to determine if there is the potential that they will be returned to service during their expected life spans. Stations that are not expected to return to service should be considered for surplus status. Ensuring the stations are in good repair requires regular maintenance and scheduled replacement of specialized equipment. Plans for updating and repairing systems—such as heating and air conditioning (HVAC), generators, roofs, driveways, parking areas, security gates, painting, carpets, and small appliances—can keep costs down and buildings in service longer. In addition, establishing a facility replacement and maintenance plan will enable the district to plan for ongoing service from each station more efficiently. Status of Shared Facilities NCC currently shares some facilities with other agencies. The district is working with the County to develop a larger parking lot to accommodate the development of a trailhead at Station 82, and Station 91 is leased to the Sheriff’s Department to house search and rescue equipment. The Strategic Plan does identify a willingness to optimize the use of existing facilities through collaboration with allied agencies. Apparatus Apparatus was evaluated by NCC staff based on age, miles/hours, service, condition, and reliability. Fleet maintenance is provided in-house by staff certified as emergency vehicle technicians (EVTs), and systems are in place for emergency assistance after hours. The apparatus evaluation criteria are defined in the Introduction section of this report. 155 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo The following figures provide information about all apparatus and vehicles operated by NCC. Figure 99: NCC Apparatus Unit Type Status Year Condition Features Engines & Aerial Apparatus Engine 84 Type 1 Frontline 2006 Fair 1,500 GPM/550 G Tank Engine 86 Type 2 Frontline 2018 Good 1,000 GPM/500 G Tank Engine 88 Type 1 Frontline 2021 Excellent 1,500 GPM/500 G Tank Engine 89 Type 1 Frontline 2016 Good 1,500 GPM/550 G Tank Engine 81 Type 2 Reserve 2000 Poor 1,000 GPM/500 G Tank Engine 87 Type 1 Reserve 2006 Fair 1,500 GPM/550 G Tank Engine 90 Type 1 Reserve 2006 Fair 1,500 GPM/550 G Tank Brush 89 Type 3 Frontline 2008 Good 500 GPM/500 G Tank Squad 86 Type 6 Frontline 2001 Fair 150 GPM/200 G Tank Rescue 84 Type 6 Frontline 2020 Good 200 GPM/300 G Tank Medics/Rescues/Other R-5131 Repair Frontline 2017 Good Mechanic truck Utility 84 Utility Frontline 2015 Good Utility 89 Utility Frontline 2009 Fair Utility 88 Utility Frontline 2019 Good UTV 84 UTV Frontline 2021 Excellent (R-91) WT 84 Water Tender Frontline 2023 Excellent 2,000 Gallon Tank WT 88 Water Tender Frontline 1994 Fair 3,000 Gallon Tank Figure 100: Supervisor & Command Vehicles Unit Assigned To Manufacturer Year Condition C-5100 Fire Chief Chevy Tahoe 2023 Good N/A Sold Ford Interceptor 2018 Good C-5103 Division Chief/Ops Ford F-250 2016 Good C-5120 Division Chief/Fire Marshal Ford F-250 2016 Good P-5121 Prevention Officer Ford F-250 2022 Good R-5130 Fleet/Facilities Supervisor Ford F-550 2020 Good BC Shift Battalion Chief Ford F-550 2017 Good 156 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Dispatch & Communications NCC is dispatched by the CAL FIRE Grass Valley Emergency Command Center (GVECC), which provides service for all fire agencies in Nevada County and has the ability to dispatch via Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL). However, at present none of the local agencies are utilizing AVL for closest-unit dispatch. The following figure details the characteristics of the PSAP and Dispatch Center. Figure 101: PSAP and Dispatch Center Item Description CAD Application Northrop Grumman Altaris CAD Telephone System Motorola VESTA Radio System MODUCOM radio consoles Fire/EMS Notification Two-tone encoder system Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Mutual aid TAC channels, State-wide radio with other fire agencies in the County: interoperability channels Ability for fire agencies to communicate via State-wide Interoperability channels radio with police agencies in the County: Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Mutual aid TAC channels, State-wide radio with non-fire EMS agencies in the County: interoperability channels CAD to CAD with other CAL FIRE ECCs; for Ability for PSAP to communicate CAD-to-CAD local government dispatch centers – phone (how do you transfer a call to another center): call only Priority Dispatch – Emergency Medical Criteria-based dispatch system in place: Dispatch Formal EMD quality assurance program in place: Priority Dispatch AQUA and EMD-Qs Options for non-emergent calls not requiring EMS: None AVL used on fire apparatus: Northrop Grumman AVL used on ambulances & EMS units: No RadioMobile Patriot or a tablet using MDTs/MDCs in all fire & EMS vehicles: RadioMobile IQMobile Closest unit dispatched via AVL: Yes No. of 9-1-1 calls: 2022: 23,342 No. of 10-digit incoming emergency calls: 2022: 31,891 157 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Infrastructure Needs Most of the NCC fire stations were considered in "Good" condition, and three fire stations were rated as "Fair." Three of the stations were not designed for 24-hour staffing, and several others would need to be remodeled to accommodate additional staffing. Station 92 is currently being utilized as a fleet mechanic shop. The NCC fire stations range in age from 20 to 73 years, with an average of just over 44 years. NCC identified the need to expand capacity for administrative offices and add a training room to the Headquarters station. With only four of the nine NCC facilities being used as fire stations, a facility management plan needs to be in place. The district should evaluate the age, condition, capacity, and location of the stations to determine if there is a potential that they will be returned to service during their expected life spans. Stations that are not expected to return to service should be considered for surplus status. Governance Structure Options For a number of years, discussion has taken place regarding the potential for consolidating fire protection service in the western Nevada County areas. Beginning in July 2023, this discussion took on a renewed emphasis when the Rough and Ready Fire Protection District decided it would need to close its doors and dissolve as a fire protection entity. This prompted the Penn Valley FPD, Nevada County Consolidated FPD, and the County of Nevada to enter into a contract to continue the provision of fire protection and emergency medical service at the Rough and Ready Station while other options were studied. This event also prompted a more earnest discussion of the future of fire protection and emergency medical response for the overall area. It is now proposed that the Penn Valley FPD, Rough and Ready FPD, Nevada County Consolidated FPD, and Ophir Hill FPD reorganize into a single fire protection district. The concept is explored in Section 1 of this report, under the Reorganization Options heading. 158 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Service Review Determinations LAFCo is required to prepare a written statement of determination with respect to six areas as specified by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. Based on the criteria described in Section 1 of this report, the following determinations are proposed for the district. MSR Determination #1: Growth and Population Projections The current NCC service area population as of 2020 was estimated to be 32,668. While the current boundaries of the NCC jurisdiction are not identified through the California Department of Finance or the U.S. Census Bureau, population projections were calculated to 2035 using American Community Survey estimates. The population is projected to increase by 4% between 2023 and 2035. The projected population in 2035 is 34,080. The California Department of Finance projection for the population of the whole of Nevada County is a 2.4% decrease by 2028. MSR Determination #2: Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence Nevada LAFCo has identified one DUC within or adjacent to the NCC’s boundaries. The DUC in question is primarily within the Rough and Ready boundary. This area is within district boundaries and receives the same level of service as those areas surrounding it. The following figure shows the location of the Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community. 159 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 102: NCC DUC 160 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo MSR Determination #3: Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities, Adequacy of Public Services, and Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies, Including Those Related to Sewers, Water, and Fire in Any DUCs Within or Contiguous to the SOI Generally, NCC's stations are older and do not meet the requirements of modern firefighting. As the firefighting environment has changed, the technology, equipment, and safety systems have changed to meet new demands. Older buildings do not typically have the space or engineering systems to meet the new environment, such as greater access to electrical outlets for technology, decontamination areas, gender-separation areas, and compliance with ADA. There is a need to expand capacity for administrative offices and space for a training room at the Headquarters station. With only four of the nine NCC stations being used as fire stations, there needs to be a facility management plan in place. The district should evaluate the age, condition, capacity, and location of each of the stations to determine if there is a potential that they will be returned to service during their expected life spans. Stations that are not expected to return to service should be considered for surplus status. MSR Determination #4: Financial Ability of the Agency to Provide Services The review of the financial position of the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District shows a surplus in four out of the five prior years’ financials. Financial projections through 2028 identify a surplus in each of the five years, but the amount of surplus decreases steadily over this time period. At the close of 2022, the district had a fund balance of $4,591,378, of which $2,601,079 was restricted, leaving $1,990,299 available to the district for general purposes. It is determined that the district has the financial ability to provide its full range of services to the community at its current staffing levels. The consolidated sphere of influence proposes that four fire protection districts join together through reorganization over the next five years. Economies of scale for such items as board of director expenses, legal counsel, administration, and financial management will assist in the overall financial position of the combined agencies. The plan for service required for the application will address the transfer of revenues and anticipated expenditures for such a change. 161 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo MSR Determination #5: Status and Opportunities for Shared Services NCC has a mutual and automatic aid agreement with surrounding fire agencies, and it is a party to the Nevada County Fire and Emergency Joint Powers Agreement, which provides emergency communications, emergency dispatch, an air-filing station, and MAPTool development and maintenance. It contracts for dispatch service through CAL FIRE. NCC is a party to the agreement to continue fire protection services to the Rough and Ready FPD following its decision to close its doors. NCC, along with Penn Valley FPD and the County of Nevada, have ensured operation and funding to maintain this service level. MSR Determination #6: Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies For a number of years, discussion has taken place regarding the potential for consolidating fire protection service in the western Nevada County area. Beginning in July 2023, this discussion took on a renewed emphasis when the Rough and Ready Fire Protection District decided it would need to close its doors and dissolve as a fire protection entity. This prompted Penn Valley FPD, Nevada County Consolidated FPD, and the County of Nevada to enter into a contract to continue the provision of fire protection and emergency medical service at the Rough and Ready Station while other options were studied. It also prompted a more earnest discussion of the future of fire protection and emergency medical response for the overall southwestern Nevada County area. It is being proposed that the Penn Valley FPD, Rough and Ready FPD, Nevada County Consolidated FPD, and Ophir Hill FPD reorganize into a single fire protection district with a consolidated sphere of influence showing the LAFCo determination. This is more fully discussed in a subsequent section of this report, but the territory under discussion is shown in the following figure: 162 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 103: Consolidated Sphere of Influence 163 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Sphere of Influence Update The NCC sphere of influence was confirmed through the Municipal Service Review for fire protection and emergency services presented in January 2005 and adopted in by the Commission. The sphere of influence was updated in January 2014 through adoption of the report entitled “SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATES 2014 Nevada County Fire Service Providers.” Existing SOI The sphere of influence for NCC is coterminous with existing boundaries and remained unchanged through the original MSR in 2005 and the Sphere of Influence Updated in 2014. SOI Options The options for the sphere of influence are: 1. Expand the sphere of influence along the northeastern edge of the district and maintain the balance of the sphere of influence as coterminous with the identification that any future annexation by the Cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City addresses the loss of revenue to the district through conditions of approval to allow for a five- to ten-year absorption timeframe for the loss; or, 2. Reorganize Penn Valley FPD, Rough and Ready FPD, Nevada County Consolidated FPD, and Ophir Hill FPD into a single fire protection district. ▪ The sphere of influence determination would be to consolidate the spheres of influence of the affected districts into a single sphere, with an anticipated timeframe of one to five years for reorganization. Rough and Ready FPD would be designated a zero sphere of influence, identifying the Commission’s position that it be absorbed by another fire entity. NCC would include the sphere of influence as amended to expand it along the northeastern edge of the district. ▪ Identify the Commission’s position that future annexations by either the City of Grass Valley or Nevada City address the loss of revenue to the fire protection district through conditions of approval allowing for a five-to-ten-year absorption of the loss. ▪ The four districts would jointly propose a reorganization that would annex the Rough and Ready, Nevada County, and Ophir Hill FPD areas and spheres of influence into the Penn Valley FPD; dissolve the three FPDs being annexed; and rename the district to reflect its new orientation. The Plan for Service and Transition Plan for such a change would need to identify the timelines and actions necessary to effectuate this change. 164 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Recommended SOI The recommended sphere of influence determination is to consolidate the spheres of influence of the four districts as amended and make the determinations as outlined in the section on governance specifically addressing this regional change. Proposed SOI Determinations If the recommended sphere of influence is not adopted, it is recommended that the sphere of influence determination be retained as coterminous and the matter be continued to allow for preparation of those determinations. 165 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo North San Juan Fire Protection District NSJ Overview North San Juan Fire District (NSJ) provides fire protection, Basic Life Support (BLS) emergency medical treatment, and community risk reduction to an estimated population of 2,562 in 87 square miles. NSJ has four fire stations; one staffed by volunteers and three housing apparatus and equipment available to responding volunteers. The district is staffed by two part-time non-uniformed support personnel and 26 volunteers, for a total of 28. Background NSJ developed a Master Plan in 2017 and does not have a Standards of Cover nor a Strategic Plan. However, the district has adopted a Mission Statement, a Vision has been established and communicated, and goals and objectives are developed annually. NSJ received a Class 6/6Y ISO Rating in its most recent rating from the Insurance Services Office (ISO) in August 2021. At the time of the formation of NSJ in 1986 it had no base property tax but relied upon funding through the Special Districts Augmentation Fund, which was provided at the discretion of the County. This funding stream was dramatically changed in the 1993–94 fiscal year due to state legislation implementing the Educational Relief Augmentation Fund (ERAF). In 1993, Assemblymember Bernie Richter sponsored special legislation which provided NSJ with a portion of ad valorem property tax, directing the County Auditor to provide this sum by reductions to the County General Fund and other special districts, including all of the fire protection districts. Over the last ten years, the district has focused on maximizing the use of the limited funds available. Additional revenue measures have been exercised, including a 1986 parcel tax with a rate of $27.50 with no provision for inflationary increases; Measure Q, a Parcel Tax approved by voters in 2014 with an initial rate of $61.50 for a single family dwelling with a maximum COLA of 3% per year; and mitigation fees assessed on new construction within the district. Additionally, the Fire Auxiliary provides financial support by hosting various fundraising events. According to the Fire Chief, there is no potential for facility, personnel, and equipment sharing due to the remoteness and isolation of the district. 166 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo The Fire Chief's top three critical issues: • Capital equipment replacement described as “minimally adequate” • Staffing is described as “minimally adequate” • Response times are not acceptable The Fire Chief's top opportunity to increase value and/or efficiency for the public: • Decreasing response times Boundaries and Sphere of Influence North San Juan Fire Protection District provides fire protection and emergency rescue service to approximately 87 square miles of western Nevada County north of the South Yuba River. The district’s service area includes the community of North San Juan and a large unincorporated area. The district is bordered by Penn Valley and Nevada County Consolidated Fire Protection Districts on the south, Dobbins-Oregon House Fire Protection District and the Camptonville CSD in Yuba County on the west and north. The Pike City VFD in Sierra County is north of the district boundary, which extends to the centerline of the Yuba River and Middle Yuba River. The Tahoe National Forest lies to the east. The southern boundary of the district extends to the centerline of the South Yuba River. On December 13, 2017, a Certificate of Completion was filed by the Nevada County Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCo”) for the annexation of land into the NSJ territory. The annexation included more than 10,000 acres and over 200 parcels. This action was initiated by the district through adoption of Resolution 2017-07 on September 26, 2017. The annexed area was inside the district’s sphere of influence and was already receiving fire and rescue services from the district on an on-call basis. The current sphere of influence for the district is, therefore, coterminous with its boundaries. 167 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 104: NSJ Service Area 168 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Sphere of Influence Expansion: During this MSR review, it was identified that there was an area to the east of existing district boundaries not a part of the district’s sphere of influence but composed of a mix of private and public properties. The area contains 53 parcels with an estimated acreage of 3,051 acres. In reviewing the service delivery to this area with the Fire Chief, it was indicated that the district supports the inclusion as it would be the first-in service responder for the area at the present time. Therefore, it is being recommended that the NSJ sphere be expanded to include this area. The area is shown on the map in the following figure. Figure 105: Potential SOIs for NCC and NSJ 169 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Type & Extent of Services Services Provided NSJ provides a limited range of services for its residents. The following figure represents each of the services and the level performed. Figure 106: Overview of Services Provided Service Y/N Level Fire Suppression Yes Wildland engine-based suppression (Type Wildland Fire Suppression Yes 2 and 6) Available for Cal OES Statewide Statewide Mobilization Yes Mobilization EMS First Response Yes Basic Life Support (EMT and EMR) Ambulance Transport No Sierra Nevada Ambulance Specialized/Technical Rescue No HazMat Response No Fire Inspection/Code Enforcement No Plan Reviews No Public Education/Prevention Yes Newsletter, Community Events Fire & Arson Investigation No Service Area The North San Juan Volunteer Fire Department was established in 1862 and was organized as a fire protection district in 1986. The fire department is statutorily responsible for fire and emergency services within the district boundary. The area within the district boundary is classified as 80% rural and 20% remote. 170 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Collaboration • Provides automatic and mutual aid to neighboring agencies • Available for Statewide mutual aid response Contracts to Provide Services to Other Agencies • None Contracts for Services From Other Agencies • CAL FIRE Grass Valley Emergency Command Center provides dispatch services Governance & Administration North San Juan Fire Protection District is an independent special district governed by a locally elected 5-member Board of Directors. NSJ is an all-volunteer organization; the Fire Chief receives a stipend and reports directly to the Board of Directors. There are two part- time administrative support personnel. Figure 107: NSJ Board of Directors Name Title Term End Committee Assignment Nevada County Fire JPA Alternate, Bruce Boyd Chair 12/2026 Yuba Watershed Council Liaison, Oak Tree Par District Liaison Samantha Hinrichs Vice-Chair 12/2026 Newsletter Editor Rhea Williamson Director 12/2024 Treasurer, Finance Committee, Finance Committee, Representative Pat Leach Director 12/2024 to Nevada County Fire JPA, Fire Safe Council Representative Tim Tschantz Director 12/2026 Firefighter Association Liaison 171 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 108: NSJ Organizational Chart Board of Directors Fire Chief DISTRICT MANAGER DISTRICT MANAGER Finance/Facilities Operations/Personnel/Board (Part-time) Secretary (Part-time) Volunteers 172 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Accountability for Community Services—Transparency The following figure identifies NSJ’s efforts to meet State laws designed to ensure transparency and accountability, as well as efforts beyond legal requirements to make information available to the public. Figure 109: Transparency and Accountability Transparency and Accountability Available Agency website:23 Yes Adopted budget available on website: Yes Notice of public meetings provided: Yes Agendas posted on website:24 Yes Public meetings are live streamed: Upon request Minutes and/or recordings of public meetings available on Yes website: Master Plan (fire service specific) available on website: Yes Strategic Plan (fire service specific) available on website: No Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover documents No available on website: SOC performance reports available on website: No Efforts to engage and educate the public on the services to the Yes community: Staff and governing board member ethics training and Yes economic interest reporting completed: Compliance with financial document compilation, adoption, Yes and reporting requirements: Adherence to open meeting requirements: Yes Efforts to engage and educate the public on the fire and emergency services to the community consist of participation in local events, tours of the fire stations, access to fire department planning documents on the website, and educational programs focused on fire prevention and preparedness. The district’s Fire Auxiliary also provides support for the public and the volunteer firefighters. The district maintains a website which provides for compliance with Special Districts’ Transparency Act. 23 As of January 1, 2020, independent special districts are required to maintain websites according to Government Code Sections 6270.6 and 53087.8 to provide the public easily accessible and accurate information about the district. Government Code Section 53087.8 lists what must be included in the website. 24 Government Code §54954.2. 173 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Land Use and Population Land Use The Nevada County General Plan identifies a range of rural and forest land uses within the NSJ service area. These include Rural (1 unit to 5, 10, 20, 30, 40 acres), Public, Planned Development, Forest and Open Space. The General Plan acknowledges the rural community center area along Highway 49 which includes a residential component. The NSJ 2017 Master Plan observes that the rivers and parks in the area attract as many as 500,000 visitors each summer, increasing the service demand on NSJ. Current Population Based on information from the 2020 Decennial Census, through Esri’s interpolation of census tracts, the population of North San Juan Fire Protection District is estimated to be 2,562. The estimated 2023 full-time population from American Community Survey data is 2,571. Projected Population Though historical population estimates for the specific boundaries of the NSJ jurisdiction were not available through the California Department of Finance and the U.S. Census Bureau, population projections were calculated out to 2035 using historic interpolations from American Community Survey estimates. A significant drop in population from 2019 to 2020 (-4%) negatively impacts population projections for the future. Considering population trends since 2020 provides a more typical growth pattern. The population is projected to experience a cumulative increase of 2% from 2023 to 2035, or 0.2% annually. The projected population in 2035 is 2,630. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) A DUC is an unincorporated, inhabited territory that constitutes all or a portion of a community with an annual median household income that is less than 80% of the statewide annual median household income (i.e., $67,926 for 2023).25 LAFCo is required to identify the location and characteristics of any DUCs in the Service Review and SOI update process.26 25 Government Code §56033.5. 26 Government Codes §56425(e)(5) and §56430(2). 174 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Nevada LAFCo has one identified DUC within NSJ’s boundary, as defined by the County General Plan as a “legacy community”. This area is within the rural community center also defined by the General Plan. The DUC area is shown in the following figure. The area is wholly within the existing boundary of the NSJ and receives the same level of services as the surrounding district area. In addressing service delivery to the DUC, a project is underway to provide a pressurized water supply for firefighting in the developed area of North San Juan. Figure 110: NSJ DUC Locations 175 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Financial Overview North San Juan Fire Protection District (NSJ) operates through three funds, the General Fund, to manage its operations and two funds that account for special revenues and related expenditures, Measure Q and Mitigation. A significant amount of information was reviewed to develop financial trend analysis for the five-year period. This review of the historical information revealed an impact on revenues received by the NSJ during the COVID pandemic, primarily due to a drop in strike team reimbursements. Revenues NSJ is funded by several sources of income. Property taxes are allocated under Proposition 13 limiting total property tax assessments to 1% of the property’s value. The tax revenue is then apportioned between the various taxing units. Nevada County utilizes the “Teeter Plan” under which 100% of the property tax apportionment is remitted to the taxing unit with the taxing unit foregoing penalties and interest collections on delinquently paid taxes. Property tax revenues are based on assessed property tax values and represents approximately 63% of General Fund recurring revenues annually. Collections in FY 2023 totaled $165,985. NSJ’s other recurring revenue sources are a special assessment and Proposition 172 (approximately 35% of annual General Fund recurring revenue). The FY 2023 assessment collections totaled $44,054; Proposition 172 tax amounted to $53,455. Reimbursements for strike team deployments have been significant, typically averaging over 70% of total annual General Fund revenue but fluctuate based on seasonal conditions and need. These reimbursements have ranged from lowest in FY 2020 totaling $162,531 and highest of $1,300,508 in FY 2022. This could be a concern as recurring revenues, those that are relatively stable for projection, account for approximately 20% of the total district revenues, however the district does not include strike team revenue in the preliminary budget. Strike team revenue and expenditures are added as a mid-year budget amendment after expenses and reimbursements are known. The influx of large sums of strike team reimbursement revenue skews the NSJ revenue picture. Other General Fund revenues include interest income, grants and miscellaneous income and amount to approximately 5% of total General Fund revenues. 176 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo NSJ’s special revenues accounted for in separate funds include Mitigation and Measure Q. Measure Q was approved by voters as a special tax in 2014 for a fixed amount per tax unit to cover fire protection, emergency medical response, and other public safety. Measure Q collections in FY2023 totaled $111,403. Mitigation fees fluctuate from year to year and have ranged from lowest in FY 2023 ($4,019) to highest in FY 2019 ($12,095). The following figure indicates a detail of those revenues. Figure 111: North San Juan FPD Revenues, FY 2019–FY 202327 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Revenue FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Strike Team 336,745 162,531 754,555 1,300,508 890,026 Reimbursements Property Tax 141,964 146,623 151,793 159,413 165,985 Special Assessment 41,008 43,955 44,156 43,997 44,054 Proposition 172 27,690 29,222 29,751 50,959 53,455 Other Intergovernmental 4,561 8,874 4,048 230 18,856 Grants — 9,100 — 98,236 — Interest 3,550 2,929 2,119 6,732 20,846 Other Revenue 26,456 — 18,408 6,774 6,654 Total General Fund 581,974 403,234 1,004,830 1,666,849 1,199,876 Revenues Measure Q & Mitigation 115,626 116,448 119,770 116,778 119,690 Fund Revenues Total Revenues 697,600 519,682 1,124,600 1,783,627 1,319,566 Expenses Salaries and benefits account for roughly 80% of the recurring costs of the district. Wages and stipends make up about 20% of personnel costs and have decreased slightly from $130,250 in FY 2019 to $113,775 in FY 2023 (3%) with increases in 2020 and 2021, falling again in 2022 and 2023. Employee benefits (average 14% of total personnel costs), consisting of payroll tax and workers' compensation, have increased nearly 28% from FY 2019 to FY 2023. NSJ provides a strike team engine with fluctuating cost depending on the season, with a high of approximately $582,464 in FY 2022 and a low of $80,894 in FY 2020. Strike team related personnel costs radically skew the district’s Salary and Benefit expenditures. 27 North San Juan Fire Protection District Adopted Budgets, FY 2021/FY 2022; FY 2022–FY 2023. 177 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Other recurring General Fund expenses include personal protective equipment, facilities costs, apparatus and equipment maintenance, fuel, insurance, utilities, professional fees, communications, dispatch, training costs, and other expenses. Insurance costs are a current concern; NSJ has experienced an increase from approximately $12,000 in 2020 to $52,000 (333%) in the current year. Non-recurring expenses include capital outlay and miscellaneous costs. Measure Q Fund expenses include capital outlay, debt service, as well as training and personnel costs. Mitigation Fund expenses include capital outlay and debt service. These costs range annually, with lows of $57,162 in FY 2022 and FY 2023 (debt service), and a high in 2020 totaling $190,331 (primarily capital outlay). Figure 112: Historical NSJ Expenditures Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Expenditures FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Wages & Stipend 130,250 135,848 138,838 88,572 113,775 Strike Team Payroll 217,725 80,894 566,811 582,464 487,581 Employee Benefits 54,604 66,445 93,557 102,942 115,382 Total Salaries & Benefits 402,579 283,186 799,206 773,978 716,738 Other Recurring Expenses 163,520 141,044 153,665 115,140 182,014 Non-Recurring Expenses 43,596 373,926 21,026 223,204 52,701 Total General Fund Expenses 609,695 798,156 973,897 1,112,322 951,453 Measure Q/Mitigation Expenses 42,523 190,331 59,164 57,162 57,162 Total Expenses: 652,218 988,487 1,033,061 1,169,484 1,008,615 Government agencies are limited in their abilities to make rapid changes in their revenue streams to offset significant events within their jurisdiction such as loss of apparatus or significant equipment, or rapid and significant economic downturn. It is important for agencies to maintain a certain level of reserves to prepare for those unforeseen events. The following summarizes the revenues and expenditures for NSJ for FY 2019 through FY 2023. 178 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 113: Summarized Revenues and Expenditures for NSJ Revenues & Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Expenditures FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Total Revenues 697,600 519,682 1,124,600 1,783,627 1,319,566 Total Expenditures 652,218 988,487 1,033,061 1,169,484 1,008,615 Surplus (Deficit) 45,382 (468,805)28 91,539 614,143 310,951 This information shown graphically indicates the overall growth of North San Juan Fire Protection District revenues and expenditures. Figure 114: Revenues and Expenditures for NSJ (2019–2023) $2,000,000 $1,783,627 $1,800,000 $1,600,000 $1,400,000 $1,319,566 $1,124,600 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $1,169,484 $800,000 $697,600 $988,487 $1,033,061 $1,008,615 $600,000 $519,682 $652,218 $400,000 $200,000 $0 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Total revenues Total expenditures The district’s revenue from strike-team activities significantly exceeds expenses related to the same activities. Although the district states it does not rely on strike team revenue to fund operations, if these revenues-in-excess-of-expenses are removed or substantially reduced, the district would experience a reduction in discretionary funds. The following figure details strike team reimbursements over strike team payroll. 28 NSJ purchased a new engine in 2020 using accumulated reserve funds. 179 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 115: Strike Team Reimbursements and Payroll (2019–2023) Revenues & Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Expenditures FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Strike Team 336,745 162,531 754,555 1,300,508 890,026 Reimbursements Strike Team Payroll 217,725 80,894 566,811 582,464 487,581 Benefits (14%) 30,482 11,325 79,354 81,545 68,261 Surplus 88,538 70,312 108,390 636,499 334,184 Over the five-year period 2019–2023, NSJ received over $1.2 million in revenue in excess of payroll costs for its strike team operations, averaging about $247,000 annually. NSJ appears to exercise an abundance of caution and restraint in limiting its reliance upon these funds. However, it is important to note the outsized impact this enterprise has on the district’s overall financial picture. Financial Projections Revenues NSJ anticipates property tax revenues to continue to increase, estimated at 4% annually. While housing inventory will continue to be low, prices will continue to rise increasing assessed valuations and property taxes. Special assessment and Proposition 172 are estimated to increase 2% and 5%, respectively. Other General Fund revenues, including strike team reimbursements, are estimated using a five-year average of historical collections. Expenses Salaries and benefits, including strike team payroll, are the most significant of the costs of NSJ, consuming approximately 80% of the recurring expenditures. Based on the last five years’ history, personnel costs are forecast to remain consistent, except for strike team payroll projected using a five-year historical average of costs. Other previously described recurring costs are forecast to escalate at 3% annually. The following figure is a forecast of NSJ’s projected General fund revenues and expenditures. 180 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 116: NSJ General Fund Summarized Projected General Fund Revenues and Expenditures Revenue & FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Expenditures Revenue 985,365 995,975 1,007,020 1,018,517 1,030,487 Expenditures 916,383 922,007 927,800 933,767 939,913 Surplus (Deficit) 68,982 73,968 79,220 84,751 90,574 Capital Planning NSJ operates a Measure Q Fund for funds collected to fund public safety. Other revenues include interest income. Committed fund balance in this fund was $250,328 on June 30, 2023. NSJ also operates a Special Revenue fund for mitigation fees with its main revenue in the fund of mitigation fees restricted by California Law AB1600 for the purpose of offsetting increased capital costs due to development (impact fees). Restricted fund balance in the Special Revenue fund was $16,808 on June 30, 2023. Committed fund balance in the General fund includes reserves for future capital equipment ($400,000) and capital improvements ($119,492). Outstanding Debt North San Juan Fire Protection District entered into a financing agreement for $350,000 to purchase a Rosenbauer pumper in September 2019, bearing 2.94% interest with principal and interest payments through January 2027. The figure below provides the maturity schedule as of June 30, 2023. Figure 117: NSJ Outstanding Debt Fiscal Year Principal Interest Total FY2024 49,916 6,141 56,057 FY2025 51,385 4,672 56,057 FY2026 52,897 3,159 56,057 FY2027 54,425 1,631 56,057 Total 208,624 15,603 224,227 181 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Reserves As of June 30, 2023, North San Juan Fire Protection District had $1,373,629 in total fund balance. Fund balances consisted of the following: • General Fund ▪ Unassigned $372,927 ▪ Committed for capital equipment and improvements $519,492 ▪ Committed for reserves $200,000 • Measure Q Fund $250,328 • Mitigation Fees Fund $16,808 Figure 118: North San Juan FPD Fund Balance Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Fund Balance FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Nonspendable (prepaid costs) — — 4,239 7,469 14,074 Restricted (Mitigation Fund) 8,536 15,658 11,328 18,440 16,808 Restricted (Measure Q Fund) 271,066 — — — — Committed (Measure Q Fund) — 163,526 139,764 192,268 250,328 Committed (General Fund) 38,083 — — — 719,492 Unassigned (General Fund) 148,431 177,812 293,204 844,501 372,927 Total Fund Balance 466,116 356,996 448,535 1,062,678 1,373,629 182 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Demand for Services NSJ is a geographically large rural system that provides aid services to other communities when requested. Data was provided by the agency and its dispatch center and included incident information from January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2022. This analysis focuses on incidents within the statutory and contractual areas where NSJ responds. The following figure is the overview statistics for North San Juan Fire Protection District. Figure 119: NSJ Overview Avg. Annual Incidents per 90th Percentile Agency Incident Vol. 1,000 Population Total Time North San Juan Fire District 386 150 21:00 Incident categories below follow the National Fire Incident Reporting System's code grouping. Medical responses account for over 60% of NSJ's operations. This proportion is similar to many fire departments that provide emergency medical services. The following figure shows incident volume by type between January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2022, visually demonstrating the proportion of incident types. The category “Good Intent” includes calls where the reporting party may have believed help was needed, but upon investigation, it was determined that no action on the part of the fire department was necessary. Examples include smoke from a properly operating chimney, a vehicle accident that could not be located, or an incident where the fire unit was canceled by another agency prior to arrival. Figure 120: Total Incident Response by Type Disaster, 6 False Alarm, 549 Fire, 375 Good Intent, 41 Rescue-Medical, 2,454 Hazardous Condition, 395 183 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Typically, an analysis of incidents by year can yield a trend or give an idea of what the call volume might look like in the next few years. Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, call volumes nationally were affected, and trends are not as easy to spot. Over the four-year period, total call volumes peaked in 2021, before returning to levels similar to 2020. Calls charted below as “Service Area” include calls handled in and by NSJ. Aid Given includes call service provided by NSJ in areas outside by Mutual or Automatic Aid. Aid Received includes calls occurring in the NSJ district but handled by other agencies. Call volume in the service area has decreased by 2% from 2019 to 2022, while Aid Given volumes have increased by 15%, while Aid Received calls have decreased by 9%. Figure 121: Annual Incidents by Year 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Additional temporal studies show that the monthly call volume variation is typically insignificant. However, the summer months stand out with higher-than-expected numbers, offset by slower winter months. The variation works out to ±1–3 calls each month. 184 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 122: Incidents by Month 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% NSJ, like many similar agencies, does see a significant increase in incident volume during the day. In fact, NSJ sees over 70% of its incidents daily between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. The following figure shows the general variation of the complete incident data set by the hour of the day. Figure 123: Incident Percentage by Hour 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour of the Day 185 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo This average daily swing is typical and likely due to the number of people awake and moving around. However, the day-to-day variation in this information does play a part. The following figure is the incident heat map by the hour of the day and day of the week. It is interesting to note there is very little difference between weekday and weekend trends. Figure 124: Day and Hour Incident Heat Map Hour Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Color Incidents 0–1 19–23 1–2 13–19 2–3 10–13 3–4 8–10 4–5 5–8 5–6 3–5 6–7 1–3 7–8 8–9 9–10 10–11 11–12 12–13 13–14 14–15 15–16 16–17 17–18 18–19 19–20 20–21 21–22 22–23 23–24 186 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Emergency Response Performance The performance of the fire department response in the service area was also evaluated. Response mode was not provided, so performance times are calculated using all incidents, excluding Service Calls. Results are presented using the 80th percentile statistic. The 80th percentile is the standard typically used in volunteer systems. Total response time is calculated from the time notification is made by dispatch to the time the first unit arrived on scene. The unit type was not discriminated against, and the first arriving unit was used to determine the total response time. The timestamps in the data provided for each segment of the response time do not include seconds. This truncation of the data introduces potential for up to 2 minutes’ error in the total response time calculation. NSJ, as a volunteer system in a rural area, falls under NFPA 1720 for a response time performance, or benchmark, of arriving on-scene in 14 minutes or less, 80% of the time. The following figure shows a comparison of the adopted standard compared to the actual total response time for all types. Between January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2022, NSJ's performance for 1,039 incidents within the fire response area was a total response time of 21 minutes (21:00) or less, 80% of the time. Figure 125: Adopted Standard vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance Adopted Standard 1/2019–12/2022 Performance 14:00 or less, 80% of the time 21:00 or less, 80% of the time The following figure is the performance of total response time for each of the major incident types within the data set. 187 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 126: Incidents’ 90th Percentile Total Response Times, January 2019–December 2022 32:50 24:37 16:25 08:12 00:00 Response Goal The final analysis investigated the unit usage question for all apparatus within the system. Three dimensions are studied in this report. The first dimension is the unit hour utilization (UHU). This number represents the time a unit was committed to an incident as a percentage of the total time they were on duty. The next is the average time a unit was committed to an incident. And finally, the average number of incidents a unit was deployed per day. The data for each cross-staffed apparatus is combined into assigned station. The following figure shows the general statistics for the frontline units at stations within the NSJ system. Figure 127: Fire Unit Statistics Unit Hour Utilization Avg. Time per Avg. Incidents Station (UHU) Incident Per Day 1 0.9% 153 Minutes 0.08 2 0.4% 58 Minutes 0.08 3 4.2% 58 Minutes 1.03 4 0.3% 66 Minutes 0.07 188 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo The unit hour utilization (UHU) calculation evaluates how much time a crew is committed to an incident versus the total time on duty during a specific time frame. The formula for this calculation is the total time committed to an incident divided by the sum of all time the unit is staffed. ∑𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑎 𝑆𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑒 𝑈𝐻𝑈 = ∑𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐼𝑛 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒 The desire is for the primary unit at a station to be under 10% UHU. Maintaining 10% UHU should indicate that the area has 90% availability from unscheduled events. Stations with multiple companies should aggregate to less than 10% UHU for all similar units. In addition, crews from the primary apparatus that cross-staff other units should avoid aggregated UHUs of over 10%. Staffing The following figure shows to the total number of personnel for NSJ organized by the various divisions. Figure 128: Staffing Assignment Staffing Uniformed Administration 1 (stipend) Non-Uniformed Administration 2 (part-time) Fire Prevention N/A Operations Staff N/A Emergency Communications N/A Volunteers, Reserve, On Call 26 Total Personnel 28 The following figure shows the staffing at each station and on each unit in the station. NSJ is an all-volunteer staffed organization. 189 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 129: Daily Staffing Station Daily Staffing Unit Staffing 1 0 Volunteer on-call 2 0 Volunteer on-call 3 0 Volunteer on-call 4 0 Volunteer on-call Total 0 All-volunteer response NSJ Fire Stations The following figures outline the basic features of each of the NSJ fire stations. The condition of the stations is rated based on the criteria identified in the introduction to this section of the report. 190 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 130: NSJ Fire Stations Station Name/Number: Station 1 Address/Physical Location: 10057 Reservoir Street, North San Juan, CA 95960 General Description: Station consists of an apparatus bay and a community hall with commercial kitchen. The building does not meet the needs of a modern fire service facility. Structure Date of Original Construction 1995 General Condition Fair Seismic Protection No Auxiliary Power No ADA Compliant Yes Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs Back-Ins 2 Total Bays: 2 Total Square Footage Bay – 1,000, Hall – 2,500 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 0 Beds 0 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 0 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities 2 bathrooms, no showers Gender Segregation Bathrooms 2 Showers Bedrooms Exercise/Workout Facilities No Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned No Training/Meeting Rooms 1 Washer/Dryer/Extractor No Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System No Minimum Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Unit Staffing* 6182 Type 2 Engine 6191 Type 1 Water Tender Total Daily Staffing: 0 Volunteer /on-call staff only *If an apparatus cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 191 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Station Name/Number: Station 2 Address/Physical Location: 20399 Pleasant Valley Road, North San Juan, CA 95960 General Description: Apparatus barn. No plumbing. Rated in “Good” condition. Structure Date of Original Construction 1998 General Condition Good Seismic Protection No Auxiliary Power No ADA Compliant No Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs Back-Ins 2 Total Bays: 2 Total Square Footage 1,000 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 0 Beds 0 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 0 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities None Gender Segregation Bathrooms 0 Showers 0 Bedrooms 0 Exercise/Workout Facilities None Kitchen Facilities None Individual Lockers Assigned No Training/Meeting Rooms No Washer/Dryer/Extractor No Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System No Minimum Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Unit Staffing* 6186 Type 2 Engine 6134 Utility Truck Total Daily Staffing: 0 All volunteer/on-call staffing *If an apparatus cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 192 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Station Name/Number: Station 3 Address/Physical Location: 13200 Tyler Foote Road, Nevada City, CA 95959 General Description: The station contains an apparatus bay, residence, District office, and training room. Meets many of the needs of a modern fire service facility. Structure Date of Original Construction 2000 General Condition Good Seismic Protection No Auxiliary Power Yes, Solar and Generator ADA Compliant Yes Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 2 Back-Ins 0 Total Bays: 2 Total Square Footage 4000 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 1 Beds 0 Dorm Beds 3 Maximum Staffing Capability 3 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities 2 bath, 1 shower Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms N Showers N Bedrooms N Exercise/Workout Facilities No Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned Yes Training/Meeting Rooms Yes Washer/Dryer/Extractor Yes Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System Yes Apparatus Exhaust System No Minimum Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Unit Staffing* 6132 Utility Truck 6130 Utility Truck 6162 Type 6 Engine 6168 Type 2 Engine Total Daily Staffing: 0 All volunteer/on-call staffing *If an apparatus cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 193 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Station Name/Number: Station 4 Address/Physical Location: 14618 Tyler Foote Road, Nevada City, CA 95959 General Description: Apparatus bay only. Located on the grounds of a Photo not available private community. Structure Date of Original Construction 2021 General Condition Good Seismic Protection No Auxiliary Power No ADA Compliant No Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs Back-Ins 1 Total Bays: 1 Total Square Footage 500 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 0 Beds 0 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 0 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities None Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms Showers Bedrooms Exercise/Workout Facilities No Kitchen Facilities No Individual Lockers Assigned No Training/Meeting Rooms No Washer/Dryer/Extractor No Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System NO Minimum Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Unit Staffing* 6164 Type 6 Engine Total Daily Staffing: 0 All Volunteer/on-call staffing *If an apparatus cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 194 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Fire Stations Discussion Only one of the NSJ fire stations was considered in less than "Good" condition. Three of the four stations do not have the capacity to support 24-hour staffing. Fire station ages range from 2 to 28 years, with an average of just over 19 years. The following figure summarizes NSJ fire stations and their features. Figure 131: Station Configuration and Condition Staffing General Station Apparatus Bays Station Age Capacity Condition Station 1 2 0 Fair 28 years Station 2 2 0 Good 25 years Station 3 2 3 Good 23 years Station 4 1 0 Good 2 years Totals/Average: 7 3 19 years average Generally, NSJ’s stations do not meet the requirements of modern firefighting. As the firefighting environment has changed, the technology, equipment, and safety systems have changed to meet new demands. Older buildings do not typically have the space or engineering systems to meet that new environment. Modern living also requires much more access to electrical outlets than was expected in older buildings; this includes new demands for EV charging for agency and employee vehicles. The older NSJ stations are no exception. For example, older buildings do not meet the requirements due to the need to decontaminate personnel and equipment after many responses in the current firefighting context. Every crew member should have access to facilities to decontaminate immediately after a fire event, and showers should allow for gender separation. In addition, there needs to be enough partitioned space to allow for gear and equipment to be thoroughly washed and designed to control contamination in the living and working space of the station. While all structures require routine maintenance, fire stations require even more maintenance due to the nature of their use. Multiple departures and returns of heavy apparatus also affect these structures. 195 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Facility Replacement Only one of the four NSJ stations has the capacity to support 24-hour staffing, and with three of the four stations approaching the halfway point of a 50-year life-cycle, the district should begin to develop a facility replacement plan so facilities can be replaced or upgraded in an orderly and planned fashion. The district’s Master Plan (2017–2022) lists renovation of Station 1 as a goal. The objectives of the renovation are to improve emergency response to the North San Juan area by creating living quarters for a firefighter and add additional apparatus bays. The renovation would also address ADA compliance and improvements to the community meeting hall. It was not apparent if the district has any formal plan for facility maintenance. Ensuring the stations are in good repair requires regular maintenance and scheduled replacement of specialized equipment. Plans for updating and repairing systems such as heating and air conditioning (HVAC), generators, roofs, driveways, parking areas, security gates, painting, carpet replacement, and small appliances can keep costs down and buildings in service longer. In addition, establishing a facility replacement and maintenance plan will enable the district to plan for ongoing service from each station more efficiently. Status of Shared Facilities NSJ does not currently share its facilities with other agencies. Apparatus Apparatus was evaluated by NSJ staff based on age, miles/hours, service, condition, and reliability. The criteria are defined in the introduction section of this report. The following figures represent all apparatus and vehicles operated by NSJ. 196 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 132: NSJ Apparatus Unit Type Status Year Condition Features Engines & Aerial Apparatus Engine 6162 Type 6 Frontline 2000 Fair 250 GPM/350 G Tank Engine 6164 Type 6 Frontline 2005 Fair 175 GPM/200 G Tank Engine 6168 Type 2 Frontline 2019 Good 1250 GPM/500 G Tank Engine 6182 Type 2 Frontline 1996 Fair 1250 GPM/1000 G Tank Engine 6186 Type 2 Frontline 1986 Poor 1250 GPM/500 G Tank Water Tender/Rescues/Other WT 6191 Water Tender T1 Frontline 2004 Good 500 GPM/3500 G Tank Rescue 6132 Rescue Frontline 2014 Good Pickup/Service body Rescue 6134 Rescue Frontline 1998 Poor Pickup Rescue 6136 Snowmobile Frontline 2012 Good Sled w/ Tow toboggan Utility 6130 Utility Frontline 2014 Good Pickup w/ shell Apparatus Discussion Fleet maintenance is primarily outsourced with minimal in-house involvement due to the lack of a qualified Emergency Vehicle Technician. Maintenance manuals are available; preventative maintenance checks are performed regularly; maintenance records are kept current. Annual pump tests are not conducted. NSJ has two frontline apparatus that are considered in “Poor” condition. Further, the district has no reserve apparatus. A capital equipment replacement plan should be developed and funded to ensure the district has access to reliable and efficient apparatus. 197 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Dispatch & Communications NSJ is dispatched by the CAL FIRE Grass Valley Emergency Command Center (GVECC). The center provides service for all the fire agencies in Nevada County. The GVECC has the ability to dispatch via Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL); however, at present, none of the local agencies are utilizing AVL for closest unit dispatch. Figure 133: PSAP and Dispatch Center Item Description CAD Application Northrop Grumman Altaris CAD Telephone System Motorola VESTA Radio System MODUCOM radio consoles Fire/EMS Notification Two-tone encoder system Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Mutual aid TAC channels, State-wide radio with other fire agencies in the county: interoperability channels Ability for fire agencies to communicate via State-wide Interoperability channels radio with police agencies in the county: Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Mutual aid TAC channels, State-wide radio with non-Fire EMS agencies in the county: interoperability channels CAD-to-CAD with other CAL FIRE ECCs – for Ability for PSAP to communicate CAD-to-CAD local government dispatch centers - phone (how do you transfer a call to another center): call only Priority Dispatch – Emergency Medical Criteria-based dispatch system in place: Dispatch Formal EMD quality assurance program in place: Priority Dispatch AQUA and EMD-Qs Options for non-emergent calls not requiring EMS: None AVL used on fire apparatus: Northrop Grumman AVL used on ambulances & EMS units: No RadioMobile Patriot or a tablet using MDTs/MDCs in all fire & EMS vehicles: RadioMobile IQMobile Closest unit dispatched via AVL: Yes No. of 911 calls: 2022 – 23,342 No. of 10-digit incoming emergency calls: 2022 – 31,891 Infrastructure Needs NSJ should develop a facility maintenance plan and establish a capital replacement fund. The district has two apparatus listed in “poor” condition that will need to be replaced. 198 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Governance Structure Options Due to the district's isolated location, there are currently limited opportunities for changes in its governance structure. The district receives automatic and mutual aid from surrounding agencies in Nevada, Yuba, and Sierra counties, as well as from State and Federal fire resources. If the reorganization of the Penn Valley, Rough and Ready, Nevada Consolidated, and Ophir FPDs materializes, NSJ should consider whether this opens any opportunities for the district to improve service to its communities. Service Review Determinations LAFCo is required to prepare a written statement of determination in six areas as specified by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. Based on the criteria outlined in Section 1 of this report, the following determinations are proposed for the NSJ. MSR Determination #1: Growth and Population Projections The current population, estimated using 2020 Decennial Census data and interpolation of census tracts, is approximately 2,562. Given the limited growth in the area, the 2023 population estimate is 2,571. There are no population projections available from the California Department of Finance or the U.S. Census Bureau for this community, even though North San Juan is a census-designated place. The area experienced a significant population drop between 2019 and 2020 (-4%), which complicates future population forecasting. The projected population for 2035 is 2,630, despite the California Department of Finance projecting a decline in population for Nevada County as a whole. MSR Determination #2: Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence Nevada LAFCo has identified one DUC within NSJ's boundary, classified as a "legacy community" under the County General Plan. This area lies within the rural community center, as defined by the General Plan, and is wholly within the existing NSJ boundary, receiving the same level of services as the surrounding district area. A project is currently underway to provide a pressurized water supply for firefighting in the developed rural community center area of North San Juan, addressing service delivery to the DUC. 199 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo MSR Determination #3: Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities, Adequacy of Public Services, and Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies, Including Those Related to Sewers, Water, and Fire in Any DUCs Within or Contiguous to the SOI NSJ has four stations but currently operates daily from only one, Station 3, while the others are used for on-call operations. A review indicates that three of these stations lack the capacity to support 24-hour staffing, leaving only one station to respond around the clock. It is recommended that the district develop a facility replacement plan to upgrade or replace facilities in an orderly manner. The Fire Chief has highlighted staffing of fire operations as a concern, noting minimal day- to-day coverage. Additionally, the district does not meet its response time goals, which is a critical service issue. MSR Determination #4: Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services A review of the district's financial position shows a surplus in four of the last five years, with projections indicating ongoing, albeit modest, surpluses for the next five years. However, 70% of the agency's revenue comes from strike-team operations, which are not guaranteed. A significant portion of salary and benefit expense is directly related to strike- team operations. In all, strike-team operations are a net-positive to the district, with expenses more than offset by revenues. Strike-team revenue in excess of related expense is utilized by the district to provide a higher level of service to the community than would be possible utilizing only the regular recurring revenue. MSR Determination #5: Status and Opportunities for Shared Services The district's location along the north side of the South Yuba River isolates it from other agencies, limiting opportunities for shared services. It operates with mutual and automatic aid from fire agencies in Nevada, Yuba, and Sierra counties, as well as from State and Federal fire resources. The district receives dispatch services from CAL FIRE. 200 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo MSR Determination #6: Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies Over the years, the district has made efforts to minimize costs while maintaining services. It communicates with its constituents through its website, newsletter, and social media, and engages with the community on fire safety efforts. No alternative governmental structures or operational options were identified during this review due to the district's isolation. However, if the fire reorganization with Penn Valley, Rough and Ready, Nevada Consolidated, and Ophir Fire Districts proceeds, operational discussions with North San Juan could be undertaken. Sphere of Influence Update The NSJ sphere of influence was confirmed through the Municipal Service Review for fire protection and emergency services presented in January 2005 and adopted by the Commission. It was updated in January 2014 through the adoption of the report "SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATES 2014 Nevada County Fire Service Providers." In 2017, the district completed the annexation of its sphere territory, approximately 10,000 acres and 200 parcels, making its sphere of influence coterminous with its current boundaries. Existing SOI The sphere of influence for NSJ is now coterminous with its existing boundary following the completion of the annexation. SOI Options The options for the sphere of influence are: 1. Remain unchanged as coterminous; or 2. Expand the sphere of influence along the district's eastern boundary to include public and private parcels. This area comprises 53 parcels totaling approximately 3,051 acres. The district is currently the first responder to this area under mutual aid agreements. Recommended SOI AP Triton has reviewed the sphere of influence options with the NSJ Fire Chief, who supports the expansion of the sphere of influence, as NSJ is the first responder in the area. This expansion is the recommended course of action. 201 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Proposed SOI Determinations The following addresses the sphere of influence determinations required by Government Code Section 56425 related to the recommended sphere of influence amendment: Determination #1: The present and planned land uses in the area including agricultural and open space lands. A review of the Nevada County General Plan for the area identifies a range of rural and forest land uses within the NSJ service area, including Rural (1 unit per 5, 10, 20, 30, or 40 acres), Public, Planned Development, Forest, and Open Space. The General Plan also acknowledges the rural community center area along Highway 49, which includes residential components. The proposed sphere amendment area includes Forest, Open Space, and Public uses. The land use within the district and the proposed sphere amendment area is generally classified as rural and remote. This sphere of influence determination will not change these land use classifications. Determination #2: The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. Given the range of land uses within the sphere of influence and the proposed amendment, the need for fire protection and emergency medical response services is expected to remain acute. The estimated build-out population of the area is 2,630 by 2035. However, during the summer months, the area experiences an influx of tourists, which can reach up to 500,000 annually, increasing the demand for district services. Determination #3: The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agencies provide or are authorized to provide. NSJ is authorized to provide fire protection and emergency medical response services. According to the MSR, call volumes dropped during the COVID-19 pandemic but have since returned to pre-pandemic levels. Service demands increase during the summer months, while winter months see slower activity. The district relies on paid-call or volunteer personnel to meet current demands, but the Chief has identified a need for additional staffing. NSJ has four stations, three of which are rated as good, and one as poor. Only Station 3 is capable of supporting 24-hour staff. There is a need to develop a replacement or upgrade plan for the facilities. 202 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Determination #4: The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area. There is a distinct community of interest in the North San Juan area, centered around the rural community along Highway 49. Growth in the area is limited due to the county's rural land use decisions and limited infrastructure. Determination #5: The present and probable need of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities for the district’s public facilities and services. The central community core of NSJ is identified as a DUC within the district boundaries. This area receives the same level of service as the surrounding district areas. 203 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Ophir Hill Fire Protection District OPH Overview Ophir Hill Fire Protection District (OPH) provides fire protection, Basic Life Support (BLS) emergency medical treatment, and community risk reduction to a population of 3,783 in about 8 square miles. OPH operates one fire station staffed by six career and 14 paid-call personnel for a total of 20 personnel. Background Ophir Hill Fire Protection District is an independent fire district that was formed in 1956. OPH has not developed any planning documents such as a Master Plan or Strategic Plan, and a Standards of Cover analysis has not been performed for the district. The district did develop a mission statement in 2003. OPH received a Class 3/3Y ISO Rating in its most recent rating from the Insurance Services Office (ISO) in 2021. Over the last ten years, most cost minimization efforts have resulted from standardizing equipment, relying more on Automatic Aid, and sharing equipment. Additional revenue measures have been exercised, including a Benefit Assessment passed in 2006 that generated $265,626 in FY22. The district also collects Mitigation Fees on new construction. According to the Fire Chief, the district is currently sharing equipment and there is a belief that more could be accomplished. The Fire Chief's top three critical issues: • Funding • Staffing • Capital Equipment The Fire Chief's top three opportunities to increase value and/or efficiency for the public: • Increasing Public Education efforts • Sharing resources • Improving working relationships with other agencies 204 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Boundaries and Sphere of Influence Ophir Hill Fire Protection District provides service to an area east of Grass Valley which includes the community of Cedar Ridge. The district is bordered by Grass Valley on the west, Nevada County Consolidated Fire Protection District on the north and south, and Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Protection District on the east. Empire Mine State Park occupies a large portion of the district adjacent to Grass Valley. Nevada County LAFCo reaffirmed a coterminous Sphere of Influence for the district in 2014. Figure 134: OPH Service Area 205 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Of note, the City of Grass Valley sphere of influence includes a substantial portion of the district’s boundary. Future annexation will remove this area from its service territory along with the financial resources provided by them. This will have a significant impact on the district in the future. The Nevada LAFCo should identify that any future annexation by the City should include a condition of approval that will spread the loss of revenue over a five- or ten-year period to allow for the district to adjust its service delivery plan. Type & Extent of Services Services Provided OPH provides a range of services for its residents. The following figure represents each of the services and the level performed. Figure 135: Overview of Services Provided Service Y/N Level Fire Suppression Yes Wildland engine-based suppression (Type Wildland Fire Suppression Yes 3, Type 6) Available for Cal OES Statewide Statewide Mobilization Yes Mobilization EMS First Response Yes Basic Life Support Ambulance Transport N/A Private Provider Specialized/Technical Rescue No HazMat Response Yes First Responder Operational (FRO) Fire Inspection/Code Enforcement Yes Plan Reviews No Public Education/Prevention Yes Fire & Arson Investigation Yes Limited Service Area The Ophir Hill Fire Protection District serves approximately 9 square miles of western Nevada County, including the Empire Mine State Park. The district serves the community of Cedar Ridge and is situated on the eastern border of the City of Grass Valley. The service area consists of approximately 1,600 parcels and is primarily rural. 206 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Collaboration • The district shares a nearly 30-year-old Type 2 fire engine with Peardale-Chicago Park Fire District • The district provides Automatic and Mutual Aid to other Nevada County fire agencies • The Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) has assigned a Water Tender to OPH. Contracts to Provide Services to Other Agencies • None Contracts for Services From Other Agencies • Dispatch services provided by CAL FIRE by contract. Governance & Administration OPH is an independent special district governed by a five-member Board of Directors elected at large from residents of the district. The Fire Chief reports directly to the Board. Figure 136: Ophir Hill Fire Protection District Organizational Chart Board of Directors Fire Chief Board Secretary Captains Firefighters 207 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Accountability for Community Services—Transparency The following figure identifies OPH’s efforts to meet State laws designed to ensure transparency and accountability, as well as efforts beyond legal requirements to make information available to the public. Figure 137: Transparency and Accountability Transparency and Accountability Available Agency website:29 Yes Adopted budget available on website: No Notice of public meetings provided: No Agendas posted on website:30 Yes Public meetings are live streamed: No Minutes and/or recordings of public meetings available on Yes website: Master Plan (fire service specific) available on website: No Strategic Plan (fire service specific) available on website: No Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover documents No available on website: SOC performance reports available on website: No Efforts to engage and educate the public on the services to the Yes community: Staff and governing board member ethics training and Yes economic interest reporting completed: Compliance with financial document compilation, adoption, Yes and reporting requirements: Adherence to open meeting requirements: Yes 29 As of January 1, 2020, independent special districts are required to maintain websites according to Government Code Sections 6270.6 and 53087.8 to provide the public easily accessible and accurate information about the district. Government Code Section 53087.8 lists what must be included on the website. 30 Government Code §54954.2. 208 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Efforts to engage and educate the public on the fire and emergency services to the community consist of participation in local events, tours of the fire stations, and links to educational programs focused on fire prevention and preparedness on the district’s website. The Special Districts Transparency Act (SB 929) enacted in 2020 requires that all districts have a functional website containing information on the board, the finances of the district, and how to contact members of the district’s representatives. The district’s website meets only the bare minimum requirements of this Act as it does not provide financial information for the district, and its board membership is not current. It does provide a link to board meeting agendas, but not all written reports are available for review. The district should address these deficiencies for the future. Land Use and Population Land Use The Nevada County General Plan identifies the predominant land use within the OPH as rural with land use designations ranging from Residential (1.5 acre minimum lot size), Estate (3 acre minimum lot size) and Rural (ranging from 5 to 20 acre minimum lot size). No change has been identified for this area as the other infrastructure (water and sewer) are not present. Current Population The California Department of Finance (CDOF) does not provide population estimates for unincorporated areas like Ophir Hill. An interpolation of American Community Survey estimates at the census tract level, using Esri’s GIS population enrichment, places the 2020 population of the Ophir Hill Fire District at 3,783. Projected Population Though historic population estimates for the specific boundaries of the OPH jurisdiction were not available through the CDOF and U.S. Census Bureau, population projections were calculated out to 2035 using historic interpolations from American Community Survey estimates. The population is projected to experience a cumulative increase of 3% from 2023 to 2035, or 0.3% annually. The projected population in 2035 is 3,942. 209 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) A Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) is an unincorporated, inhabited territory that constitutes all or a portion of a community with an annual median household income that is less than 80% of the statewide annual median household income (i.e., $73,524).31 LAFCo is required to identify the location and characteristics of any DUCs in the Service Review and SOI update process.32 No DUCs were identified by LAFCo at the Census Block Group level located within or contiguous to the OPH SOI that meet the definition based on population and income. Financial Overview Ophir Hill Fire Protection District OPH operates through three funds: the General Fund, to manage its operations; a Special Revenue Fund for AB1600 mitigation fees and related capital needs due to development: and a Capital Improvement Fund to accumulate certain fees and expend funds for major capital facilities and equipment purchases. A significant amount of information was reviewed to develop financial trend analysis for the five-year period. This review of the historical information revealed an impact on revenues received by the OPH during the COVID pandemic, primarily due to a drop in strike team reimbursements. Revenues OPH is funded by several sources of income. Property taxes are allocated under Proposition 13 limiting total property tax assessments to 1% of the property’s value. The tax revenue is then apportioned between the various taxing units. Nevada County utilizes the “Teeter Plan” under which 100% of the property tax apportionment is remitted to the taxing unit with the taxing unit foregoing penalties and interest collections on delinquently paid taxes. Property tax revenues are based on assessed property values and are the single largest source of revenue to OPH.33 This revenue source accounts for approximately 38% of General Fund recurring revenues annually. 31 Government Code §56033.5. 32 Government Codes §56425(e)(5) and §56430(2). 33 Fire District Adopted Budgets, FY 2018–FY 2023. 210 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo OPH’s second largest recurring revenue source (20%) is a special assessment, originally approved in 1997. Measure J, approved by voters in 2002, increased the assessment by $65 annually for residential and commercial parcels, and $35 for unimproved lots. The assessment amounted to $252,418 being collected in FY 2022. Another significant source of revenue is proceeds from the Proposition 172 public safety sales tax equaling 6% of the district’s recurring revenue. Reimbursements for its strike team have been significant, most notably $720,938 in FY 2021, but fluctuate based on seasonal conditions and need. The following figure indicates a detail of those revenues. Figure 138: OPH Revenues (FY 2019–FY 2023) Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Revenue FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Property taxes 426,310 447,423 470,305 500,847 493,956 Special Assessment 231,068 240,408 239,520 252,418 264,952 Proposition 172 Tax 55,911 57,167 61,696 78,731 58,094 Strike team 589,813 120,905 720,938 475,532 475,000 reimbursements Interest income 4,354 4,371 2,746 1,959 2,000 Other revenue (851) 24,912 23,852 28,720 2,000 Total General Fund 1,306,605 895,186 1,519,057 1,338,207 1,296,002 Mitigation/Capital revenue 5,136 6,211 3,998 4,827 5,240 Total Revenues 1,311,741 901,397 1,523,055 1,343,034 1,301,242 211 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Expenses Salaries and benefits are approximately 80% of the recurring costs of the district. Overtime use is budgeted at approximately 15% of total personnel cost. Salaries and overtime increased from $359,371 in FY 2019 to $514,996 in FY 2023 (14%) with a significant increase occurring in FY 2021. OPH operates a strike team with fluctuating costs depending on the season, with a high of approximately $295,000 in FY 2019 and a low of nearly $71,000 in FY 2020. Retirement costs account for about 8% of total personnel costs. Health insurance accounts for approximately 8% of personnel costs annually. Other recurring expenses include professional fees, personal protective equipment, facilities costs, apparatus and equipment maintenance, fuel, insurance, utilities, communications and technology, training costs, and other expenses. Non-recurring expenses include capital outlay and miscellaneous costs. Figure 139: Historical OPH Expenditures Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Expenditures FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Salaries & Overtime 359,371 349,915 476,286 514,996 462,000 Seasonal & Paid Call Payroll 75,307 70,865 85,461 84,535 88,000 Strike Team Payroll 294,872 54,182 215,867 129,809 130,000 Employee Benefits 242,901 244,719 279,738 259,611 269,889 Total Salaries & Benefits 972,451 719,681 1,057,352 988,951 949,889 Other Recurring 169,496 136,922 147,026 219,460 183,925 Expenditures Total Recurring Expenditures 1,141,947 856,603 1,204,378 1,208,411 1,133,814 Non-Recurring Expenditures 60,954 236,595 116,849 20,828 39,600 Total General Fund 1,202,901 1,093,198 1,321,227 1,229,239 1,173,414 Expenditures Capital/Mitigation 55,805 11,352 0 0 0 expenditures Total Expenditures: 1,258,706 1,104,550 1,321,227 1,229,239 1,173,414 Government agencies are limited in their abilities to make rapid changes in their revenue streams to offset significant events within their jurisdiction, such as loss of apparatus or significant equipment, or rapid and significant economic downturn. It is important for agencies to maintain a certain level of reserves to prepare for those unforeseen events. The following summarizes the revenues and expenditures for OPH for FY 2019 through FY 2023. 212 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 140: Summarized Revenues and Expenditures Revenues & Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Expenditures FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Total revenues 1,311,741 901,397 1,523,055 1,343,034 1,301,241 Total expenditures 1,258,706 1,104,549 1,321,223 1,229,238 1,173,414 Surplus (Deficit) 53,035 (203,152) 201,832 113,796 127,827 The above information, shown graphically in the following figure, indicates the overall growth of Ophir Hill Fire Protection District General Fund revenues and expenditures. Figure 141: Historical Revenue Over Expenditure $1,600,000 $1,523,055 $1,311,74 $1,343,034 $1,400,000 $1,301,241 1 $1,200,000 $1,104,549 $1,321,223 $1,258,706 $1,229,238 $1,173,414 $1,000,000 $800,000 $901,397 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Total revenues Total expenditures One concern, however, related to the current financial picture of OPH is the substantial revenue/expense related to strike team operations. This is an additional element provided by the district to areas not necessarily a part of its community, and not part of its direct mission of serving its community. If those revenues and expenses were removed from the current financial position, the district would have operated in a deficit position for the last five audit years, as shown in the Projected Revenue and Expenditures figure, which has been modified to show the removal of strike team operations. This should raise a serious question about OPH’s long-term sustainability. 213 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Financial Projections Revenues OPH anticipates property tax revenues to continue to increase, estimated at 5% annually. While housing inventory will continue to be low, prices will continue to rise, increasing assessed valuations and property taxes. Special assessment is expected to continue to grow at a 5% annual rate, as permitted under the creating legislation. Proposition 172 tax revenues are estimated to increase 2% annually. Other revenues are forecast to continue to grow at a moderate rate. Expenses Salaries and benefits are the most significant of the costs of OPH, consuming over 80% of the recurring expenditures. These costs are forecast to increase by approximately 5% annually. Other previously described recurring costs are forecast to escalate at 9% annually. The following figure is a forecast of OPH’s projected revenues and expenditures. Figure 142: OPH Summarized Projected General Fund Revenues and Expenditures Revenue & FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Expenditures Revenue 1,411,906 1,455,068 1,500,339 1,547,823 1,597,631 Expenditures 1,458,962 1,535,903 1,618,077 1,705,880 1,799,740 Surplus (Deficit) (47,056) (80,835) (117,738) (158,057) (202,109) Capital Planning Ophir Hill Fire Protection District anticipates vehicle, heavy apparatus, and equipment replacement on a scheduled basis. These expenditures and small station improvements are included in the financial plan of the district. OPH operates a Capital Improvement Fund for capital purchases and structure improvements. It also operates a Special Revenue Fund for mitigation fees. The main revenue in this fund comes from mitigation fees, which are restricted by California Law AB1600. These fees are intended to offset increased capital costs due to development (impact fees). Funds are required to be spent and/or designated within five years for new capital additions only. Other revenues include interest income and interfund transfers. The restricted fund balance in the Special Revenue Fund was $36,015 as of June 30, 2022. 214 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Outstanding Debt Ophir Hill Fire Protection District has no outstanding debt aside from compensated absences and pension liabilities. Reserves As of June 30, 2022, Ophir Hill Fire Protection District had $1,206,284 in total fund balance. Fund balances consisted of the following: • General Fund: $1,170,269 – Unassigned fund balance • Capital Reserve Fund: $36,015 – Restricted fund balance for mitigation fees to be used for capital needs related to development Figure 143: OPH Fund Balance Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Fund Balance FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Restricted for capital outlay 18,377 21,641 27,190 31,188 36,015 Committed for capital outlay 64,080 10,147 — — — Unassigned (General Fund) 981,457 1,085,161 863,466 1,061,300 1,170,269 Total Fund Balance 1,063,914 1,116,949 890,656 1,092,488 1,206,284 Demand for Services OPH is a primarily suburban and rural system that provides aid services to other communities when requested. Data used in the report is a combination of incident data from the agency and RMS data from the California Office of the State Fire Marshal from January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2022. This analysis focuses on incidents within the statutory and contractual areas where OPH responds. The following figure is the overview statistics for Ophir Hill Fire Protection District. Figure 144: OPH Overview Avg. Annual Incidents per 1,000 90th Percentile Agency Incident Vol. Population Total Time OPH 398 190 13:37 215 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Incident categories in the following figure are dependent on categories provided in the CAD data, and incidents are classified broadly as Fire, Medical and Other. Medical responses account for over 66% of the OPH operations; the incident demand in this category is significantly higher than all other call types. This proportion is similar to many fire departments that provide emergency medical services. The following figure shows incident volume by type between January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2022, represented by proportion of overall incidents. The category “Other” includes calls such as Law Enforcement, Standby, and Public Assistance. Figure 145: Total Incident Response by Type Other Fire 283 405 Medical 1,340 Typically, an analysis of incidents by year can yield a trend or give an idea of what the call volume might look like in the next few years. Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, call volumes nationally were affected, and trends are not as easy to spot. The following figure shows the annual incident volume by aid type. Aid Given includes both Mutual Aid and Automatic Aid provided to neighboring agencies. Aid Given has increased by 67% since 2019. Aid Received and calls handled in OPH by OPH (Service Area) fluctuate year over year, but show a cumulative decrease of 3% and 20%, respectively. 216 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 146: Annual Incidents by Year 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 Aid Received Aid Given None Additional temporal studies show that the monthly call volume variation is typically insignificant. However, April stands out with 1.7% fewer calls than expected, while December has 2.2% more calls. Though the percentages are small, this works out to approximately 10 calls +/- each month, which may be noticed depending on available staffing. 217 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 147: Incidents by Month 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% OPH, like many similar agencies, sees a significant increase in incident volume during the day. In fact, OPH sees over 70% of its incidents daily between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. The following figure shows the general variation of the complete incident data set by the hour of the day. Figure 148: Incident Percentage by Hour 8% 7% 6% s t n e d 5% ic n I f 4% o t n e 3% c r e P 2% 1% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour of the Day 218 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo This average daily swing is typical and likely due to the number of people awake and moving around. However, the day-to-day variation in this information does play a part. The following figure is the incident heat map by the hour of the day and day of the week. Figure 149: Day and Hour Incident Heat Map Hour Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Color Incidents 0–1 25–29 1–2 18–25 2–3 15–18 3–4 12–15 4–5 9–12 5–6 5–9 6–7 2–5 7–8 8–9 9–10 10 – 11 11 – 12 12 – 13 13 – 14 14 – 15 15 – 16 16 – 17 17 – 18 18 – 19 19 – 20 20 – 21 21 – 22 22 – 23 23 – 24 In the previous figure, it is interesting to note the slightly elevated incident rates Friday and Sunday afternoon and evening. While this has not been researched for OPH, it may typify weekend travel in or through the area. 219 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Emergency Response Performance The performance of the fire department response in the service area was also evaluated. Response mode was not provided, so performance times are calculated using all incidents, excluding calls coded as “Other” (OTH). Results are presented using the 90th percentile statistic. The 90th percentile is typically used in the fire service and is considered the standard for measuring incident response performance. Based on timestamps provided, two unique time segments were included when evaluating this agency's response performance. The first is the time it takes for the agency to receive the notification from Dispatch and go en route to the call (turnout time). The second is the time it takes for the unit to drive to the incident (travel time). Both segments combined make up the total response time evaluated in the following discussion. The unit type was not discriminated against, and the first arriving unit was used to determine the total response time. The timestamps in the data provided for each segment of the response time do not include seconds. This truncation of the data introduces potential for up to 2 minutes’ error in the total response time calculation. OPH provided response time performance goals, or benchmarks, of 1 minute for turnout and 5 minutes for response time, for a total response time goal of 6 minutes, 90% of the time. The following figure shows a comparison of the adopted standard compared to the actual total response time for calls. Between January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2022, OPH’s performance for incidents within the fire response area was a total response time of 13 minutes, 37 seconds (13:37) or less, 90% of the time. Figure 150: Adopted Standard vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance Adopted Standard 1/2019–12/2022 Performance 6:00 or less, 90% of the time 13:37 or less, 90% of the time The following figure is the performance of total response time for each of the major incident types for all incidents within the data set. 220 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 151: 90th Percentile Total Response Times (January 2019–December 2022) 19:59 15:59 12:00 08:00 04:00 00:00 Fire Medical Other Goal The final analysis investigated the unit usage question for all apparatus within the system. Three dimensions are studied in this report. The first dimension is the unit hour utilization (UHU). This number represents the time a unit was committed to an incident as a percentage of the total time they were on duty. The next is the average time a unit was committed to an incident. And finally, the average number of incidents a unit was deployed per day is presented. The following figure shows the general statistics for the frontline units at Station 52 within the OPH system. Figure 152: Fire Unit Statistics Unit Hour Utilization Avg. Time per Avg. Incidents Unit (UHU) Incident Per Day E52 3.5% 21 Minutes 1.1 The unit hour utilization (UHU) calculation evaluates how much time a crew is committed to an incident versus the total time on duty during a specific timeframe. The formula for this calculation is the total time committed to an incident divided by the sum of all time the unit is staffed. ∑𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑎 𝑆𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑒 𝑈𝐻𝑈 = ∑𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐼𝑛 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒 221 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo The UHU analysis indicates that Station 52, as represented by E52, achieves a utilization rate of 3.5%. Unit hour utilization does not assess efficiency or incident responses completed. Though not applicable in OPH, the desire is for the primary unit at a station to be under 10% UHU. Maintaining 10% UHU should indicate that the area has 90% availability for unscheduled events. Stations with multiple companies should aggregate to less than 10% UHU for all similar units. In addition, crews from the primary apparatus that cross-staff other units should avoid aggregated UHUs of over 10%. Staffing The following figure shows the total number of personnel for OPH organized by the various divisions. Figure 153: Staffing (2022) Assignment Staffing Uniformed Administration 1 Non-Uniformed Administration 1 part-time Fire Prevention N/A Operations Staff 4 (one open position) Emergency Communications N/A Paid-call 10 Total Personnel 16 The following figure shows the daily operational staffing at each station and on each unit in the station. Operations staff have three shifts each working a 48/96 schedule (48 hours on and 96 hours off). Figure 154: Daily Staffing Station Daily Staffing Unit Staffing 52 2 Engine Total 2 *Type 2, Type 3, Type 6 Engines Cross-staffed 222 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Ophir Hill Fire Station The following figures outline the basic features of the Ophir Hill fire station. The condition of the station is rated based on the criteria identified in the introduction to this section of the report. Figure 155: OPH Fire Station Station Name/Number: Ophir Hill Station 52 Address/Physical Location: 12668 Highway 174, Grass Valley, CA 95945 General Description: The station meets some of the needs of a modern fire service facility. Structure Date of Original Construction 1994 General Condition Good Seismic Protection Auxiliary Power Yes ADA Compliant Not to current code Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 4 Back-Ins Total Bays: Total Square Footage 4,963 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 1 Beds 4 Dorm Beds Maximum Staffing Capability 4 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms N Showers N Bedrooms N Exercise/Workout Facilities Yes Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned Yes Training/Meeting Rooms Yes Washer/Dryer/Extractor Ye Washer and dryer. No extractor Safety & Security Station Sprinklered Partial Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System Yes 223 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Minimum Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Unit Staffing* Engine 526 2 All apparatus can be crossed staffed Engine 521 CS Engine 523 CS OES Water Tender 42 CS Total Daily Staffing: 2 *If an apparatus is cross staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. Fire Station Discussion The only OPH fire station is considered in "Good" condition. The fire station is approximately 19 years old. The following figure summarizes OPH’s fire station and its features. Figure 156: Station Configuration and Condition Staffing General Station Apparatus Bays Station Age Capacity Condition Station 52 4 4 Good 19 years Totals/Average: 4 4 19 years average OPH’s station is newer and meets the requirements of modern firefighting. As the firefighting environment has changed, the technology, equipment, and safety systems have changed to meet new demands. Even buildings we would consider “newer” do not typically have the space or engineering systems to meet that new environment. Modern living requires much more access to electrical outlets than was expected in older buildings, including charging stations for battery operated equipment and agency and employee Electric Vehicles. For example, the building may not meet the NFPA 1500 requirements due to the need to decontaminate personnel and equipment after many responses in the current firefighting context. Every crew member should have access to facilities to decontaminate immediately after a fire event, and showers should allow for gender separation. In addition, there needs to be enough partitioned space to allow for gear and equipment to be thoroughly washed and be designed to control contamination in the living and working space of the station. 224 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo While all structures require routine maintenance, fire stations require even more maintenance due to the continuous occupancy by several adults. Multiple departures and returns of heavy apparatus also affect these structures. Facility Replacement With OPH’s station approaching 20 years in age, there needs to be a facility replacement plan in place that will ensure funding is available when the need arises for extensive improvement or eventual replacement. Ensuring the stations are in good repair requires regular maintenance and scheduled replacement of specialized equipment. Plans for updating and repairing systems such as heating and air conditioning (HVAC), generators, roofs, driveways, parking areas, security gates, painting, carpet replacement, and small appliances can keep costs down and buildings in service longer. In addition, establishing a facility replacement and maintenance plan will enable the district to plan for ongoing service from the station more efficiently. Status of Shared Facilities OPH currently shares Peardale-Chicago Park (PCP) Station 257 on an informal basis to store apparatus. Apparatus Apparatus was evaluated by OPH staff based on age, miles/hours, service, condition, and reliability. The criteria are defined in the introduction section of this report. The following figures represent all apparatus and vehicles operated by OPH. Figure 157: OPH Apparatus Unit Type Status Year Condition Features Engines & Aerial Apparatus Engine 521 Type 1 Frontline 2010 Good 1250 GPM/850 G Tank Engine 523 Type 3 Frontline 2002 Good 500 GPM/500 G Tank Engine 526 Type 6 Frontline 2021 Good 150 GPM/200 G Tank Engine 522 Type 2 Reserve 1994 Good 1250 GPM/750 G Tank 225 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 158: Supervisor & Command Vehicles Unit Assigned To Manufacturer Year Condition Utility 5200 Fire Chief Chevrolet 2015 Good Utility 5230 Captain Chevrolet 2017 Good Utility 5233 Station 52 Chevrolet 2008 Fair Apparatus Discussion The district does not employ any Emergency Vehicle Technicians. Fleet maintenance is accomplished by both in-house staff and by outsourcing. Current vehicle and apparatus maintenance manuals are available. Preventative maintenance checks are conducted regularly, and maintenance records are kept current. Pump tests are performed in accordance with industry standards. 226 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Dispatch & Communications OPH is dispatched by the CAL FIRE Grass Valley Emergency Command Center (GVECC). The center provides service for all the fire agencies in Nevada County. The GVECC has the ability to dispatch via Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL), however at present, none of the local agencies are utilizing AVL for closest unit dispatch. Figure 159: PSAP and Dispatch Center Item Description CAD Application Northrop Grumman Altaris CAD Telephone System Motorola VESTA Radio System MODUCOM radio consoles Fire/EMS Notification Two-tone encoder system Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Mutual aid TAC channels, State-wide radio with other fire agencies in the county: interoperability channels Ability for fire agencies to communicate via State-wide Interoperability channels radio with police agencies in the county: Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Mutual aid TAC channels, State-wide radio with non-Fire EMS agencies in the county: interoperability channels CAD to CAD with other CAL FIRE ECCs – for Ability for PSAP to communicate CAD-to-CAD local government dispatch centers - phone (how do you transfer a call to another center): call only Priority Dispatch – Emergency Medical Criteria-based dispatch system in place: Dispatch Formal EMD quality assurance program in place: Priority Dispatch AQUA and EMD-Qs Options for non-emergent calls not requiring EMS: None AVL used on fire apparatus: Northrop Grumman AVL used on ambulances & EMS units: No RadioMobile Patriot or a tablet using MDTs/MDCs in all fire & EMS vehicles: RadioMobile IQMobile Closest unit dispatched via AVL: Yes No. of 911 calls: 2022 – 23,342 No. of 10-digit incoming emergency calls: 2022 – 31,891 Infrastructure Needs OPH stores apparatus at PCP Station 257. There should be a formal agreement between the two districts to ensure that expectations are managed. 227 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Governance Structure Options In June 2024, the Board of Directors confirmed its support in joining the reorganization effort of the Penn Valley, Rough and Ready, and Nevada Consolidated Fire Protection Districts. The potential dissolution of the Rough and Ready FPD began a more earnest discussion of the future of fire protection and emergency medical response for the overall southwestern Nevada County area. It is being proposed that Penn Valley FPD, Rough and Ready FPD, Nevada County Consolidated FPD, and Ophir Hill FPD reorganize into a single fire protection district. This is discussed in greater detail in the governance section which follows. Service Review Determinations LAFCo is required to prepare a written statement of determination with respect to six areas as specified by Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. Based on the criteria described in Section 1 of this report, the following determinations are proposed for OPH. MSR Determination #1: Growth and Population Projections The use of the American Community Survey estimates, using Esri’s population enrichment program, places the estimated the population of OPH at 3,763 in 2020. For the future population, the California Department of Finance and the U.S. Census Bureau figures are not available for the jurisdiction served by OPH. The method of using the American Community survey historic records to project the population were used, which shows an estimated 3% population increase from 2023 to 2035, for a projected population of 3,942. This should be viewed with the understanding that the California Department of Finance does provide a population projection for the County of Nevada as a whole. The California Department of Finance projections anticipate that in 2028 the County of Nevada population will decrease to 97,441 (a decrease of 2.4%). Of note, the Department of Finance has identified that the Cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City will see a population increase while the Town of Truckee will see a modest decrease. This means that the unincorporated communities of Nevada County will see a more significant decrease in population over time. 228 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo MSR Determination #2: Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence There are no disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence of OPH. MSR Determination #3: Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities, Adequacy of Public Services, and Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies, Including Those Related to Sewers, Water, and Fire in Any DUCs Within or Contiguous to the SOI The single station serving OPH, Station 52, is generally described as in good condition but it does not meet the standards for gender separation, addressing the needs for decontamination, or the increased use of electronic equipment. The Chief has identified the lack of funding available to pay competitive salaries to maintain its staffing and the limitations on capital funding as primary challenges for the district MSR Determination #4: Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services OPH has maintained a stable financial picture over the past five years with only one year operating at a deficit. The district has a significant revenue stream related to its strike team operations. This is outside the primary scope of the district. Should the revenue and expense for strike team operations be removed, the district would have operated at a deficit for all five prior years. The projected revenues for the district identify an ongoing and increasing deficit up to FY 2028. Without the potential reorganization, the district will need to look to further measures to address the deficiency. This is tempered, to a degree, with the understanding that, at present, the district maintains a healthy unassigned general fund reserve of $1,170,269 as of FY 2022. MSR Determination #5: Status and Opportunities for Shared Services OPH currently shares station 257 with PCP under a “gentleman’s agreement” to store apparatus. The district has been assigned a water tender by the State of California, but this piece of equipment is not listed for the district. The district receives dispatch services from CAL FIRE under contract. The district relies upon automatic and mutual aid to maintain its level of service. 229 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo MSR Determination #6: Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies In June 2024, the Board of Directors confirmed its support in joining the reorganization effort of the Penn Valley, Rough and Ready, and Nevada Consolidated Fire Protection Districts. The potential dissolution of the Rough and Ready FPD began a more earnest discussion of the future of fire protection and emergency medical response for the overall southwestern Nevada County area. It is being proposed that Penn Valley FPD, Rough and Ready FPD, Nevada County Consolidated FPD, and Ophir Hill FPD reorganize into a single fire protection district. This is discussed in greater detail in the SOI Options section which follows identifying the consolidated sphere of influence. Sphere of Influence Update The OPH sphere of influence was confirmed through the Municipal Service Review for fire protection and emergency services presented in January 2005 and adopted by the Commission. The sphere of influence was updated in January 2014 through adoption of the report entitled “SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATES 2014 Nevada County Fire Service Providers.” Existing SOI The sphere of influence for OPH is coterminous with existing boundaries and remained unchanged through the original MSR in 2005 and the Sphere of Influence updated in 2014. SOI Options The options for the sphere of influence are: Remain unchanged as coterminous with the identification that any future annexation by the City of Grass Valley address the loss of revenue to the fire district through conditions of approval to allow for a five-to-ten-year absorption timeframe for the loss; or, That Ophir Hill FPD join the reorganization with Penn Valley FPD, Rough and Ready FPD, and Nevada County Consolidated FPD, and reorganize into a single fire protection district. The elements of that position are: The sphere of influence determination would be to consolidate the spheres of influence of the affected districts into a single sphere with an anticipated timeframe of one to five years for reorganization. Rough and Ready would be designated a zero sphere of influence, identifying the Commission’s position that it be absorbed by another fire entity. 230 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Identification of the Commission’s position that future annexations by either the Cities of Grass Valley or Nevada City address the loss of revenue to the fire protection district through conditions of approval allowing for a five-to-ten-year absorption of the loss. The four districts would jointly propose a reorganization that would annex the Rough and Ready, Nevada County, and Ophir Hill FPDs areas and spheres of influence into the Penn Valley FPD, dissolve the three FPDs being annexed, and rename the district to reflect its new orientation. The Plan for Service and Transition Plan for such a change would need to identify the timelines and actions necessary to effectuate this change. Recommended SOI The recommended sphere of influence determination would be to consolidate the spheres of influence of the four districts and make the determinations as outlined in the section on governance specifically addressing this regional change. Proposed SOI Determinations If the recommended sphere of influence is not adopted, it is recommended that the sphere of influence determination be retained as coterminous, and the matter be continued to allow for preparation of those determinations. 231 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Protection District PCP Overview Peardale-Chicago Park Fire District (PCP) provides fire protection, basic life support (BLS) emergency medical treatment, and community risk reduction to an estimated population of 3,603 in 19 square miles. Until recently, PCP also served four square miles outside the district’s boundaries in the sphere of influence (SOI) area. On June 21, 2024, a Certificate of Completion for the annexation of the SOI area to the district was recorded. This makes the district’s sphere of influence conterminous with its boundaries. PCP owns two fire stations, one staffed full-time and one completely unstaffed, with a total of 19 personnel including four career personnel, one non-uniformed District Secretary, and 15 paid-call Firefighters. Background PCP has not adopted a Strategic Plan, Master Plan, or a Standards of Cover; however, a Mission Statement has been adopted and agency goals, objectives, and a vision statement are currently under development. PCP received a Class 4/8 ISO Rating in its most recent rating from the Insurance Services Office (ISO) in roughly 2013. Over the past ten years, cost minimization efforts have resulted from operating within a very limited budget and saving for capital items when possible. The district shares a nearly 30-year-old Type 2 engine with Ophir Hill Fire District, housed at Station 257. Additional revenue measures have been exercised. District property owners approved a $236 benefit assessment in November 2022 and the district began receiving new revenue from this measure in December 2023. This revenue is used to increase fire station staffing. Previously, voters approved a special tax at a rate of $58 per improved parcel in 1998. According to the Fire Chief, there is limited potential for facility, personnel, and equipment sharing. PCP currently shares a reserve engine and supports vegetation management efforts through the Fire Safe Council. 232 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo The PCP Fire Chief's top three critical issues are: • Recruiting qualified employees • Funding apparatus replacement • Maintaining the volunteer cadre The PCP Fire Chief's top three opportunities to increase value and/or efficiency for the public are: • Utilizing the full-time Firefighters to expand wildfire preparedness efforts • Enhancing training opportunities to expand Firefighters’ abilities • Enhancing and expanding the district’s emergency medical capabilities Boundaries and Sphere of Influence The Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Protection District is situated between Ophir Hill FPD and the Bear River (which is also the Nevada/Placer County boundary). PCP’s service area includes the communities of Peardale and Chicago Park along the State Highway 174 corridor. Rollins Reservoir, operated by the Nevada Irrigation District, is located within the PCP District and has a campground that accommodates between 500 to 1,000 users in the summertime. The district’s sphere of influence previously included two areas to which the district has historically responded: the Mount Olive area to the south of the current boundaries, and the Red Dog/You Bet area to the north. In 1999, Nevada County LAFCo approved the district’s proposal for annexation of these areas, subject to the voters’ approval of a special tax. The annexation was not successful, however, since the voters failed to approve the funding to support service. The district continued to serve both areas for nearly 25 years without a source of funding, despite the fact that the areas were outside the district boundaries. PCP submitted an application to Nevada County LAFCo to annex these areas in early 2024. The Commission considered the reorganization proposal at its May 16, 2024 hearing and approved the change of organization. The reorganization was completed through the filing of the Certificate of Completion on June 21, 2024. PCP will begin to receive a share of the property tax from this area in 2025 and the area’s share of the special tax and benefit assessment to fund its range of services. 233 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 160: PCP Service Area 234 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Type & Extent of Services Services Provided PCP provides a range of services for its residents, including basic life support (BLS) emergency medical services. The following figure represents each of the services and the level performed. Figure 161: Overview of Services Provided Service Y/N Level Fire Suppression Yes Wildland engine-based suppression (Type Wildland Fire Suppression Yes 3 and Type 6) Available for Cal OES Statewide Statewide Mobilization Yes Mobilization EMS First Response Yes BLS EMT plus optional skills Ambulance Transport No Sierra Nevada Ambulance Specialized/Technical Rescue Yes Low-angle rescue; Surface water rescue HazMat Response Yes First Responder Operational (FRO) Fire Inspection/Code Enforcement Yes Voluntary inspections upon request Plan Reviews No County Fire Planner provides plan review Public Education/Prevention Yes Materials available on District website Fire & Arson Investigation Yes Service Area The district was formed in 1964 by voters and assumed fire protection agency status. The Fire Department is statutorily responsible for fire and emergency services within the district’s boundaries. The area is classified as 100% rural. 235 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Collaboration • Participates in Statewide mutual aid system. • Provides mutual aid to neighboring fire agencies. • Formal cooperative response agreements with U.S. Forest Service and Ophir Hill Fire District. • Shares a Type-2 Reserve Engine with Ophir Hill Fire District. Contracts to Provide Services to Other Agencies • None. Contracts for Services From Other Agencies PCP receives dispatch services from CAL FIRE’s Grass Valley Emergency Command Center. Governance & Administration The Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Protection District is an independent special district governed by a five-member, locally elected Board of Directors. The Fire Chief reports to the Board. Figure 162: Peardale-Chicago Park Fire District Organizational Chart Board of Directors Fire Chief Office Manager (Part Time) Full Time Personnel (2) Paid-Call Personnel (15) 236 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 163: PCP Board of Directors Name Title Term End Committee Assignment Dave Collins Chair 12/4/2026 Equipment and Facilities Officer Charley Hooper Vice-Chair 12/4/2026 Nevada County Fire JPA Alternate Art Meares Director 12/6/2024 Financial Officer Rob Paulus Director 12/4/2026 Personnel Officer Jim Michalak Director 12/6/2024 Nevada County Fire JPA Representative 237 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Accountability for Community Services—Transparency The following figure identifies PCP’s efforts to meet State laws designed to ensure transparency and accountability, as well as efforts beyond legal requirements to make information available to the public. Figure 164: Transparency and Accountability Transparency and Accountability Available Agency website:34 Yes Adopted budget available on website: No Notice of public meetings provided: Yes Agendas posted on website:35 Yes Public meetings are live streamed: No Minutes and/or recordings of public meetings available on Yes website: Master Plan (fire service specific) available on website: No Strategic Plan (fire service specific) available on website: No Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover documents No available on website: SOC performance reports available on website: No Efforts to engage and educate the public on the services to the Yes community: Staff and governing board member ethics training and Yes economic interest reporting completed: Compliance with financial document compilation, adoption, Yes and reporting requirements: Adherence to open meeting requirements: Yes 34 As of January 1, 2020, independent special districts are required to maintain websites according to Government Code Sections 6270.6 and 53087.8 to provide the public easily accessible and accurate information about the district. Government Code Section 53087.8 lists what must be included on the website. 35 Government Code §54954.2. 238 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Efforts to engage and educate the public on the PCP fire and emergency services to the community consist of participation in local events, tours of the fire stations, access to fire prevention and educational materials on the district’s website, and educational programs focused on fire prevention and preparedness. PCP utilizes a Facebook page to inform the public about its activities. The Peardale-Chicago Park Volunteer Firefighters Association is active in the community. The association is comprised of volunteer Firefighters serving the community. The Association raises money to fund events and projects and purchase fire equipment and training equipment as needed to benefit the Firefighters. The materials on the website identify that the Association promotes the following: • Fostering good relations with the community and local businesses. • Serving as a role model by conducting itself in the utmost professional manner to reflect positively on the communities of Peardale and Chicago Park. • Enhancing community support through education on the district’s mission. • Providing for high morale and support within the fire service. The Special Districts Transparency Act (SB 929) enacted in 2020 requires that all districts have a functional website containing information on the board, the finances of the district, and methods to contact members of the district’s representatives. The PCP website meets only the bare minimum requirements of this Act because it does not provide financial information for the district, nor are the minutes of board meetings available on the site. It does provide a link to board meetings’ agendas, but written reports are not available for review. The district should address these deficiencies for the future. The response provided by the Fire Chief identifies that board members have received the required training. Land Use and Population Land Use The Nevada County General Plan Land Use element, adopted in 2014, shows that the land use within the PCP area is generally rural (5- to 10-acre minimum parcel sizes) with some areas designated conservation and waterway. No change is anticipated in these designations based upon the sphere of influence of the district. Current Population Based on information from the 2020 Decennial Census and through Esri’s interpolation of census tracts, the population of the Peardale-Chicago Park Fire District is estimated to be 3,603. The estimated 2023 population from American Community Survey data is 3,637. 239 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Projected Population Although historical population estimates for the specific boundaries of the PCP jurisdiction were not available through the California Department of Finance or the U.S. Census Bureau, population projections were calculated out to 2035 using historic interpolations from American Community Survey estimates. The population is projected to experience little to no growth (0.02%) from 2023 to 2035. The projected population in 2035 is consistent with current population estimates: 3,637. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) A DUC is an unincorporated, inhabited territory that constitutes all or a portion of a community with an annual median household income that is less than 80% of the Statewide annual median household income (i.e., $68,480 in 2022).36 LAFCo is required to identify the location and characteristics of any DUCs in the Service Review and SOI update process.37 No DUCs were identified by LAFCo at the Census Block Group level located within or contiguous to the PCP SOI that meet the definition based on population and income. 36 Government Code §56033.5. 37 Government Codes §56425(e)(5) and §56430(2). 240 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Financial Overview Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Protection District (PCP) operates through three funds, the General Fund to manage its operations, a Capital Projects Fund, and a Mitigation Special Revenue Fund to accumulate certain fees and expend funds for capital purchases. A significant amount of information regarding the General Fund was reviewed to develop financial trend analysis for the FY 2019–FY 2023 period. This review of the historical information of General Fund revenues revealed a minimal impact on revenues received by PCP during the COVID pandemic, aside from a drop in Strike Team reimbursements. Revenues PCP is funded by several sources of income. Its largest revenue source is Strike Team reimbursements (50% of General Fund recurring revenues). Reimbursements fluctuate based on seasonal needs, with a low of $159,687 in FY 2020 and a high of $507,484 in FY 2022. Property taxes are allocated under Proposition 13 and limit total property tax assessments to 1% of the property’s value. The tax revenue is then apportioned between the various taxing units. Nevada County utilizes the “Teeter Plan” under which 100% of the property tax apportionment is remitted to the taxing unit, with the taxing unit foregoing penalties and interest collections on delinquently paid taxes. This revenue source accounts for approximately 32% of General Fund recurring revenues annually. PCP’s other major revenue source is a fire suppression assessment (14% of recurring General Fund revenues), which is $236.42 per year on improved parcels. In addition, the district levies a special tax at $58 per year on improved parcels and $25 per year on unimproved parcels. Neither of these assessments allows for an annual increase. The annual assessment collected from FY 2019 to FY 2023 was just over $100,000. Other General Fund sources of revenue include Proposition 172 income, interest income, grants, and miscellaneous revenues. 241 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 165: PCP Summarized Revenues FY 2019–FY 202338 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Revenue FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Property Taxes 214,252 223,250 232,662 247,182 263,023 Special Assessments 104,243 104,185 104,160 104,077 103,845 Proposition 172 26,480 20,703 21,078 18,300 25,045 Strike Team Reimbursements 381,307 159,687 501,861 507,484 282,220 Grants — — 10,000 — 9,789 Interest 5,914 8,127 5,217 6,150 11,058 Other Revenues 34,961 32,366 23,398 89,242 17,351 Total General Fund Revenues 767,157 548,318 898,376 972,435 712,331 Mitigation/Capital Income 16,451 19,884 24,036 30,907 19,667 Total Revenues 783,608 568,202 922,412 1,003,342 731,998 Expenses Salaries and benefits accounted for approximately 80% of the recurring costs of the district from FY 2019 to FY 2022. Salaries for full-time staff increased from $104,627 in FY 2019 to $163,398 in FY 2023 (56%) with a significant increase occurring in FY 2022. Temporary salaries for seasonal and part-time staff (36% of total personnel costs) fluctuate from year-to-year based on need, with a five-year low in FY 2020 of $119,438 and a high in FY 2021 totaling $266,288. A significant portion of the benefits program is retirement benefits, primarily CalPERS pension benefits, which account for approximately 17% of total personnel costs for full-time employees. Retirement costs have increased over 40% from FY 2019 ($73,511) to FY 2022 ($103,258). Other employee benefits, including health insurance, payroll tax, and worker’s compensation, account for another 23% of annual personnel costs. Other recurring expenses include professional fees, personal protective equipment, facilities costs, apparatus and equipment maintenance, fuel, insurance, utilities, communications and technology, training costs, medical supplies, and other expenses. Non-recurring expenses include capital outlay and expenditure of grant funds. 38 Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Protection District Adopted Budgets, FY 2021/FY 2022; FY 2022–FY 2023. 242 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Nonrecurring expenses include election costs, capital outlay, and other miscellaneous costs. Expenses related to mitigation fees consist of capital improvements and equipment purchases. Figure 166: Historical PCP Expenditures Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Expenditures FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Salaries & Overtime 104,627 113,658 100,752 164,464 163,398 Seasonal & Paid-Call Payroll 201,715 119,438 266,288 227,559 147,800 CalPERS 73,511 91,363 89,559 87,833 103,258 Other Employee Benefits 119,279 113,521 110,639 116,071 140,341 Total Salaries & Benefits 499,132 437,980 567,238 595,927 554,797 Other Recurring Expenses 92,699 104,297 91,034 143,071 208,119 Total Recurring Expenses 591,831 542,277 658,272 738,998 762,916 Non-Recurring Expenses 23,586 10,679 34,801 26,013 18,548 Total General Fund 615,417 552,956 693,073 765,011 781,464 Expenses Capital/Mitigation Expenses 25,486 105,166 25,061 75,774 23,818 Total Expenses: 640,903 658,122 718,134 840,785 805,282 Government agencies are limited in their ability to make rapid changes in their revenue streams to offset significant events within their jurisdictions, such as loss of apparatus or significant equipment, or rapid and significant economic downturn. It is important for agencies to maintain a certain level of reserves to prepare for these unforeseen events. The following summarizes the revenues and expenditures for PCP for FY 2019 through FY 2023. Figure 167: Summarized PCP Revenues and Expenses, FY 2019–FY 2023 Revenues & Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Expenditures FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Total Revenues 783,608 568,202 922,413 1,003,343 731,998 Total Expenditures 640,903 658,121 718,134 840,785 805,280 Surplus (Deficit) 142,705 (89,919) 204,279 162,558 (73,282) Shown graphically in the following figure, the information from the previous figure indicates the overall growth of Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Protection District General Fund revenues and expenditures. 243 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 168: Graphical Presentation of PCP Summarized Revenues and Expenses, FY 2019–FY 2023 $1,200,000 $1,003,343 $922,413 $1,000,000 $840,785 $783,608 $805,280 $800,000 $718,134 $640,903 $658,121 $731,998 $600,000 $568,202 $400,000 $200,000 $0 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Total revenues Total expenditures One area of concern is the reliance upon the revenue stream from Strike Team activities. The financial materials do not identify the expenses related to this activity, but the reimbursement is the largest single revenue source for the district as a whole. This effort is not a direct mission of the district and if these revenues are removed the district, PCP operations would be unsustainable. The district’s financial materials should clearly identify the revenues and expense items related to this operation. Financial Projections Revenues PCP anticipates property tax revenues to continue to increase, estimated at 6% annually. Although housing inventory will continue to be low, prices will continue to rise, thereby increasing assessed valuations and property taxes. Special assessment and Proposition 172 revenues are expected to remain flat. Other revenues are forecast to increase at an average of the past five years’ revenues. Expenses Salaries and benefits are the most significant of PCP costs, consuming approximately 70% of the recurring expenditures. These costs are forecast to increase by approximately 8% annually. Based on historical figures, previously described recurring and non-recurring costs are forecast to escalate annually at 18% and 3%, respectively. The following figure is a forecast of PCP’s projected revenues and expenditures. 244 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 169: PCP Summarized Projected General Fund Revenues and Expenditures Revenues & FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Expenditures Revenues 818,496 835,225 852,957 871,753 891,676 Expenditures 903,056 991,108 1,092,155 1,208,262 1,341,839 Surplus (Deficit) (84,560) (155,883) (239,198) (336,509) (450,163) Capital Planning PCP operates a Mitigation Fund for capital purchases and/or structure improvements. Its main revenues in this fund are mitigation fees paid by District residents for new construction. Mitigation fees collected range from a five-year low of $3,289 in FY 2023 to a high of $15,866 in FY 2021. PCP also operates a Capital Improvement Fund with revenues including interest income and grants to fund purchases, as well as interfund transfers. Expenses range annually depending on needed facilities, apparatus, and equipment. PCP publishes a three-year plan with two years of projected purchases. As of June 30, 2023, the Mitigation Fund restricted fund balance was $15,147 and the Capital Improvement Fund committed fund balance was $847,909. Outstanding Debt As of June 30, 2023, PCP did not have outstanding debt obligations aside from compensated absences and pension liabilities. Reserves As of June 30, 2023, PCP had $1,246,297 in total fund balance. Fund balances consisted of the following: • General Fund unassigned: $383,241 • Capital Improvement Fund committed: $847,909 • Mitigation Special Revenue Fund restricted: $15,147 Figure 170: PCP Fund Balance Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Fund Balance FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Restricted for capital outlay 20,994 27,236 23,559 11,575 15,147 Committed for capital outlay 430,236 541,211 446,364 705,631 847,909 Unassigned (General Fund) 551,520 352,847 648,426 584,761 383,241 Total Fund Balance 1,002,750 921,294 1,118,349 1,301,967 1,246,297 245 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Demand for Services PCP is a small, rural system that provides aid services to other communities when requested. Data was provided by the agency and its dispatch center and included incident information from January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2022. This analysis focuses on incidents within the statutory area where PCP responds. The following figure contains the overview statistics for Peardale-Chicago Park Fire District. Figure 171: PCP Overview Avg. Annual Incidents per 90th Percentile Agency Incident Vol. 1,000 Population Total Time Peardale-Chicago Park Fire District 412 113 14:32 The following incident categories employ the National Fire Incident Reporting System's code grouping. Medical responses account for over 56% of PCP’s operations. This proportion is similar to that of many fire departments that provide emergency medical services. The following figure shows incident volume by type from January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2022, visually demonstrating the proportion of incident types. The category “Good Intent” includes calls where the reporting party may have believed help was needed, but upon investigation, it was determined that no action on the part of the Fire Department was necessary. Examples include smoke from a properly operating chimney, a vehicle accident that could not be located, and an incident where the fire unit was canceled by another agency prior to arrival. 246 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 172: Total Incident Response by Type Special, 2 Disaster, 2 False Alarm, 48 Service, 150 Fire, 118 Good Intent, 290 Hazardous Condition, 75 Overpressure, 1 Rescue-Medical, 900 Typically, an analysis of incidents by year can yield a trend or give an idea of what the call volume might look like in the next few years. Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, call volumes nationally were affected and trends are not as easy to spot. This is true for PCP, which had a 14% decrease in total calls in 2020. However, the following year saw a 12% increase. Calls charted in the following figure as “Service Area” include calls handled in and by PCP. “Aid Given” includes call service provided by PCP in outside areas by Mutual or Automatic Aid. “Aid Received” includes calls occurring in the PCP District but handled by other agencies. Call volume in the service area increased by 1% from 2019 to 2022, while “Aid Given” and “Aid Received” volumes decreased by 9% and 12%, respectively. 247 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 173: Annual PCP Incidents by Aid Type 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 Aid Received Aid Given Service Area Additional temporal studies show that the monthly call volume variation is typically insignificant. December stands out with higher-than-expected volumes, but the additional volume equates to ~14 calls for the month. Figure 174: PCP Incidents by Month 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 248 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 175: PCP Incident Percentage by Hour 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324 Hour of the Day 249 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo This average daily swing is typical and likely due to the number of people awake and moving around. However, the day-to-day variation in this information does play a part. The following figure is the incident heat map by the hour of the day and day of the week. Figure 176: Day and Hour Incident Heat Map Hour Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Color Incidents 0–1 20–24 1–2 15–20 2–3 12–15 3–4 9–12 4–5 6–9 5–6 3–6 6–7 1–3 7–8 8–9 9–10 10–11 11–12 12–13 13–14 14–15 15–16 16–17 17–18 18–19 19–20 20–21 21–22 22–23 23–24 In the previous figure, it is interesting to note that the weekday pattern of elevated incidents shifts to later in the day on Saturdays and Sundays. 250 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Emergency Response Performance The Fire Department response performance in the service area was also evaluated. Response mode was not provided, so performance times were calculated using all incidents, excluding Service Calls. Results are presented using the 80th percentile statistic. The 80th percentile is the standard typically used in volunteer systems. Total response time was calculated from the time a notification was made by dispatch to the time the first unit arrived on scene. The unit type was not discriminated against, and the first-arriving unit was used to determine the total response time. The timestamps in the data provided for each segment of the response time do not include seconds. This truncation of the data introduces the potential for up to 2 minutes’ error in the total response time calculation. PCP, as a volunteer system in a rural area, falls under NFPA 1720 for a response time performance, or benchmark, of arriving on scene in 14 minutes or less, 80% of the time. The following figure shows a comparison of the adopted standard compared to the actual total response time for all types. From January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2022, PCP's performance for 1,355 incidents within the fire response area was a total response time of 14 minutes, 32 seconds (14:32) or less, 80% of the time. Figure 177: Adopted Standard vs. Actual PCP Total Response Time Performance Adopted Standard 1/2019–12/2022 Performance 14:00 or less, 80% of the time 14:32 or less, 80% of the time The following figure is the performance of total response time for each of the major incident types for all incidents within the data set, excluding Service Calls. 251 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 178: Incidents’ 90th Percentile Total Response Times, January 2019–December 2022 32:50 24:37 16:25 08:12 00:00 Response Goal The final analysis investigated the unit usage question for all apparatus within the system. Three dimensions are studied in this report. The first dimension is the unit hour utilization (UHU). This number represents the time a unit was committed to an incident as a percentage of the total time it was on duty. The next is the average time a unit was committed to an incident. Finally, the average number of incidents a unit was deployed per day is presented. The data for each cross-staffed apparatus is combined for the entire agency. The following figure shows the general statistics for the frontline units at stations within the PCP system. Figure 179: PCP Fire Unit Statistics Unit Hour Utilization Avg. Time per Avg. Incidents Agency (UHU) Incident Per Day PCP 3.7% 25 Minutes 1.12 The unit hour utilization (UHU) calculation evaluates how much time a crew is committed to an incident versus the total time on duty during a specific timeframe. The formula for this calculation is the total time committed to an incident divided by the sum of all time the unit is staffed. 252 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo ∑𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑎 𝑆𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑒 𝑈𝐻𝑈 = ∑𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐼𝑛 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒 The desire is for the primary unit at a station to be under 10% UHU. Maintaining 10% UHU should indicate that the area has 90% availability for unscheduled events. Stations with multiple companies should aggregate to less than 10% UHU for all similar units. In addition, crews from the primary apparatus that cross-staff other units should avoid aggregated UHUs of over 10%. Staffing The following figure shows the total number of personnel for PCP organized by the various divisions. Figure 180: PCP Staffing Assignments Assignment Staffing Uniformed Administration 1 Non-Uniformed Administration 1 (part-time) Fire Prevention - Operations Staff 2 Emergency Communications Volunteers, Reserve, On Call 15 Total Personnel 19 The following figure shows the daily operational staffing at each station and on each unit in the station. Figure 181: Daily Staffing Station Day Time Staffing Unit Staffing 57 2 Type 1, Type 3, and Type 6 Engine, Water Tender (CS) 257 0 Unstaffed. Reserve Engine Total 2 PCP Fire Stations The following figures outline the basic features of each of PCP’s two fire stations. The condition of the stations is rated based on the criteria identified in the introduction to this section of the report. 253 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 182: PCP Fire Stations Station Name/Number: Station 57 Address/Physical Location: 18934 Colfax Hwy, Grass Valley, CA 95945 General Description: Facility meets some of the needs of a modern fire station. Structure Date of Original Construction 1980; Remodeled 2004 General Condition Good Seismic Protection Yes Auxiliary Power Yes ADA Compliant Yes Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 0 Back-Ins 4 Total Bays: 4 Total Square Footage 3,600 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 2 Beds 4 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 4 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities 2 bathrooms with showers; 1 half-bath Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms N Showers N Bedrooms N Exercise/Workout Facilities No Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned Yes Training/Meeting Rooms Yes Washer/Dryer/Extractor 1 washer, 1 dryer, 1 extractor Safety & Security Station Sprinklered Yes Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal Yes Security System Yes Apparatus Exhaust System Yes 254 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Minimum Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Unit Staffing* E-57 CS Type 1 Engine P-57 CS Type 6 Engine Total Daily Staffing: 2 Staffed 24 hours with (1) FF; second FF 10 hrs./day *If an apparatus is cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 255 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Station Name/Number: Station 257 Address/Physical Location: 15057 Colfax Highway, Grass Valley, CA General Description: The 65-year-old facility is rated in “Fair” condition. It does not meet the needs of a modern fire station and is not suitable for 24-hour staffing. Structure Date of Original Construction 1957 General Condition Fair Seismic Protection No Auxiliary Power No ADA Compliant No Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 0 Back-Ins 3 Total Bays: 3 Total Square Footage 2,500 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 0 Beds 0 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 0 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities 2 half-baths Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms N Showers N Bedrooms N Exercise/Workout Facilities Yes Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned No Training/Meeting Rooms 2 training/meeting rooms Washer/Dryer/Extractor No Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System No Apparatus/Vehicles Minimum Unit Staffing* Comments E-522 0 Type 2 engine Total Daily Staffing: 0 Station is unstaffed *If an apparatus is cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 256 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Fire Stations Discussion Station 57 is the only PCP fire station that was considered in "Good" condition and is the only station capable of supporting 24-hour staffing. The average age of the two PCP fire stations is 59 years. The following figure summarizes PCP's fire stations and their features. Figure 183: PCP Station Configuration and Condition Staffing General Station Apparatus Bays Station Age Capacity Condition Station 57 4 4 Good 43 years Station 257 3 0 Fair 65 years Totals/Average: 7 4 59 years average Generally, PCP’s stations are older and do not meet the requirements of modern firefighting. As the firefighting environment has changed, the technology, equipment, and safety systems have changed to meet new demands. Older buildings do not typically have the space or engineering systems to meet that new environment. Modern living requires much more access to electrical outlets than was expected in older buildings, including charging stations for battery operated equipment and agency and employee Electric Vehicles. For example, older buildings do not meet the requirements due to the need to decontaminate personnel and equipment after many types of responses in the current firefighting context. Every crew member should have access to facilities to decontaminate immediately after a fire event, and showers should allow for gender separation. In addition, there needs to be enough partitioned space to allow for gear and equipment to be thoroughly washed, and the space must be designed to control contamination in the living and working spaces of the station. While all structures require routine maintenance, fire stations require even more maintenance due to the heavy use encountered. Multiple departures and returns of heavy apparatus also affect these structures. Facility Replacement All buildings have an expected service life; for fire stations, the typical service life is 50 years. Since the average age of the two PCP fire stations is nearly 60 years, there needs to be a facility replacement plan in place. 257 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Ensuring that the stations are in good repair requires regular maintenance and scheduled replacement of specialized equipment. Plans for updating and repairing systems such as heating and air conditioning (HVAC), generators, roofs, driveways, parking areas, security gates, painting, carpeting, and small appliances can keep costs down and buildings in service longer. In addition, establishing a facility replacement and maintenance plan will enable the district to plan for ongoing service from each station more efficiently. Status of Shared Facilities PCP currently shares space at Station 257 with Ophir Hill Fire District; no other opportunities for sharing the two stations are apparent. Apparatus Apparatus was evaluated by PCP staff based on age, miles/hours, service, condition, and reliability. The criteria are defined in the introduction section of this report. The following figures represent all apparatus and vehicles operated by PCP. Figure 184: PCP Apparatus Unit Type Status Year Condition Features Engines & Aerial Apparatus Engine 57 Type 1 Frontline 1997 Fair 1,250 GPM/750 G Tank Brush 57 Type 3 Frontline 2004 Good 500 GPM/500 G Tank Patrol 57 Type 6 Frontline 2016 Excellent 100 GPM/250 G Tank Figure 185: Supervisor & Command Vehicles Unit Assigned To Manufacturer Year Condition Utility 5700 Captain Dodge 1500 2017 Excellent Utility 57 Station 257 Ford F250 Pickup 2009 Good Apparatus Discussion Fleet maintenance is provided both in-house and outsourced. The district does not have a qualified emergency vehicle technician (EVT). Maintenance manuals are available, preventative maintenance checks are conducted regularly, and maintenance records are kept current for all vehicles. It does not appear that annual pump tests are performed in accordance with NFPA 1911. 258 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo The district shares a Type-2 Reserve engine with Ophir Hill Fire District. This shared engine is nearly 30 years old and due for replacement. In fact, with the exception of Patrol 57, all of the district’s apparatus have reached the end of their service lives. The district does not appear to have a capital replacement plan. Dispatch & Communications PCP is dispatched by the CAL FIRE Grass Valley Emergency Command Center (GVECC). The center provides service for all fire agencies in Nevada County. The GVECC has the ability to dispatch via Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL); however, at present none of the local agencies are utilizing AVL for closest-unit dispatch. Figure 186: PSAP and Dispatch Center Item Description CAD Application Northrop Grumman Altaris CAD Telephone System Motorola VESTA Radio System MODUCOM radio consoles Fire/EMS Notification Two-tone encoder system Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Mutual aid TAC channels, State-wide radio with other fire agencies in the County: interoperability channels Ability for fire agencies to communicate via State-wide interoperability channels radio with police agencies in the County: Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Mutual aid TAC channels, State-wide radio with non-fire EMS agencies in the County: interoperability channels CAD-to-CAD with other CAL FIRE ECCs; for Ability for PSAP to communicate CAD-to-CAD local government dispatch centers, phone (how do you transfer a call to another center): call only Priority Dispatch – Emergency Medical Criteria-based dispatch system in place: Dispatch Formal EMD quality assurance program in place: Priority Dispatch AQUA and EMD-Qs Options for non-emergent calls not requiring EMS: None AVL used on fire apparatus: Northrop Grumman AVL used on ambulances & EMS units: No RadioMobile Patriot or a tablet using MDTs/MDCs in all fire & EMS vehicles: RadioMobile IQMobile Closest unit dispatched via AVL: Yes No. of 911 calls: 2022: 23,342 No. of 10-digit incoming emergency calls: 2022: 31,891 259 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Infrastructure Needs With the average age of the two PCP fire stations being nearly 60 years, there needs to be a facility replacement plan in place. Establishing a facility replacement and maintenance plan will enable the district to plan for ongoing service from each station more efficiently. Governance Structure Options Service Review Determinations LAFCo is required to prepare a written statement of determination with respect to six areas as specified by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. Based on the criteria described in Section 1 of this report, the following determinations are proposed for PCP. MSR Determination #1: Growth and Population Projections The use of the American Community Survey estimates using Esri’s population enrichment program places the estimated population of PCP at 3,603 in 2020, with a population in 2023 estimated at 3,637. For the future population, the California Department of Finance and the U.S. Census Bureau figures are not available for the community of PCP. The method of using the American Community Survey historical records to project the population was employed and showed little to no population growth for the district. This should be viewed with the understanding that the California Department of Finance does provide a population projection for the County of Nevada as a whole. The California Department of Finance projections anticipate that in 2028 the County of Nevada population will decrease 2.4% to 97,441. Of note, the Department of Finance has identified that the Cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City will see a population increase, while the Town of Truckee will see a modest decrease. This means that the unincorporated communities of Nevada County will see a more significant decrease in population over time. MSR Determination #2: Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence There are no disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence of PCP. 260 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo MSR Determination #3: Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities, Adequacy of Public Services, and Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies, Including Those Related to Sewers, Water, and Structural Fire Protection in Any DUCs Within or Contiguous to the SOI PCP operates from one station, Station 57, which is generally described as being in good condition. It is operated 24/7 with two-person staffing daily. The Municipal Service Review identifies that the station does not provide for the requirements of modern firefighting, such as gender separation for sleeping and shower areas, or the need for more electrical outlet access for technology equipment. The Fire Chief identified that one of the critical challenges of the district is to find qualified employees, maintain its cadre of volunteer firefighters, and find access to adequate funding for the replacement of apparatus. MSR Determination #4: Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services The financial review of PCP shows that the largest source of revenue for the district is the State reimbursement for Strike Team operations. In some years, this source represents more than 50% of total revenue, and this is projected to remain true in the future. This is a concern because this revenue stream fluctuates based upon the State’s needs, and without it, the district would run a substantial deficit every year. The projected revenue forecast shows an ongoing and ever-increasing deficit from FY 2024 through FY 2028. There is concern that the district may not be sustainable. MSR Determination #5: Status and Opportunities for Shared Services PCP shares Station 257 with Ophir Hill Fire District under a “gentleman’s agreement” to store apparatus. PCP receives its dispatch services from the State of California under contract. The district relies upon automatic and mutual aid to maintain its level of service. MSR Determination #6: Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies The district and its Firefighters Association maintain a close connection to the community to ensure the education of residents about fire service needs and operations. This is done in conjunction with the Fire Safe Council. 261 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo In recent months, a more earnest discussion of the future of fire protection and emergency medical response for the southwestern Nevada County area has been undertaken. As a part of that discussion, it is proposed that PCP should become a part of the consolidated fire district in the near future. It has also been proposed that it be included as a long-term sphere of influence for the consolidated district. This is discussed in greater detail in the governance section that follows, outlining the consolidated sphere of influence. Sphere of Influence Update The PCP sphere of influence was confirmed through the Municipal Service Review for fire protection and emergency services presented in January 2005 and adopted by the Nevada County Local Agency Formation Commission. The sphere of influence was updated in January 2014 through adoption of the report entitled “SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATES 2014 NEVADA COUNTY FIRE SERVICE PROVIDERS.” During the processing of this Municipal Service Review, PCP processed a reorganization proposal that annexed its sphere of influence. The Certificate of Completion was recorded on June 21, 2024. The sphere of influence is coterminous with District boundaries. Existing SOI The sphere of influence for PCP is coterminous with its existing boundaries as of June 21, 2024. The sphere of influence in general has remained unchanged through the original Municipal Service Review in 2005 and the Sphere of Influence updated in 2014. SOI Options The options for the sphere of influence are: 1. Remain unchanged as coterminous with District boundaries; or, 2. Include PCP in the consolidated sphere of influence with Penn Valley FPD, Rough and Ready FPD, and Nevada County Consolidated FPD as a long-term sphere area indicating the potential for future reorganization into a single fire protection district. The sphere of influence determination would be to consolidate the spheres of influence of the affected districts into a single sphere with an anticipated timeframe of one to five years for reorganization for PNV, RNR, NCC, and OPH, with the identification of the PCP sphere territory as a long-term change (+/- 10 years) for a future reorganization. 262 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Recommended SOI The recommended sphere of influence determination would be to consolidate the spheres of influence of the district and make the determinations as outlined in the section on governance specifically addressing this regional change. Proposed SOI Determinations If the recommended sphere of influence is not adopted, it is recommended that the sphere of influence determination be retained as coterminous with the existing boundaries and the matter be continued to allow for the preparation of those determinations. 263 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Penn Valley Fire Protection District PNV Overview Penn Valley Fire Protection District (PNV) provides fire protection, community risk reduction, emergency medical treatment, and medical transportation to a population estimated at 12,385 in about 92 square miles. The EMS transport area totals about 102 square miles. PNV operates three fire stations, two full-time and one unstaffed, with 17 full-time career personnel and one part-time employee. PNV is currently managing the Rough & Ready Fire Protection District (RNR) and is collaborating with Nevada County Consolidated Fire District (NCC) and the County to jointly staff Station 59 in Rough and Ready. Background PNV has neither a Master Plan, Strategic Plan, nor a Standards of Cover, however the Mission Statement, Vision, and Goals and Objectives were published in November 2014. PNV received a Class 3/3Y ISO Rating in its most recent rating from the Insurance Services Office (ISO) in February 2023. Over the last ten years, cost minimization efforts have resulted from using a neighboring fire agency (NCC) for vehicle maintenance and by developing agreements for fire investigations. Additional revenue measures have been exercised, including a Benefit Assessment in 2005 and a Special Tax in 2010. These voter-approved measures include annual cost of living adjustments. A proposal to increase the Benefit Assessment in 2020 failed to garner the voter support needed to pass. PNV participates in the Ground Emergency Medical Transport (GEMT) program. According to the Fire Chief, there is potential for facility, personnel, and equipment sharing through potential fire district reorganization(s) and through improved automatic aid agreements. The Fire Chief's top three critical issues: • The district is understaffed • District finances are inadequate to support the desired service level • Employee retention is an issue 264 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo The Fire Chief's top three opportunities to increase value and/or efficiency for the public: • Increase staffing to allow for a dedicated ambulance • Add a Chief Officer to balance workload and to provide duty coverage • Pursue reorganization with neighboring fire district(s) Boundaries and Sphere of Influence PNV provides service to a large area of western Nevada County, including the communities of Penn Valley and Wildwood. The ambulance service area extends beyond the district boundary and includes the Rough & Ready Fire District in its defined responsibility area through the Sierra Sacramento Valley EMS. The district’s territory extends south from the South Yuba River along the Nevada-Yuba County boundary to McCourtney Road and the Higgins Fire Protection District. The district is bounded by the Nevada County Consolidated and Rough & Ready Fire Districts on the east. The district’s SOI is coterminous with the district boundary and was re-affirmed in 2014. 265 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 187: Penn Valley Fire Protection District Service Area 266 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Type & Extent of Services Services Provided PNV provides a range of services for its residents, including being the primary ambulance provider. The following figure represents each of the services and the level performed. Figure 188: Overview of Services Provided Service Y/N Level Fire Suppression Yes Wildland engine-based suppression (Type Wildland Fire Suppression Yes 3) Available for Cal OES Statewide Statewide Mobilization Yes Mobilization EMS First Response Yes Paramedic Level Ambulance Transport Yes Paramedic Level (primary provider) Specialized/Technical Rescue Yes Swiftwater; Low angle rescue HazMat Response Yes First Responder Operational (FRO) Fire Inspection/Code Enforcement Yes Plan Reviews Yes In-house and outsourced Public Education/Prevention Yes Fire & Arson Investigation Yes Two POST investigators on staff Service Area The Penn Valley Fire Protection District was formed in 1974 and assumed fire protection agency status. PNV is statutorily responsible for fire and emergency services within the 92 square mile district boundary. Ambulance service is provided to approximately 10 square miles beyond the district boundary, including the Rough & Ready Fire District territory. An annexation in 1986 added approximately 38,000 acres to the original area. PNV has a mix of land uses, from rural agricultural to urban residential communities. 267 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Collaboration • Mutual aid and automatic aid with neighboring fire agencies. • Vehicle maintenance agreement with Nevada County Consolidated FPD. • Agreement for fire investigation services with Nevada County Consolidated FPD. • PNV is party to the Nevada County Fire and Emergency Joint Powers Agreement which provides for Emergency Communications, Emergency Dispatch, an Air Filling Station, and MAPTool Development and Maintenance. Contracts to Provide Services to Other Agencies • Ambulance service is provided to 10 square miles beyond the district boundary. Contracts for Services From Other Agencies PNV receives dispatch services from CAL FIRE by cooperative agreement. Governance & Administration PNV is an independent special district, governed by a five-member elected Board of Directors. The Fire Chief reports directly to the Board of Directors. Figure 189: PNV Board of Directors Name Title Term End Committee Assignment Reorganization ad hoc; Bruce Stephenson Chair 12/2026 Employee MOU negotiator Reorganization ad hoc; Terry McMahan Vice-Chair 12/2024 Employee MOU negotiator Joey Jordan Director 12/2024 Tina Kissel Director 12/2024 Gordon Mangel Director 12/2026 LAFCo district rep. 268 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 190: PNV Organizational Chart Board of Directors Fire Chief Finance Office Administrator Administrator Battalion Chief (Vacant) Captains (3) 269 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Accountability for Community Services—Transparency The following figure identifies PNV’s efforts to meet State laws designed to ensure transparency and accountability, as well as efforts beyond legal requirements to make information available to the public. Figure 191: Transparency and Accountability Transparency and Accountability Available PNV website:39 Yes Adopted budget available on website: Yes Notice of public meetings provided: Yes Agendas posted on website:40 Yes Public meetings are live streamed: No Minutes and/or recordings of public meetings available on Yes website: Master Plan (fire service specific) available on website: No Strategic Plan (fire service specific) available on website: No Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover documents No available on website: Performance reports available on website: No Efforts to engage and educate the public on the services to the Yes community: Staff and governing board member ethics training and Yes economic interest reporting completed: Compliance with financial document compilation, adoption, Yes and reporting requirements: Adherence to open meeting requirements: Yes The district provides updated information on its website in an effort to educate its constituents on District operations. However, the financial data provided on the website is not up-to-date and efforts should be made to show the current fiscal year budget. The Firefighters Association and Auxiliary work to provide for supplemental funding for firefighters throughout the district. 39 As of January 1, 2020, independent special districts are required to maintain websites according to Government Code Sections 6270.6 and 53087.8 to provide the public easily accessible and accurate information about the district. Government Code Section 53087.8 lists what must be included on the website. 40 Government Code §54954.2. 270 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Efforts made to engage and educate the public on the fire and emergency services to the community consist of participation in local events, tours of the fire stations, and educational programs focused on fire prevention and preparedness. Land Use and Population Land Use The district encompasses unincorporated territory which includes a range of land uses from rural to urban intensity. The Village Center and Lake Wildwood area have an urban intensity development. The County has adopted a system of zoning property to guide future development. The County has regulations throughout the unincorporated area and in specific areas to ensure new or redevelopment transitions from rural to residential/commercial without impacting property values of the surrounding community. The County’s Comprehensive Area Plan 2020 updates the Village Center planning effort incorporating it as a part of the County General Plan. Current Population The California Department of Finance prepared projected population forecasts for Counties within the State (report dated July 2023). This report identified that the population of the County of Nevada in 2023 was 99,796. Based on information from the 2020 Decennial Census, through Esri’s interpolation of census tracts, the population of Penn Valley Fire Protection District is estimated to be 12,385. The estimated 2023 population from American Community Survey data is 12,556. Projected Population The California Department of Finance projections anticipate that in 2028 the County of Nevada population will decrease to 97,441 (a decrease of 2.4%). Of note, the Department of Finance has identified that the cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City will see a population increase while the town of Truckee will see a modest decrease. This means that the unincorporated communities of Nevada County will see a more significant decrease in population over time. Though historic population estimates for the specific boundaries of the PNV jurisdiction were not available through the California Department of Finance and the U.S. Census Bureau, population projections were calculated out to 2035 using historic interpolations from American Community Survey estimates. The population is projected to experience a 3% cumulative growth rate from 2023 to 2035. The projected population in 2035 is 12,902. 271 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) A Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) is an unincorporated, inhabited territory that constitutes all or a portion of a community with an annual median household income that is less than 80% of the statewide annual median household income (i.e., $73,524).41 LAFCo is required to identify the location and characteristics of any DUCs in the Service Review and SOI update process.42 As shown, one DUC was identified within or contiguous to PNV SOI which meets the definition based on population and income, as shown in the following figure. This area is in the heart of the district and receives the same level of service as those areas surrounding it. 41 Government Code §56033.5. 42 Government Codes §56425(e)(5) and §56430(2). 272 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 192: PNV DUC Location 273 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Financial Overview The Penn Valley Fire Protection District (PNV) operates through three funds: the General Fund, to manage the district’s operations; a Capital Replacement Fund: and an Impact Fee Fund to accumulate AB1600 Development fees and expend funds necessary for infrastructure for the expansion of services into newly developed areas. A significant amount of information regarding the General Fund was reviewed to develop financial trend analysis for the five-year period. This review of the historical information of General Fund (GF) revenues revealed a minimal impact on major revenues received by the PNV during the COVID pandemic. Revenues Penn Valley FPD is funded by several sources of income. Its largest revenue sources are special assessments for rescue and fire on improved parcels within the district, comprising approximately 46% of PNV’s annual General Fund revenues. In FY2022, PNV collected $1.36 million is special assessments ($572,000 for fire suppression and $788,000 for rescue). PNV is the only fire agency in western Nevada County that provides Advanced Life Support (ALS) and ambulance service, resulting in its second largest revenue source (20%) from ambulance fees. Ambulance fees have grown steadily (3%) annually, totaling more than $582,000 in FY2022. Property tax revenues are based on assessed property values, allocated under Proposition 13 limiting total property tax assessments to 1% of the property’s value. The tax revenue is then apportioned between the various taxing units. This revenue source accounts for approximately 20% of General Fund recurring revenues annually. Other significant sources of revenue include state fire reimbursements, Proposition 172 sales tax, and administrative revenues. PNV has been successful in obtaining grants for various purposes. The district collects fees for administrative services and fire prevention fees for inspections and permits, as well as donations from its auxiliary and other revenues. The following figure indicates a detail of all revenues. 274 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 193: PNV Revenues, FY 2018–FY 202243 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Revenue FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 General Fund Special Assessment-Rescue 732,991 748,769 756,596 762,944 788,223 Special Assessment-Fire 508,169 526,193 541,207 551,021 571,942 Ambulance Fees 459,300 405,221 498,837 485,561 582,190 Property Taxes 393,689 413,433 434,304 453,258 486,032 Fire Reimbursements 233,408 159,317 20,522 322,187 250,701 Proposition 172 105,610 113,052 114,523 131,969 167,938 Interest Income 16,740 23,967 27,458 20,390 16,884 Other Revenues 22,223 35,162 44,188 41,890 46,120 Total General Fund 2,472,130 2,425,114 2,437,635 2,769,220 2,910,030 Building & Equipment Fund 165,970 235,243 151,774 110,360 185,383 Impact Fund 33,588 77,365 71,795 75,120 58,732 Total Revenues 2,671,688 2,737,722 2,692,204 2,954,700 3,154,145 Expenses Penn Valley’s current minimum staffing consists of two full-time personnel at two stations, with a third position at times staffed by firefighter interns, and utilization of off-duty personnel at PNV’s third station. Salaries and benefits are approximately 81% of the recurring costs of the district. Base salaries for line positions have increased from $1,039,000 in FY 2018 to $1,328,000 in FY 2022 (28%) with a significant increase occurring in FY 2020 and smaller increases occurring the following two years. A significant portion of the benefits program is the CalPERS pension. The base retirement costs have increased 26% from $176,000 in FY 2018 to nearly $270,000 in FY 2022. Of this $270,000, approximately 53% is payment of the unfunded actuarial liability of the PNV (FY 2022 cost included $90,161 payment on a 2020 debt issuance to finance CalPERS unfunded actuarial liabilities over a fifteen-year period). 43 Penn Valley Fire Protection District budget-to-actual reports. 275 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 194: Historical PNV Expenditures Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Expenditures FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Full-Time 1,039,118 1,042,069 1,184,103 1,275,793 1,328,309 Administration 102,812 107,803 112,837 82,867 83,619 Part-Time 35,647 47,110 34,065 35,072 18,802 Intern Pay 12,375 16,905 14,736 7,262 6,235 Other Wages 109,796 128,843 62,347 132,283 132,409 Total Salaries 1,299,748 1,342,730 1,408,088 1,533,277 1,569,374 Payroll Taxes 25,444 26,372 25,394 26,607 24,695 Disability Payments 10,170 — — 11,086 6,453 Health/Dental/Life Benefits 202,927 198,826 190,834 200,532 200,656 Workers Compensation 86,905 73,379 78,351 77,557 80,088 CalPERS Retirement 175,693 196,353 212,260 317,387 270,091 Total Benefits 501,139 494,930 506,839 633,169 581,983 Total Salaries & Benefits 1,800,887 1,837,660 1,914,927 2,166,446 2,151,357 Other Expenses 384,768 390,169 508,875 426,470 468,471 Transfers Out 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 Total Operating Expenses 2,215,655 2,257,829 2,453,802 2,622,916 2,649,828 Building & Equipment Expense 140,041 196,424 169,174 169,345 141,342 Impact Fund Expense 26,517 100,988 56,944 70,179 30,112 Total Expenditures: 2,382,213 2,555,241 2,679,920 2,862,440 2,821,282 Other recurring expenses include professional fees, personal protective equipment, dispatch services, facilities costs, apparatus and equipment maintenance, medical supplies, fuel, insurance, utilities, training costs, and other expenses. Non-recurring expenses include capital outlay, debt service, transfers to reserves, and expenditure of grant funds. Government agencies are limited in their abilities to make rapid changes in their revenue streams to offset significant events within their jurisdiction such as loss of apparatus or significant equipment, or rapid and significant economic downturn. It is important for agencies to maintain a certain level of reserves to prepare for those unforeseen events. The following summarizes the revenues and expenditures for PNV for FY 2018 through FY 2022. 276 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 195: Summarized Revenues and Expenditures for PNV44 Revenues & Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Expenditures FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Total revenues 2,671,688 2,737,722 2,692,169 2,954,700 3,124,810 Total expenditures 2,382,212 2,555,241 2,678,648 2,942,189 2,821,552 Surplus (Deficit) 289,476 182,481 13,521 12,511 303,258 The above information, shown graphically in the following figure, indicates the growth of the district’s General Fund revenues and expenditures. Figure 196: Graphical Presentation of Summarized Revenues and Expenditures for PNV $3,200,000 $3,124,810 $2,954,700 $3,000,000 $2,942,189 $2,800,000 $2,737,722 $2,671,688 $2,692,169 $2,821,552 $2,600,000 $2,678,648 $2,555,241 $2,400,000 $2,382,212 $2,200,000 $2,000,000 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Total revenues Total expenditures Financial Projections Revenues Projections assume its largest source of revenue, special assessments for fire and rescue, to increase over 2.5% annually. Additionally, ambulance fees and property tax revenue increases are expected to continue. While housing inventory is expected to remain low, prices will continue to rise, increasing assessed valuations and property taxes. Other revenues are forecast to continue to grow at a moderate rate. 44 Penn Valley Fire Protection District budget-to-actual reports 277 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Expenses Salaries and benefits are the most significant of the costs of the district, consuming over 80% of the recurring expenditures. These costs are forecast to increase by nearly 5% each year. Other previously described recurring costs are forecast to escalate at 5.4% annually. The following figure is a forecast of PNV’s projected revenues and expenditures. Figure 197: PNV General Fund Summarized Projected General Fund Revenues and Expenditures Revenue & FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Expenditures Budget Revenue 2,613,500 2,676,242 2,742,695 2,812,752 2,886,333 2,963,387 Expenditures 2,751,101 2,887,203 3,030,123 3,180,204 3,337,806 3,503,304 Surplus (Deficit) (137,601) (210,961) (287,428) (367,452) (451,473) (539,917) Capital Planning PNV anticipates vehicle, heavy apparatus, and equipment replacement on a scheduled basis. These expenditures and small station improvements are included in the financial plan of the district. PNV operates a Building & Equipment Capital Replacement Fund for the acquisition or construction of major capital facilities and equipment purchases. Revenues include donations, interest income, and grants to fund purchases and debt service payments. PNV operates a Special Revenue Fund to account for mitigation fees restricted by California Law AB1600 for the purpose of offsetting increased capital costs due to development (impact fees). Funds are required to be spent and/or designated within five years only for new capital additions. Outstanding Debt The district has three outstanding leases as of June 30, 2022. In July 2016, PNV entered into a ten-year master lease agreement to purchase a new Type I fire engine (3.04% interest). In March 2019, PNV entered into a five-year master lease agreement to purchase an ambulance (4.25% interest). In December 2020, the district executed a fifteen-year lease obligation to pay off its unfunded pension obligations (3.58% interest). The following figure provides the maturity schedule. 278 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 198: PNV Debt Maturity Schedule Unfunded Pension Type I Fire Engine Ambulance Obligations Total Fiscal Year Principal Interest Principal Interest Principal Interest FY 2023 32,928 5,315 50,461 4,377 55,353 34,807 183,241 FY 2024 33,928 4,314 52,604 2,234 57,353 32,808 183,241 FY 2025 34,959 3,284 — — 59,424 30,736 128,403 FY 2026 36,021 2,222 — — 61,570 28,590 128,403 FY 2027 37,115 1,127 — — 63,794 26,366 128,402 FY 2028–2032 — — — — 355,245 95,554 450,799 FY 2033–2036 — — — — 333,242 27,398 360,640 Total 174,951 16,262 103,065 6,611 985,981 276,259 1,563,129 Reserves As of June 30, 2022, PNV had $2,193,883 in total fund balance. In addition to unassigned fund balance ($1,335,738) in the General fund, fund balances consisted of the following: • General Fund ▪ $112,500 – Committed fund balance for Wildwood Ridge II development ▪ $426,575 – Committed fund balance held as reserve ▪ $17,887 – Committed fund balance for paramedic scholarships • Building & Equipment Fund ▪ $212,883 – Committed fund balance • Special Revenue Fund ▪ $88,300 – Restricted fund balance Figure 199 PNV Fund Balance45 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Fund Balance FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Restricted 70,357 46,733 56,401 61,342 88,300 Committed 334,354 648,836 670,536 735,046 769,845 Unassigned (General Fund) 1,261,506 1,189,826 1,155,807 1,094,922 1,335,738 Total Fund Balance 1,666,217 1,885,395 1,882,744 1,891,310 2,193,883 45 Penn Valley Fire Protection District audited financial statements FY20/21. 279 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Demand for Services The Penn Valley Fire Protection District is a geographically large rural system that provides aid services to other communities when requested. Data was provided by the PNV and its dispatch center and included incident information from January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2022. This analysis focuses on incidents within the statutory and contractual areas where PNV responds. The following figure is the overview statistics for Penn Valley Fire Protection District. Figure 200: PNV Overview Avg. Annual Incidents per 90th Percentile PNV Incident Vol. 1,000 Population Total Time Penn Valley Fire District 1,644 131 16:17 Incident categories in the following figure are dependent on categories provided in the CAD data, and incidents are classified broadly as Fire, Medical and Other. Medical responses account for nearly 70% of PNV operations; the incident demand in this category is significantly higher than all other call types. This proportion is similar to many fire departments that provide emergency medical services. The following figure shows incident volume by type between January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2022, represented by proportion of overall incidents. The category “Other” includes calls such as Law Enforcement, Standby, and Public Assistance. Figure 201: Total Incident Response by Type Fire 621 Other 1,356 Medical 4,498 280 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Typically, an analysis of incidents by year can yield a trend or give an idea of what the call volume might look like in the next few years. Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, call volumes nationally were affected, and trends are not as easy to spot. This is true in PNV, with an 8% decrease in total calls in 2020. However, the following year saw a 14% increase. Calls charted in the following figure as “Service Area” include calls handled in and by PNV. Aid Given includes call service provided by PNV in areas outside by Mutual or Automatic Aid. Aid Received includes calls occurring in the PNV district but handled by other agencies. Call volume in the service area has increased by 6% from 2019 to 2022, while Aid Given and Aid Received volumes have decreased by 29% and 5%, respectively. Figure 202: Annual Incidents by Year 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 Aid Received Aid Given Service Area Additional temporal studies show that the monthly call volume variation is typically insignificant. Call volumes are 1.3% lower than expected in February while June is 1.4% higher than expected. The fluctuation in volume equates to approximately 21 calls +/- each month. 281 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 203: Incidents by Month 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% PNV, like many similar agencies, does see a significant increase in incident volume during the day. In fact, PNV sees over 68% of its incidents daily between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. The following figure shows the general variation of the complete incident data set by the hour of the day. Figure 204: Incident Percentage by Hour 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 282 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo This average daily swing is typical and likely due to the number of people awake and moving around. However, the day-to-day variation in this information does play a part. The following figure is the incident heat map by the hour of the day and day of the week. Figure 205: Day and Hour Incident Heat Map Hour Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Color Incidents 0–1 67–80 1–2 51–67 2–3 45–51 3–4 35–45 4–5 23–35 5–6 14–23 6–7 9–14 7–8 8–9 9–10 10–11 11–12 12–13 13–14 14–15 15–16 16–17 17–18 18–19 19–20 20–21 21–22 22–23 23–24 In the previous figure, it is interesting to note the weekend has negligible impact on the timing of peak volumes. Early Saturday evening stands out as the window of peak volumes. 283 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Emergency Response Performance The performance of the fire department response in the service area was also evaluated. Response mode was not provided, so performance times are calculated using all incidents, excluding calls coded as “Other” (OTH). Results are presented using the 90th percentile statistic. The 90th percentile is typically used in the fire service and is considered the standard for measuring incident response performance. Based on timestamps provided, two unique time segments were included when evaluating PNV's response performance. The first is the time it takes for PNV to receive the notification from Dispatch and go en route to the call (turnout time). The second is the time it takes for the unit to drive to the incident (travel time). Both segments combined make up the total response time evaluated in the following discussion. The unit type was not discriminated against, and the first arriving unit was used to determine the total response time. The timestamps in the data provided for each segment of the response time do not include seconds. This truncation of the data introduces the potential for up to 2 minutes of error in the total response time calculation. As part of the EOA agreement with Sierra Sacramento Valley EMS Agency (SSVEMS), PNV adopted a response goal for EMS calls in urban (suburban) areas of 10:00 minutes and 20:00 minutes in rural areas. The following figure shows a comparison of the adopted standard compared to the actual total response time for specified call types. Since PNV has not adopted response goals for fires or “other” call type, the NFPA standard of 6:20 is shown. Between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2022, PNV's performance for 4,156 incidents within the fire response area was a total response time of 16 minutes, 17 seconds (16:17) or less, 90% of the time. 284 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 206: Adopted Standard vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance Call Type Adopted Standard 1/2019–12/2022 Performance Fire, Rural 6:20 or less, 90% of the time 22:39 or less, 90% of the time Fire, Suburban 6:20 or less, 90% of the time 22:45 or less, 90% of the time Medical, Rural 20:00 or less, 90% of the time 17:56 or less, 90% of the time Medical, Suburban 10:00 or less, 90% of the time 13:25 or less, 90% of the time Other, Rural 6:20 or less, 90% of the time 20:06 or less, 90% of the time Other, Suburban 6:20 or less, 90% of the time 14:36 or less, 90% of the time The following figure is the performance of total response time for each of the major incident types for all Priority 1 incidents within the data set. The PNV goal for medical incidents is indicated on the chart. Figure 207: Incidents’ 90th Percentile Total Response Times, January 2019–December 2022 26:40 20:00 13:20 06:40 00:00 Rural Suburban Fire Medical Other The final analysis investigated the unit usage question for all apparatus within the system. Three dimensions are studied in this report. The first dimension is the unit hour utilization (UHU). This number represents the time a unit was committed to an incident as a percentage of the total time they were on duty. The next is the average time a unit was committed to an incident. The third number is the average number of incidents a unit was deployed per day is presented. 285 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 208: Fire Unit Statistics Unit Hour Utilization Avg. Time per Avg. Incidents PNV (UHU) Incident Per Day E43 10.4% 48 Minutes 3.14 E44 11.4% 56 Minutes 2.93 E45 0.0% 40 Minutes 0.07 The unit hour utilization (UHU) calculation evaluates how much time a crew is committed to an incident versus the total time on duty during a specific timeframe. The formula for this calculation is the total time committed to an incident divided by the sum of all time the unit is staffed. ∑𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑎 𝑆𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑒 𝑈𝐻𝑈 = ∑𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐼𝑛 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒 The desire is for the primary unit at a station to be under 10% UHU. Maintaining 10% UHU should indicate that the area has 90% availability for unscheduled events. Stations with multiple companies should aggregate to less than 10% UHU for all similar units. In addition, crews from the primary apparatus that cross-staff other units should avoid aggregated UHUs of over 10%. Staffing The following figure shows the total number of personnel for PNV organized by the various divisions. Figure 209: Staffing Assignments Assignment Staffing Uniformed Administration 1 Non-Uniformed Administration 2 Fire Prevention - Operations Staff 15 Emergency Communications Contract/JPA Volunteers, Reserve, On Call 2 Total Personnel 20 The following figure shows the daily operational staffing at each station and on each unit in the station. Operations staff have three shifts, each working a 48/96 schedule (48 hours on duty followed by 96 hours off). 286 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 210: Daily Staffing Station Daily Staffing Unit Staffing 43 2 Engine (CS), Ambulance (CS) 44 2 Engine (CS), Ambulance (CS) 45 0 Unstaffed Total 4 *Intern program provides occasional additional staff PNV Fire Stations The following figures outline the basic features of each of the PNV fire stations. The condition of the stations is rated based on the criteria identified in the introduction to this section of the report. 287 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 211: PNV Fire Stations Station Name/Number: Station 43 Address/Physical Location: 10513 Spenceville Road, Penn Valley, CA 95946 General Description: Facility also houses the district’s Headquarters. Meets the needs of a modern fire station. Structure Date of Original Construction Station-2003 Apparatus Bay 1980 General Condition Good Seismic Protection Yes Auxiliary Power Yes ADA Compliant Yes Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 0 Back-Ins 3 Total Bays: 3 Total Square Footage Station-4,198 Apparatus Bay-2,400 Total-6,598 sq ft Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 5 Beds 8 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 8 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities Gender Segregation (YES) Bathrooms 3 Showers 2 Bedrooms 5 Exercise/Workout Facilities Yes Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned Yes Training/Meeting Rooms Yes Washer/Dryer/Extractor Washer (x2) Dryer (x2) Extractor Safety & Security Station Sprinklered Yes Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal Yes Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System Yes 288 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Minimum Unit Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Staffing* Engine 43 2 CS Medic 43 2 CS Water Tender 43 2 CS Rescue 43 2 CS Total Daily Staffing: 2 *If an apparatus is cross staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 289 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Station Name/Number: Station 44 Address/Physical Location: 18989 Lake Forest Drive, Penn Valley, CA 95946 General Description: The station meets some of the needs of a modern fire service facility. Structure Date of Original Construction 1981 General Condition Fair Seismic Protection No Auxiliary Power Yes ADA Compliant No Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 0 Back-Ins 3 Total Bays: 3 Total Square Footage 3,976 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 3 Beds 4 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 4 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities Gender Segregation (YES) Bathrooms 3 Showers 2 Bedrooms 3 Exercise/Workout Facilities No Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned Yes Training/Meeting Rooms No Washer/Dryer/Extractor Washer (x2) Dryer Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System Yes 290 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Minimum Unit Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Staffing* Engine 44 2 CS Medic 44 2 CS Brush 44 2 CS Total Daily Staffing: 2 *If an apparatus is cross staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 291 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Station Name/Number: Station 45 Address/Physical Location: 12370 Bitney Springs Road, Nevada City, CA 95959 General Description: The station is not currently staffed. Meets some of the needs of a modern fire service facility. Structure Date of Original Construction 1994 General Condition Fair Seismic Protection No Auxiliary Power Yes ADA Compliant Yes Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 0 Back-Ins 2 Total Bays: 2 Total Square Footage 2,450 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 1 Beds 2 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 2 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities Gender Segregation (YES) Bathrooms 2 Showers 2 Bedrooms 0 Exercise/Workout Facilities No Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned Yes Training/Meeting Rooms No Washer/Dryer/Extractor Washer Dryer Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System Yes 292 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Minimum Unit Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Staffing* Engine 45 0 Reserve Engine Medic 45 0 Reserve Medic Total Daily Staffing: 0 Station is not permanently staffed *If an apparatus is cross staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 293 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Fire Stations Discussion Station 43 was originally built in 1980 and the living space was rebuilt in 2003. Fire station ages range from 20 to more than 42 years, with an average of 31 years. The Fire Chief has indicated that Station 44 needs to be replaced and it may be advantageous to relocate it. Station 45 is not currently staffed. The following figure summarizes the PNV fire stations and their features. Figure 212: Station Configuration and Condition Staffing General Station Apparatus Bays Station Age Capacity Condition Station 43 3 8 Good 20 years* Station 44 3 4 Fair 42 years Station 45 2 2 Fair 29 years Totals/Average: 8 14 30 years average *Station 43 apparatus bays 43 years old. With the exception of Station 43, the PNV stations are older and do not meet the requirements of modern firefighting. As the firefighting environment has changed, the technology, equipment, and safety systems have changed to meet new demands. Older buildings do not typically have the space or engineering systems to meet the new environment. Modern living requires much more access to electrical outlets than was expected in older buildings, including charging stations for battery operated equipment and agency and employee Electric Vehicles. For example, older buildings do not meet the requirements due to the need to decontaminate personnel and equipment after many responses in the current firefighting context. Every crew member should have access to facilities to decontaminate immediately after a fire event, and showers should allow for gender separation. In addition, there needs to be enough partitioned space to allow for gear and equipment to be thoroughly washed and be designed to control contamination in the living and working space of the station. While all structures require routine maintenance, staffed fire stations require even more maintenance due to the continuous occupancy by a minimum of three adults. Multiple departures and returns of heavy apparatus also affect these structures. 294 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Facility Replacement With one station unstaffed and one needing to be replaced and potentially relocated to a more advantageous site, PNV should develop a facility replacement plan. Ensuring the stations are in good repair requires regular maintenance and scheduled replacement of specialized equipment. Plans for updating and repairing systems such as heating and air conditioning (HVAC), generators, roofs, driveways, parking areas, security gates, painting, carpet replacement, and small appliances can keep costs down and buildings in service longer. In addition, establishing a facility replacement and maintenance plan will enable the district to plan for ongoing service from each station more efficiently. Status of Shared Facilities The district receives dispatch services from CAL FIRE’s Grass Valley Emergency Command Center through a cooperative agreement. PNV is not currently sharing any of its three facilities, however the district is collaborating with Nevada County Consolidated Fire District, Rough & Ready Fire District, and the County to staff the fire station in Rough & Ready until a permanent solution to the situation can be implemented. Apparatus Apparatus was evaluated by PNV staff based on age, miles/hours, service, condition, and reliability. The criteria are defined in the introduction section of this report. Fleet maintenance is provided by agreement with Nevada County Consolidated Fire District. The following figures represent all apparatus and vehicles operated by PNV. 295 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 213: PNV Apparatus Unit Type Status Year Condition Features Engines & Aerial Apparatus Engine 43 Type 1 Frontline 2009 Good 1500 GPM/650 G Tank Engine 44 Type 1 Frontline 2016 Good 1500 GPM/650 G Tank Engine 45 Type 1 Reserve 2001 Fair 1250 GPM/850 G Tank Brush 44 Type 3 Frontline 2003 Fair 500 GPM/500 G Tank Medics/Rescues/Other Medic 43 Ambulance Frontline 2019 Good Medic 44 Ambulance Frontline 2014 Good Medic 45 Ambulance Reserve 2007 Fair Rescue 43 Rescue Frontline 2001 Fair Water Tender 43 Water Tender Frontline 1999 Fair 750 GPM/ 3000 G Tank Breathing Compressor, fill station, Trailer Frontline Good Support cascade, generator Figure 214: Supervisor & Command Vehicles Unit Assigned To Manufacturer Year Condition 5600 Fire Chief Chevrolet 2017 Good 5630 Station 43 Ford 2012 Good 5631 Station 43 Chevrolet 2008 Good 5632 Station 44 GMC 2005 Good Apparatus Discussion Apparatus maintenance is outsourced to Nevada Consolidated Fire by agreement. Current vehicle maintenance manuals are available. Preventative maintenance checks are conducted regularly; however, maintenance records are not maintained for all vehicles and apparatus. Pump tests are performed annually per industry standards. 296 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Dispatch & Communications PNV is dispatched by the CAL FIRE Grass Valley Emergency Command Center (GVECC). The center provides this service for all the fire agencies in Nevada County. The GVECC has the ability to dispatch via Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL), however at present, none of the local agencies are utilizing AVL for closest unit dispatch. Figure 215: PSAP and Dispatch Center Item Description CAD Application Northrop Grumman Altaris CAD Telephone System Motorola VESTA Radio System MODUCOM radio consoles Fire/EMS Notification Two-tone encoder system Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Mutual aid TAC channels, State-wide radio with other fire agencies in the county: interoperability channels Ability for fire agencies to communicate via State-wide Interoperability channels radio with police agencies in the county: Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Mutual aid TAC channels, State-wide radio with non-Fire EMS agencies in the county: interoperability channels CAD to CAD with other CAL FIRE ECCs – for Ability for PSAP to communicate CAD-to-CAD local government dispatch centers - phone (how do you transfer a call to another center): call only Priority Dispatch – Emergency Medical Criteria-based dispatch system in place: Dispatch Formal EMD quality assurance program in place: Priority Dispatch AQUA and EMD-Qs Options for non-emergent calls not requiring EMS: None AVL used on fire apparatus: Northrop Grumman AVL used on ambulances & EMS units: No RadioMobile Patriot or a tablet using MDTs/MDCs in all fire & EMS vehicles: RadioMobile IQMobile Closest unit dispatched via AVL: Yes No. of 911 calls: 2022 - 23,342 No. of 10-digit incoming emergency calls: 2022 - 31,891 297 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Infrastructure Needs PNV has indicated that Station 44 needs to be replaced and potentially relocated to a more advantageous site. A funding source for this project has not been identified. Station 45 in the north part of the district is not staffed; this station has the capacity to accommodate a maximum of 2 personnel each shift, which is less than industry-standard three-person staffing. Governance Structure Options For a number of years, a discussion has taken place regarding the potential for consolidating fire protection services in the western Nevada County areas. Beginning in July 2023, this discussion took on a renewed emphasis when the Rough and Ready Fire Protection District decided it would need to close its doors and dissolve as a fire protection entity. This prompted the Penn Valley FPD, Nevada County Consolidated FPD, and the County of Nevada to enter into a contract to continue the provision of fire protection and emergency medical service at the Rough and Ready Station while other options were studied. It also began a more earnest discussion of the future of fire protection and emergency medical response for the overall area. It is now proposed that the Penn Valley FPD, Rough and Ready FPD, Nevada County Consolidated FPD, and Ophir Hill FPD reorganize into a single fire protection district. This reorganization would include the following: • Consolidating the spheres of influence of the affected districts into a single sphere with an anticipated timeframe of one to five years for reorganization. Rough and Ready would be designated a zero sphere of influence identifying the Commission’s position that it be absorbed by another fire entity. • Identification of the Commission’s position that future annexations by either the Cities of Grass Valley or Nevada City address the loss of revenue to the fire protection district through condition of approval allowing for a five-to-ten-year absorption of the loss. • Identifying the Peardale Chicago Park FPD boundary and sphere of influence as a long-term sphere for the consolidated district, meaning that a future reorganization is anticipated within the next ten years. 298 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo • The four districts would jointly propose a reorganization that would annex the Rough and Ready, Nevada County, and Ophir Hill FPDs areas and spheres of influence to the Penn Valley FPD, dissolve the three FPDs being annexed, and rename the district to reflect its new orientation. The Plan for Service and Transition Plan for such a change would need to identify the timelines and actions necessary to effectuate this change. Figure 216: Proposed SOI for PNV 299 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Service Review Determinations LAFCo is required to prepare a written statement of determination with respect to six areas as specified by Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. Based on the criteria described in Section 1 of this report, the following determinations are proposed for PNV. MSR Determination #1: Growth and Population Projections The California Department of Finance prepared projected population forecasts for counties within the State (report dated July 2023). This report identified that the population of the County of Nevada in 2023 was 99,796. In looking to define the current population of Penn Valley, the Census Designated Place for Penn Valley has been identified by State and local officials along with the Census Bureau. This unincorporated community is identified to have 1,621 population as of 2010. Based on information from the 2020 Decennial Census, through Esri’s interpolation of census tracts, the population of Penn Valley Fire Protection District is estimated to be 12,385. The estimated 2023 population from American Community Survey data is 12,556. Projected Population The California Department of Finance projections anticipate that in 2028 the County of Nevada population will decrease to 97,441 (a decrease of 2.4%). Of note, the Department of Finance has identified that the Cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City will see a population increase while the Town of Truckee will see a modest decrease. This means that the unincorporated communities of Nevada County will see a more significant decrease in population over time. Though historic population estimates for the specific boundaries of the PNV jurisdiction were not available through the California Department of Finance and the U.S. Census Bureau, population projections were calculated out to 2035 using historic interpolations from American Community Survey estimates. The population is projected to experience a 3% cumulative growth rate from 2023 to 2035. The projected population in 2035 is 12,902. 300 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo MSR Determination #2: Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence A Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) is an unincorporated, inhabited territory that constitutes all or a portion of a community with an annual median household income that is less than 80% of the statewide annual median household income (i.e., $60,188).46 LAFCo is required to identify the location and characteristics of any DUCs in the Service Review and SOI update process.47 The County of Nevada, through its land use element of the General Plan, adopted in 2014, has identified disadvantaged “legacy” communities throughout the County. For 2022, the median household income within the State of California, as determined by the American Community Survey, is $91,905; 80 percent of that income level is $73,524. As shown, one DUC was identified within or contiguous to PNV SOI which meets the definition based on population and income, as shown in the following figure. This area is in the heart of the district and receives the same level of service as those areas surrounding it. 46 Government Code §56033.5. 47 Government Codes §56425(e)(5) and §56430(2). 301 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 217: PNV DUC 302 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo MSR Determination #3: Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities, Adequacy of Public Services, and Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies, Including Those Related to Sewers, Water, and Fire in Any DUCs Within or Contiguous to the SOI PNV has indicated that Station 44 needs to be replaced and potentially relocated to a more advantageous site. A funding source for this project has not been identified. Station 45 in the north part of the district is not staffed; this station has the capacity to accommodate a maximum of 2 personnel each shift, which is less than the industry- standard of three-person staffing. MSR Determination #4: Financial Ability of PNV to Provide Services The review of the projected financial position of the Penn Valley FPD shows a projected deficit in each of the five future years, FY 2023 through 2028. This deficit increases year over year even though existing leases for equipment will be retired during this period. However, it should be noted that this projection uses conservative revenue projections shown in the budget document rather than the actual revenue data taken from the audits. While the district will need to take measures to address this shortfall in future years, it should be noted that the fund balance entering into this period is identified to be the equivalent of one year’s total expenditures. This allows a cushion for the district to cover the annual shortfall while addressing long term financing. Therefore, it is determined that the district has the financial ability to provide its full range of services to the community. The consolidated sphere of influence proposes that the four fire protection districts join through annexation over the next five years. Economies of scale for such items as board of director expense, legal counsel, administration, and fiscal management will assist the overall financial position of the combined agencies. The plan for service will address the transfer of revenues and anticipated expenditures for such a change. MSR Determination #5: Status and Opportunities for Shared Services PNV has mutual and automatic aid agreements with the surrounding fire agencies, and it is a party to the Nevada County Fire and Emergency Joint Powers Agency which provides emergency communications, emergency dispatch, an air filing station, and MAPTool development and maintenance. It contracts for dispatch service through CAL FIRE. 303 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo The PNV is a party to the agreement to continue fire protection services to the Rough and Ready FPD following its decision to close its doors. PNV, along with Nevada County Consolidated and the County of Nevada, have ensured operation and funding to maintain this service level. PNV has been assigned an exclusive ambulance service area through the Sierra- Sacramento Valley Emergency Medical Services Agency identified as Zone 3 including Penn Valley, Lake Wildwood, and Rough and Ready. They provide an Advanced Life Support ambulance within their assigned territory. It should be noted that this assigned territory is larger than the existing sphere of influence for the district. MSR Determination #6: Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies For a number of years, a discussion has taken place regarding the potential for consolidating fire protection services in the western Nevada County areas. Beginning in July 2023, this discussion took on a renewed emphasis when the Rough and Ready Fire Protection District decided it would need to close its doors and dissolve as a fire protection entity. This prompted the Penn Valley FPD, Nevada County Consolidated FPD, and the County of Nevada to enter into a contract to continue the provision of fire protection and emergency medical service at the Rough and Ready station while other options were studied. It also began a more earnest discussion of the future of fire protection and emergency medical response for the overall southwestern Nevada County area. It is being proposed that the Penn Valley FPD, Rough and Ready FPD, Nevada County Consolidated FPD, and Ophir Hill FPD reorganize into a single fire protection district. This reorganization would include the following: • Consolidating the spheres of influence of the affected districts into a single sphere with an anticipated timeframe of one to five years for reorganization. Rough and Ready would be designated a zero sphere of influence identifying the Commission’s position that it be absorbed by another fire entity. • Identification of the Commission’s position that future annexations by either the Cities of Grass Valley or Nevada City address the loss of revenue to the fire protection district through conditions of approval allowing for a five-to-ten-year absorption of the loss. 304 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo • Identifying the Peardale Chicago Park FPD boundary and sphere of influence as a long-term sphere for the consolidated district, meaning that a future reorganization is anticipated within the next ten years. • The four districts would jointly propose a reorganization that would annex the Rough and Ready, Nevada County, and Ophir Hill FPDs areas and spheres of influence to the Penn Valley FPD, dissolve the three FPDs being annexed and rename the district to reflect its new orientation. The Plan for Service and Transition Plan for such a change would need to identify the timelines and actions necessary to effectuate this change. 305 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 218: Proposed Consolidated SOI 306 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Rough and Ready Fire Protection District RNR Overview Rough & Ready Fire Protection District (RNR) provides fire protection, emergency medical treatment, and community risk reduction to a population estimated at 1,470 in about 9 square miles. RNR operates one fire station and has no staff. The district is currently being managed by Penn Valley Fire District (PNV), and the station is being staffed through the collaborative efforts of PNV, Nevada County Consolidated Fire District (NCC), and the County. Background RNR has not developed any planning documents. The district has been unable to recruit and retain qualified staff, including station personnel and a Fire Chief. The Board of Directors had initially begun the process of dissolution in early 2023, however that effort is being held in abeyance while the feasibility of reorganization with PNV and NCC is studied. At present, RNR provides governance, budget adoption, finances, and the statutorily required operations of the district. Operations are being provided through the contract with PNV and NCC. RNR received a Class 4/4X ISO Rating in its most recent rating from the Insurance Services Office (ISO) in 2023. Over the past years, cost minimization efforts have resulted from an extremely limited revenue stream and have resulted in the following: • Resignation of the last part-time Fire Chief • Inability to recruit and retain qualified staff • Financial and operational insolvency Additional revenue measures were exercised, including a Benefit Assessment approved by voters in 2019. The assessment has a rate of $236.88 per Single Family Equivalent (SFE) and netted the district about $130,000 in FY 21/22. It includes an annual cost of living adjustment which is indexed to the Bay Area CPI and has no cap. In 2009, the district was awarded a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grant (funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) in the amount of $1,126,832 for construction of a new fire station. In 2012, the district completed construction of the new station. The district recently paid off all outstanding debt. 307 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo There is potential for reorganizing the PNV, NCC, and RNR Fire Districts into one regional entity that will continue to serve a substantial portion of western Nevada County. The district’s top three critical issues: • Financing • Station staffing • Administrative and Command staffing The district’s top three opportunities to increase value and/or efficiency for the public: • Keep the station operating • Shared Command and Administrative Staff • Reorganize with neighboring districts for a permanent, sustainable solution Boundaries and Sphere of Influence The district is surrounded by Penn Valley Fire Protection District on the north and west and Nevada County Consolidated FPD ons the south and east. The district’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) is coterminous with the district boundary. The SOI was last reviewed in 2014 and was reaffirmed unchanged at that time. 308 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 219: RNR Service Area 309 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Type & Extent of Services Services Provided RNR provides a limited range of services for its residents. The following figure represents each of the services and the level performed. Figure 220: Overview of Services Provided Service Y/N Level Fire Suppression Yes Cooperative agreement with PNV, NCC Wildland engine-based suppression (Type Wildland Fire Suppression Yes 2 and Type 3) Available for Cal OES Statewide Statewide Mobilization Yes Mobilization EMS First Response Yes Basic Life Support (BLS) Ambulance Transport Yes Penn Valley Fire Ambulance Specialized/Technical Rescue Yes Cooperative agreement with PNV, NCC HazMat Response Yes Cooperative agreement with PNV, NCC Fire Inspection/Code Enforcement Yes Cooperative agreement with PNV, NCC Plan Reviews Yes Cooperative agreement with PNV, NCC Public Education/Prevention No Fire & Arson Investigation Yes Cooperative agreement with PNV, NCC Service Area RNR was first organized in 1963. The fire district was formed in 1967 and assumed fire protection agency status. The fire district is statutorily responsible for fire and emergency services within the district boundary. The area is primarily rural residential. Since 2000, RNR has received ambulance service from the Penn Valley Fire District via a mutual-aid agreement with Sierra Nevada Ambulance Service. Collaboration • Automatic and Mutual Aid Agreement with neighboring agencies. • Available for statewide mutual aid deployment. • RNR is party to the Nevada County Fire and Emergency Joint Powers Agency (JPA) which provides for Emergency Communications, Emergency Dispatch, an air filling station, and Incident View Development and Maintenance. Contracts to Provide Services to Other Agencies • None 310 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Contracts for Services from Other Agencies RNR has a cooperative agreement with CAL FIRE for dispatch services through the JPA. Additionally, there is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with PNV, NCC, and the County for station staffing. PNV is currently managing the district; station staffing is provided using a combination of PNV and NCC staff. Governance & Administration RNR is an independent special district governed by a 5-member, locally elected Board of Directors. PNV is providing management, administrative, and command functions for the district. PNV, NCC, and the County are collaborating through an MOU to provide staff to keep the station open and operating. RNR Board of Directors remain responsible for the statutory administration of the district, such as budgeting, implementation of assessments, and approval of expenditures. As of June 2024, the membership of the Board of Directors is: Figure 221: RNR Board of Directors Committee Name Title Term End Assignment Greg Osborne Director December 2026 Craig Ashcraft Vice- Chair December 2026 Kurt Schimmel Director December 2024 Doug Wittler Chair December 2026 Ad Hoc Reorganization John Wetzel Director December 2024 In addition, the community has a highly active community and firefighters association known as “Behind the Scenes,” or BTS, which provides funding raising in support of District firefighting. These efforts include spaghetti dinners, manning the district’s booth at the County Fair, and “fill the boot” activities. 311 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 222: Rough & Ready Fire District Organizational Chart Board of Directors Fire Chief (PNV) Station Staff (PNV/NCC) 312 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Accountability for Community Services—Transparency The following figure identifies RNR’s efforts to meet State laws designed to ensure transparency and accountability, as well as efforts beyond legal requirements to make information available to the public. Figure 223: Transparency and Accountability Transparency and Accountability Available Agency website:48 Yes Adopted budget available on website: No Notice of public meetings provided: No Agendas posted on website:49 Yes Public meetings are live streamed: No Minutes and/or recordings of public meetings available on Yes website: Master Plan (fire service specific) available on website: No Strategic Plan (fire service specific) available on website: No Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover documents No available on website: SOC performance reports available on website: No Efforts to engage and educate the public on the services to the Yes community: Staff and governing board member ethics training and Yes economic interest reporting completed: Compliance with financial document compilation, adoption, Yes and reporting requirements: Adherence to open meeting requirements: Yes 48 As of January 1, 2020, independent special districts are required to maintain websites according to Government Code Sections 6270.6 and 53087.8 to provide the public easily accessible and accurate information about the district. Government Code Section 53087.8 lists what must be included on the website. 49 Government Code §54954.2. 313 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo The district holds regular meetings on the second Tuesday of each month at the fire station and members of the Board of Directors have foregone stipend payments for their service. The district Board members have completed the mandatory training required by law for ethics, sexual harassment, and the operations of the Political Reform Act. The Special Districts Transparency Act (SB 929) enacted in 2020 requires that all districts have a functional website containing information on the board, the finances of the district, and how to contact members of the district’s representatives. The district’s website is managed by one of the Board members. The district has information on its website to keep the community apprised of its ongoing efforts to maintain service to the community during its critical transition efforts. Efforts to engage and educate the public on the fire and emergency services to the community consist of participation in local events, tours of the fire station, and community meetings. There is a separate community-based website with information about the reorganization process. Land Use and Population Current Population Based on information from the 2020 Decennial Census, through Esri’s interpolation of census tracts, the population of the Rough and Ready Fire Department is estimated to be 1,421. The estimated 2023 population from American Community Survey data is 1,470. Projected Population Though historical population estimates for the specific boundaries of the RNR jurisdiction were not available through the California Department of Finance and the U.S. Census Bureau, population projections were calculated out to 2035 using historic interpolations from American Community Survey estimates. The population is projected to experience a slight 0.2% cumulative growth rate from 2023 to 2035. The projected population in 2035 is 1,472. 314 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) A Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) is an unincorporated, inhabited territory that constitutes all or a portion of a community with an annual median household income that is less than 80% of the statewide annual median household income (i.e., $73,524).50 LAFCo is required to identify the location and characteristics of any DUCs in the Service Review and SOI update process.51 The County of Nevada, through its land use element of the General Plan adopted in 2014, has identified disadvantaged “legacy” communities throughout the County. Government Code Section 56033.5 defines a disadvantaged community as: "Disadvantaged unincorporated community" means inhabited territory, as defined by Section 56046, or as determined by commission policy, that constitutes all or a portion of a "disadvantaged community" as defined by Section 79505.5 of the Water Code”. (This section of the Water Code states that the area represents less than 80% of the state median household income.) For 2022 the median household income within the State of California, as determined by the American Community Survey, is $91,905; 80 percent of that income level is $73,524. DUCs identified by LAFCo at the Census Block Group level located within or contiguous to the RNR SOI and meet the definition based on population and income, are shown in the following figure. 50 Government Code §56033.5. 51 Government Codes §56425(e)(5) and §56430(2). 315 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 224: RNR DUC Location 316 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Financial Overview Rough and Ready Fire Protection District Rough and Ready Fire Protection District operates through three funds; the General Fund, to manage the district’s operations; a Capital Reserve Fund, to account for resources set aside for capital purchases or structure improvements; and a Mitigation Fee Fund to accumulate mitigation fees under AB1600 and expend funds necessary for infrastructure for the expansion of services into newly developed areas. A significant amount of information regarding the General Fund was reviewed to develop financial trend analysis for the five-year period. This review of the historical information of General Fund (GF) revenues revealed a minimal impact on revenues received by RNR during the COVID-19 pandemic. Revenues RNR is funded by several sources of income. Property taxes are allocated under Proposition 13 limiting total property tax assessments to 1% of the property’s value. The tax revenue is then apportioned between the various taxing units. Nevada County utilizes the “Teeter Plan” under which 100% of the property tax apportionment is remitted to the taxing unit with the taxing unit foregoing penalties and interest collections on delinquently paid taxes. Property tax revenues are based on assessed property values and are the single largest source of revenue to the district.52 This revenue source accounts for over 50% of General Fund Recurring Revenues annually. Other significant sources of revenue include special assessments at 26% and Proposition 172 sales tax at 7%. RNR’s second largest revenue source (25%) is a special assessment. The assessment amounted to $137,000 being collected in FY 2022 and is expected to remain similar in future years. The following figure indicates a detail of those revenues. 52 Rough and Ready Fire Protection District budget-to-actual reports FY 2018–FY 2022. 317 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 225: Rough and Ready FPD Revenues, FY 2019–FY 202353,54 Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Revenue FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Property Taxes 229,003 235,282 233,311 270,441 291,300 Special Assessment — 138,623 136,452 137,056 134,200 Proposition 172 26,499 38,715 7,916 38,151 47,000 Interest Airport Income 1,983 1,890 786 3,632 3,740 State Homeowners Tax 1,927 1,920 1,783 1,872 1,878 Other Taxes — 376 10,186 (18) 55 Donations/Rents 45,354 2,716 775 1,507 55,075 Sale of Assets — — 95,000 17,500 — Other Revenue — 38 17,302 35,982 277,444 Mitigation/Capital Income — — 1,594 24,820 800 Total Revenues 304,766 419,560 505,105 530,943 811,492 Expenses Historically, salaries and benefits accounted for over 70% of the recurring costs of the district. Base salaries for line positions increased from $70,000 in FY 2019 to $248,000 budgeted in FY 2023 with a significant increase occurring in FY 2020. On average, benefits account for approximately 20% of total personnel costs. RNR utilized seasonal staffing and strike team personnel, whose costs fluctuate based on the wildfire season. Other recurring expenses include professional fees, personal protective equipment, facilities costs, apparatus and equipment maintenance, fuel, insurance, utilities, training costs, and other expenses. Non-recurring expenses include capital outlay, debt service, and expenditure of grant funds. 53 Rough and Ready Fire Protection District budget-to-actual reports FY 2018–FY 2022 54 Rough and Ready Fire Protection District approved budget FY 2023 318 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 226: Historical Rough and Ready FPD Expenditures55,56 Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Expenditures FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Wages/OT/Training 70,411 182,437 223,377 313,888 247,561 Seasonal Payroll 92,682 18,857 77,331 12,987 19,082 Payroll Strike Team 144,703 28,996 122,815 7,137 0 Other Wages 841 5,169 2,889 -34,609 2,000 Office Admin 15,959 20,334 18,868 31,937 31,860 Payroll Taxes 23,163 21,716 46,559 42,041 26,300 Employee Benefits 0 0 7,103 3,835 2,904 Workers Compensation 11,576 42,807 54,071 78,275 27,300 Total Salaries & Benefits 359,335 320,316 553,013 455,491 357,007 Other Recurring Expenses 110,710 78,762 80,692 137,963 95,992 Total Recurring Expenses 470,045 399,078 633,705 593,454 452,999 Non-Recurring Expenditures 14,907 8,682 89,595 125,589 345,588 Total Expenditures: 484,952 407,760 723,300 719,043 798,587 Government agencies are limited in their abilities to make rapid changes in their revenue streams to offset significant events within their jurisdiction such as loss of apparatus or significant equipment, or rapid and significant economic downturn. It is important for agencies to maintain a certain level of reserves to prepare for those unforeseen events. The following summarizes the revenues and expenditures for RNR for FY 2019 through FY 2023. Figure 227: Summarized Revenues and Expenditures for Rough and Ready FPD57,58 Revenues & Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Expenditures FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Total revenues 304,766 419,560 505,105 530,944 811,492 Total expenditures 484,953 407,759 723,300 719,043 798,587 Surplus (Deficit) (180,187) 11,801 (218,195) (188,099) 12,905 55 Rough and Ready Fire Protection District budget-to-actual reports FY 2018–FY 2022 56 Rough and Ready Fire Protection District approved budget FY 2023 57 Rough and Ready Fire Protection District approved budget FY 2023. 58 Rough and Ready Fire Protection District budget-to-actual reports FY 2018–FY 2022. 319 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo The above information, shown graphically in the next figure, illustrates the overall growth of the district’s General Fund revenues and expenditures. Figure 228: Graphical Presentation of Summarized General Fund Revenues and Expenses $900,000 $811,492 $800,000 $798,587 $700,000 $723,300 $719,043 $600,000 $530,944 $505,105 $500,000 $419,560 $400,000 $484,953 $304,766 $407,759 $300,000 $200,000 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Total revenues Total expenditures Financial Projections Revenues The district anticipates property tax revenues to continue to increase (assumption is 5% annually). While housing inventory will continue to be low, prices will continue to rise, increasing assessed valuations and property taxes. Special assessments are anticipated to remain constant. Other revenues are forecast to continue to grow at a moderate rate. Expenses Salaries and benefits are the most significant of the costs of the district, consuming on average over 70% of the recurring expenditures. These costs are forecast to increase by approximately seven percent annually. Other previously described recurring costs are forecast to escalate at eight percent annually. The following figure is a forecast of the district’s projected revenues and expenditures. Figure 229: Rough and Ready FPD General Fund Summarized Projected General Fund Revenues and Expenditures Revenue & FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Expenditures Revenue 811,492 480,539 496,355 512,934 530,314 548,536 Expenditures 798,587 580,422 623,036 668,792 717,922 770,676 Surplus (Deficit) 12,905 (99,883) (126,681) (155,858) (187,608) (222,140) 320 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Capital Planning Rough and Ready FPD anticipates vehicle, heavy apparatus, and equipment replacement on a scheduled basis. These expenditures and small station improvements are included in the financial plan of the district. Rough and Ready FPD operates a Capital Reserve Fund for capital purchases and structure improvements. Revenues include donations, interest income, and grants to fund purchases and debt service payments. Committed fund balance in the Building & Equipment fund was $44 as of June 30, 2022. Rough and Ready FPD operates a Special Revenue Fund to account for mitigation fees restricted by California Law AB1600 for the purpose of offsetting increased capital costs due to development (impact fees). Funds are required to be spent and/or designated within five years for new capital additions only. The restricted fund balance in this fund was $2,062 as of June 30, 2022. Outstanding Debt Rough and Ready FPD had no outstanding debt as of June 30, 2023. In April 2021, the district refinanced its 2017 equipment loan totaling $228,518 at 3.298% interest. Its Board authorized transferring the loan and its related collateral to Penn Valley Fire Protection District in April 2023 (Penn Valley subsequently paid off the debt in December 2023). In January 2022, the district issued a loan to fund past due payroll liabilities totaling $25,000 at 3.00% interest, which was converted to a no-pay-back relief grant. In February 2022, the district issued a second loan to fund past due payroll liabilities totaling $275,000 at 5.75% interest, maturing in March 2029. Rough and Ready’s Board authorized paying off the remaining balance of the loan in 2023. Reserves As of June 30, 2022, Rough and Ready FPD had $444,680 in total fund balance. Fund balances consisted of the following: • General Fund: $442,574 – Unassigned fund balance • Mitigation Fees Fund: $2,062 – Restricted fund balance for public protection • Capital Reserve Fund: $44 – Committed fund balance for capital improvement 321 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 230: Rough and Ready FPD Fund Balance59 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Fund Balance FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Restricted 5,182 9,361 10,806 11,728 2,062 Committed 85,676 21,044 — 9,104 44 Unassigned (General Fund) 106,145 178,773 91,354 44,769 442,574 Total Fund Balance 197,003 209,178 102,160 65,601 444,680 Total Expenditures 484,953 407,759 723,300 719,043 % of Unassigned Balance 36.9% 22.4% 6.2% 61.6% Demand for Services Rough and Ready Fire Protection District serves a relatively small area with a mix of rural and urban populations and provides aid services to other communities when requested. Data was provided by the agency and its dispatch center and included incident information from January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2022. This analysis focuses on incidents within the statutory and contractual areas where RNR responds. The following figure is the overview statistics for Rough and Ready Fire Department. Figure 231: RNR Incident Overview Avg. Annual Incidents per 90th Percentile Agency Incident Vol. 1,000 Population Total Time Rough and Ready Fire District 213 145 16:17 Incident categories in the following figure are dependent on categories provided in the CAD data, and incidents are classified broadly as Fire, Medical, and Other. Medical responses account for 66% of RNR operations; the incident demand in this category is significantly higher than all other call types. This proportion is similar to many fire departments that provide emergency medical services. The following figure shows incident volume by type between January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2022, represented by proportion of overall incidents. The category “Other” includes calls such as Law Enforcement, Standby, and Public Assistance. 59 Rough and Ready Fire Protection District audited financial statements FY 2018 – FY 2022 322 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 232: Total Incident Response by Type Other Fire 188 243 15% 19% Medical 829 66% Typically, an analysis of incidents by year can yield a trend or give an idea of what the call volume might look like in the next few years. Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, call volumes nationally were affected, and trends are not as easy to spot. This is true in RNR, with a 9% decrease in total calls in 2020. However, the following year saw a 29% increase. Calls charted in the following figure as “Service Area” include calls handled in and by RNR. Aid Given includes call service provided by RNR in areas outside by Mutual or Automatic Aid. Aid Received includes calls occurring in the RNR district but handled by other agencies. Call volume in the service area has increased by 9% from 2019 to 2022, while Aid Received volume has increased by 19%. Strikingly, Aid Given increased 120% over the same period. 323 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 233: Annual Incidents by Year 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 Aid Received Aid Given Service Area Additional temporal studies show that the monthly call volume variation is typically insignificant. Call volumes are 1.8% lower than expected in January while June is 1.5% higher than expected. The fluctuation in volume equates to ~5 calls +/- each month. Figure 234: Incidents by Month 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 324 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo RNR, like many similar agencies, does see a significant increase in incident volume during the day. In fact, RNR sees over 68% of its incidents daily between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. The following figure shows the general variation of the complete incident data set by the hour of the day. Figure 235: Incident Percentage by Hour 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour of the Day 325 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo This average daily swing is typical and likely due to the number of people awake and moving around. However, the day-to-day variation in this information does play a part. The following figure is the incident heat map by the hour of the day and day of the week. Figure 236: Day and Hour Incident Heat Map Hour Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Color Incidents 0–1 16–20 1–2 10–16 2–3 8–10 3–4 6–8 4–5 4–6 5–6 2–4 6–7 1–2 7–8 8–9 9–10 10–11 11–12 12–13 13–14 14–15 15–16 16–17 17–18 18–19 19–20 20–21 21–22 22–23 23–24 In the previous figure, it is interesting to note the weekend has negligible impact on the timing of peak volumes. Monday from midday to mid-afternoon stands out as the window of peak volumes. 326 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Emergency Response Performance The performance of the fire department response in the service area was also evaluated. Response mode was not provided, so performance times are calculated using all incidents, excluding calls coded as “Other” (OTH). Results are presented using the 90th percentile statistic. The 90th percentile is typically used in the fire service and is considered the standard for measuring incident response performance. Based on timestamps provided, two unique time segments were included when evaluating this agency's response performance. The first is the time it takes for the agency to receive the notification from Dispatch and go en route to the call (turnout time). The second is the time it takes for the unit to drive to the incident (travel time). Both segments combined make up the total response time evaluated in the following discussion. The unit type was not discriminated against, and the first arriving unit was used to determine the total response time. The timestamps in the data provided for each segment of the response time do not include seconds. This truncation of the data introduces potential for up to 2 minutes’ error in the total response time calculation. RNR did not indicate the adoption of a performance goal. Therefore, as a reference, the National Fire Protection Association’s NFPA 1710: Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments is provided. Between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2022, RNR's performance for 251 incidents within the fire response area was a total response time of 16 minutes, 17 seconds (16:17) or less, 90% of the time. The following figure shows a comparison of the NFPA 1710 standard compared to the actual total response time for calls. Figure 237: NFPA 1710 vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance NFPA 1710 1/2019–12/2022 Performance Fire/Other 6:20 or less, 90% of the time 19:05 or less, 90% of the time EMS 6:00 or less, 90% of the time 16:29 or less, 90% of the time The following figure is the performance of total response time for each of the major incident types for all incidents within the data set. The NFPA goal for medical incidents is indicated on the chart. 327 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 238: Incidents’ 90th Percentile Total Response Times, January 2019–December 2022 25:01 20:01 15:00 10:00 05:00 00:00 Fire Medical Other Goal The final analysis investigated the unit usage question for all apparatus within the system. Three dimensions are studied in this report. The first dimension is the unit hour utilization (UHU). This number represents the time a unit was committed to an incident as a percentage of the total time they were on duty. The next is the average time a unit was committed to an incident. The last number is the average number of incidents a unit was deployed per day. The data for each cross-staffed unit is combined into the primary apparatus. The following figure shows the general statistics for each frontline unit within the RNR system. Figure 239: Fire Unit Statistics Unit Hour Utilization Avg. Time per Avg. Incidents Agency (UHU) Incident Per Day RNR 2.7% 30 Minutes 0.58 The unit hour utilization (UHU) calculation evaluates how much time a crew is committed to an incident versus the total time on duty during a specific timeframe. The formula for this calculation is the total time committed to an incident divided by the sum of all time the unit is staffed. ∑𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑎 𝑆𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑒 𝑈𝐻𝑈 = ∑𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐼𝑛 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒 328 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo The desire is for the primary unit at a station to be under 10% UHU. Maintaining 10% UHU should indicate that the area has 90% availability for unscheduled events. Stations with multiple companies should aggregate to less than 10% UHU for all similar units. In addition, crews from the primary apparatus that cross-staff other units should avoid aggregated UHUs of over 10%. Staffing The following figure shows the total number of personnel for RNR organized by the various divisions. Figure 240: Staffing Assignment Staffing Uniformed Administration PNV Non-Uniformed Administration PNV Fire Prevention PVN Operations Staff PNV/NCC Emergency Communications Contract Volunteers, Reserve, On Call - Total Personnel 0 Figure 241: Daily Staffing Station Daily Staffing Unit Staffing 59 2 Engine (2) Total 2 Cooperative staffing by PNV/NCC RNR Fire Station The following figures outline the basic features of the RNR fire station. The condition of the station is rated based on the criteria identified in the introduction to this section of the report. 329 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 242: RNR Fire Station Station Name/Number: RNR Station 59 14506 Rough and Ready Highway, Rough and Ready, Address/Physical Location: CA 95975 General Description: Station 59 is newer and meets the needs of a modern fire service facility. Structure Date of Original Construction 2011 General Condition Good Seismic Protection Unknown Auxiliary Power Yes ADA Compliant Yes Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 4 Back-Ins 1 Total Bays: 5 Total Square Footage 7,609 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 2 Beds 4 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 5 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities 4 Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms Y Showers Y Bedrooms Y Exercise/Workout Facilities Yes Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned Yes Training/Meeting Rooms Yes Washer/Dryer/Extractor Yes Safety & Security Station Sprinklered Yes Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System Yes Apparatus Exhaust System Yes 330 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Minimum Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Unit Staffing* 5960 2 Type 2 Engine owned by PNV Total Daily Staffing: 2 *If an apparatus is cross staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. Fire Stations Discussion RNR’s only fire station was considered in "Good" condition, being twelve years old. The following figure summarizes the fire station and its features. Figure 243: Station Configuration and Condition Staffing General Station Apparatus Bays Station Age Capacity Condition Station 59 5 5 Good 12 years Totals/Average: 5 5 12 years Generally, the RNR station meets the requirements of modern firefighting. As the firefighting environment has changed, the technology, equipment, and safety systems have changed to meet new demands. Modern living requires much more access to electrical outlets than was expected in older buildings, including charging stations for battery operated equipment and agency and employee Electric Vehicles. Many stations do not meet today’s requirements due to the need to decontaminate personnel and equipment after many responses in the current firefighting context. Every crew member should have access to facilities to decontaminate immediately after a fire event, and showers should allow for gender separation. In addition, there needs to be enough partitioned space to allow for gear and equipment to be thoroughly washed and be designed to control contamination in the living and working space of the station. While all structures require routine maintenance, staffed fire stations require even more maintenance due to the continuous occupancy by a number of adults. Multiple departures and returns of heavy apparatus also affect these structures. 331 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Facility Replacement and Maintenance With fire stations typically having a useful life of about 50 years, every agency should have a facility replacement and maintenance plan in place. Ensuring stations are in good repair requires regular maintenance and scheduled replacement of specialized equipment. Plans for updating and repairing systems such as heating and air conditioning (HVAC), generators, roofs, driveways, parking areas, security gates, painting, carpet replacement, and small appliances can keep costs down and buildings in service longer. In addition, establishing a facility replacement and maintenance plan will enable agencies to plan for ongoing service from each station more efficiently. Status of Shared Facilities RNR Station 59 is currently being staffed under the terms of an MOU between RNR, PNV, NCC, and the County of Nevada. In addition, dispatch services are provided by CAL FIRE through the JPA. Apparatus RNR owns no apparatus or other vehicles. PNV and NCC provide all apparatus operating from the RNR fire station. 332 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Dispatch & Communications RNR is dispatched by the CAL FIRE Grass Valley Emergency Command Center (GVECC). The center provides service for all the fire agencies in Nevada County. The GVECC has the ability to dispatch via Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL), however at present, none of the local agencies are utilizing AVL for closest unit dispatch. Figure 244: PSAP and Dispatch Center Item Description CAD Application Northrop Grumman Altaris CAD Telephone System Motorola VESTA Radio System MODUCOM radio consoles Fire/EMS Notification Two-tone encoder system Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Mutual aid TAC channels, State-wide radio with other fire agencies in the county: interoperability channels Ability for fire agencies to communicate via State-wide Interoperability channels radio with police agencies in the county: Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Mutual aid TAC channels, State-wide radio with non-Fire EMS agencies in the county: interoperability channels CAD to CAD with other CAL FIRE ECCs – for Ability for PSAP to communicate CAD-to-CAD local government dispatch centers - phone (how do you transfer a call to another center): call only Priority Dispatch – Emergency Medical Criteria-based dispatch system in place: Dispatch Formal EMD quality assurance program in place: Priority Dispatch AQUA and EMD-Qs Options for non-emergent calls not requiring EMS: None AVL used on fire apparatus: Northrop Grumman AVL used on ambulances & EMS units: No RadioMobile Patriot or a tablet using MDTs/MDCs in all fire & EMS vehicles: RadioMobile IQMobile Closest unit dispatched via AVL: Yes No. of 911 calls: 2022 - 23,342 No. of 10-digit incoming emergency calls: 2022 - 31,891 333 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Infrastructure Needs The community lacks a pressurized water supply for firefighting. Governance Structure Options In July of 2023, the Rough and Ready FPD Board of Directors identified the need to dissolve the district and transfer its operations to another fire provider. This action resulted from a longstanding lack of funding necessary to provide the level of service needed by the community. In the follow-up to this action, the district contracted with the Penn Valley FPD, the Nevada Consolidated FPD, and the County of Nevada to continue to provide service while it and the other affected agencies prepare the necessary information to move forward with the reorganization of fire service application to Nevada LAFCo. This contract was entered into under the emergency provisions for a health and safety concern outlined in Government Code Section 56133. Service Review Determinations LAFCo is required to prepare a written statement of determination with respect to six areas as specified by Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. Based on the criteria described in Section 1 of this report, the following determinations are proposed for the Rough and Ready Fire Protection District. MSR Determination #1: Growth and Population Projections The California Department of Finance prepared projected population forecasts for counties within the State (report dated July 2023). This report identified that the population of the County of Nevada in 2023 was 99,796. Its projections anticipate that in 2028, the county population will decrease to 97,441 (a decrease of 2.4%). Of note, the Department of Finance has identified that the Cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City will see a population increase while the Town of Truckee will see a modest decrease. This means that the unincorporated communities of Nevada County will see a more significant decrease in population over time. Current Population Based on information from the 2020 Decennial Census, through Esri’s interpolation of census tracts, the population of the Rough and Ready Fire Department is estimated to be 1,421. The estimated 2023 population from American Community Survey data is 1,470. 334 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Projected Population Though historical population estimates for the specific boundaries of the RNR jurisdiction were not available through the California Department of Finance and the U.S. Census Bureau, population projections were calculated out to 2035 using historic interpolations from American Community Survey estimates. The population is projected to experience a slight 0.2% cumulative growth rate from 2023 to 2035. The projected population in 2035 is 1,472. MSR Determination #2: Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence The County of Nevada, through its land use element of the General Plan adopted in 2014, has identified disadvantaged unincorporated communities throughout the County. Government Code Section 56033.5 defines a disadvantaged community as: "Disadvantaged unincorporated community" means inhabited territory, as defined by Section 56046, or as determined by commission policy, that constitutes all or a portion of a "disadvantaged community" as defined by Section 79505.5 of the Water Code”. (This section of the Water Code states that the area represents less than 80% of the state median household income.) For 2022, the median household income within the State of California, as determined by the American Community Survey, is $91,905; 80 percent of that income level is $73,524. The map in the following figure identifies the disadvantaged community within Rough and Ready and a portion of Nevada Consolidated FPD. The purpose of this designation is to ensure that planning for the essential municipal service extension for these communities occurs. The Rough and Ready DUC receives fire protection and emergency response in the same manner as the remaining district community. 335 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 245: RNR DUC 336 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo MSR Determination #3: Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities, Adequacy of Public Services, and Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies, Including Those Related to Sewers, Water, and Fire in Any DUCs Within or Contiguous to the SOI The RNR has a single fire station, which is currently staffed 24/7 through the contract with Penn Valley/NCC/County of Nevada as an interim step to transfer of the district’s fire authorities to another agency. One additional element contributing to capacity issues for fire protection services is the lack of an organized water system within the community. MSR Determination #4: Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services RNR has sustained deficits in three of the last five years, with Fiscal Year 2022-23 not sustaining a deficit due to the inflow of revenue from the County of Nevada to continue to provide services to the community. The five-year financial projections for this agency show an ongoing and ever-increasing deficit, should the district remain in existence. This financial projection is the primary impetus for the reorganization to transfer the RNR service obligations to a new district. MSR Determination #5: Status and Opportunities for Shared Services RNR has a functional consolidation of service agreement with Penn Valley/NCC/County for the provision of service within the district’s boundaries. Dispatch service, and automatic and mutual aid continue unaffected by the transfer of service by contract. MSR Determination #6: Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies The Board of Directors for RNR continues to be responsible for the conduct of the administrative business of the district. The five-member Board of Directors is responsible for finance monitoring, budgeting, and the conduct of routine meetings. The Board of Directors has taken the action to promote dissolution of the agency in an effort to secure adequate service delivery for the community. MSR Determination #7:” Other Issues Based upon these determinations, it is recommended that a zero sphere of influence be assigned to RNR indicating the Nevada LAFCo position is that its responsibilities should be transferred to another fire entity. 337 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Sphere of Influence Update The RNR sphere of influence was confirmed through the Municipal Service Review for fire protection and emergency services presented in January 2005 and adopted by the Commission. The sphere of influence was updated in January 2014 through adoption of the report entitled “SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATES 2014 Nevada County Fire Service Providers.” Existing SOI The sphere of influence for RNR is coterminous with existing boundaries and remained unchanged through the original MSR in 2005 and the Sphere of Influence updated in 2014. SOI Options The options for the sphere of influence are: 1. Be assigned a zero sphere of influence to reflect the need to annex to another fire entity to continue the provision of service; or, 2. That the Penn Valley FPD, Rough and Ready FPD, Nevada County Consolidated FPD, and Ophir Hill FPD reorganize into a single fire protection district. This would be anticipated to include: ▪ The sphere of influence determination would be to consolidate the spheres of influence of the affected districts into a single sphere with an anticipated timeframe of one to five years for reorganization. Rough and Ready would be designated a zero sphere of influence identifying the Commission’s position that it be absorbed by another fire entity. ▪ The four districts would jointly propose a reorganization that would annex the Rough and Ready, Nevada County, and Ophir Hill FPDs areas and spheres of influence into the Penn Valley FPD, dissolve the three FPDs being annexed and rename the district to reflect its new orientation. The Plan for Service and Transition Plan for such a change would need to identify the timelines and actions necessary to effectuate this change. Recommended SOI The recommended sphere of influence determination would be to consolidate the spheres of influence of the four districts and make the determinations as outlined in the section on governance specifically addressing this regional change that follows. 338 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Proposed SOI Determinations If the recommended sphere of influence is not adopted, it is recommended that the sphere of influence be assigned a zero designation without reference to a preferred new service provider and the matter be continued to allow for preparation of those determinations. 339 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Truckee Fire Protection District TRK Overview Truckee Fire District (TRK) provides fire protection, advanced life support (ALS) emergency medical treatment, and medical transportation to an estimated population of 19,752 in 128 square miles, with an ambulance transport area of 400 square miles. The total TRK service area population includes 17,168 residents in the Town of Truckee and an additional number of people in unincorporated areas of Placer and Nevada Counties. TRK has a total of 50 personnel and operates eight fire stations: four staffed full-time, three staffed part-time by resident firefighters, and one administrative station. Background TRK developed a Strategic Plan in 2017 that communicates the Mission, Vision, Values, and Goals and Objectives of the district. The district does not have a Standards of Cover nor a Master Plan. TRK received a Class 4/4X ISO rating in its most recent evaluation from the Insurance Services Office (ISO) in July 2024. Over the past ten years, most cost-minimization efforts have resulted from assigning collateral duties to station personnel and refurbishing rather than replacing apparatus. The strategies include: • In-house facility remodels. • Information technology, construction, metal fabrication, mechanical, and contract administration work all performed by District personnel. • One-person minimum engine staffing, cross-staffed apparatus and medic units, and very limited overhead staff. Additional revenue measures have been exercised, including four Benefit Assessment Zones (within the former Donner Summit Public Utility District, which was annexed in 2006), a district-wide fire suppression Benefit Assessment (2008), and a Community Facilities District in 2017. A District-wide Benefit Assessment (Measure T, September 2021) for wildfire preparedness and mitigation created the Community Wildfire Prevention Fund. Measure T sunsets after eight years. Reimbursements, including mutual aid participation, also add to the TRK revenue stream. 340 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo According to the TRK Fire Chief, there is potential for facility, personnel, and equipment sharing. The Chief also would like to develop a regional training center. The Fire Chief's top three critical issues are: • There are values at risk and local hazards outpacing the district’s ability to manage. • TRK facilities need significant upgrades. • The district is understaffed. The Fire Chief's top three opportunities to increase value and/or efficiency for the public are: • Increasing station staffing levels. • Investing in risk and hazard mitigation strategies. • Adding a needed new station in the commercial core of the district. Boundaries and Sphere of Influence TRK provides service to an extended area in eastern Nevada and Placer Counties, including the Town of Truckee, the unincorporated communities of Soda Springs, Kingvale, and Serene Lakes, and a large portion of the Martis Valley. The district covers approximately 82 square miles in Nevada County, and 45.5 in Placer County. Since 1966, there were seven annexations of lands within Nevada and Placer counties. Since 2000, there were four more annexations, bringing the Floriston (2001, 17.68 ac), Hobart Mills (2002, 133 ac), and Eastern Parcels (2008, 5,265 ac) areas into the district. In 2006, LAFCo approved a reorganization of fire services that transferred the fire operations of the Donner Summit Public Utility District—which includes the areas of Soda Springs, Kingvale, Serene Lakes, and adjacent lands in Placer County—to the Truckee Fire Protection District. The district’s sphere of influence (SOI) was last reviewed in 2014, and several areas to the north and east of the district’s boundaries remain in its SOI. 341 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 246: TRK Service Area 342 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Types & Extent of Services Services Provided TRK delivers a full range of services for its residents, including serving as the only ambulance provider in the district. The following figure represents each of the services and the level performed. Figure 247: Overview of Services Provided Service Y/N Level Fire Suppression Yes Type 1 engines and ladder truck Wildland engine-based suppression (Type Wildland Fire Suppression Yes 3) Available for Cal OES Statewide Statewide Mobilization Yes Mobilization EMS First Response Yes Paramedic Level Ambulance Transport Yes Paramedic Level (primary provider) Swift water, still water, ice, high angle, low Specialized/Technical Rescue Yes angle, helicopter rescue, avalanche, US&R Type II, ARFF HazMat Response Yes FRO Decon Fire Inspection/Code Enforcement Yes Plan Reviews Yes Public Education/Prevention Yes Wildfire Prevention Division—new in 2022 Fire & Arson Investigation Yes Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Yes From Station 96 at Truckee Tahoe Airport Service Area The Truckee Fire District was formed in 1894 and assumed fire protection agency status. The district is statutorily responsible for fire and emergency services within the district’s boundaries. The district includes the Town of Truckee and unincorporated areas in both Nevada and Placer Counties. The area is classified as 25% urban, 25% suburban, 25% rural, and 25% remote. The TRK ambulance service area extends beyond the district boundaries, as defined by the Sierra-Sacramento Valley Emergency Medical Services Agency. 343 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Collaboration • TRK provides automatic and mutual aid to neighboring agencies. • TRK is available for statewide mutual aid deployment. • TRK is a member of the Lake Tahoe Regional Fire Chiefs Association (LTRFCA) and participates in the LTRFCA mutual aid agreement. • TRK shares Station 96 at the Truckee Tahoe Airport with CAL FIRE Station 50. • TRK is a member agency of the Truckee Tahoe Regional Rescue Team (TTRRT), along with North Tahoe Fire, Northstar Fire, and Olympic Valley Fire from Placer County. • TRK participates with four other fire agencies in the Tahoe Basin in an informal agreement that facilitates the response of the closest available resource. Contracts to Provide Services to Other Agencies • TRK provides ambulance service to areas outside the district boundaries, as defined by the Sierra-Sacramento Valley Emergency Medical Services Agency (SSVEMS). This service area includes territory in Placer and Nevada Counties. TRK ambulance service was the subject of a 2022 special study entitled “Eastern Placer County JPA Chiefs Regional Ambulance Study.” Contracts for Services From Other Agencies • TRK receives dispatch services from CAL FIRE GVECC. • The Town of Truckee has a Wildland Fire Agreement with CAL FIRE. See the discussion on Page 9 of the Executive Summary. Unique Challenges TRK faces some unique challenges related to growth and its impact on funding and service levels. Due to the nature of the property tax sharing formula, TRK receives a relatively small amount of revenue from new development in those areas of the district within Placer County. The increased risk within the built environment that is not mitigated by increased capacity of the fire protection system is known as divergence. Divergence is one factor evaluated within the ISO rating system. The divergence factor has become significant enough to negatively impact the ISO rating for the entire TRK service area. Placer County, as the land use manager, should work with TRK to ensure that the impact of new development is mitigated by sustainable funding. 344 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Another challenge unique to TRK is that Nevada County is approving development within the TRK Sphere of Influence (SOI) without addressing fire protection needs. As the land use manager, the Nevada County should ensure that permitted improvements have appropriate fire protection services. Governance & Administration TRK is a multi-county (Placer and Nevada Counties) independent special district that is governed by a five-member elected Board of Directors. The Fire Chief reports to the Board of Directors. Figure 248: TRK Board of Directors Name Title Term End Committee Assignment Gary Botto Chairperson 12/2026 Placer fire funding ad hoc Erin Prado Vice-Chair 12/2024 Victor Hernandez Director 12/2026 Placer fire funding ad hoc Gerald Herrick Director 12/2024 Paul Wilford Director 12/2026 345 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 249: Truckee Fire Protection District Organizational Chart Board of Directors Fire Chief Wildfire Division Chief Finance EMS Battalion Fire Marshal Prevention Operations Director Chief Manager Shift Battalion Chiefs (3) Fleet and Facilities Manager 346 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Accountability for Community Services—Transparency The following figure identifies TRK’s efforts to meet State laws designed to ensure transparency and accountability, as well as efforts beyond legal requirements to make information available to the public. Figure 250: Transparency and Accountability Transparency and Accountability Available Agency website:60 Yes Adopted budget available on website: Yes Notice of public meetings provided: Yes Agendas posted on website:61 Yes Public meetings are live streamed: No Minutes and/or recordings of public meetings available on Yes website: Master Plan (fire-service-specific) available on website: No Strategic Plan (fire-service-specific) available on website: Yes Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover documents No available on website: SOC performance reports available on website: No Efforts to engage and educate the public on the services to the Yes community: Staff and governing board member ethics training and Yes economic interest reporting completed: Compliance with financial document compilation, adoption, Yes and reporting requirements: Adherence to open-meeting requirements: Yes Efforts to engage and educate the public on the TRK fire and emergency services provided to the community consist of participation in local events, tours of the fire stations, access to Fire Department planning documents on the district’s website, and educational programs focused on fire prevention and preparedness. The district utilizes social media to keep its constituents apprised of activities, primarily providing a Facebook presence to provide information to the community. 60 As of January 1, 2020, independent special districts are required to maintain websites according to Government Code Sections 6270.6 and 53087.8 to provide the public easily accessible and accurate information about the district. Government Code Section 53087.8 lists what must be included on the website. 61 Government Code §54954.2. 347 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo In 2021 the district’s voters passed Measure T, providing funding for the purpose of reducing the risk of wildfires and improving local wildfire prevention efforts within the community. As a part of this ballot measure implementation, a Citizen Oversight Committee was formed that meets regularly, with its agenda posted on the district’s website. The Special Districts Transparency Act (SB 929) enacted in 2020 requires that all districts have a functional website containing information on the board, the finances of the district, and methods to contact members of the district’s representatives. The TRK’s website meets all criteria identified in the Act. In addition, TRK has earned the district a Transparency Certificate of Excellence from the Special District Leadership Foundation. Land Use and Population Land Use Land-use authority within TRK lies with Nevada and Placer counties for the unincorporated areas and with the Town of Truckee for incorporated territory. The land-use element of the Nevada County General Plan was updated in 2014 and the land-use element of the Placer County General Plan was updated in 2013. The existing plans provide for a mix of land uses, including rural residential, commercial, planned development, and forest for Nevada County, and urban/suburban residential and open space/timberland for Placer County. Both plans are in the process of being updated to forecast out to 2050. The Town of Truckee has adopted a system of land-use designation and zoning of property to guide future development. These documents identify the full range of urban/suburban/ commercial/industrial uses. The Town has special regulations throughout the area and in specific areas of planned development to ensure new or redevelopment transitions from residential to commercial without impacting property values or the surrounding community. The Town’s sphere of influence includes planned development, rural residential, recreation, and forest lands. As each of the planning authorities move forward with their statutorily required updates, it is hoped that TRK is included in these discussions. TRK serves several elements of critical infrastructure within the region that expose the fire district to hazards that must be mitigated. These elements include: I-80, UPRR, Kinder Morgan Pipeline, Truckee Tahoe Airport, Tahoe Forest Hospital, and the Tahoe Truckee Sanitation Agency facilities. Additionally, the land use includes undeveloped lands, lakes, streams and reservoirs which provide recreational opportunities and attract populations that require services from the Truckee Fire Protection District. 348 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Current Population Based on information from the 2020 Decennial Census, the population of the Truckee Fire Protection District was estimated to be 19,333 and rose to 19,752 in 2023. TRK’s boundaries include a much larger unincorporated area than the Town of Truckee, which is within Nevada and Placer Counties. Therefore, the population estimate for the Town of Truckee from the California Department of Finance (CDOF) is not representative of the TRK jurisdiction. Seasonal fluctuations have the transient population swelling to as much as 50,000–60,000, peaking in both July and December. Projected Population Although historic population estimates for the specific boundaries of the TRK jurisdiction were not available through the California Department of Finance or the U.S. Census Bureau, population projections were calculated out to 2035 using historical interpolations from American Community Survey estimates. The population is projected to experience a 6.4% cumulative growth rate from 2023 to 2035. The projected 2035 population is 21,006. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) A DUC is an unincorporated, inhabited territory that constitutes all or a portion of a community with an annual median household income that is less than 80% of the statewide annual median household income (i.e., $67,926 in 2023).62 LAFCo is required to identify the location and characteristics of any DUCs in the Service Review and SOI update process.63 Nevada County, through its land-use element of the General Plan adopted in 2014, has identified disadvantaged “legacy” communities, or “DUCs,” throughout the County. One DUC identified by the County was within the boundaries of TRK in the area known as “Soda Springs.” Placer County has identified one DUC within and contiguous to the TRK SOI that meets the definition based on population and income. The areas of the DUCs are shown in the following figure. The areas of the DUCs within the boundaries of TRK receive the same level of service as the areas surrounding it. A portion of on DUC is outside the boundary and/or sphere of influence of TRK; part of it is within the Placer County Fire service area (CSA 28 Zone 137) and the balance is within the USFS/State Responsibility Area. These areas receive service based upon the statewide automatic/mutual aid agreements. 62 Government Code §56033.5. 63 Government Codes §56425(e)(5) and §56430(2). 349 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 251: TRK DUCS Locations 350 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Financial Overview The Truckee Fire Protection District operates through three funds: the General Fund to manage its operations; a Mitigation Special Revenue Fund to accumulate certain fees and expend funds for capital purchases; and the Measure T General Fund. A significant amount of information regarding the General Fund was reviewed to develop financial trend analysis for the five-year period. This review of the historical information of General Fund (GF) revenues revealed a minimal impact on revenues received by TRK during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, audit information was only available through FY 2022; therefore, budget information was used for any reference to FY 2023 or FY 2024. Revenues TRK is funded by several sources of income. Property taxes are allocated under Proposition 13, which limits total property tax assessments to 1% of a property’s value. The tax revenue is then apportioned between the various taxing units. Nevada County utilizes the “Teeter Plan,” under which 100% of the property tax apportionment is remitted to the taxing unit, with the taxing unit foregoing penalties and interest collections on delinquently paid taxes. As a multi-county special district, TRK is exempt from the ERAF shift in property tax revenues and receives its full share of property tax. Consequently, TRK does not receive Prop 172 funds which were intended to offset the loss to ERAF. Property tax revenues are based on assessed property tax values and are the single-largest source of TRK revenue.64 This revenue source accounts for approximately 68% of General Fund recurring revenues annually. TRK’s other major revenue sources are ambulance service fees and fire suppression assessments (17% and 10% of recurring General Fund revenues, respectively). TRK provides ambulance service in its area and reports fee revenue net of contractual discounts and bad debt. Net ambulance revenue has ranged from a five-year low of $1,167,285 in FY 2022 to a high of $2,188,251 in FY 2019. The assessments are, in general, related to the annexation of the Donner Summit Fire Department by TRK in 2006. The total assessments collected in FY 2023 amounted to $1.4 million and include the following Assessment Districts: • Former Nevada County CSA 31—$121.08 per parcel 64 Truckee Fire Protection District Adopted Budgets, FY 2018–FY 2023 351 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo • Former Placer County CSA 28 Zone 143—$163.82 per improved residential parcel and $392.91 per improved commercial parcel • Former Placer County CSA 28 Zone 16—$100 per improved residential parcel and $250 per improved commercial parcel • Former Donner Summit PUD fire assessment—$100 per Residential parcel and $250 per improved commercial parcel—Nevada and Placer County areas • Fire Suppression Benefit Assessment—varying amounts which are the same for both Nevada and Placer Counties. Rates can be found in Engineer’s Report, available from the district. • Community Facilities District No. 2017-01 for new development in the Placer County portion of the district rates—$426.15 for single-family residential, $353.54 for multi- family residential per unit, and $0.342 per square foot for non-residential (FY 2022– 2023 assessment) Other General Fund sources of revenue include inspection fees, reimbursements, rent, interest income, grants, and miscellaneous revenues. Another source of special revenue for TRK is mitigation fees, which are accounted for in a separate fund ($1.2 million in FY 2022). Additionally, voters passed Measure T in September 2021, which levies a special annual tax of $179 per parcel beginning in 2022 to fund wildfire prevention locally with no annual inflationary clause. The first-year budget for Measure T was $3,712,000 and implementation generated $3,428,172 in revenue, and in 2024 is projected to generate $3.6 million. These revenues are approved through 2030, after which voters will need to approve again to continue funding. The following figure indicates a detail of those revenues. 352 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 252: TRK Revenues, FY 2019–FY 202365 Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Revenue FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Property Taxes 8,251,328 8,665,731 9,373,538 10,339,268 10,552,773 Fire Suppression Assessment 1,211,073 1,302,226 1,325,933 1,434,206 1,404,391 Ambulance Service Fees 2,188,251 1,194,921 2,118,644 1,167,285 2,165,500 Inspection Fees 64,466 93,409 167,024 296,945 285,000 Reimbursements 528,850 170,690 475,953 443,009 40,000 Interest 126,464 81,980 47,124 7,157 25,000 Grants — 260,995 91,143 45,505 — Other Revenues 73,562 31,227 57,549 62,574 44,976 Total General Fund 12,443,994 11,801,179 13,656,908 13,795,949 14,517,640 Mitigation/Capital Income 833,985 754,730 939,490 1,197,089 915,000 Measure T Revenue — — — — 3,712,000 Total Revenues 13,277,979 12,555,909 14,596,398 14,993,038 19,144,640 Expenses Salaries and benefits account for more than 75% of the recurring costs of the district. Base salaries for full-time staff increased 8% from $5 million in FY 2019 to $6.2 million in FY 2022, with a notable increase occurring in FY 2022. A significant portion of the benefits program is retirement benefits, primarily the CalPERS pension, which accounts for approximately 17% of total personnel costs. Retirement costs increased from nearly $1.5 million in FY 2019 to over $1.9 million in FY 2022. Employee insurance and other post-employment health benefits (OPEB) account for another 16% of annual personnel costs. Other recurring expenses include professional fees, personal protective equipment, facilities costs, apparatus and equipment maintenance, fuel, insurance, utilities, communications and technology, training costs, prevention programs, medical supplies, bad debt for uncollectible accounts, and other expenses. Non-recurring expenses include capital outlay and expenditure of grant funds. Expenses related to mitigation fees consist of capital outlay and non-capital equipment purchases, CERT team expenses, and other costs. 65 Truckee Fire Protection District Adopted Budgets, FY 2021/FY 2022; FY 2022–FY 2023. 353 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Beginning in FY 2023, TRK budgeted for additional expenses equal to its Measure T revenues assessed to locally fund wildfire prevention (including a transfer to reserves of $737,354). Figure 253: Historical TRK Expenditures Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Expenditures FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Salaries & Overtime 5,973,751 6,040,959 6,500,255 7,343,047 7,295,734 Retirement & 457 Match 1,470,544 1,598,466 1,887,552 1,943,181 2,301,159 Insurance & Post- 1,703,782 1,527,760 1,736,929 1,740,198 2,002,926 Employment Health Benefits Workers Compensation & 370,590 376,712 412,341 363,186 455,754 Payroll Tax Total Salaries & Benefits 9,518,667 9,543,897 10,537,077 11,389,612 12,055,573 Other Recurring Expenses 1,808,959 1,725,838 1,886,502 2,230,404 2,166,976 Total Recurring Expenses 11,327,626 11,269,735 12,423,579 13,620,016 14,222,549 Non-Recurring Expenses 466,140 631,113 498,098 355,964 295,090 Total General Fund 11,793,766 11,900,848 12,921,677 13,975,980 14,517,639 Expenses Capital/Mitigation Expenses 444,505 226,851 505,491 468,258 1,132,468 Measure T Expenses — — — — 2,974,646 Total Expenses: 12,238,271 12,127,699 13,427,168 14,444,238 18,624,753 Government agencies are limited in their ability to make rapid changes in their revenue streams to offset significant events within their jurisdictions, such as loss of apparatus or significant equipment or rapid and significant economic downturn. It is important for agencies to maintain a certain level of reserves to prepare for those unforeseen events. The following summarizes the revenues and expenditures for TRK for FY 2019 through FY 2023. Figure 254: Summarized Revenues and Expenditures for TRK Revenues & Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Expenditures FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Total Revenues 13,277,979 12,555,909 14,596,398 14,993,038 19,144,640 Total Expenditures 12,238,271 12,127,699 13,427,168 14,444,238 18,624,753 Surplus (Deficit) 1,039,708 428,210 1,169,230 548,800 519,887 Shown graphically in the following figure, the information indicates the overall growth of the Truckee Fire Protection District General Fund revenues and expenditures. 354 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 255: Revenues and Expenditures for TRK $25,000,000 $19,144,640 $20,000,000 $14,993,038 $18,624,753 $14,596,398 $15,000,000 $13,277,979 $12,555,909 $14,444,238 $13,427,168 $10,000,000 $12,238,271 $12,127,699 $5,000,000 $0 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Total revenues Total expenditures Financial Projections Revenues TRK anticipates property tax revenues will continue to increase at an estimated 3.5% annually. While housing inventory will continue to be low, prices will continue to rise, increasing assessed valuations and property taxes. Net ambulance collections are anticipated to remain consistent in the future. Although the actual growth of the fire protection special assessment has been closer to 5%, there is a cost-of-living cap of 3%, which is used in these projections. Other revenues are forecast to continue to grow at a moderate rate. Note: Measure T revenues are not included in projections due to a lack of historical information. Measure T revenues are expected to change very little year to year, as there is no provision in the measure for a cost-of-living allowance. Expenses Salaries and benefits are the most significant costs for TRK, consuming over 80% of recurring expenditures. These costs are forecast to increase by approximately 6% annually. Other previously described recurring costs are forecast to escalate 5% annually. Note: Measure T expenses are not included in projections due to a lack of historical information. The following figure is a forecast of TRK projected revenues and expenditures. 355 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 256: TRK General Fund Summarized Projected Revenues and Expenditures Revenue & FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Expenditures Revenue 15,290,086 15,715,756 16,156,108 16,611,648 17,082,902 Expenditures 14,755,208 15,638,493 16,586,137 17,599,903 18,684,502 Surplus (Deficit) 534,878 77,263 (430,029) (988,255) (1,601,600) TRK routinely transfers annual surplus to the capital improvement fund. Capital Planning The Truckee Fire Protection District anticipates vehicle, heavy apparatus, and equipment replacements on a scheduled basis. These expenditures, as well as station improvements and construction, are included in the capital improvement plan of the district. TRK staff describes the capital improvement plan as “severely underfunded.” TRK operates a Mitigation Fund for capital purchases and/or structure improvements. The main revenues in this fund are mitigation fees restricted by California Law AB1600 for the purpose of offsetting increased capital costs due to development (fire impact fees). Mitigation fees collected ranged from a five-year low of $690,904 in FY 2020 to a high of $1.2 million in FY 2022. Funds are required to be spent and/or designated within five years, for new capital additions only. Other revenues include interest income, and grants to fund purchases and debt service payments. Expenses range annually depending on the plan set and the facilities, apparatus, and equipment needed. TRK publishes a three-year plan with two years of projected purchases. Projected expenditures for FY 2023 and FY 2024 from the FY 2023 plan total $1,132,468 and $595,000, respectively. The restricted fund balance in the Capital Improvement Fund was $3,412,238 on June 30, 2022. Outstanding Debt As of June 30, 2022, the Truckee Fire Protection District did not have outstanding debt obligations aside from compensated absences, OPEB, and pension liabilities. Reserves As of June 30, 2022, the Truckee Fire Protection District had $12,871,714 in total fund balance. The fund balances are shown in the following figure: 356 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 257: TRK Fund Balance66 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Fund Balance FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Non-spendable (Pre-paid 199,440 512,822 540,749 38,900 1,265,786 Expenditures) Restricted for Mitigation 2,467,557 2,957,037 3,484,916 3,918,915 3,412,238 Projects Assigned Building & 1,004,940 1,004,940 769,174 543,540 622,219 Equipment Unassigned 6,721,104 6,614,448 6,718,952 7,952,802 7,571,471 Total Fund Balance 10,393,041 11,089,247 11,513,791 12,454,157 12,871,714 Demand for Services The TRK service area is geographically large, with a mix of urban and rural populations. The Department provides aid services to other communities when requested. Data regarding service demand was provided by the agency and its dispatch center, and included incident information from January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2022. This analysis focuses on incidents within the statutory and contractual areas where TRK responds. The following figure is an overview of statistics for the Truckee Fire Protection District. Figure 258: TRK Overview Avg. Annual Incidents per 90th Percentile Agency Incident Vol. 1,000 Population Total Time Truckee Fire Protection District 2,504 127 15:00 The incident categories shown in the next figure follow the National Fire Incident Reporting System's code grouping. Medical responses account for over 63% of TRK's operations. This proportion is similar to that of many fire departments that provide emergency medical services. The following figure shows incident volume by type between January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2022, visually demonstrating the proportion of incident types. The category “Good Intent” includes calls where the reporting party may have believed help was needed, but upon investigation, it was determined that no action on the part of TRK was necessary. Examples include smoke from a properly operating chimney, a vehicle accident that could not be located, or an incident where the fire unit was cancelled by another agency prior to arrival. 66 The District expects to begin to build a fund balance from Measure T revenue beginning in 2023. Audited statements were not available for Measure T at the time these figures were compiled. 357 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 259: Total Incident Response by Type Disaster, 8 Special, 36 False Alarm, 506 Service, 986 Fire, 287 Good Intent, 667 Hazardous Condition, 557 Overpressure, 4 Rescue-Medical, 5,299 Typically, an analysis of incidents by year can yield a trend or give an idea of what the call volume might look like in the next few years. Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, call volumes nationally were affected, and trends are not as easy to spot. TRK’s total call volumes dropped 1% from 2019 to 2020 but rebounded by 11% in 2021. Calls charted below as “Service Area” include calls handled in and by TRK. “Aid Given” includes call service provided by TRK in areas outside via mutual or automatic aid. “Aid Received” includes calls occurring in the TRK District but handled by other agencies. Call volume in the service area increased by 6% from 2019 to 2022, while “Aid Given” volumes did not show a cumulative change in that period. “Aid Received” calls, while never a high volume, decreased by 25%. 358 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 260: Annual Incidents by Aid Type 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 Aid Received Aid Given Service Area Additional temporal studies show that the monthly call volume variation is typically insignificant. However, the shoulder seasons of the tourism industry stand out with lower- than-expected numbers, offset by peaks in July and December. The variation works out to ~70-85 calls +/- at each extreme. Figure 261: Incidents by Month 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 359 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo TRK, like many similar agencies, does see a significant increase in incident volume primarily during the daytime hours. In fact, TRK sees over 73% of its incidents daily between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. The following figure shows the general variation of the complete incident dataset by the hour of the day. Figure 262: Incident Percentage by Hour 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Hour of the Day 360 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo This average daily swing is typical and likely due to the number of people awake and moving around during these hours of the day. However, the day-to-day variation in this information does play a part. The following figure is the incident heat map by the hour of the day and day of the week. It is interesting to note the strong impact of weekend activity on call volumes. Figure 263: Day and Hour Incident Heat Map Hour Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Color Incidents 0–1 141–172 1–2 102–141 2–3 83–102 3–4 59–83 4–5 36–59 5–6 19–36 6–7 11–19 7–8 8–9 9–10 10–11 11–12 12–13 13–14 14–15 15–16 16–17 17–18 18–19 19–20 20–21 21–22 22–23 23–24 361 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Emergency Response Performance The performance of the fire department response in the service area was also evaluated using the CAD data provided. Only Code 3 response incidents were included in the analysis. In this analysis, total response time is calculated from the time the call was answered by a dispatcher to the time the first unit arrived on scene. This measure is different from agency response time, which begins with the unit’s notification from dispatch and ends at the first arriving unit. It was not possible to derive agency response time due to limitations in the CAD data. TRK has not adopted a response goal beyond the standards set in the Sierra – Sacramento Valley EMS Agency Program Policy for ambulance response. Fire units respond as soon as possible, and results are impacted by the wide range of population densities and land use in the jurisdiction. It is beyond the scope of this study to separate response times by population characteristics, such as urban versus rural. The National Fire Protection Association’s NFPA 1710: Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments could be adopted in TRK, but the rural or remote nature of much of the jurisdiction may preclude achieving this standard. NFPA 1720 Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Volunteer Fire Departments accommodates the challenges of a larger jurisdiction and more dispersed population. The benchmarks presented below are based on response times from completion of dispatch notification to first unit arrival. Figure 264: NFPA 1710 vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance NFPA Standard Agency Response Benchmark 1710 05:20 1720 Urban 09:00 Suburban 10:00 Rural 14:00 Remote Dependent on travel distance 362 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Performance results are presented for information purposes only, using the 90th percentile statistic. The 90th percentile is typically used in the fire service and is considered the standard for measuring incident response performance. Between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2022, TRK's performance for 4,347 incidents within the fire response area was a total response time of 19:35 or faster, 90% of the time. The following figure is the 90th percentile performance of total response time for each of the major incident types within the dataset. Figure 265: Actual 90th Percentile Response Time 1/2019–12/2022 Incident Type Performance Fire/Other 20:21 Medical 19:18 Overall 19:35 The following figure shows the actual total response time with both the average and the 90th percentile benchmarks. Figure 266: Actual Total Response Time Performance with Average and 90th Percentile 250 200 t n u o 150 C t n e d 100 ic n I 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 :0 :2 :4 :6 :8 :0 :2 :3 :5 :7 :9 :1 :3 :5 :7 :9 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 Total Response Time (mm:ss) 90th Percentile Average The following figure shows 90th percentile performance for all incident types. 363 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 267: Incidents’ 90th Percentile Total Response Times, January 2019–December 2022 28:00 21:00 14:00 07:00 00:00 The final analysis investigated the unit usage question for all apparatus within the system. Three dimensions are studied in this report. The first dimension is the unit hour utilization (UHU). This number represents the time a unit was committed to an incident as a percentage of the total time it was on duty. The second dimension is the average time a unit was committed to an incident. The third dimension is the average number of incidents to which a unit was deployed per day. The data for each cross-staffed apparatus is combined into the assigned station. The following figure shows the general statistics for the frontline units at stations within the TRK system. Stations 93 and 94 are not staffed. Figure 268: Fire Station Utilization Statistics Unit Hour Utilization Avg. Time per Avg. Incidents Station (UHU) Incident per Day 92 15.9% 44 Minutes 5.2 93 0.02% 25 Minutes 0.01 94 0.01% 29 Minutes 0.00 95 3.5% 46 Minutes 1.1 96 12.4% 53 Minutes 3.4 97 6.6% 60 Minutes 1.6 364 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 269: Utilization Statistics by Unit Type Unit Avg. Time per Avg. Incidents Utilization Type Incident per Day E92 5.4% 33 Minutes 2.3 M92 10.2% 52 Minutes 2.8 E95 1.5% 39 Minutes 0.6 M95 2.0% 55 Minutes 0.5 E96 2.5% 33 Minutes 1.1 M96 9.8% 63 Minutes 2.2 E97 2.0% 45 Minutes 0.7 M97 4.6% 70 Minutes 0.9 The unit hour utilization (UHU) calculation evaluates how much time a crew is committed to an incident versus the total time on duty during a specific time frame. The formula for this calculation is the total time committed to an incident divided by the sum of all time the unit is staffed. ∑𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑎 𝑆𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑒 𝑈𝐻𝑈 = ∑𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐼𝑛 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒 The desire is for the primary unit at a station to be under 10% UHU. Maintaining 10% UHU should indicate that the area has 90% availability from unscheduled events. Stations with multiple companies should aggregate to less than 10% UHU for all similar units. In addition, crews from the primary apparatus that cross-staff other units should avoid aggregated UHUs of over 10%. Staffing The following figure shows the total number of TRK personnel, organized by the various divisions. 365 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 270: Staffing Assignment Staffing Uniformed Administration 4 Non-Uniformed Administration 5 Fire Prevention 3 Operations Staff 39 Emergency Communications CAL FIRE GVECC Volunteers, Reserve, On Call — Total Personnel 51 The following figure shows the daily operational staffing at each station and on each unit in the station. Operations staff have three shifts each working a 48/96 (48 hours on and 96 hours off) schedule. Figure 271: Daily Staffing Station Daily Staffing Unit Staffing 91 0 Administrative staff only 92 Min. 3/Max. 6 BC (1), Medic (2); Many apparatus cross-staffed 93 0 Unstaffed 94 0 Unstaffed 95 2 Medic (2), Engine (CS), Brush (CS) Medic (2), Engine (CS); Station shared with CAL 96 Min. 2/Max. 4 FIRE* 97 2 Medic (2), Engine (CS), Brush (CS), Rescue (CS) 98 0 Unstaffed Total Min. 9/Max. 14 *CAL FIRE terms this “Station 50” TRK Fire Stations The following figures outline the basic features of each of the TRK fire stations. The conditions of the stations are rated based on the criteria identified in the introduction to this section of the report. 366 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 272: TRK Fire Stations Station Name/Number: TRK Station 91 (Administration) Address/Physical Location: 10049 Donner Pass Road, Truckee, CA 96161 General Description: Administrative offices. No response units are housed at this location. No 24/7 accommodations. Structure Date of Original Construction 1954 (last addition) General Condition Fair Seismic Protection None Auxiliary Power Yes, Natural Gas Generator ADA Compliant No Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 0 Back-Ins 1 Total Bays: 1 Total Square Footage 5,738 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 0 Beds 0 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 0 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities 3 bathrooms/1 shower Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms Y Showers Y Bedrooms 0 Exercise/Workout Facilities No Kitchen Facilities Small Break Room Individual Lockers Assigned No Training/Meeting Rooms Small Conference Room Washer/Dryer/Extractor No Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System No Apparatus/Vehicles Minimum Unit Staffing* Comments Total Daily Staffing: 0 Admin. only *If an apparatus is cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 367 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Station Name/Number: TRK Station 92 Address/Physical Location: 11473 Donner Pass Road, Truckee, CA 96161 General Description: Staffed 24/7 with a minimum of two Firefighters and a maximum of five. Houses a first-out and second-out ALS ambulance. On-duty Battalion Chief quarters. Covers the central area of the district. Structure Date of Original Construction 1982 (last remodel) General Condition Fair Seismic Protection No Auxiliary Power Natural Gas generator ADA Compliant No Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 1 Back-Ins 5 Total Bays: 6 Total Square Footage 12,960 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 6 Beds 6 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 6 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities 4 Full Bathrooms Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms Y Showers Y Bedrooms Y Exercise/Workout Facilities Yes Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned Yes Training/Meeting Rooms One Washer/Dryer/Extractor Residential Washer. Extractor and Dryer for PPE Safety & Security Station Sprinklered Yes Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System Keypads on entry doors Apparatus Exhaust System Plymovent system 368 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Minimum Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Unit Staffing* R92 1 CS Rescue 92 Dive 91 1 CS Dive team rig (going to be out of service soon) Medic 92 2 CS Brush 92 1 CS Engine 92 1 CS Water Tender 92 1 CS B9 1 Battalion Chief Truck 92 1 CS Medic 292 2 CS Loader 92 1 CS Loader for access and snow removal Ranger 92 1 CS UTV for back country rescue B9 1 Back up Battalion Buggy Total Daily Staffing: 3–6 Minimum =1 BC, 1 FC, 1 FF; Max = 1 BC, 1, FC, 4 FF *If an apparatus is cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 369 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Station Name/Number: TRK Station 93 Address/Physical Location: 11572 Donner Pass Road, Truckee, CA 96161 General Description: Residential substation; not staffed 24/7. Resident Firefighter-capable. Structure Date of Original Construction 1983 General Condition Fair Seismic Protection No Auxiliary Power No ADA Compliant No Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 0 Back-Ins 2 Total Bays: 2 Total Square Footage 3,333 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 2 Beds 2 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 2 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities 1 Full Bathroom/1 Half Bathroom Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms Y Showers Y Bedrooms Y Exercise/Workout Facilities No Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned N/A Training/Meeting Rooms No Washer/Dryer/Extractor Residential Washer/Dryer; No Extractor Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System Keypads on entry doors Apparatus Exhaust System No Apparatus/Vehicles Minimum Unit Staffing* Comments E93 1 Reserve Type 1 engine Boat 91 1 Rescue Airboat Total Daily Staffing: 0 Not staffed daily *If an apparatus is cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 370 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Station Name/Number: TRK Station 94 Address/Physical Location: 12986 Northwoods Boulevard, Truckee, CA 96161 General Description: Residential substation; not staffed 24/7. Resident Firefighter-capable. Structure Date of Original Construction 1973 General Condition Fair Seismic Protection No Auxiliary Power No ADA Compliant No Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 0 Back-Ins 2 Total Bays: 2 Total Square Footage 3,202 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 3 Beds 3 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 3 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities 2 Bathrooms Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms Y Showers Y Bedrooms Y Exercise/Workout Facilities No Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned N/A Training/Meeting Rooms No Washer/Dryer/Extractor Residential Washer/Dryer; No Extractor Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System Keypad at entry doors Apparatus Exhaust System No Apparatus/Vehicles Minimum Unit Staffing* Comments E94 1 Reserve Type 1 engine Total Daily Staffing: 0 Not staffed daily *If an apparatus is cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 371 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Station Name/Number: TRK Station 95 Address/Physical Location: 10900 Manchester Drive, Truckee, CA 96161 General Description: Staffing 24/7, minimum two. Primary ALS ambulance and one reserve. Main response area, eastern side of the district. Structure Date of Original Construction 1978, Modernization& and Expansion, 2011 General Condition Excellent Seismic Protection Yes Auxiliary Power Natural Gas Generator ADA Compliant Yes Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 2 Back-Ins 0 Total Bays: 2 Total Square Footage 5,162 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 2 Beds 2 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 2 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities 2 Full/1 Half Bathrooms Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms Y Showers Y Bedrooms Y Exercise/Workout Facilities Yes Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned Yes Training/Meeting Rooms No Washer/Dryer/Extractor Residential Washer/Dryer; No Extractor Safety & Security Station Sprinklered Yes Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System Keypads on entry doors Apparatus Exhaust System Plymovent system Apparatus/Vehicles Minimum Unit Staffing* Comments Medic 95 2 CS Brush 95 1 CS Engine 95 1 CS Medic 295 2 CS Total Daily Staffing: 2 *If an apparatus is cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 372 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Station Name/Number: TRK Station 96 Address/Physical Location: 10277 Truckee Airport Road, Truckee, CA 96161 General Description: Station shared with CAL FIRE. Truckee staffs two minimum, four maximum. First- and second-out ALS ambulances. Supports the central area of the district and provides mutual aid to NorthStar. Structure Date of Original Construction 1999 General Condition Good Seismic Protection Yes Auxiliary Power Natural Gas Generator ADA Compliant Yes Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 2 Back-Ins 0 Total Bays: 2 Total Square Footage 5,810 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 4 Beds 4 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 4 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities 2 Full Bathrooms Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms Y Showers Y Bedrooms Y Exercise/Workout Facilities Shared with CAL FIRE Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned Yes Training/Meeting Rooms Yes Washer/Dryer/Extractor Residential Washer/Dryer; No Extractor Safety & Security Station Sprinklered Yes Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System Keypad on entry doors Apparatus Exhaust System Plymovent system Minimum Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Unit Staffing* Engine 96 1 CS Medic 96 2 CS Medic 296 2 CS Hazmat 1 1 CS Will be returned to Placer County soon Total Daily Staffing: 2–4 Minimum 2 and maximum 4 *If an apparatus is cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 373 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Station Name/Number: TRK Station 97 Address/Physical Location: 53823 Sherritt Lane, Soda Springs, CA 95728 General Description: Staffed 24/7 with two. Primary ALS ambulance and one reserve. Primary response coverage for west end of District. Structure Date of Original Construction 1977 General Condition Fair Seismic Protection No Auxiliary Power Propane Generator ADA Compliant No Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 0 Back-Ins 3 Total Bays: 3 Total Square Footage 8,400 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 3 Beds 3 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 3 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities 2 Full/1 Half Bathrooms Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms Y Showers Y Bedrooms Y Exercise/Workout Facilities Yes Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned Yes Training/Meeting Rooms Yes Washer/Dryer/Extractor Residential Washer/Dryer; No Extractor Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System Keypad on entry doors Apparatus Exhaust System Plymovent system Apparatus/Vehicles Minimum Unit Staffing* Comments Medic 97 2 CS Engine 97 1 CS Medic 297 2 CS Brush 97 1 CS Loader 97 1 CS Rescue 97 1 CS Total Daily Staffing: 2 *If an apparatus is cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 374 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Station Name/Number: TRK Station 98 Address/Physical Location: 7300 Short Road, Soda Springs, CA 95728 General Description: Resident substation only. Houses a reserve engine. Structure Date of Original Construction 1999 General Condition Good Seismic Protection Unknown Auxiliary Power No ADA Compliant No Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 0 Back-Ins 2 Total Bays: 2 Total Square Footage 3,200 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 2 Beds 2 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability N/A (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities 1 Full/1 Half Bathrooms Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms Y Showers Y Bedrooms Y Exercise/Workout Facilities No Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned N/A Training/Meeting Rooms No Washer/Dryer/Extractor Residential Washer/Dryer; No Extractor Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke & CO Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System Keypad on entry doors Apparatus Exhaust System No Minimum Unit Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Staffing* Engine 98 1 Reserve Type 1 engine; may be surplus soon. Total Daily Staffing: 0 Not staffed daily *If an apparatus is cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 375 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Fire Stations Discussion Only one of the TRK fire stations was considered in "Excellent" condition. Five of the remaining seven fire stations were rated as "Fair," and two were rated as "Good." The TRK fire stations range in age from 24 to 69 years, with an average of just over 42 years. The following figure summarizes the TRK fire stations and their features. Figure 273: Station Configuration and Condition Staffing General Station Apparatus Bays Station Age Capacity Condition Station 91 1 0 Fair 69 years Station 92 6 6 Fair 41 years Station 93 2 2 Fair 40 years Station 94 2 2 Fair 50 years Station 95 2 2 Excellent 45 years Station 96 2 4 Good 24 years Station 97 3 3 Fair 46 years Station 98 2 0 Good 24 years Totals/Average: 20 19 42 years average Generally, the TRK stations are older and do not meet the requirements of modern firefighting. As the firefighting environment has changed, technology, equipment, and safety systems have also changed to meet new demands. Older buildings do not typically have the space or engineering systems to meet that new environment. Modern living also requires much more access to electrical outlets than was expected in older buildings, including charging stations for battery-operated equipment and agency and employee Electric Vehicles. The older TRK stations are no exception. For example, older buildings do not meet the requirements due to the need to decontaminate personnel and equipment after many types of responses in the current firefighting context. Every crew member should have access to facilities to decontaminate immediately after a fire event, and showers should allow for gender separation. In addition, there needs to be enough partitioned space to allow for gear and equipment to be thoroughly washed, and the space needs to be designed to prevent contamination of the living and working spaces of the station. 376 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo While all structures require routine maintenance, staffed fire stations require even more maintenance due to the continuous occupancy by a number of active adults. Multiple departures and returns of heavy apparatus also affect these structures. Facility Replacement With several stations nearing 50 years in age, the identified need for a new station in the commercial core, and the fact that four of the nine stations are not regularly staffed, the district should develop a facility replacement plan in conjunction with a Standards of Cover. Stations 92 and 95 have been remodeled to extend their service lives; this may be possible with other stations as well. The district has indicated that the “resident” stations will require extensive upgrades if 24-hour staffing needs to be accommodated. Ensuring that the stations are in good repair requires regular maintenance and scheduled replacement of specialized equipment. Plans for updating and repairing systems—such as heating and air conditioning (HVAC), generators, roofs, driveways, parking areas, security gates, painting, carpets, and major appliances—can keep costs down and buildings in service longer. In addition, establishing a facility replacement and maintenance plan will enable the district to plan for ongoing service from each station more efficiently. Status of Shared Facilities TRK currently shares Station 96 with CAL FIRE, which occupies the west wing of the building. CAL FIRE houses an engine and crew at Station 96, which they term “Station 50.” For all practical purposes, Station 50 functions as a CAL FIRE station, not a TRK station. Apparatus Apparatus was evaluated by TRK staff based on age, miles/hours, service, condition, and reliability. The criteria ARE defined in the introduction section of this report. The following figures represent all apparatus and vehicles operated by TRK. 377 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 274: TRK Apparatus Unit Type Status Year Condition Features Engines & Aerial Apparatus Engine 92 Type 1 Frontline 2018 Excellent 1,500 GPM/500 G Tank Brush 92 Type 3 Frontline 2011 Excellent 500 GPM/300 G Tank Truck 92 Quint Frontline 1992 Fair 1,500 GPM/300 G/100’ Engine 93 Type 1 Reserve 1996 Poor 1,500 GPM/500 G Tank Engine 94 Type 1 Reserve 1999 Poor 1,500 GPM/500 G Tank Engine 95 Type 1 Frontline 1997 Fair 1,500 GPM/500 G Tank Brush 95 Type 2 Frontline 2002 Fair 750 GPM/500 G Tank Engine 96 Type 1/ARFF Frontline 2015 Excellent 1,500 GPM/750 G Tank Engine 97 Type 1 Frontline 2002 Poor 1,500 GPM/500 G Tank Brush 97 Type 3 Frontline 1997 Poor 500 GPM/500 G Tank Engine 98 Type 1 Reserve 1998 Poor 1,500 GPM/750 G Tank Medics/Rescues/Other Medic 92 Ambulance Frontline 2020 Excellent Medic 292 Ambulance Frontline 2016 Excellent Medic 95 Ambulance Frontline 2014 Excellent Medic 295 Ambulance Reserve 2009 Fair Medic 96 Ambulance Frontline 2019 Excellent Medic 296 Ambulance Frontline 2016 Excellent Medic 97 Ambulance Frontline 2018 Excellent Medic 297 Ambulance Reserve 2009 Fair Rescue 92 Rescue Frontline 2000 Fair WT 92 Water Tender Frontline 2017 Excellent 500 GPM/2,000 G Tank 378 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 275: Supervisor & Command Vehicles Unit Assigned To Manufacturer Year Condition C900 Fire Chief Chevy Tahoe 2021 Excellent C903 Division Chief Dodge 2500 2017 Fair C907 Fire Marshal Dodge 2500 2016 Fair C908 Battalion Chief Ford Interceptor 2016 Fair M9 Mechanic Dodge 2500 2021 Excellent Apparatus Discussion Fleet maintenance is both outsourced and provided in-house by certified Emergency Vehicle Technicians. It is apparent that good maintenance practices are successfully prolonging TRK vehicle service life; however, there are four Type 1 engines and one Type 3 engine that are listed in “Poor” condition. These engines are beyond their service lives and should be replaced as soon as is practical, subject to any changes in the deployment model as may be indicated by a Standards of Cover evaluation. Current maintenance manuals are available for apparatus and vehicles. Preventative maintenance checks are performed regularly, and maintenance records are kept current. Pump tests are performed annually in accordance with industry best practices. 379 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Dispatch & Communications TRK is dispatched by the CAL FIRE Grass Valley Emergency Command Center (GVECC), which provides service for all fire agencies in Nevada County. GVECC is capable of dispatch via automatic vehicle locator (AVL); however, at present none of the local agencies are utilizing AVL for closest-unit dispatch. Figure 276: PSAP and Dispatch Center Item Description CAD Application Northrop Grumman Altaris CAD Telephone System Motorola VESTA Radio System MODUCOM radio consoles Fire/EMS Notification Two-tone encoder system Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Mutual aid TAC channels; State-wide radio with other fire agencies in the County: interoperability channels Ability for fire agencies to communicate via State-wide Interoperability channels radio with police agencies in the County: Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Mutual aid TAC channels; State-wide radio with non-Fire EMS agencies in the County: interoperability channels CAD-to-CAD with other CAL FIRE ECCs; for Ability for PSAP to communicate CAD-to-CAD local government dispatch centers, phone (how do you transfer a call to another center): call only Priority Dispatch – Emergency Medical Criteria-based dispatch system in place: Dispatch Formal EMD quality assurance program in place: Priority Dispatch AQUA and EMD-Qs Options for non-emergent calls not requiring EMS: None AVL used on fire apparatus: Northrop Grumman AVL used on ambulances & EMS units: No RadioMobile Patriot or a tablet using MDTs/MDCs in all fire & EMS vehicles: RadioMobile IQMobile Closest-unit dispatched via AVL: Yes No. of 9-1-1 calls: 2022: 23,342 No. of 10-digit incoming emergency calls: 2022: 31,891 Infrastructure Needs With several stations nearing 50 years of age, the identified need for a new station in the commercial core, and the fact that four of the nine stations are not regularly staffed, the district should develop a facility replacement plan in conjunction with a Standards of Cover. Establishing a facilities replacement and maintenance plan will enable the district to plan for ongoing service from each station more efficiently. 380 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Governance Structure Options The district has consolidated fire protection under its umbrella through a series of annexations over the years. At present, there is little opportunity for overall structural change. Service Review Determinations LAFCo is required to prepare a written statement of determination with respect to six areas as specified by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. Based on the criteria described in Section 1 of this report, the following determinations are proposed for TRK. MSR Determination #1: Growth and Population Projections Current Population Based on information from the 2020 Decennial Census, the population of the Truckee Fire Protection District was estimated to be 19,333 and grew to 19,752 in 2023. TRK’s boundary includes a much larger unincorporated area than the Town of Truckee. Unincorporated area within the TRK boundary is located within both Nevada and Placer Counties. Therefore, the population estimate for the Town of Truckee from the California Department of Finance (CDOF) is not representative of the jurisdiction. It is estimated that the unincorporated area in the TRK service area located within both Nevada and Placer Counties comprises a population of approximately 3,500. Truckee is a tourist destination; seasonal fluctuations can swell the transient population to double or triple the resident population, resulting in 50,000 to 60,000 people in the area at times. Projected Population Although historic population estimates for the specific boundaries of the TRK jurisdiction were not available through the CDOF or the U.S. Census Bureau, population projections were calculated out to 2035 using historic interpolations from American Community Survey estimates. The population is projected to experience a 6.4% cumulative growth rate from 2023 to 2035. The projected population of the Town of Truckee in 2035 is 21,006. However, the estimated build-out of the Town of Truckee is expected to be 28,263 (19,901 dwelling units) per the General Plan, and the land-use combinations for the unincorporated area is estimated to provide an additional population of 7,000, for a combined population of 35,263 in 2035. 381 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo MSR Determination #2: Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence Nevada County, through its land-use element of the General Plan adopted in 2014, has identified disadvantaged “legacy” communities or “DUCs” throughout the County. Within the Nevada County portion of the TRK, one DUC was identified: the area that is generally identified as “Soda Springs.” Furthermore, Placer County identified one DUC within Placer County CSA 28, Zone 137 that is contiguous to the TRK SOI and meets the definition based on population and income. MSR Determination #3: Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities, Adequacy of Public Services, and Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies, Including Those Related to Sewers, Water, and Fire in Any DUCs Within or Contiguous to the SOI Based upon the range of land uses within the TRK service area, the need for fire protection, emergency medical response, and ambulance service will remain acute. The estimated build-out of the Town of Truckee is expected to be 28,263 (19,901 dwelling units) per the General Plan and the land-use combinations for the unincorporated area are estimated to provide an additional population of 7,000, for a combined population of 35,263. The community has a number of parks and tourist destinations which attract a transitory population that will also require the range of services provided by the district. There are adequate stations, personnel, and apparatus to meet current demands, but the TRK Fire Chief has identified that the district is understaffed and has utilized existing staff outside of class to perform operations. The district currently provides two-person engine staffing. TRK has eight stations, one of which is rated in “Excellent” condition, two are rated “Good,” and five are rated “Fair.” Station 91 is utilized only for administration; four stations are staffed 24/7, and three are not staffed daily. MSR Determination #4: Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services TRK has a stable revenue stream through its allocation of a share of the ad valorem property tax in both Nevada and Placer Counties, which allows for it to be exempt from the ERAF reduction with its receipt of special tax, benefit assessment revenues, and ambulance fees. With this range of revenues, the district is financially stable and sustainable at current service levels. TRK has maintained a stable financial picture over the past five years, identifying an operational surplus each year. The operational surplus is routinely transferred to the capital improvement fund. 382 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo The reserves of the district are maintained with a fund balance. However, the capital improvement plan is significantly underfunded. MSR Determination #5: Status and Opportunities for Shared Services The Fire Chief has identified that a regional training facility would be an opportunity to add value for allied responders in the region. Placer LAFCo will be conducting a fire service MSR for the Truckee/Tahoe area fire agencies in the near future. This may identify opportunities for shared services with the agencies within Placer County. MSR Determination #6: Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies TRK maintains a website and social media presence to keep its constituents and the community-at-large aware of District activities and operations. During the election process for Measure T, the district established a Citizens Oversight Committee that meets regularly to outline the use of the Measure’s funds for wildfire reduction. Sphere of Influence Update The TRK sphere of influence was confirmed through the Municipal Service Review for fire protection and emergency services presented in January 2005 and adopted by the Commission. The SOI was updated in January 2014 through adoption of the report entitled “Sphere of Influence Updates 2014 Nevada County Fire Service Providers.” Existing SOI The TRK sphere of influence includes territory outside its existing boundary within Nevada County and is coterminous with its boundaries for the portion within Placer County. The sphere of influence has remained unchanged through the Sphere of Influence Update in 2014. TRK annexed the Donner Summit Public Utility District in 2006, after the 2005 MSR. SOI Options The options for the TRK sphere of influence are: 1. Remain unchanged as currently drawn for both Nevada and Placer Counties; or 2. Expand the sphere of influence to address the territory north of I-80 that is within the Town of Truckee sphere of influence but outside the TRK SOI. 383 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Recommended SOI AP Triton has reviewed the sphere of influence questions with the TRK Fire Chief, who has requested that the SOI be confirmed in its current configuration. It is the desire of the district that any future annexation to the Town of Truckee or any development proposed within the Nevada County unincorporated area be required to be considered through a sphere of influence expansion request and annexation. This will allow for the assessment of the individual financial consideration for each proposal. This is the position being recommended. Proposed SOI Determinations In confirmation of the existing sphere of influence, the following determinations are presented: Determination #1: The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands. A review of the materials provided for land-use authorities within the district—the Town of Truckee and of Nevada and Placer Counties—identify the full range of land uses within the district and its existing sphere of influence. These include—but are not limited to—urban, suburban, and rural residential uses, recreation, commercial, light industrial, agricultural, forest, and conservation as defined by the respective Plans. There will be no change in these land-use determinations because of the sphere of influence confirmation. Determination #2: The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. Based upon the range of land uses associated with the confirmation of the sphere of influence, the present and probable need for fire protection, emergency medical response, and ambulance service will remain acute. The estimated build-out of the Town of Truckee is expected to be 28,263 (19,901 dwelling units) per the General Plan and the land-use combinations for the unincorporated area are estimated to provide an additional population of 7,000, for a combined population of 35,263. The community has a number of parks and tourist destinations which attract a transitory population that also needs the range of services available from the district. 384 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Determination #3: The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agencies provide or are authorized to provide. TRK is authorized to provide fire protection, emergency medical response, and ambulance service. Based upon the MSR information for TRK, it has been identified that call volumes following the COVID-19 pandemic era increased by 6% from 2019 to 2022. The district has not adopted response time standards. There are adequate stations, personnel, and apparatus to continue the current level of service, but the Chief has identified that the district is understaffed and has utilized existing staff outside of class to perform operations. The residents and property owners within the district would benefit from response time standards that were more in line with the NFPA 1710 recommendations. TRK has eight stations, one of which is rated in “Excellent” condition, two in “Good,” and five in “Fair.” Station 91 is utilized only for administration, four stations are staffed 24/7, and three are not staffed daily. There is a need to develop a replacement plan for these facilities. Determination #4: The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area. There is a distinct community of interest in the Truckee area as a whole because it is a resort/recreational destination. This area is continuing to grow, with an estimated population for the Town of approximately 29,000 by 2035. Determination #5: The present and probable need of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities for the district’s public facilities and services. There are DUCs identified within and/or contiguous to the district and its sphere of influence: one in Nevada County and one in Placer County. These areas receive the same level of service as do the surrounding areas of the district. 385 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Washington County Water District WCW Overview The Washington County Water District (WCWD) is authorized to provide fire protection services within its service boundaries, said service having been recognized in the 2005 MSR for fire protection by the Nevada County LAFCo. The Washington Fire Department (WAF) provides fire protection, basic life support (BLS) emergency medical treatment, and community risk reduction to a population estimated at 127 in one square mile located within the State and Federal responsibility areas. The total unofficial service area is approximately 25 square miles and extends into the U.S. Forest Service area. WAF operates one fire station with an all-volunteer staff of eight personnel. Background WAF has not published any planning documents, such as a Master Plan, Strategic Plan, or Standards of Cover. The Department has not adopted a Mission Statement or Goals and Objectives. The Department vision is communicated verbally. A community evacuation plan has been published. WAF has never received an ISO Rating from the Insurance Services Office (ISO). The Department is said to be in the process of obtaining an ISO rating. Over the past ten years, the Department has been operating on a very minimal budget. Its primary revenue source is Prop. 172 allocations from the County of Nevada, and additional revenue is received through donations and an occasional grant. According to the WAF Fire Chief, there may be potential for partnering with other agencies to pursue grant funding to construct a firehouse/community hall/law enforcement substation to add to the existing inadequate facility. Due to the remote nature of the Department and its members, little opportunity exists for personnel or equipment sharing. The Fire Chief's top three critical issues are: • Inadequate budget • Inadequate number of trained volunteers • Lack of depth in resources available to the community 386 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo The Fire Chief's top three opportunities to increase value and/or efficiency for the public are: • Improving the Department’s sole facility • Recruiting and training additional volunteers • Procuring additional equipment Boundaries and Sphere of Influence The Washington County Water District boundaries include approximately one square mile in the unincorporated community of Washington. The Washington Fire Department responds to a larger area of approximately 25 square miles in accordance with agreements with U.S.F.S. and CAL FIRE. The sphere of influence for the Washington County Water District was established in 2014 and is coterminous with the district’s boundaries. 387 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Types & Extent of Services Services Provided WAF provides a range of fire protection services for its residents. The following figure represents each of the services and the level performed. Figure 278: Overview of Services Provided Service Y/N Level Fire Suppression Yes Wildland engine-based suppression (Type Wildland Fire Suppression Yes 2, Type 6) Not available for Cal OES Statewide Statewide Mobilization No Mobilization EMS First Response Yes Basic Life Support Ambulance Transport No Specialized/Technical Rescue Yes Swiftwater and Low-angle rescue HazMat Response No Fire Inspection/Code Enforcement Yes Plan Reviews No Public Education/Prevention Yes Fire & Arson Investigation Yes Service Area The district’s boundaries contain approximately one square mile, and the service area includes approximately 200 properties located along the South Yuba River, accessed from Washington Road off State Route 20. WAF is not adjacent to any of the local fire service providers; however, the district has an automatic aid agreement with Nevada County Consolidated FPD and mutual aid with the Tahoe National Forest to serve private lands within the Tahoe National Forest, as well as for initial attack on Federal lands along Washington, Maybert, Alpha, and Relief Hill Roads and Gaston Grade. The district also has mutual or automatic aid arrangements with most other agencies in the County. There are approximately 127 permanent residents within the district. 389 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Collaboration • Mutual aid provided to neighboring agencies. Contracts to Provide Services to Other Agencies • None. Contracts for Services from Other Agencies • Dispatch service provided by CAL FIRE. Governance & Administration The Washington County Water District is an independent special district governed by a five-member elected Board of Directors. The volunteer Fire Chief reports to the district Board. As of January 2024, the membership of the Board of Directors is as follows: Figure 279: WAF Board of Directors Name Title Term End Alyssa Witller President December 2025 Charity Jackson Vice-President December 2026 Maya McDowell Board Member September 2025 Randy Stone Board Member January 2027 Sandi Amell Board Member September 2027 The staggering of terms appears to be a problem, with one member having a term ending in 2026, while others are on a two-year cycle in odd-numbered years but with different months of term ending. State law requires the staggering of terms following election cycles, which would be in December of the appropriate year. The district should take steps to correct the terms for its members. Figure 280: Washington Fire Department Organizational Chart Board of Directors Fire Chief 390 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Accountability for Community Services—Transparency The following figure identifies the Washington Water District’s efforts to meet State laws designed to ensure transparency and accountability, as well as efforts beyond legal requirements to make information available to the public. Figure 281: Transparency and Accountability Transparency and Accountability Available Agency website:67 Yes Adopted budget available on website: No Notice of public meetings provided: Yes Agendas posted on website:68 Yes Public meetings are live streamed: By Telephone Minutes and/or recordings of public meetings available on Yes website: Master Plan (fire service-specific) available on website: No Strategic Plan (fire service-specific) available on website: No Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover documents No available on website: SOC performance reports available on website: No Efforts to engage and educate the public on the services to the Yes community: Staff and governing board member ethics training and Yes economic interest reporting completed: Compliance with financial document compilation, adoption, Yes and reporting requirements: Adherence to open meeting requirements: Yes 67 As of January 1, 2020, independent special districts are required to maintain websites according to Government Code Sections 6270.6 and 53087.8 to provide the public easily accessible and accurate information about the district. Government Code Section 53087.8 lists what must be included on the website. 68 Government Code §54954.2. 391 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Efforts to engage and educate the public on the fire and emergency services provided to the community consist of an annual fundraiser BBQ and a Facebook page. Department members staff a table with fire prevention materials at local events. The Special Districts Transparency Act (SB 929) enacted in 2020 requires that all districts have a functional website containing information on the board, the finances of the district, and how to contact members of the district’s representatives. The Washington County Water District’s website meets only the bare minimum requirements of this Act since its financial information is not readily available, its meeting information link does not operate, and the information for the Fire Department is simply a link to a Facebook page. Land Use and Population Land Use The Nevada County General Plan 2020 identified the Washington area as a legacy community located along the south fork of the Yuba River. This identification is a companion designation to the disadvantaged, unincorporated community identified in LAFCo law. The plan notes that there are few opportunities for significant new residential development for the community due to its isolated location, lack of infrastructure, and wild and rugged topography of the area. The map below identifies the land-use designations for the community it recognizes as representing Washington. 392 General Plan 1995 Sheet C, G, H & I Cascade Shores, North San Juan, Washington & Soda Springs Nevada County, California Sheet C - Cascade Shores Sheet G - North San Juan E T U E N LB FOR-40 Middle Yuba River T O O H L R C O S AD COOPER D R A O HIGH RISE DRIVE or F k Deer Creek North RUR-40 AR AR B B O O G G AS A T L R S R O H A C E N A T G D A R C A Y NC LA H N RO E AD Rock Creek ROCK CREEK R O AD STATE HIGHWAY 20 PINE FLAT W P T E RU LL O C O RUR-30 CASCI R OA D Deer Creek Yuba County PUB PUB RUR-10 AY RUR-10 ROAD PINES RUR-30 BP PUB HC FLAT RES EC ALP SCOTTS NC LOS ENA A L L S T O W WI i L l L l O o W w VAL V LEY R O a A D lley Creek SCOTTS F S L A AT RD R O OA N D YX DRIVE SCOT T T A S LL FL OAK AT ROAD NC O U P MD RES PUB T R E E K R A O A O D PUB RUR-10 SCOTTS T ALF RUR-20 DAM ROAD MSR & SOI Update 0 0.25 Nev 0. a 5 Mdileas LAFCo SCOTTS FLAT DAM ROAD Deer Creek H A W M AY RUR-30 WE Figure 282: WAF Land Use Designations Deer Creek LAKE LANE NE E V DRI Sheet H - Washington O S CA T L E LANE RC QUAKER HILL C SA R GE O N S IT S E R LA O N A E D RUR-30 PASQU M A IL L L E SP R RIN O GS A DRI D VE RUR-1 C 0 lipper Creek SAN C UT PD: RUR- R 5 OOSKIE WAY TAY LA NE P C C A A S A Q S S U C C A A A D L D E E E R L D O O R AD O IV P EP SP M N A N U O I U SH C N B L T A AIN VIEW DRIVE BAN G N A S E U S R M Q U C M U A AK E S R I N H T F IL Y L R O R ID N G O E R A D O AD ES G T OLDB T A R L O U A F D G S R A O IL ROAD L OWER G G R r E e E e NH n O h R o N rn SP C U re R ek ROAD Poorman Creek UMD T S O A N G ROAD South Yuba River USF M P RED DOG ROAD LAC E RUR-20 FOR-160 REC PUB PD: EST (600 S a H c O . R ) T CIRC H L O E RNBROOK SI N E D AO N R T A E L K STAR W O O D LAN E RUR-5 WAY E O T P I AL RED DOG CR OSS ROAD RUR-30 OAK I D G R D O R A E LOLA'S R E E C D H D O O R G O R AD OAD SKEETER H OLLOW ROAD REC R U E M S D P N U C B NC PUB W U AS M H D INGTON RO R A E D S Clipper Creek FOR-40 NE RES Wash R in E g S ton Creek CLIPPER CREEK R OAD SE W SA I M N E G S S TR O E F E M T OR S N NO I W N E G B B V EV D O IR I R L D U A E R N ZING STAR R D A O WILD LILY PLACE RUR-10 JONES RIDGE ROAD KEATEN LAN E B E H E IVE 0 LA 0 B . U 5 CKEYE R OA D 1 1.5 Miles W ASH ING TO N R O AD 0 FOR-160 0.25 Sc 0 o . tc 5 M hm il a e n sC reek The land-use categories shown on the map include RES (residential, 1.5-acres minimum lot Sheet I - Soda Springs Creek Castle size), UMD (urban medium density, six dwelling units per acre maximum), REC (recreation), Lower PUB (public), and NC (neighborhood/commercial). The area surrounding the community is designated FOR (forest), with limited to no potential for development. FOR-160 REC HC 393 FOR-160 Upper Castle Creek Rattlesnake Creek South Yuba River PUB DONNER PASS ROAD HC UM U D MD USF FOR-40 HC SO A D REC S P R NI G S R USF O HC A D South Yuba River PUB South Yuba River Placer County 0 0.5 1 2 Miles BBuuttttee Legend SSiieerrrraa Highways Estate (EST) Rural Commercial (RC) Special Development Area (SDA) YYuubbaa Roads Rural 5 acre (RUR-5) Neighborhood Ciommercial (NC) Public (PUB) G H J K Rivers Rural 10 acre (RUR-10) Community Commercial (CC) Recreation (REC) I Scale Lakes Rural 20 acre (RUR-20) Highway Commercial (HC) Recreation 160 acre (REC-160) Miles B C 0 0.5 1 2 County Boundary Rural 30 acre (RUR-30) Office-Professional (OP) Open Space (OS) A D Parcels Rural 40 acre (RUR-40) Grass Valley (GRV) Forest 40 acre (FOR-40) Kilometers 0 1 2 3 Community Regions Residential (RES) Nevada City (NEVCITY) Forest 80 acre (FOR-80) E PPllaacceerr Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the accuracy of the maps Village Centers Urban Single-Family Density Res (USF) Truckee (TRUCKEE) Forest 160 acre (FOR-160) and data provided; nevertheless, some information may not be accurate. The County of Nevada assumes no responsibility arising from use of this F i T n H fo E rm M a A ti P on S . AND ASSOCIATED DATA ARE PROVIDED WITHOUT Rural Centers Urban Medium Density Res (UMD) Industrial (IND) Forest 640 acre (FOR-640) WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness EEll DDoorraaddoo for a particular purpose. Before making decisions using the information Urban High Density Res (UHD) Planned Development (PD) Water Area (WA) provided on this map, contact the Nevada County Public Counter staff to confirm the validity of the data provided. Created by Nevada County GIS Division 8/18/2010 GeneralPlanSheetCGHI.mxd Business Park (BP) Planned Residential Community(PRC) MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Current Population Washington Fire Department reports the estimated population of its service area to be 160 as of 2020. Based on information from the 2020 Decennial Census and through Esri’s interpolation of census tracts, the population of the Washington Fire Department service area is estimated to be 127. The estimated 2023 population from American Community Survey data is 126. Projected Population Although historic population estimates for the specific boundaries of the WAF jurisdiction were not available through the California Department of Finance or the U.S. Census Bureau, population projections were calculated out to 2035 using historic interpolations from American Community Survey estimates. The WAF service area population is projected to experience a 6% cumulative growth rate from 2023 to 2035. The projected population in 2035 is 134. Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) A DUC is an unincorporated, inhabited territory that constitutes all or a portion of a community with an annual median household income that is less than 80% of the Statewide annual median household income (i.e., $60,188).69 LAFCo is required to identify the location and characteristics of any DUCs in the Service Review and SOI update process.70 The Nevada County Planning Department has defined a legacy disadvantaged community for the Washington area. The criteria for this designation are that the area must be populated and have an income at or below 80% of the median State income. The area outside the sphere of influence of the existing Washington County Water District within this legacy community has fire protection services provided by WAF through mutual aid. 69 Government Code §56033.5. 70 Government Codes §56425(e)(5) and §56430(2). 394 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 283: WAF DUC Locations 395 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Financial Overview Washington County Water District (WCWD) operates through two funds, the General Fund that provides fire protection service, and an Enterprise Fund that provides drinking water to Washington. A significant amount of information regarding the entity was reviewed to develop financial trend analysis for the five-year period. In April 2020, the California Governor issued a mandate stating that water cannot be shut off due to non-payment. This resulted in outstanding account balances for WCWD. Revenues WCWD is funded by several sources of income. Water sales are its largest revenue source (over 65%) of annual recurring revenues. Property taxes are allocated under Proposition 13, limiting total property tax assessments to 1% of a property’s value. The tax revenue is then apportioned between the various taxing units. Nevada County utilizes the “Teeter Plan” under which 100% of the property tax apportionment is remitted to the taxing unit, with the taxing unit foregoing penalties and interest collections on delinquently paid taxes. Property tax revenues are based on assessed property tax values and are the single largest source of revenue to WCWD.71 This revenue source accounts for approximately 25% of recurring revenues annually. Other sources of revenue include Proposition 172 tax (5%), interest (1%), and other revenues that fluctuate from year to year. WCWD has been successful in obtaining grants in recent years for various purposes, with proceeds ranging from $8,000 in FY 2023 to $124,000 in FY 2022. In 2021, WCWD was awarded a $101,024 Community Power Resiliency (CPR) grant by the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, with a performance period of October 2021 through December 2022. The following figure shows the details of those revenues. 71 Washington County Water District Adopted Budgets, FY 2018–FY 2023. 396 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 284: Washington County Water District Revenues, FY 2019–FY 202372 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Revenue FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Proposition 172 7,209 6,418 6,858 8,981 8,770 Grant revenue — — 15,500 22,939 8,000 Interest 13 — — — 3 General Fund Revenues 7,222 6,418 22,358 31,920 16,773 Water sales 77,706 82,929 110,524 121,644 116,373 Property taxes 33,287 37,351 36,378 38,483 40,839 Grant revenue — — — 101,024 — Interest 1,217 931 1,130 1,302 2,082 Other revenue 39 (12) 10 10,798 — Enterprise Fund Revenues 112,249 121,199 148,042 273,251 159,294 Total Revenues 119,471 127,617 170,400 305,171 176,067 Expenses WAF personnel costs consist primarily of worker’s compensation and account for approximately 4% of total General Fund expenses. Other recurring expenses (59% of total General Fund expenses) consist of supplies and equipment, uniforms, repairs and maintenance, training, fuel, and utilities. Total recurring costs have increased from $8,004 in FY 2019 to $15,029 in FY 2023, with a drop to $3,642 occurring in FY 2020. Non-recurring expenses (37% of total General Fund expenses) consist primarily of fire equipment and uniforms. Total non-recurring costs have increased from $0 in FY 2019 to $3,603 in FY 2023, with a high of $28,817 occurring in FY 2022. Water Enterprise Fund expenses include personnel costs (38%), other recurring expenses (27%), and non-recurring expenses (25%). Other recurring expenses include professional fees, supplies, repair and maintenance, fuel, insurance, utilities, communications and technology, training costs, and other expenses. Non-recurring expenses include bad debts, subcontracted services, legal fees, and expenditure of grant funds. WCWD used its CPR grant funds to outfit every Firefighter and vehicle with battery-powered radios, enabling communication during power outages. 72 Washington County Water District Adopted Budgets, FY 2021–FY 2022; FY 2022–FY 2023 397 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 285: Historical WCWD Expenditures Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Expenditures FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Personnel Expenses 1,581 1,004 13 — 1,344 Recurring Expenses 6,423 2,638 12,664 17,443 13,685 Non-Recurring Expenses — — 392 28,817 3,603 General Fund Expenses 8,004 3,642 13,069 46,260 18,632 Salaries & Wages 42,153 56,785 58,863 54,406 64,739 Employee Benefits 10,818 12,356 7,455 8,896 14,184 Total Personnel Expenses 52,971 69,141 66,318 63,302 78,923 Other Recurring Expenses 46,827 32,147 58,519 94,890 87,928 Total Recurring Expenses 99,798 101,288 124,837 158,192 166,851 Contracted Services 28,610 13,375 7,832 87,232 5,543 Other Non-Recurring 27,916 2,574 45,513 — — Expenses Total Non-Recurring 56,526 15,949 53,345 87,232 5,543 Expenses Water Enterprise Fund 156,324 117,236 178,181 245,424 172,394 Expenses Total Expenses: 164,328 120,879 191,251 291,684 191,026 Government agencies are limited in their ability to make rapid changes in their revenue streams to offset significant events within their jurisdiction such as loss of apparatus or significant equipment or rapid and significant economic downturn. It is important for agencies to maintain a certain level of reserves to prepare for such unforeseen events. The following figure summarizes the revenues and expenditures for WCWD for FY 2019 through FY 2023. Figure 286: Summarized WCWD Revenues and Expenses Revenues & Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Expenditures FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Total revenues 119,471 127,629 170,401 305,171 176,068 Total expenditures 164,328 120,866 191,250 291,684 191,026 Surplus (Deficit) (44,857) 6,763 (20,849) 13,487 (14,958) 398 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Shown graphically in the following figure, the revenues and expenditures information indicates a summary of Washington County Water District General Fund revenues and expenditures. In three of the preceding five years, WCWD expenses have exceeded their revenues, resulting in appropriations of net assets. Figure 287: Graphical Representation of Summarized WCWD Revenues and Expenses $350,000 $305,171 $291,684 $300,000 $250,000 $191,250 $191,026 $200,000 $176,068 $170,401 $164,328 $150,000 $127,62 $119,471 $1209,866 $100,000 $50,000 $0 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Total revenues Total expenditures Financial Projections Revenues WCWD water sales are anticipated to increase 12% annually, based on historical revenues. Property tax revenues are expected to continue to increase at an estimated 6% annually. Although housing inventory will continue to be low, prices will continue to rise, increasing assessed valuations and property taxes. Proposition 172 tax and other revenues are estimated to remain consistent. Due to their sporadic nature, no additional grants are included in future projections. Expenses Salaries and benefits consume over 50% of the recurring expenditures. Based on historical costs, personnel costs are forecast to increase by approximately 11% annually. Other previously described recurring costs are forecast to escalate at 6% annually. The following figure is a forecast of WCWD’s projected revenues and expenditures. 399 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 288: Summarized Projected WCWD Revenues and Expenditures Revenue & FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Expenditures Revenues 186,341 205,040 225,794 248,839 274,440 Expenditures 177,705 192,524 208,771 226,588 246,133 Surplus (Deficit) 8,636 12,516 17,023 22,251 28,307 Capital Planning WCWD does not operate a separate Capital Projects Fund for capital purchases or structure improvements. The net book value of existing capital assets as of June 30, 2023, consisted of $134,441 in the General Fund and $89,985 of infrastructure and equipment in the Enterprise Fund. Outstanding Debt Washington County Water District had one outstanding debt as of June 30, 2023. In June 2002, the district borrowed $96,893 at 4.5% interest, maturing in June 2042. Annual payments of $5,272 are due for principal and interest. Note: as of June 30, 2023, WCWD’s loan with the USDA was considered to be in default due to late issuance of its audited financial statements. The following figure provides the debt maturity schedule as of June 30, 2023. Figure 289: Washington County Water District Debt Maturity Schedule Fiscal Year Principal Interest Total FY 2024 2,288 2,984 5,272 FY 2025 2,391 2,881 5,272 FY 2026 2,498 2,774 5,272 FY 2027 2,611 2,661 5,272 FY 2028 2,728 2,544 5,272 Thereafter 54,363 24,717 79,080 Total 66,879 38,561 105,440 400 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Reserves As of June 30, 2023, Washington County Water District had $238,878 in total net position. Net position consisted of the following: • Fire General Fund: ($21,232) – Unassigned fund balance • Water Enterprise Fund: ▪ $35,685 – Unrestricted net position ▪ $224,425 – Invested in capital assets, net of related debt Figure 290: Washington County Water District Net Assets Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Fund Balance FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Invested in capital assets, net 178,212 156,104 133,996 261,996 224,425 of related debt Unrestricted net position (87,906) (93,566) (63,611) 55,485 35,685 (Enterprise Fund) Unassigned (General Fund) 85,807 85,207 91,950 (10,661) (21,232) Total Fund Balance 176,113 147,745 162,335 306,820 238,878 Demand for Services Washington Fire Department serves a relatively small area with a remote population and provides aid services to other communities when requested. A total of 18 incidents were provided by the agency and its dispatch center and included incident information from February 2, 2022, through November 30, 2022. This analysis focuses on incidents within the statutory and contractual areas where WAF responds. The following figure shows the overview statistics for Washington Fire Department. Figure 291: WAF Overview Avg. Annual Incidents per 90th Percentile Agency Incident Vol. 1,000 Population Total Time Washington Fire Department 18 113 18:08 401 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo The incident categories in the following figure employ the National Fire Incident Reporting System's code grouping. “Rescue-Medical” responses account for over 81% of WAF's operations. The next figure shows incident volume by type between February 2, 2022, through November 30, 2022, visually demonstrating the proportion of incident types. The category “Good Intent” includes calls where the reporting party may have believed help was needed, but upon investigation, it was determined that no action on the part of the Fire Department was necessary. Examples include smoke from a properly operating chimney, a vehicle accident that could not be located, and an incident where the fire unit was cancelled by another agency prior to arrival. Figure 292: Total Incident Response by Type Fire, 1 Good Intent, 2 Rescue-Medical, 13 Typically, an analysis of incidents by year can yield a trend or give an idea of what the call volume might look like in the next few years. Unfortunately, there is not enough data from WAF to provide a review or projection of call volume trends. Calls charted in the following figure as “Service Area” include calls handled in and by WAF. “Aid Given” includes call service provided by WAF in areas outside the district via Mutual or Automatic Aid. “Aid Received” includes calls occurring in the WAF District but handled by other agencies. 402 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 293: Incidents by Aid Type 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Aid Given Aid Received Service Area There is insufficient data to perform any temporal studies of monthly or hourly call volumes. Emergency Response Performance The performance of the Fire Department response in the service area was evaluated on the 16 incidents provided. Response mode was not provided, so performance times were calculated using all incidents, excluding Service Calls. The results are presented using the 80th percentile statistic. The 80th percentile is typically used in the volunteer fire service for measuring incident response performance. Based on timestamps provided, two unique time segments were included when evaluating this agency's response performance. The first is the time it takes for the agency to receive the notification from Dispatch and go en route to the call (turnout time). The second is the time it takes for the unit to drive to the incident (travel time). Both segments combined make up the total response time evaluated below. The unit type was not discriminated against, and the first-arriving unit was used to determine the total response time. The timestamps in the data provided for each segment of the response time do not include seconds. This truncation of the data introduces potential for up to two minutes’ error in the total response time calculation. 403 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo WAF did not indicate the adoption of a performance goal. The National Fire Protection Association’s NFPA 1720: Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Volunteer Fire Departments does not specify a response time standard for remote areas, stating it is, “Directly dependent on travel distance.” Between February 2022 and November 2022, WAF's performance for 16 incidents within the fire response area was a total response time of 18 minutes, 8 seconds (18:08) or less, 80% of the time. The following chart shows the actual total response time for calls grouped by NFIRS categories. Figure 294: WAF Actual Total Response Time Performance Incident Type 2/2022–11/2022 Performance Fire/Other 18:42 or less, 80% of the time EMS 17:54 or less, 80% of the time The following figure is the performance of total response time for each of the major incident types within the data set. Figure 295: WAF 80th Percentile Total Response Times, February 2022–November 2022 28:00 21:12 21:00 17:54 14:00 07:00 02:32 00:00 Fire Good Intent Rescue Medical 404 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo The final analysis investigated the unit usage data for all apparatus within the system. Three dimensions are studied in this report. The first dimension is the unit hour utilization (UHU). This number represents the time a unit was committed to an incident as a percentage of the total time it was on duty. The next is the average time a unit was committed to an incident. Finally, the average number of incidents a unit was deployed per day was analyzed. Figure 296: WAF Fire Unit Statistics Unit Hour Utilization Avg. Time per Avg. Incidents Agency (UHU) Incident Per Day WAF 0.3% 83 Minutes 0.04 The unit hour utilization (UHU) calculation evaluates how much time a crew is committed to an incident versus the total time on duty during a specific time frame. The formula for this calculation is the total time committed to an incident divided by the sum of all time the unit is staffed. ∑𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑎 𝑆𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑒 𝑈𝐻𝑈 = ∑𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐼𝑛 𝑆𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒 The desire is for the primary unit at a station to be under 10% UHU. Maintaining 10% UHU should indicate that the area has 90% availability for unscheduled events. Stations with multiple companies should aggregate to less than 10% UHU for all similar units. In addition, crews from the primary apparatus that cross-staff other units should avoid aggregated UHUs of over 10%. Staffing The following figure shows the total number of personnel for WAF organized by the various divisions. Figure 297: WAF Staffing Assignments Assignment Staffing Uniformed Administration 0 Non-Uniformed Administration 0 Fire Prevention 0 Operations Staff 0 Emergency Communications CAL FIRE GVECC Volunteers, Reserve, On Call 8 Total Personnel 8 405 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 298: WAF Daily Staffing Station Daily Staffing Unit Staffing 60 0 All-Volunteer staffed Total 0 Fire Station The following figures outline the basic features of WAF’s fire station. The condition of the station is rated based on the criteria identified in the introduction to this section of the report. 406 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Station Name/Number: Firehouse 60 Address/Physical Location: 15406 Washington Road, Washington, CA 95986 General Description: Building was retrofit in 2005; rated in “Good” condition. Does not meet the needs of a modern fire service facility. Structure Date of Original Construction 1976, retrofit in 2005 General Condition Good Seismic Protection No Auxiliary Power 30Kw LPG Generator ADA Compliant No Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 0 Back-Ins 1 Total Bays: 1 Total Square Footage 1,600 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 0 Beds 0 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 0 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities ½ Bath Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms N Showers N Bedrooms N Exercise/Workout Facilities No Kitchen Facilities Microwave Individual Lockers Assigned 0 Training/Meeting Rooms 1 Washer/Dryer/Extractor 0 Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke & CO Detection Battery Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System Cameras Apparatus Exhaust System No 407 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Minimum Unit Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Staffing* Engine 60 0 19814X4 Type 2 Brush 60 0 1995 4X4 Type 6 Rescue 60 0 1997 4X4 Light Rescue Patrol 60 0 2022 Polaris UTV Chief 60 0 2008 4X4 Pickup Total Daily Staffing: 0 All-Volunteer Staffed * If an apparatus is cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. Fire Station Discussion The sole WAF fire station was considered in "Good" condition, with an age of 47 years. The following figure summarizes the fire station and its features. Figure 299: Station Configuration and Condition Staffing General Station Apparatus Bays Station Age Capacity Condition Station 60 1 0 Good 47 years Totals/Average: 1 0 47 years Generally, the station is older and does not meet the requirements of modern firefighting. As the firefighting environment has changed, the technology, equipment, and safety systems have changed to meet new demands. Older buildings do not typically have the space or engineering systems to meet that new environment. Modern living requires much more access to electrical outlets than was expected in older buildings, including charging stations for battery operated equipment and agency and employee Electric Vehicles. The 47-year-old WAF station is no exception. For example, older buildings do not meet the requirements due to the need to decontaminate personnel and equipment after many types of responses in the current firefighting context. Every crew member should have access to facilities to decontaminate immediately after a fire event, and showers should allow for gender separation. In addition, there needs to be enough partitioned space to allow for gear and equipment to be thoroughly washed, and the space needs to be designed to control contamination in the living and working spaces of the station. While all structures require routine maintenance, fire stations require even more maintenance due to the nature of their use. Multiple departures and returns of heavy apparatus also affect these structures. 408 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Facility Replacement With the fire station nearing 50 years of age and being of inadequate design, there needs to be a facility replacement plan in place. Ensuring fire stations are in good repair requires regular maintenance and scheduled replacement of specialized equipment. Plans for updating and repairing systems such as heating and air conditioning (HVAC), generators, roofs, driveways, parking areas, security gates, painting, carpeting, and small appliances can keep costs down and buildings in service longer. In addition, establishing a facility replacement and maintenance plan will enable the Department to plan for ongoing service to the community more efficiently. Status of Shared Facilities The Washington Fire Department station is on the same Water District property with the district office. Apparatus Washington Fire Department apparatus was evaluated by WAF staff based on age, miles/hours, service, condition, and reliability. Fleet maintenance is provided in-house when possible. The criteria are defined in the introduction section of this report. The following figures represent all apparatus and vehicles operated by WAF. Figure 300: WAF Apparatus Unit Type Status Year Condition Features Engines & Aerial Apparatus Engine 60 Type 2 Frontline 1981 Fair 1,000 GPM/500 G Tank Brush 60 Type 6 Frontline 1995 Fair 120 GPM/200 G Tank Medics/Rescues/Other Rescue 60 Light Rescue Frontline 1997 Fair Patrol 60 UTV Frontline 2022 Excellent 120 GPM 44 G Tank Figure 301: Supervisor & Command Vehicles Unit Assigned To Manufacturer Year Condition Utility 60 Fire Chief Dodge 2008 Fair 409 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Apparatus Discussion All fire apparatus is well beyond the expected service life. Preventative maintenance checks and pump tests are not performed regularly, and maintenance records are not kept. Dispatch & Communications WAF is dispatched by the CAL FIRE Grass Valley Emergency Command Center (GVECC). The center provides service for all fire agencies in Nevada County. The GVECC has the ability to dispatch via Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL); however, at present none of the local agencies are utilizing AVL for closest-unit dispatch. Figure 302: PSAP and Dispatch Center Item Description CAD Application Northrop Grumman Altaris CAD Telephone System Motorola VESTA Radio System MODUCOM radio consoles Fire/EMS Notification Two-tone encoder system Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Mutual aid TAC channels, State-wide radio with other fire agencies in the County: interoperability channels Ability for fire agencies to communicate via State-wide interoperability channels radio with police agencies in the County: Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Mutual aid TAC channels, State-wide radio with non-Fire EMS agencies in the County: interoperability channels CAD-to-CAD with other CAL FIRE ECCs; for Ability for PSAP to communicate CAD-to-CAD local government dispatch centers, phone (how do you transfer a call to another center): call only Priority Dispatch – Emergency Medical Criteria-based dispatch system in place: Dispatch Formal EMD quality assurance program in place: Priority Dispatch AQUA and EMD-Qs Options for non-emergent calls not requiring EMS: None AVL used on fire apparatus: Northrop Grumman AVL used on ambulances & EMS units: No RadioMobile Patriot or a tablet using MDTs/MDCs in all fire & EMS vehicles: RadioMobile IQMobile Closest-unit dispatched via AVL: Yes No. of 911 calls: 2022: 23,342 No. of 10-digit incoming emergency calls: 2022: 31,891 410 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Infrastructure Needs The current building does not meet the needs of a modern fire agency. The Fire Chief has been pursuing grant funding to add to the fire station/community hall in order to provide a more suitable facility for the Fire Department to operate from. Governance Structure Options Due to the isolated location of the WAF, there are few opportunities for governmental change to address service needs. Service Review Determinations LAFCo is required to prepare a written statement of determination with respect to six areas as specified by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. Based on the criteria described in Section 1 of this report, the following determinations are proposed for the district. MSR Determination #1: Growth and Population Projections The current population of the Washington Fire Department service area, based on the American Community Survey and Esri’s interpolation of census tracts, is estimated to be 126. However, the Washington Fire Department estimated the population at 160. The California Department of Finance has estimated that the future population within Nevada County will decrease by 2035. However, using the interpolations of the American Community Survey estimates for this report estimates a 6% growth for the community to 134 in 2035. MSR Determination #2: Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence The historic community of Washington, as defined by the Nevada County Planning Department, has been identified as a DUC. This community is larger than the current sphere of influence and boundary for the district. It was originally recommended that the sphere of influence for the district be expanded to include the whole of the DUC area to address the actual service area of WAF, however, further review by the district revealed that the potential expansion area is uninhabited and would provide no opportunity for enhancing revenue to the district. This larger area will continue to receive fire protection and emergency medical response from WAF through mutual aid. Therefore, the determination is that the SOI should remain unchanged, coterminous with the current WAF boundary. 411 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo MSR Determination #3: Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities, Adequacy of Public Services, and Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies, Including Those Related to Sewers, Water, and Structural Fire Protection in Any DUCs Within or Contiguous to the SOI WAF operates from a single fire station located in town, with an all-volunteer force to serve an area of approximately 1 square mile and 200 private properties. It has agreements with the Tahoe National Forest to serve the private lands within the National Forest. There are no national standards provided for volunteer response times; however, for WAF it is 18.42 minutes or less for fires and 17.54 minutes or less for EMS, 80% of the time. MSR Determination #4: Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services The financial ability of WAF to provide fire protection services is limited by its lack of funding. It receives Prop. 172 funding from the County, support from its community auxiliary group and resources from the enterprise activities of the water activities of the district. However, the financial documents received for WAF indicate that it has operated at a deficit in three out of the last five years, and there is listed an amount owed to the Fire Fund of approximately $85,207. The district has debt for the repair of the water distribution system that is currently $96,893 with an annual payment of $5,272, and its total Prop. 172 receipts in FY 2022 were $8,770. This raises the question of how the liability is funded while continuing to provide service to the community. MSR Determination #5: Status and Opportunities for Shared Services Due to the isolated location of the district, there are limited opportunities for shared services. However, the Fire Department shares facilities with the Water District. The district receives its dispatch services from CAL FIRE. MSR Determination #6: Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies The district has implemented cost-savings measures, but there are no expenditures for salaries for fire personnel and there are limited resources. Thus, the operations are “bare bones” at present. The website for the district does not provide the full range of information required by State law, and this shortcoming should be addressed by the district. 412 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Sphere of Influence Update The WAF sphere of influence was confirmed through the Municipal Service Review for fire protection and emergency services presented in January 2005 and adopted by the Commission. The sphere of influence was updated in January 2014 through adoption of the report entitled “SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATES 2014 NEVADA COUNTY FIRE SERVICE PROVIDERS.” Existing SOI The sphere of influence for WAF is coterminous with existing boundaries and has remained unchanged since the original Municipal Service Review in 2005 and the Sphere of Influence update in 2014. SOI Options The options for the WAF sphere of influence are: 1. Remain unchanged as coterminous; or, 2. Expand the sphere of influence to include the disadvantaged unincorporated community defined by the County of Nevada General Plan as a “legacy community.” This area is uninhabited, and has received services through WAF in the past. Recommended SOI The recommended sphere of influence determination is to maintain the existing sphere coterminous with the current district boundary. 413 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 303: WAF Recommended SOI 414 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Proposed SOI Determinations Following are the proposed sphere of influence determinations required by Government Code Section 56425, related to the recommended retention of the existing coterminous sphere of influence. SOI Determination #1: The Present and Planned Land Uses in the Area, Including Agricultural and Open Space Lands The Nevada County General Plan 2020 has identified the Washington area as a legacy community located along the south fork of the Yuba River. “Legacy community” is a companion designation to the disadvantaged unincorporated community identified in LAFCo law. It notes that there are few opportunities for significant new residential development due to the community’s isolated location, lack of infrastructure, and wild and rugged topography of the area. The following map identifies the land use designations for the community the County recognizes as representing Washington. 415 Creek Deer or F k North ARBOGAST Rock Creek Deer Creek R H A CN ROAD ARBOGAST RANCH ROAD Willow Valley Creek MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Deer Creek W Figure 304: WAF Land Use Designations Deer Creek Greenhorn Creek Creek Clipper SHORT CIRCLE Clipper Creek The land-use categories shown on the map include RES (residential, 1.5-acres minimum lot size), UMD (urban medium density, six dwelling units per acre maximum), REC (recreation), PUB (public) and NC (neighborhood/commercial). These designations are surrounded by lands designated as Forest with limited to no development potential. SOI Determination #2: The Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services in the Area Based upon the isolated location of the Washington community and the range of land uses within its legacy community, the present and probable need for the fire protection and emergency medical response will remain acute. The population of the district is estimated by WAF to be 160, since it responds to the whole of the community both within the district boundaries and to outside areas. The community has a number of parks and tourist destinations that have a transitory population that requires the range of services available from the district. 416 ME LEGACY LANE PELLO STATE HIGHWAY 20 TRUOC ENAL AL S T O LOS SCOTTS FLAT ROAD WAY SCOTTS FLAT DAM ROAD H A LAKE LANE SAGENITE LANE MILL SPRINGS DRIVE BANNER QUAKE R HILL ROAD OCAL QUAKER HILL CROSS ROAD MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE T A R L OA F D S R A O IL RED DOG ROAD DAO R HORNBROOK WAY SIN EN T A E L K E O T P I AL RED DOG ROAD SKEETER HOLLOW ROAD WINGS OF MORNING EV D IR KEATEN LANE D OA R BUCKEYE S E ULB TE TN OO H L R C O S AD COOPER D R A O HIGH RISE DRIVE ROCK CREEK R O AD CASCI ROAD PINE FLAT W AY ROAD PINES FLAT ECALP SCOTTS WILLOW VALLEY ROAD SARDONYX DRIVE TALL OAK SCOTTS FLAT ROAD SCOTTS T ALF DAM ROAD E V ROOSKIE WAY CASCADE LOOP SPANISH LANE S UMMIT RIDGE DRI TAY LANE CASCADE DRIVE GOLDBUG ROAD PASQUALE ROAD TE LANE SAN M C UT PASQUALE ROAD GAS CANYON R A D O L OWER GREENH ORN SPUR ROAD PLACE STARW RED DOG CROSS ROAD OAK ID G R D O R A E LOLA'S ECHO ROAD OOD LANE NE CLIPPER CREEK R OAD SESAME STREET SNOW E B B V O I R L D U A E RN ZING STAR R D AO WILD LILY PLACE JONES RIDGE ROAD B E H E IVE LA P D : E S R U R -10 R C U S F T (600 ac.) FO R -40 R U R U R -5 R -10 P U B H C R U R R -10 U R -30 R U R -30 R U R -10 P U B P D : R U R R U R -20 -5 FO R -40 R U R -30 P U B N C U S F R U R -30 E S T R U R -30 FO R -160 Middle Yuba River O A K TR E E R O AD BB uu tte tte Y u Y u A bb aa F G B D E C SS ieie r r a r r a H PP lala cc ee C rr a I s EE c J l D l D oo r ar a a K d o d o d e S h o r G e e s n , e N N r o a e r l v t P h a d l S a a n a n C 1 o 9 J u 9 u n 5 a n t S y , h , W C e e a a t s l i C h f o i , n r G n g i , t a o H n R & U R & -20 I S o R U R -40 d R a U R -10 S N C p r P U B R E S O P U M D i P n U B g N C R E P S U B s B P Creek Castle Lower Upper Castle Creek Rattlesnake Creek South Yuba River DONNER PASS ROAD SO D A S P R NI G S R O A D South Yuba River South Yuba River S h e e t I - S o d a S p r i n g s U S F P U B 0 FO R -160 0 .5 1 1 .5M ile s P U B H C U U M M D H C D 0 R U S E C F 0 .5 FO R -40 1 H C H C R E C FO R -160 2 M ile s SAG Poorman Creek TON ROAD South Yuba River ROAD WASHINGTON Washington Creek W ASHINGTON ROAD Scotchman Creek S h e e t C - C a s c a d e S h o r e s 0 0 0.5 S cale 1 1 2 Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the accuracy of the maps and data provided; nevertheless, some information may not be accurate. The County of Nevada assumes no responsibility arising from use of this information. THE MAPS AND ASSOCIATED DATA ARE PROVIDED WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Before making decisions using the information provided on this map, contact the Nevada County Public Counter staff to confirm the validity of the data provided. Created by Nevada County GIS Division 8/18/2010 GeneralPlanSheetCGHI.mxd 3 K ilom P la c e M iles 2 eters r C o u n ty H R R L C P C V R ig h w a ys o a d s ive rs a ke s o u n ty B o u n d a ry a rce ls o m m u n ity R e g io illa g e C e n te rs u ra l C e n te rs n s S S h h e e t G - N o r t h S e e t H - W a s h i n R E S R E C U M D R E S R E S E sta te (E S T ) R u ra l 5 a cre (R U R -5 ) R u ra l 1 0 a cre (R U R -1 0 ) R u ra l 2 0 a cre (R U R -2 0 ) R u ra l 3 0 a cre (R U R -3 0 ) R u ra l 4 0 a cre (R U R -4 0 ) R e sid e n tia l (R E S ) U rb a n S in g le -F a m ily D e n sity R e U rb a n M e d iu m D e n sity R e s (U M U rb a n H ig h D e n sity R e s (U H D ) B u sin e ss P a rk (B P ) a n J u Y u b a C g t o n N C P U B P U B N C s (U S F ) D ) a n o u n ty U M D R E C U M D L e g e n 0 P U B R E S FO R 0 d R u ra l C o m m e rcia l (R C ) N e ig h b o rh o o d C io m m e rcia l (N C ) C o m m u n ity C o m m e rcia l (C C ) H ig h w a y C o m m e rcia l (H C ) O ffice -P ro fe ssio n a l (O P ) G ra ss V a lle y (G R V ) N e va d a C ity (N E V C IT Y ) T ru cke e (T R U C K E E ) In d u stria l (IN D ) P la n n e d D e ve lo p m e n t (P D ) P la n n e d R e sid e n tia l C o m m u n ity(P -160 R C ) 0 0 .2 .2 5 5 S P R R O F F F F W 0 .5M ile s 0 .5M ile s p e cia l D e ve lo p m e n t A re a (S D A ) u b lic (P U B ) e cre a tio n (R E C ) e cre a tio n 1 6 0 a cre (R E C -1 6 0 ) p e n S p a ce (O S ) o re st 4 0 a cre (F O R -4 0 ) o re st 8 0 a cre (F O R -8 0 ) o re st 1 6 0 a cre (F O R -1 6 0 ) o re st 6 4 0 a cre (F O R -6 4 0 ) a te r A re a (W A ) MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo SOI Determination #3: The Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services which the Agencies Provide or Are Authorized to Provide The capacity of the fire protection service provided by WAF is limited based upon its lack of funding and its need to rely upon its volunteers for response. It must rely upon aid from surrounding agencies to ensure service to its community, either through automatic aid response or the provision of equipment or vehicles. SOI Determination #4: The Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest in the Area Due to the isolated nature of the WAF service area community, the social and economic community of interest is the legacy community of Washington as defined by the County General Plan. The residents of the community rely upon one another to provide for the needs of the community. This is represented by WAF being an all-volunteer organization. SOI Determination #5: The Present and Probable Need of Any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities for the district’s Public Facilities and Services The Nevada County General Plan has defined a legacy disadvantaged community for the Washington area that is used in this review as the defined DUC. The area outside the sphere of influence of the existing Washington County Water District within this legacy community receives the same level of fire protection services provided by WAF and has been provided those services by WAF through mutual aid. The definition of the community of Washington should address the whole of the community; however, retention of the sphere of influence as coterminous with existing boundaries identifies the inhabited community of Washington. The territory of the legacy community outside the district’s boundaries and existing sphere appear to be uninhabited with no structures identified. 417 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Section III: APPENDICES 418 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Appendix A: Stakeholder Interviews This section offers an in-depth perspective from various individuals involved in the Nevada Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) Municipal Service Review (MSR) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) project. The interviews, conducted on March 28–29, 2024, included elected officials, chief officers, and staff. The responses collected provide valuable insights into the strengths and weaknesses of the fire service system in Nevada County, as well as the critical issues and opportunities for improvement. The candid and honest feedback from these stakeholders adds significant depth to the data collected for this project. This appendix compiles the interview questions and responses, with elected officials' comments highlighted in italics, and aims to reflect the diverse viewpoints of those directly involved in the county's fire services. The collaborative efforts and challenges highlighted in these interviews underscore the importance of ongoing engagement and reform to enhance the effectiveness and sustainability of fire services in Nevada County. Responses in bold italics are from elected officials. All others are from Fire Chiefs and staff. We have 10 questions for you, based on a modified SWOT. Any questions before we start? 1. What strengths contribute to the success of the fire service system in Nevada County: What do you do well as a group? • We do a lot very well. • Developing county wide boundaryless response plan (with move up) • 30 years of progress. • Cross discipline cooperation- Nevada County Law Enforcement and Fire Protection Council. Law, Fire, etc.; meets monthly • County Chiefs meeting in focus groups to clean up practices • Cooperative effort- has improved. • Interagency cooperation is very strong. • Strong interaction with CAL FIRE • Out of county strike teams work efficiently as team. • Good, qualified trained people, Chiefs and line staff • Work well with cooperators • Communication and cooperation is good 419 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo • Mutual aid response works well. • Collaborate on grants; OES helps with this. • Chiefs meetings are well attended • Work well with CDF and USFS. • The people know each other and play by the same rules. • Gone much further than ever in the past; to the point of no return • Relationships are strong and getting stronger • USFS, CAL FIRE has strong leadership presence • County Chiefs group is working very well. • FF Union Local was a response to dumb practices • Training level is good for such small agencies • Making progress on special teams • JOA with NCC/GRV • Good communication and coordination. • Share resources well; anomalies exist but are overcome. • Aid agreements are in place; closest resource response by agreement. • Some admin tasks are shared. • Communicating well. Fire service gets along well, also all emergency services. • Trust • They provide incredible service to the community. Also, the training they have undertaken and passed back on to our community members is exemplary. • The cooperation between the various agencies. • The relationships between the fire chiefs and the Board of Supervisors. 2. What is not working well? • Staffing: limited number of PCF; 2/0 staffing as the norm • No depth • Inadequate Funding • Retention/Recruitment • Truckee isn’t integrated with Nevada County Fire Chiefs Assn. 420 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo • Big no-man’s land between the western Nevada agencies and Truckee. Not in anyone’s district- but the county is permitting land use. • It’s being done on the backs of the employees • Can’t meet the service demand and the needs of the community • There are hiccups. Sometimes dispatch doesn’t get it right • No one is discussing how to improve response times. • Fewer ambulances • Lack of funding (multiple similar responses) • Things are reactive • Need more interagency training; was done more in the past • The property tax base isn’t sufficient • Imbalance in call volume in auto aid • There are some personalities involved • No plan for aging or inadequate facilities. • There’s no depth or resiliency • Inability to fund to the level needed • Financial insolvency • Recruitment/retention • System is vulnerable and fragile • No countywide training or equipment standards; capabilities are not equal • Not an efficient move up and cover system • The fire departments don’t play well together. I think the Chiefs try, but a lot of the egos seems to be with the respective board of directors. • Too many departments • Inadequate funding. 3. What do you see as the top critical issues facing the department(s) today? • Catastrophic wildfire. • Long-term fiscal sustainability • Rising expenses outpacing revenue 421 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo • Recruitment/retention • Funding isn’t sustainable (multiple responses) • 2/0 staffing • Succession planning • Retention- paid staff leave for better opportunities • Wearing out the employees- too much put on too few people • Vegetation management is backlogged. • Funding • Resiliency • Recruitment/retention • Standardization • Land use management at county level- pressure to provide housing, some is tax- exempt. Workforce housing is exempt from property taxes, but has a high workload for services. • Constraints of Prop 13 on funding. • Costs going up: labor market for firefighters; equipment • Public education/Emergency Planning/Evacuation planning • Financial instability is number one. • Communities want all the services, but they don’t want to pay for them. • A better collaboration between all the agencies. • Ensuring departments are staffed appropriately. • Recruitment and retention of personnel, both volunteer and paid firefighters. • Identifying funding mechanisms and fiscal sustainability. 4. What opportunities are available to improve service and capabilities throughout the region? What are some areas in which you think the system could make improvements? • Emergency Management- notification systems, messaging, outreach, engaging the public. Multiple elements involved in notifications- Code Red, Genesis Connect, and others across multiple counties. Counties are aligning with each other, but not necessarily in the best way from the fire service perspective. • Intern program for academy graduates. 422 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo • Need to add personnel to build capacity. • The county can help with grant writing, and researching the availability of grants. • There is a growing gap between the Cities (expanding service) and the county districts (future not looking good) • Diverging; moving away from core mission- need to focus on the priorities • Improve dispatch using AVL • Some systems aren’t compatible • Special Ops- Haz Mat is very much lacking • Improve training opportunities for volunteers and PCFs locally. • EMS transport is failing. Public/private partnership might be possible. • Pub ed; investigation; prevention • Reorganization. • One fire district in the unincorporated county. • Larger agency would help with recruitment/ retention • Staffing levels are a concern • Funding measures; municipals have more resources • One county fire agency; one municipal. • Doing a bigger consolidation would be the goal, excluding the cities. • Having a finance package where everyone pays the same amount, whether it be a special tax, a rescue tax, or similar. • Consolidation of fire departments throughout the county. 5. If you could change, or improve one thing about the system, what would it be? Think big picture. • Correlating funding with services delivered. Critical infrastructure not paying for services provided. Hospital, Airport, freeways, utilities, Federal and State land. • Build in more capacity • Standardize • Focus on employee development and wellness • Equalize funding and assessments across the county 423 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo • Staffing at 3/0 • One county fire department • More medics • Reorganization • Make it possible for the volunteers/PCFs to train with and ride with paid crews. They are going out on strike teams and learning so much. They could learn more here at home if they were allowed to participate. • Doing a county-wide consolidation. • To address the ad valorem; making it equal across the county. 6. How would you rate the level of service provided by the fire department(s)? • Scale of 1-10? ▪ 6/7; 4; 9; 5/6; 8; 8; 8, 7; 8. • Or in one word? ▪ Satisfactory; Spread thin; Trending in the wrong direction; Fragile; Doing the best we can with what we’ve got. I think they all do a great job. Competent. They do a fantastic job in serving the communities they serve. Reliable. LAFCo-specific 7. What role do you see LAFCo playing in facilitating change? • Valuable function. Hold the County accountable for annexations; ensuring services are funded as land use changes. • We haven’t seen much from LAFCo • Didn’t participate until RNR • Look at the imbalance of aid • Allow for fire district representation and input before a crisis • Consolidation is where we’re headed. • Boundary adjustments; help with ad-valorem, • Ensuring all communities are appropriately served • Keep things moving • They’re doing a good job • Regular MSR program, with recommendations and follow through. 424 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo • Watch the status, keep pulse • Don’t be reactive, be proactive • Western Nevada consolidated is a good idea. • Recognize that Volunteers are important • Advocate for staffing and grant funding • Introduce performance standards, hold accountability • Establish benchmarks and indicators/ triggers • LAFCo has been a good partner • Advocate for funding, staffing, reorganization • I see their purpose is to ensure that any consolidation moving forward is, and remains, sustainable. • Engaging with the fire agencies to determine how we can address the challenges facing our County today, and in the future, while ensuring they can succeed financially. 8. In what ways could your agency be reorganized or reconfigured to better serve? Changes to SOI or annexation potential? • Become more professional. Ambulance service is good. Fire side has problems. • PCP board is ready to consolidate • Doesn’t feel compelled to grow outside of boundaries. Limited funding, more problems. • County is mandating growth, but have no way to provide revenue. • Close the gap in the Grass Valley/Nevada City contract. • Contracts for service outside the agency. • Formalize the SOI and annexation areas • Reallocate some TOT to fire / rescue • One agency, with one Chief • Consolidating fire agencies into one, as long as financial sustainability occurs. 425 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo 9. Is there any advantage in changing the service area boundaries or governance of Nevada County Fire agencies through a formal LAFCo process? • The path ahead is very clear. • Don’t see a need to change boundaries, but there might be a model that provides better governance. • Economy and efficiency. Silos don’t work anymore. • Could focus and specialize. • BOS governance could be advantageous • Consistency • Depth • Standardization • Unity of command • Prefer local board to BOS governance • It happens by virtue of that’s how it works. Boundary wise, it would make perfect sense to have two boundaries: Grass Valley and Nevada City, and the other would be the new consolidated district. • Seven person elected board; five geographic and two at large • Absolutely. The ability to have a more streamlined governmental process would be extremely beneficial for the various communities and the County as a whole. • A governing board that is educated and professional 10. Is there any disadvantage in changing the service areas or governance model of Nevada County fire agencies? • Could consolidate districts regionally without disadvantages. • Municipal Fire Dept probably wouldn’t be good. • Final nail in the volunteer coffin. • Loss of Paid Call program, which has been a good recruitment tool. • Need to preserve the relationships. • Could jeopardize community support. • I don’t think there is any disadvantage. • I don’t believe so. 426 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Appendix B: Table of Figures Figure 1: Nevada County LAFCo Study Area ................................................................................ 7 Figure 2: Fire Service Responsibility Areas .................................................................................... 10 Figure 3: City/County Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change January 1, 2023, and 2024 ................................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 4: Population Distribution .................................................................................................... 12 Figure 5: Land Use Categories ...................................................................................................... 13 Figure 6: Fire District Funding Matrix .............................................................................................. 14 Figure 7: Assessments, Special Taxes, and Proposition 172 ........................................................ 15 Figure 8: Call Density—All Agencies ............................................................................................. 18 Figure 9: 8-Minute Effective Response Force ............................................................................... 19 Figure 10: Fire Station 5-Mile Travel Distance ............................................................................... 20 Figure 11: Consolidated Sphere of Influence .............................................................................. 30 Figure 12: GRS Service Area .......................................................................................................... 38 Figure 13: Overview of Services Provided .................................................................................... 39 Figure 14: Grass Valley 2020 Planning Areas ............................................................................... 41 Figure 15: Nevada City Planning Areas ....................................................................................... 42 Figure 16: Grass Valley Fire Department Organizational Chart ................................................. 44 Figure 17: Transparency and Accountability ............................................................................... 45 Figure 18: GRS DUC ........................................................................................................................ 48 Figure 19: Grass Valley Fire Department Revenues, FY 2019–FY 2023 ....................................... 50 Figure 20: Historical Fire Department Revenues .......................................................................... 50 Figure 21: Historical GRS Expenditures .......................................................................................... 51 Figure 22: Historical Fire Department Expenditures ..................................................................... 52 Figure 23: City of Grass Valley Fund Balance .............................................................................. 54 Figure 24: GRS Overview ................................................................................................................ 54 Figure 25: Total Incident Response by Type with Percentage ................................................... 55 Figure 26: Total Incident Volume by Year .................................................................................... 56 Figure 27: Incidents with Aid Given and Aid Received by Year ................................................ 57 Figure 28: Aid Incidents by Jurisdiction (2021–2022 combined) ................................................ 57 Figure 29: Incidents by Month ....................................................................................................... 58 Figure 30: Incident Percentage by Hour ...................................................................................... 58 427 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 31: Day and Hour Incident Heat Map .............................................................................. 59 Figure 32: NFPA 1710 vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance ......................................... 60 Figure 33: Incidents’ 90th Percentile Total Response Times, January 2019–December 2022 .. 61 Figure 34: Fire Unit Statistics ............................................................................................................ 61 Figure 35: Staffing ........................................................................................................................... 62 Figure 36: Daily Staffing .................................................................................................................. 63 Figure 38: GRS Fire Stations ............................................................................................................ 64 Figure 39: Station Configuration and Condition ......................................................................... 69 Figure 40: GRS Apparatus .............................................................................................................. 71 Figure 41: Supervisor & Command Vehicles ................................................................................ 71 Figure 42: PSAP and Dispatch Center .......................................................................................... 72 Figure 43: City of Grass Valley SOI ................................................................................................ 75 Figure 44: HGF Service Area .......................................................................................................... 80 Figure 45: Overview of Services Provided .................................................................................... 81 Figure 46: HGF Board of Directors ................................................................................................. 82 Figure 47: HGF Organizational Chart ............................................................................................ 83 Figure 48: Transparency and Accountability ............................................................................... 84 Figure 49: HGF Revenues, FY 2019–FY 2023 .................................................................................. 88 Figure 50: Historical HGF Expenditures .......................................................................................... 89 Figure 51: HGF Summarized Revenues and Expenditures .......................................................... 90 Figure 52: Revenues Over Expenditures (2019–2023) .................................................................. 90 Figure 53: HGF General Fund Summarized Projected General Fund Revenues and Expenditures ............................................................................................................................. 92 Figure 54: HGF Fund Balance ........................................................................................................ 93 Figure 55: HGF Overview ................................................................................................................ 93 Figure 56: Total Incident Response by Type ................................................................................. 94 Figure 57: Annual Incidents by Aid Type ...................................................................................... 95 Figure 58: Incidents by Month ....................................................................................................... 95 Figure 59: Incident Percentage by Hour ...................................................................................... 96 Figure 60: Day and Hour Incident Heat Map .............................................................................. 97 Figure 61: NFPA 1710 vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance ......................................... 98 Figure 62: Incidents’ 90th Percentile Total Response Times, January 2019–December 2022 .. 99 Figure 63: Fire Unit Statistics ............................................................................................................ 99 428 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 64: Staffing ......................................................................................................................... 100 Figure 65: Daily Staffing ................................................................................................................ 101 Figure 66: HGF Fire Stations .......................................................................................................... 102 Figure 67: Station Configuration and Condition ....................................................................... 106 Figure 68: HGF Apparatus ............................................................................................................ 108 Figure 69: Supervisor & Command Vehicles .............................................................................. 108 Figure 70: PSAP and Dispatch Center ........................................................................................ 110 Figure 71: NCC Service Area ....................................................................................................... 119 Figure 72: Potential SOIs for NCC and North San Juan FPDs ................................................... 120 Figure 73: Overview of Services Provided .................................................................................. 121 Figure 74: NCC Board of Directors .............................................................................................. 123 Figure 75: NCC Organizational Chart ......................................................................................... 124 Figure 76: Transparency and Accountability ............................................................................. 125 Figure 77: NCC DUC Location ..................................................................................................... 127 Figure 78: Nevada County Consolidated FPD Revenues, FY 2019–FY 2023 ........................... 129 Figure 79: Historical NCC Expenditures ....................................................................................... 130 Figure 80: Summarized Revenues and Expenditures for NCC ................................................. 130 Figure 81: Revenues Over Expenditures (2019–2023) ................................................................ 131 Figure 82: Nevada County Consolidated FD General Fund Summarized Projected General Fund Revenues and Expenditures ....................................................................................... 132 Figure 83: NCC Debt Maturity Schedule .................................................................................... 132 Figure 84: NCC Fund Balance ..................................................................................................... 133 Figure 85: NCC Overview ............................................................................................................ 134 Figure 86: Total Incident Response by Type with Percentage ................................................. 135 Figure 87: Annual Incidents by Year ........................................................................................... 136 Figure 88: Incidents by Month ..................................................................................................... 136 Figure 89: Incident Percentage by Hour .................................................................................... 137 Figure 90: Day and Hour Incident Heat Map ............................................................................ 138 Figure 91: Adopted Standard vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance ........................ 139 Figure 92: Incidents’ 90th Percentile Total Response Times, January 2019–December 2022 140 Figure 93: Fire Unit Statistics .......................................................................................................... 141 Figure 94: NCC Staffing ................................................................................................................ 142 Figure 95: Daily Staffing ................................................................................................................ 142 429 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 96: NCC Fire Station Locations ......................................................................................... 143 Figure 97: NCC Fire Stations ......................................................................................................... 144 Figure 98: Station Configuration and Condition ....................................................................... 154 Figure 99: NCC Apparatus ........................................................................................................... 156 Figure 100: Supervisor & Command Vehicles ............................................................................ 156 Figure 101: PSAP and Dispatch Center ...................................................................................... 157 Figure 102: NCC DUC ................................................................................................................... 160 Figure 103: Consolidated Sphere of Influence .......................................................................... 163 Figure 104: NSJ Service Area ....................................................................................................... 168 Figure 105: Potential SOIs for NCC and NSJ ............................................................................... 169 Figure 106: Overview of Services Provided ................................................................................ 170 Figure 107: NSJ Board of Directors .............................................................................................. 171 Figure 108: NSJ Organizational Chart ......................................................................................... 172 Figure 109: Transparency and Accountability ........................................................................... 173 Figure 110: NSJ DUC Locations .................................................................................................... 175 Figure 111: North San Juan FPD Revenues, FY 2019–FY 2023 ................................................... 177 Figure 112: Historical NSJ Expenditures ....................................................................................... 178 Figure 113: Summarized Revenues and Expenditures for NSJ ................................................. 179 Figure 114: Revenues and Expenditures for NSJ (2019–2023) .................................................. 179 Figure 115: Strike Team Reimbursements and Payroll (2019–2023) ......................................... 180 Figure 116: NSJ General Fund Summarized Projected General Fund Revenues and Expenditures ........................................................................................................................... 181 Figure 117: NSJ Outstanding Debt .............................................................................................. 181 Figure 118: North San Juan FPD Fund Balance ......................................................................... 182 Figure 119: NSJ Overview ............................................................................................................. 183 Figure 120: Total Incident Response by Type ............................................................................. 183 Figure 121: Annual Incidents by Year ......................................................................................... 184 Figure 122: Incidents by Month ................................................................................................... 185 Figure 123: Incident Percentage by Hour .................................................................................. 185 Figure 124: Day and Hour Incident Heat Map .......................................................................... 186 Figure 125: Adopted Standard vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance ...................... 187 Figure 126: Incidents’ 90th Percentile Total Response Times, January 2019–December 2022 ................................................................................................................................................. 188 430 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 127: Fire Unit Statistics ........................................................................................................ 188 Figure 128: Staffing ....................................................................................................................... 189 Figure 129: Daily Staffing .............................................................................................................. 190 Figure 130: NSJ Fire Stations ......................................................................................................... 191 Figure 131: Station Configuration and Condition ..................................................................... 195 Figure 132: NSJ Apparatus ........................................................................................................... 197 Figure 133: PSAP and Dispatch Center ...................................................................................... 198 Figure 134: OPH Service Area ...................................................................................................... 205 Figure 135: Overview of Services Provided ................................................................................ 206 Figure 136: Ophir Hill Fire Protection District Organizational Chart .......................................... 207 Figure 137: Transparency and Accountability ........................................................................... 208 Figure 138: OPH Revenues (FY 2019–FY 2023) ............................................................................ 211 Figure 139: Historical OPH Expenditures ..................................................................................... 212 Figure 140: Summarized Revenues and Expenditures .............................................................. 213 Figure 141: Historical Revenue Over Expenditure ..................................................................... 213 Figure 142: OPH Summarized Projected General Fund Revenues and Expenditures ........... 214 Figure 143: OPH Fund Balance .................................................................................................... 215 Figure 144: OPH Overview ........................................................................................................... 215 Figure 145: Total Incident Response by Type ............................................................................. 216 Figure 146: Annual Incidents by Year ......................................................................................... 217 Figure 147: Incidents by Month ................................................................................................... 218 Figure 148: Incident Percentage by Hour .................................................................................. 218 Figure 149: Day and Hour Incident Heat Map .......................................................................... 219 Figure 150: Adopted Standard vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance ...................... 220 Figure 151: 90th Percentile Total Response Times (January 2019–December 2022) .............. 221 Figure 152: Fire Unit Statistics ........................................................................................................ 221 Figure 153: Staffing (2022) ............................................................................................................ 222 Figure 154: Daily Staffing .............................................................................................................. 222 Figure 155: OPH Fire Station ......................................................................................................... 223 Figure 156: Station Configuration and Condition ..................................................................... 224 Figure 157: OPH Apparatus ......................................................................................................... 225 Figure 158: Supervisor & Command Vehicles ............................................................................ 226 Figure 159: PSAP and Dispatch Center ...................................................................................... 227 431 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 160: PCP Service Area ...................................................................................................... 234 Figure 161: Overview of Services Provided ................................................................................ 235 Figure 162: Peardale-Chicago Park Fire District Organizational Chart ................................... 236 Figure 163: PCP Board of Directors ............................................................................................. 237 Figure 164: Transparency and Accountability ........................................................................... 238 Figure 165: PCP Summarized Revenues FY 2019–FY 2023 ......................................................... 242 Figure 166: Historical PCP Expenditures ...................................................................................... 243 Figure 167: Summarized PCP Revenues and Expenses, FY 2019–FY 2023 ............................... 243 Figure 168: Graphical Presentation of PCP Summarized Revenues and Expenses, FY 2019–FY 2023 ......................................................................................................................................... 244 Figure 169: PCP Summarized Projected General Fund Revenues and Expenditures .......... 245 Figure 170: PCP Fund Balance .................................................................................................... 245 Figure 171: PCP Overview ............................................................................................................ 246 Figure 172: Total Incident Response by Type ............................................................................. 247 Figure 173: Annual PCP Incidents by Aid Type .......................................................................... 248 Figure 174: PCP Incidents by Month ........................................................................................... 248 Figure 175: PCP Incident Percentage by Hour .......................................................................... 249 Figure 176: Day and Hour Incident Heat Map .......................................................................... 250 Figure 177: Adopted Standard vs. Actual PCP Total Response Time Performance .............. 251 Figure 178: Incidents’ 90th Percentile Total Response Times, January 2019–December 2022 ................................................................................................................................................. 252 Figure 179: PCP Fire Unit Statistics ................................................................................................ 252 Figure 180: PCP Staffing Assignments ......................................................................................... 253 Figure 181: Daily Staffing .............................................................................................................. 253 Figure 182: PCP Fire Stations ........................................................................................................ 254 Figure 183: PCP Station Configuration and Condition ............................................................. 257 Figure 184: PCP Apparatus .......................................................................................................... 258 Figure 185: Supervisor & Command Vehicles ............................................................................ 258 Figure 186: PSAP and Dispatch Center ...................................................................................... 259 Figure 187: Penn Valley Fire Protection District Service Area ................................................... 266 Figure 188: Overview of Services Provided ................................................................................ 267 Figure 189: PNV Board of Directors ............................................................................................. 268 Figure 190: PNV Organizational Chart ........................................................................................ 269 432 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 191: Transparency and Accountability ........................................................................... 270 Figure 192: PNV DUC Location .................................................................................................... 273 Figure 193: PNV Revenues, FY 2018–FY 2022 .............................................................................. 275 Figure 194: Historical PNV Expenditures ...................................................................................... 276 Figure 195: Summarized Revenues and Expenditures for PNV ................................................ 277 Figure 196: Graphical Presentation of Summarized Revenues and Expenditures for PNV ... 277 Figure 197: PNV General Fund Summarized Projected General Fund Revenues and Expenditures ........................................................................................................................... 278 Figure 198: PNV Debt Maturity Schedule ................................................................................... 279 Figure 199 PNV Fund Balance ..................................................................................................... 279 Figure 200: PNV Overview ............................................................................................................ 280 Figure 201: Total Incident Response by Type ............................................................................. 280 Figure 202: Annual Incidents by Year ......................................................................................... 281 Figure 203: Incidents by Month ................................................................................................... 282 Figure 204: Incident Percentage by Hour .................................................................................. 282 Figure 205: Day and Hour Incident Heat Map .......................................................................... 283 Figure 206: Adopted Standard vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance ...................... 285 Figure 207: Incidents’ 90th Percentile Total Response Times, January 2019–December 2022 ................................................................................................................................................. 285 Figure 208: Fire Unit Statistics ........................................................................................................ 286 Figure 209: Staffing Assignments ................................................................................................. 286 Figure 210: Daily Staffing .............................................................................................................. 287 Figure 211: PNV Fire Stations ........................................................................................................ 288 Figure 212: Station Configuration and Condition ..................................................................... 294 Figure 213: PNV Apparatus .......................................................................................................... 296 Figure 214: Supervisor & Command Vehicles ............................................................................ 296 Figure 215: PSAP and Dispatch Center ...................................................................................... 297 Figure 216: Proposed SOI for PNV ............................................................................................... 299 Figure 217: PNV DUC .................................................................................................................... 302 Figure 218: Proposed Consolidated SOI ..................................................................................... 306 Figure 219: RNR Service Area ...................................................................................................... 309 Figure 220: Overview of Services Provided ................................................................................ 310 Figure 221: RNR Board of Directors ............................................................................................. 311 433 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 222: Rough & Ready Fire District Organizational Chart ................................................ 312 Figure 223: Transparency and Accountability ........................................................................... 313 Figure 224: RNR DUC Location .................................................................................................... 316 Figure 225: Rough and Ready FPD Revenues, FY 2019–FY 2023, ............................................. 318 Figure 226: Historical Rough and Ready FPD Expenditures, ..................................................... 319 Figure 227: Summarized Revenues and Expenditures for Rough and Ready FPD, ................ 319 Figure 228: Graphical Presentation of Summarized General Fund Revenues and Expenses ................................................................................................................................................. 320 Figure 229: Rough and Ready FPD General Fund Summarized Projected General Fund Revenues and Expenditures ................................................................................................. 320 Figure 230: Rough and Ready FPD Fund Balance .................................................................... 322 Figure 231: RNR Incident Overview ............................................................................................. 322 Figure 232: Total Incident Response by Type ............................................................................. 323 Figure 233: Annual Incidents by Year ......................................................................................... 324 Figure 234: Incidents by Month ................................................................................................... 324 Figure 235: Incident Percentage by Hour .................................................................................. 325 Figure 236: Day and Hour Incident Heat Map .......................................................................... 326 Figure 237: NFPA 1710 vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance ..................................... 327 Figure 238: Incidents’ 90th Percentile Total Response Times, January 2019–December 2022 ................................................................................................................................................. 328 Figure 239: Fire Unit Statistics ........................................................................................................ 328 Figure 240: Staffing ....................................................................................................................... 329 Figure 241: Daily Staffing .............................................................................................................. 329 Figure 242: RNR Fire Station .......................................................................................................... 330 Figure 243: Station Configuration and Condition ..................................................................... 331 Figure 244: PSAP and Dispatch Center ...................................................................................... 333 Figure 245: RNR DUC ..................................................................................................................... 336 Figure 246: TRK Service Area ........................................................................................................ 342 Figure 247: Overview of Services Provided ................................................................................ 343 Figure 248: TRK Board of Directors ............................................................................................... 345 Figure 249: Truckee Fire Protection District Organizational Chart ........................................... 346 Figure 250: Transparency and Accountability ........................................................................... 347 Figure 251: TRK DUCS Locations .................................................................................................. 350 Figure 252: TRK Revenues, FY 2019–FY 2023 ............................................................................... 353 434 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 253: Historical TRK Expenditures ....................................................................................... 354 Figure 254: Summarized Revenues and Expenditures for TRK .................................................. 354 Figure 255: Revenues and Expenditures for TRK ........................................................................ 355 Figure 256: TRK General Fund Summarized Projected Revenues and Expenditures ............. 356 Figure 257: TRK Fund Balance ...................................................................................................... 357 Figure 258: TRK Overview ............................................................................................................. 357 Figure 259: Total Incident Response by Type ............................................................................. 358 Figure 260: Annual Incidents by Aid Type .................................................................................. 359 Figure 261: Incidents by Month ................................................................................................... 359 Figure 262: Incident Percentage by Hour .................................................................................. 360 Figure 263: Day and Hour Incident Heat Map .......................................................................... 361 Figure 264: NFPA 1710 vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance ..................................... 362 Figure 265: Actual 90th Percentile Response Time .................................................................... 363 Figure 266: Actual Total Response Time Performance with Average and 90th Percentile ... 363 Figure 267: Incidents’ 90th Percentile Total Response Times, January 2019–December 2022 ................................................................................................................................................. 364 Figure 268: Fire Station Utilization Statistics ................................................................................. 364 Figure 269: Utilization Statistics by Unit Type ............................................................................... 365 Figure 270: Staffing ....................................................................................................................... 366 Figure 271: Daily Staffing .............................................................................................................. 366 Figure 272: TRK Fire Stations ......................................................................................................... 367 Figure 273: Station Configuration and Condition ..................................................................... 376 Figure 274: TRK Apparatus ........................................................................................................... 378 Figure 275: Supervisor & Command Vehicles ............................................................................ 379 Figure 276: PSAP and Dispatch Center ...................................................................................... 380 Figure 277: WAF Service Area ...................................................................................................... 388 Figure 278: Overview of Services Provided ................................................................................ 389 Figure 279: WAF Board of Directors ............................................................................................. 390 Figure 280: Washington Fire Department Organizational Chart ............................................. 390 Figure 281: Transparency and Accountability ........................................................................... 391 Figure 282: WAF Land Use Designations ..................................................................................... 393 Figure 283: WAF DUC Locations .................................................................................................. 395 Figure 284: Washington County Water District Revenues, FY 2019–FY 2023 ........................... 397 435 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Figure 285: Historical WCWD Expenditures ................................................................................. 398 Figure 286: Summarized WCWD Revenues and Expenses ....................................................... 398 Figure 287: Graphical Representation of Summarized WCWD Revenues and Expenses .... 399 Figure 288: Summarized Projected WCWD Revenues and Expenditures ............................... 400 Figure 289: Washington County Water District Debt Maturity Schedule ................................ 400 Figure 290: Washington County Water District Net Assets ........................................................ 401 Figure 291: WAF Overview ........................................................................................................... 401 Figure 292: Total Incident Response by Type ............................................................................. 402 Figure 293: Incidents by Aid Type ............................................................................................... 403 Figure 294: WAF Actual Total Response Time Performance .................................................... 404 Figure 295: WAF 80th Percentile Total Response Times, February 2022–November 2022 ...... 404 Figure 296: WAF Fire Unit Statistics ............................................................................................... 405 Figure 297: WAF Staffing Assignments ........................................................................................ 405 Figure 298: WAF Daily Staffing ..................................................................................................... 406 Figure 299: Station Configuration and Condition ..................................................................... 408 Figure 300: WAF Apparatus ......................................................................................................... 409 Figure 301: Supervisor & Command Vehicles ............................................................................ 409 Figure 302: PSAP and Dispatch Center ...................................................................................... 410 Figure 303: WAF Recommended SOI ......................................................................................... 414 Figure 304: WAF Land Use Designations ..................................................................................... 416 436 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Appendix C: Commission Resolutions 437 MSR & SOI Update Nevada LAFCo Appendix C: Commission Resolutions • Resolution 24-07 (Approving and Accepting the Fire and Emergency Response Municipal Service Review and Sphere Study) • Resolution 24-08 (Adopting a Consolidated Sphere Plan for Five Fire Districts, including Nevada County Consolidated Fire District, Ophir Hill FPD, Peardale- Chicago Park FPD, Penn Valley FPD and Rough & Ready FPD) • Resolution 24-09 (Adopting a Sphere of Influence Plan Update for Higgins FPD) • Resolution 24-10 (Adopting a Sphere of Influence Plan Update for N. San Juan FPD) • Resolution 24-11 (Adopting a Sphere of Influence Plan Update for Truckee FPD) RESOLUTION 24-07 OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF NEVADA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW OF FIRE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE SERVICES IN NEVADA COUNTY AND ADOPTING WRITTEN DETERMINATIONS THEREON WHEREAS, the Sphere of Influence Plan is the primary planning tool for LAFCo and defines the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency; and, WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 56425 requires that a Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCo”) adopt and periodically review Sphere of Influence Plans for all agencies in its jurisdiction; and, WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 56430 requires that prior to updating or adopting the Sphere of Influence Plan of an agency, the LAFCo shall conduct a review of the municipal services provided by the agency; and, WHEREAS, the Nevada Local Agency Formation Commission has contracted with independent consultant AP Triton, LLC for the preparation of a Municipal Service Review of fire and emergency response services provided within Nevada County as well as the portion of Placer County that is served by the Truckee Fire Protection District; and WHEREAS, the consultant has prepared a Municipal Service Review titled Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan Updates for Fire and Emergency Response Services – 2024, in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 56430 and Commission policy, and WHEREAS, on September 26, 2024, the Commission held a workshop on the preliminary draft of the Fire and Emergency Response Service Municipal Service Review. The Commission gave direction to the consultant and LAFCo staff as to the completion of the report, and has directed staff to circulate the final draft to the public and affected agencies for comment; and, WHEREAS, at the time and in the manner provided by law, the Executive Officer gave notice of the date, time, and place of a public hearing by the Commission upon the Municipal Service Review titled Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update: Fire and Emergency Response Services in Nevada County, including approval of the report and adoption of the written determinations contained therein; and, WHEREAS, the Commission hereby determines that the final draft of the Municipal Service Review titled Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan Updates for Fire and Emergency Response Services – 2024, and the written determinations contained therein will provide information for updating the sphere of influence of independent special districts that provide fire and emergency response services: Higgins Fire Protection District, Nevada County Consolidated Fire District, North San Juan Fire Protection District, Ophir Hill Fire Protection District, Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Protection District, Penn Valley Fire Protection District, Rough & Ready Fire Protection District, Truckee Fire Protection District and the Washington County Water District (note this district provides two services and the MSR and Sphere Plan Update only pertain to the agency’s fire service activity). The MSR also reviews the emergency response and fire services provided by the City of Grass Valley, which will be incorporated into the next sphere of influence update for the City. RESOLUTION 24-08 OF THE L OCAL AGE NCY FORM AT I ON C O M M I S S I ON OF NEVADA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION OF THE NEVADA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION MAKING DETERMINATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 56430 AND 56425 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE AND APPROVING A CONSOLIDATED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE PLAN FOR A PROSPECTIVE REORGANIZED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT IN WESTERN NEVADA COUNTY WHEREAS, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires the Nevada County Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCo”) to adopt a Sphere of Influence (“SOI”) for each agency in its jurisdiction and to review each sphere for possible update every five years; and WHEREAS, proceedings for adoption, update and amendment of a Sphere of Influence Plan are governed by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, Section 56000 et seq. of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, a Sphere of Influence is defined by Government Code Section 56076 as “a plan for the probable physical boundary and service area of a local agency determined by the Commission”; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 56425 establishes the purpose of a Sphere of Influence Plan as assisting a LAFCo to carry out its responsibilities for planning and shaping the logical and orderly development and coordination of local governmental agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of the County and its communities; and WHEREAS, such a plan will be utilized by members of the public, public agencies, service providers and affected property owners to ascertain the timing of development and expected scope and provision of public services; and WHEREAS, the Sphere of Influence Plan is a flexible document that may be amended to accommo- date changes in development patterns and local circumstances, and further, is anticipated to be reviewed again in five years; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 56430 requires the Commission to conduct service reviews of the provision of municipal services prior to or in conjunction with an action to update or adopt a sphere of influence; and WHEREAS, the Commission has contracted with AP Triton, LLC, a public safety consultant, to prepare a Municipal Service Review (MSR) to evaluate fire and emergency response services provided by ten fire agencies in Nevada County, and to prepare sphere of influence plans for the nine fire districts. The resulting report, titled Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan Updates for Fire and Emergency Response Services – 2024, was considered by the Commission at a public hearing on September 26, 2024, and has been reviewed by the affected agencies and the Commission. The consultant has incorporated or accommodated the comments received as well as the Commission’s direction in the final draft of the report; and WHEREAS, the Executive Officer has reviewed the Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan Updates for Fire and Emergency Response Services - 2024, including the report’s recommended Municipal Service Review determinations and the recommended Sphere of Influence determinations and other pertinent documents and information, and has prepared a report including Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-08 Consolidated Sphere of Influence recommendations for update of each agency’s sphere of influence plan. The report has been prepared within the time required by law; and copies have been provided to the Commission, made available to the public on the LAFCo website and provided to all other persons required by law to receive it; and WHEREAS, the Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan Updates for Fire and Emergency Response Services – 2024 recommends the reorganization of five western county fire protection districts into a single fire protection district and has recommended the Commission adopt a consolidated sphere of influence for the prospective reorganized fire district. WHEREAS, the adoption of a sphere of influence is a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, and pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code and section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., title 14, § 15000 et seq.), LAFCo is the lead agency for the project; and WHEREAS, at the time and in the manner provided by law, the Executive Officer gave notice of the date, time, and place of a public hearing by the Commission for the consideration of the Municipal Service Review and adoption of a sphere of influence plan; and WHEREAS, the Commission has heard all interested parties desiring to be heard and has considered the proposal and report by the Executive Officer and all other relevant evidence and information presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Local Agency Formation Commission of Nevada County hereby de- termines the following: 1. The Commission’s purposes and responsibility. The proposed consolidated Sphere of Influence Plan, including the recommendations established therein, is consistent with the Commission’s policies, purposes and responsibilities for planning the logical and orderly development and coordination of local governmental agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of the prospective reorganized fire district and other governmental agencies and communities within Nevada LAFCo’s jurisdiction. 2. Considerations specified in Government Code Section 56425(e). The Commission has considered all documentation in this matter, including the Public Review Draft of the Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan Updates for Fire and Emergency Response Services - 2024, and comments submitted by interested agencies and individuals as they relate to the following considerations stated in Government Code Section 56425(e): (1) the present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands; (2) the present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area; (3) the present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agencies provide or are authorized to provide; (4) the existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area; (5) the present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere of influence. The Commission’s determinations on these factors are set forth in the Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan Updates for Fire and Emergency Response Services - 2024, as well as the analysis supporting the determinations that are incorporated herein by reference. 3. Determination regarding the California Environmental Quality Act The Commission, as Lead Agency for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), hereby determines that the adoption of a consolidated sphere of influence plan Page 2 of 18 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-08 Consolidated Sphere of Influence EXHIBIT 1 – Sphere of Influence Map Page 5 of 18 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-08 Consolidated Sphere of Influence EXHIBIT 2 – Municipal Service Review Determinations This exhibit to Resolution 24-08 provides written Municipal Service Review determinations for each of the four fire districts included in the recommended reorganization of fire protection districts in western Nevada County. The five districts recommended for this reorganization include Nevada County Consolidated Fire District, Ophir Hill Fire Protection District, Penn Valley Fire Protection District, Rough & Ready Fire Protection District and the Peardale- Chicago Park Fire Protection District. Nevada County Consolidated Fire District Municipal Service Review Determinations: MSR Determination #1: Growth and Population Projections The current NCC service area population as of 2020 was estimated to be 32,668. While the current boundaries of the NCC jurisdiction are not identified through the California Department of Finance or the U.S. Census Bureau, population projections were calculated to 2035 using American Community Survey estimates. The population is projected to increase by 4% between 2023 and 2035. The projected population in 2035 is 34,080. The California Department of Finance projection for the population of the whole of Nevada County is a 2.4% decrease by 2028. MSR Determination #2: Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence Nevada LAFCo has identified one DUC within or adjacent to the NCC’s boundaries. The DUC in question is primarily within the Rough and Ready boundary. This area is within district boundaries and receives the same level of service as those areas surrounding it. The following figure shows the location of the Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community. MSR Determination #3: Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities, Adequacy of Public Services, and Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies, Including Those Related to Sewers, Water, and Fire in Any DUCs Within or Contiguous to the SOI Generally, NCC's stations are older and do not meet the requirements of modern firefighting. As the firefighting environment has changed, the technology, equipment, and safety systems have changed to meet new demands. Older buildings do not typically have the space or engineering systems to meet the new environment, such as greater access to electrical outlets for technology, decontamination areas, gender-separation areas, and compliance with ADA. There is a need to expand capacity for administrative offices and space for a training room at the Headquarters station. With only four of the nine NCC stations being used as fire stations, there needs to be a facility management plan in place. The district should evaluate the age, condition, capacity, and location of each of the stations to determine if there is a potential that they will be returned to service during their expected life spans. Stations that are not expected to return to service should be considered for surplus status. MSR Determination #4: Financial Ability of the Agency to Provide Services Page 6 of 18 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-08 Consolidated Sphere of Influence The review of the financial position of the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District shows a surplus in four out of the five prior years’ financials. Financial projections through 2028 identify a surplus in each of the five years, but the amount of surplus decreases steadily over this time period. At the close of 2022, the district had a fund balance of $4,591,378, of which $2,601,079 was restricted, leaving $1,990,299 available to the district for general purposes. It is determined that the district has the financial ability to provide its full range of services to the community at its current staffing levels. The consolidated sphere of influence proposes that four fire protection districts join together through reorganization over the next five years. Economies of scale for such items as board of director expenses, legal counsel, administration, and financial management will assist in the overall financial position of the combined agencies. The plan for service required for the application will address the transfer of revenues and anticipated expenditures for such a change. MSR Determination #5: Status and Opportunities for Shared Services NCC has a mutual and automatic aid agreement with surrounding fire agencies, and it is a party to the Nevada County Fire and Emergency Joint Powers Agreement, which provides emergency communications, emergency dispatch, an air-filing station, and MAPTool development and maintenance. It contracts for dispatch service through CAL FIRE. NCC is a party to the agreement to continue fire protection services to the Rough and Ready FPD following its decision to close its doors. NCC, along with Penn Valley FPD and the County of Nevada, have ensured operation and funding to maintain this service level. MSR Determination #6: Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies For a number of years, discussion has taken place regarding the potential for consolidating fire protection service in the western Nevada County area. Beginning in July 2023, this discussion took on a renewed emphasis when the Rough and Ready Fire Protection District decided it would need to close its doors and dissolve as a fire protection entity. This prompted Penn Valley FPD, Nevada County Consolidated FPD, and the County of Nevada to enter into a contract to continue the provision of fire protection and emergency medical service at the Rough and Ready Station while other options were studied. It also prompted a more earnest discussion of the future of fire protection and emergency medical response for the overall southwestern Nevada County area. It is being proposed that the Penn Valley FPD, Rough and Ready FPD, Nevada County Consolidated FPD, and Ophir Hill FPD reorganize into a single fire protection district with a consolidated sphere of influence showing the LAFCo determination. Page 7 of 18 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-08 Consolidated Sphere of Influence Ophir Hill Fire Protection District Municipal Service Review Determinations: MSR Determination #1: Growth and Population Projections The use of the American Community Survey estimates, using Esri’s population enrichment program, places the estimated the population of OPH at 3,763 in 2020. For the future population, the California Department of Finance and the U.S. Census Bureau figures are not available for the jurisdiction served by OPH. The method of using the American Community survey historic records to project the population were used, which shows an estimated 3% population increase from 2023 to 2035, for a projected population of 3,942. This should be viewed with the understanding that the California Department of Finance does provide a population projection for the County of Nevada as a whole. The California Department of Finance projections anticipate that in 2028 the County of Nevada population will decrease to 97,441 (a decrease of 2.4%). Of note, the Department of Finance has identified that the Cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City will see a population increase while the Town of Truckee will see a modest decrease. This means that the unincorporated communities of Nevada County will see a more significant decrease in population over time. MSR Determination #2: Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence There are no disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence of OPH. MSR Determination #3: Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities, Adequacy of Public Services, and Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies, Including Those Related to Sewers, Water, and Fire in Any DUCs Within or Contiguous to the SOI The single station serving OPH, Station 52, is generally described as in good condition but it does not meet the standards for gender separation, addressing the needs for decontamination, or the increased use of electronic equipment. The Chief has identified the lack of funding available to pay competitive salaries to maintain its staffing and the limitations on capital funding as primary challenges for the district MSR Determination #4: Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services OPH has maintained a stable financial picture over the past five years with only one year operating at a deficit. The district has a significant revenue stream related to its strike team operations. This is outside the primary scope of the district. Should the revenue and expense for strike team operations be removed, the district would have operated at a deficit for all five prior years. The projected revenues for the district identify an ongoing and increasing deficit up to FY 2028. Without the potential reorganization, the district will need to look to further measures to address the deficiency. This is tempered, to a degree, with the understanding that, at present, the district maintains a healthy unassigned general fund reserve of $1,170,269 as of FY 2022. MSR Determination #5: Status and Opportunities for Shared Services Page 8 of 18 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-08 Consolidated Sphere of Influence OPH currently shares station 257 with PCP under a “gentleman’s agreement” to store apparatus. The district has been assigned a water tender by the State of California, but this piece of equipment is not listed for the district. The district receives dispatch services from CAL FIRE under contract. The district relies upon automatic and mutual aid to maintain its level of service. MSR Determination #6: Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies In June 2024, the Board of Directors confirmed its support in joining the reorganization effort of the Penn Valley, Rough and Ready, and Nevada Consolidated Fire Protection Districts. The potential dissolution of the Rough and Ready FPD began a more earnest discussion of the future of fire protection and emergency medical response for the overall southwestern Nevada County area. It is being proposed that Penn Valley FPD, Rough and Ready FPD, Nevada County Consolidated FPD, and Ophir Hill FPD reorganize into a single fire protection district. This is discussed in greater detail in the SOI Options section which follows identifying the consolidated sphere of influence. Page 9 of 18 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-08 Consolidated Sphere of Influence Peardale-Chicago Park Fire Protection District Municipal Service Review Determinations: MSR Determination #1: Growth and Population Projections The use of the American Community Survey estimates using Esri’s population enrichment program places the estimated population of PCP at 3,603 in 2020, with a population in 2023 estimated at 3,637. For the future population, the California Department of Finance and the U.S. Census Bureau figures are not available for the community of PCP. The method of using the American Community Survey historical records to project the population was employed and showed little to no population growth for the district. This should be viewed with the understanding that the California Department of Finance does provide a population projection for the County of Nevada as a whole. The California Department of Finance projections anticipate that in 2028 the County of Nevada population will decrease 2.4% to 97,441. Of note, the Department of Finance has identified that the Cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City will see a population increase, while the Town of Truckee will see a modest decrease. This means that the unincorporated communities of Nevada County will see a more significant decrease in population over time. MSR Determination #2: Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence There are no disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the sphere of influence of PCP. MSR Determination #3: Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities, Adequacy of Public Services, and Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies, Including Those Related to Sewers, Water, and Structural Fire Protection in Any DUCs Within or Contiguous to the SOI PCP operates from one station, Station 57, which is generally described as being in good condition. It is operated 24/7 with two-person staffing daily. The Municipal Service Review identifies that the station does not provide for the requirements of modern firefighting, such as gender separation for sleeping and shower areas, or the need for more electrical outlet access for technology equipment. The Fire Chief identified that one of the critical challenges of the district is to find qualified employees, maintain its cadre of volunteer firefighters, and find access to adequate funding for the replacement of apparatus. MSR Determination #4: Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services The financial review of PCP shows that the largest source of revenue for the district is the State reimbursement for Strike Team operations. In some years, this source represents more than 50% of total revenue, and this is projected to remain true in the future. This is a concern because this revenue stream fluctuates based upon the State’s needs, and without it, the district would run a substantial deficit every year. The projected revenue forecast shows an ongoing and ever-increasing deficit from FY 2024 through FY 2028. There is concern that the district may not be sustainable. Page 10 of 18 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-08 Consolidated Sphere of Influence MSR Determination #5: Status and Opportunities for Shared Services PCP shares Station 257 with Ophir Hill Fire District under a “gentleman’s agreement” to store apparatus. PCP receives its dispatch services from the State of California under contract. The district relies upon automatic and mutual aid to maintain its level of service. MSR Determination #6: Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies The district and its Firefighters Association maintain a close connection to the community to ensure the education of residents about fire service needs and operations. This is done in conjunction with the Fire Safe Council. Page 11 of 18 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-08 Consolidated Sphere of Influence Penn Valley Fire Protection District Municipal Service Review Determinations: MSR Determination #1: Growth and Population Projections The California Department of Finance prepared projected population forecasts for counties within the State (report dated July 2023). This report identified that the population of the County of Nevada in 2023 was 99,796. In looking to define the current population of Penn Valley, the Census Designated Place for Penn Valley has been identified by State and local officials along with the Census Bureau. This unincorporated community is identified to have 1,621 population as of 2010. Based on information from the 2020 Decennial Census, through Esri’s interpolation of census tracts, the population of Penn Valley Fire Protection District is estimated to be 12,385. The estimated 2023 population from American Community Survey data is 12,556. The California Department of Finance projections anticipate that in 2028 the County of Nevada population will decrease to 97,441 (a decrease of 2.4%). Of note, the Department of Finance has identified that the Cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City will see a population increase while the Town of Truckee will see a modest decrease. This means that the unincorporated communities of Nevada County will see a more significant decrease in population over time. Though historic population estimates for the specific boundaries of the PNV jurisdiction were not available through the California Department of Finance and the U.S. Census Bureau, population projections were calculated out to 2035 using historic interpolations from American Community Survey estimates. The population is projected to experience a 3% cumulative growth rate from 2023 to 2035. The projected population in 2035 is 12,902. MSR Determination #2: Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence A Disadvantaged Unincorporated Community (DUC) is an unincorporated, inhabited territory that constitutes all or a portion of a community with an annual median household income that is less than 80% of the statewide annual median household income (i.e., $60,188).1 LAFCo is required to identify the location and characteristics of any DUCs in the Service Review and SOI update process.2 The County of Nevada, through its land use element of the General Plan, adopted in 2014, has identified disadvantaged “legacy” communities throughout the County. For 2022, the median household income within the State of California, as determined by the American Community Survey, is $91,905; 80 percent of that income level is $73,524. As shown, one DUC was identified within or contiguous to PNV SOI which meets the definition based on population and income, as shown in the following figure. This area is in the heart of the district and receives the same level of service as those areas surrounding it. MSR Determination #3: Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities, Adequacy of Public Services, and Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies, Including Those Related to Sewers, Water, and Fire in Any DUCs Within or Contiguous to the SOI PNV has indicated that Station 44 needs to be replaced and potentially relocated to a more advantageous site. A funding source for this project has not been identified. Station 45 in the 1 Government Code §56033.5. 2 Government Codes §56425(e)(5) and §56430(2). Page 12 of 18 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-08 Consolidated Sphere of Influence north part of the district is not staffed; this station has the capacity to accommodate a maximum of 2 personnel each shift, which is less than the industry-standard of three-person staffing. MSR Determination #4: Financial Ability of PNV to Provide Services The review of the projected financial position of the Penn Valley FPD shows a projected deficit in each of the five future years, FY 2023 through 2028. This deficit increases year over year even though existing leases for equipment will be retired during this period. However, it should be noted that this projection uses conservative revenue projections shown in the budget document rather than the actual revenue data taken from the audits. While the district will need to take measures to address this shortfall in future years, it should be noted that the fund balance entering into this period is identified to be the equivalent of one year’s total expenditures. This allows a cushion for the district to cover the annual shortfall while addressing long term financing. Therefore, it is determined that the district has the financial ability to provide its full range of services to the community. The consolidated sphere of influence proposes that the four fire protection districts join through annexation over the next five years. Economies of scale for such items as board of director expense, legal counsel, administration, and fiscal management will assist the overall financial position of the combined agencies. The plan for service will address the transfer of revenues and anticipated expenditures for such a change. MSR Determination #5: Status and Opportunities for Shared Services PNV has mutual and automatic aid agreements with the surrounding fire agencies, and it is a party to the Nevada County Fire and Emergency Joint Powers Agency which provides emergency communications, emergency dispatch, an air filing station, and MAPTool development and maintenance. It contracts for dispatch service through CAL FIRE. The PNV is a party to the agreement to continue fire protection services to the Rough and Ready FPD following its decision to close its doors. PNV, along with Nevada County Consolidated and the County of Nevada, have ensured operation and funding to maintain this service level. PNV has been assigned an exclusive ambulance service area through the Sierra-Sacramento Valley Emergency Medical Services Agency identified as Zone 3 including Penn Valley, Lake Wildwood, and Rough and Ready. They provide an Advanced Life Support ambulance within their assigned territory. It should be noted that this assigned territory is larger than the existing sphere of influence for the district. MSR Determination #6: Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies For a number of years, a discussion has taken place regarding the potential for consolidating fire protection services in the western Nevada County areas. Beginning in July 2023, this discussion took on a renewed emphasis when the Rough and Ready Fire Protection District decided it would need to close its doors and dissolve as a fire protection entity. This prompted the Penn Valley FPD, Nevada County Consolidated FPD, and the County of Nevada to enter into a contract to continue the provision of fire protection and emergency medical service at the Rough and Ready station while other options were studied. It also began a more earnest discussion of the future of fire protection and emergency medical response for the overall southwestern Nevada County area. Page 13 of 18 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-08 Consolidated Sphere of Influence It is being proposed that the Penn Valley FPD, Rough and Ready FPD, Nevada County Consolidated FPD, and Ophir Hill FPD reorganize into a single fire protection district. This reorganization would include the following: Consolidating the spheres of influence of the affected districts into a single sphere with an anticipated timeframe of one to five years for reorganization. Rough and Ready would be designated a zero sphere of influence identifying the Commission’s position that it be absorbed by another fire entity. Identification of the Commission’s position that future annexations by either the Cities of Grass Valley or Nevada City address the loss of revenue to the fire protection district through conditions of approval allowing for a five-to-ten-year absorption of the loss. Identifying the Peardale Chicago Park FPD boundary and sphere of influence as a long-term sphere for the consolidated district, meaning that a future reorganization is anticipated within the next ten years. The four districts would jointly propose a reorganization that would annex the Rough and Ready, Nevada County, and Ophir Hill FPDs areas and spheres of influence to the Penn Valley FPD, dissolve the three FPDs being annexed and rename the district to reflect its new orientation. The Plan for Service and Transition Plan for such a change would need to identify the timelines and actions necessary to effectuate this change. Page 14 of 18 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-08 Consolidated Sphere of Influence Rough & Ready Fire Protection District Municipal Service Review Determinations: MSR Determination #1: Growth and Population Projections The California Department of Finance prepared projected population forecasts for counties within the State (report dated July 2023). This report identified that the population of the County of Nevada in 2023 was 99,796. Its projections anticipate that in 2028, the county population will decrease to 97,441 (a decrease of 2.4%). Of note, the Department of Finance has identified that the Cities of Grass Valley and Nevada City will see a population increase while the Town of Truckee will see a modest decrease. This means that the unincorporated communities of Nevada County will see a more significant decrease in population over time. Current Population Based on information from the 2020 Decennial Census, through Esri’s interpolation of census tracts, the population of the Rough and Ready Fire Department is estimated to be 1,421. The estimated 2023 population from American Community Survey data is 1,470. Projected Population Though historical population estimates for the specific boundaries of the RNR jurisdiction were not available through the California Department of Finance and the U.S. Census Bureau, population projections were calculated out to 2035 using historic interpolations from American Community Survey estimates. The population is projected to experience a slight 0.2% cumulative growth rate from 2023 to 2035. The projected population in 2035 is 1,472. MSR Determination #2: Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence The County of Nevada, through its land use element of the General Plan adopted in 2014, has identified disadvantaged unincorporated communities throughout the County. Government Code Section 56033.5 defines a disadvantaged community as: "Disadvantaged unincorporated community" means inhabited territory, as defined by Section 56046, or as determined by commission policy, that constitutes all or a portion of a "disadvantaged community" as defined by Section 79505.5 of the Water Code”. (This section of the Water Code states that the area represents less than 80% of the state median household income.) For 2022, the median household income within the State of California, as determined by the American Community Survey, is $91,905; 80 percent of that income level is $73,524. The map in the following figure identifies the disadvantaged community within Rough and Ready and a portion of Nevada Consolidated FPD. The purpose of this designation is to ensure that planning for the essential municipal service extension for these communities occurs. The Rough and Ready DUC receives fire protection and emergency response in the same manner as the remaining district community. MSR Determination #3: Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities, Adequacy of Public Services, and Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies, Including Those Related to Sewers, Water, and Fire in Any DUCs Within or Contiguous to the SOI The RNR has a single fire station, which is currently staffed 24/7 through the contract with Penn Valley/NCC/County of Nevada as an interim step to transfer of the district’s fire authorities to Page 15 of 18 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-08 Consolidated Sphere of Influence another agency. One additional element contributing to capacity issues for fire protection services is the lack of an organized water system within the community. MSR Determination #4: Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services RNR has sustained deficits in three of the last five years, with Fiscal Year 2022-23 not sustaining a deficit due to the inflow of revenue from the County of Nevada to continue to provide services to the community. The five-year financial projections for this agency show an ongoing and ever- increasing deficit, should the district remain in existence. This financial projection is the primary impetus for the reorganization to transfer the RNR service obligations to a new district. MSR Determination #5: Status and Opportunities for Shared Services RNR has a functional consolidation of service agreement with Penn Valley/NCC/County for the provision of service within the district’s boundaries. Dispatch service, and automatic and mutual aid continue unaffected by the transfer of service by contract. MSR Determination #6: Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies The Board of Directors for RNR continues to be responsible for the conduct of the administrative business of the district. The five-member Board of Directors is responsible for finance monitoring, budgeting, and the conduct of routine meetings. The Board of Directors has taken the action to promote dissolution of the agency in an effort to secure adequate service delivery for the community. MSR Determination #7:” Other Issues Based upon these determinations, it is recommended that a zero sphere of influence be assigned to RNR indicating the Nevada LAFCo position is that its responsibilities should be transferred to another fire entity. Page 16 of 18 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-08 Consolidated Sphere of Influence EXHIBIT 3 – Sphere of Influence Determinations This exhibit to Resolution 24-08 provides written Sphere of Influence determinations for the sphere of influence of a reorganized fire district comprised of four western Nevada County districts: Nevada County Consolidated Fire District, Ophir Hill Fire Protection District, Penn Valley Fire Protection District and Rough & Ready Fire Protection District. Reorganized Fire District Sphere of Influence Determinations: Determination #1: The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. A review of the materials provided for each of the districts identifies a range of land uses including, but not limited to, urban, suburban, rural, commercial, agricultural, forest, and conservation as defined by the Nevada County General Plan (updated 2014). This represents the full range of land use designations. There will be no change in these land use determinations because of the sphere of influence consolidation. Determination #2: The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. Based upon the range of land uses associated with the consolidated sphere of influence the present and probable need for the fire protection, emergency medical response and ambulance (provided at present to a portion of the area by the Penn Valley FPD) will remain acute. The combined population of the district is 54,049 as of 2023 (based upon extrapolation of data from the American Community Survey). The determination of need is due to the existing land uses and the intensification of some land uses in and around the cities as well as the forest environment of the area. The communities have a number of parks and tourist destinations which will have a transitory population which will need the range of services available from the districts. Determination #3: The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agencies provide or are authorized to provide. Each of the agencies is authorized to provide fire protection and emergency medical response as defined by the Fire Protection District law of 1987. Penn Valley is also authorized the service of ambulance service whose service area is defined by the Sierra-Sacramento Valley EMS Agency to an area which is within the proposed consolidated sphere of influence. The MSR information for each of the agencies within the consolidated sphere of influence has identified that there are adequate stations, personnel, and apparatus to meet current demands but not at industry standards. The proposed reorganization of service is anticipated to address this area of concern. Determination #4: The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area. There is no single distinct community of interest for the area; however, these combined agencies address the unincorporated territory of the southwestern county area. The total population for Nevada County outside the three cities, as identified by the California Department of Finance, is 66,994 as of 2023. The population of the consolidated sphere is estimated to be 54,049, which is roughly 80% of the county population, which is a significant community. Page 17 of 18 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-08 Consolidated Sphere of Influence Determination #5: The present and probable need of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities for the district’s public facilities and services. There is one identified DUC within the central Rough and Ready FPD and western portion of the Nevada Consolidated FPD service areas. Another DUC is identified in the central portion of the Penn Valley FPD. These areas receive the same level of service as the surrounding district areas. The services available through the consolidated sphere of influence will meet the needs of these areas as they remain the same as the present day. Page 18 of 18 RESOLUTION 24-09 OF THE L OCAL AGE NCY FORM AT I ON C O M M I S S I ON OF NEVADA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION OF THE NEVADA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION ADOPTING AN UPDATE TO THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE PLAN FOR HIGGINS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires the Nevada County Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCo”) to adopt a Sphere of Influence (“SOI”) for each agency in its jurisdiction and to review each sphere for possible update every five years; and WHEREAS, proceedings for adoption, update and amendment of a Sphere of Influence Plan are governed by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, Section 56000 et seq. of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, a Sphere of Influence is defined by Government Code Section 56076 as “a plan for the probable physical boundary and service area of a local agency determined by the Commission”; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 56425 establishes the purpose of a Sphere of Influence Plan as assisting a LAFCo to carry out its responsibilities for planning and shaping the logical and orderly development and coordination of local governmental agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of the County and its communities; and WHEREAS, such a plan will be utilized by members of the public, public agencies, service providers and affected property owners to ascertain the timing of development and expected scope and provision of public services; and WHEREAS, the Sphere of Influence Plan is a flexible document that may be amended to accommo- date changes in development patterns and local circumstances, and further, is anticipated to be reviewed again in five years; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 56430 requires the Commission to conduct service reviews of the provision of municipal services prior to or in conjunction with an action to update or adopt a sphere of influence; and WHEREAS, the Commission has contracted with AP Triton, LLC, a public safety consultant, to prepare a Municipal Service Review (MSR) to evaluate fire and emergency response services provided by ten fire agencies in Nevada County, and to prepare sphere of influence plans for the nine fire districts. The resulting report, titled Public Review Draft of the Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan Updates for Fire and Emergency Response Services – 2024, was considered by the Commission at a public hearing on September 26, 2024, and has been reviewed by the affected agencies and the Commission. The consultant has incorporated or accommodated the comments received as well as the Commission’s direction in the final draft of the report; and WHEREAS, the Executive Officer has reviewed the Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan Updates for Fire and Emergency Response Services - 2024, including the report’s recommended Municipal Service Review determinations and the recommended Sphere of Influence determinations and other pertinent documents and information; and Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-09 Higgins FPD Sphere of Influence Update WHEREAS, the Executive Officer has prepared a staff report including recommendations for update of each agency’s sphere of influence plan. The staff report has been prepared within the time required by law; and copies have been provided to the Commission, made available to the public on the LAFCo website and provided to all other persons required by law to receive it; and WHEREAS, the adoption of a sphere of influence is a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, and pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code and section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., title 14, § 15000 et seq.), LAFCo is the lead agency for the project; and WHEREAS, at the time and in the manner provided by law, the Executive Officer gave notice of the date, time, and place of a public hearing by the Commission for the Update of the District’s Sphere of Influence Plan; and WHEREAS, the Commission has heard all interested parties desiring to be heard and has considered the proposal and report by the Executive Officer and all other relevant evidence and information presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Local Agency Formation Commission of Nevada County hereby de- termines the following: 1. The Commission’s purposes and responsibility. The proposed update to the Sphere of Influence Plan for the Higgins Fire Protection District, including the recommendations established therein, is consistent with the Commission’s policies, purposes and responsibilities for planning the logical and orderly development and coordination of local governmental agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of the region and other governmental agencies and communities within Nevada LAFCo’s jurisdiction. 2. Considerations specified in Government Code Section 56425(e). The Commission has considered all documentation in this matter, including the Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan Updates for Fire and Emergency Response Services – 2024, as it relates to the following considerations stated in Government Code Section 56425(e): (1) the present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands; (2) the present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area; (3) the present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agencies provide or are authorized to provide; (4) the existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area; (5) the present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere of influence. The Commission’s determinations on these factors are set forth in the Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan Updates for Fire and Emergency Response Services - 2024, as well as the analysis supporting the determinations that are incorporated herein by reference. 3. Determination regarding the California Environmental Quality Act The Commission has determined that this sphere of influence update is considered a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and, as Lead Agency hereby determines that the update of the District’s Sphere of Influence Plan will have no foreseeable environmental impacts and is therefore exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the provisions established by Section 15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines; and the Commission’s determinations supporting CEQA’s Common Sense Exemption are as follows: Page 2 of 8 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-09 Higgins FPD Sphere of Influence Update Exhibit 1 – Sphere of Influence Map – Higgins Page 4 of 8 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-09 Higgins FPD Sphere of Influence Update Exhibit 2 – Municipal Service Review Determinations – Higgins MSR Determination #1: Growth and Population Projections The current population estimate is based upon information from the 2020 Decennial Census. Through Esri’s interpolation of census tracts, the population of Higgins Corner is estimated to be 9,979. The estimated 2023 population from the American Community Survey data is 10,007. The bulk of the population is located in the Higgins Corner area. The projected population estimates for the specific boundaries of the Higgins Fire District jurisdiction were not available through the California Department of Finance or the U.S. Census Bureau. Therefore, population projections were calculated out to 2035 using historic interpolations from American Community Survey estimates. The population is projected to experience a cumulative increase of 0.5% from 2023 to 2035, or 0.1% annually. The projected population in 2035 is 10,052. MSR Determination #2: Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence There is no legacy community identified by the Nevada County General Plan either within or adjacent to the sphere of influence. There are no known DUCs identified abutting the sphere of influence within Placer County. MSR Determination #3: Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities, Adequacy of Public Services, and Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies, Including Those Related to Sewers, Water, and Structural Fire Protection in Any DUCs Within or Contiguous to the SOI The Higgins Fire Protection District has three stations currently, two are actively in use (Stations 21 and 23), and one is closed (Station 22). A review of the stations shows that they are all in good condition. Higgins Fire District jointly uses Station 21 with CAL FIRE and has an Amador Plan contract to provide for year-round staffing. However, the station is 53 years old, and the State has notified the district that it will be developing a new station of its own. The Higgins Fire District Fire Chief has identified as a priority the maintenance of the Amador Plan contract with the State as it serves the most densely populated areas of the district. It is recommended that the Higgins Fire District establish a facility replacement plan so it can adequately plan for the future. MSR Determination #4: Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services The review of the financial position of Higgins Fire District was more difficult to accomplish as it has not completed recent audits. The most current audit available to AP Triton staff is for Fiscal Year 2019-20. With that notation, the materials identify that through the cost saving measures implemented by Higgins Fire District (i.e., closure of Station 22) it has been able to show a surplus in all five years reviewed. Financial projections show an ongoing surplus for the five years moving forward. In addition, on July 3, 2024, the voters of Higgins Fire District approved a new special assessment, identified as “Fire Suppression Benefit Assessment District No. 2024-1” which will appear on the 2024-25 tax rolls. This will allow Higgins Fire District to reopen Station 22 and continue to provide its full range of services to its constituents. Page 5 of 8 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-09 Higgins FPD Sphere of Influence Update MSR Determination # 5: Status and Opportunities for Shared Services At present Higgins Fire District shares Station 21(Higgins Corner) with CAL FIRE Higgins Fire District purchased the station in 2007 and it was being occupied by CAL FIRE at that time. CAL FIRE houses two engines at Station 21 during the fire season, Higgins Fire District has three engines and a water tender there. Higgins Fire District has an Amador Plan contract with CAL FIRE to provide for year-round staffing at the station. CAL FIRE has notified Higgins Fire District that it plans on building a new facility in the Higgins Corner area and will vacate Station 21 once the new facility is completed. It is questionable as to whether this new station will accommodate personnel from Higgins Fire District. Higgins Fire District receives its dispatch services from CAL FIRE. It operates with mutual and automatic aid from other Nevada, Placer, and Yuba County fire agencies as well as State and Federal fire resources. MSR Determination #6: Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies Through the years, Higgins Fire District has taken cost minimization efforts to maintain services levels, i.e., closing Station 22. Higgins Fire District communicates with its constituents through its website and social media; however, it does not fully comply with the provision of the Special District’s Transparency Act. Its financial documents are not posted on its website, staff reports related to actions before the board of directors are not readily available, and it is not current on its required annual audits. No governmental structure or operational options were identified for Higgins Fire District during this review other than its need to maintain the Amador Plan contract with CAL FIRE for the Higgins Corner area. However, should the fire reorganization with Penn Valley, Rough and Ready, Nevada Consolidated, and Ophir Fire Districts come to fruition, once operational, discussions could be undertaken to evaluate the advisability of Higgins Fire District to join the reorganized district. Page 6 of 8 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-09 Higgins FPD Sphere of Influence Update Exhibit 3 – Sphere of Influence Determinations – Higgins SOI Determination #1: The present and planned land uses in the area including agricultural and open space lands A review of the materials provided for land use by the Nevada County General Plan and the Greater Higgins Area Plan identify the full range of land uses within Higgins Fire District and its existing sphere of influence. These include, but are not limited to urban, suburban, and rural residential uses, recreation, commercial, agricultural, forest, and conservation as defined in the respective Plans. There will be no change in these land use determinations because of the sphere of influence confirmation. SOI Determination #2: The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area Based upon the range of land uses associated with the confirmation of the sphere of influence the present and probable need for the fire protection, and emergency medical response will remain acute. The community has a number of parks and tourist destinations which will have a transitory population which will also need the range of services available from Higgins Fire District SOI Determination #3: The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agencies provide or are authorized to provide Higgins Fire District is authorized the powers of fire protection and emergency medical response. Based upon the MSR information for Higgins Fire District, it has identified that call volumes following the COVID pandemic era have returned to normal. With the passage of the new Assessment, “Fire Suppression Benefit Assessment District No. 2024-1” there will be sufficient funding to provide adequate stations, personnel, and apparatus to meet current demands. The Fire Chief has identified that Higgins Fire District has an apparatus and capital replacement plan. Higgins Fire District has three stations, two rated excellent and one poor; two stations are staffed full-time with Station 21 being a shared facility with CAL FIRE. CAL FIRE has notified Higgins Fire District that it plans to develop a new station for its use in the Higgins Corner area and will move out of Station 21 upon completion. Station 22 is currently closed but is planned to be reopened due to passage of the new Assessment. There is a need to develop a formal written maintenance and replacement plan for these facilities SOI Determination #4: The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area There are two distinct communities of interest within the overall Higgins Fire District area: Higgins Corners, the community center and the most densely populated; and the surrounding area which consists of large ranches and agricultural uses. The area is also a resort/recreational destination. SOI Determination #5: The present and probable need of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities for the district’s public facilities and services Page 7 of 8 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-09 Higgins FPD Sphere of Influence Update There are no DUCs identified within and/or contiguous to the district and its sphere of influence. Page 8 of 8 RESOLUTION 24-10 OF THE L OCAL AGE NCY FORM AT I ON C O M M I S S I ON OF NEVADA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION OF THE NEVADA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION ADOPTING AN UPDATE TO THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE PLAN FOR NORTH SAN JUAN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires the Nevada County Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCo”) to adopt a Sphere of Influence (“SOI”) for each agency in its jurisdiction and to review each sphere for possible update every five years; and WHEREAS, proceedings for adoption, update and amendment of a Sphere of Influence Plan are governed by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, Section 56000 et seq. of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, a Sphere of Influence is defined by Government Code Section 56076 as “a plan for the probable physical boundary and service area of a local agency determined by the Commission”; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 56425 establishes the purpose of a Sphere of Influence Plan as assisting a LAFCo to carry out its responsibilities for planning and shaping the logical and orderly development and coordination of local governmental agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of the County and its communities; and WHEREAS, such a plan will be utilized by members of the public, public agencies, service providers and affected property owners to ascertain the timing of development and expected scope and provision of public services; and WHEREAS, the Sphere of Influence Plan is a flexible document that may be amended to accommo- date changes in development patterns and local circumstances, and further, is anticipated to be reviewed again in five years; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 56430 requires the Commission to conduct service reviews of the provision of municipal services prior to or in conjunction with an action to update or adopt a sphere of influence; and WHEREAS, the Commission has contracted with AP Triton, LLC, a public safety consultant, to prepare a Municipal Service Review (MSR) to evaluate fire and emergency response services provided by ten fire agencies in Nevada County, and to prepare sphere of influence plans for the nine fire districts. The resulting report, titled Public Review Draft of the Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan Updates for Fire and Emergency Response Services – 2024, was considered by the Commission at a public hearing on September 26, 2024, and has been reviewed by the affected agencies and the Commission. The consultant has incorporated or accommodated the comments received as well as the Commission’s direction in the final draft of the report; and WHEREAS, the Executive Officer has reviewed the Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan Updates for Fire and Emergency Response Services - 2024, including the report’s recommended Municipal Service Review determinations and the recommended Sphere of Influence determinations and other pertinent documents and information; and Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-10 North San Juan FPD Sphere of Influence Update WHEREAS, the Executive Officer has prepared a staff report including recommendations for update of each agency’s sphere of influence plan. The report has been prepared within the time required by law; and copies have been provided to the Commission, made available to the public on the LAFCo website and provided to all other persons required by law to receive it; and WHEREAS, the adoption of a sphere of influence is a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, and pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code and section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., title 14, § 15000 et seq.), LAFCo is the lead agency for the project; and WHEREAS, at the time and in the manner provided by law, the Executive Officer gave notice of the date, time, and place of a public hearing by the Commission for the Update of the District’s Sphere of Influence Plan; and WHEREAS, the Commission has heard all interested parties desiring to be heard and has considered the proposal and report by the Executive Officer and all other relevant evidence and information presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Local Agency Formation Commission of Nevada County hereby de- termines the following: 1. The Commission’s purposes and responsibility. The proposed update to the Sphere of Influence Plan for the North San Juan Fire Protection District, including the recommendations established therein, is consistent with the Commission’s policies, purposes and responsibilities for planning the logical and orderly development and coordination of local governmental agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of the region and other governmental agencies and communities within Nevada LAFCo’s jurisdiction. 2. Considerations specified in Government Code Section 56425(e). The Commission has considered all documentation in this matter, including the Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan Updates for Fire and Emergency Response Services - 2024, as it relates to the following considerations stated in Government Code Section 56425(e): (1) the present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands; (2) the present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area; (3) the present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agencies provide or are authorized to provide; (4) the existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area; (5) the present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere of influence. The Commission’s determinations on these factors are set forth in the Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan Updates for Fire and Emergency Response Services - 2024, as well as the analysis supporting the determinations that are incorporated herein by reference. 3. Determinations regarding the California Environmental Quality Act The Commission has determined that the sphere of influence update is considered a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and as Lead Agency hereby determines that the update of the District’s Sphere of Influence Plan will have no foreseeable environmental impacts and is therefore exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the provisions established by Section 15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines; and the Commission’s determinations supporting CEQA’s Common Sense Exemption are as follows: Page 2 of 7 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-10 North San Juan FPD Sphere of Influence Update Exhibit 1 – Sphere of Influence Map – North San Juan Page 4 of 7 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-10 North San Juan FPD Sphere of Influence Update Exhibit 2 – Municipal Service Review Determinations – North San Juan MSR Determination #1: Growth and Population Projections The current population, estimated using 2020 Decennial Census data and interpolation of census tracts, is approximately 2,562. Given the limited growth in the area, the 2023 population estimate is 2,571. There are no population projections available from the California Department of Finance or the U.S. Census Bureau for this community, even though North San Juan is a census-designated place. The area experienced a significant population drop between 2019 and 2020 (-4%), which complicates future population forecasting. The projected population for 2035 is 2,630, despite the California Department of Finance projecting a decline in population for Nevada County as a whole. MSR Determination #2: Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence Nevada LAFCo has identified one DUC within North San Juan's boundary, classified as a "legacy community" under the County General Plan. This area lies within the rural community center, as defined by the General Plan, and is wholly within the existing North San Juan boundary, receiving the same level of services as the surrounding district area. A project is currently underway to provide a pressurized water supply for firefighting in the developed rural community center area of North San Juan, addressing service delivery to the DUC. MSR Determination #3: Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities, Adequacy of Public Services, and Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies, Including Those Related to Sewers, Water, and Fire in Any DUCs Within or Contiguous to the SOI North San Juan has four stations but currently operates daily from only one, Station 3, while the others are used for on-call operations. A review indicates that three of these stations lack the capacity to support 24-hour staffing, leaving only one station to respond around the clock. It is recommended that the district develop a facility replacement plan to upgrade or replace facilities in an orderly manner. The Fire Chief has highlighted staffing of fire operations as a concern, noting minimal day-to-day coverage. Additionally, the district does not meet its response time goals, which is a critical service issue. MSR Determination #4: Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services A review of the district's financial position shows a surplus in four of the last five years, with projections indicating ongoing, albeit modest, surpluses for the next five years. However, 70% of the agency's revenue comes from strike-team operations, which are not guaranteed. A significant portion of salary and benefit expense is directly related to strike-team operations. In all, strike-team operations are a net-positive to the district, with expenses more than offset by revenues. Strike-team revenue in excess of related expense is utilized by the district to provide a higher level of service to the community than would be possible utilizing only the regular recurring revenue. MSR Determination #5: Status and Opportunities for Shared Services The district's location along the north side of the South Yuba River isolates it from other agencies, limiting opportunities for shared services. It operates with mutual and automatic aid from fire agencies in Nevada, Sutter, and Sierra counties, as well as from State and Federal fire resources. The district receives dispatch services from CAL FIRE. Page 5 of 7 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-10 North San Juan FPD Sphere of Influence Update MSR Determination #6: Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies Over the years, the district has made efforts to minimize costs while maintaining services. It communicates with its constituents through its website, newsletter, and social media, and engages with the community on fire safety efforts. No alternative governmental structures or operational options were identified during this review due to the district's isolation. However, if the fire reorganization with Penn Valley, Rough and Ready, Nevada Consolidated, and Ophir Fire Districts proceeds, operational discussions with North San Juan could be undertaken. Page 6 of 7 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-10 North San Juan FPD Sphere of Influence Update Exhibit 3 – Sphere of Influence Determinations – North San Juan SOI Determination #1: The present and planned land uses in the area including agricultural and open space lands A review of the Nevada County General Plan for the area identifies a range of rural and forest land uses within the North San Juan service area, including Rural (1 unit per 5, 10, 20, 30, or 40 acres), Public, Planned Development, Forest, and Open Space. The General Plan also acknowledges the rural community center area along Highway 49, which includes residential components. The proposed sphere amendment area includes Forest, Open Space, and Public uses. The land use within the district and the proposed sphere amendment area is generally classified as rural and remote. This sphere of influence determination will not change these land use classifications. Determination #2: The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. Given the range of land uses within the sphere of influence and the proposed amendment, the need for fire protection and emergency medical response services is expected to remain acute. The estimated build-out population of the area is 2,630 by 2035. However, during the summer months, the area experiences an influx of tourists, which can reach up to 500,000 annually, increasing the demand for district services. Determination #3: The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agencies provide or are authorized to provide. North San Juan Fire is authorized to provide fire protection and emergency medical response services. According to the MSR, call volumes dropped during the COVID-19 pandemic but have since returned to pre-pandemic levels. Service demands increase during the summer months, while winter months see slower activity. The district relies on paid-call or volunteer personnel to meet current demands, but the Chief has identified a need for additional staffing. North San Juan Fire has four stations, three of which are rated as good, and one as poor. Only Station 3 is staffed 24/7. There is a need to develop a replacement or upgrade plan for the facilities. Determination #4: The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area. There is a distinct community of interest in the North San Juan area, centered around the rural community along Highway 49. Growth in the area is limited due to the county's rural land use decisions and limited infrastructure. Determination #5: The present and probable need of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities for the district’s public facilities and services. The central community core of North San Juan is identified as a DUC within the district boundaries. This area receives the same level of service as the surrounding district areas. Page 7 of 7 RESOLUTION 24-11 OF THE L OCAL AGE NCY FORM AT I ON C O M M I S S I ON OF NEVADA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION OF THE NEVADA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION ADOPTING AN UPDATE TO THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE PLAN FOR TRUCKEE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires the Nevada County Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCo”) to adopt a Sphere of Influence (“SOI”) for each agency in its jurisdiction and to review each sphere for possible update every five years; and WHEREAS, proceedings for adoption, update and amendment of a Sphere of Influence Plan are governed by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, Section 56000 et seq. of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, a Sphere of Influence is defined by Government Code Section 56076 as “a plan for the probable physical boundary and service area of a local agency determined by the Commission”; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 56425 establishes the purpose of a Sphere of Influence Plan as assisting a LAFCo to carry out its responsibilities for planning and shaping the logical and orderly development and coordination of local governmental agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of the County and its communities; and WHEREAS, such a plan will be utilized by members of the public, public agencies, service providers and affected property owners to ascertain the timing of development and expected scope and provision of public services; and WHEREAS, the Sphere of Influence Plan is a flexible document that may be amended to accommo- date changes in development patterns and local circumstances, and further, is anticipated to be reviewed again in five years; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 56430 requires the Commission to conduct service reviews of the provision of municipal services prior to or in conjunction with an action to update or adopt a sphere of influence; and WHEREAS, the Commission has contracted with AP Triton, LLC, a public safety consultant, to prepare a Municipal Service Review (MSR) to evaluate fire and emergency response services provided by ten fire agencies in Nevada County, and to prepare sphere of influence plans for the nine fire districts. The resulting report, titled Public Review Draft of the Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan Updates for Fire and Emergency Response Services – 2024, was considered by the Commission at a public hearing on September 26, 2024, and has been reviewed by the affected agencies and the Commission. The consultant has incorporated or accommodated the comments received as well as the Commission’s direction in the final draft of the report; and WHEREAS, the Executive Officer has reviewed the Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan Updates for Fire and Emergency Response Services - 2024, including the report’s recommended Municipal Service Review determinations and the recommended Sphere of Influence determinations and other pertinent documents and information; and Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-11 Truckee FPD Sphere Update WHEREAS, the Executive Officer has reviewed the Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan Updates for Fire and Emergency Response Services - 2024, including the report’s recommended Municipal Service Review determinations and the recommended Sphere of Influence determinations and other pertinent documents and information; and WHEREAS, the Executive Officer has prepared a staff report including recommendations for update of each agency’s sphere of influence plan. The report has been prepared within the time required by law; and copies have been provided to the Commission, made available to the public on the LAFCo website and provided to all other persons required by law to receive it; and WHEREAS, the adoption of a sphere of influence is a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, and pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code and section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., title 14, § 15000 et seq.), LAFCo is the lead agency for the project; and WHEREAS, at the time and in the manner provided by law, the Executive Officer gave notice of the date, time, and place of a public hearing by the Commission for the Update of the District’s Sphere of Influence Plan; and WHEREAS, the Commission has heard all interested parties desiring to be heard and has considered the proposal and report by the Executive Officer and all other relevant evidence and information presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Local Agency Formation Commission of Nevada County hereby de- termines the following: 1. The Commission’s purposes and responsibility. The proposed update to the Sphere of Influence Plan for the Truckee Fire Protection District, including the recommendations established therein, is consistent with the Commission’s policies, purposes and responsibilities for planning the logical and orderly development and coordination of local governmental agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of the region and other governmental agencies and communities within Nevada LAFCo’s jurisdiction. 2. Considerations specified in Government Code Section 56425(e). The Commission has considered all documentation in this matter, including the Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan Updates for Fire and Emergency Response Services – 2024 – as it relates to the following considerations stated in Government Code Section 56425(e): (1) the present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands; (2) the present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area; (3) the present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agencies provide or are authorized to provide; (4) the existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area; (5) the present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere of influence. The Commission’s determinations on these factors are set forth in the Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan Updates for Fire and Emergency Response Services – 2024, as well as the analysis supporting the determinations that are incorporated herein by reference. 3. Determination regarding the California Environmental Quality Act The Commission has determined that the sphere of influence update is considered a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and hereby determines that Page 2 of 9 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-11 Truckee FPD Sphere Update the update of the District’s Sphere of Influence Plan will have no foreseeable environmental impacts and is therefore exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the provisions established by Section 15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines; and the Commission’s determinations supporting CEQA’s Common Sense Exemption are as follows: • The District provides fire protection and emergency services in the eastern portion of Nevada County and Placer County. The areas affirmed by this update as comprising the District’s sphere include the territory already within the District or within the Sphere of Influence approved for the District by the Commission in 2007. These areas include land uses that either already receive or will require fire protection and emergency services. • The District’s service capacity will be sufficient for continued service within existing service areas; and, • The services provided by the District are consistent with Nevada County’s General Plan, as well as with the current land uses and needs of the residents; and, • No unusual circumstances relative to the District’s services or to LAFCo’s update of the sphere of influence have been identified; and, AND, FURTHER, the Commission resolves and orders the following: 1) The Truckee Fire Protection District Sphere of Influence Map, included herein as Exhibit 1 is hereby adopted; including the MSR Determinations for Truckee Fire (Exhibit 2) and the SOI Determinations (Exhibit 3) set forth in the Municipal Services Review and Sphere of Influence Plan Updates for Fire and Emergency Response Services – 2024. 2) The District’s Fire Services have been reviewed and set forth in the Municipal Services Review and Sphere of Influence Plan Updates for Fire and Emergency Response Services - 2024, is hereby adopted. 3) All changes of organization or reorganization for the District must be consistent with the updated Sphere of Influence Plan and Map, and any duly adopted amendments thereto. 4) All changes of organization or reorganization for the District must be consistent with the Commission’s adopted policies. 5) The Commission directs staff to file a Notice of Exemption as lead agency pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 and Section 15075 of the CEQA Guidelines. The foregoing resolution was duly passed by the Local Agency Formation Commission of Nevada County at a regular meeting held on November 21, 2024, by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Branstrom, Heck, Hoek, Mangel, Petersen, Swarthout, Susman Noes: none Abstentions: none Absent: none Page 3 of 9 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-11 Truckee FPD Sphere Update Exhibit 1 – Sphere of Influence Map – Truckee Fire District Page 5 of 9 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-11 Truckee FPD Sphere Update Exhibit 2 – Municipal Service Review Determinations – Truckee MSR Determination #1: Growth and Population Projections Based on information from the 2020 Decennial Census, the population of the Truckee Fire Protection District was estimated to be 19,333 and grew to 19,752 in 2023. Truckee Fire District’s boundary includes a much larger unincorporated area than the Town of Truckee. Unincorporated area within the Truckee Fire District boundary is located within both Nevada and Placer Counties. Therefore, the population estimate for the Town of Truckee from the California Department of Finance (CDOF) is not representative of the jurisdiction. It is estimated that the unincorporated area in the Truckee Fire District service area located within both Nevada and Placer Counties comprises a population of approximately 3,500. Truckee is a tourist destination; seasonal fluctuations can swell the transient population to double or triple the resident population, resulting in 50,000 to 60,000 people in the area at times. Although historic population estimates for the specific boundaries of the Truckee Fire District jurisdiction were not available through the CDOF or the U.S. Census Bureau, population projections were calculated out to 2035 using historic interpolations from American Community Survey estimates. The population is projected to experience a 6.4% cumulative growth rate from 2023 to 2035. The projected population of the Town of Truckee in 2035 is 21,006. However, the estimated build-out of the Town of Truckee is expected to be 28,263 (19,901 dwelling units) per the General Plan, and the land-use combinations for the unincorporated area is estimated to provide an additional population of 7,000, for a combined population of 35,263 in 2035. MSR Determination #2: Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence Nevada County, through its land-use element of the General Plan adopted in 2014, has identified disadvantaged “legacy” communities or “DUCs” throughout the County. Within the Nevada County portion of the Truckee Fire District, one DUC was identified: the area that is generally identified as “Soda Springs.” Furthermore, Placer County identified one DUC within Placer County CSA 28, Zone 137 that is contiguous to the Truckee Fire District Sphere and meets the definition based on population and income. MSR Determination #3: Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities, Adequacy of Public Services, and Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies, Including Those Related to Sewers, Water, and Structural Fire Protection in Any DUCs Within or Contiguous to the SOI Based upon the range of land uses within the Truckee Fire District service area, the need for fire protection, emergency medical response, and ambulance service will remain acute. The estimated build-out of the Town of Truckee is expected to be 28,263 (19,901 dwelling units) per the General Plan and the land-use combinations for the unincorporated area are estimated to provide an additional population of 7,000, for a combined population of 35,263. The community has a number of parks and tourist destinations which attract a transitory population that will also require the range of services provided by the district. Page 6 of 9 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-11 Truckee FPD Sphere Update There are adequate stations, personnel, and apparatus to meet current demands, but the Truckee Fire District’s Chief indicates the district is understaffed and has utilized existing staff outside of class to perform operations. The district currently provides one-person engine staffing. Truckee Fire District has eight stations, one of which is rated in “Excellent” condition, two are rated “Good,” and five are rated “Fair.” Station 91 is utilized only for administration; four stations are staffed 24/7, and three are not staffed daily. MSR Determination #4: Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services Truckee Fire District has a stable revenue stream through its allocation of a share of the ad valorem property tax in both Nevada and Placer Counties, which allows for it to be exempt from the ERAF reduction with its receipt of special tax, benefit assessment revenues, and ambulance fees. Truckee Fire District has maintained a stable financial picture over the past five years, identifying an operational surplus each year. The operational surplus is routinely transferred to the capital improvement fund. The reserves of the district are maintained with a fund balance. However, the capital improvement plan is significantly underfunded and unmitigated depreciation of capital assets is out pacing funding. MSR Determination # 5: Status and Opportunities for Shared Services The Fire Chief has identified that a regional training facility would be an opportunity to add value for allied responders in the region. Placer LAFCo will be conducting a fire service MSR for the Truckee/Tahoe area fire agencies in the near future. This may identify opportunities for shared services with the agencies within Placer County. MSR Determination #6: Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies Nevada County has permitted improvements in the Truckee Fire District sphere of influence. These permitted improvements produce tax revenue for Nevada County. These permitted improvements consume Truckee Fire District services without funding. As the permitting and taxing authority, Nevada County should establish a fire control fund to ensure all permitted improvements contribute to fire protection service funding. Truckee Fire District maintains a website and social media presence to keep its constituents and the community-at-large aware of District activities and operations. During the election process for Measure T, the district established a Citizens Oversight Committee that meets regularly to outline the use of the Measure’s funds for wildfire reduction. Page 7 of 9 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-11 Truckee FPD Sphere Update Exhibit 3 – Sphere of Influence Determinations – Truckee SOI Determination #1: The present and planned land uses in the area including agricultural and open space lands A review of the materials provided for land-use authorities within the district—the Town of Truckee and of Nevada and Placer Counties—identify the full range of land uses within the district and its existing sphere of influence. These include—but are not limited to—urban, suburban, and rural residential uses, recreation, commercial, light industrial, agricultural, forest, and conservation as defined by the respective Plans. There will be no change in these land-use determinations because of the sphere of influence confirmation. SOI Determination #2: The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area Based upon the range of land uses associated with the confirmation of the sphere of influence, the present and probable need for fire protection, emergency medical response, and ambulance service will remain acute. The estimated build-out of the Town of Truckee is expected to be 28,263 (19,901 dwelling units) per the General Plan and the land-use combinations for the unincorporated area are estimated to provide an additional population of 7,000, for a combined population of 35,263. The community has a number of parks and tourist destinations which attract a transitory population that also needs the range of services available from the district. SOI Determination #3: The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agencies provide or are authorized to provide Truckee Fire District is authorized to provide fire protection, emergency medical response, and ambulance service. Based upon the MSR information for Truckee Fire District, it has been identified that call volumes following the COVID-19 pandemic era increased by 6% from 2019 to 2022. The district has not adopted response time standards. There are adequate stations, personnel, and apparatus to continue the current level of service, but the Chief has identified that the district is understaffed and has utilized existing staff outside of class to perform operations. Additionally, unmitigated depreciation of capital assets is out pacing funding. The residents and property owners within the district would benefit from response time standards that were more in line with the NFPA 1710 recommendations. Truckee Fire District has eight stations, one of which is rated in “Excellent” condition, two in “Good,” and five in “Fair.” Station 91 is utilized only for administration, four stations are staffed 24/7, and three are not staffed daily. There is a need to develop a replacement plan for these facilities or build new facilities. SOI Determination #4: The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area There is a distinct community of interest in the Truckee area as a whole because it is a resort/recreational destination. This area is continuing to grow, with an estimated population for the Town of approximately 29,000 by 2035. Page 8 of 9 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 24-11 Truckee FPD Sphere Update SOI Determination #5: The present and probable need of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities for the district’s public facilities and services There are DUCs identified within and/or contiguous to the district and its sphere of influence: one in Nevada County and one in Placer County. These areas receive the same level of service as do the surrounding areas of the district. Page 9 of 9 RESOLUTION 25-01 OF THE L OCAL AGE NCY FORM AT I ON C O M M I S S I ON OF NEVADA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION OF THE NEVADA COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION ADOPTING AN UPDATE TO THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE PLAN FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY WATER DISTRICT AND FIRE DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 requires the Nevada County Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCo”) to adopt a Sphere of Influence (“SOI”) for each agency in its jurisdiction and to review each sphere for possible update every five years; and WHEREAS, proceedings for adoption, update and amendment of a Sphere of Influence Plan are governed by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, Section 56000 et seq. of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, a Sphere of Influence is defined by Government Code Section 56076 as “a plan for the probable physical boundary and service area of a local agency determined by the Commission”; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 56425 establishes the purpose of a Sphere of Influence Plan as assisting a LAFCo to carry out its responsibilities for planning and shaping the logical and orderly development and coordination of local governmental agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of the County and its communities; and WHEREAS, such a plan will be utilized by members of the public, public agencies, service providers and affected property owners to ascertain the timing of development and expected scope and provision of public services; and WHEREAS, the Sphere of Influence Plan is a flexible document that may be amended to accommo- date changes in development patterns and local circumstances, and further, is anticipated to be reviewed again in five years; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 56430 requires the Commission to conduct service reviews of the provision of municipal services prior to or in conjunction with an action to update or adopt a sphere of influence; and WHEREAS, the Commission hired consultants AP Triton to prepare a Municipal Service Review (MSR) to evaluate the fire protection and emergency response services provided by all Nevada County Fire Districts; including the services provided by the Washington County Water District and Fire Department; and, WHEREAS, the Commission has contracted with AP Triton, LLC, a public safety consultant, to prepare a Municipal Service Review (MSR) to evaluate fire and emergency response services provided by ten fire agencies in Nevada County, and to prepare sphere of influence plans for the nine fire districts. The resulting report, titled Public Review Draft of the Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan Updates for Fire and Emergency Response Services – 2024, was considered by the Commission at a public hearing on September 26, 2024, and has been reviewed by the affected agencies and the Commission. The consultant has incorporated or accommodated the comments received as well as the Commission’s direction in the final draft of the report; and WHEREAS, the Executive Officer has reviewed the Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan Updates for Fire and Emergency Response Services - 2024, including the report’s Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 25-01 Washington Fire Sphere of Influence Update recommended Municipal Service Review determinations and the recommended Sphere of Influence determinations and other pertinent documents and information; and WHEREAS, the adoption of a sphere of influence is a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, and pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code and section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., title 14, § 15000 et seq.), LAFCo is the lead agency for the project; and WHEREAS, at the time and in the manner provided by law, the Executive Officer gave notice of the date, time, and place of a public hearing by the Commission for the Update of the District’s Sphere of Influence Plan; and WHEREAS, the Commission has heard all interested parties desiring to be heard and has considered the proposal and report by the Executive Officer and all other relevant evidence and information presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the Local Agency Formation Commission of Nevada County hereby de- termines the following: 1. The Commission’s purposes and responsibility. The proposed update to the Sphere of Influence Plan for the Washington County Water and Fire Department including the recommendations established therein, is consistent with the Commission’s policies, purposes and responsibilities for planning the logical and orderly development and coordination of local governmental agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of the region and other governmental agencies and communities within Nevada LAFCo’s jurisdiction. 2. Considerations specified in Government Code Section 56425(e). The Commission has considered all documentation in this matter, including the Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan Updates for Fire and Emergency Response Services – 2024 – as it relates to the following considerations stated in Government Code Section 56425(e): (1) the present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands; (2) the present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area; (3) the present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agencies provide or are authorized to provide; (4) the existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area; (5) the present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere of influence. The Commission’s determinations on these factors are set forth in the Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan Updates for Fire and Emergency Services – 2024, as well as the analysis supporting the determinations that are incorporated herein by reference. 3) Determinations regarding the California Environmental Quality Act The Commission has determined that the sphere of influence update is considered a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and as Lead Agency for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), hereby determines that the update of the District’s Sphere of Influence Plan will have no foreseeable environmental impacts and is therefore exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the provisions established by Section 15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines; and the Commission’s determinations supporting CEQA’s Common Sense Exemption are as follows: Page 2 of 8 Exhibit 1 NN.. SSaann JJuuaann SSpphheerree ooff IInnfflluueennccee Gr C ad ru e z R on oad B R a o c a k d Bone R D oa e d rb e c North WCWD Fire Service Area of Interest San Juan mfield N - o G r r t a h niteville Road G a st o R n o a d Washington oo Bl BBBVTTTTTCeeeeeDxxxxxNtttttaNteH: 1H/24/2025 W a Rs h NNCCCCFFDD SSpphheerree ooff IInnfflluueennccee o a d in g to n Ãà 20 Nevada County Consolidated §¨¦ 80 d a F o l R at S s c t ot F S la co t t R ts oad ² Map prepard by LAFCo staff WCWD Fire Department Response - Area of Interest using information provided by County GIS February 2025 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 25-01 Washington Fire Sphere of Influence Update Exhibit 2 – Municipal Service Review Determinations – Washington MSR Determination #1: Growth and Population Projections The current population of the Washington Fire Department service area, based on the American Community Survey and Esri’s interpolation of census tracts, is estimated to be 126. However, the Washington Fire Department estimated the population at 160. The California Department of Finance has estimated that the future population within Nevada County will decrease by 2035. However, using the interpolations of the American Community Survey estimates for this report estimates a 6% growth for the community to 134 in 2035. MSR Determination #2: Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence The historic community of Washington, as defined by the Nevada County Planning Department, has been identified as a DUC. This community is larger than the current sphere of influence and boundary for the district. It was originally recommended that the sphere of influence for the district be expanded to include the whole of the DUC area to address the actual service area of WAF. However, further review by the District revealed that the potential expansion area is uninhabited and would provide no opportunity for enhancing revenue to the District. This larger area will continue to receive fire protection and emergency medical response from WAF through mutual aid. Therefore, the determination is that the SOI should remain unchanged, coterminous with the current WAF boundary. MSR Determination #3: Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities, Adequacy of Public Services, and Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies, Including Those Related to Sewers, Water, and Structural Fire Protection in Any DUCs Within or Contiguous to the SOI Washington Fire District operates from a single fire station located in town, with an all-volunteer force to serve an area of approximately 1 square mile and 200 private properties. It has agreements with the Tahoe National Forest to serve the private lands within the National Forest. There are no national standards provided for volunteer response times; however, for Washington Fire District it is 18.42 minutes or less for fires and 17.54 minutes or less for EMS, 80% of the time. MSR Determination #4: Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services The financial ability of Washington Fire District to provide fire protection services is limited by its lack of funding. It receives Prop. 172 funding from the County, support from its community auxiliary group and resources from the enterprise activities of the water activities of the district. However, the financial documents received for Washington Fire District indicate that it has operated at a deficit in three out of the last five years, and there is listed an amount owed to the Fire Fund of approximately $85,207. The district has debt for the repair of the water distribution system that is currently $96,893 with an annual payment of $5,272, and its total Prop. 172 receipts in FY 2022 were $8,770. This raises the question of how the liability is funded while continuing to provide service to the community. MSR Determination # 5: Status and Opportunities for Shared Services Due to the isolated location of the district, there are limited opportunities for shared services. However, the Fire Department shares facilities with the Water District. The district receives its dispatch services from CAL FIRE Page 5 of 8 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 25-01 Washington Fire Sphere of Influence Update MSR Determination #6: Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies The district has implemented cost-savings measures, but there are no expenditures for salaries for fire personnel and there are limited resources. Thus, the operations are “bare bones” at present. The website for the district does not provide the full range of information required by State law, and this shortcoming should be addressed by the district. Page 6 of 8 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 25-01 Washington Fire Sphere of Influence Update Exhibit 3 – Sphere of Influence Determinations – Washington SOI Determination #1: The present and planned land uses in the area including agricultural and open space lands The Nevada County General Plan 2020 has identified the Washington area as a legacy community located along the south fork of the Yuba River. “Legacy community” is a companion designation to the disadvantaged unincorporated community identified in LAFCo law. It notes that there are few opportunities for significant new residential development due to the community’s isolated location, lack of infrastructure, and wild and rugged topography of the area. As shown in Figure 283 of the Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Plan Updates for Fire and Emergency Response Services – 2024, the County of Nevada has assigned the following designations within the community of Washington: Residential (1.5-acres minimum lot size), Urban medium density (six dwelling units per acre maximum), Recreation, Public and Neighborhood Commercial; and, these designations are surrounded by lands designated as Forest with limited to no development potential SOI Determination #2: The Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services in the Area Based upon the isolated location of the Washington community and the range of land uses within its legacy community, the present and probable need for the fire protection and emergency medical response will remain acute. The population of the district is estimated by Washington Fire District to be 160, since it responds to the whole of the community both within the district boundaries and to outside areas. The community has a number of parks and tourist destinations that have a transitory population that requires the range of services available from the district. Since the services currently provided to this isolated community are to the whole of the area, it supports the amendment of the SOI Determination #3: The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agencies provide or are authorized to provide The capacity of the fire protection service provided by Washington Fire District is limited based upon its lack of funding and its need to rely upon its volunteers for response. It must rely upon aid from surrounding agencies to ensure service to its community, either through automatic aid response or the provision of equipment or vehicles. The expansion of the sphere of influence to include the legacy community of Washington offers an opportunity through annexation for a potential transfer of a share of property tax revenue for fire purposes. SOI Determination #4: The Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest in the Area Due to the isolated nature of the Washington Fire District service area community, the social and economic community of interest is the legacy community of Washington as defined by the County General Plan. The residents of the community rely upon one another to provide for the needs of the community. This is represented by Washington Fire District being an all-volunteer organization. SOI Determination #5: The Present and Probable Need of Any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities for the district’s Public Facilities and Services The Nevada County General Plan has defined a legacy disadvantaged community for the Washington area that is used in this review as the defined DUC. The area outside the sphere of influence of the existing Washington County Water District within this legacy community Page 7 of 8 Nevada County LAFCo Resolution 25-01 Washington Fire Sphere of Influence Update receives the same level of fire protection services provided by WAF and has been provided those services by WAF through mutual aid. The definition of the community of Washington should address the whole of the community; however, retention of the sphere of influence as coterminous with existing boundaries identifies the inhabited community of Washington. The territory of the legacy community outside the district’s boundaries and existing sphere appear to be uninhabited with no structures identified. Page 8 of 8