Fire Service Review 2025

April 2025 Fire Service Review of: • Lincoln Fire Department • Newcastle Fire Protection District • Penryn Fire Protection District • Placer Hills Fire Protection District • Rocklin Fire Department • Roseville Fire Department • South Placer Fire Protection District PLACER LAFCO RESOLUTION NO. 25-05 RESOLUTION OF THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF PLACER COUNTY ACCEPTING THE SERVICE REVIEW OF NEWCASTLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, PENRYN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, PLACER HILLS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND SOUTH PLACER FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND FIRE SERVICE REVIEW OF LINCOLN FIRE DEPARTMENT, ROCKLIN FIRE DEPARTMENT AND ROSEVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT (LAFCO Project No. 2022-03) WHEREAS, the Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO or Commission) is a public agency of the State of California with regulatory and planning responsibilities to facilitate orderly growth and development pursuant to the Cortese-Knox- Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH), commencing at section 56000 of the California Government Code (GC); and WHEREAS, the Commission is required, under GC section 56430, to regularly conduct a service review for each local government agency whose principal jurisdiction is within Placer County; and WHEREAS, LAFCO initiated and hired a consultant to prepare a service review for the departments and agencies as noted above; and WHEREAS, the Commission received a draft service review study for the subject agencies on January 8, 2025, at a noticed public hearing; and WHEREAS, LAFCO circulated the draft study for a 45-day public review and comment period; and WHEREAS, the Executive Officer has reviewed the final study prepared by LAFCO’s consultant and has prepared a report including her recommendations and has furnished copies of said report and the final study to the Commission and to all interested persons within the time required by CKH; and WHEREAS, the final study describes and discloses the information required for the review of the fire protection services of the subject agencies pursuant to GC section 56430; and WHEREAS, the Commission is required, pursuant to GC section 56425(e), to make a written statement of determinations regarding certain factors, which determinations are set forth in the final study and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, acting as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Commission finds and determines that the service review study is exempt from CEQA under categorical exemption Class 6 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15306) because Class 6 exempts from CEQA projects that consist of basic data collection, research and resource evaluation activities that do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource, including a study (such as a service review) leading to an action which a public agency has not yet approved, adopted, or funded; and Page 1 of 2 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Fire Service Review April 2025 Prepared for: Local Agency Formation Commission of Placer County by AP Triton. Placer LAFCO Commissioners • Cindy Gustafson, Chair • Joshua Alpine, Vice Chair • Whitney Eklund • Shanti Landon • Sean Lomen • Susan Rohan • Anthony DeMattei (Alternate) • Judy Friedman (Alternate) • Stephanie Youngblood (Alternate) • David Bass (Alternate) • Cherri Spriggs (Alternate) LAFCO Staff • Michelle McIntyre, Executive Officer • Amanda Ross, Acting Assistant Executive Officer • Amy Engle, Commission Clerk AP Triton Consultants • Don Jarvis, Project Manager • Jennifer Stephenson, Determinations, SOI reviews, Governance options • Randy Parr, Finance • Clay Steward, Service Delivery and Performance • Eric Schmidt, GIS and Mapping • Melissa Vazquez Swank, Project Support i Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Contents Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iii Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................ iv Preface ........................................................................................................................................... viii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ x SECTION I: LAFCO & SERVICE REVIEWS ................................................................................ 1 LAFCO Overview ............................................................................................................................. 2 Service Review ................................................................................................................................ 3 Sphere of Influence Updates ......................................................................................................... 5 Service Review Process & Methodology ..................................................................................... 7 Data Limitations ............................................................................................................................. 12 Fire District and CSA Funding Limitations ................................................................................... 15 SECTION II: AGENCY PROFILES ............................................................................................ 17 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 18 1 | Lincoln Fire Department Profile ............................................................................................. 22 2 | Newcastle Fire Protection District Profile ............................................................................. 53 3 | Penryn Fire Protection District Profile .................................................................................... 85 4 | Placer Hills Fire Protection District Profile ........................................................................... 119 5 | Rocklin Fire Department Profile ........................................................................................... 157 6 | Roseville Fire Department Profile ........................................................................................ 191 7 | South Placer Fire Protection District Profile ........................................................................ 235 SECTION III: FIRE DISPATCH REVIEW .................................................................................. 278 Dispatch Services for Placer County West Slope .................................................................... 279 SECTION IV: COMMUNICATIONS CENTER PROFILES ....................................................... 290 City of Lincoln Dispatch & Communications ........................................................................... 291 City of Roseville Dispatch & Communications ........................................................................ 300 City of Rocklin Dispatch & Communications .......................................................................... 307 Analysis......................................................................................................................................... 315 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 321 SECTION V: APPENDICES .................................................................................................... 322 Appendix A: Unincorporated Placer County Fire Service Reorganization/Consolidation323 Appendix B: Placer Hills Fire Protection District Response .................................................... 327 Appendix C: Table of Figures .................................................................................................... 338 ii Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Acknowledgments AP Triton wishes to thank the LAFCO staff, the stakeholders who participated in our interviews, and the local Fire Chiefs and their staffs for their cooperation in the development of this report. Stakeholder Interviews Fire Chiefs and Staff Members • Chief Reginald Williams and Rocklin Fire Department staff • Chief John Rogers and Auburn Fire Department staff • Chief Dennis Martin, Foresthill Fire District • Chief Mark Duerr, South Placer Fire District • Chief Brian Estes and CAL FIRE/Placer County Fire Department staff • Chief Ian Gow and Placer Hills Fire District staff • Chief Rick Bartee and Roseville Fire Department staff • Chief Matt Alves and Lincoln Fire Department staff Commission Members, Elected and Appointed Officials, Members of the Public • Cheryl Hotaling, Penryn Fire District • John Michelini and Richard Hercules, Foresthill Fire District • Zach Haslett, Alta Fire District • Christine Rydell, North Auburn Fire Safe Council • Peter Hills, Placer Hills Fire District • Hank Weston, former Fire Safe Council Chair • Sean Rabe, Auburn City Manager • Cindy Gufstason, LAFCO Commissioner • Jim Holmes, Former LAFCO Commissioner • Jim Heisterkamp, Newcastle Fire District Special Thanks to Sarah Poindexter, Placer County for providing details on Placer County Fire Department funding contained within this report. iii Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Acronyms ABR Auburn Fire Department AFP Alta Fire Protection District ALS Advanced Life Support APCO Association of Public Communication Officers ARPA American Rescue Plan Act AVL Automatic Vehicle Location BLS Basic Life Support CAAS Commission on Accreditation of Ambulance Services CAD Computer Aided Dispatch CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFX Colfax Fire Department CIP Capital Improvement Plan CKH Act Cortese Knox Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act CLETS California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System CPSE Center for Public Safety Excellence CSA County Service Area CWPP Community Wildfire Protection Plan DUC Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities EMS Emergency Medical Services iv Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO EOP Emergency Operations Plan EV Electric Vehicle FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHF Foresthill Fire Protection District GEMT Ground Emergency Medical Transport GIS Geographical Information Systems GVECC CAL FIRE Grass Valley Emergency Command Center H&S California Health and Safety Code HIT Hazardous Incident Team 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 LNC Lincoln Fire Department LRA Local Responsibility Area MDC Mobile Data Computer NENA National Emergency Number Association NEW Newcastle Fire Protection District NFIRS National Fire Incident Reporting System NFPA National Fire Protection Association v Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO OA Operational Area OEM Office of Emergency Management OES Office of Emergency Services OPEB Other Post Employment Benefit Cost liabilities PA Participating Agency PCF Placer County Fire Department PCSO Placer County Sheriff's Office PHF Placer Hills Fire Protection District PPC Public Protection Classification PSAP Public Safety Answering Point RMS Records Management System ROK Rocklin Fire Department RSV Roseville Fire Department RYN Penryn Fire Protection District SACOG Sacramento Area Council of Governments SDLF Special District Leadership Foundation SFM State Fire Marshal SOI Sphere of Influence SPL South Placer Fire Protection District SRA State Responsibility Area SSVEMS Sierra-Sacramento Valley EMS Agency UAL Unfunded Actuarial Liability vi Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO US&R Urban Search and Rescue UHU Unit Hour Utilization WUI Wildland Urban Interface vii Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Preface Placer County LAFCO enlisted the services of AP Triton to conduct a comprehensive Fire Service Review for the western portions of Placer County. As the project progressed, it became necessary to limit the review to certain agencies while excluding others. In total, in Western Placer County, 12 agencies are responsible for providing fire and emergency services to its residents and businesses. There are 10 different providers of service, as two of the agencies contract with Placer County for services. This review covers seven of the agencies, as follows: Agencies Reviewed • Lincoln Fire Department (LNC) • Newcastle Fire Protection District (NEW) • Penryn Fire Protection District (RYN) • Placer Hills Fire Protection District (PHF) • Rocklin Fire Department (ROK) • Roseville Fire Department (RSV) • South Placer Fire Protection District (SPL) Agencies Not Reviewed • Placer County Fire Department/CAL FIRE/CSA 28 (PCF) • Alta Fire Protection District (AFP)—Contracts with PCF • City of Colfax (CFX)—Contracts with PCF • City of Auburn Fire Department (ABR) • Foresthill Fire Protection District (FHF) The study area consists of the cities of Lincoln, Rocklin, and Roseville, each with its own unique approach to delivering fire and emergency response services. Each of these three cities directly provide these services. The City of Colfax has a fire service contract with Placer County Fire Department and is not included in the review. Auburn Fire Department is also not included and will be reviewed as part of a comprehensive future review of all city services. viii Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO The review also includes an examination of four independent special districts providing fire services within the study area. The Newcastle Fire Protection District, Penryn Fire Protection District, Placer Hills Fire Protection District, and South Placer Fire Protection District each provide service in their own unique way. Alta Fire Protection District and Foresthill Fire Protection District are not included in the review. Placer County Fire Department, the underlying County Service Area 28, and the County’s contracted fire service provider, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is not reviewed. The agencies not reviewed in this report may be mentioned occasionally to provide context or amplifying information to provide a more complete picture of the fire service system. ix Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Executive Summary The Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is responsible for regulating the boundaries of cities and special districts in the county. This review focuses on fire and emergency services provided by seven agencies to the residents of Western Placer County. The west Placer County area has 10 local government fire and emergency medical service providers, of which seven are reviewed herein. American Medical Response (AMR) provides emergency medical transport services for most of the study area, while SPL provides those services in the Granite Bay area and FHF provides emergency medical transport service in the Foresthill Divide area. The Sierra-Sacramento Valley Emergency Medical Services Agency (SSV) oversees and administers the county's emergency medical system. CAL FIRE is responsible for wildland fire prevention and suppression in State Responsibility Areas (SRA). System Performance The fire agencies providing service throughout Western Placer County collectively respond to a full range of emergency and non-emergency calls for service and provide valuable and important service to their communities. AP Triton acknowledges the professionalism and dedication of the firefighters and officers and the sacrifices they make every day for the benefit of society. Many of the fire agencies have not adopted emergency response standards or goals. Where local agencies have not adopted a response time standard, NFPA 1710 was used as a benchmark. Every agency should adopt a baseline total response time standard that defines the expectation of service for the community or communities within the jurisdiction. None of the agencies are exceeding their capacity for service based on existing demand, and most stations have excess capacity to handle additional calls. Roseville has several units that are near capacity, but the recent addition of an engine company should help moderate the workload on the other units in the system. Performance on adopted response standards in Roseville, Rocklin, and Lincoln could degrade with the growth in the unincorporated areas west of the cities unless planned infrastructure in the form of new fire stations is brought on line early enough in the development process. x Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO There are concerns regarding the condition of fire stations in the west county. Several of the staffed fire stations in the study area were rated “Fair” or “Poor.” Some fire stations that were once functioning are currently closed; the majority of the closed stations are rated “Fair” or “Poor.” Fire company staffing levels are also a concern for the stakeholders interviewed for this study. Outside of the cities of Roseville, Rocklin, and Lincoln, most of the fire companies are staffed with just two firefighters (2/0 staffing). The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard is 4 firefighters per company. However, the generally accepted industry standard is 3 firefighters per company (3/0). All of the 17 staffed fire companies in the three cities are staffed at either 3/0 or 4/0. Only 2 of the 8 staffed fire companies in the unincorporated areas are staffed with a minimum of 3/0. As shown in the figure below, there are a total of twenty-five staffed fire companies; nineteen (76%) are staffed 3/0 or better. Another stakeholder concern was the provision of Advanced Life Support (ALS or Paramedic) first-responder service. 75% of the independent fire district companies are ALS capable; fourteen of seventeen (82%) of the city companies are ALS. The cities of Roseville and Rocklin both have 100% of their companies staffed a 3/0 or better and ALS. Just two of the 8 fire companies in the independent fire districts are 3/0 ALS. Lincoln staffs all companies 3/0 but does not provide ALS service. The following figure shows the staffed fire stations, their apparatus, EMS level, and their workload. Figure 1: Staffed Fire Stations Incidents Agency Station Unit Type Staff EMS Level UHU % per day RSV 1 Engine 1 3 ALS 9.1% 8.5 RSV 1 Truck 1 4 ALS 6.1% 4.6 RSV 2 Engine 1 3 ALS 8.7% 6.6 RSV 3 Engine 1 3 ALS 12.8% 8.8 RSV 4 Engine 1 3 ALS 8.1% 6.2 RSV 5 Engine 1 3 ALS 9.8% 6.7 RSV 6 Engine 1 3 ALS 7.4% 6.0 RSV 7 Engine 1 3 ALS 7.2% 6.1 RSV 7 Truck 1 4 ALS 4.2% 3.4 RSV 9 Engine 1 3 ALS 10.8% 6.8 RSV 9 Engine 8 1 3 ALS New New xi Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Incidents Agency Station Unit Type Staff EMS Level UHU % per day ROK 23 Engine 1 3 ALS 7.2% 5.4 ROK 24 Truck 1 4 ALS 6.0% 4.4 ROK 25 Engine 1 3 ALS 5.4% 3.8 LNC 33 Engine 1 3 BLS 7.9% 4.5 LNC 34 Engine 1 3 BLS 7.2% 4.6 LNC 35 Engine 1 3 BLS 7.1% 4.6 14 ALS Cities Total 14 17 54 17 3/0 Partial Partial SPL 16 Engine/Medic 1 2/2 ALS Year Year SPL 17 Engine 1 3 ALS 0.6% 0.3 SPL 18 Engine 1 3 ALS 4.1% 2.3 SPL 20 Engine/Medic 1 2/2 ALS 7.4% 1.8 PHF 84 Engine 1 2 ALS 3.6% 1.8 PHF 86 Engine 1 2 ALS 3.7% 1.7 NEW 41 Engine 1 2 BLS 2.5% 1.3 RYN 38 Engine 1 2 BLS 1.6% 0.9 6 ALS District Total 8 8 22 2 3/0 22 ALS Total 22 25 76 19 3/0 Emergency medical and rescue calls accounted for 62% of all emergency responses. Mutual aid agreements and automatic aid arrangements are in place between fire agencies in the study area to facilitate resource sharing and response to service calls in adjacent jurisdictions. However, the lack of interoperability between dispatch centers remains a significant issue. In addition, the lack of written policies and standards for staffing, equipment, training, and the absence of AVL hinder the ability to fully capitalize on a closest-resource “boundary-drop” system. The following figure highlights some of the performance characteristics of the fire service in the study area. xii Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 2: System Performance Metrics Average Incidents per Rescue Aid Aid Good Fires and Agency Annual 1,000 and Received Given Intent All Other Calls Population EMS RSV 17,713 76 177 112 64% 17% 19% ROK 5,531 241 304 67 67% 13% 20% LNC 5,340 78 243 101 68% 12% 20% SPL 3,096 163 375 80 58% 15% 27% PHF 1,036 32 229 120 53% 22% 25% NEW 493 143 93 106 57% 19% 24% RYN 343 153 238 102 47% 28% 25% Total 32,516 886 1,659 Avg. 4,645 127 237 98 59% 18% 23% Fire agencies are involved in various activities such as technical rescue, training, plan review, inspections, and fire prevention services. The study area faces challenges in coordinating efforts and improving outcomes due to the management of resources by seven different agencies. Level of Service The level of service provided by each agency is determined solely by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). For the city fire departments, the AHJ is the City Council; for the Fire Districts the AHJ is the district Board of Directors. There is a complex relationship between funding, staffing, response time standards, and risk tolerance that every AHJ has to grapple with when determining the appropriate level of service for their community. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) offers the only nationally recognized set of standards for staffing and response times in their 1710 Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. NFPA 1710 sets a very high bar for performance: Minimum of 4-person fire company staffing, and response times of 6:20 or less 90% of the time for fires and 6:00 or less 90% of the time for EMS calls. Only one of the agencies in the study area has adopted NFPA 1710, and none are meeting the standard. In fact, there are very few fire departments across the U.S. meeting NFPA 1710 standards; most of those meeting the standard are in densely populated urban cities. xiii Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Some AHJs within the study area have adopted agency-specific response time and staffing standards based on a local risk analysis and Standards of Cover (SOC) study. These studies allow the AHJ to make informed decisions about the level of service being provided and provide a means to measure and monitor performance against the adopted standards. Where no SOC exists, performance generally becomes a “best effort” exercise that typically isn’t measured or monitored closely. Based on stakeholder interviews, it appears that the desired level of service in the study area is minimum 3/0 company staffing, including ALS first-responder service. This may not be accepted by every agency, but it does seem to be a consensus. Note that this desired service level does not include a response time standard. This is where the AHJ must make a value decision about the desirability of lower response times against company staffing levels given financial limitations. Put plainly, if funding is available for six responders, is it better (for our community) to deploy two 3-person units or is it better to deploy three 2- person units, if three units results in an appreciably lower response time. Fire providers across California and in western Placer County are facing increased costs of operations, including facilities, equipment, fuel, unfunded liability related to retirement benefits, and most significantly, a steep decline in the number of volunteer firefighters. All of the districts have been able to augment funding sources from voter-approved special tax measures; however, even with two (and sometimes three) rounds of assessments, these agencies are still unable to provide the desired level of service. The performance of the fire agencies in the unincorporated areas of Western Placer County suffers from both low staffing levels and long response times. Improving both staffing levels and response times would require a significant infusion of new revenue. Company staffing levels could be improved by combining companies, which would involve closing stations and would result in longer response times. Response times could be improved by reducing company staffing and reopening closed stations. Neither of these options is a panacea, and no significant change in any deployment strategy should be undertaken by an AHJ without the benefit of a Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover study. This review focuses on four of the independent fire districts, which are struggle with issues ranging from recruitment and retention to inadequate staffing on engines and the lack of paramedic first responders on apparatus. These issues all have their basis in a legacy funding system that is unable to keep pace with increasing costs. xiv Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Recommendations for addressing these issues were made based on several factors, including: 1. Level and type of demand for fire and emergency services; 2. Level of fire hazard and responsible agency (i.e., State or Local Responsibility Area); 3. Available alternative providers within the vicinity of the district; 4. Feasibility and legality of each agency to extend services to the area; and 5. Potential for maximizing revenue from existing special taxes and assessments. The recommendations included here are intended to initiate discussions amongst the affected agencies. Any organizational change to address these issues will be dependent on the agencies themselves to move forward. Other governance structure options that promote efficiency and effectiveness are also covered in this report; primary options for fire and emergency medical services consist of reorganization to combine operations of two or more agencies. All options would promote regionalization of service provision, meaning fewer providers serving the study area and elimination of duplications and inefficiencies. These options apply primarily to the independent districts, and would provide opportunities to pool resources, share expertise, and optimize operations, leading to improved service delivery despite limitations in personnel and facilities. Considering the constraints many of the agencies face, establishing a larger entity in the developing western area may hold a particular value. Other opportunities for resource sharing include transitioning to a closest resource dispatch system such as a boundary drop using automatic vehicle location. Such an endeavor would require a solution to the problem of coordinating the dispatch centers currently in operation in the study area, as well as developing common operating procedures. In conclusion, the Fire Service Review provides valuable information for LAFCO, the county, cities, special districts, and the public to understand and improve fire and emergency services in Western Placer County. It highlights the need for addressing facilities, sustainability issues, interoperability challenges, and coordination among agencies to enhance service delivery and response capabilities. xv Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO The following recommendations are included in this report: Recommendations from Fire and Emergency Services Overview: • Emergency Response Performance: Each agency should adopt a performance goal and present those to the elected officials for adoption. The organizations should consider a baseline standard that defines the expectation of service for the community. To ensure credibility, performance measures should be based on the results of a community risk assessment and Standard of Cover study. • Boundary Drop Response: AP Triton recommends the fire agencies evaluate opportunities for a boundary drop response for critical incidents (where time significantly matters in the outcome) for the entire study area. To be most effective, this will require improved interoperability between CAD products for dispatch centers. This effort should be coordinated by the agency Fire Chiefs in cooperation with the dispatch centers. Sections III and IV of this report addresses the dispatch function and potential solutions in detail. • CAD-to-CAD Interoperability: Establish a CAD-to-CAD connection between the fire dispatch centers to enhance interoperability. This connection would enable the transfer of information and real-time monitoring of neighboring agency resource status. It would streamline the process of requesting resources from neighboring centers and facilitate the determination of available resources outside the center for specific incidents. • AVL Dispatch of Resources: By integrating AVL into the CAD system through GIS mapping, the system can identify and dispatch the nearest unit to the incident. AVL Dispatch can help improve overall response times, potentially making a significant difference in critical calls. Each of the agencies should implement AVL dispatch in their dispatch center. • Data Quality and Access: The Western Placer County Fire Chiefs Association should coordinate data standardization among the fire agencies, promote an interoperable CAD system for the study area with access for each agency to review their data sets. CAD data should be integrated with every agency’s Records Management Systems, and agencies should review the quality of inputs by their personnel. xvi Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO • Communications Feasibility Study: Sections III and IV of this report contain an in- depth review of the communications centers that provide dispatch services to the subject fire agencies. There appear to be several potential solutions to overcome the inefficiencies and obstacles inherent in having multiple dispatch centers. AP Triton recommends that a stakeholder group conduct a feasibility study to determine which of the potential solutions best meets the goal of seamless closest- resource AVL-based dispatch. Key Findings from Fire Agency Overviews: • Newcastle Fire Protection District: ▪ Persistent recruitment and retention issues. ▪ Long-term debt from recent fire station construction. ▪ The district is not viable without external assistance due to insufficient revenue to support an internal management structure. ▪ Administrative and command services are provided by PHF through a contract. ▪ Response time goals have not been identified. • Penryn Fire Protection District: ▪ Achieving financial stability, including establishing a capital replacement fund. ▪ Improvements in employee compensation and benefits are helping alleviate past recruitment and retention challenges. ▪ The station needs to be rebuilt, but funding has not been identified. ▪ The district is not viable without external assistance due to insufficient revenue to support an internal management structure. ▪ Administrative and command services are provided by PHF through a contract. ▪ Response time goals have not been adopted. • Placer Hills Fire Protection District: ▪ Financially stable. ▪ Provides specific services to other agencies through contracts, enhancing service offerings. ▪ One station is unstaffed. ▪ Marginally viable without regional collaboration. ▪ One station requires replacement, but funding is not identified. ▪ Response time goals have not been adopted. xvii Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO • South Placer Fire Protection District: ▪ Underfunded and understaffed, particularly in Division 2. ▪ Two stations are currently unstaffed and should be reopened. ▪ The Master Plan indicates the need for an additional station in the geographic center of the service area. ▪ Disparity in funding between Division 1 and Division 2. ▪ Ambulance transport service is only provided in Division 2. ▪ Additional revenue is needed to achieve acceptable service levels. ▪ Areas annexed to adjacent cities remain within the fire district's boundaries. ▪ The district has adopted NFPA 1710 but is not meeting the performance goals. • City of Lincoln: ▪ The City’s Sphere of Influence is extensive, and significant development has been proposed in the SOI area. ▪ The fire department does not have a Master Plan to prepare for growth. ▪ Fire department staffing consists of three firefighters per apparatus, but ALS first- responder service is not provided. ▪ The city has adopted a response time goal. • City of Rocklin: ▪ The department is effectively managing the effects of growth. ▪ An additional fire station is planned for the southeast quadrant of the city. ▪ The city has adopted response time goals. • City of Roseville: ▪ The city has adopted response time goals. ▪ The city is a growth area. ▪ One new fire station is nearing completion, with another planned. ▪ Significant development is expected in the unincorporated areas west of the city, and the impact on city services will need to be monitored. Recommendations from Agency Overviews: • Newcastle Fire Protection District: ▪ Reorganize the district, either with Placer County Fire; with Placer Hills and/or Penryn Fire Districts; or with Penryn and South Placer Fire Districts. xviii Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO • Penryn Fire Protection District: ▪ Reorganize the district, either with Placer County Fire; with Placer Hills and/or Newcastle Fire Districts; or with Newcastle and South Placer Fire Districts. • Placer Hills Fire Protection District: ▪ Reorganize the district, either with Placer County Fire or with Newcastle, and/or Penryn Fire Districts. • South Placer Fire Protection District: ▪ Design and implement a sustainable funding model for the entire district. ▪ Reopen closed fire stations and add resources per Master Plan recommendations. ▪ Extend ambulance service to Division 1 territory. ▪ Detach areas previously annexed to adjacent cities. ▪ Investigate the advantages of a reorganization with Penryn and Newcastle FPDs. • Lincoln Fire Department: ▪ Develop, adopt, and begin implementing a Fire Department Master Plan to guide future growth. ▪ Consider implementing an ALS first-responder program. • Rocklin Fire Department: ▪ Construct a fourth fire station in the southeast quadrant as development warrants. ▪ Monitor performance and update plans as the city develops. • Roseville Fire Department: ▪ Monitor the effects of development near the western city limits for potential impacts on service demand. ▪ Continue implementing plans for additional and relocated stations as growth warrants. Recommendations from Exploration of Future Reorganizations: • Any restructuring efforts should be initiated in a thoughtful and comprehensive manner, to ensure all stakeholders are involved in the decision-making process. • LAFCO should consider developing strategies to promote consistent funding across unincorporated territory on the western slope. xix Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO • While there is no precedent for this consideration, it may be beneficial for the fire agencies to attempt conversations with the appropriate local, county, state, or federal agency regarding the potential for reimbursement for emergency responses on public recreation, parks, and open space lands. • With the large amount of development proposed in unincorporated areas adjacent to the cities of Roseville, Rocklin, and Lincoln, there should be close coordination between the cities and the County to ensure that there are no undue negative impacts on the fire departments prior to the building and staffing of new fire stations in the expansion areas. Specific Options for Reorganization: • Reorganize the Penryn, Newcastle, and Placer Hills fire districts. Three options have been identified with the goal of maximizing potential revenue and mitigating identified issues while being sensitive to stakeholder interests. Regardless of which option(s) are implemented, significant additional revenue will be needed to bring the reorganized districts up to industry-standard capabilities and staffing levels. All of the districts have high or very high assessments, and it is unlikely that voters will approve additional assessments within the reorganization area. A fourth option to reorganize Penryn and Newcastle Fire Districts with the South Placer Fire District has also been identified. • The cities of Roseville, Rocklin, and Lincoln should investigate options for collaboration with each other and with adjacent agencies. Contracts for service, Joint Powers Authorities, and other such collaborative measures could provide opportunities to pool resources, share expertise, and optimize operations, leading to improved service delivery despite limitations in personnel and facilities. xx Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Section I: LAFCO & SERVICE REVIEWS 1 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO LAFCO Overview The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is a state-mandated independent local agency established to regulate the boundaries of cities and special districts. Boundary change proposals to LAFCO may include annexations to, or detachments from, cities or districts, incorporation of new cities, formation of new districts, dissolution of districts, disincorporation of cities, or other changes such as consolidations and mergers of cities and districts. Cities and districts are required to obtain LAFCO’s approval prior to extending services outside of their boundaries. Districts must obtain LAFCO’s approval prior to exercising their power to provide new or different services. LAFCO plans for orderly growth and development by considering proposed amendments to urban service areas of cities and works collaboratively with local agencies on growth, preservation, governance, and service issues. Placer LAFCO, established in 1963, oversees the LAFCO responsibilities for six cities, 37 special districts, and one County Service Area in Placer County. This Fire Service Review focuses on the delivery of fire and emergency services by the following agencies: • Lincoln Fire Department (LNC) • Newcastle Fire Protection District (NEW) • Penryn Fire Protection District (RYN) • Placer Hills Fire Protection District (PHF) • Rocklin Fire Department (ROK) • Roseville Fire Department (RSV) • South Placer Fire Protection District (SPL) The other fire agencies, listed below, will be reviewed in different MSRs. • Alta Fire Protection District (AFP) (Contracts with PCF) • City of Auburn Fire Department (ABR) • City of Colfax (CFX) (Contracts with PCF) • Foresthill Fire Protection District (FHF) • Placer County Fire Department (PCF) and County Service Area 28 2 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Service Review Service Review Legislation & 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 [Government Code § 56430]. 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 § 56425]. The Service Review must include an analysis and written statement of determinations 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; • 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; and • Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by the commission. Purposes of the Service Review This Fire Service Review will be available for use by LAFCO, the county, cities, special districts, and the public to better understand how fire protection, emergency medical services (EMS), and related services are provided within Placer County. Additionally, the review will be a resource to inform LAFCO decisions, including: • Establishing spheres of influence; • Initiating or considering jurisdictional boundary changes; • Considering other types of LAFCO applications; and • Providing a resource for further studies. 3 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO LAFCO will use this report as a basis to establish the spheres of influence of the four fire protection districts within the study area. With regard to the cities’ spheres of influence, LAFCO will use information from this report and information gathered in subsequent service reviews to update the spheres of influence of cities. The report contains a discussion of various alternative government structures for efficient service provision. LAFCO is not required to initiate any boundary changes based on service reviews. However, LAFCO, other local agencies (including cities, special districts, or the county), or the public may subsequently use this report together with additional research and analysis, where necessary, to pursue changes in jurisdictional boundaries. Government Code Section 56375(a) gives LAFCO the power to initiate certain types of boundary changes consistent with a service review and sphere of influence study. These boundary changes include: • 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 the merger of that district with a city); • Establishment of a subsidiary district (where the city council is designated as the board of directors of the district); or • A reorganization that includes any of the above. LAFCO may also use the information presented in the service reviews to assess future proposals for annexations or extensions of services beyond an agency’s jurisdictional boundaries or for proposals seeking amendment of urban service area boundaries of cities or sphere of influence boundaries of districts. Other entities and the public may use this report as a foundation for further studies and analysis of issues relating to fire protection, EMS, and other related services in the county. 4 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Sphere of Influence Updates 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 local agencies affected by that determination. 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 and when 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, LAFCO consideration at a noticed public hearing, and processes by which affected agencies and/or residents may voice their support or opposition. 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. LAFCO may recommend government reorganizations to particular 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)]: 5 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO • 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. A California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) determination is made by LAFCO on a case-by-case basis for each SOI action and each change of organization once the proposed project characteristics are sufficiently identified to assess environmental impacts. 6 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Service Review Process & Methodology Standard analytical tools and practices were used to gather and analyze information for the Fire Service Review. The service review process is outlined as follows: • Establishment of Criteria: Preliminary criteria were developed to be used in making the determinations required under the laws governing service reviews. These criteria are included below. • Development of Request for Information: Tables and requests for information from the agencies were developed based on the established criteria. A Dropbox system was used to allow agencies to upload requested information. • Kick-off Meeting: A Kick-off Meeting with representatives from each of the fire agencies was held to introduce the project process and outline the data-gathering responsibilities of the fire agencies. • Data Discovery: Data from available online and central data resources (i.e., agency websites and County GIS data) was collected. Data resources included population information and projections developed by the California Department of Finance. • Drafting of Agency Profiles: Profiles for each of the agencies were compiled using a standard format based on the interviews and data collected. Agencies responded to information requests in varying levels of detail. Reasonable efforts were taken to obtain a level of consistency in the data to make the required determinations and analyze issues. • LAFCO Staff Review: The profiles were reviewed by LAFCO staff to ensure all project requirements were met. • Agency Review: The profiles were provided to each fire agency for internal review and comment to ensure accuracy prior to the release of the document. • Data Analysis and Service Review Determinations: Information gathered from the agencies was analyzed and applied to the determination criteria to make the required determinations for each agency and reach a conclusion about the focus issues identified in the RFP. • Public Review Draft Released: The draft document is released for public review and comment. • LAFCO Hearing: LAFCO holds a public hearing to solicit agency and public feedback and comments on the draft report. 7 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO • Final Draft Released: The revised redlined draft document is released with a comment log indicating any action taken pursuant to the comment. • Adoption of Final Report: LAFCO holds a public hearing where the Commission may adopt the final report. Review Criteria The following set of criteria is based on current industry best practices, along with relevant national standards promulgated by a wide variety of associations and organizations that develop consensus standards for the fire service, EMS, communications, and other related services. These may include the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE), Commission on Accreditation of Ambulance Services (CAAS), and other organizations. Each agency under LAFCO jurisdiction in this service review is assessed in each category using the criteria described below. Growth and population projections for the affected area: • The amount and percent of population growth projected by the California Department of Finance. • The type and extent of any significant planned or proposed development. The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUC) within or contiguous to the sphere of influence: • Pursuant to GC 56033.5, a DUC in Placer County is a community with an annual median household income that is less than 80% of the statewide annual median household income (i.e., less than $60,188 per U.S. Census Bureau, 2015–2019 Five- Year American Community Survey) and where twelve or more registered voters reside. 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 SOI): • Services provided by each agency and organization including but not limited to: ▪ Fire suppression ▪ Emergency medical response ▪ Fire prevention and public education ▪ Wildland-urban interface hazard mitigation ▪ Technical rescue ▪ Hazardous materials response 8 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO ▪ Emergency preparedness • The age and condition of existing stations as rated by department management and/or onsite evaluations utilizing NFPA 1500. • The age of current line apparatus in relation to the agency’s apparatus replacement schedule and NFPA Standard 1901. • The number and distribution of stations and apparatus in the service area. • The ability to meet existing demand based on facility, apparatus, and staffing capacity. • The ability to meet projected population growth and service demand. • The extent to which the fire department meets locally established response performance standards for structure fire calls and County-established standards for emergency medical services (EMS) calls, as well as NFPA Standards 1710 and 1720 for career and volunteer fire departments. • The extent of mutual/automatic aid received and provided. • Most recently established Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating for communities within the service area. • The extent to which career, volunteer, and part-time staffing levels meet comparable state, regional, and national staffing levels. • Present and probable need for public facility improvements and/or additional public facilities. • Present and probable need for replacement and/or enhancement of apparatus and equipment. • Level of services in disadvantaged and unincorporated areas in comparison to other neighboring communities. Financial ability of an agency to provide services: • Budget: The degree of stability in department expenditures and budgets between FY 2018 and FY 2022. Departments considered stable are those that experienced a reduction of not greater than 5% in expenditures between the three years. • The adequacy of the level of financing and any financing challenges or constraints as reported by the agency, including credit rating by a nationally recognized agency. • The degree to which the agency is investing in capital as compared to depreciation of capital assets during FY 2018–FY 2022. 9 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO • Capital planning: Whether the agency has an up-to-date capital improvement plan with estimated timing and anticipated financing sources for each project. • Apparatus replacement: Whether the agency has an apparatus replacement fund where annual contributions are made to provide for replacement purchase. • Capital reserves: The capital reserve fund balance and the anticipated capital funding needs based on identified infrastructure needs and estimated costs. • Reserves: Does the agency have a policy that identifies its reserve policies, including but not limited to unrestricted and operating costs? Status of and opportunities for shared facilities: • Potential station consolidation: Where proximity of stations and call capacity of apparatus between stations within a single jurisdiction or within adjoining jurisdictions appear to support an evaluation of consolidation. • Training: Whether the agency has a training facility and/or training program to potentially accommodate the training of other departments; identification of natural training partners. • Apparatus maintenance: The potential for a universal shared facility, service and repair criteria, and personnel. • Communications: The compatibility of an agency’s radio band/frequency with other departments in the county. • The degree of existing cost minimization efforts through facility, personnel, and equipment sharing. • The potential for facility, personnel, and equipment sharing as reported by the agency. Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies: • The agency’s efforts to meet state laws designed to ensure transparency and accountability, consisting of: ▪ Availability and ease of access to information for the public. ▪ Compilation and maintenance of an agency website that meets all document and agenda reporting requirements. ▪ Staff and governing board member ethics training and economic interest reporting, as required. 10 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO ▪ Compliance with financial document compilation, adoption, and reporting requirements. ▪ Adherence to open meeting requirements. ▪ Efforts beyond legal mandates to achieve certification for organizational transparency (i.e., Special District Leadership Foundation (SDLF) Certification). • Identify options and feasibility for potential governance alternatives or other cooperative and/or resource-sharing opportunities based on analysis of service efficiencies, cost-effectiveness, and viability. 11 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Data Limitations While working through this analysis, several issues with the supplied incident data were encountered. AP Triton received data from each of the seven fire agencies and from four different dispatch centers, each of which has its own methods and standards for collecting and categorizing data. Thus, the analysis of the various agencies in this report should not be considered an “apples-to-apples” comparison, as there is no standard starting or ending point for many of the data fields collected by the individual agencies. Rather, each agency’s performance should be evaluated in the context of that agency’s adopted standards, unique geographic and demographic characteristics, funding limitations, staffing standards, and equipment. The challenges can most easily be broken down into three categories: lack of standardization, missing data, and incorrect data. Lack of Standardization The National Fire Protection Association developed its first standardized data system in 1969. In addition, a national standard for incident reporting was established by the National Fire Administration in the 1970s. Even with these guidelines, fire agencies still struggle to provide standard data for effective interagency reviews. In Western Placer County’s case, AP Triton received multiple separate data sources from at least 15 different systems for the agencies in the study. Very few data sets shared a standard schema, and some agencies struggled with exporting data in a database-friendly format. The data schema between agencies, with a few exceptions, did not have similar field names, the same shape, or the same structure. In one case, the agency did not provide the same schema across multiple years of exports from the same system. In addition, several agencies had changed CAD or RMS systems over the years in the study. This created historic downloads that were different schemas from the other years from the same agency. The various programs used were also poorly understood by some of the agencies using them, and some required support in farming their own data. Despite the challenges, AP Triton used modern data engineering software and techniques to blend this information to complete an analysis based on similar elements. These separate systems were combined into a single analytical data set with standard features. However, even this single set had its own challenges. 12 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Missing Data The missing data can be categorized into two key issues. First, while the correct fields and tables were provided to AP Triton, many fields lacked any data. Second, some of the provided files contained incorrect or missing fields. Additionally, separate systems within certain agencies did not share a common field, making it difficult to combine datasets. For instance, if a CAD system does not share a record name or number with the RMS system, the two cannot be joined, which limits the effectiveness of both. Several agencies did not provide the requested data from their records management systems, which led AP Triton to request National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) records from the California State Fire Marshal. However, the availability of these records varied, as not all agencies had filed with the state. AP Triton requested 57 distinct data fields for analysis from each agency—29 from their CAD system and 28 from their records management system. Unfortunately, only a few fields were consistent across the agencies, which made it impossible to create a standard data set. This significantly diminished the scope and depth of the analysis that could be performed. Some of the missing data had a direct impact on the reported performance. For example, all incidents were included in the analysis without distinguishing response priority. The intent of a time performance analysis is to focus solely on emergency situations. Additionally, the absence of geocoding information limited the ability to accurately report incident locations and the type of aid service provided. Erroneous Data The final data issue to be discussed here is the multiple errors within the submitted data. These errors are common throughout the fire service as line firefighters and officers are often asked to capture incident details after returning from the incident. This type of data collection is susceptible to errors without a robust quality review process and strong, enforced agency policies regarding correct documentation. Most agencies in the study do not have an effective quality control program for their data. 13 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Multiple input errors throughout the study data required statistical and engineering methods to limit the inclusion of erroneous data. Examples of common mistakes throughout the data included duplicate records, incorrect mutual aid codes, incorrect geocoded information, and obviously incorrect times. For instance, the wrong date time fields affected response analysis and had missing times, starting times greater than ending times, and extreme date conflicts, resulting in inappropriate days, weeks, months, or even yearlong responses. Recommendation: The Fire Chiefs should coordinate data standardization among the fire agencies, promote an interoperable CAD system with access for each agency to review their data sets, and all agencies should review the quality of inputs by their personnel. 14 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Fire District and CSA Funding Limitations Fire districts in California, and Placer 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 the study area have enacted two or even three rounds of assessments. Significant differences exist in the allocation of property tax share to the districts and vast differences exist in the levels of assessments. Totals for assessments vary widely in the fire districts. There is not a direct correlation between the amount of assessment and the level of service. The following figure illustrates the funding sources for each of the study agencies. Figure 3: Fire Agency Funding-Unincorporated Areas General Share of 1% Special Tax/ ERAF Agency COLA Sunset Fund Property Tax1 Assessments Shift South Placer No 0.937151 $70 11.09% No No Original2 Placer Hills No 0.142951 $357 8.82% Yes No Penryn No 0.055659 $356 14.7% Yes No Newcastle No 0.030387 $274 4.91% Yes No South Placer - No 0.937151 $390 11.09% Yes No Loomis3 As is the case with most fire districts in California, Placer 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. 1 The factor presented is the average of all the Tax Rate Areas (TRAs) within the agency boundary. A given agency may have many TRAs with widely varying allocation factors. 2 The County averages the factors in Division 1 and Division 2. The factor in Division 2 alone is approximately 1.3 3 The County averages the factors in Division 1 and Division 2. The factor in Division 1 alone is approximately 0.2 15 Fire Service Review Placer 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’s also worth noting that many districts have elected to receive 100% of the annual assessment under the Teeter Program, 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. Broadly speaking, California’s (and Placer County’s) once-rural volunteer fire districts have adapted by seeking additional revenue sources by sharing resources, consolidating or contracting for service, 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 have collectively reached the point where additional revenue must be found to avoid collapse. In Placer County, a small amount of additional revenue might be achieved by extending the relatively higher Penryn Fire District assessment to adjacent districts through annexation, but in cases where this is feasible, the differences between the assessments aren’t great enough to make a significant difference in the total amount of potential revenue. Regarding the independent fire districts in the study area, only the legacy South Placer Fire District (Zone 2) area has the potential to generate enough new revenue through a special tax or Benefit Assessment process to alleviate the existing funding gap; however, the property owners recently defeated such a measure. For the Penryn, Newcastle, and Placer Hills fire districts, assessments are already in the “high” to “very high” range, and it is unlikely that significant new revenue can be generated within those districts. To avoid the eventual financial collapse of these districts, additional ongoing funding to maintain and enhance service to these communities will need to be found. 16 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Section II: AGENCY PROFILES 17 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Introduction This section provides a profile of the agencies providing fire and rescue services within the study area. Each fire agency provided information for the AP Triton Team to review and analyze. Agencies were asked to evaluate the condition of their apparatus and facilities using an AP Triton rating tool. Apparatus and other vehicles, trained personnel, firefighting and emergency medical equipment, and fire stations are the essential capital resources for a fire department to carry out its mission. No matter how competent or numerous the firefighters are, if appropriate capital equipment is not available for operations personnel, it would be impossible for a fire agency to perform its responsibilities effectively. The essential capital assets for emergency operations are facilities, apparatus, and other emergency response vehicles. Fire stations play an integral role in delivering emergency services for several reasons. A station's location will dictate response times to emergencies to a large degree. A poorly located station can mean the difference between confining a fire to a single room and losing the structure or survival from sudden cardiac arrest. Fire stations also need to be designed to adequately house equipment and apparatus and meet the needs of the organization and its personnel. Fire station activities should be closely examined to ensure that the structure is adequate in size and function. Examples of these functions can include the following: • Kitchen facilities, appliances, and storage • Residential living space and sleeping quarters for on-duty personnel (all genders) • Bathrooms and showers (all genders) • Training, classroom, and library areas • Firefighter fitness area • The housing and cleaning of apparatus and equipment, including decontamination and disposal of biohazards • Administrative and management offices, computer stations, and office facilities • Public meeting space In gathering information from each of the agencies, AP Triton asked the fire department to rate the condition of their fire stations using the criteria from the following figure. The results are displayed under the station section for each agency. 18 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 4: Criteria Utilized to Determine Fire Station Condition Like new condition. No visible structural defects. The facility is clean and well maintained. The interior layout is conducive to function with no Excellent unnecessary impediments to the apparatus bays or offices. No significant defect history. Building design and construction match the building's purposes. Age is typically less than 10 years. The exterior has a good appearance with minor or no defects. Clean lines, good workflow design, and only minor wear on the building interior. The roof and apparatus apron are in good working order, absent any Good significant full-thickness cracks or crumbling of apron surface or visible roof patches or leaks. Building design and construction match the building's purposes. Age is typically less than 20 years. The building appears structurally sound with a weathered appearance and minor to moderate non-structural defects. The interior condition shows normal wear and tear but flows effectively to the apparatus bay Fair or offices. Mechanical systems are in working order. Building design and construction may not match the building's purposes well. Showing increasing age-related maintenance but with no critical defects. Age is typically 30 years or more. The building appears to be cosmetically weathered and worn with potential structural defects, although not imminently dangerous or unsafe. Large, multiple full-thickness cracks and concrete crumbling on the apron may exist. The roof has evidence of leaking and multiple Poor repairs. The interior is poorly maintained or showing signs of advanced deterioration with moderate to significant non-structural defects. Problematic age-related maintenance and major defects are evident. It may not be well-suited to its intended purpose. Age is typically greater than 40 years. 19 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO As part of our analysis, each agency was tasked with inventorying and reviewing their fleet, focusing on the key vehicle types essential to fire, EMS, and rescue operations. Each of these vehicle types plays a specific and vital role in ensuring the comprehensive safety and response capabilities of an agency. These vehicle types include: • Engine: An apparatus with the capability of carrying and pumping water. The apparatus typically carries the tools necessary to assist the firefighters in solving most problems they face, including medical emergencies. • Aerial/Ladder Truck: An apparatus with a fixed aerial ladder, a large assortment of ground ladders and may or may not have the capability of pumping water. The apparatus typically carries specialty tools to assist in search, rescue, and other “truck functions” defined by the agency. • Medics (Ambulances): Medics, or ambulances, are primarily used for emergency medical services (EMS), responding to medical emergencies and providing patient transport. • Rescues (Rescue Vehicles): Rescue vehicles are specialized units equipped for technical rescue operations such as vehicle extrication, water rescue, and confined space rescues. • Other Vehicles (Specialty Units): Specialty units are designed for specific roles based on the needs of the department, such as hazardous materials (HazMat), water tenders, or command units. 20 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO The following figure represents the evaluation criteria for each agency’s apparatus. Figure 5: Apparatus and Vehicles Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Components Points Assignment Criteria One point for every year of chronological age, based on in- Age: service date. Miles/Hours: One point for each 10,000 miles or 1,000 hours 1, 3, or 5 points are assigned based on service-type received Service: (e.g., a pumper would be given a 5 since it is classified as severe duty service). This category takes into consideration body condition, rust Condition: interior condition, accident history, anticipated repairs, etc. The better the condition, the lower the assignment of points. Points are assigned as 1, 3, or 5, depending on the frequency a vehicle is in for repair (e.g., a 5 would be assigned to a Reliability: vehicle in the shop two or more times per month on average, while a 1 would be assigned to a vehicle in the shop on average of once every 3 months or less. Point Ranges Condition Rating Condition Description Under 18 points Condition I Excellent 18–22 points Condition II Good 23–27 points Condition III Fair (consider replacement) 28 points or higher Condition IV Poor (immediate replacement) 21 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 1 | Lincoln Fire Department Profile Agency Overview Lincoln Fire Department (LNC) provides fire protection, community risk reduction, and Basic Life Support (BLS) emergency medical treatment to a population of about 52,313 in 23.74 square miles. LNC operates three full-time fire stations with 31 full-time career personnel and six volunteers. Background LNC does not have a Master Plan, a Strategic Plan, or a Standards of Cover. LNC received a Class 2/2x ISO Rating in its most recent rating from the Insurance Services Office (ISO) in 2024. Over the last ten years, most cost minimization efforts have resulted from eliminating the Fire Chief position and moving the staff Chief Officers to shift work in a Battalion Chief role. The department implemented a 3/0 staffing model on all three engines in 2022. According to the Fire Chief, there is limited potential for facility, personnel, and equipment sharing. The Fire Chief's top three critical issues are: • Funding • Staffing • Fire Prevention The Fire Chief's top three opportunities to increase value or efficiency for the public are: • Funding • Staffing • Fire Prevention 22 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Boundaries and Sphere of Influence The City of Lincoln is bounded by the City of Rocklin to the south; otherwise, it is surrounded by Placer County Fire (CSA 28 Zone 76 Western Placer Fire, Zone 97 Sunset, and Zone 189 Bickford). The City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) includes a large area north and west of the current city limits. Placer LAFCO has amended the City’s SOI in response to development proposals. Figure 6: LNC Service Area 23 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Type & Extent of Services Services Provided LNC provides a full range of services for its residents. The following figure represents each of the services and the level performed. Figure 7: LNC 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 AMR Specialized/Technical Rescue No HazMat Response Yes First Responder Operational (FRO) Fire Inspection/Code Enforcement Yes Plan Reviews Yes Public Education/Prevention Yes Fire & Arson Investigation Yes Service Area The City of Lincoln was incorporated and assumed fire protection agency status in 1890. The fire department is statutorily responsible for fire and emergency services within the city limits. Collaboration The Lincoln Fire Department participates in Statewide and Countywide Mutual Aid and is a party to the Western Placer Closest Resource Agreement. Contracts to Provide Services to Other Agencies The Lincoln Fire Department does not provide contract services to any other agency. Contracts for Services from Other Agencies None. 24 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Governance & Administration The City of Lincoln uses the Council-Manager organizational structure. The City Council, made up of five members, is the governing body elected by the voters of Lincoln. The City Council Members vote to select a new Mayor and Vice Mayor every year using a rotational system. The Council appoints the City Manager and City Attorney. The Public Safety Chief reports to the City Manager. Figure 8: LNC Organizational Chart City Manager Public Safety Chief Deputy Fire Chief Battalion Chief Battalion Chief Battalion Chief A-Shift B-Shift C-Shift Captains (3) Captains (3) Captains (3) Firefighters/ Firefighters/ Firefighters/ Engineers (6) Engineers(6) Engineers (6) 25 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Accountability for Community Services—Transparency The following figure identifies the City of Lincoln's efforts to meet State laws designed to ensure transparency and accountability, and efforts beyond legal requirements to make information available to the public. Figure 9: LNC Transparency and Accountability Transparency and Accountability Available Agency website Yes Adopted budget available on website Yes Notice of public meetings provided Yes Agendas posted on website4 Yes Public meetings are live-streamed Yes Minutes 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 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 City’s website, and educational programs focused on fire prevention and preparedness. 4 Government Code §54954.2. 26 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Land Use and Population Current Population The State of California Department of Finance (CDoF) publishes population information by year for each county based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau and state records.5 The City of Lincoln covers an area of 23.74 miles, and the 2020 CDoF population estimate is 49,731.6 The population from the California Department of Finance was 52,313 as of January 1, 2023. Projected Population In addition to the annual historical estimates, the CDoF also publishes a yearly population projection through 2060. While this projection is for the county, each city and fire protection district’s population growth can be inferred as a percentage of overall county growth. Average annual countywide growth from 2010–2023 was 1.28%, and the City of Lincoln has consistently accounted for approximately 12.4% of the county population. CDoF estimated the average annual growth rate from 2023 through 2060 to be 0.55%. Based on these estimates and percentages, the City of Lincoln should reach approximately 64,259 people by 2060. The following figure shows historical and projected growth from 2010 through 2060 based on CDoF information: Figure 10: City of Lincoln Estimated Population (2010–2060) 70,000 64,259 60,279 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 Estimates-E1 | Department of Finance (ca.gov). 6 communityanalyst.arcgis.com/esriCA 27 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 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 of less than 80% of the statewide annual median household income (i.e., $60,188).7 LAFCO is required to identify the location and characteristics of any DUCs in the Service Review and SOI update process.8 LAFCO identified one DUC at the Census Block Group level located within or contiguous to the City of Lincoln’s SOI that meets the definition based on population and income, as shown in the following figure. Figure 11: LNC DUCS DUC Census Block Group Median Household Income Population LNC-5 BG 2, Tract 213.04 $97,717 ±$58,661 984 7 Government Code §56033.5. 8 Government Codes §56425(e)(5) and §56430(2). 28 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 12: LNC DUC Locations 29 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Financial Overview City of Lincoln This study will focus on the receipts and disbursements within the General Fund of the City of Lincoln and will consider the impact of revenues from other funds pertinent to the City’s fire department operations. The City Council establishes goals and objectives regarding service levels to provide the City’s staff with guidance in preparing its first biennial operating budget for FY 2024/2025 based on a July through June fiscal year. A five-year cash flow forecast was also produced as a component of the new biennial budget process. A Capital Improvement expenditure plan is also prepared during the biennium budget process. The Capital Improvement expenditures include buildings, vehicles and equipment, and technology projects. General Fund Recurring Revenues and Expenses The General Fund was reviewed to develop a financial trend analysis for five years. The City’s General Fund (GF) revenues increased from $18,308,054 in FY 2018 to $26,063,146 in FY 2022, an approximate 42% overall increase or 10.5% annual increase.9 Property tax revenues are the most significant source of General Fund Revenues, contributing approximately 50% of the total revenue stream, followed by Sales Tax Revenues at approximately 23%. Sales tax revenues have increased from $3,661,000 in FY 2018 to $5,733,000 in FY 2022. Growth in sales tax slowed in FY 2019 and FY 2020 due to the pandemic. Combined, these two sources account for approximately 75% of General Fund Revenues. Other sources of revenue include transient occupancy taxes, charges for services, licenses, fines and forfeitures, charges to other funds, recreation services, use of property and money income, and other sources. Transient Occupancy taxes were negatively affected in FY 2020 and FY 2021 as travel was limited during the pandemic years. Property tax revenues have increased from $10,067,000 in FY 2018 to $12,871,000 in FY 2022, a 28% increase in that time. As previously indicated, the City’s General Fund expends funds for general government services. General government services include public safety (police and fire departments), recreation services, community development, parks, public works, facilities maintenance, and fleet services. 9 City of Lincoln FY 2020/FY 2021 Adopted Budget. 30 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO With the conservative budgeting practices of the City Council, the General Fund has typically produced a surplus; however, planned expenditures approved by the City Council have occasionally resulted in a drawdown of the reserves. The City Council’s conservative fiscal policies have included developing a General Fund unassigned operating reserve balance policy of between 16.67% and 25%. General Fund unassigned balances have increased $1,566,065 in FY 2018 to $15,397,663 in FY 2022.10 The following figures summarize General Fund revenues and expenditures. Figure 13: City of Lincoln Summarized General Fund Revenues & Expenses (FY 2018–FY 2022) Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Revenue/Expenses FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Revenue 18,749,327 21,634,901 21,630,201 24,874,529 26,679,419 Expenditures 17,765,157 18,798,754 20,381,131 20,487,708 23,774,038 Surplus (Deficit) 984,170 2,836,147 1,249,070 4,386,821 2,905,381 Shown graphically, the following figure summarizes the information in the previous figure and indicates the growth of the City’s General Fund revenues and expenditures. Figure 14: City of Lincoln Summarized General Fund Revenues & Expenses (FY 2018–FY 2022) $28,000,000 $26,679,419 $26,000,000 $24,874,529 $24,000,000 $21,634,901 $21,630,201 $23,774,038 $22,000,000 $20,000,000 $18,749,327 $20,381,131 $20,487,708 $18,000,000 $18,798,754 $17,765,157 $16,000,000 $14,000,000 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 Revenue Expenditures 10 City of Lincoln ACFR, FY 2022, pg 129. 31 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Lincoln Fire Department The Lincoln Fire Department (LNC) has an administration and an operations division. The department is managed by a shared Public Safety Chief who oversees the police and the fire departments. Historically, the department staffed its three first-out pumpers with an officer and an engineer, supplemented by reserve firefighters. In FY 2023, the City hired nine firefighter positions to increase staffing to three per apparatus per shift. Salaries and benefits are approximately 80% of the operating costs of the LNC. The City participates in the CalPERS pension system. The City has incurred a significant unfunded actuarial liability (UAL) on its future pension and OPEB costs. The City’s UAL and OPEB costs, add 9% to the total employee costs of the department. The LNC receives funding for its various expenses through an allocation of General Fund Revenues and, beginning in FY 2023 and extending through FY 2027, funding from the ARPA and the Public Safety Property Tax Share through Placer County. 32 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO The following figure is the LNC operating expenses from FY 2018 through FY 2022. Figure 15: LNC Expenses (FY 2018–FY 2022) Actual Actual Actual Actual Budgeted Revenue FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Salaries 2,932,609 3,038,398 3,274,010 3,574,591 3,430,374 Benefits 1,111,568 1,089,834 1,186,674 1,279,854 1,399,009 Total Salaries & Benefits 4,044,177 4,128,232 4,460,684 4,854,445 4,829,383 Unfunded Pension Liability 200,558 176,982 228,589 285,855 347,584 OPEB Liability 126,800 119,880 122,500 60,720 115,600 Services & Supplies 384,886 386,514 518,713 315,610 362,678 Professional Services 414,389 461,058 151,778 145,591 157,512 Capital Outlay 6,232 211,572 250,948 157,586 176,798 Expenditures 5,177,042 5,484,238 5,733,212 5,819,807 5,989,555 Financial Projections City of Lincoln The City is forecasting GF expenditures will equal or exceed GF revenues for the foreseeable future, reducing the City’s GF reserve balance by over 65% through FY 2028. Not included in General Fund revenues are receipts from the American Recovery Plan Act (ARPA) and funds from the Public Safety Property Tax Share with Placer County. These sources reduce the General Fund's funding requirements but will be fully utilized by the end of FY 2027. Operating resources funded in this manner will need to be absorbed financially by the General Fund or eliminated. The following figure is a summarization of projected General Fund revenues and expenditures. Figure 16: Lincoln General Fund Summarized Projected General Fund Revenues & Expenditures Revenue & FY 202311 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Expenses Revenue 26,455,656 27,142,348 27,922,208 28,751,589 29,948,969 31,200,539 Expenditures 26,654,093 28,839,809 28,386,618 30,548,589 33,699,315 36,345,222 Surplus (Deficit) (198,437) (1,697,461) (464,410) (1,797,000) (3,750,346) (5,144,683) 11 City of Lincoln FY 2022/FY 2023 Adopted Budget. City of Lincoln FY 2020/FY 2021 Adopted Budget. City of Lincoln ACFR, FY 2022, pg 129. City of Lincoln FY 2022/FY 2023 Adopted Budget. 33 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Lincoln Fire Department Projected expenditures of LNC will be constrained by the City’s revenue streams and by the funds generated from other sources. Capital Planning The City staff prepares a Capital Improvement Program to identify infrastructure and other projects and identify the source of funding for each. Funding of projects is dependent on revenues. Demand for Services LNC is a moderately busy suburban 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 September 30, 2022. This analysis focuses on incidents within the statutory and contractual areas where LNC responds. The following figure is the overview statistics for the Lincoln Fire Department. Figure 17: LNC Performance Overview Avg. Annual Incidents per 90th Percentile Agency Incident Vol. 1,000 Population Total Time LNC 5,340 101 09:06 Incident categories closely follow the National Fire Incident Reporting System’s code grouping, classifying incidents based on general hazards. Medical responses account for almost 68% of the LNC’s operations. Although this proportion is similar to many fire departments that provide emergency medical services, this accounts for many LNC incidents. The following figure shows the total number of incidents between January 1, 2019, and September 30, 2022, including the percentage of overall incidents. 34 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 18: LNC Total Incident Response by Type with Percentage Rescue-Medical 68% Service 12% Good Intent 11% False Alarm 5% Fire 3% Hazardous Condition 1% Special 0% Overpressure 0% Disaster 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Typically, an analysis of incidents by year can yield a trend or give an idea of the call volume in the next few years. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, call volumes were affected nationally, and trends are not as easy to spot. This did not appear to affect LNC as much as many other agencies, and it has seen a steady increase in incident volume from 2019 forward, with the 2022 volume annualized. The aid given was calculated by filtering the geolocation against any incident outside the agency’s boundaries. Aid received relies on that data point provided by the agency. The following figure shows the annual incident volume by year. Aid given includes both mutual aid and automatic aid provided to neighboring agencies. 35 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 19: LNC Annual Incidents by Year 5,913 5,669 5,047 4,730 226 271 255 220 108 55 77 73 2019 2020 2021 2022* Aid Given Service Area Incidents Service Area Aid Received * 2022 was annualized by dividing the total incidents by nine and multiplying that by 12. Additional temporal studies show that the monthly call volume variation is insignificant, and the agency does not experience significant variation by season. However, LNC, like many similar agencies, does see a substantial increase in incident volume during the day. LNC sees nearly 70% of its incidents daily between 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM. The following figure shows the general variation of the complete incident data set by the hour of the day. 36 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 20: LNC Incident Percentage by Hour 7% 6% s t n e 5% d ic n 4% I f o t 3% n e c 2% r e P 1% 0% 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Hour of the Day 37 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO This average daily swing is typical and likely due to the number of people awake and active. However, the day-to-day variation in this information does play a part. The following figure is the incident heat map by the hour and day of the week. Figure 21: LNC Day and Hour Incident Heat Map Hour Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Color Incidents 0–1 187–204 1–2 162–188 2–3 149–163 3–4 134–150 4–5 110–135 5–6 83–111 6–7 70–84 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 The preceding figure indicates that the incident concentration remains consistent throughout the week. The least busy day is Sunday, and the most active hours appear between 9:00 AM and 12:00 PM. 38 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Emergency Response Performance The performance of the fire department response was also evaluated. The performance times use computer-aided dispatch data (CAD) to complete the analysis 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. Every effort was made to ensure that performance analysis of the information was focused on those incidents where units responded with lights and sirens. Since the data used came from the CAD system, only those incidents classified as a high priority were included. Three unique time segments 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. LNC adopted a response time performance goal or benchmark of 6 minutes, which will be used as a reference. Between January 1, 2019, and September 30, 2022, LNC’s performance for 17,000 high-priority incidents within the fire response area was a total response time of 9 minutes, 6 seconds (9:06) 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 high-priority call types. Figure 22: LNC Adopted Standard vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance Adopted Standard 1/2019–9/2023 Performance 6:00 or less 9:06 or less, 90% of the time The following figure shows the performance of the total response time for each major incident type for all high-priority incidents within the data set. 39 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 23: LNC High Priority Incidents’ 90th Percentile Total Response Times, January 2019– September 2022 12:00 10:39 10:00 09:04 08:00 07:37 06:00 04:00 02:00 00:00 Fire Medical Other 90% Total Response Time Total Time Benchmark 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 daily. Unit data was evaluated for all dates within the data set. The data for each cross-staffed unit is combined into the primary apparatus. LNC cross-staffs several apparatuses. For this analysis, all units were included and grouped by station. The following figure shows the general statistics for each frontline unit within the LNC system. 40 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 24: LNC Fire Unit Statistics Unit Hour Avg. Time Avg. Incidents Unit Utilization (UHU) per Incident Per Day Station 33 Units 7.9% 25 Minutes 4.5 Station 34 Units 7.2% 23 Minutes 4.6 Station 35 Units 7.1% 22 Minutes 4.6 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, typically an engine or quint company, the most flexible response unit, to be under 10% UHU. Maintaining 10% UHU should indicate that the area has 90% availability from unscheduled events. Stations with multiple engines and quint 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 LNC organized by the various divisions. Figure 25: LNC Staffing Assignment Staffing Uniformed Administration 2 Non-Uniformed Administration 3 Fire Prevention - Operations Staff 27 Emergency Communications Lincoln PD Volunteers, Reserve, On Call 6 Total Personnel 38 41 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 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 26: LNC Daily Staffing Station Daily Staffing Unit Staffing 33 3 Engine (3) 34 4 Engine (3), BC (1) 35 3 Engine (3) Total 10 Lincoln Fire Stations The following figures outline the basic features of each of the City of Lincoln's fire stations. The condition of the stations is rated based on the criteria identified in the introduction to this section of the report. 42 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 27: LNC Fire Stations & Apparatus Staffing Station Name/Number: Firehouse #33 Address/Physical Location: 17 McBean Park Drive General Description: Station 33 meets the needs of a modern fire service facility. Structure Date of Original Construction 2007 General Condition Good Seismic Protection Yes Auxiliary Power Yes ADA Compliant Yes Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 2 Back-Ins 1 Total Bays: 3 Total Square Footage Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 6 Beds 11 Dorm Beds Maximum Staffing Capability 11 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities 4 Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms 5 Showers 4 Bedrooms 6 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 Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal Yes Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System Yes Apparatus/Vehicles Minimum Unit Staffing* Comments Engine 3483 3 Type I Engine 1763 3 (CS) Type III Water Tender 1793 2 (CS) Total Daily Staffing: 3 *If an apparatus cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 43 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Station Name/Number: Firehouse #34 Address/Physical Location: 126 Joiner Parkway General Description: The facility meets the requirements of a modern fire station. Structure Date of Original Construction 2007 General Condition Excellent Seismic Protection Yes Auxiliary Power Yes ADA Compliant Yes Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 3 Back-Ins 1 Total Bays: 4 Facilities Available 1 Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 6 Beds 11 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 11 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities 6 Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms 6 Showers 4 Bedrooms 6 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 Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal Yes Security System Yes Apparatus Exhaust System Yes Apparatus/Vehicles Minimum Unit Staffing* Comments Engine 3484 3 Type I Engine 1761 3 (CS) Type III Battalion 34 1 Total Daily Staffing: 4 *If an apparatus cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 44 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Station Name/Number: Firehouse #35 Address/Physical Location: 2525 East Joiner Parkway General Description: The station meets the needs of a modern fire service facility. Structure Date of Original Construction 1999 General Condition Good Seismic Protection Yes Auxiliary Power Yes ADA Compliant Yes Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs Back-Ins 2 Total Bays: 2 Total Square Footage 5,500 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 Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms 2 Showers 2 Bedrooms 4 Exercise/Workout Facilities Yes Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned Yes Training/Meeting Rooms No Washer/Dryer/Extractor Washer/Dryer--No extractor Safety & Security Station Sprinklered Yes Smoke Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System Yes Apparatus/Vehicles Minimum Unit Staffing* Comments Engine 3485 3 Type 1 Engine 1751 3CS Type 6 Total Daily Staffing: 3 *If an apparatus cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 45 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Fire Stations Discussion Lincoln’s stations are relatively new in comparison to the typical city. Fire station ages range from 16 to 24 years, with an average of just under 19 years. The following figure summarizes Lincoln's fire stations and their features. Figure 28: LNC Station Configuration and Condition Staffing General Station Apparatus Bays Station Age Capacity Condition Firehouse 33 3 11 Good 16 years Firehouse 34 4 11 Excellent 16 years Firehouse 35 2 4 Good 24 years Totals/Average: 9 26 19 years average Generally, Lincoln's stations meet the requirements of modern firefighting. However, as the firefighting environment has changed, the technology, equipment, and safety systems have changed to meet new demands. Many buildings were not designed with 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. The Lincoln stations may be an exception, as they seem to have been built with many of the features needed, however charging stations for Electric Vehicles may need to be added to the sites. For example, the need to decontaminate personnel and equipment after many responses is relatively new in firefighting. 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 station's living and working spaces. While all structures require routine maintenance, 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. 46 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Facility Replacement and Maintenance Even though the stations are relatively new, a plan should be in place for 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 City to plan for ongoing service from each station more efficiently. Status of Shared Facilities Lincoln Fire Department currently does not share any facilities. Apparatus Apparatus was evaluated by LNC staff based on age, miles/hours, service, condition, and reliability. Fleet maintenance is provided by the City Public Works Department and has systems for emergency assistance after hours. The criteria are defined in the introduction section of this report. The following figures represent all apparatus and vehicles operated by LNC. Figure 29: LNC Apparatus Unit Type Status Year Condition Features Engines & Aerial Apparatus Engine 3483 Type 1 Frontline 2019 Excellent 1500 GPM/650 G Tank Engine 3484 Type 1 Frontline 2019 Excellent 1500 GPM/650 G Tank Engine 3485 Type 1 Frontline 2018 Excellent 1500 GPM/500 G Tank Engine 1787 Type 1 Reserve 2006 Poor 1500 GPM/500 G Tank Engine 1786 Type 1 Reserve 2006 Poor 1500 GPM/500 G Tank Engine 1761 Type 3 Reserve 2014 Excellent 500 GPM/500 G Tank Engine 1763 Type 3 Reserve 2000 Poor 500 GPM/500 G Tank Engine 1751 Type 6 Reserve 1999 Poor 100 GPM/250 G Tank WT 1793 Water Tender Reserve 2000 Poor 500 GPM/1000 G Tank 47 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 30: LNC Supervisor & Command Vehicles Unit Assigned To Manufacturer Year Condition 3402 Battalion 34 Chevrolet 2018 Excellent 1701 Dodge Durango 2005 Poor 1702 Dodge Durango 2005 Poor 1704 Dodge 2005 Fair 1706 Chevrolet 2007 Poor 1707 Utility 34 Ford F250 2024 Excellent 1708 BC 34 Ford F250 2024 Excellent 1709 Utility 33 Ford F150 2024 Excellent 1710 Utility 35 Ford F150 2024 Excellent Apparatus Discussion City staff, which includes qualified Emergency Vehicle Technicians, perform vehicle maintenance. Current vehicle and apparatus maintenance manuals are available. Preventative maintenance checks are conducted regularly. Maintenance records are maintained for all apparatus and vehicles. Pump tests are performed annually in accordance with industry standards. The maintenance facility does not have the capacity to provide fleet maintenance to other fire agencies, nor has the concept been explored. Dispatch & Communications Lincoln Police Department operates the City’s 911 Public Safety Answer Point (PSAP) and Dispatch Center. The center provides service for Lincoln Fire, Police, and other City departments. See Section IV for a detailed report on dispatch functions. 48 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 31: LNC PSAP and Dispatch Center Item Description CAD Application Sunridge System’s RIMS CAD (hosted) Telephone System Intrado Viper (hosted) Radio System Analog VHF system RIMS CAD is interfaced with a Zetron Fire/EMS Notification Model 25 two-tone paging system Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Mutual aid TAC channels, Statewide radio with other fire agencies in the county interoperability channels Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Statewide Interoperability channels radio with police agencies in the county Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Mutual aid TAC channels, Statewide radio with non-Fire EMS agencies in the county interoperability channels Ability for PSAP to communicate CAD-to-CAD Share system with Rocklin; other agencies are (how do you transfer a call to another center) phone call only No. For requests for medical assistance, they Criteria-based dispatch system in place transfer calls that require pre-arrival instructions to AMR Sacramento. Formal EMD quality assurance program in place Not Applicable Options for non-emergent calls not requiring EMS No AVL used on fire apparatus No AVL used on ambulances & EMS units No MDTs/MDCs in all fire & EMS vehicles Mobile RIMS on iPads. Closest unit dispatched via AVL No No. of 911 calls 11,248 No. of 7-digit incoming calls 25,795 Infrastructure Needs The three current fire stations are relatively new in functional design. Lincoln’s Sphere of Influence is quite large, and Placer County Fire Department (PCF) Station 75 is located within the SOI. Relative to Lincoln’s plans for future fire stations within the SOI and the Village 5 Specific Plan, it should be noted that although built in 1992, PCF Station 75 was designed to accommodate only volunteer staffing and would not be suitable for use as an LNC station without extensive remodeling and expansion. In addition, PCF has plans for a new Fire Station on the city’s eastern border as part of the Bickford Ranch development. The city should work collaboratively with PCF to optimally locate new fire stations to capitalize on existing and planned facilities. 49 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Governance Structure Options Lincoln’s options for governance include remaining as a City Department; contracting for service from PCF or another city; reorganizing as a fire district, either as a subsidiary of the City or through annexation; or forming a Joint Powers Authority with one or more neighboring agencies. 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 I of this report, the following determinations are proposed for the City of Lincoln. Growth and Population Projections 1-1: The City of Lincoln (LNC) had an estimated 2020 U.S. Census population of 49,731. The population according to the California Department of Finance was 52,313 as of January 1, 2023. 1-2: Based on California Department of Finance projections of 0.55% through 2060, the territory within Lincoln could reach 64,259 by 2060. Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence 1-3: LAFCO identified one DUC at the Census Block Group level located within or contiguous to the City of Lincoln’s SOI that meets the definition based on population and income. 1-4: The DUC is Census Block Group 2 Tract 213.04, which has a population of 984 with a median household income of $58,661. 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 1-5: Based on unit hour utilization and ISO ratings, LNC is able to provide an adequate level of services with sufficient capacity within its coverage area. While response to medical calls nears the response time standard, the area would benefit from improved response times closer to the NFPA 1710 response time standard, in particular for fire service calls. The DUC identified as LNC-5 is partially situated within the City of Lincoln’s SOI and is served by PCF. The nearest PCF fire station, Station 70, is also located with LNC-5. 50 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 1-6: LNC has experienced an increase in incident volume of 25% from 2019 to 2022. During that time, there has been a slight decrease in outside aid given of -0.03%, and aid received has declined by approximately -32%. 1-7: Lincoln’s stations are relatively new in comparison to the typical city. The stations generally meet the needs of a modern fire department and have been built with many of the required features. Establishing a facility replacement and maintenance plan will enable the City to plan for ongoing service from each station more efficiently. 1-8: In order to ensure efficient service delivery to demand associated with growth and development in the City’s Sphere of Influence, the City should work collaboratively with PCF to optimally locate new fire stations to capitalize on existing and planned facilities. 1-9: LNC’s top three critical issues are 1) funding, 2) staffing, and 3) fire prevention. Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services 1-10: With the conservative budgeting practices, the General Fund has typically produced a surplus; however, planned expenditures have occasionally resulted in a drawdown of the reserves. Conservative fiscal policies have included developing a General Fund unassigned operating reserve balance policy of between 16.67% and 25%. 1-11: The City has incurred a significant unfunded actuarial liability (UAL) on its future pension and OPEB costs, which adds 9% to the total employee costs of the Fire Department. 1-12: The City is forecasting GF expenditures will equal or exceed GF revenues for the foreseeable future, reducing the City’s GF reserve balance by over 65% through FY 2028. Projected expenditures of LNC will be constrained by the City’s revenue streams and by the funds generated from other sources. 51 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Status and Opportunities for Shared Services 1-13: Lincoln Fire Department currently does not share any facilities. 1-14: There is limited potential for facility, personnel, and equipment sharing, unless accomplished through a boundary-drop or other similar response agreement with neighboring agencies. A common dispatch platform, whether virtual or actual, and AVL are prerequisites to successfully implementing such a system. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies 1-15: The City appropriately maintains a website where documents are made available to the public regarding fire related services. However, LNC does not have a Fire Master Plan, a fire-related Strategic Plan, or a Standards of Cover. It is recommended that these documents be developed for proper planning and be made available on the website. 1-16: Over the last ten years, most cost minimization efforts have resulted from eliminating the Fire Chief position and moving the staff Chief Officers to shift work in a Battalion Chief role. The department implemented a 3/0 staffing model on all three engines in 2022. 1-17: Lincoln’s governance structure options include remaining as a City Department; contracting for service from PCF or another city; reorganizing as a fire district, either as a subsidiary of the City or through annexation; or forming a Joint Powers Authority with one or more neighboring agencies. 52 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 2 | Newcastle Fire Protection District Profile Agency Overview The Newcastle Fire Protection District (NEW) is an independent special district that provides fire protection, community risk reduction, and Basic Life Support (BLS) emergency medical treatment to a population of about 4,321 in approximately 15 square miles. NEW operates one full-time fire station, with 6 full-time career personnel. The NEW service area is described as suburban with some rural. Four Command Staff and three Administrative Staff are provided by Placer Hills Fire Protection District by contract. Background NEW received a Class 4/4X Insurance Services Office Rating in June 2020. Over the last few years, most cost efficiency efforts have resulted from sharing resources with Placer Hills Fire Protection District (PHF) and Penryn Fire District. Efforts include the following: • Shared Command Staff (4 positions); • Shared Fire Inspection, Code Enforcement, and Plan Review services; and • Shared vehicle maintenance program. Additional revenue measures have been exercised, including two voter-approved tax measures. Measure F was passed in 1998; Measure B in 2012. In FY 22/23 the two tax measures will generate just over $550,000. Newcastle Fire Protection District assess and collects mitigation fees based on the most recent adopted Nexus Study as approved by the Placer County Board of Supervisors. The district recently replaced its one fire station, Station 41. According to the Fire Chief, there is potential for facility, personnel, and equipment sharing since NEW participates in an Administrative contract with PHF. NEW, RYN, and FHF have also developed a Joint Operating Agreement and share like staff (Captains, Engineers, Paramedics); the Auburn Fire Department recently became a participant in the JOA as well. NEW, PHF, and Penryn Fire District also share joint purchasing of select equipment and protective gear. All three agencies use the PHF fleet mechanic and maintenance facility and its administration building. 53 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO There is currently an application for reorganization of the Newcastle Fire Protection District with the Placer Hills Fire Protection District before LAFCO. The Fire Chief's top three critical issues are as follows: • Recruitment/Retention: Lacking funding to pay competitive salaries and retirement benefits; • Capital Expenses: Lack of funding; and • Dispatch: Dispatch centers need the tools to work together seamlessly. The Fire Chief's top three opportunities to increase value and/or efficiency for the public are as follows: • Reorganization of NEW with PHF (application pending before LAFCO); • Potential reorganization with Penryn Fire District and Foresthill Fire District; and • Obtaining county assistance with funding, including capital projects and dispatch upgrades. Boundaries and Sphere of Influence NEW is bounded on the south by the South Placer Fire District; on the west by Penryn Fire District and Placer County Fire (CSA 28 Zone 76); on the east by the El Dorado County Line and the City of Auburn; and on the north by CSA 28 Zone 193 (North Auburn/Ophir Fire). The district’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) is indeterminate as Placer LAFCO has not adopted SOI’s for the independent fire districts. 54 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 32: NEW Service Area 55 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Type & Extent of Services Services Provided NEW provides a full range of services for its residents. The following figure represents each of the services and the level performed. Figure 33: NEW 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 Specialized/Technical Rescue Yes Through PHF contract HazMat Response Yes Via County HazMat team Fire code inspections on new Fire Inspection/Code Enforcement Yes construction. Services through contract with PHF Sprinkler plan review and inspection. Plan Reviews Yes Services through contract with PHF Public Education/Prevention Yes Through PHF contract Fire & Arson Investigation Yes Through PHF contract Service Area NEW is located in the Sierra Foothills of rural Placer County, about 30 miles east of Sacramento on Interstate 80. Situated in a highly agricultural region, NEW’s primary response area serves approximately 4,300 residents over 15 square miles, with one BLS (Basic Life Support) fire station, Station 41. Within NEW are several special hazards and critical infrastructure components. The Union Pacific Railroad, Interstate 80 and the Kinder Morgan Liquid Petroleum Pipeline traverse East/West through the area. Additionally, a Placer County Water Treatment facility operates within the district. The rural setting also poses a special hazard in that a significant portion of the district includes open space and undeveloped areas while only a small percentage of the district (11%) is protected by pressurized hydrants. 56 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Collaboration • Western Placer County Fire Chiefs Association Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid Agreement (May 2023). • Contract with PHF for shared Command Staff and Administrative Staff. • State Responsibility Area (SRA) designation - The entirety of the district is designated SRA, making CAL FIRE statutorily responsible for suppressing vegetation fires and fires that threaten vegetation. • Hazardous Materials response via a County-wide team. • Memorandum of Understanding with Penryn Fire District for response to specified incidents on Interstate 80. • Fleet maintenance, Fire Inspection/Code Enforcement, and Plan Review provided through contract with PHF. • NEW is a partner in the State Master Mutual Aid Agreement and makes equipment and personnel available for response statewide. • Joint Operating Agreement (JOA) with PHF, FHF, RYN, and ABR. Contracts to Provide Services to Other Agencies • None Contracts for Services from Other Agencies • Contract with PHF for Fire Chief, Duty Chief, Fire Marshal, and Administrative Services. Governance & Administration NEW is an independent fire district governed by a five-member Board of Directors, elected at large to four-year staggered terms by registered voters residing in the district. NEW shares a Fire Chief with PHF and Penryn Fire District. The Fire Chief reports to the Board of Directors. 57 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 34: NEW Organizational Chart Board of Directors Fire Chief (PHFPD) District Battalion Battalion Battalion Fire Marshal Manager Chief A-Shift Chief B-Shift Chief C-Shift (PHFPD) (PHFPD) (PHFPD) (PHFPD) (PHFPD) Admin Captain Captain Captain Assistant Station 41 Station 41 Station 41 (PHFPD) Engineer Engineer Engineer Mechanic (PHFPD) 58 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Accountability for Community Services—Transparency The following figure identifies NEW’s efforts to meet state laws designed to ensure transparency and accountability. Also included are efforts beyond legal requirements to make information available to the public. Figure 35: NEW Transparency and Accountability Transparency and Accountability Available Agency website12 Yes Adopted budget available on website Yes Notice of public meetings provided Yes Agendas posted on website13 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 Efforts to engage and educate the public about fire and emergency services consist of participating in local events, giving tours of the fire stations, posting fire department documents on the district’s website, and providing educational programs focused on fire prevention and preparedness. 12 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. 13 Government Code §54954.2. 59 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Land Use and Population Current Population The State of California Department of Finance (CDoF) publishes population information by year for each county based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau and state records.14 Unincorporated portions of Placer County account for approximately 29.6% of the population. The fire protection districts within the study area and the county fire department have consistently accounted for 14.8%. NEW encompasses 15 square miles of unincorporated Placer County.15 The 2020 population estimate for the district is estimated at 4,321.16 Projected Population CDoF maintains an annual county population estimate. In addition to the yearly historical estimates, CDoF also publishes an annual population projection through 2060. While this projection is for the county, each city and fire protection district’s population growth can be inferred as a percentage of overall county growth. Average annual countywide growth from 2010–2023 was 1.28%, and NEW consistently accounted for 1.1% of the county population. CDoF estimated the average annual growth rate from 2023 through 2060 to be 0.55%. These estimates and percentages show that the district population will be approximately 5,400 by 2060. The following figure shows historic and projected growth from 2010 through 2060 based on CDoF information. 14 Estimates-E1 | Department of Finance (ca.gov) 15 communityanalyst.arcgis.com/esriCA 16 communityanalyst.arcgis.com/esriCA 60 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 36: NEW Estimated Population (2010–2060) 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 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., $60,188).17 LAFCO is required to identify the location and characteristics of any DUCs in the Service Review and SOI update process.18 No DUCs were identified by LAFCO at the Census Block Group level located within or contiguous to the agency’s SOI and meeting the definition based on population and income. 17 Government Code §56033.5. 18 Government Codes §56425(e)(5) and §56430(2). 61 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Financial Overview Newcastle Fire Protection District (NEW), Placer Hills Fire Protection District (PHF), and Penryn Fire Protection District share all administrative functions under a formal agreement. The three agencies, along with ABR and FHF also developed a Joint Operations Agreement to share like staff (Captains, Engineers, and Paramedics). NEW, PHF and RYN participate together in the purchasing of select equipment and protective gear. The three agencies share the Placer Hills fleet mechanic and use the Placer Hills Fire Administrative building. Each of the three districts maintains its own five-member Board of Directors, has its own revenue streams (including ad valorem tax structure, special assessments, and other revenues), and develops its own budget and cost structures. Newcastle Fire Protection District NEW operates through two funds: the General Fund (GF) to manage its operations, and a Mitigation Fee Fund for debt service payments necessary for infrastructure for expanding services into newly developed areas. NEW operates as an independent special district but operates in conjunction with Penryn and Placer Hills Fire District to provide an all-hazard response to the community. Services provided by the district include structural and wildland fire response, limited hazmat, limited technical rescue, and Basic Life Support (BLS) Emergency Medical Services (EMS) first responder service. NEW is governed by an elected five-member Board of Directors and operates on a July through June fiscal year. GF information was reviewed to develop a financial trend analysis for the five-year period. This review revealed that there was a minimal impact on NEW’s revenues during the COVID-19 pandemic. Revenues NEW is funded by several sources of income. Property taxes are allocated to NEW under the constraints imposed by Proposition 13 limiting total property tax assessments to 1% of the property’s value. The NEW share of the property tax allocation is .0338%. Placer 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 have escalated at an average of 5.5% annually and are forecast to increase at 5% annually. 62 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Measure B was approved by voters on March 6, 2012, and assesses a special fire tax for emergency medical response and fire protection services. The Measure B tax rate is currently $146.46 per parcel; parcels with buildings in excess of 3,000 square feet are assessed $0.05 per square foot in excess of 3,000 square feet. The language in the legislation allows for an annual increase in the amount of the Consumer Price Index, but not to exceed 3% annually. Measure F was approved by voters in 1997 and assesses a special tax of $72 per single parcel. This revenue source has grown at approximately 4% annually and is forecast to continue to increase at that rate. The district receives reimbursements for strike team deployments and other miscellaneous revenues. Measure B assessment revenues are the single largest source of revenue to NEW; property taxes, based on assessed property tax values, are the second largest contributor to GF revenues. These revenue sources, in addition to the Measure F assessments, account for approximately 96% of GF Recurring Revenues annually. As is the case with all independent fire districts, the district receives no direct funding from the state or Placer County. The following figure details NEW’s revenues. Figure 37: NEW Revenues, FY 2018–FY 202219 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Revenue FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Property Taxes 244,938 258,614 269,000 276,418 299,456 Measure B 314,205 325,115 336,106 340,358 354,437 Measure F 150,935 157,434 163,590 167,493 174,477 Strike Team Cost Rec. — 108,466 — 77,688 17,800 Misc. Receipts 15,298 3,975 17,830 19,955 12,916 Recurring revenues 725,376 853,604 786,526 881,912 859,086 Interest income 8,108 5,606 2,856 925 656 Total Revenues 733,484 859,210 789,382 882,837 859,742 19 Newcastle FPD Prior Budgets and Budget Projections submitted by the NFPD Staff. 63 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Expenses NEW operates through one division. The organization provides fire protection, EMS first response, technical and specialized rescue, hazmat response, fire inspection/code enforcement, plan reviews, public education, and fire and arson investigative services. Current staffing in NEW is only two persons per unit.20 Salaries and benefits are approximately 63% of the district’s recurring costs. Salaries and benefit costs were not provided in sufficient detail to allow for a detailed analysis of those expenditures. An administrative services contract with PHF has been in place for several years and is expected to continue. Other recurring expenses include services and supplies. Debt service payments for a fire engine are made from the Mitigation Fund, utilizing Development Fees. Certain expenditures related to the new fire station have also been made from the Mitigation Fund. The following figure outlines NEW’s historical expenses Figure 38: NEW Historical Expenditures Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Expenditures FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Salaries & Benefits 448,870 527,524 548,422 580,867 585,373 Services & Supplies 69,676 105,091 112,076 108,828 101,354 Admin. Contract 89,000 94,000 115,375 124,300 132,611 Recurring Expenses 607,546 726,615 775,873 813,995 819,338 Capital Outlay 612,217 84,161 111,726 — 114,377 Total Expenditures: 1,219,763 810,776 887,599 813,995 933,715 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 facilities, 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 NEW for FY 2018 through FY 2022. 20 Ian Gow, Fire Chief, Fire Chief’s Perspective comments. 64 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 39: NEW Summarized Revenues and Expenditures Revenues & Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Expenditures FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Total Revenues 733,484 859,210 789,382 882,837 859,742 Total Expenditures 1,219,763 810,776 887,599 813,995 933,715 Surplus (Deficit) (486,279) 48,434 (98,217) 68,842 (73,973) Beginning Fund Balance 790,738 304,459 352,893 254,676 323,518 Ending Fund Balance 304,459 352,893 254,676 323,518 249,545 Financial Projections Revenues NEW provides fire and BLS first responder EMS services. It anticipates property tax revenues to continue to increase at 5.5% annually. Measure B revenues will continue to grow at a 3% annual rate, as permitted under the creating legislation. Measure F assessments will also continue to grow at 4% annually. Other revenues are forecast to continue to grow at a moderate rate. FY 22/23 miscellaneous revenues included $130,200 of grant revenue and $107,325 of other revenues that were not explained in the information supplied. This distorts the trend analysis and these revenues were not carried forward into FY 23/24 and beyond. Expenses Salaries and benefits are the district’s most significant costs, consuming over 70% of the recurring expenditures. These costs are forecast to increase approximately 3% annually. The administrative services contract is anticipated to grow at 4% annually. Other previously describe recurring costs are forecast to escalate at 3% annually. The following figure is a forecast of NEW’s projected revenues and expenditures. Figure 40: NEW Summarized Projected General Fund Revenues & Expenditures Revenue & FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Expenditures Actual Budget Revenue 1,219,055 1,427,371 1,030,877 1,072,275 1,115,485 1,160,592 Expenditures 1,171,744 1,177,747 1,210,689 1,244,698 1,279,809 1,316,058 Surplus (Deficit) 47,311 249,624 (179,812) (172,423) (164,324) (155,466) 65 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO As indicated in the above figure, NEW’s current financial operation is unsustainable in its current configuration and must be modified to include additional revenue or reduced spending. Capital Planning NEW is unable to accumulate funds for capital projects as all available funding is directed to the mortgage for the new station.21 NEW’s Board of Directors has adopted a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 2023; it is awaiting approval by the Placer County Board of Supervisors. Anticipate it being on the BOS agenda in March 2024. Demand for Services Newcastle Fire Protection District (NEW) is a rural protection 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 September 30, 2022. This analysis focuses on incidents within the statutory and contractual areas where NEW responds. The following figure is the overview statistics for NEW. Figure 41: NEW Performance Overview Avg. Annual Incidents per 90th Percentile Agency Incident Vol. 1,000 Population Total Time NEW 493 106 11:55 Incident categories closely follow the National Fire Incident Reporting System’s code grouping, classifying incidents based on general hazards. Medical responses account for approximately 57% of NEW’s operations. This proportion is similar to many fire departments that provide EMS. The following figure shows the total number of incidents between January 1, 2019, and September 30, 2022, including the percentage of overall incidents. 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 where response was cancelled prior to arrival. 21 Ibid. 66 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 42: NEW Total Incident Response by Type with Percentage Rescue-Medical 57% Good Intent 19% Service 12% Fire 7% Hazardous Condition 2% False Alarm 2% Special 0% Overpressure 0% Disaster 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Typically, an analysis of incidents by year can yield a trend or give an idea of the call volume in the next few years. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, call volumes nationally were affected, and trends are not as easy to spot. NEW has seen steady growth in call volume. By annualizing 2022, it is seeing an upward trend in incident volume. The aid given was calculated by filtering the geolocation against any incident outside the agency’s boundaries. Aid received relies on that data point provided by the agency. The following figure shows the annual incident volume by year. Aid given includes both Mutual Aid and Automatic Aid provided to neighboring agencies. 67 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 43: NEW Annual Incidents by Year 561 519 457 436 250 164 136 113 116 93 39 34 2019 2020 2021 2022* Aid Given Service Area Incidents Service Area Aid Received * 2022 was annualized by dividing the total incidents by 9 and multiplying that by 12. Additional temporal studies show that the monthly call volume variation is insignificant, and the agency does not experience significant variation by season. However, like many similar agencies, NEW does see a substantial increase in incident volume during the day. In fact, NEW sees over 73% of its incidents daily between 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM. The following figure shows the general variation of the complete incident data set by the hour of the day. 68 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 44: NEW Incident Percentage by Hour 8% 7% s 6% t n e d 5% ic n I f 4% o t n 3% e c r e 2% P 1% 0% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223 Hour of the Day 69 Fire Service Review Placer 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 and day of the week. Figure 45: NEW Day and Hour Incident Heat Map Hour Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Color Incidents 0–1 25–32 1–2 17–26 2–3 14–18 3–4 12–15 4–5 9–13 5–6 5–10 6–7 3–6 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 As indicated in the previous figure, some days do not follow the average model strictly. Due to the limited incident volume, a clear and consistent trend does not present itself. However, the incident volume generally remains similar each day, and the 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM pattern is evident. 70 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Emergency Response Performance Response performance was also evaluated. The performance times use computer-aided dispatch (CAD) data to complete the analysis 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. Every effort was made to try and get only those incidents requiring an emergent response. Only high-priority incidents are included in this study. Three unique time segments 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. NEW 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 September 30, 2022, NEW’s performance for 1,019 priority incidents of all types within the fire response area was a total response time of 11 minutes, 55 seconds (11:55) 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 high-priority call types. Figure 46: NEW’s Adopted Standard vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance NFPA Standard 1/2019–9/2023 Performance Fire/Other 6:20 or less, 90% of the time 13:31 or less, 90% of the time EMS 6:00 or less, 90% of the time 10:55 or less, 90% of the time The following figure shows the performance of the total response time for each major incident type for all high-priority incidents within the data set. 71 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 47: NEW High Priority Incidents’ 90th Percentile Total Response Times (January 2019–September 2022) 18:00 16:52 12:30 12:00 10:55 06:00 00:00 Fire Other Medical 90% Total Response Time Total Time Benchmark 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 to which a unit was deployed daily. Unit data was evaluated for all dates within the data set. The data for each cross-staffed unit is combined into the primary apparatus. The crew at NEW’s single station cross-staffed a few pieces of equipment. The following figure shows the general statistics for each frontline apparatus within the NEW system. 72 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 48: NEW Fire Unit Statistics Unit Hour Avg. Time Avg. Incidents Unit Utilization (UHU) per Incident Per Day Station 41 Units 2.5% 27 Minutes 1.3 The 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 the area has 90% availability from unscheduled events. Stations with multiple engines and quint 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 NEW’s total number of personnel organized by its various divisions. Figure 49: NEW Staffing Assignment Staffing Uniformed Administration Contract w/ PHF Non-Uniformed Administration Contract w/ PHF Fire Prevention Contract w/ PHF Operations Staff 6 Emergency Communications Placer County Sheriff’s Office Volunteers, Reserve, On Call 0 Total Personnel 6 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). 73 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 50: NEW Daily Staffing Station Daily Staffing Unit Staffing 41 2 Type 1 Engine, Type 3 Engine (CS) Total 2 Newcastle Fire Station The following figure outlines the basic features of NEW’s fire station. The condition of the station is rated based on the criteria identified in the introduction to this section of the report. 74 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 51: NEW Fire Station Station Name/Number: Newcastle Station 41 Address/Physical Location: 9350 Old State Highway Newcastle Ca, 95658 General Description: Station is new, opened at the end of 2022. It meets the needs of a modern fire service facility. Structure Date of Original Construction 2022 General Condition Excellent Seismic Protection Yes Auxiliary Power Yes ADA Compliant Yes Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs N Back-Ins Y Total Bays: 2 Total Square Footage 7,000 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 5 Beds 6 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 6 (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 Yes Washer/Dryer/Extractor Washer/Dryer Safety & Security Station Sprinklered Yes Smoke Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal Yes Security System Yes Apparatus Exhaust System Yes 75 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Minimum Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Unit Staffing* Engine 41 2 CS Brush 41 2 CS Utility 41 1 CS Total Daily Staffing: 2 *If an apparatus cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. Fire Stations Discussion The one fire station operated by NEW is considered in "Excellent" condition. The following figure summarizes NEW’s fire station and its features. Figure 52: NEW Station Configuration and Condition Staffing General Station Apparatus Bays Station Age Capacity Condition Station 41 2 6 Excellent 2 years Totals: 2 6 2 years NEW’s Fire Station 41 appears to have been built to meet the latest standards and needs in fire service facilities. An eclectic vehicle charging station may be required in the future. While all structures require routine maintenance, fire stations require even more due to the continuous occupancy by a number of adults. Multiple departures and returns of heavy apparatus also affect these structures. Facility Replacement NEW’s Fire Station 41 was constructed in 2022. It was not apparent if a plan is in place for systematic maintenance and upkeep of the station. Ensuring that 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, 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. 76 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Status of Shared Facilities NEW makes use of PHF’s vehicle maintenance shop and administration building through the administrative contract. Apparatus Apparatus was evaluated by NEW staff based on age, miles/hours, service, condition, and reliability. Fleet maintenance is provided under contract by PHF and has systems in place for emergency assistance after hours. The criteria are defined in the introduction section of this report. The following figures represent all apparatus and vehicles operated by NEW. Figure 53: NEW FPD Apparatus Unit Type Status Year Condition Features Engines & Aerial Apparatus Engine 41 Type 1 Frontline 2004 Poor 1250 GPM/830 G Tank Brush 41 Type 3 Frontline 2014 Good 1000 GPM/500 G Tank Medics/Rescues/Other Utility 41 Utility Frontline 2013 Fair Apparatus Discussion Fleet maintenance is under contract with PHF using a combination of in-house mechanics and outsourced vendors. The PHF mechanic is Emergency Vehicle Technician qualified/certified. Maintenance manuals are available; preventative maintenance checks are conducted regularly; maintenance records are kept for all apparatus and vehicles; pump tests are performed annually in accordance with NFPA 1911. The shop facility has the capacity to provide fleet maintenance to other agencies, including PFPPD. There should be a plan in place to replace Engine 41, a 2004 Type 1 Engine rated as “Poor.” Dispatch & Communications NEW is dispatched by the Placer County Sheriff Dispatch & Communications Center in Auburn. See Section IV for a detailed report on dispatch functions. 77 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 54: NEW PSAP and Dispatch Center Item Description Central Square, running Tiburon CAD Application Command CAD Telephone System Intrado Viper Repeated conventional VHF system with Radio System three high-site repeaters Fire/EMS Notification ComTech Ability for fire agencies to communicate Mutual aid TAC channels, State-wide via radio with other fire agencies in the interoperability channels county Ability for fire agencies to communicate via radio with police agencies in the State-wide Interoperability channels county Ability for fire agencies to communicate Mutual aid TAC channels, State-wide via radio with non-Fire EMS agencies in the interoperability channels county Ability for PSAP to communicate CAD-to- CAD (how do you transfer a call to another Phone call only center) Emergency Medical Dispatch (Priority Criteria-based dispatch system in place Dispatch) Trained QA dispatchers complete Quality Assurance (QA) audits. Audits are Formal EMD quality assurance program in completed on 15% of the calls. (10 calls place per week/520 calls per year). Dispatchers receive a copy of the completed audits. Options for non-emergent calls not requiring None EMS AVL used on fire apparatus No AVL used on ambulances & EMS units No Tiburon Mobile Data on a Verizon cellular MDTs/MDCs in all fire & EMS vehicles and Netmotion Closest unit dispatched via AVL No No. of 911 calls 2021 – 49,881 No. of 10-digit incoming emergency calls 2021 – 24,247 Infrastructure Needs NEW’s fire station was built in 2022 and meets the needs of the district. 78 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Governance Structure Options Governance options for NEW include reorganizing with one or more neighboring fire agencies. In addition, NEW has the option of contracting for service from or to another adjacent agency or forming a JPA; no viable options were identified for either approach. Reorganization options include the following: • Reorganization Option #1: Reorganize NEW with PHF as part of one sub-regional independent district. • Reorganization Option #2: Reorganize NEW into the Placer County Fire Department. • Reorganization Option #3: Reorganize NEW with PHF as part of one sub-regional independent district, with a contract for service in certain areas. • Reorganization Option #4: Reorganize NEW, RYN, and SPL into one sub-regional independent district. All options would require a SOI update. SOI options are discussed below. It is essential that the preferred reorganization option have buyoff by all affected agencies. 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 I of this report, the following determinations are proposed for the Newcastle Fire Protection District. Growth and Population Projections 2-1: The Newcastle Fire Protection District (NEW) had an estimated 2020 U.S. Census population of 4,321. 2-2: Based on California Department of Finance projections of 0.55% through 2060, the territory within NEW could reach 5,400 by 2060. Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence 2-3: No DUCs were identified by LAFCO at the Census Block Group level within or contiguous to the NEW SOI that meet the definition based on population and income. 79 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 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 2-4: Based on unit hour utilization and ISO ratings, NEW is able to provide an adequate level of services with sufficient capacity within its coverage area. The area would benefit from improved response times closer to the NFPA 1710 response time standard; however, staffing constrains the potential for more rapid response. 2-5: Staffing is a challenge for NEW due to challenges with recruitment and retention largely attributable to comparably low pay and a lack of pension benefits. 2-6: NEW has experienced an increase in incident volume of 29% from 2019 to 2022. During that time, there has also been an increase in outside aid given of 249%, and a decrease of aid received of 63%. This is likely due to a change in the recording method. 2-7: The one fire station operated by NEW is considered in "Excellent" condition. The station is new and opened at the end of 2022. It meets the needs of a modern fire service facility. It is unclear if there is a plan is in place for systematic maintenance and upkeep of the station, thus it is recommended that NEW establish a facility maintenance plan for ongoing efficient service from the station. 2-8: The primary challenges for NEW are a lack of funding to pay competitive salaries and retirement benefits, a lack of funding to cover necessary capital expenses, and a need for dispatch center coordination. 2-9: All districts would benefit from training to ensure consistent data collection within the district and between districts, as well as to enable ease of data extraction for use. Inconsistent and unavailable data posed a particular challenge in this service review. Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services 2-10: NEW’s current financial operation is unsustainable in its current configuration and must be modified to include additional revenue or reduced spending, without which annual deficits are projected in FY 24/25 through FY 27/28. 2-11: NEW is unable to accumulate funds for capital projects as all available funding is directed to the mortgage for the new station. The district recently approved a capital improvement plan to guide funding for prioritized capital needs. 80 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Status and Opportunities for Shared Services 2-12: NEW practices resource sharing with PHF and PFD, including shared command staff (4 positions), shared fire inspection, code enforcement, and plan review services, a shared vehicle maintenance program, and joint purchasing of select equipment and protective gear. NEW, PHF, PFD, FFD, and ABR have also developed a Joint Operating Agreement and share like staff (Captains, Engineers, Paramedics). 2-13: There is potential for further facility, personnel, and equipment sharing through existing agreements or further agreements. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies 2-14: NEW maintains a website where it makes several documents available and easily accessible to the public. It is recommended that NEW engage in master planning, strategic planning, and compilation of standards of cover and related assessments. 2-15: Opportunities to increase value and/or efficiency for the public consist of reorganization of NEW with other fire agencies and obtaining county assistance with funding, including capital projects and dispatch upgrades. Sphere of Influence Update Existing SOI Based on LAFCO records, it appears that NEW does not have an adopted SOI. During the prior MSR process in 2017, it was recommended that a single SOI for fire providers in Western Placer be adopted to indicate the need for a single fire provider serving the area; however, while the Commission adopted the MSR, it appears that the SOI was never formally approved. SOI Options The SOI options for NEW consist of the following: SOI Option #1: Adopt a single Sphere of Influence for the independent special districts indicating the anticipation of consolidation of the districts. This SOI option is also applicable if the newly reorganized district chooses to contract for services from another provider, as outlined in Reorganization Option #3. SOI Option #2: Adopt a Zero Sphere of Influence for NEW indicating anticipation of dissolution and a transition of services to PCF or annexation of the areas within the district into another fire district. 81 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Recommended SOI Each of the governance and related SOI options could benefit fire services in the affected area in some manner. Consolidation of the districts into a single independent district would 1) reduce or eliminate the obvious duplication of effort and redundancies found in the current four-district model, 2) strengthen the fire service system by implementing an operational model that offers additional paramedics and a single administrative structure, and 3) capture approximately $150,000 annually in additional revenue. Reorganization of the districts into PCF would 1) capitalize on the CAL FIRE service model, 2) place governance under the Board of Supervisors, and 3) create a consistent service provider across the entire unincorporated area of western Placer County with ALS as a benchmark. Of primary concern is the static financing levels and higher cost of CAL FIRE services offered in Reorganization Option #2 through PCF, however, station closures would ensure adequate funding levels in each of the Zones associated with the former districts and their related financing structure. Because Reorganization Option #3 capitalizes on the strengths of each of the two identified models, it is the most favorable and is the recommended option to inform the sphere of influence update. In order to indicate anticipation of consolidation of the special districts, it is recommended that LAFCO adopt a single SOI comprised of the districts’ boundaries as outlined in SOI Option #1. A successful reorganization will be dependent on completion of a feasibility study and support of the districts themselves. Proposed SOI Determinations LAFCO is required to prepare a written statement of determination with respect to the following areas when updating a special district’s Sphere of Influence, as specified by Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. The following determinations are proposed for the Newcastle Fire Protection District. The nature, location, extent, functions, and classes of services provided 2-16: NEW provides fire protection, community risk reduction, and Basic Life Support (BLS) emergency medical treatment. Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands 2-17: Land uses within NEW mainly consist of rural residential and industrial. 2-18: County policies require new developments to comply with fire code and to develop or fund fire protection facilities, personnel, and operations and maintenance. 82 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 2-19: Fire services are needed in all areas, are already being provided, and do not, by themselves, induce or encourage growth on agricultural or open space lands. Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area 2-20: As indicated by the continued increase in service call volume and projected increase in service demand, there is a present and anticipated continued need for fire protection services within NEW. 2-21: Within NEW are several special hazards and critical infrastructure components which enhance demand for services, including the Union Pacific Railroad, Interstate 80, the Kinder Morgan Liquid Petroleum Pipeline, and a Placer County Water Treatment facility. A special hazard is posed in that a significant portion of the district is open space and undeveloped areas of which only 11% is protected by hydrants. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide 2-22: Based on unit hour utilization and ISO ratings, NEW is able to provide an adequate level of services with sufficient capacity within its coverage area. The area would benefit from improved response times closer to the NFPA 1710 response time standard; however, staffing constrains the potential for more rapid response. 2-23: Staffing is a challenge for NEW due to challenges with recruitment and retention largely attributable to comparably low pay and a lack of pension benefits. 2-24: NEW has experienced an increase in incident volume of 29% from 2019 to 2022. During that time, there has also been an increase in outside aid given of 249%, and a decrease of aid received of 63%. This is likely due to a change in recording method. 2-25: The one fire station operated by NEW is considered in "Excellent" condition. The station is new and opened at the end of 2022. It meets the needs of a modern fire service facility. It is unclear if there is a plan is in place for systematic maintenance and upkeep of the station, thus it is recommended that NEW establish a facility maintenance plan for ongoing efficient service from the station. 2-26: The primary challenges for NEW are lack of funding to pay competitive salaries and retirement benefits, lack of funding to cover necessary capital expenses, and a need for dispatch center coordination. 83 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area 2-27: The population within NEW’s boundaries is a community of interest. 2-28: Neighboring areas that receive fire and EMS services through automatic and mutual aid are also considered communities of interest. Present and probable need for public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere of influence 2-29: No DUCs were identified by LAFCO at the Census Block Group level within or contiguous to the NEW SOI that meet the definition based on population and income. 84 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 3 | Penryn Fire Protection District Profile Agency Overview Penryn Fire Protection District (RYN) is an independent fire district established on September 1, 1924, to provide services including fire protection, community risk reduction, and Basic Life Support (BLS) emergency medical treatment to a population of approximately 3,206 in 17.83 square miles. RYN operates one full-time fire station with six full-time career personnel and five interns. The RYN service area is primarily rural, with some suburban. In addition to the full-time and volunteers employed by RNY, four Command Staff and three Administrative Staff are provided by Placer Hills FPD by contract. Background RYN updated its Strategic Plan in 2022, which was adopted by the governing body. RYN received a Class 3/3X ISO Rating in its most recent rating from the Insurance Services Office (ISO) in May 2022. Over the last few years, most cost-efficiency efforts have resulted from sharing resources with Placer Hills and Newcastle Fire Districts. The shared resources include the following: • Contracted with Placer Hills Fire District for Command and Administrative Staff (seven positions) • Shared Fire Inspection, Code Enforcement, and Plan Review services • Shared Apparatus maintenance program Additional revenue measures have been exercised, including two voter-approved tax measures: Measure C (1997) and Measure A (July 2017). Together, these two tax measures produce over $550,000 per year in additional revenue to the district, roughly half of the annual operating revenue. Mitigation fees are assessed on new construction, and the district maintains a separate Mitigation Fund with a current balance of approximately $830,000. • According to the Fire Chief, there is potential for facility, personnel, and equipment sharing as RYN (along with Newcastle Fire District) currently participates in an administrative contract with Placer Hills Fire District. PHF, NEW, RYN, and FHF also developed a Joint Operating Agreement (JOA) and are sharing like staff (Captains, Engineers, Paramedics). 85 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO • PHF, RYN, and NEW also share joint purchasing of selected equipment and protective gear. • All three agencies use the PHF fleet mechanic and maintenance facility. • All three agencies use the PHF administrative building. The Fire Chief's top three critical issues: • Recruitment/Retention: Funding is lacking to pay competitive salaries. • Lack of funding for capital expenses. • The dispatch centers need the tools to work together seamlessly. The Strategic Plan identified the top three opportunities to increase value and/or efficiency for the public: • Upgrade to Advanced Life Support (Paramedic) and increase Engine staffing to 3/0 (Goal #2). • Implement a salary and benefit structure that is within 5% of surrounding Placer County fire protection agencies (Goal #4). • Consolidate services with adjacent agencies (Goal #6). In an effort to aid in employee recruitment and retention, RYN executed a contract with CalPERS in July 2022 to provide a retirement system for current and future employees. Boundaries and Sphere of Influence The Penryn Fire Protection District is bounded on the South by the South Placer Fire District, the Newcastle Fire District to the north and east, and Placer County Fire (CSA 28 Zone 76) to the west and north. The district’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) is indeterminate, as Placer County LAFCO has not adopted SOIs for the Fire Districts. 86 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 55: RYN Service Area Penryn Fire Protection District includes a small area within the incorporated Town of Loomis. 87 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Type & Extent of Services Services Provided RYN provides a full range of services for its residents. The following figure represents each of the services and the level performed. Figure 56: RYN 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 (BLS) Specialized/Technical Rescue No Available through Mutual Aid system HazMat Response Yes Decon/First Responder Operational Fire code inspections on new Fire Inspection/Code Enforcement Yes construction. Services via contract with Placer Hills Fire Protection District Sprinkler plan review and inspection. Plan Reviews Yes Services via contract with Placer Hills Fire Protection District Public Education/Prevention Yes Fire & Arson Investigation Yes Service Area Located 30 miles east of Sacramento on Interstate 80, at the base of the Sierra foothills, the district covers an area of 17.83 square miles, serving a permanent population of 3,206 residents. The district also serves a large area of Interstate 80, the east-west bound Union Pacific rail lines, and an underground petroleum pipeline. The community consists mainly of established single-family homes in a rural setting. Lot sizes range from 6,000 square feet to multiple acres, with livestock and mandarin farming being prevalent. Light industry is scattered throughout the district. The district's station is located in the center of the unincorporated community of Penryn at 7206 Church Street. The station is staffed 24 hours a day by a minimum of two professional personnel. 88 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Collaboration • Western Placer County Fire Chiefs Association Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid Agreement (May 1, 2023). • Agreement with the Placer Hills Fire Protection District for shared Command Staff and Administrative Staff (2021). • Joint Operations Agreement (JOA) with PHF, NEW, FHF, and ABR. • State Responsibility Area (SRA)—98% of the district is designated SRA, making CAL FIRE statutorily responsible for suppressing vegetation fires and fires that threaten vegetation. • South Placer Fire District—for ambulance service to specified areas, and Automatic Aid agreement for fire response. • Town of Loomis—2% of the district service area is within the Town of Loomis. • Newcastle Fire District—Memorandum of Understanding for response to specified incidents on Interstate 80. • Fire Inspection/Code Enforcement, and Plan Review provided through an agreement with Placer Hills Protection Fire District. • Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) Fire and Rescue—the district is a partner in the State Master Mutual Aid Agreement and makes equipment and personnel available for response statewide. Contracts to Provide Services to Other Agencies • None. Contracts for Services from Other Agencies Placer Hills Fire Protection District: • Agreement for Fire Chief, Duty Chief, Fire Marshal, and administrative services. • Joint Operations Agreement (JOA) with PHF, NEW, FHF, and ABR. Governance & Administration The Penryn Fire Protection District is an independent fire district governed by a five-member Board of Directors, elected at large from registered voters residing in the district to four-year staggered terms. RYN shares a Fire Chief with Placer Hills and Newcastle Fire Protection Districts. The Fire Chief reports to the Board of Directors. 89 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 57: RYN Organizational Chart BOARD OF DIRECTORS FIRE CHIEF (PHFPD Contract) Battalion Chief Battalion Chief Battalion Chief Fire Marshal District Manager A-Shift B-Shift C-Shift (PHFPD Contract) (PHFPD Contract) (PHFPD Contract) (PHFPD Contract) (PHFPD Contract) Admin Assistant Captain Captain Captain (PHFPD Contract) Station 38 Station 38 Station 38 Engineer Engineer Engineer Fire Mechanic (PHFPD Contract) 90 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Accountability for Community Services—Transparency The following figure identifies the RYN’s efforts to meet State laws designed to ensure transparency and accountability, and efforts beyond legal requirements to make information available to the public. Figure 58: RYN Transparency and Accountability Transparency and Accountability Available Agency website:22 Yes Adopted budget available on website: Yes Notice of public meetings provided: Yes Agendas posted on website:23 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 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 district’s website, and educational programs focused on fire prevention and preparedness. 22 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 with easily accessible and accurate information about the district. Government Code Section 53087.8 lists what must be included in the website. 23 Government Code §54954.2. 91 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Land Use and Population Land Use The Placer County Board of Supervisors adopted the Horseshoe Bar/Penryn Community Plan in August 1994 and subsequently updated the plan in June 2005. There are approximately 3,571,053 square feet of built structures within the district currently. Placer County and the district have and will continue to experience growth, given the relative affordability of land and homes and proximity to major urban centers. There are two development projects currently proposed for construction within the district boundaries. These projects are expected to add approximately 271,000 square feet of residential space within the next five years. The total includes 240,000 square feet of affordable housing and 31,000 square feet in the Penryn Townhomes development. There is currently one commercial development proposed. Winery 8 will add an estimated 53,000 square feet of commercial space. At the end of five years, built square footage within Penryn Fire District will total about 3,895,053. Figure 59: RYN Community Plan Land Use Designations Land Use Designations Acres High Density Residential (4–10 du/ac) 12 Medium Density Residential (2–4 du/ac) 51 Low Density Residential (0.4–2.3 du/ac) 502 Rural Residential (2.3–4.6 ac. Min.) 7,524 Rural Estates (4.6–20 ac. Min.) 7,172 Industrial/Commercial/Parkway 230 Riparian Drainage 635 Open Space 494 du/ac = dwelling unit per acre 92 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Current Population The State of California Department of Finance (CDoF) publishes population information by year for each county based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau and state records.24 Unincorporated portions of Placer County account for approximately 29.6% of the population. The fire protection districts within the study area and the county fire department have consistently accounted for 14.8%. The Penryn Fire Protection District (RYN) encompasses 7.83 square miles of unincorporated Placer County.25 The 2020 population estimate for the district is 3,206.26 Projected Population CDoF maintains an annual county population estimate. In addition to the yearly historical estimates, the CDoF also publishes an annual population projection through 2060. While this projection is for the county, population growth for each city and fire protection district can be inferred as a percentage of overall county growth. Average annual countywide growth from 2010–2023 was 1.28%, and RYN consistently accounted for 0.8% of the county population. CDoF estimates the average annual growth rate from 2023 through 2060 to be 0.55%. These estimates and percentages show that the district population will be approximately 4,000 by 2060. The following figure shows historic and projected growth from 2010 through 2060 based on CDoF information. 24 Estimates-E1 | Department of Finance (ca.gov) 25 communityanalyst.arcgis.com/esriCA 26 communityanalyst.arcgis.com/esriCA 93 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 60: RYN Estimated Population (2010–2060) 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 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., $60,188).27 LAFCO is required to identify the location and characteristics of any DUCs in the Service Review and SOI update process.28 LAFCO identified no DUCs at the Census Block Group level that are located within or contiguous to the RYN SOI and meet the definition based on population and income. Financial Overview Placer Hills, Newcastle, and Penryn share all administrative functions under an administrative services contract. Placer Hills, Penryn, and Newcastle participate together in purchasing equipment and protective gear. The three agencies share the Placer Hills fleet mechanic and use the Placer Hills Fire Administrative building. The three agencies, Auburn, and Foresthill Fire Protection District, also developed a JOA to share like staff (Captains, Engineers, and Paramedics) under certain conditions. 27 Government Code §56033.5. 28 Government Codes §56425(e)(5) and §56430(2). 94 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Each district maintains its own five-member Board of Directors, its own employees, its own revenue streams (ad valorem tax structure special assessments, and other revenues) and develops its own budget and cost structures. Penryn Fire Protection District The Penryn Fire Protection District (RYN) operates through two funds, the General Fund, and the Mitigation Fund. The General Fund comprises of assets and liabilities used to finance the district’s operations. The Mitigation Fee Fund consists of specific fees which are used for debt service payments necessary for infrastructure needed for the expansion of services into newly developed areas. RYN operates as an independent special district but has an agreement with Placer Hills and Newcastle to provide an all-hazard response to communities covered under a Joint Operating Agreement with those agencies. Services provided by the district include structural and wildland fire response, limited hazmat, limited technical rescue, and EMS first responder service. RYN is governed by an elected five-mender Board of Directors and provides oversight and direction to the organization’s full-time and part-time professional staff. RYN operates on a fiscal year of July 1 through June 30. Information regarding the General Fund was reviewed to develop a financial trend analysis for five years. This review of the historical information of General Fund (GF) revenues revealed a minimal impact on revenues received by RYN during the COVID-19 pandemic. Revenues Several sources of income fund RYN. 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. Placer 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 forecast to increase at 4% annually. Measure A was approved by the voters on July 11, 2017, to assess a special fire tax for emergency medical response and fire protection services. The measure currently assesses a tax of $280.76 per residential parcel, $0.116 per square foot on commercial buildings, and $87.73 per parcel on vacant parcels within the district. The language in the legislation allows for an annual increase not to exceed 4% annually. 95 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Measure C was adopted on April 8, 1997, and assesses a special tax of $75 per single-family residential unit, $20 for each mobile home, $75 per parcel for each irrigated farm, and $0.05 per foot of commercial building space. This revenue source is forecast to increase by one-half of one percent annually. The district collects fees for fire prevention services for specific types of inspections and permits, receives reimbursements for strike team deployments, and receives donations and grants. The district also receives Mitigation Fees assessed on new development. Property tax revenues are based on assessed property tax values and are the single largest source of revenue to the district.29 This revenue source accounts for approximately 46% of General Fund Recurring Revenues annually. Other significant sources of revenue include Measure A assessments at 37%, and Measure C assessments at 10%. RYN has been successful in obtaining grants for various purposes. The district receives no direct funding from the State or Placer County. The following figure details those revenues. Figure 61: RYN Revenues, FY 2018–FY 202230 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Revenue FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Property Taxes 411,385 437,168 460,663 487,581 539,851 Measure A 355,405 382,894 394,933 416,388 431,594 Measure C 111,043 111,456 113,896 112,599 112,209 Fees 9,563 14,153 9,979 6,400 15,670 Strike Team Cost Rec. 72,916 108,903 2,603 376,712 59,053 Misc. Receipts 23,763 47,628 5,440 457 996 Recurring Revenues 984,075 1,102,202 987,514 1,400,137 1,159,373 Donation & Grants 8,027 5,929 7,976 4,839 — Interest Income 6,745 10,241 11,452 2,952 2,486 Total Revenues 998,847 1,118,372 1,006,942 1,407,928 1,161,859 29 Penryn Fire Protection District Revenue and Expense History, 2023 Budget and Projections Provided to AP Triton. 30 Ibid. 96 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Expenses RYN operates through one division. The organization provides fire protection, EMS first response, technical and specialized rescue, hazmat response, fire inspection/code enforcement, plan reviews, public education, and fire and arson investigative services. RYN staffs its units with two personnel, occasionally increasing to three persons should one of the five volunteer members elect to serve a shift. Salaries and benefits are approximately 70% of the district’s recurring costs. Salaries and benefit costs were not provided in sufficient detail to allow for a detailed analysis of those expenditures. An administrative services contract with Placer Hills Fire Protection District began in FY 2022 and is expected to continue. Other recurring expenses include services and supplies. Debt service payments are made from the Mitigation Fund, utilizing Development Fees, a one- time payment from the Bickford development, and interest income as sources. The following figure is the historical expenses of the Penryn Fire Protection District. Figure 62: RYN Historical Expenditures Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Expenditures FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Salaries & Benefits 753,360 764,061 750,430 809,700 675,786 Admin. Contract — — — — 147,008 Services & Supplies 171,783 172,056 163,040 205,602 177,106 Other — — (13,622) 11,171 — Total Expenditures: 925,143 936,117 899,848 1,026,473 999,900 The following summarizes the revenues and expenditures for RYN for FY 2018 through FY 2022. Figure 63: RYN Summarized Revenues and Expenditures Revenues & Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Expenditures FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Total Revenues 998,847 1,118,372 1,006,942 1,407,928 1,161,859 Total Expenditures 925,143 936,117 899,848 1,026,473 999,900 Surplus (Deficit) 73,704 182,255 107,094 381,455 161,959 97 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Financial Projections Revenues RYN provides fire and first responder EMS services. The district anticipates property tax revenues to continue to increase at 4% annually. Measure A revenues will continue to grow at a 4% annual rate, as permitted under the creating legislation. Measure C assessments will continue to grow but at a minimal rate of one-half of one percent annually. Other revenues are forecast to continue to grow at a moderate rate. 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 facilities, apparatus or significant equipment, or rapid and significant economic downturn. Agencies need to maintain a certain level of reserves to prepare for unforeseen events. Expenses Salaries and benefits are the most significant costs of the district, accounting for over 70% of the recurring expenditures. These costs are forecast to increase by approximately 3% annually. The administrative services contract is anticipated to grow at 4% annually. Other previously described recurring costs are forecast to escalate at 3% annually. The following figure is a forecast of RYN’s projected revenues and expenditures. Figure 64: RYN General Fund Summarized Projected General Fund Revenues & Expenditures Revenue & FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Expenditures Budget Revenue 1,246,310 1,286,196 1,329,617 1,374,755 1,421,678 1,470,459 Expenditures 1,203,174 1,243,256 1,282,207 1,322,392 1,363,852 1,406,628 Surplus (Deficit) 43,136 42,940 47,410 52,363 57,826 63,831 Capital Planning RYN is beginning to accumulate funds to provide for apparatus and equipment replacement over the next one or two decades.31 RYN has a developed a Capital Replacement Schedule and the balance in the Mitigation Fee Fund is approximately $830,000. Mitigation fees can only be used for infrastructure and capital expenses. Funding from operating revenue and mitigation fees will not be sufficient to replace the fire station. 31 Ian Gow, Fire Chief, Fire Chief’s Perspective comments. 98 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Demand for Services The Penryn Fire Protection District (RYN) is considered a rural fire district 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 September 30, 2022. This analysis focuses on incidents within the statutory and contractual areas where RYN responds. The following figure is the overview statistics for the Penryn Fire Protection District. Figure 65: RYN Performance Overview Avg. Annual Incidents per 90th Percentile Agency Incident Vol. 1,000 Population Total Time Penryn Fire Protection District (RYN) 343 102 08:59 Incident categories closely follow the National Fire Incident Reporting System’s code grouping, classifying incidents based on general hazards. Medical responses account for over 47% of RYN’s operations. This proportion is lower than found in many fire services; however, these incidents account for many RYN incidents. The following figure shows the total number of incidents between January 1, 2019, and September 30, 2022, including the percentage of overall incidents. Figure 66: RYN Total Incident Response by Type with Percentage Rescue-Medical 47% Good Intent 28% Fire 11% Service 6% False Alarm 4% Hazardous Condition 3% Special 1% Disaster 0% Overpressure 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 99 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Typically, an analysis of incidents by year can yield a trend or give an idea of the call volume in the next few years. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, call volumes nationally were affected, and trends are not easy to determine. RYN’s response data shows excessive variability and does not appear to have a defined tendency. One aspect of the response data was the volume of responses out of the service area. This could be due to the favorable location of the RYN station in relationship to calls received by other agencies. The aid given was calculated by filtering the geolocation against any incident outside the agency’s boundaries. Aid received relies on that data point provided by the agency. Aid received is also higher than expected in most systems, possibly due to the contractual relationship with Placer Hills Fire Protection District. The category “Good Intent” accounted for an abnormally high percentage of RYN calls for service. Good Intent is used when the situation found it did not require the unit to take action. Examples might be a smoke check that turned out to be smoke from a chimney, a report of an accident on the freeway that could not be located, or is canceled prior to arrival. It is unknown why RYN classifies a large number of calls this way. The following figure shows the annual incident volume by year. Aid given includes both Mutual Aid and Automatic Aid provided to neighboring agencies. 100 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 67: RYN Annual Incidents by Year 420 419 327 286 275 260 225 205 208 196 65 48 2019 2020 2021 2022* Aid Given Service Area Incidents Service Area Aid Received * 2022 was annualized by dividing the total incidents by 9 to determine an average monthly incident rate and then multiplying that by 12. RYN does see some seasonality in the call volume. There is a lower incident volume than expected from December through April and more than expected in the remaining months. The most significant variations are in July, with a 3.2% increase over normal, and January, with -2.7% variation. In addition, RYN, like many similar agencies, does see a substantial increase in incident volume during the day. RYN sees approximately 75% of its incidents daily between 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM. The following figure shows the general variation of the complete incident data set by the hour of the day. 101 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 68: RYN Incident Percentage by Hour 8% 7% s 6% t n e d 5% ic n I f 4% o t n 3% e c r e 2% P 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 Hour of the Day 102 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO This average daily swing is typical and likely due to the number of people awake and moving around. The day-to-day variation in this information does play a part. The following figure is the incident heat map by the hour and day of the week. Figure 69: RYN Day and Hour Incident Heat Map Hour Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Color Incidents 0–1 25–32 1–2 18–26 2–3 15–19 3–4 13–16 4–5 9–14 5–6 4–10 6–7 1–5 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 As indicated in the previous figure, some days do not follow the average model strictly. Due to the limited incident volume, a clear and consistent trend does not present itself; however, the incident volume remains similar daily, and the 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM pattern is evident. 103 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Emergency Response Performance The performance of the fire department response was also evaluated. Computer-aided dispatch (CAD) data is used to complete the analysis using the 90th percentile statistic to determine the performance times. The 90th percentile is typically used in the fire service and is considered the standard for measuring incident response performance. Every effort was made to try and get only those incidents requiring an emergency response. Only high- priority dispatches were considered for this study. Three unique time segments 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. RYN 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 September 30, 2022, RYN’s performance for 1,019 priority incidents within the fire response area was a total response time of 8 minutes, 59 seconds (8:59) or less, 90% of the time for all incident types. The following figure shows a comparison of the NFPA 1710 standard compared to the actual total response time for high-priority call types, with EMS calls separated. Figure 70: RYN Adopted Standard vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance NFPA Standard 1/2019–9/2023 Performance Fire/Other 6:20 or less, 90% of the time 10:23 or less, 90% of the time EMS 6:00 or less, 90% of the time 08:17 or less, 90% of the time The following figure shows the performance of the total response time for each major incident type for all high-priority incidents within the data set. 104 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 71: RYN High Priority Incidents’ 90th Percentile Total Response Times (January 2019–September 2022) 12:00 11:02 10:03 10:00 08:17 08:00 06:00 04:00 02:00 00:00 Fire Other Medical 90% Total Response Time Total Time Benchmark 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 dimension is the average number of incidents daily that a unit was deployed. Unit data was evaluated for all dates within the data set. The data for each cross-staffed unit is combined into the primary apparatus. The crew at RYN’s single station cross-staffed a few pieces of equipment. The following figure shows the general statistics for each frontline apparatus within the RYN system. 105 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 72: RYN Fire Unit Statistics Unit Hour Avg. Time Avg. Incidents Unit Utilization (UHU) per Incident Per Day Station 38 Units 1.6% 27 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 desired goal is for the primary unit at a station, typically the most flexible response unit (an engine or quint company), to be under 10% UHU. Maintaining 10% UHU should indicate the area has 90% availability from unscheduled events. Stations with multiple engines and quint 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 Penryn Fire Protection District organized by the various divisions. Figure 73: RYN Staffing Assignment Staffing Uniformed Administration Contract Non-Uniformed Administration Contract Fire Prevention Contract Operations Staff 6 Emergency Communications Placer County Sheriff’s Office Volunteers, Reserve, On Call 5 Total Personnel 11 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). 106 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 74: RYN Daily Staffing Station Daily Staffing Unit Staffing 38 2 Type 1 Engine, Type 3 Engine Total 2 With occasional intern staffing in addition Penryn Fire Station The following figures outline the basic features of the RYN fire station. The condition of the station is rated based on the criteria identified in the introduction to this section of the report. 107 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 75: RYN Fire Station Station Name/Number: Penryn Station 38 Address/Physical Location: 7206 Church St. Penryn CA, 95663 General Description: The station was built 73 years ago to support a volunteer system. It has been modified through the years to accommodate 24-hour staffing. Non- compliant to codes. The architectural study concluded retrofit to meet codes is cost prohibitive and the station should be demolished rather than updated. Structure Date of Original Construction 1950 General Condition Poor Seismic Protection No Auxiliary Power Yes ADA Compliant No Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 0 Back-Ins 2 Total Bays: 2 Total Square Footage 3,400 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 1 Beds Dorm Beds 4 Maximum Staffing Capability 4 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities Yes Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms 2 Showers 1 Bedrooms 1 Exercise/Workout Facilities No Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned Yes Training/Meeting Rooms Yes Washer/Dryer/Extractor Washer/Dryer Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System Yes 108 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Minimum Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Unit Staffing* Engine 38 2 CS Brush 38 2 CS Brush 38B 2 CS Utility 3800 1 CS Utility 38 1 CS Total Daily Staffing: 2 *CS = apparatus is cross-staffed Fire Station Discussion RYN’s only fire station is in the center of the unincorporated community of Penryn. Built in 1950, it is rated as “Poor” in condition. Figure 76: RYN Station Configuration and Condition Staffing General Station Apparatus Bays Station Age Capacity Condition Station 38 2 4 Poor 73 years Totals/Average: 2 4 73 years of age Generally, the RYN station is old 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 also requires much more access to electrical outlets than was expected in older buildings, including charging stations for battery operated equipment and electric vehicles. The building is non-compliant with modern building codes, including seismic protection and ADA. 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. 109 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Facility Replacement With the station over 73 years old, RYN needs to have a facility replacement plan in place. A study by Stafford, King & Wise Architects sometime prior to 2016 concluded that it would be cost-prohibitive to remodel the existing station, and it should either be demolished and rebuilt on-site, or a new station should be built on a new site. It was not apparent if a plan was in place for replacement or upkeep of the station. While all structures require routine maintenance, fire stations require even more maintenance due to the continuous occupancy by a minimum of two adults. Multiple departures and returns of heavy apparatus also affect these structures. 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 RYN to plan for ongoing service from the station more efficiently. Status of Shared Facilities RYN uses PHFPD’s vehicle maintenance shop and administration building through an administrative contract. Apparatus Apparatus was evaluated by RYN staff based on age, miles/hours, service, condition, and reliability. Fleet maintenance is provided under contract by the Placer Hills Fire District and has systems in place for emergency assistance after hours. The criteria are defined in the introduction section of this report. The following figures represent all apparatus and vehicles operated by RYN. 110 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 77: RYN Apparatus Unit Type Status Year Condition Features Engines & Aerial Apparatus Engine 38 Type 1 Frontline 2018 Good 1500 GPM/500 G Tank Brush 38 Type 3 Frontline 2008 Poor 500 GPM/500 G Tank Brush 38B Type 3 Out of service 1998 Poor 500 GPM/500 G Tank Medics/Rescues/Other Utility 38 Utility Reserve 2011 Fair Utility 3800 Utility Reserve 2013 Fair Ford Expedition Apparatus Discussion Fleet maintenance is under contract with Placer Hills Fire District (PHFPD), using a combination of in-house mechanics and outsourced vendors. The PHFPD mechanic is an Emergency Vehicle Technician (EVT) qualified/certified. Maintenance manuals are available, preventative maintenance checks are conducted regularly, maintenance records are kept for all apparatus and vehicles, and pump tests are performed annually in accordance with industry standards. The shop facility provides fleet maintenance to other agencies, including RYN. There is a plan to replace Brush 38B, a 1998 Type 3 engine that is rated as “Poor.” Brush 38 could then be placed in Reserve status. 111 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Dispatch & Communications Penryn is dispatched by the Placer County Sheriff Dispatch & Communications Center in Auburn. See Section IV for a detailed report on dispatch functions. Figure 78: RYN PSAP and Dispatch Center Item Description Central Square, running Tiburon Command Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Application CAD Telephone System Intrado Viper Repeated conventional VHF system with three Radio System high-site repeaters Fire/EMS Notification ComTech Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Mutual aid Tactical (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 Ability for PSAP to communicate CAD-to-CAD Phone call only (how do you transfer a call to another center): Emergency Medical Dispatch (Priority Criteria-based dispatch system in place: Dispatch) Trained Quality Assurance (QA) dispatchers complete QA audits. Audits are completed on Formal EMD quality assurance program in place: 15% of the calls. (10 calls per week/520 calls per year). Dispatchers receive a copy of the completed audits. Options for non-emergent calls not requiring EMS: None Automated Vehicle Location (AVL) used on fire No apparatus: AVL used on ambulances & EMS units: No Mobile Data Terminals (MDT) in all fire & EMS Tiburon Mobile Data on a Verizon cellular and vehicles: Netmotion Closest unit dispatched via AVL: No No. of 911 calls: 2021 – 49,881 No. of 10-digit incoming emergency calls: 2021 – 24,247 112 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Infrastructure Needs The Penryn Fire Station is over 70 years old and should be replaced, as a study has shown extensive refurbishment needed to meet codes is cost-prohibitive. It does not meet modern fire service requirements and lacks many features necessary to support 24/7 staffing. Governance Structure Options Governance options for Penryn Fire Protection District include reorganizing with one or more neighboring fire agencies. In addition, RYN has the option of contracting for service from or to another adjacent agency or forming a JPA, although no viable options were identified for either approach. Reorganization options include the following: • Reorganization Option #1: Reorganize RYN with PHF and NEW into one sub-regional independent district. • Reorganization Option #2: Reorganize RYN into the Placer County Fire Department. • Reorganization Option #3: Reorganize RYN with NEW and PHF into one sub-regional independent district, with a contract for service in certain areas. • Reorganization Option #4: Reorganize RYN, NEW, and SPL into one sub-regional independent district. All options would require a SOI update. SOI options are discussed below. It is essential that the preferred reorganization option have buyoff by all affected agencies. 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 I of this report, the following determinations are proposed for Penryn Fire Protection District. Growth and Population Projections 3-1: The Penryn Fire Protection District (RYN) had an estimated 2020 U.S. Census population of 3,206. 3-2: Based on California Department of Finance projections of 0.55% through 2060, the territory within RYN could reach 4,000 by 2060. 113 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence 3-3: LAFCO identified no DUCs at the Census Block Group level that are located within or contiguous to the RYN SOI and meet the definition based on population and income. 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 3-4: Based on unit hour utilization and ISO ratings, RYN is able to provide an adequate level of services with sufficient capacity within its coverage area. The area would benefit from improved response times closer to the NFPA 1710 response time standard; however, staffing constrains the potential for more rapid response. 3-5: Incident volume in RYN has been variable between 2019 and 2022, declining through 2021, but ultimately returning to previous levels in 2022. Aid received and aid is given have both declined over the time period, -83% and -27%, respectively. 3-6: The primary challenges for RYN are lack of funding to pay competitive salaries and retirement benefits, lack of funding to cover necessary capital expenses, and a need for dispatch center coordination. 3-7: In an effort to aid in employee recruitment and retention, RYN executed a contract with CalPERS in July 2022 to provide a retirement system for current and future employees. 3-8: RYN’s only fire station is rated as “Poor” in condition. The RYN station is aged and does not meet the requirements of modern firefighting. RYN should have a facility replacement plan. An earlier study concluded that it would be cost-prohibitive to remodel the existing station, and it should either be demolished and rebuilt on-site, or a new station should be built on a new site. It was not apparent if a plan was in place for replacement or upkeep of the station. 3-9: All districts would benefit from training to ensure consistent data collection within the district and between districts, as well as to enable ease of data extraction for use. Inconsistent and unavailable data posed a particular challenge in this service review. 114 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services 3-10: RYN benefits from stable revenue streams consisting of property taxes and two special taxes/benefit assessments, making the district financially stable. RYN has operated with a surplus over the last five fiscal years. 3-11: There continue to be financial constraints limiting significant capital outlays; however, RYN is beginning to accumulate funds to provide for apparatus and equipment replacement over the next one or two decades. RYN is projected to continue to operate at an increasing surplus each year through fiscal year 2028. Status and Opportunities for Shared Services 3-13: RYN practices resource sharing with PHF and NEW, including shared command staff (4 positions), shared fire inspection, code enforcement, and plan review services, a shared vehicle maintenance program, and joint purchasing of select equipment and protective gear. RYN, NEW, PHF, ABR, and FHF have also developed a Joint Operating Agreement and share like staff (Captains, Engineers, and Paramedics). 3-14: There is potential for further facility, personnel, and equipment sharing through existing agreements or further agreements. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies 3-15: RYN maintains a website where it makes several documents available and easily accessible to the public. RYN is one of the few agencies that has conducted strategic planning. It is recommended that RYN engage in master planning and compilation of standards of cover and related assessments. 3-16: Over the last few years, most cost-efficiency efforts have resulted from sharing resources with PHF and NEW consisting of 1) contracting with PHF for command and administrative staff, 2) shared fire inspection, code enforcement, and plan review services, and 3) shared apparatus maintenance program. 3-17: The Strategic Plan identified the top three opportunities to increase value and/or efficiency for the public, consisting of 1) upgrade to Advanced Life Support (Paramedic) and increase Engine staffing to 3/0, 2) implement a salary and benefit structure that is within 5% of surrounding Placer County fire protection agencies, and 3) consolidate services with adjacent agencies. 115 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Sphere of Influence Update Existing SOI Based on LAFCO records, it appears that RYN does not have an adopted SOI. During the prior MSR process in 2017, it was recommended that a single SOI for fire providers in Western Placer be adopted to indicate the need for a single fire provider serving the area; however, while the Commission adopted the MSR, it appears that the SOI was never formally approved. SOI Options The SOI options for RYN consist of the following: • SOI Option #1: Adopt a single Sphere of Influence for the independent special districts (RYN, NEW, and PHF) indicating the anticipation of consolidation of the districts as in Reorganization Option #1. This SOI option is also applicable if the newly reorganized district chooses to contract for services from another provider, as outlined in Option #3. • SOI Option #2: Establish a Zero Sphere of Influence for RYN, in anticipation of dissolution and a transition of services to PCF (Option #2) or annexation of the areas within the district into another fire district (Option #1 or Option #4). Recommended SOI Each of the governance and sphere of influence (SOI) options offers potential benefits to fire services in the affected area. Consolidating the districts into a single independent district would: 1) reduce or eliminate the obvious duplications of effort and redundancies in the current multi-district model, 2) strengthen the fire service system by implementing an operational model that offers additional paramedics and a single administrative structure, and 3) capture approximately $150,000 annually in additional revenue. Reorganizing the districts into PCF would: 1) leverage the CAL FIRE service model, 2) place governance under the Board of Supervisors, and 3) establish a consistent service provider across the unincorporated areas of western Placer County, with Advanced Life Support (ALS) as a standard benchmark. However, a primary concern with Option #2 (the PCF model) is the static financing levels and the higher cost of CAL FIRE services. Station closures would be necessary to ensure adequate funding in each of the zones associated with the former districts and their respective financial structures. 116 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Reorganization Option #3, which combines the strengths of both models, is the most favorable and is the recommended option to guide the sphere of influence update. To prepare for the anticipated consolidation of the special districts it is recommended that LAFCO adopt a single SOI encompassing the boundaries of all the districts, as outlined in SOI Option #1. A successful reorganization will depend on the completion of a feasibility study and the support of the districts involved. Proposed SOI Determinations LAFCO is required to prepare a written statement of determination with respect to the following areas when updating a special district’s Sphere of Influence, as specified by Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. The following determinations are proposed for the Penryn Fire Protection District. The nature, location, extent, functions, and classes of services provided: 3-18: RYN provides fire protection, community risk reduction, and Basic Life Support (BLS) emergency medical services to the unincorporated community of Penryn. Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands: 3-19: The land uses within RYN primarily consist of rural residential areas, as well as commercial and residential properties in the Town of Loomis. Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area: 3-20: Due to the ongoing increase in service call volume and projected future demand, there is both a current and anticipated continued need for fire protection services in the RYN area. 3-21: Several special hazards and critical infrastructure components exist within RYN’s boundaries, including a large section of Interstate 80, Union Pacific rail lines (east and west-bound), and an underground petroleum pipeline, which further increase service demand. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide: 3-22: Based on unit hour utilization and ISO ratings, RYN currently provides an adequate level of service within its coverage area. While response times would benefit from closer alignment with the NFPA 1710 standard, staffing constraints limit the ability to achieve faster response times. 117 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 3-23: Incident volume within RYN fluctuated between 2019 and 2022, with a decline through 2021 but a return to previous levels in 2022. Both aid received and aid given have decreased during this time—by 83% and 27%, respectively. 3-24: RYN’s primary challenges include insufficient funding for competitive salaries and retirement benefits, lack of capital funding for necessary expenses, and the need for improved dispatch center coordination. 3-25: To support employee recruitment and retention, RYN executed a contract with CalPERS in July 2022, establishing a retirement system for current and future employees. 3-26: The district's only fire station is rated in “Poor” condition. The aging facility does not meet the needs of modern firefighting, and previous studies have concluded that remodeling would be cost-prohibitive. A new station should be built either on the existing site or at a new location. It is unclear whether a facility replacement plan is currently in place. Existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area: 3-27: The population within RYN’s boundaries is a community of interest for the district. 3-28: Areas that receive services through automatic and mutual aid agreements are also considered communities of interest. Present and probable need for public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere of influence: 3-29: LAFCO has not identified any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities (DUCs) within or contiguous to the RYN SOI based on population and income data at the Census Block Group level. 118 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 4 | Placer Hills Fire Protection District Profile PHF Overview Placer Hills Fire Protection District (PHF) is an independent fire district that provides fire protection, community risk reduction, and Advanced Life Support (ALS) emergency medical treatment to a population of 10,615 in 33.77 square miles. PHF operates three fire stations (two staffed and one unstaffed) and one administrative office building, with 22 full- time and four part-time employees, for a total of 27 career personnel. The full-time roster includes 6 limited-term (9-month seasonal) employees. Background Placer Hills Fire Protection District was established in 1988 when the former Meadow Vista Fire Protection District annexed areas served by Placer County Fire. The district serves the communities of Applegate, Clipper Gap, Eden Valley, Meadow Vista, and Weimar. PHF does not have a Master Plan, Standards of Cover, nor a Strategic Plan in place. A Mission Statement has been adopted and the Vision for the organization has been established and communicated. PHF received a Class 3/3Y ISO Rating in its most recent rating from the Insurance Services Office (ISO) in June 2020. PHF has made efforts to become more efficient by providing command and administrative services to other local fire agencies through a contract mechanism. There is an application for reorganization with Newcastle Fire District on file with LAFCO. Additional revenue measures have been exercised, including mitigation fees in accordance with Placer County Ordinance 4225-B, County Code Chapter 7.50 beginning in 1990; a Benefit Assessment in 1991; and a second Benefit Assessment in June 2004. A third Benefit Assessment (Measure A) was passed in 2019. Together, the three benefit assessments are expected to generate over $1.7M in revenue in FY 22/23. The Fire Chief has indicated there is a plan to rebuild Station 84, as the current building is 50+ years old and in need of major repairs. However, due to increased difficulty to fully fund depreciation and the increase in cost of labor and materials, the project is currently financially impossible without additional funding sources. Therefore, the Board and staff plan to budget and prioritize projects to maintain the facilities in order to continue to house personnel. 119 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO According to the Fire Chief, there is potential for facility, personnel, and equipment sharing as PHF currently provides administrative and command functions to both NEW and RYN. PHF, NEW, RYN, FHF, and ABR have also developed a Joint Operating Agreement and share like staff (Captains, Engineers, Paramedics). PHF, RYN, and NEW also share joint purchasing of select equipment and protective gear. All three agencies use the PHF fleet mechanic and maintenance facility and the administration building. The Fire Chief's top three critical issues: • Recruitment/Retention—Funding lacking to pay competitive salaries. • Lack of funding for capital expenses. • Dispatch—the dispatch centers need the tools to work together seamlessly. The Fire Chief's top three opportunities to increase value and/or efficiency for the public: • Reorganization of Newcastle Fire Protection District (NEW) with Placer Hills Fire Protection District (PHF) (application pending before LAFCO). • Potential reorganization with Penryn Fire District and Foresthill Fire District. • County assistance with funding, including capital projects and dispatch upgrades. Boundaries and Sphere of Influence The Placer Hills Fire District is surrounded on three sides by Placer County Fire (CSA 28 Zone 137). The western boundary of the district is the Nevada County line, with a small section of the western boundary shared with North Auburn/Ophir Fire (CSA 28 Zone 193). Placer County LAFCO has no record of establishing a Placer Hills Fire Protection District Sphere of Influence. 120 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 79: PHF Service Area 121 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Type & Extent of Services Services Provided PHF provides a full range of services for its residents, including ALS (Paramedic) first- responder service. The following figure represents each of the services and the level performed. Figure 80: PHF 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 No AMR Specialized/Technical Rescue Yes HazMat Response Yes County Team Fire Inspection/Code Enforcement Yes Fire code inspections on new construction Plan Reviews Yes Fire code inspections on new construction Public Education/Prevention Yes Fire & Arson Investigation Yes Service Area The Placer Hills Fire Protection District (PHF) was established in 1988 with the annexation of Meadow Vista Fire Protection District, Company No. 31, and the Ponderosa Fire Brigade. In 1990, the Fire Board hired a part-time Fire Marshal to establish a fire prevention program throughout the district. Placer Hills Fire Protection District started providing non-transporting Advanced Life Support Services in 1997. A full-time Fire Chief was hired in June of 1999.PHF serves a 33.77 square mile area with an estimated 10,615 permanent residents through two ALS (Advanced Life Support) fire stations strategically located in the community. PHF protects numerous target hazards including 14 miles of Interstate 80, over 30 miles of Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) railway, over 15 miles of the Bear River, PG&E hydroelectric dam at Combie Lake, treated and untreated water canals, ditches and pipelines servicing agricultural and numerous water districts in the Placer, Yuba, Sutter, and Yolo Counties, as well as the Kinder Morgan Liquid Petroleum Pipeline. 122 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Collaboration • Western Placer County Fire Chiefs Association Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid Plan (May 2023). • Agreements with Newcastle Fire Protection District and Penryn Fire Protection District for shared Command staff and Administrative staff. • State Responsibility Area (SRA)—The entirety of the district is designated SRA, making CAL FIRE statutorily responsible for suppressing vegetation fires and fires that threaten vegetation. • Hazardous Materials response via a Placer County Fire Type 2 team. • Technical Rescue, Fire Inspection/Code Enforcement, and Plan Review provided by contract to Newcastle and Penryn. • Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) Fire and Rescue—The district is a partner in the State Master Mutual Aid Agreement and makes equipment and personnel available for response statewide. Contracts to Provide Services to Other Agencies • PHF provides administrative and command functions, along with fleet maintenance, Technical Rescue, Fire Inspection/Code Enforcement, and Plan Review to Newcastle and Penryn Fire Districts. Contracts for Services from Other Agencies None. Governance & Administration Placer Hills Fire Protection District is an independent fire district with an elected five- member Board of Directors. The Fire Chief reports to the Board. 123 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 81: PHF Organizational Chart Board of Directors Fire Chief Fire Marshal District Manager Administrative Assistant Battalion Chief Battalion Chief Battalion Chief A-shift B-shift C-shift Captain Captain Captain Station 84, 86 Station 84, 86 Station 84, 86 Engineer Engineer Engineer Station 84, 86 Station 84, 86 Station 84, 86 Seasonal or Seasonal or Seasonal or Intern Firefighter Intern Firefighter Intern Firefighter 124 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Accountability for Community Services—Transparency The following figure identifies the PHF’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 82: PHF Transparency and Accountability Transparency and Accountability Available Agency website:32 Yes Adopted budget available on website: Yes Notice of public meetings provided: Yes Agendas posted on website:33 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 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 district documents on the district’s website, and educational programs focused on fire prevention and preparedness. 32 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. 33 Government Code §54954.2. 125 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Land Use and Population Current Population The State of California Department of Finance (CDoF) publishes population information by year for each county based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau and state records.34 Unincorporated portions of Placer County account for approximately 29.6% of the population. The fire protection districts within the study area and the County fire department have consistently accounted for 14.8%. The Placer Hills Fire Protection District (PHF) encompasses 33.77 square miles of unincorporated Placer County.35 The 2020 population estimate for the district is estimated at 10,615.36 Projected Population The CDoF also maintains an annual county population estimate. In addition to the yearly historical estimates, the CDoF also publishes an annual population projection through 2060. While this projection is for the county, each city and fire protection district’s population growth can be inferred as a percentage of overall county growth. Average annual countywide growth from 2010 – 2023 was 1.28%, and PHF consistently accounted for 2.6% of the county population. CDoF estimated the average annual growth rate from 2023 through 2060 to be 0.55%. These estimates and percentages show that the district population will be approximately 13,200 by 2060. The following figure shows historic and projected growth from 2010 through 2060 based on CDoF information. 34 Estimates-E1 | Department of Finance (ca.gov). 35 communityanalyst.arcgis.com/esriCA. 36 communityanalyst.arcgis.com/esriCA. 126 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 83: Placer Hills FPD Estimated Population (2010–2060) 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 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., $60,188).37 LAFCO is required to identify the location and characteristics of any DUCs in the Service Review and Sphere of Influence (SOI) update process.38 No DUCs identified by LAFCO at the Census Block Group level are located within or contiguous to the agency’s SOI and meet the definition based on population and income. 37 Government Code §56033.5. 38 Government Codes §56425(e)(5) and §56430(2). 127 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Financial Overview Placer Hills Fire District shares administrative functions with Newcastle and Penryn fire districts by contract. The three agencies, as well as FHF and ABR also developed a Joint Operations Agreement to share like staff (Captains, Engineers, and Paramedics). PHF, RYN, and NEW participate together in the purchasing of select equipment and protective gear. The three agencies share the PHF fleet mechanic and use the PHF administrative building. Each of the three districts maintains its own five-member Board of Directors, its own revenue streams including ad valorem tax structure, special assessments, and other revenues, and each develops its own budget and cost structures. Placer Hills Fire Protection District PHF operates through two funds, the General Fund to manage the district’s operations, and a Mitigation Fee Fund to accumulate certain fees and expend funds necessary for infrastructure for the expansion of services into newly developed areas. PHF operates as an independent special district. Services provided by the district include structural and wildland fire response, and advanced life support (ALS) first responder service. PHF is governed by an elected five-member Board of Directors that provides oversight and direction to the full-time and part-time professional staff of the organization. PHF operates on a July through June fiscal year. A significant amount of information regarding the General Fund (GF) was reviewed to develop financial trend analysis for the five-year period. This review of the historical information of GF revenues revealed a minimal impact on revenues received by the PHF during the COVID-19 pandemic. Revenues PHF is funded by several sources of income. Property taxes are allocated to PHF under the constraints imposed by Proposition 13, limiting total property tax assessments to 1% of the property’s value. The PHF share of the property tax allocation is .0690%. Placer 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. 128 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Measure A was approved by the voters on May 7, 2019, to assess a special fire tax for emergency medical response and fire protection services. The measure assessed a $185 per parcel in its initial year but has grown through the allowed cost-of-living increases to approximately $994,000 being collected in FY 2022. The language in the legislation allows for an annual increase based on the CPI-West Region amount, not to exceed 3% annually. Measure F was approved by voters in 2004; the current assessment is $73.50 per residential unit. Measure F includes a COLA indexed to the CPI. A Fire Suppression Benefit Assessment was approved by voters in 1992; the current rate is $89.70 and this assessment also has a CPI indexed COLA. The district collects fees for administrative services and fire prevention fees for inspections and permits, and receives reimbursements for strike team deployments and other revenues. Included in revenues is funding from the issuance of debt and capital lease proceeds. Property tax revenues are based on assessed property tax values and are the single largest source of revenue to the district.39 This revenue source accounts for approximately 50% of General Fund Recurring Revenues annually. Other significant sources of revenue include special assessments at 35% and administrative revenues at 5%. PHF has been successful in obtaining grants for various purposes. As is the case with all independent fire districts, the district receives no direct funding from the State or Placer County. The following figure indicates a detail of those revenues. 39 Placer Hills Fire Protection District Adopted Budgets, FY 2018–FY 2023. 129 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 84: PHF Revenues, FY 2018–FY 202240 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Revenue FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Property Taxes 1,445,107 1,522,042 1,591,199 1,652,591 1,756,428 Measure A — — 947,015 968,742 994,482 Fees 256,041 266,160 277,213 285,909 299,760 Strike Team Cost Rec. 195,161 293,084 98,983 302,988 491,252 Administrative Fees — 208,206 216,990 191,362 301,714 Misc. Receipts 238,683 164,478 312,460 81,705 45,760 Recurring Revenues 2,134,992 2,453,970 3,443,860 3,483,297 3,889,396 Loan Proceeds — — 1,100,158 — — Other Transfers In — — — — — Total Revenues 2,134,992 2,453,970 4,544,018 3,483,297 3,889,396 Expenses PHF operates through one division. The organization provides fire protection, EMS first response, technical and specialized rescue, hazmat response, fire inspection/code enforcement, plan reviews, public education, and fire and arson investigative services. Placer Hills’ current minimum staffing is two persons per unit which is increased to three persons per unit using seasonal hire employees for nine months each year. Salaries and benefits are approximately 80% of the recurring costs of the district. PHF has transitioned from the use of “apprentice” firefighters to limited-term, or seasonal, firefighters. Overtime use appears to be budgeted at approximately 13% of additional hours worked on an annual basis. Base salaries for line positions have increased from $607,000 in FY 2018 to $1,250,000 in FY 2022, with a significant increase occurring in FY 2020 and another increase occurring the following year. A significant portion of the benefits program is the CalPERS pension. The base retirement costs have increased from $161,000 in FY 2018 to over $300,000 in FY 2022. Of this, $290,000 (over one-third) is payment of the unfunded actuarial liability of the agency. Other recurring expenses include professional fees, personal protective equipment, facilities costs, apparatus and equipment maintenance, fuel, insurance, utility training costs, and other expenses. Non-recurring expenses include capital outlay, debt service, transfers to reserves, and expenditure of grant funds. 40 Placer Hills Fire Protection District Adopted Budgets, FY 2021/FY 2022; FY 2022–FY 2023. 130 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 85: PHF Historical Expenditures Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Expenditures FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Administration 212,735 258,618 302,638 250,523 296,051 Full-Time 340,543 350,406 762,084 1,116,206 1,146,288 Apprentices 234,540 286,769 127,198 — — Limited Term Firefighters — — 70,462 104,667 101,628 Part-Time 31,786 26,945 8,625 3,516 1,672 Overtime 212,897 261,017 200,389 224,563 352,046 Strike Team 88,459 108,872 36,169 83,471 214,755 Other 25,935 39,352 47,410 33,393 27,128 Total Salaries 1,146,895 1,331,979 1,554,975 1,816,339 2,139,568 Payroll Taxes 17,969 20,455 25,144 29,325 37,860 Disability Payments 13,700 2,204 2,438 7,458 26,033 Unemployment Insurance — — — 2,845 1,796 Health/Dental/Life Benefits 140,108 145,219 212,370 223,784 239,401 457 Deferred Comp. 17,440 13,404 52,469 76,631 88,455 CalPERS Retirement 160,923 178,217 178,519 223,186 175,544 CalPERS UAL Payment — — — — 21,928 Total Benefits 350,140 359,499 470,940 563,230 591,016 Total Salaries & Benefits 1,497,035 1,691,477 2,025,915 2,379,569 2,730,584 Other Recurring Expenses 353,364 451,399 571,081 602,886 599,728 Total Recurring Expenses 1,850,399 2,142,876 2,596,996 2,982,455 3,330,312 Non-Recurring Expenditures 105,518 103,352 1,828,230 314,376 397,577 Total Expenditures: 1,955,917 2,246,228 4,425,226 3,296,831 3,727,889 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 PHF for FY 2018 through FY 2022. 131 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 86: PHF Summarized Revenues and Expenditures Revenues & Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Expenditures FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Total revenues 2,134,992 2,453,970 4,544,018 3,483,297 3,889,396 Total expenditures 1,955,917 2,246,228 4,425,226 3,296,831 3,727,889 Surplus (Deficit) 179,075 207,742 118,792 186,466 161,507 Financial Projections Revenues PHF provides fire and EMS services. The district anticipates property tax revenues to continue to increase. While housing inventory will continue to be low, prices will continue to rise, increasing assessed valuations and property taxes. Measure A revenues will continue to grow at a 3% annual rate, as permitted under the creating legislation. 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 over 80% of the recurring expenditures. These costs are forecast to increase by approximately 4% annually. PHF participates in the CalPERS pension system and had incurred a significant unfunded actuarial liability (UAL) balance on its pension obligations. This unfunded liability was significantly reduced through the issuance of a Pension Fund Obligation Bond which virtually eliminated the unfunded obligation to CalPERS and provided the district with a fixed annual payment amount. Other previously described recurring costs are forecast to escalate at 3% annually. The following figure is a forecast of PHF’s projected revenues and expenditures. Figure 87: PHF 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 4,185,854 3,988,460 4,189,271 4,402,311 4,628,416 4,868,487 Expenditures 4,307,028 3,966,460 4,114,482 4,268,626 4,429,156 4,596,344 Surplus (Deficit) (121,174) 22,000 74,789 133,685 199,260 272,143 Capital Planning PHF anticipates vehicle, heavy apparatus, and equipment replacement on a scheduled basis. These expenditures and minor station improvements are included in the financial plan of the district. The replacement of the Meadow Vista station cannot be funded with the current revenue streams of the district. 132 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Placer Hills Fire District Board has adopted a capital improvement plan (CIP) 2023, awaiting approval by Placer County Board of Supervisors. Anticipate it being brought before the BOS in March 2024. Demand for Services The Placer Hills Fire Protection District (PHF) is a suburban response agency 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 September 30, 2022. This analysis focuses on incidents within the statutory and contractual areas where PHF responds. The following figure is the overview for the Placer Hills Fire Protection District. Figure 88: PHF Performance Overview Avg. Annual Incidents per 90th Percentile Agency Incident Vol. 1,000 Population Total Time Placer Hills Fire Protection District 1,036 103 12:12 Incident categories closely follow the National Fire Incident Reporting System’s code grouping, classifying incidents based on general hazards. Medical responses account for over 53% of PHF’s operations and this proportion is similar to many fire departments that provide emergency medical services. The following figure shows the total number of incidents between January 1, 2019, and September 2022, including the percentage of overall incidents. 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 where response was cancelled prior to arrival. 133 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 89: PHF’s Total Incident Response by Type with Percentage Rescue-Medical 53% Good Intent 22% Service 10% Fire 7% Hazardous Condition 4% False Alarm 4% Overpressure 0% Special 0% Disaster 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Typically, an analysis of incidents by year can yield a trend or give an idea of the call volume in the next few years. However, 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 PHF’s case, they have rebounded to a growth rate more consistent with pre-pandemic call volume levels. By annualizing 2022, they are seeing an upward trend in incident volume. The aid given was calculated by filtering the geolocation against any incident outside the agency’s boundaries. Aid received relies on that data point provided by the agency. The following figure shows the annual incident volume by year. Aid given includes both Mutual Aid and Automatic Aid provided to neighboring agencies. 134 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 90: PHF’s Annual Incidents by Year 1,179 1,018 1,031 914 400 251 142 121 29 33 34 32 2019 2020 2021 2022* Aid Given Service Area Incidents Service Area Aid Received * 2022 was annualized by dividing the total incidents by 9 and multiplying that by 12. Additional temporal studies show that the monthly call volume variation is significant, with some increased volume from September through December and a reduction from February through April. In addition, PHF, like many similar agencies, does see a substantial increase in incident volume during the day. In fact, PHF sees 74% of its incidents daily between 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM. The following figure shows the general variation of the complete incident data set by the hour of the day. 135 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 91: PHF Incident Percentage by Hour 8% 7% s 6% t n e d 5% ic n I f 4% o t n 3% e c r e 2% P 1% 0% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223 Hour of the Day 136 Fire Service Review Placer 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 and day of the week. Figure 92: PHF Day and Hour Incident Heat Map Hour Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Color Incidents 0–1 48–57 1–2 38–49 2–3 34–39 3–4 28–35 4–5 21–29 5–6 12–22 6–7 8–13 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 Incident volume remains consistent throughout the week. There is a slight shift towards later incidents on the weekends. However, a specific trend is not apparent with so few incidents and a narrow difference between busy and not. 137 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Emergency Response Performance The performance of the fire department response was also evaluated. The performance times use computer-aided dispatch data (CAD) to complete the analysis 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. Every effort was made to try and get only those incidents requiring an emergent response. Only high-priority dispatches were considered for this study. Three unique time segments 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. PHF 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 September 30, 2022, PHF’s performance for 3,269 priority incidents of all types within the fire response area was a total response time of 12 minutes, 11 seconds (12:11) 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 high-priority call types. Figure 93: PHF’s Adopted Standard vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance NFPA Standard 1/2019–9/2023 Performance Fire/Other 6:20 or less, 90% of the time 13:08 or less, 90% of the time EMS 6:00 or less, 90% of the time 11:45 or less, 90% of the time The following figure shows the performance of the total response time for each major incident type for all high-priority incidents within the data set. 138 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 94: PHF High Priority Incidents 90th Percentile Total Response Times, (January 2019–September 2022) 14:00 13:06 13:04 11:45 12:00 10:00 08:00 06:00 04:00 02:00 00:00 Fire Other Medical 90% Total Response Time Total Time Benchmark 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 third dimension is the average number of incidents a unit was deployed daily. Unit data was evaluated for all dates within the data set. The data for each cross-staffed unit is combined into the primary apparatus. PHF’s Stations 84 and 86 are staffed with one crew but multiple units; however, all units were included in the analysis. The following figure shows the general statistics for each frontline apparatus within the PHF system. 139 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 95: PHF Fire Unit Statistics Unit Hour Avg. Time Avg. Incidents Unit Utilization (UHU) per Incident Per Day Station 84 Units 3.6% 29 Minutes 1.8 Station 86 Units 3.7% 33 Minutes 1.7 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 the area has 90% availability from unscheduled events. Stations with multiple engines and quint 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%. 140 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Staffing The following figure shows the total number of personnel for PHF organized by the various divisions. Figure 96: PHF Staffing Assignment Staffing Uniformed Administration 1 Non-Uniformed Administration 2 Fire Prevention 1 Operations Staff 22* includes 6 Limited Term seasonals Emergency Communications Placer County Sheriff’s Office Volunteers, Reserve, On Call 0 Total Personnel 27 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 97: PHF Daily Staffing Station Daily Staffing Unit Staffing 84 2/3* Type 1 Engine, Type 3 Engine (CS) 85 0 Station is not staffed—used as shop facility 86 2/3* Type 1 Engine, Type 3 Engine (CS) Total 4/6* *Seasonal staffing CS = Cross staffed Placer Hills Fire Stations The following figures outline the basic features of each of the PHF fire stations. The condition of the stations is rated based on the criteria identified in the introduction to this section of the report. 141 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 98: PHF Fire Stations Station Name/Number: Placer Hills Station 84 Meadow Vista Address/Physical Location: 16999 Placer Hills Rd. Meadow Vista, CA 95722 General Description: Main building is 69 years old and rated at “Poor” in condition. Two additional structures have been added to house apparatus. Station does not meet the needs of an essential services facility. PHF has determined that this station should be replaced. Structure Original Building 1954 – Engine Bay 1972 – Metal Date of Original Construction Bay 2018 General Condition Poor Seismic Protection No Auxiliary Power Yes ADA Compliant No Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 0 Back-Ins 4 Total Bays: 4 Main Building- 2380/Old App Bay- 1876/New App Total Square Footage Bay- 760 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 2 Beds 1 Dorm Beds 2 Maximum Staffing Capability 3 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities Yes 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 Washer/Dryer Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System No 142 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Minimum Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Unit Staffing* Engine 84 2 All apparatus cross staffed by on-duty crew Rescue 84 2 (CS) OES4607 (type 6) 3 (CS) Total Daily Staffing: 3 *If an apparatus cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 143 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Station Name/Number: Placer Hills Station 85 Applegate (Shop) Address/Physical Location: 18016 Applegate Rd., Applegate, CA 95703 General Description: Station not currently staffed. Used as vehicle maintenance shop. Structure Date of Original Construction 1984 General Condition Fair Seismic Protection No Auxiliary Power Yes ADA Compliant No Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 2 Back-Ins 1 Total Bays: 3 Total Square Footage 2000 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 1 Beds 0 Dorm Beds 2 Maximum Staffing Capability 2 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities Yes Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms N Showers N Bedrooms N Exercise/Workout Facilities No Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned Yes Training/Meeting Rooms No Washer/Dryer/Extractor Extractor only Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal Yes Security System Yes Apparatus Exhaust System Yes Apparatus/Vehicles Minimum Unit Staffing* Comments Shop Truck (U85) 0 Not staffed Reserve Engine (E85) 0 Not staffed Total Daily Staffing: 0 *If an apparatus cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 144 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Station Name/Number: Placer Hills Station 86 Weimar Address/Physical Location: 100 W. Weimar Cross Roads, Colfax CA 95713 General Description: Facility meets most of the needs of a modern fire station. Structure Date of Original Construction Built 1990 – Remodeled 2008 General Condition Good Seismic Protection No Auxiliary Power Yes ADA Compliant No Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 0 Back-Ins 4 Total Bays: 4 Total Square Footage 4200 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 Yes Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms N Showers N Bedrooms N Exercise/Workout Facilities Yes Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned Yes Training/Meeting Rooms No Washer/Dryer/Extractor Washer/Dryer Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System Yes 145 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Apparatus/Vehicles Minimum Unit Staffing* Comments Engine 86 2 CS Brush 86 2 CS Water Tender 86 1 CS Breathing Support 86 1 CS Utility 84 1 CS Total Daily Staffing: 3 *If an apparatus cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 146 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Fire Stations Discussion Only one of the PHF fire stations was considered in "Good" condition. The two remaining fire stations were rated as "Fair" (Station 85) and Station 84 was rated "Poor" in condition. Fire station ages range from 33 to 69 years, with an average of just over 47 years. The following figure summarizes PHF 's fire stations and their features. Figure 99: Station Configuration and Condition Staffing General Station Apparatus Bays Station Age Capacity Condition Station 84 4 3 Poor 69 years Station 85 (Shop) 3 2 Fair 39 years Station 86 4 4 Good 33 years Totals/Average: 11 9 47 years average Generally, PHF'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 also requires much more access to electrical outlets than was expected in older buildings, including charging stations for battery-operated equipment and electric vehicles. The older PHF 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 continuous occupancy by a number of adults. Multiple departures and returns of heavy apparatus also affect these structures. Facility Replacement The district has identified the need to replace Station 84 in Meadow Vista, however a source of funding has not been identified. 147 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO It was not apparent if an additional plan was in place for the other older stations. 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 City to plan for ongoing service from each station more efficiently. Status of Shared Facilities PHF shares its administration building and its shop facility with Newcastle and Penryn Fire Districts by means of the administrative contract. Apparatus Apparatus was evaluated by PHF staff based on age, miles/hours, service, condition, and reliability. Fleet maintenance is provided by part-time mechanic and has systems in place for emergency assistance after hours. The criteria is defined in the introduction section of this report. The following figures represent all apparatus and vehicles operated by PHF. Figure 100: PHF Apparatus Unit Type Status Year Condition Features Engines & Aerial Apparatus Engine 84 Type 1 Frontline 2019 Excellent 1500 GPM/600 G Tank Engine 86 Type 1 Frontline 2016 Good 1500 GPM/600 G Tank Brush 86 Type 3 Frontline 2015 Good 750 GPM/500 G Tank Reserve Engine Type 1 Reserve 2007 Poor 1250 GPM/830 G Tank OES 4607 Type 6 Frontline 2020 Excellent 500 GPM/250 G Tank Medics/Rescues/Other Rescue 84 Rescue Frontline 2023 Excellent Light Rescue Breathing Breathing air BSU 86 Frontline 2007 Good Support compressor WT 86 Water Tender Frontline 2004 Fair 750 GPM/3000 G Tank U 85 Shop Truck Reserve 2008 Poor Utility/Shop Truck Rescue 84R Rescue Reserve 2004 Poor Light Rescue 148 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 101: Supervisor & Command Vehicles Unit Assigned To Manufacturer Year Condition C8400 Fire Chief Chevrolet 1500 2020 Excellent B8410 Battalion Chief Chevrolet 2500 2018 Excellent B8412 Battalion Chief Chevrolet 1500 2020 Excellent B8413 Battalion Chief Chevrolet 1500 2020 Excellent B8420 Fire Marshal Chevrolet Tahoe 2017 Excellent Apparatus Discussion Fleet maintenance is provided by the district, using a combination of a part-time in-house mechanic and outsourced vendors. The PHF mechanic is Emergency Vehicle Technician (EVT) qualified/certified. Maintenance manuals are available, preventative maintenance checks are conducted regularly, maintenance records are kept for all apparatus and vehicles, and pump tests are performed annually in accordance with industry best practices. The shop facility has the capacity and provides fleet maintenance services to other agencies, including the Penryn and Newcastle Fire Districts. 149 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Dispatch & Communications Placer Hills is dispatched by the Placer County Sheriff Dispatch & Communications Center in Auburn. See Section IV for a detailed report on dispatch functions. Figure 102: PSAP and Dispatch Center Item Description Central Square, running Tiburon CAD Application Command CAD Telephone System Intrado Viper Repeated conventional VHF system with Radio System three high-site repeaters Fire/EMS Notification ComTech 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 Ability for PSAP to communicate CAD-to-CAD Phone call only (how do you transfer a call to another center): Emergency Medical Dispatch (Priority Criteria-based dispatch system in place: Dispatch) Trained QA dispatchers complete Quality Assurance (QA) audits. Audits are Formal EMD quality assurance program in place: completed on 15% of the calls. (10 calls per week/520 calls per year). Dispatchers receive a copy of the completed audits. Options for non-emergent calls not requiring EMS: None AVL used on fire apparatus: No AVL used on ambulances & EMS units: No Tiburon Mobile Data on a Verizon cellular MDTs/MDCs in all fire & EMS vehicles: and Netmotion Closest unit dispatched via AVL: No No. of 911 calls: 2021 – 49,881 No. of 10-digit incoming emergency calls: 2021 – 24,247 150 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Infrastructure Needs The district has determined that Station 84 needs to be rebuilt, however funding is not currently available for this project. Governance Structure Options Governance options for PHF include status-quo or reorganizing with one or more neighboring fire agencies. In addition, PHF has the option of contracting for service from or to another adjacent agency or forming a JPA; neither approach produced any viable options. Reorganization options include the following: • Reorganization Option #1: Reorganize PHF into one sub-regional independent district. • Reorganization Option #2: Reorganize PHF into the Placer County Fire Department. • Reorganization Option #3: Reorganize PHF into one sub-regional independent district, with a contract for service in certain areas. All options would require a SOI update. SOI options are discussed below. It is essential that the preferred reorganization option have buyoff by all affected agencies. 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 I of this report, the following determinations are proposed for Placer Hills Fire Protection District. Growth and Population Projections 4-1: The Placer Hills Fire Protection District (PHF) had an estimated 2020 U.S. Census population of 10,615. 4-2: Based on California Department of Finance projections of 0.55% through 2060, the territory within PHF could reach 13,200 by 2060. Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence 4-3: No DUCs were identified by LAFCO at the Census Block Group level within or contiguous to the PHF SOI that meet the definition based on population and income. 151 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 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 4-4: Based on unit hour utilization and ISO ratings, PHF is able to provide an adequate level of services with sufficient capacity within its coverage area. The area would benefit from improved response times closer to the NFPA 1710 response time standard. 4-5: PHF has experienced an increase in incident volume of 16% from 2019 to 2022. During that time, there has also been an increase in outside aid given of 231%. Aid received has remained relatively stable over the time period. 4-6: Only one of the PHF fire stations was considered in "Good" condition. The two remaining fire stations were rated as "Fair" (Station 85) and Station 84 was rated "Poor" in condition. Generally, PHF's stations are older and do not meet the requirements of modern firefighting. 4-7: There is a need to rebuild Station 84, as the current building is 50+ years old and in need of major repairs. However, due financing constraints, the project is currently unfunded. Therefore, PHF plans to budget and prioritize projects to maintain the facilities to continue to house personnel. 4-8: The primary challenges for PHF are lack of funding to pay competitive salaries and retirement benefits, lack of funding to cover necessary capital expenses, and a need for dispatch center coordination. 4-9: All districts would benefit from training to ensure consistent data collection within the district and between districts, as well as to enable ease of data extraction for use. Inconsistent and unavailable data posed a particular challenge in this service review. Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services 4-10: PHF benefits from stable revenue streams consisting of property taxes, two special taxes/benefit assessments, and contract service provision income, making the district financially stable and sustainable with enhanced capabilities. PHF has operated with a surplus over the last five fiscal years. However, there continue to be financial constraints limiting significant capital outlays. 152 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 4-11: With the exception of the current fiscal year, PHF is projected to continue to operate at an increasing surplus each year through fiscal year 2028. 4-12: While PHF had incurred a significant unfunded actuarial liability balance on its CalPERS pension obligations, the unfunded obligation was stabilized through issuance of a Pension Fund Obligation Bond resulting in a fixed annual payment, greatly reducing the financial impact on PHF. Status and Opportunities for Shared Services 4-13: PHF practices extensive resource sharing through by providing administrative and command functions to NEW and RYN. PHF, NEW, RYN, FHF, and Auburn City Departments have also developed a Joint Operating Agreement and share like staff. PHF, RYN and NEW also share joint purchasing of select equipment and protective gear and make use of the PHF fleet mechanic, maintenance facility, and administration building. 4-14: There is potential for additional facility, personnel, and equipment sharing through any of the existing resource sharing structures. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies 4-15: PHF maintains a website where it makes several documents available and easily accessible to the public. It is recommended that PHF engage in master planning, strategic planning, and compilation of standards of cover and related assessments. 4-16: PHF has made efforts to become more efficient by providing command and administrative services to other local fire agencies through a contract mechanism. There is an application for reorganization with Newcastle Fire District on file with LAFCO. 4-17: Opportunities to increase value and/or efficiency for the public consist of reorganization of PHF with NEW, potential reorganization with RYN and/or FHF, and obtaining assistance with funding, including capital projects and dispatch upgrades. 153 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Sphere of Influence Update Existing SOI Based on LAFCO records, it appears that PHF does not have an adopted SOI. During the prior MSR process in 2017, it was recommended that a single SOI for fire providers in Western Placer be adopted to indicate the need for a single fire provider serving the area; however, while the Commission adopted the MSR, it appears that the SOI was never formally approved. SOI Options The SOI options for PHF consist of the following: • SOI Option #1: Adopt a single Sphere of Influence for the independent special districts indicating the anticipation of consolidation of the districts. This SOI option is also applicable if the newly reorganized district chooses to contract for services from another provider, as outlined in Reorganization Option #3. • SOI Option #2: Establish a Zero Sphere of Influence for the territory within the independent special districts indicating anticipation of a transition of services to PCF, and dissolution of the districts. • SOI Option #3: Adopt a coterminous SOI. This would be appropriate if no reorganization was anticipated. This would also be the appropriate option if the district were to choose to contract with PCF for service. Recommended SOI Each of the governance and related SOI options could benefit fire services in the affected area in some manner. Consolidation of the districts into a single independent district would 1) reduce or eliminate the obvious duplication of effort and redundancies found in the current four-district model, 2) strengthen the fire service system by implementing an operational model that offers additional paramedics and a single administrative structure, and 3) capture approximately $150,000 annually in additional revenue. Reorganization of the districts into PCF would 1) capitalize on the CAL FIRE service model, 2) place governance under the Board of Supervisors, and 3) create a consistent service provider across the entire unincorporated area of western Placer County with ALS as a benchmark. Of primary concern is the static financing levels and higher cost of CAL FIRE services offered in Option #2 through PCF, however, station closures would ensure adequate funding levels in each of the Zones associated with the former districts and their related financing structure. 154 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Because Reorganization Option #3 capitalizes on the strengths of each of the two identified models, it is the most favorable and is the recommended option to inform the sphere of influence update. In order to indicate anticipation of consolidation of the special districts, it is recommended that LAFCO adopt a single SOI comprised of the districts’ boundaries as outlined in SOI Option #1. A successful reorganization will be dependent on completion of a feasibility study and support of the districts themselves. Proposed SOI Determinations LAFCO is required to prepare a written statement of determination with respect to the following areas when updating a special district’s Sphere of Influence, as specified by Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. The following determinations are proposed for the Placer Hills Fire Protection District. The nature, location, extent, functions, and classes of services provided 4-18: PHF provides fire protection, community risk reduction, and Advanced Life Support (ALS) emergency medical treatment. The district serves the communities of Applegate, Clipper Gap, Eden Valley, Meadow Vista, and Weimar. Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands 4-19: Land uses within PHF consist of residential agriculture, farming, residential, and some commercial and light industrial. 4-20: County policies require new developments to comply with fire code and to develop or fund fire protection facilities, personnel, and operations and maintenance. 4-21: Fire services are needed in all areas, are already being provided, and do not, by themselves, induce or encourage growth on agricultural or open space lands. Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area 4-22: As indicated by the continued increase in service call volume and projected increase in service demand, there is a present and anticipated continued need for fire protection services within PHF. 4-23: Within PHF are several special hazards and critical infrastructure components which enhance demand for services, including 14 miles of Interstate 80, over 30 miles of Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) railway, over 15 miles of the Bear River, PG&E hydroelectric dam at Combie Lake, treated and untreated water canals, ditches and pipelines servicing agricultural and numerous water districts, as well as the Kinder Morgan Liquid Petroleum Pipeline. 155 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide 4-24: Based on unit hour utilization and ISO ratings, PHF is able to provide an adequate level of services with sufficient capacity within its coverage area. The area would benefit from improved response times closer to the NFPA 1710 response time standard. 4-25: PHF has experienced an increase in incident volume of 16% from 2019 to 2022. During that time, there has also been an increase in outside aid given of 231%. Aid received has remained relatively stable over the time period. 4-26: Only one of the PHF fire stations was considered in "Good" condition. The two remaining fire stations were rated as "Fair" (Station 85) and Station 84 was rated "Poor" in condition. Generally, PHF's stations are older and do not meet the requirements of modern firefighting. 4-27: There is a need to rebuild Station 84, as the current building is 50+ years old and in need of major repairs. However, due financing constraints, the project is currently unfunded. Therefore, PHF plans to budget and prioritize projects to maintain the facilities to continue to house personnel. 4-28: The primary challenges for PHF are lack of funding to pay competitive salaries and retirement benefits, lack of funding to cover necessary capital expenses, and a need for dispatch center coordination. Existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area 4-29: The population within PHF’s boundaries is a community of interest for the district. 4-30: Areas that receive PHF’s services through automatic and mutual aid, as well as contracts and agreements. Present and probable need for public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere of influence 4-31: No DUCs were identified by LAFCO at the Census Block Group level within or contiguous to the PHF SOI that meet the definition based on population and income. 156 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 5 | Rocklin Fire Department Profile Agency Overview Rocklin Fire Department (ROK) provides fire protection, community risk reduction, and Advanced Life Support (ALS) emergency medical treatment to a population of 71,290 in 19.73 square miles. ROK has a total of 44.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions and operates three fire stations staffed full time with 36 career personnel. The City of Rocklin is in south Placer County, 21 miles northeast of the City of Sacramento and 14 miles west of Auburn. Rocklin was incorporated in 1893 and is one of six cities in Placer County. Background ROK established a Master Plan and a Strategic Plan in July 2021 and a Standards of Cover in January 2022. The documents were presented to the City Council in March 2022; however, the governing body did not formally adopt the documents. ROK received a Class 2 ISO rating in its most recent rating from the Insurance Services Office (ISO) in December 2018. Over the last ten years, most cost minimization efforts have resulted from utilizing grant funding to offset the cost of equipment such as breathing apparatus and thermal imaging cameras. In addition, the city’s emergency communication center shares a CAD system with the cities of Lincoln and Auburn. Additional revenue measures have been exercised, including establishing Mello-Roos Community Facilities District #1 in 1986 to provide fire protection, fire suppression, and paramedic and ambulance services to various districts within the city. According to the Fire Chief, there is potential for a new fire station facility, personnel, and equipment at Sierra College Blvd and Stadium Way. This new station will provide services to the southern portion of the city, which is divided by Interstate 80 and will be adjacent to the Town of Loomis. The Fire Chief's top three critical issues all relate to emergency communications: • Lack of CAD-to-CAD with neighboring jurisdictions and the ambulance provider. • Communications between fire agencies. • Inability to dispatch closest unit across jurisdictions. 157 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO The Fire Chief's top three opportunities to increase value or efficiency for the public also focus on emergency communications and dispatch: • Develop CAD-to-CAD across all fire agencies and ambulance providers. • Provide dedicated fire-specific dispatchers. • Establish a regional dispatch center. Boundaries and Sphere of Influence The City of Rocklin is substantially bounded by the cities of Roseville to the south, Loomis to the east, and Lincoln to the north. The eastern boundary abuts the South Placer Fire District, and the western boundary is Placer County Fire, (CSA 28 Zone 97 – the Sunset Industrial Area). The City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) includes 1.2 square miles outside the current city boundary; this potential expansion area lies at the extreme northeast point of the city, north of Clover Valley, and south and west of Sierra College Blvd. Placer LAFCO is currently conducting a service review and sphere of influence study for the City. The following figure shows the Rocklin Fire Department service area. 158 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 103: Rocklin Fire Department Service Area 159 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Type & Extent of Services Services Provided ROK provides a full range of services for its residents. The following figure represents each of the services and the level performed. Figure 104: 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 No Transport provided by AMR Specialized/Technical Rescue Yes High-angle HazMat Response Yes First-Responder Operational Fire Inspection/Code Enforcement Yes Plan Reviews Yes Public Education/Prevention Yes Fire & Arson Investigation Yes Service Area The City of Rocklin was incorporated in 1893, and the first fire company, Rocklin Hose Company Number One, was formed in 1894. The fire department is statutorily responsible for fire and emergency services within the city limits. 160 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Collaboration • Western Placer County Fire Chiefs Association Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid Agreement. • Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) Fire and Rescue—ROK is a partner in the State Master Mutual Aid Agreement and makes equipment and personnel available for response statewide. • Shared CAD system with the cities of Auburn and Lincoln. Contracts for Services from Other Agencies ROK has a wildfire protection agreement with CAL FIRE for the Clover Valley area. Under the terms of the agreement, CAL FIRE will provide specified services in the Local Responsibility Area within the city limits in the event of a wildland fire. Governance & Administration The City of Rocklin uses the Council-Manager organizational structure. The five-member City Council is the governing body elected by the voters of Rocklin. The Council appoints the City Manager, and the Fire Chief reports to the City Manager. The following shows the Rocklin Fire Department organization chart. 161 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 105: Rocklin Fire Department Organizational Chart City Manager Fire Chief Executive Administrative Assistant Analyst (0.5 FTE) Operations Fire Prevention Emergency Deputy Chief Deputy Chief Management (EOC) Battalion Senior Office Chiefs (3) Assistant Captains (9) Fire Inspector (2) Arson Fire Engineer (9) Investigations Firefighter/ Plans Examiner Paramedic (14) Firefighter (1) 162 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Accountability for Community Services—Transparency The following figure identifies the City of Rocklin’s efforts to meet State laws designed to ensure transparency and accountability, and efforts beyond legal requirements to make information available to the public. Figure 106: Transparency and Accountability Transparency and Accountability Available Agency website Yes Adopted budget available on website Yes Notice of public meetings provided Yes Agendas posted on website Yes Public meetings are live-streamed Yes Minutes or recordings of public meetings available on website Yes Master Plan (fire service specific) available on website: Yes Strategic Plan (fire service specific) available on website Yes Community Risk Assessment and Standards of Cover documents Yes available on website SOC performance reports available on website Yes 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 City’s website, and educational programs focused on fire prevention and preparedness. Land Use and Population Land Use The City of Rocklin has adopted a system of zoning property to guide future development. The city has a General Plan, which last underwent a comprehensive review in 2012. 163 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Current Population The State of California Department of Finance (CDoF) publishes population information by year for each county based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau and state records.41 The City of Rocklin covers an area of 19.73 miles, and the 2020 CDoF population estimate is 71,290.42 Projected Population In addition to the annual historical estimates, the CDoF also publishes a yearly population projection through 2060. While this projection is for the county, each city and fire protection district's population growth can be inferred as a percentage of overall county growth. Average annual countywide growth from 2010–2023 was 1.28%, and the City of Rocklin has generally accounted for approximately 16.8% of the county population. CDoF estimated the average annual growth rate from 2023 through 2060 to be 0.55%. Based on these estimates and percentages, the City of Rocklin should reach approximately 87,500 people by 2060. The following figure shows historic and projected growth from 2010 through 2060 based on CDoF information. Figure 107: City of Rocklin Estimated Population (2010–2060) 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 41 Estimates-E1 | Department of Finance (ca.gov). 42 communityanalyst.arcgis.com/esriCA. 164 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 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 of less than 80% of the statewide annual median household income (i.e., $60,188).43 LAFCO is required to identify the location and characteristics of any DUCs in the Service Review and SOI update process.44 No DUCs were identified by LAFCO at the Census Block Group level located within or contiguous to the City of Rocklin’s SOI. Financial Overview City of Rocklin This study will focus on the receipts and disbursements within the General Fund of the City of Rocklin; however, it will consider the impact of revenues from other funds pertinent to the City’s fire department operations. The City Council establishes goals and objectives regarding service levels to guide the City’s staff in preparing an annual operating and capital budget based on a July through June fiscal year. The final budget presentation to the City Council occurs in June. General Fund Recurring Revenues and Expenses A significant amount of information regarding the General Fund was reviewed to develop a financial trend analysis for five years. This review of the historic information of General Fund (GF) revenues revealed that revenues increased from $49,766,526 in FY 17/1845 to $60,120,129 in FY 21/2246, an approximate 21% overall increase or 5.2% annual increase.47 43 Government Code §56033.5. 44 Government Codes §56425(e)(5) and §56430(2). 45 City of Rocklin FY 2017/FY2018 ACFR Report, pg. 31. 46 City of Rocklin FY 2021/FY 2022 ACFR Report, pg. 31 47 City of Rocklin FY 2021/FY 2022 ACFR Report. 165 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Sales tax revenues are the most significant source of General Fund Revenues, followed by Property Tax Revenues. Sales tax revenues have increased from $14,142,140 in FY 17/18 to $22,024,957 in FY 21/22. The City has experienced consistent growth in property values, with those amounts rising from $8.4 billion in FY 17/18 to $11.9 billion in FY 21/22. Property tax revenues have increased from $16,196,161 in FY 17/18 to $21,600,497 in FY 21/22, an 33% increase in that period. Combined, these two sources account for approximately 70% of General Fund Revenues in FY 21/22. Other sources of revenue include transient occupancy taxes, business license tax, franchise fees, licenses and permits, intergovernmental revenues, fines and forfeitures, service charges, and transfers-in from to other funds, and use of property and money income. The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 allows for the establishment of Community Facilities Districts (CFD). Special taxes are levied by these districts to provide services such as fire protection, services or to finance infrastructure improvements. The City of Rocklin has established several of these districts. CFD 1 was formed in 1986 to provide fire protection, fire suppression, and paramedic and ambulance services to various areas within the city. The costs of the services are partially offset by the assessment of a special tax. For FY 2022, expenses and offsetting revenues were $2,092,000. Of this amount, $2,071,183 is accounted for in the General Fund revenues as part of the transfers-in from other funds. As previously indicated, the City uses the General Fund for general government services including public safety (police and fire departments), parks and recreation services, community development, public works, general government services and capital outlay expenditures. The City’s General Fund has traditionally generated a surplus. However, due to the strategic use of reserve funds made in FY 2020, general fund expenditures exceeded revenues. The City transferred approximately $3 million from the general fund excess reserve to the Risk Management Fund and made additional discretionary contributions to the City IRS Section 115 trust fund for retirees' health and pension UAL. This strategic financial maneuver aimed to actively reduce the city's liabilities. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a decline in sales and occupancy taxes in FY 19/20, reducing overall revenue from the previous year by approximately 2.5%. However, overall revenue rebounded in FY 20/21. The following figures summarize General Fund revenues and expenditures for FY 2018–2022. 166 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 108: City of Rocklin Summarized General Fund Revenues & Expenses (FY 17/18–FY 21/22) Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Revenue/Expenses FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 Revenue 49,766,526 53,626,344 52,328,779 59,073,080 60,120,129 Expenditures 52,684,739 53,915,936 62,349,867 55,430,763 54,393,112 Transfers in 5,513,139 5,435,789 5,747,756 7,052,452 5,406,836 Transfers out (1,555,403) (1,446,461) (6,016,379) (1,298,888) (416,194) Net Operating 1,039,523 3,699,736 (10,289,711) 9,395,881 10,717,659 Shown graphically, the following figure summarizes the information in the previous figure and indicates the growth of the City’s General Fund revenues and expenditures. Figure 109: Graphical Presentation of Summarized General Fund Revenues and Expenses (FY 2018–FY 2022) $64,000,000 $62,349,867 $62,000,000 $60,120,129 $59,073,080 $60,000,000 $58,000,000 $56,626,344 $56,000,000 $54,000,000 $52,684,739 $55,430,763 $52,000,000 $54,393,112 $52,328,779 $50,000,000 $53,915,936 $49,766,526 $48,000,000 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 Revenue Expenditures Rocklin Fire Department The Rocklin Fire Department (ROK) operates through several divisions: operations, administration, emergency management, and fire prevention. Salaries and benefits are approximately 69% of ROK's operating costs. The city and the department participate in the CalPERS pension system. The city has unfunded actuarial liability (UAL) for pension costs, with approximately $1,300,000 being due in FY 2024 (11% of the total salary and benefit costs) for the fire department and roughly $5,500,000 being due citywide. 167 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO ROK receives the majority of funding for its various expenses by allocating General Fund Revenues. As previously indicated, approximately 15% of the department’s funding is provided by the Special Tax from CFD 1. The General Fund receives revenues generated by the fire department, including fire permits, planning fees, first responder fees, grants, and false alarm fees, The following figure is the ROK operating expenses requiring funding from the General Fund from FY 2018 through FY 2022. Figure 110: ROK Expenses (FY 2018–FY 2022) Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Revenue FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Total Salaries & Benefits 7,707,000 8,400,400 8,961,808 9,986,056 10,035,128 Services & Supplies 389,500 439,600 1,595,288 2,928,406 2,344,284 Capital Outlay 39,900 1,385,600 1,453,124 — — Transfers — — 1,791,478 1,918,814 2,076,321 Expenditures 8,136,400 10,225,600 13,801,698 14,833,276 14,455,733 Financial Projections City of Rocklin Figure 111: ROK Summarized Projected General Fund Revenues and Expenditures Revenue & FY 202348 FY 202449 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Expenses Revenue 60,349,100 65,671,700 65,887,586 67,312,321 68,491,065 70,220,883 Expenditures 61,621,800 65,356,700 64,612,000 66,598,800 68,474,900 70,512,600 Transfers In 2,414,600 2,613,100 — — — — Transfers Out (1,099,300) (2,843,000) (525,875) (677,625) (704,675) (724,200) Surplus (Deficit) 42,600 85,100 749,711 35,896 (688,510) (1,015,917) Rocklin Fire Department Projected expenditures of the Rocklin Fire Department will be constrained by the growth of revenue streams of the City and by the funds generated from the special tax from CFD 1. 48 City of Rocklin FY 2022/FY 2023 Adopted Budget. 49 City of Rocklin FY 2022/FY 2023 Adopted Budget. 168 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Capital Planning The City staff prepares a Capital Improvement Program to identify infrastructure and other projects and identify the source of funding for each. A fire station alerting system, security fencing and access at two stations, and the renovation of one station to provide for more privacy has been approved in the FY 2023 and FY 2024 budgets. Demand for Services The Rocklin Fire Department (ROK) is a moderately busy suburban system that provides aid services to other communities when requested. Data was provided by the agency and its dispatch center that included incident information from January 1, 2019, through September 30, 2022. This analysis focuses on incidents within the statutory and contractual areas where ROK responds. The following figure is the overview statistics for the Rocklin Fire Department. Figure 112: ROK Performance Overview Avg. Annual Incidents per 90th Percentile Agency Incident Vol. 1,000 Population Total Time50 Rocklin Fire Department 5,531 67 08:01 Incident categories closely follow the National Fire Incident Reporting System's code grouping, classifying incidents based on general hazards. Medical responses account for over 67% of the ROK's operations. Although this proportion is similar to many fire departments that provide emergency medical services, this accounts for many non-priority incidents in the ROK dataset, as ROK employs a Priority Medical Dispatch protocol. This has the effect of skewing the 90th percentile time compared to agencies that respond “Priority” to all EMS calls. The following figure shows the total number of incidents between January 1, 2019, and September 30, 2022, including the percentage of overall incidents. 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 cancelled by another agency prior to arrival. 50 The 90th percentile time for ROK includes all incidents, both priority and non-priority. 169 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 113: ROK's Total Incident Response by Type with Percentage Rescue-Medical 67.2% Good Intent 13% Service 10% False Alarm 5% Fire 3% Hazardous Condition 1% Disaster 0% Overpressure 0% Special 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Typically, an analysis of incidents by year can yield a trend or give an idea of the call volume in the next few years. However, 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 ROK's case, 2021 show a light growth in call volume levels. By annualizing 2022, they are seeing an upward trend in incident volume. The aid given was calculated by filtering the geolocation against any incident outside the agency's boundaries. Aid received relies on that data point provided by the agency. The following figure shows the annual incident volume by year. Aid given includes both Mutual Aid and Automatic Aid provided to neighboring agencies. 170 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 114: ROK's Annual Incidents by Year 6,060 5,970 5,289 4,806 371 254 315 275 289 191 255 227 2019 2020 2021 2022* Aid Given Service Area Incidents Service Area Aid Received * 2022 was annualized by dividing the total incidents by nine and multiplying that by 12. Additional temporal studies show that the monthly call volume variation is insignificant, and the agency does not experience significant variation by season. However, like many similar agencies, ROK does see a substantial increase in incident volume during the day. ROK sees over 73% 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. 171 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 115: ROK's Incident Percentage by Hour 7% 6% s t n 5% e d ic 4% n I f o t 3% n e c r 2% e P 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 Hour of the Day 172 Fire Service Review Placer 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 and day of the week. Several years of data were aggregated to create a large enough sample to show trends. Figure 116: ROK Day and Hour Incident Heat Map Hour Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Color Incidents 0–1 191–205 1–2 171–192 2–3 156–172 3–4 138–157 4–5 113–139 5–6 80–114 6–7 63–81 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 The preceding figure indicates that the hourly calls by weekday remain consistent throughout the week. It is interesting to note the vast disparity between the lower range of incidents per cell and the upper limit. 173 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Emergency Response Performance The performance of the fire department response was also evaluated. The performance times use computer-aided dispatch (CAD) data to complete the analysis 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. Every effort was made to try and get only those incidents requiring an emergency response. However, ROK uses a priority medical dispatch system that classifies many medical calls “non-priority.” AP Triton was not able to filter out these non-priority calls, therefore, all incidents are included in the analysis. This has the effect of negatively skewing the EMS performance data. Three unique time segments 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. ROK has adopted specific response time performance goals or benchmarks. ROK's adopted performance measures of 8 minutes for priority EMS responses and 9 minutes for other response types will be used as a reference. Between January 1, 2019, and September 30, 2022, ROK's performance for 18,294 incidents within the fire response area was a total response time of 8 minutes, 41 seconds (8:41) or less, 90% of the time for other than EMS incidents. EMS Incident first due units' total response time came in at 9 minutes, 56 seconds (9:56) or less, 90% of the time. ROK utilizes a Medical Priority Dispatch protocol that results in a high number of non-priority EMS calls in the dataset. This is a highly efficient use of resources, but artificially skews response times, making performance seem poorer than it actually is. The following figure shows a comparison of the adopted standard compared to the actual total response time for all incidents. 174 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 117: ROK Adopted Standard vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance Adopted Standard 1/2019–9/2023 Performance EMS: 8 minutes or less, 90% of the time 9:56 or less, 90% of the time51 OTHER: 9 minutes or less, 90% of the time 8:41 or less, 90% of the time The following figure shows the performance of the total response time for each major incident type for all incidents within the data set. 51 Data for EMS responses included non-priority calls. Excluding these types of calls from the analysis would produce a better 90th percentile time. 175 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 118: ROK All Incidents' 90th Percentile Total Response Times (January 2019–September 2022)52 09:56 10:00 09:19 07:55 08:00 06:00 04:00 02:00 00:00 Fire Other Medical 90% Total Response Time Total Time Benchmark 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 daily. 52 ROK utilizes a Medical Priority Dispatch protocol that results in a high number of non-priority EMS calls in the dataset. This is a highly efficient use of resources, but artificially skews response times, making EMS response performance seem poorer than it actually is. 176 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Unit data was evaluated for all dates within the data set. The data for each cross-staffed unit is combined into the primary apparatus. ROK staffs three stations end each crew cross- staff's multiple units. Therefore, all unit responses were combined for each station. The following figure shows the general statistics for each frontline unit within the ROK system. Figure 119: ROK Fire Unit Statistics Unit Hour Avg. Time Avg. Incidents Unit Utilization (UHU) per Incident Per Day Station 23 Units 7.2% 19 Minutes 5.4 Station 24 Units 6.0% 20 Minutes 4.4 Station 25 Units 5.4% 20 Minutes 3.8 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 engines and quint 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%. 177 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Staffing The following figure shows the total number of personnel for ROK organized by the various divisions. Figure 120: ROK Staffing Assignment Staffing Uniformed Administration 3 Non-Uniformed Administration 2.5 Fire Prevention 3 Operations Staff 36 Emergency Communications Rocklin PD Volunteers, Reserve, On Call 0 Total Personnel 44.5 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 121: ROK Daily Staffing Station Daily Staffing Unit Staffing 23 3 Engine (3) 24 5 Truck (4), BC (1) 25 3 Engine (3) Total 11 178 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Rocklin City Fire Stations The following figures outline the basic features of each of the City of Rocklin's fire stations. The condition of the stations is rated based on the criteria identified in the introduction to this section of the report. Figure 122: ROK Fire Stations Station Name/Number: ROK Station 23 Address/Physical Location: 4060 Rocklin Road, Rocklin, CA 95677 General Description: Station 23 is 46 years old. It is rated “Fair” in condition. The facility contains most of the features necessary for a modern fire service facility. Structure Date of Original Construction 11/08/1977 General Condition Fair Seismic Protection No Auxiliary Power Backup generator ADA Compliant Yes Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 3 Back-Ins 1 Total Bays: 4 Total Square Footage 14,977 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 4 Beds 4 Dorm Beds 4 Maximum Staffing Capability 4 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities 3 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 No Smoke Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System Yes 179 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Minimum Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Unit Staffing* Brush 23 3 (CS) 500-gallon tank |500 GPM pump Engine 23 3 650-gallon tank |1500 GPM pump Reserve Type I Engine 0 500-gallon tank |1500 GPM pump Reserve Battalion Chief Vehicle 0 Chevy Suburban Foam Tender 1 (CS) 1,060 gallons of Class B ATC foam Capable of filling 15–20 SCBA Breathing Support Unit (BSU) 1 (CS) cylinders Four-wheel ATV with patient carrying Emergency Utility Vehicle (EUV) 3 (CS) capability Total Daily Staffing: 3 *If an apparatus cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 180 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Station Name/Number: ROK Station 24 Address/Physical Location: 3401 Crest Drive, Rocklin, CA 95765 General Description: Station 24 has most of the features needed in a modern fire service facility. The building was rated in “Fair” condition. Structure Date of Original Construction 11/30/1988 General Condition Fair Seismic Protection Yes Auxiliary Power Generator ADA Compliant Yes Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 2 Back-Ins 1 Total Bays: 3 Total Square Footage 13,122 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 5 Beds 5 Dorm Beds 5 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 Partial Smoke Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal Yes Security System n/a Apparatus Exhaust System Yes 181 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Minimum Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Unit Staffing* Brush 24 3(CS) 3-personnel | 500-gallon tank |500 GPM pump Truck 24 4 105’ aerial ladder |Tractor Drawn Aerial Battalion 24 1 Chevy Tahoe Reserve Type I Engine 0 500-gallon tank |1500 GPM pump Reserve Type I Truck 0 100’ aerial ladder | Tractor Drawn Aerial Total Daily Staffing: 5 *If an apparatus cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 182 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Station Name/Number: ROK Station 25 Address/Physical Location: 2001 Wildcat Blvd., Rocklin, CA 95765 General Description: Station 25 is 19 years old and rated in “Good” condition. The building meets the needs of a modern fire station. Structure Date of Original Construction 10/27/2004 General Condition Good Seismic Protection Yes Auxiliary Power Generator ADA Compliant Yes Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 1 Back-Ins 1 Total Bays: 2 Total Square Footage 5,662 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 2 Beds 5 Dorm Beds 5 Maximum Staffing Capability 5 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities 2 Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms N Showers N Bedrooms N Exercise/Workout Facilities Yes Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned Yes Training/Meeting Rooms No Washer/Dryer/Extractor Yes Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal Yes Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System Yes Minimum Unit Apparatus/Vehicles Comments Staffing* Brush 25 3 (CS) 3-personnel | 500-gallon tank |500 GPM pump Engine 25 3 3-personnel on Engine Total Daily Staffing: 3 *If an apparatus cross-staffed, enter “CS” after minimum staff number. 183 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Fire Stations Discussion Only one of the Rocklin fire stations is in "Good" condition. The two remaining fire stations are rated as "Fair." Fire station ages range from 19 to 46 years, with an average of just over 33 years. The following figure summarizes Rocklin's fire stations and their features. Figure 123: ROK Station Configuration and Condition Staffing General Station Apparatus Bays Station Age Capacity Condition Station 23 4 4 Fair 46 years Station 24 3 5 Fair 35 years Station 25 2 5 Good 19 years Totals/Average: 9 14 33 years average Generally, Rocklin’s stations are older but meet most of 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 environmental requirements. Modern living also requires much more access to electrical outlets than was expected in older buildings, including charging stations for EVs and battery-operated equipment. The older ROK stations are no exception. For example, many older buildings do not meet requirements 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 of the station’s living and working spaces. While all structures require routine maintenance, 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 Replacement With two of ROK's three stations over 35 years of age, a facility replacement plan needs to be in place. 184 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 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 City to plan for ongoing service from each station more efficiently. According to the Fire Chief, the City had previously adopted a development impact fee to help offset the cost of capital improvements such as fire stations, but the practice was halted several years ago. Status of Shared Facilities The Rocklin Fire Department currently does not share any facilities with other agencies. Plans call for the construction of a new fire station near the border with Loomis; the Fire Chief indicates that ROK has no intention of sharing the new station. The Strategic Plan identifies the need for a training tower. The option of sharing the Roseville training facility should be explored, however the distance from the primary response area may present an obstacle to this approach. Apparatus Apparatus was evaluated by ROK staff based on age, miles/hours, service, condition, and reliability. Fleet maintenance is provided by the City Public Works Department and has systems in place for emergency assistance after hours. The criteria are defined in the introduction section of this report. The following figures represent all apparatus and vehicles operated by ROK. 185 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 124: ROK Apparatus Unit Type Status Year Condition Features Engines & Aerial Apparatus Engine 23 Type 1 Frontline 2019 Excellent 1500 GPM/600 G Tank Air Pressured Foam Truck 24 105’ TDA Frontline 2021 Excellent System Engine 25 Type 1 Frontline 2019 Excellent 1500 GPM/600 G Tank Engine 23 Reserve Type 1 Reserve 2008 Good 1500 GPM/500 G Tank Air Pressured Foam Truck 24 Reserve 100’ TDA Reserve 2009 Fair System Engine 25 Reserve Type 1 Reserve 2009 Good 1500 GPM/500 G Tank Brush 23 Type 3 Frontline 2005 Fair 500 GPM/500 G Tank Brush 24 Type 3 Frontline 2008 Fair 500 GPM/500 G Tank Brush 25 Type 3 Frontline 2008 Fair 500 GPM/500 G Tank Medics/Rescues/Other BSU Breathing Support Frontline 2003 Good Breathing Support Utility 24 Utility Frontline 2007 Good Foam Tender 24 Foam Tender Frontline 1993 Good 1,060 G Class B Foam Figure 125: ROK Supervisor & Command Vehicles Unit Assigned To Manufacturer Year Condition 2400 Fire Chief Chevy Tahoe 2015 Good 2401 Deputy Chief Chevy Tahoe 2020 Excellent 2402 Deputy Chief Chevy Tahoe 2018 Good BC 24 Battalion Chief Chevy Silverado 2021 Excellent BC 24 Battalion Chief Chevy Silverado 2021 Excellent Reserve 2423 Fire Inspector Chevy Silverado 2023 Excellent 2425 Fire Inspector Chevy Silverado 2023 Excellent Pool Vehicle Ford Explorer 2013 Fair 186 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Apparatus Discussion Fleet maintenance is accomplished both internally and outsourced. The City has one certified EVT. Current vehicle and apparatus maintenance manuals are available. Preventative maintenance checks are conducted regularly. Maintenance records are maintained for all apparatus and vehicles. Pump tests are performed annually per industry standards. The City maintenance facility does not have the capacity to provide fleet maintenance to other fire agencies, and the option has not been considered. Dispatch & Communications Rocklin City Police Department operates the city’s 911 Public Safety Answer Point (PSAP) and Dispatch Center. The center provides service for Rocklin Fire, Police, and other City departments. See Section IV for a detailed report on dispatch functions. Figure 126: ROK PSAP and Dispatch Center Item Description Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Application Sunridge System’s RIMS CAD (hosted) Telephone System Intrado Viper (hosted) Radio System Analog VHF system RIMS. RFD plans to move to U.S. Digital Design’s Fire/EMS Notification Phoenix G2 system in the summer of 2023. Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Mutual aid Tactical (TAC) channels, Statewide radio with other fire agencies in the county interoperability channels Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Statewide Interoperability channels radio with police agencies in the county Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Mutual aid TAC channels, Statewide radio with non-Fire EMS agencies in the county interoperability channels Ability for PSAP to communicate CAD-to-CAD Share system with Lincoln, other agencies are (how do you transfer a call to another center) phone call only Criteria-based dispatch system in place Priority Dispatch EMD Supervisors do weekly quality assurance audits Formal EMD quality assurance program in place of each dispatcher. Options for non-emergent calls not requiring EMS None Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) used on fire Yes apparatus AVL used on ambulances & EMS units No MDTs/MDCs in all fire & EMS vehicles Yes Closest unit dispatched via AVL No No. of 911 calls in 2022 16,993 No. of 7-digit incoming calls in 2022 6,268 187 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Infrastructure Needs ROK has plans to add an additional station in the southeast quadrant of the city. Governance Structure Options Rocklin’s options for governance include remaining as a City Department; contracting for service from PCF or another city; reorganizing as a fire district, either as a subsidiary of the City or through annexation; or forming a Joint Powers Authority with one or more neighboring agencies. 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 I of this report, the following determinations are proposed for the City of Rocklin. Growth and Population Projections 5-1: The City of Rocklin (ROK) had an estimated 2020 U.S. Census population of 71,290. 5-2: Based on California Department of Finance projections of 0.55% through 2060, the territory within Rocklin could reach 87,500 by 2060. Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence 10-3: No DUCs were identified by LAFCO at the Census Block Group level located within or contiguous to the City of Rocklin’s SOI. 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 5-4: Based on response times, unit hour utilization, and ISO ratings, ROK is able to provide an adequate level of services with sufficient capacity within its coverage area. ROK is one of the few agencies reviewed that meets or is near meeting response time standards for fire and other types of calls. ROK utilizes a Medical Priority Dispatch protocol that results in a high number of non-priority EMS calls in the dataset. This is a highly efficient use of resources, but can artificially skew response time analysis, making performance seem poorer than it actually is. 5-5: ROK has experienced an increase in incident volume of 14.6% from 2019 to 2022. During that time, there has also been a decrease in outside aid given of -25.9% and in aid received of approximately -21.5%. 188 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 5-6: Only one of the Rocklin fire stations is in "Good" condition. The two remaining fire stations are rated as "Fair." Generally, Rocklin’s stations are older but meet most of the requirements of modern firefighting. With two of ROK's three stations over 35 years of age, a facility replacement plan needs to be in place. 5-7: There is potential for a new fire station facility, personnel, and equipment at Sierra College Blvd and Stadium Way to provide services to the southern portion of the city, which is divided by Interstate 80. 5-8: ROK’s primary critical issues all relate to emergency communications and consist of 1) lack of CAD-to-CAD with neighboring jurisdictions and the ambulance provider, 2) need for enhanced communications between fire agencies, and 3) inability to dispatch closest unit across jurisdictions. Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services 5-9: Rocklin has unfunded actuarial liability (UAL) for pension costs, with approximately $1,300,000 due in FY 2024 for the fire department and roughly $5,500,000 being due citywide. In FY 2020, the city used reserve funds of approximately $3 million and made additional discretionary contributions for retirees' health and pension UAL. This strategic financial maneuver aimed to actively reduce the city's liabilities. 5-10: While Rocklin has generally had a strong financial position with general fund revenues that exceed expenditures, general fund projections for the next five years anticipate that expenses will exceed revenues in FY 2027 and FY 2028. The city will need to address the anticipated shortfall through enhanced revenues or reduced expenditures. Status and Opportunities for Shared Services 5-11: The Rocklin Fire Department currently does not share any facilities with other agencies. Plans call for the construction of a new fire station near the border with Loomis; ROK has no plans to share the new station. 5-12: The Strategic Plan identifies the need for a training tower. The option of sharing the Roseville training facility should be explored; however, the distance from the primary response area may present an obstacle to this approach. 189 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies 5-13: The City appropriately maintains a website where documents are made available to the public regarding fire related services. The City conducts planning best practices related to fire services by establishing a Fire Master Plan and a Strategic Plan in July 2021 and a Standards of Cover in January 2022. All documents are easily accessible on the website. 5-14: Over the last ten years, most cost minimization efforts have resulted from utilizing grant funding to offset the cost of equipment such as breathing apparatus and thermal imaging cameras. In addition, the city’s emergency communication center shares a CAD system with the cities of Lincoln and Auburn. 5-15: Opportunities to increase value or efficiency for the public focus on emergency communications and dispatch and consist of 1) developing CAD-to-CAD across all fire agencies and ambulance providers, 2) providing dedicated fire-specific dispatchers, and 3) establishing a regional dispatch center. 5-16: Rocklin’s governance structure options include remaining as a City Department; contracting for service from PCF or another city; reorganizing as a fire district, either as a subsidiary of the City or through annexation; or forming a Joint Powers Authority with one or more neighboring agencies. 190 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 6 | Roseville Fire Department Profile Agency Overview Roseville Fire Department (RSV) provides fire protection, community risk reduction, and Advanced Life Support emergency medical treatment to a population of 154,817 in 44.14 square miles. RSV operates eight full-time fire stations, with 130 full-time career personnel, two non-suppression volunteers, and one part-time staff. A ninth engine (Engine 8) was placed in service December 2023, and the new Station 8 is expected to open in early 2025. Station 10 is planned as new development occurs west of Fiddyment Road. RSV currently staffs nine engines with three personnel and two truck companies with four personnel; all are ALS capable. There are two Battalion Chiefs on duty each shift. RSV operates the only Fire Training Center (FTC) in the county; other agencies frequently use this facility. RSV operates a Type 1 HazMat Team and a Type 2 Technical Rescue Team. These specialized units are cross-staffed by specially trained Station 1 and Station 8 personnel, respectively. Both teams are available to other agencies through the Mutual Aid system. The department also has a UAV program with six licensed pilots. Background RSV established a Standards of Cover in 2020. The department does not have a Master Plan or Strategic Plan. RSV earned a Class 2 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 revising hiring and training practices and apparatus replacement schedules. The reductions included the following: • Shortened the length of recruit academies. • Hired Limited-Term employees to reduce overtime. • Maintained active promotional lists and used qualified employees in acting positions. • Increased apparatus replacement from 10 years to 15 years. Additional revenue measures have been exercised, including the passage of Tax Measure B, a half-cent local sales tax increase on the November 6, 2018 ballot. Measure B was designed to maintain essential services, including specialized police and fire services (e.g. Fire Training and Investigations) and Fire Engine Company staffing. 191 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO According to the Fire Chief, there is potential for facility, personnel, and equipment sharing as RSV has plans to open Station 8 (the City’s 9th station) in early 2025 at the intersection of Painted Desert Drive and Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard. This station will house Engine 8 and Truck 8, which can serve the Placer One development until Placer County Fire can build a station in that area. The Fire Chief's top three critical issues are: • Recruitment, retention, and staffing. • Maintaining or growing the budget with a recessionary forecast. • Keeping pace with the growth of the city and the region. The Fire Chief's top three opportunities to increase value or efficiency for the public are: • Implement a Paramedic Squad program. • Community Paramedicine. • Relocate Fire Station 5 to delay the need to open the planned Fire Station #10. Boundaries and Sphere of Influence The City of Roseville is located at the south end of Placer County, bordering Sacramento County to the south. Placer County Fire Zones 165 (Dry Creek), 76 (Western Placer), and 97 (Sunset Industrial) lie to the west and northwest of the City; Rocklin is due north; and South Placer Fire District sits east of Roseville. Roseville is a growing city characterized as 80-100% Urban/Suburban. The City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) is substantially coterminous with the city limits; exceptions consist of a few unincorporated pockets along the southern boundary. The City’s SOI is currently under review by Placer County LAFCO. The following figure shows the RSV service area. 192 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 127: Roseville FD Service Area 193 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Type & Extent of Services Services Provided RSV provides its residents with a full range of services, including a paramedic first-responder program. The following figure represents each of the services and the level performed. Figure 128: 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 Paramedic Level Ambulance Transport No AMR CalOES Type II (confined space, trench, Specialized/Technical Rescue Yes heavy wall collapse, high and low angle rope rescue) HazMat Response Yes CalOES Type 1 Fire Inspection/Code Enforcement Yes Including CUPA Plan Reviews Yes Including CUPA Public Education/Prevention Yes Fire & Arson Investigation Yes Criminal arson by Roseville Police Dept. Other Tactical EMS (FRO and Specialist) Other Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) program Training Center RSV has a stand-alone three-acre fire training center (FTC) at 2030 Hilltop Circle. The FTC has office space, two classrooms, a six-story drill tower, and one of the most robust hazmat training facilities on the West Coast, including a derailment yard. A stand-alone apparatus bay for two engines is also used for equipment storage. The apparatus bay has a dedicated training engine for RSV and one for Sierra College. There is a pump house, vertical ventilation props (Commercial/residential,) and portable drafting pits. There are also multiple con-ex shipping containers used for additional equipment storage. The tower is plumbed with two natural gas burn rooms; in addition, the FTC has two Drager burn props (Phase 1 and Phase 4.) The Phase 4 burn prop needs replacement due to extensive use as a regional asset. 194 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO The training program functions within the Operations Division, with a 56-hour field Battalion Chief overseeing the program. The training budget is $193,499. There is no dedicated clerical staff for training. Service Area The Roseville Fire Department was organized in 1907. The City of Roseville was incorporated on April 10, 1909, and assumed fire protection agency status. The fire department is statutorily responsible for fire and emergency services within the city limits. RSV provides Automatic and Mutual Aid to surrounding jurisdictions. Collaboration RSV collaborates with other agencies to enhance services and outcomes. The following are examples of initiatives and programs RSV participates in or leads. • Western Placer Closest Resource Agreement. • CAD-to-CAD interface with AMR. • Statewide and Countywide Mutual Aid. • FTC is regularly used by Roseville PD and regional partner fire agencies. • Type 1 Hazardous Materials response team available to other agencies. • Technical Rescue Team available to other agencies. Contracts to Provide Services to Other Agencies RSV has contracts that allow other agencies to use the Fire Training Center. • Sierra College uses the FTC to host two Firefighter Academies each year. • CSTI has access to the FTC for Hazardous Materials training. • UPRR uses the FTC for training annually. Contracts for Services From Other Agencies None. 195 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Governance & Administration The City of Roseville is a Charter City that uses the Council-Manager organizational structure. The City Council, made up of five members elected by District, is Roseville's governing body. The City Council Members vote to select a new Mayor and vice mayor every other year. In 2020, Roseville voters approved several changes to the City charter, including having the role of mayor rotated among the districts. It was determined by drawing straws that the rotation would begin with the councilmember elected in District 3 serving for a two-year term beginning in December 2022, with the councilmember elected in District 4 serving as vice mayor during that time, and continuing numerically. The Council appoints the City Manager. The Fire Chief reports to the City Manager. The following figure shows how the RSV Fire Department is structured. 196 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 129: Roseville Fire Department Organizational Chart CITY MANAGER FIRE CHIEF Administrative Division Chief Division Chief Support Assistant Fire Chief Assistant Operations Services/Special Ops A-Shift B-Shift C-Shift Public Administrative Fire/Envir. Inspection Battalion Chief Battalion Chief Battalion Chief GIS Analyst Information Office Assistant Battalion Chief Supervisor (2) (2) (2) Officer Fire/Envir. Public EMS Q/A Captain (10) Captain (10) Captain (10) Admin Tech Safety Education Coordinator Inspector (5) Officer Management Admin Captain Engineer (10) Engineer (10) Engineer (10) Analyst Firefighter- Firefighter- Firefighter- Paramedic Paramedic Paramedic (15) (15) (15) 197 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Accountability for Community Services—Transparency The following figure identifies the City of Roseville'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 130: Transparency and Accountability Transparency and Accountability Available Agency website53 Yes Adopted budget available on website Yes Notice of public meetings provided Yes Agendas posted on website Yes Public meetings are live-streamed Yes Minutes 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 Yes 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 documents on the City’s website, and educational programs focused on fire prevention and preparedness. 53 Government Code Section 53087.8 lists what must be included on the website. 198 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Land Use and Population Current Population The State of California Department of Finance (CDoF) publishes population information by year for each county based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau and state records.54 The City of Roseville covers an area of 44.14 square miles, and the 2020 CDoF population estimate is 154,817.55 Projected Population In addition to the annual historical estimates, the CDoF also publishes a yearly population projection through 2060. While this projection is for the county, each city and fire protection district's population growth can be inferred as a percentage of overall county growth. Average annual countywide growth from 2010–2023 was 1.28%, and the City of Roseville has generally accounted for approximately 35.3% of the county population. CDoF estimated the average annual growth rate from 2023 through 2060 to be 0.55%. Based on these estimates and percentages, the City of Roseville should reach approximately 188,000 people by 2060. The following figure shows historic and projected growth from 2010 through 2060 based on CDoF information. Figure 131: City of Roseville Estimated Population (2010–2060) 200,000 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 54 Estimates-E1 | Department of Finance (ca.gov). 55 communityanalyst.arcgis.com/esriCA. 199 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 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 less than 80% of the statewide annual median household income (i.e., $60,188).56 LAFCO is required to identify the location and characteristics of any DUCs in the Service Review and SOI update process.57 No DUCs were identified by LAFCO at the Census Block Group level located within or contiguous to the City of Roseville’s SOI. 56 Government Code §56033.5. 57 Government Codes §56425(e)(5) and §56430(2). 200 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Financial Overview City of Roseville This study will focus on the receipts and disbursements within the General Fund of the City of Roseville. However, it will consider the impact of revenues from other funds pertinent to the City’s Fire Department operations. The City Council establishes goals and objectives regarding service levels to provide the City’s staff with guidance in preparing an annual operating budget based on a July through June fiscal year. Budget preparations for the subsequent annual period begin in the fall with a mid-year review of the current operating budget's projected revenues, salary, benefits, and other operating expenses. The review identifies critical financial issues and assists in establishing funding guidelines for the subsequent year’s budget. In January, the Budget Division begins work with the various departments to create a draft budget, including updates to the Capital Improvement Projects. Budget requests are submitted to the City Manager in January, and operational requests are submitted in March. In February and March, projections of the City’s significant revenue sources are updated. The proposed budget is provided to the City Council no later than the first meeting in June. During June, the Council reviews the budget and conducts public hearings to address concerns. The Council adopts the annual budget by the second Council meeting in June. General Fund Recurring Revenues and Expenses A significant amount of information regarding the General Fund was reviewed to develop a financial trend analysis for the five-year period. This review of the historic information of General Fund (GF) revenues revealed that revenues increased from $141,448,000 in FY 2018 to $178,008,000 in FY 2022 an approximate 26% overall increase or 6.5% annual increase.58 Sales tax revenues are the most significant source of General Fund Revenues, followed by Property Tax Revenues. Sales tax revenues have increased from $50,710,000 in FY 2018 to an estimated $59,371,000 in FY 2022. Property tax revenues have increased from $44,249,000 in FY 2018 to $57,868,000 in FY 2022, a 31% increase in that period. These two sources account for approximately 71% of General Fund Operating Revenues. In FY 2018, the city's voters adopted a Measure B sales tax revenue, adding roughly $21,000,000 of additional revenue annually to GF revenues. Other sources of revenue include transient occupancy taxes, charges for services, business licenses, charges to other funds, use of property and money income, and other sources. 58 City of Roseville FY 2020/FY 2021 Adopted Budget. 201 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO As previously indicated, the City’s General Fund expends funds for general government services. These include General Government Services, Public Safety, including police and fire departments, recreation services, community development, public works, and other expenditures. The General Fund has typically produced a surplus, but planned expenditures approved by the City Council have occasionally resulted in a reserve drawdown. The City Council’s conservative fiscal policies have provided a GF reserve balance of 45% of annual expenditures. The COVID-19 pandemic had a minimal effect on the City’s General Fund operations in FY 2020 and FY 2021. The following two figures summarize General Fund revenues and expenditures. Figure 132: City of Roseville Summarized General Fund Revenues & Expenses, FY 2018–FY 2022 Actual Actual Actual Actual Adopted Revenue/Expenses FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Property Taxes 44,249,484 48,565,007 52,375,495 56,294,355 57,867,840 Sales taxes 50,710,102 56,355,528 52,699,584 63,700,772 59,371,253 Measure B sales tax — 4,218,788 19,669,535 24,509,762 21,127,000 Sales tax – State aid 932,341 1,213,774 1,208,824 1,293,680 1,327,000 public safety services Property transfer tax 1,369,270 1,122,180 1,164,748 1,793,143 800,000 Business license tax 682,600 859,349 854,916 858,637 850,000 Transient Occupancy 3,534,479 3,632,822 3,528,221 2,383,853 2,600,000 Motor vehicle tax 71,519 65,863 110,521 106,468 75,000 Total taxes 101,549,795 116,033,311 131,611,844 150,940,670 144,018,093 Licenses, permits, 3,001,651 3,009,035 3,325,365 4,668,440 3,659,029 Charges for services 13,388,252 13,045,091 11,215,926 9,764,056 13,069,481 Grants and 507,132 390,821 467,773 2,210,594 318,535 contributions Interest & rents 1,165,184 741,855 1,098,133 800,835 1,402,995 Transfers in 11,102,186 14,190,952 12,750,573 13,229,572 1,383,846 Prior year encumbrance 963,728 664,304 655,823 475,299 452,250 carryover Total operating 134,692,264 152,300,583 163,138,708 185,180,031 166,109,269 revenues Non-recurring revenues 6,755,600 7,387,700 8,522,498 9,005,963 11,898,587 Total revenues 141,447,864 159,688,283 171,661,206 194,185,994 178,007,856 City Council 193,338 205,389 314,512 98,081 95,220 City Manager 798,774 1,155,872 1,292,603 1,253,942 1,556,939 Public Affairs & 513,289 515,871 596,738 630,196 718,273 Communications 202 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Actual Actual Actual Actual Adopted Revenue/Expenses FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 City Attorney 1,559,361 1,689,104 1,899,978 2,269,418 1,989,416 Finance 1,860,364 1,701,090 4,718,580 4,430,944 3,660,415 Human Resources 912,364 1,071,531 1,562,189 1,573,054 1,790,906 City Clerk 573,821 948,813 1,248,669 1,543,267 1,450,775 Police 39,840,858 41,425,056 45,417,964 47,362,389 49,250,608 Fire 32,707,019 34,040,697 36,354,942 35,749,542 38,655,536 Economic 691,351 539,852 964,667 1,033,176 769,809 Development Parks, Recreation & 22,571,309 22,158,735 23,066,759 23,636,248 27,559,790 Libraries Public Works 7,034,179 7,618,974 7,207,102 7,199,484 8,449,707 Development Services 8,834,848 8,625,192 8,245,917 8,405,564 10,517,471 Other 8,282,412 7,667,525 13,543,208 14,349,114 25,509,487 Expenditures/Expenses Transfers Out 6,323,850 8,731,992 19,192,719 9,860,301 6,695,589 Total Operating 132,697,137 138,095,693 165,626,547 159,394,720 178,669,941 Expenses Carryovers 4,154,768 4,375,717 5,949,489 7,286,683 16,870,039 Debt Related 255,133 367,754 1,384 1,231 — Transfers Out 1,797,789 550,552 905,165 405,634 225,000 Total Non-Recurring 6,207,690 5,294,023 6,856,038 7,693,548 17,095,039 Expenditures Total expenditures 138,904,827 143,389,716 172,482,585 167,088,268 195,764,980 Surplus (Deficit) 2,543,037 16,298,567 (821,379) 27,097,726 (17,757,124) Shown graphically, the following figure summarizes the information in the previous two figure and indicates the growth of the City’s General Fund revenues and expenditures. 203 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 133: Graphical Presentation of Summarized General Fund Revenues & Expenses, FY 2018–FY 2022 $171,661,206 $194,185,994 $195,764,980 $200,000,000 $180,000,000 $141,447,864 $159,688,283 $160,000,000 $178,007,856 $167,088,268 $172,482,585 $140,000,000 $143,389,716 $138,904,827 $120,000,000 $100,000,000 $80,000,000 $60,000,000 $40,000,000 $20,000,000 $0 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 Revenue Expenditures Roseville Fire Department The Roseville Fire Department (RSV) operates through several divisions, including administration, operations, fire and life safety, support services, training, and other smaller divisions. The following figure identifies the categories in which the Fire Department expends funds. 204 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 134: Roseville Fire Department Historical Expenditures by Category Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Expenditures FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Administration 1,019,070 750,914 890,104 821,386 959,187 Fire Grants — — 139,949 52,026 — Fire Prevention 1,921,310 1,840,672 1,650,007 1,703,775 1,785,435 Contracted Fire Plan Review — 21,767 59,073 44,152 57,707 Fire Operations 28,861,055 27,087,886 29,477,385 29,606,115 35,226,550 Fire Support Services — 3,308,840 3,267,806 2,993,804 4,247,819 Fire Training 979,565 1,010,422 1,062,592 630,992 812,739 External Training — — — — — Emergency Preparedness 18,926 20,196 20,819 2,824 2,774 EMS Patient Care — — — 143,389 298,699 HazMat Response — — — 26,908 52,738 Emergency Rescue — — — 5,458 5,679 Fire Academy — — — 29,208 221 Fleet Equipment — — — 21,506 43,275 Fire Investigations — — — — — Fire Station Facilities — — — 340,973 286,918 Less Reimbursements (82,213) — — — — Expenditures 32,717,713 34,040,697 36,567,735 36,422,516 43,779,741 The department operates nine engine companies and two ladder companies from eight stations. Each engine is staffed with a minimum of three personnel, one of whom is a paramedic-certified firefighter. Each ladder company is staffed with a minimum of four personnel, including at least one firefighter/paramedic. Several stations house a smaller wildland engine for fighting wildfires. Battalion Chiefs are located at Station 1 and Station 9. The city’s ninth station is expected to open in early 2025. Salaries and benefits are approximately 80% of RSV's operating costs. The City and the department participate in the CalPERS pension system. The City has, through its conservative fiscal practices, been able to make additional payments on the unfunded actuarial liability (UAL) portion of its obligation, reducing its future pension UAL liabilities by approximately $400,000 per year. 205 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO RSV receives most of its funding for its various expenditures through an allocation of General Fund Revenues. The General Fund receives revenues generated by the fire department, including fire permits, planning fees, grants, and false alarm fees. Certain capital requirements are funded by the Equipment Replacement Fund and the Fire Facilities Fund. The following figure is the RSV operating expenses requiring funding from the General Fund and other sources from FY 2018 through FY 2022. Figure 135: Roseville Fire Department Expenses, FY 2018–FY 2022 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Expenditures FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Salaries — 19,205,370 19,019,077 19,834,336 22,865,703 Benefits — 9,695,228 10,463,459 10,469,153 11,479,065 Salaries & Benefits 27,889,937 28,900,598 29,482,536 30,303,489 34,344,768 Services & Supplies 4,853,307 5,181,180 6,721,243 5,410,162 9,373,300 Internal Reimbursements (82,213) (81,081) (5,462) (10,331) (1,185) Debt Service — — 3,253 4,275 — Capital 56,682 40,000 366,165 714,921 62,858 Expenditures 32,717,713 34,040,697 36,567,735 36,422,516 43,779,741 Financial Projections City of Roseville By Council policy, the City has established several funds to plan for its long-term needs. These include a General Fund Emergency Reserve Fund to maintain an operating reserve of 10% of total estimated General Fund operating expenses. A General Fund Stabilization Reserve Fund, with a target of 15% of operating expenditures, is intended to address significant unanticipated revenue shortfalls resulting from economic downturns such as those experienced during the COVID-19 outbreak. The City also maintains a Fleet Replacement Reserve to ensure funds are available for the replacement of vehicles at the end of their useful lives. The City’s average home value increased approximately 26% over the past year, and residential development is at a fifteen-year high. Its population is currently growing at roughly 2.3%. Development of industrial space has continued to increase, with vacancy rates at a very low 3.7%. Unemployment rates in Roseville are at 2.8% versus 4.8% statewide. 206 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO The City Manager’s Budget Message indicated that the City’s economy recovered much faster than anticipated. However, the future stability of the economy may be affected by the pace of inflation, supply chain issues, labor shortages, unprecedented weather patterns, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Property tax revenue has increased by an average of almost 11% over the past two years; however, revenue growth is expected to slow due to uncertainties in worldwide economic conditions and stresses. Residential building permits have decreased between FY 2023 and FY 2024. The projections use a 6% annual growth rate in property tax revenue as a conservative amount. Sales tax revenue, including Measure B sales tax, is forecast to increase at a 2% annual rate. Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) grew exponentially between FY 2023 and FY 2024, as the new voter-approved tax rate increased the TOT rate from 6% to 10%. This revenue stream is expected to increase as additional economic development activities continue to increase the demand for hotel rooms. Revenue from this source is forecast to increase 3% annually. Overall, tax revenues are forecast to increase by approximately 3.5% annually. Other revenues from licenses and permits, charges for service, interest, and other sources are forecast to increase 2% annually. Revenue from non-recurring sources include project carry-overs, funding from debt issuance, and reimbursement revenue. Carryovers are extremely difficult to forecast, and the amount included in the FY 2024 budget will be rounded to $7,000,000 and used throughout the forecast. General Fund expenditures include the payments of expenses from restricted revenues of approximately $43 million in FY 2024, leaving a balance of roughly $182 million in unrestricted General Fund. An additional $24 million in non-discretionary funding further reduces the balance to $158 million available to the City Council for general government expenses. Public safety expenditures for police and fire services consume approximately $104 million, leaving the balance to be expended for other government services. The City has adopted policies that result in conservative spending practices, as well as creating reserve balances. Overall, general fund expenses are forecast to grow at 3% annually. Non-recurring expenditures are forecast to remain at the FY 2024 levels. The following figure summarizes the forecast General Fund Revenues and Expenditures. 207 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 136: Roseville General Fund Summarized Projected General Fund Revenues and Expenditures Revenue & FY 202359 FY 202460 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Expenses Revenue 229,297,994 231,734,061 239,320,738 246,980,640 254,974,944 263,321,142 Expenditures 270,373,571 229,261,742 235,009,174 241,609,449 248,407,733 255,409,965 Surplus (Deficit) (41,075,577) 2,472,319 4,311,563 5,371,191 6,567,211 7,911,177 Roseville Fire Department The FY 2024 budget for the department includes an increase in nine line positions to staff Engine 8, an addition to the deployment model in the City. These positions include three captains, three engineers, and three firefighter/paramedics. The FY 2024 budget also includes a new administrative (40 hours/week) Captain position to assist with logistics. Projected expenditures of the Roseville Fire Department are expected to increase 3% annually. Figure 137: Roseville FD Forecast Expenditures Amended FY 2024 Projected Projected Projected Projected Expenditures FY 2023 Budget FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Budget Administration 1,151,370 1,275,537 1,313,803 1,353,217 1,393,814 1,435,628 Fire Grants — — — — — — Fire Prevention 2,012,469 2,042,094 2,103,357 2,166,458 2,231,451 2,298,395 Contracted Fire Plan 150,000 150,000 154,500 159,135 163,909 168,826 Review Fire Operations 34,050,947 37,207,889 38,324,126 39,473,849 40,658,065 41,877,807 Fire Support Services 3,163,786 2,967,974 3,057,013 3,148,724 3,243,185 3,340,481 Fire Training 392,114 193,499 199,304 205,283 211,442 217,785 External Training 88,562 54,000 55,620 57,289 59,007 60,777 Emergency Preparedness 13,100 10,000 10,300 10,609 10,927 11,255 EMS Patient Care 340,264 543,023 559,314 576,093 593,376 611,177 HazMat Response 45,220 115,456 118,920 122,487 126,162 129,947 Emergency Rescue 8,100 13,100 13,493 13,898 14,315 14,744 Fire Academy 107,999 220,000 226,600 233,398 240,400 247,612 Fleet Equipment 93,105 71,973 74,132 76,356 78,647 81,006 Fire Investigations 6,750 5,000 5,150 5,305 5,464 5,628 Fire Station Facilities 403,251 396,017 407,898 420,134 432,738 445,721 Less Reimbursements — — — — — — Expenditures 42,027,037 45,265,562 46,623,529 48,022,235 49,462,902 50,946,789 59 City of Roseville FY 2022/FY 2023 Adopted Budget. 60 City of Roseville FY 2023/FY 2024 Adopted Budget. 208 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Capital Planning The City Council Strategic Plan provides guidance on the expenditure of funds through the establishment of goals. Goals established as the foundation for the operations not only of the Fire Department but citywide include: • Remain fiscally responsible in a changing world: ▪ Pursue grants to offset expenses. ▪ Continue to review all purchases in an effort to utilize competitively bid contracts and lower-cost purchasing opportunities. ▪ Continue to secure training partnerships through federal, state, and local partners. • Maintain a safe and healthy environment: ▪ Continue to optimize levels of service to maintain a safe and healthy environment. • Enhance economic stability: ▪ Focus on partnerships in higher education to provide educational opportunities in public safety through agreements with Sierra College and the California Specialized Training Institute. • Invest in well-planned infrastructure and growth: ▪ Utilize analytical data and performance metrics to drive decision-making related to facility needs to improve operational capabilities and response. • Support community engagement. • Deliver exceptional services: ▪ Work to enhance the use of technology, best practices, and data to improve operations. The City develops a list of Capital Projects based on priorities established by the City Council. The list is updated as a component of the annual budget process. Funds for the completion of these projects are provided through the General Fund, the issuance of debt instruments, or from previously established earmarked reserve funds. Vehicle replacement funding is provided through the Fleet Replacement Fund. 209 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Demand for Services The Roseville Fire Department is a busy urban 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 September 30, 2022. This analysis focuses on incidents within the statutory and contractual areas where RSV responds. The following figure is the overview of statistics for the Roseville Fire Department. Figure 138: RSV Performance Overview Avg. Annual Incidents per 90th Percentile Agency Incident Vol. 1,000 Population Total Time Roseville Fire Department 17,713 112 07:40 Incident categories closely follow the National Fire Incident Reporting System's code grouping, classifying incidents based on general hazards. Medical responses account for over 64% of the RSV's operations. Although this proportion is similar to many fire departments that provide emergency medical services, this accounts for many RSV incidents. The following figure shows the total number of incidents between January 1, 2019, and September 30, 2022, including the percentage of overall incidents. Figure 139: RSV Total Incident Response by Type with Percentage Rescue-Medical 64% Good Intent 17% Service 11% False Alarm 4% Fire 2% Hazardous Condition 1% Special 0% Disaster 0% Overpressure 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 210 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Typically, an analysis of incidents by year can yield a trend or give an idea of the call volume in the next few years. However, 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 RSV's case, activity has rebounded since the 2020 pandemic, with call volume levels above the 2019 levels by 2021. By annualizing 2022, a slight upward trend is evident. The aid given was calculated by filtering the geolocation against any incident outside the agency's boundaries. Aid received relies on that data point provided by the agency. The following figure shows the annual incident volume by year. Aid given includes both Mutual Aid and Automatic Aid provided to neighboring agencies. Figure 140: RSV's Annual Incidents by Year 18,967 18,054 17,316 16,515 174 169 161 203 151 47 39 67 2019 2020 2021 2022* Aid Given Service Area Incidents Service Area Aid Received * 2022 was annualized by dividing the total incidents by nine and multiplying that by 12. 211 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Additional temporal studies show that the monthly call volume variation is insignificant, and the agency does not experience significant variation by season. However, like many similar agencies, RSV shows a substantial increase in incident volume during the day. In fact, RSV sees over 71% 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 141: RSV's Incident Percentage by Hour 7% 6% s t n 5% e d ic 4% n I f o t 3% n e c r 2% e P 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 Hour of the Day 212 Fire Service Review Placer 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 and day of the week. Figure 142: Day and Hour Incident Heat Map Hour Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Color Incidents 0–1 609–637 1–2 541–610 2–3 480–542 3–4 418–481 4–5 333–419 5–6 259–334 6–7 229–260 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 The preceding figure indicates that the distribution is skewed slightly on the weekends. While the weekday incident volume is heavier, the daytime hours are consistently higher. 213 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Emergency Response Performance The performance of the fire department response was also evaluated. The performance times use computer-aided dispatch data (CAD) to complete the analysis 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. Because CAD data was used, the analysis focused on the high-priority call types. It attempts to capture only those incidents where a unit would respond with lights and sirens. Three unique time segments 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. RSV has adopted response time performance goals based on incident type. Therefore, for a benchmark level, the agency's goal of 7 minutes for the first due on an EMS call and 8 minutes for all other call types will be used as a reference. Between January 1, 2019, and September 30, 2022, RSV's overall performance for the 47,872 priority incidents of all types within the fire response area was a total response time of 8 minutes, 52 seconds (8:52) or less, 90% of the time. The following figure shows the adopted standard compared to the actual total response time for high-priority call types. Figure 143: RSV Adopted Standard vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance Agency Adopted Standard 1/2019–9/2023 Performance EMS: 7 Minutes or less, 90% of the time 8:48 or less, 90% of the time OTHER: 8 Minutes or less, 90% of the time 9:35 or less, 90% of the time The following figure shows the performance of the total response time for each major incident type for all high-priority incidents within the data set. 214 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 144: RSV High Priority Incidents' 90th Percentile Total Response Times (January 2019–September 2022) 10:00 09:46 09:00 08:48 08:00 06:00 04:00 02:00 00:00 Fire Other Medical 90% Total Response Time Total Time Benchmark 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 daily. 215 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Unit data was evaluated for all dates within the data set. The data for each cross-staffed unit is combined into the primary apparatus. RSV cross-staffs multiple units at each station. For HazMat 1 and Rescue 7, the Engine and Truck companies assigned to those stations respond on the specialty units. All units were included in the analysis, and for stations with multiple units cross-staffed with one crew, the station is listed as the unit. The following figure shows the general statistics for each frontline unit within the RSV system. Figure 145: RSV Fire Unit Statistics Unit Hour Utilization Avg. Time per Avg. Incidents Per Unit (UHU) Incident Day Engine 1 9.1% 15 Minutes 8.5 Truck 1 6.1% 19 Minutes 4.6 HazMat 1* 0.6% 71 Minutes 0.1 Station 2 Units 8.7% 19 Minutes 6.6 Engine 3 12.8% 21 Minutes 8.8 Station 4 Units 8.1% 19 Minutes 6.2 Station 5 Units 9.8% 21 Minutes 6.7 Station 6 Units 7.4% 18 Minutes 6.0 Engine 7 7.2% 17 Minutes 6.1 Truck 7 4.2% 18 Minutes 3.4 Rescue 7** 0.1% 39 Minutes 0.0 Station 9 Units 10.8% 23 Minutes 6.8 * Both Engine 1 and Truck 1 staff HazMat 1, and this number can be added to both unit totals. ** Both Engine 7 and Truck 7 staff Rescue 7, and this number can be added to both unit totals. 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 216 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO The desire is for the primary unit at a station, typically an engine or quint company, the most flexible response unit, to be under 10% UHU. Maintaining 10% UHU should indicate that the area has 90% availability from unscheduled events. Stations with multiple engines and quint 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 RSV organized by the various divisions. Figure 146: RSV Staffing Assignment Staffing Uniformed Administration 6 Non-Uniformed Administration 7 Fire Prevention 6 Operations Staff 111 Emergency Communications Roseville PD Volunteers, Reserve, On Call 2 (non-suppression) Total Personnel 130 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). 217 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 147: RSV Daily Staffing Station Daily Staffing Unit Staffing 1 8 BC (1), Engine (3), Truck (4) 2 3 Engine (3) 3 3 Engine (3) 4 3 Engine (3) 5 3 Engine (3) 6 3 Engine (3) 7 7 Engine (3), Truck (4) 8 — *To open in early 2025 9 7 BC (1), Engine (3), Engine (3) Total 37 218 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Roseville City Fire Stations The following figures outline the basic features of each of the City of Roseville's fire stations. The condition of the stations is rated based on the criteria identified in the introduction to this section of the report. Figure 148: Roseville Fire Stations Station Name/Number: RSV Station 1 Address/Physical Location: 80 Lincoln St., Roseville, CA General Description: Station 1 is in “Excellent” condition and meets the needs of a modern fire service facility. Structure Date of Original Construction 2018-2019 Seismic Protection CBC Condition (from rating sheet) Excellent Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-through Bays 3 Back-in Bays Length of each Apparatus Bay 73’ 2” Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters 8 Bedrooms 9 Beds Dorm Beds Current daily staffing 8 Maximum staffing capability 9 Kitchen Facilities Yes Bathroom/Shower Facilities 5 Assigned Apparatus/Vehicles Minimum Unit CAD Identifier Apparatus/Vehicle Type—Comments Staffing* E1 3 Type 1 Engine T1 4 Type 1 100’ Aerial HM1 CS Type 1 HazMat B1 1 Command Vehicle STEN 0 Pickup (Used for Strike Team Leader) Total Daily Staffing: 8 *If an apparatus is cross-staffed, enter "CS" after the minimum staff number. 219 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Station Name/Number: RSV Station 2 Address/Physical Location: 1398 Junction Boulevard., Roseville, CA General Description: The facility is in “Fair” condition and meets most of the needs of a modern fire station. Structure Date of Original Construction 1987 Seismic Protection CBC Condition (from rating sheet) Fair Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-through Bays 2 Back-in Bays Length of each Apparatus Bay 55’ Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters 2 Bedrooms 4 Beds Dorm Beds Current daily staffing 3 Maximum staffing capability 4 Kitchen Facilities Yes Bathroom/Shower Facilities 3 Assigned Apparatus/Vehicles Minimum Unit CAD Identifier Apparatus/Vehicle Type—Comments Staffing* E2 3 Type 1 Engine G2 CS Type 6 Engine Total Daily Staffing: 3 *If an apparatus is cross-staffed, enter "CS" after the minimum staff number. 220 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Station Name/Number: RSV Station 3 Address/Physical Location: 1300 Cirby Way, Roseville, CA General Description: Station 3 is in “Fair” condition and is 60 years old. It should be evaluated for replacement in the near future. Structure Date of Original Construction 1963 Seismic Protection CBC Condition (from rating sheet) Fair Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-through Bays 1 Back-in Bays 1 Length of each Apparatus Bay 56’ Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters 2 Bedrooms 5 Beds Dorm Beds Current daily staffing 3 Maximum staffing capability 5 Kitchen Facilities Yes Bathroom/Shower Facilities 2 Assigned Apparatus/Vehicles Minimum Unit CAD Identifier Apparatus/Vehicle Type—Comments Staffing* E3 3 Type 1 Engine E3B 0 Type 1 Engine (Reserve) Total Daily Staffing: 3 *If an apparatus is cross-staffed, enter "CS" after the minimum staff number. 221 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Station Name/Number: Fire Station 4 Address/Physical Location: 1900 Eureka Rd, Roseville, CA General Description: Station 4 is in “Fair” condition and meets most of the needs of a modern fire service facility. Structure Date of Original Construction 1989 Seismic Protection CBC Condition (from rating sheet) Fair Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-through Bays 2 Back-in Bays Length of each Apparatus Bay 63’10” Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters 2 Bedrooms 9 Beds Dorm Beds Current daily staffing 3 Maximum staffing capability 9 Kitchen Facilities Yes Bathroom/Shower Facilities 3 Assigned Apparatus/Vehicles Minimum Unit Apparatus/Vehicle Comments Staffing* E4 3 Type 1 Engine G4 3 CS Type 6 Engine cross staffed by E4 E4B 0 Reserve Type 1 Engine Total Daily Staffing: 3 *If an apparatus is cross-staffed, enter “CS” after the minimum staff number. 222 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Station Name/Number: Fire Station 5 Address/Physical Location: 1565 Pleasant Grove Boulevard, Roseville, CA General Description: Station 5 rated in “Fair” condition and meets most of the needs of a modern fire service facility. Structure Date of Original Construction 1996 Seismic Protection CBC Condition (from rating sheet) Fair Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-through Bays 2 Back-in Bays Length of each Apparatus Bay 57’ Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters 2 Bedrooms 3 Beds Dorm Beds Current daily staffing 3 Maximum staffing capability 3 Kitchen Facilities Yes Bathroom/Shower Facilities 2 Assigned Apparatus/Vehicles Minimum Unit Apparatus/Vehicle Comments Staffing* E5 3 Type 1 Engine BR5 3 CS Type 3 Engine cross staffed by E5 BR2B 0 Type 3 Engine (Reserve) Total Daily Staffing: 3 *If an apparatus is cross-staffed, enter “CS” after the minimum staff number. 223 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Station Name/Number: Fire Station 6 Address/Physical Location: 1430 E. Roseville Pkwy, Roseville, CA General Description: The facility meets the needs of a modern fire station. It is rated in “Fair” condition by the agency. Structure Date of Original Construction 2002 Seismic Protection CBC Condition (from rating sheet) Fair Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-through Bays 2 Back-in Bays Length of each Apparatus Bay 74’6” Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters 2 Bedrooms 6 Beds Dorm Beds Current daily staffing 3 Maximum staffing capability 6 Kitchen Facilities Yes Bathroom/Shower Facilities 3 Assigned Apparatus/Vehicles Minimum Unit Apparatus/Vehicle Comments Staffing* E6 3 Type 1 Engine BR6 3 CS Type 3 Engine cross-staffed by E3 E6B 0 Reserve Type 1 Engine BSU 0 Breathing Support Unit Total Daily Staffing: 3 *If an apparatus is cross-staffed, enter “CS” after the minimum staff number. 224 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Station Name/Number: Fire Station 7 Address/Physical Location: 911 Highland Pointe Dr, Roseville, CA General Description: Rated in “Good” condition, the building meets the needs of a modern fire station. Structure Date of Original Construction 2007 Seismic Protection CBC Condition (from rating sheet) Good Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-through Bays 3 Back-in Bays Length of each Apparatus Bay 74’6” Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters 3 Bedrooms 8 Beds Dorm Beds Current daily staffing 7 Maximum staffing capability 8 Kitchen Facilities Yes Bathroom/Shower Facilities 3 Assigned Apparatus/Vehicles Minimum Unit Apparatus/Vehicle Comments Staffing* E7 3 Type 1 Engine T7 4 Type 1 100’ Truck R7 6 CS Type 2 USAR cross-staffed by E7 & T7 T7B 0 Reserve Type 1 100’ Truck Total Daily Staffing: 7 *If an apparatus is cross-staffed, enter “CS” after the minimum staff number. 225 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Station Name/Number: Fire Station 9 Address/Physical Location: 2451 Hayden Pkwy, Roseville, CA General Description: The facility meets the needs of a modern fire station. It is rated in “Good” condition. Structure Date of Original Construction 2013 Seismic Protection CBC Condition (from rating sheet) Good Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-through Bays 2 Back-in Bays 1 Length of each Apparatus Bay 73’9” 44’8” Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters 4 Bedrooms 4 Beds Dorm Beds Current daily staffing 4 Maximum staffing capability 4 Kitchen Facilities Yes Bathroom/Shower Facilities 4 Assigned Apparatus/Vehicles Minimum Unit Apparatus/Vehicle Comments Staffing* E9 3 Type 1 Engine BR9 3 CS Type 3 Engine cross-staffed by E9 E9B 0 Reserve Type 1 Engine B2 1 Command vehicle B2B 0 Reserve command vehicle Total Daily Staffing: 4 *If an apparatus is cross-staffed, enter “CS” after the minimum staff number. Fire Stations Discussion Only one of the Roseville fire stations was considered to be in "Excellent" condition. Five of the remaining seven fire stations were rated as "Fair," and two were rated in "Good" condition. Fire station ages range from 5 to 60 years, with an average of just over 26 years. The following figure summarizes Roseville's fire stations and their features. 226 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 149: Station Configuration and Condition Staffing General Station Apparatus Bays Station Age Capacity Condition Station 1 3 9 Excellent 5 years Station 2 2 4 Fair 36 years Station 3 2 5 Fair 60 years Station 4 2 9 Fair 34 years Station 5 2 3 Fair 27 years Station 6 2 6 Fair 21 years Station 7 3 8 Good 16 years Station 9 3 4 Good 10 years Totals/Average: 19 48 26 years average Fire stations range from five to 60 years old and are maintained by the City of Roseville Public Works Department—Building Maintenance Division. Facilities are kept current through routine maintenance and repairs. Capital items are replaced through the City of Roseville Capital Improvement Program. All stations are equipped with: • Individual sleeping areas. • Physical fitness areas. • Restroom and shower areas. • Decontamination and laundry areas. • Crew and Officer office areas. • Food prep areas. • Shop and utility areas. • Stations are also equipped with station alerting equipment, radio desk sets, and vehicle exhaust removal systems. While all structures require routine maintenance, 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. 227 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO One item in particular that will require attention is the availability of sufficient electrical outlets to accommodate today’s need for battery charging, including charging stations for agency and employee Electrical Vehicles (EVs). Facility Replacement With three of RSV's eight stations over 30 years of age and with Station 3 being 60 years old, a facility replacement plan needs to be in place. The Fire Chief indicates that it may be advantageous to relocate Fire Station 5. Fire Station 8 is scheduled to open in 2025, and there is a plan in place for a Station 10 as the city continues to expand westward. It was not apparent if an additional plan was in place to replace or rehabilitate the other older stations. Capital items are replaced through the City of Roseville Capital Improvement Program. 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 city to plan for ongoing service from each station more efficiently. Status of Shared Facilities The Roseville Fire Department currently shares its training facilities with other agencies. Apparatus Apparatus was evaluated by RSV staff based on age, miles/hours, service, condition, and reliability. Fleet maintenance is provided by the City Public Works Department, and has systems in place for emergency assistance after hours. The criteria is defined in the introduction section of this report. The following figures represent all apparatus and vehicles operated by RSV. 228 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 150: RSV Apparatus Unit Type Status Year Condition Features Engines & Aerial Apparatus Engine 1 Type 1 Frontline 2020 14 1500 GPM/500 G Tank Engine 2 Type 1 Frontline 2021 11 1500 GPM/500 G Tank Engine 3 Type 1 Frontline 2021 11 1500 GPM/500 G Tank Engine 4 Type 1 Frontline 2021 11 1500 GPM/500 G Tank Engine 5 Type 1 Frontline 2016 18 1500 GPM/500 G Tank Engine 6 Type 1 Frontline 2016 18 1500 GPM/500 G Tank Engine 7 Type 1 Frontline 2021 11 1500 GPM/500 G Tank Engine 9 Type 1 Frontline 2016 18 1500 GPM/500 G Tank Engine 3R Type 1 Reserve 2006 28 1500 GPM/500 G Tank Engine 4R Type 1 Reserve 2006 28 1500 GPM/500 G Tank Engine 6R Type 1 Reserve 2006 28 1500 GPM/500 G Tank Engine 9R Type 1 Reserve 2006 28 1500 GPM/500 G Tank Truck 1 Ladder Frontline 2018 16 100-ft Aerial Truck 7 Ladder Frontline 2007 34 100-ft Aerial Truck 7R Ladder Reserve 2007 28 100-ft Aerial Brush 5 Type 3 Frontline 2021 13 500 GPM/500 G Tank Brush 6 Type 3 Frontline 2021 13 500 GPM/500 G Tank Brush 9 Type 3 Frontline 2021 13 500 GPM/500 G Tank Brush 2R Type 3 Reserve 2004 31 500 GPM/500 G Tank Grass 2 Type 6 Frontline 2016 17 250 GPM/300 G Tank Grass 4 Type 6 Frontline 2005 29.5 250 GPM/300 G Tank FTC Training Type 1 Training only 2004 29 1500 GPM/500 G Tank Medics/Rescues/Other Rescue 7 Rescue Frontline 2002 27 Other HazMat HazMat Frontline 2006 23 Other BSU Flatbed Chevy 3500 Frontline 2006 23.5 Tow vehicle for BSU 229 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 151: Supervisor & Command Vehicles Unit Assigned To Manufacturer Year Condition 1400 Fire Chief Chevy Tahoe 2022 7 1401 Assistant Chief Ford Explorer 2014 17 1402 Division Chief Operations Ford Explorer 2020 6 1403 Division Chief Special Ops Ford Explorer 2018 10 1416 Admin Battalion Chief Ford F250 Pickup 2022 19 1420 Admin Captain Ford F250 Pickup 2016 B1 Battalion 1 Chevy Tahoe 2016 11 B1R Battalion Relief Chevy Tahoe 2016 7 STEN Strike Team Leader Ford F250 Pickup 2016 19 Prevention 1 Fire/Life Safety Supervisor Ford Expedition 2012 22 230 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Dispatch & Communications Roseville City Police Department operates the city’s 911 Public Safety Answer Point (PSAP) and Dispatch Center. The center serves Roseville Fire, Police, and other city departments. See Section IV for a detailed report on dispatch functions. Figure 152: PSAP and Dispatch Center Item Description CAD Application Tyler Enterprise CAD Telephone System Intrado Viper 9-1-1 system (hosted) 800MHz P25 Simulcast trunked radio system Radio System plus VHF channels Fire/EMS Notification US Digital Phoenix G2 Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Mutual aid TAC channels, Statewide radio with other fire agencies in the county: interoperability channels Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Statewide Interoperability channels radio with police agencies in the county: Ability for fire agencies to communicate via Mutual aid TAC channels, Statewide radio with non-Fire EMS agencies in the county: interoperability channels Ability for PSAP to communicate CAD-to-CAD Phone call only (how do you transfer a call to another center): 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: Yes AVL used on ambulances & EMS units: No Panasonic Toughbook CF-33s running Tyler MDTs/MDCs in all fire & EMS vehicles: Mobile software on a Verizon backbone and Netmotion VPN Closest unit dispatched via AVL: Yes No. of 911 calls: 2021 – 69,560 No. of 7-digit incoming calls: 2021 – 13,232 Infrastructure Needs Fire Station 8 (the City’s 9th station) is currently under construction. Station 10 is planned as future development expands the city’s west side. There is a recommendation from a 2020 third-party consultant study to relocate Station 5 to delay opening Station 10. 231 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Governance Structure Options While governance options for RSV fire services generally mirror those of the other city fire departments, the size of the department, level of services offered, and specialty services offered to the community, as well as other agencies, negate any impetus for reorganization of the department. However, there continues to be the possibility for efficiencies through alternatives that capitalize on resource sharing, such as a joint powers authority designed to meet the needs and desires of the stakeholders. 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 I of this report, the following determinations are proposed for the City of Roseville. Growth and Population Projections 6-1: The City of Roseville (RSV) had an estimated 2020 U.S. Census population of 154,817. 6-2: Based on California Department of Finance projections of 0.55% through 2060, the territory within Roseville could reach 188,000 by 2060. Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence 6-3: No DUCs were identified by LAFCO at the Census Block Group level located within or contiguous to the City of Roseville’s SOI. 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 6-4: Based on unit hour utilization of most units and ISO ratings, RSV is able to provide an adequate level of services with sufficient capacity within its coverage area. The area would benefit from improved response times closer to the City’s adopted response time standards. Additionally, Engine 3 and Station 9 units operate above the recommended benchmark of 10% utilization, indicating these units are at or above capacity. 6-5: RSV has experienced an increase in incident volume of 9.5% from 2019 to 2022. During that time, there has been an increase in outside aid given of 16.7%, and aid received has declined by approximately -55.6%. 232 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 6-6: Only one of the Roseville fire stations was considered to be in "Excellent" condition. Five of the remaining seven fire stations were rated as "Fair," and two were rated in "Good" condition. With three of RSV's eight stations over 30 years of age and with Station 3 being 60 years old, a facility replacement plan needs to be in place. 6-7: Station 10 is planned as new development occurs west of Fiddyment Road. However, it may be advantageous to relocate Fire Station 5 to delay opening Station 10. 6-8: The primary critical issues for RSV are 1) recruitment, retention, and staffing, 2) maintaining or growing the budget with a recessionary forecast, and 3) keeping pace with the growth of the city and the region. Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services 6-9: The General Fund has typically produced a surplus, but planned expenditures have occasionally resulted in a reserve drawdown. Conservative fiscal policies have provided a General Fund reserve balance of 45% of annual expenditures. The COVID-19 pandemic had a minimal effect on the City’s General Fund operations in FY 2020 and FY 2021. 6-10: The City and the department participate in the CalPERS pension system. The City has, through its conservative fiscal practices, been able to make additional payments on the unfunded actuarial liability (UAL) portion of its obligation, reducing its future pension UAL liabilities by approximately $400,000 per year. 6-11: The City has adopted policies that result in conservative spending practices, as well as creating reserve balances. Overall, general fund expenses are forecast to grow at 3% annually. Similarly, projected expenditures of the RSV Fire Department are expected to increase 3% annually. General Fund projections through FY 2028 indicate a strong financial position with an anticipated increasing surplus over the next five years. Status and Opportunities for Shared Services 6-12: RSV operates the only Fire Training Center (FTC) in the county; other agencies frequently use this facility, including Sierra College, CSTI, UPRR, Roseville PD, and regional partner fire agencies. 6-13: There is potential for facility, personnel, and equipment sharing as RSV has plans to open Station 8 (the City’s 9th station) in early 2025. This station can serve the Placer One development until PCF can build a station in that area. 233 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies 6-14: The City appropriately maintains a website where documents are made available to the public regarding fire related services. RSV established a Standards of Cover in 2020; however, these documents are not available on the City’s website. The department does not have a Master Plan or Strategic Plan. It is recommended that these documents be developed for proper planning and be made available on the website. 6-15: Over the last ten years, most cost-minimization efforts have resulted from revising hiring and training practices and apparatus replacement schedules consisting of 1) shortened length of recruit academies, 2) hiring of limited-term employees to reduce overtime, 3) maintaining active promotional lists and using qualified employees in acting positions, and 4) increasing apparatus replacement from 10 years to 15 years. 6-16: Opportunities to increase value or efficiency for the public consist of implementing a Paramedic Squad program, 2) community paramedicine, and 3) relocating Fire Station 5 to delay the need to open the planned Fire Station #10. 6-17: While governance options for RSV fire services generally mirror those of the other city fire departments, the size of the department, level of services offered, and specialty services offered to the community as well as other agencies negate any impetus for reorganization of the department. However, there continues to be the possibility for efficiencies through alternatives that capitalize on resource sharing, such as a joint powers authority. 234 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 7 | South Placer Fire Protection District Profile Agency Overview South Placer Fire Protection District (SPL) is an independent fire district that provides fire protection, community risk reduction, and Advanced Life Support (ALS or Paramedic) emergency medical treatment and ambulance transportation to a population of about 34,768 within 42.05 square miles. SPL serves the communities of Granite Bay, Loomis, Folsom Lake State Recreation Area, and the southern areas of Newcastle and Penryn. SPL owns six fire stations, four of which are staffed full-time and two of which are totally unstaffed, with 57 full-time career personnel and one volunteer. SPL also owns a former fire station that is currently used for storage. SPL is dispatched by Placer County Sheriff’s Office. SPL provides ambulance transport within the boundaries of the original South Placer Fire District and through an automatic aid agreement to areas of unincorporated Loomis, but not within the Town of Loomis annexation area (former Loomis Fire District), where American Medical Response is the transport provider. Background SPL was formed in 1952 and began its ambulance transport service in 1962. In 2017, South Placer Fire District and Loomis Fire District consolidated. SPL established a Standards of Cover in 2004 and a Master Plan in 2008. A Strategic Plan, which includes Mission, Vision, and Goals and Objectives, was completed in 2019. All of the planning documents have been adopted by the governing body. SPL completed a comprehensive Master Plan in early 2024. SPL received a Class 3/3Y ISO Rating in its most recent evaluation from the Insurance Services Office (ISO) in February 2018. Over the last few years, most cost minimization efforts have resulted from reducing resources as a budget reduction strategy. The reductions include the following: • Stations 15 personnel moved to Station 16 and Station 15 and 19 were closed in late 2022. • The ladder truck was taken out of service at the same time. • A new deployment model was implemented that pairs a transport ambulance with a 2-person engine (totaling 4 personnel) at two stations. • Daily minimum staffing was reduced from 18 to 15 firefighters. 235 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Parcels within Division 1 (former Loomis Fire District) are assessed by a voter-approved Special Tax and a Benefit Assessment (totaling $384 annually) for services provided by the district. Both revenue sources have annual increases based on CPI. Parcels within Division 2 (the original South Placer Fire District) are assessed at $70 per year. There is no inflator on this assessment; it has been static since its inception in 1981. Fire mitigation fees are assessed on new construction within the Town of Loomis and in the unincorporated county areas within the district. In 2022, the SPL conducted a Proposition 218 compliant Benefit Assessment process in Division 2 (original South Placer Fire District) in an attempt to increase revenue to maintain operations. The Benefit Assessment did not pass. The Fire Chief has indicated the facilities are generally in good repair, but some deferred maintenance projects will come due soon. There are three stations that need major overhaul work due to the changing deployment model. Apparatus are considered top- notch; SPL recently received a grant to replace the oldest piece of apparatus, a 1985 water tender. According to the Fire Chief, there is may be opportunity to leverage economies of scale to improve services. SPL could reorganize services with both Penryn and Newcastle, leading to improved services for both communities, along with Loomis and Granite Bay. Another opportunity for sharing services is to leverage the use of SPL’s mechanic shop and reserve fleet. SPL has a robust reserve fleet that could support other communities, as well as an in- house fire mechanic and apprentice that can support most fleet concerns. The Fire Chief's top three critical issues: • Adequate funding, as expenses are rising faster than revenue. • Communications among the five fire dispatch centers needs to be improved. • Automatic/Mutual Aid. The Fire Chief's top three opportunities to increase value and/or efficiency for the public: • Reorganization of smaller fire districts in the County. • Creation of a regional fire dispatch center serving all the non-CAL FIRE areas and cities. • Community paramedicine. 236 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Boundaries and Sphere of Influence SPL occupies Placer County’s southeastern, with the Sacramento County line forming the southern boundary and the El Dorado County line on the eastern boundary. The Newcastle and Penryn fire districts are on SPL’s north boundary; the cities of Lincoln, Rocklin, and Roseville lie to the west. A small island of Placer County Fire Department (CSA 28 Zone 76) lies adjacent to the northwesternmost border along Sierra College Bl. The SPL territory includes two Divisions: Division 1 is the former Loomis Fire District; Division 2 is the original South Placer Fire District. Annexations to the City of Roseville have left some islands of SPL territory within the extreme south end of Roseville. The district includes a small area that was annexed into the City of Rocklin in 1982. This area, known as Sierra Bluffs, should be detached from SPL as it receives fire service from the City of Rocklin Fire Department. SPL’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) is indeterminate because Placer LAFCO has not adopted SOIs for the independent fire districts. 237 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 153: SPL Service Area SPL service area includes most of the incorporated Town of Loomis. 238 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Type & Extent of Services Services Provided SPL provides a full range of services for its residents, including being one of only two fire agencies in the Western Placer study area to be the primary ambulance provider. The following figure represents each of the services and the level performed. Figure 154: Overview of Services Provided Service Y/N Level Fire Suppression Yes Wildland engine-based suppression (Type Wildland Fire Suppression Yes 3, 5, and 6) Statewide Mobilization Yes OES Type 1 Engine assignee; EMS First Response Yes EMT and Paramedic Level Ambulance Transport Yes Paramedic Level (primary provider) Specialized/Technical Rescue Yes HazMat Response Yes FRO/FRA Fire Inspection/Code Enforcement Yes Plan Reviews Yes Public Education/Prevention Yes Fire & Arson Investigation Yes Service Area The South Placer Fire District was formed in 1952. In 2017, SPL consolidated with Loomis Fire District. Altogether, SPL consists of approximately 42.05 square miles with a population of 34,768. The community is characterized as a bedroom community with high-end homes. New homes average over 6000 square feet, with many homes double that size. The Loomis basin is home to many small ranches and family orchards. Portions of the service area face a wildland/urban interface (WUI) fire threat. About half of the SPL territory is State Responsibility Area (SRA) for wildland fires. Other major hazards include two rail lines, Interstate 80, Roseville water treatment facility, and a high-pressure fuel pipeline. 239 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Collaboration • Western Placer County Fire Chiefs Association Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid Agreement (May 2023) provides for the dispatch of the closest appropriate resource. • SPL maintains and operates OES Engine 4106 under an agreement with the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. SPL personnel staff this Type 1 engine when requested to respond to major incidents anywhere in the state. • Much of the unincorporated land within the SPL boundary is classified as State Responsibility Area (SRA) for wildland fires. Thus, CAL FIRE dispatches a full wildland response, including engines, aircraft, crews, and bulldozers, to any reported wildfire. • SPL gives and receives mutual aid from the following agencies: ▪ Auburn Fire Department ▪ Roseville Fire Department ▪ Folsom Fire Department ▪ Rocklin Fire Department ▪ Sacramento Metro Fire Protection District ▪ Penryn Fire Protection District ▪ Newcastle Fire Protection District ▪ Placer County Fire Department • Automatic aid and Mutual aid agreement with AMR for ambulance transport. • Participant in Placer County Incident Management Team. • HazMat Level A provided by Roseville Fire Department and Placer County Fire Department through the mutual aid agreement. Contracts to Provide Services to Other Agencies • SPL operates two ALS (paramedic) ambulances under an Exclusive Operating Area agreement with the Sierra/Sacramento Valley EMS Authority. This agreement was finalized in 2007 and SPL maintains its historic 1791.201 rights. Contracts for Services from Other Agencies • Placer County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO) provides dispatch services. 240 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Governance & Administration SPL is governed by a seven-member elected Board of Directors that is comprised of four members from Division 2 (the original South Placer Fire District) and three members from Division 1 (the former Loomis Fire District). The Fire Chief reports to the Board of Directors. The organization is comprised of three Divisions: Operations/Training, Emergency Medical Services/Safety, and Community Risk Reduction/Prevention. Figure 155: SPL Organizational Chart Board of Directors Fire Chief Deputy Fire Chief Division Chief Division Chief Mechanic Operations/Trainin Business Manager CRR/Prevention EMS/Safety g Battalion Chief Battalion Chief Battalion Chief Apprentice Admin Assistant Mechanic Prevention A Shift B Shift C Shift District Secretary (1) (1) (1) Company 15A Company 15B Company 15C (Closed) (Closed) (Closed) Company 16A Company 16B Company 16C (4) (4) (4) Company 17A Company 17B Company 17C (3) (3) (3) Company 18A Company 18B Company 18C (3) (3) (3) Company 19A Company 19B Company 19C (Closed) (Closed) (Closed) Company 20A Company 20B Company 20C (4) (4) (4) 241 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Accountability for Community Services—Transparency The following figure identifies the SPL’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 156: Transparency and Accountability Transparency and Accountability Available Agency website:61 Yes Adopted budget available on website: Yes Notice of public meetings provided: Yes Agendas posted on website:62 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: 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 fire and emergency services provided to the community consist of participation in local events, tours of the fire stations, and educational programs focused on fire prevention and preparedness. SPL operates a Fire Prevention trailer and works with CHP and PCSO on larger events that include National Night Out, Every Fifteen Minutes, and Day with a Deputy. 61 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. 62 Government Code §54954.2. 242 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Land Use and Population Land Use (Granite Bay) The Placer County adopted the Granite Bay Community Plan in 2012. The Plan is a long- range planning document designed to guide development in a manner that enhances the quality of life in the Granite Bay community. The purpose of the Community Plan is to give clear direction as to how physical development and land-use decisions should take place to meet the current and future needs of the residents, in a manner that preserves the character and independent identity of the community. Figure 157: Planned Land Use Percentages—Granite Bay Land Use Categories % of Total Area Parks/Preserve/Open Space 28% Rural/Low Density Residential 68% Medium Density Residential < 3% High Density Residential < 1% Commercial/Professional Office < 2% Land Use (Town of Loomis) The Town of Loomis began an update of their General Plan in 2020; however, as of the writing of this report, the Town has not adopted the update. The following information is from the Plan draft. Figure 158: Planned Land Use Percentages—Loomis Land Use Categories % of Total Area Parks/Preserve/Open Space/ROW 7% Residential < 5 Acre 77% Residential > 5 Acre 2% Industrial 3% Commercial/Professional Office 10% 243 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Current Population The State of California Department of Finance (CDoF) publishes population information by year for each county based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau and state records.63 Unincorporated portions of Placer County account for approximately 29.6% of the population. The fire protection districts within the study area and the county fire department have consistently accounted for 14.8% of the population. SPL comprises the Town of Loomis and other unincorporated areas encompassing 42.05 square miles.64 The 2020 CDoF population estimate for the Town of Loomis was 6,814, while the remaining SPL population is estimated at 26,350 for a total 2022 estimated population of 34,768.65,66 Projected Population The State of California Department of Finance (CDoF) maintains an annual county population estimate. In addition to the yearly historical estimates, the CDoF also publishes an annual population projection through 2060. While this projection is for the county, each city and fire protection district’s population growth can be inferred as a percentage of overall county growth. Average annual countywide growth from 2010–2023 was 1.28%, and the Town of Loomis consistently accounted for 1.7% of the county population while the rest of SPL maintained a consistent 6.5% of the county population. CDoF estimated the average annual growth rate from 2023 through 2060 to be 0.55%. Based on these estimates and percentages, SPL’s population will be approximately 41,000 by 2060. The following figure shows historical and projected growth from 2010 through 2060 based on CDoF information. 63 Estimates-E1 | Department of Finance (ca.gov). 64 communityanalyst.arcgis.com/esriCA. 65 Estimates-E1 | Department of Finance (ca.gov). 66 communityanalyst.arcgis.com/esriCA. 244 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 159: SPL Estimated Population (2010–2060) 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 South Placer FPD South Placer FPD (no Loomis) City of Loomis 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).67 LAFCO is required to identify the location and characteristics of any DUCs in the Service Review and SOI update process.68 LAFCO did not identify any DUCs at the Census Block Group level located within or contiguous to the SPL SOI. Financial Overview Historical Information SPL operates through one fund, the General Fund, to manage the district’s operations, capital requirements, and debt service. 67 Government Code §56033.5. 68 Government Codes §56425(e)(5) and §56430(2). 245 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO A seven-member Board of Directors and the Fire Chief develop strategic priorities, budget policies and various long range planning documents to be used to prepare an annual operating budget based on a July through June fiscal year. Budget preparations for the subsequent year begin in January with a review of recent accomplishment of various objectives, the service level priorities, and community engagement and outreach, resulting in a draft of the budget being produced. A draft budget is presented in May for adoption in June to meet the legal requirement of an operational budget before the new fiscal year. The Board adopts the final budget in September. SPL operates through three divisions: Operations/Training, EMS/Safety, and CRR/Prevention. Revenues and Expenditures SPL is funded primarily through property tax, special tax, and charges for the services it provides. The related revenue streams to pay for those services are divided into two geographic areas, Division 1 consisting primarily of the City of Loomis, and Division 2 which includes Granite Bay, unincorporated Loomis, and the southern areas of Penryn and Newcastle. A significant amount of information regarding the General Fund was reviewed to develop a 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 SPL during the COVID-19 pandemic. Revenues SPL is funded by property taxes and a $70 per parcel special tax applied to Division 2 parcels, and a special tax and benefit assessment averaging $384 per parcel applied to Division 1 parcels. The Division 2 assessment was enacted in 1981 but did not include a provision to increase the assessment amount for inflation resulting in revenues falling short of escalating costs. Additional revenue is provided by billings for ambulance transport services, cellular tower lease, fire prevention and mitigation fees, and cost recovery for response to emergency incidents. In 2022, the SPL sought to increase revenues from Division 2 through a Benefit Assessment under a Proposition 218 election. The Benefit Assessment would have increased the Division 2 assessment from $70 annually to a base cost of $214 annually and would have provided for an annual Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) tied to the San Francisco Bay Area consumers price index but capped at 3% annually. On June 9, 2022, the measure failed by a 53% to 47% vote margin. 246 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO The failure of the Benefit Assessment measure resulted in the closure of Stations 15 and 19 with the reassignment of personnel and equipment from Station 15 to previously closed Station 16. The failure of the measure also resulted in the removal from service the only Truck Company (Truck 17). While the measure’s defeat did not result in direct layoffs, six full- time equivalent positions were eliminated through attrition with no current plans to replace them. Property tax revenues, based on assessed property tax values, are the largest source of revenue to the district.69 Revenues from this source flow into the General Fund. This revenue source accounts for approximately 60% of General revenues. Property tax revenues have increased 25% between FY 2018 and FY 2022, an average of 5% annually. SPL elected to receive 100% of the annual assessment under the Teeter Program, foregoing any penalties and interest on delinquent tax receipts. The special assessment tax has remained consistent during the same time period. A special assessment parcel tax of $70 is paid annually by the property owners in Division 2 which includes Granite Bay, unincorporated Loomis and the southern areas of Penryn and Newcastle. A special tax and benefit assessment on Division 1 parcel owners, consistently mostly of the Town of Loomis, averages $380 per parcel. The special fire assessment adds another 15% to the revenue stream. Ambulance billing revenues have grown 30% between FY 2018 and FY 2022 or 6% per year. Collections have increased 37% or over 7% during the same time period. The ambulance billings add another 10%. Prevention and Mitigation fees and miscellaneous receipts make up the balance of the General Fund revenues. 69 South Placer Fire Protection District Audit Report, June 30, 2022. 247 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Expenses SPL operates four staffed fire stations and one volunteer station. The district operates four ALS engine companies, and two ALS ambulance units. SPL participates in the CalPERS pension system and has incurred a significant unfunded actuarial liability (UAL) on its pension obligations. Annual payments on this UAL are projected at more than $930,000 per year, increasing to over $1million next year and will continue to increase for the foreseeable future. The UAL will represent a very significant portion of SFPD’s costs associated with providing services to the community. Additionally, the district issued bonds to paydown the UAL using a lower interest rate. These bonds add approximately $500,000 to the total actual expenditures but are reflected in as debt service. Salaries and benefits are approximately 80% of the overall expenditures for the SPL on an annual basis. These amounts have grown between FY 2018 and FY 2022 through compensation increases but have been more adversely affected by the significant growth in the CalPERS pension costs. These costs, both for annual normal pension costs and, more significantly, the required amortization of the unfunded actuarial liability continue to increase annually. With the department’s minimum staffing issues, historic overtime use is 30% of the base wages, indicating an additional 20% in the average number of hours worked by the SPL’s firefighters. The preceding information indicates the minimal impact of the pandemic on SPL’s property tax revenues. The next figure illustrates the General Fund revenues and expenditures over the previous 60-month study period. Figure 160: SPL General Fund Revenues and Expenses Summarized $15,000,000 $14,218,107 $14,000,000 $13,584,134 $13,391,006 $13,932,110 $12,779,027 $13,000,000 $13,226,393 $12,098,613 $12,662,975 $12,573,522 $12,000,000 $11,480,935 $11,000,000 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 Revenue Expenditures 248 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Revenues The following figure summarizes, by major category, the revenues, and expenditures of SPL and the impact of the annual surplus or deficit on the fund balance. Figure 161: SPL General Fund Revenues, Expenses and Fund Balances, FY 2018–FY 202270 Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Revenue/Expenses FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 Property Taxes 7,156,013 7,860,631 8,180,434 8,540,944 9,010,167 Special Assessments 2,340,506 2,097,784 2,168,356 2,214,901 2,259,598 Charges for Ambulance Srvs 1,342,171 1,549,284 1,534,099 1,573,545 1,747,537 Mitigation Fees 429,688 324,846 379,379 348,741 526,864 Strike Team Cost Recovery 860,372 464,635 141,757 453,444 435,212 Cost Recovery 211,936 184,909 203,976 248,773 358,205 Intergovernmental 54,148 55,701 55,601 55,246 54,771 Cellular Tower Lease 82,903 83,757 98,981 96,539 94,353 Interest & Rents 58,843 73,039 51,187 8,722 5,884 Grants 66,768 707,841 281,262 95,497 — Proceeds from Capital Lease — — — 700,154 — Other 116,711 51,049 53,620 122,372 194,892 Total Revenues 12,720,059 13,453,476 13,148,652 14,458,878 14,687,483 Salaries 6,408,849 7,034,550 7,379,123 7,524,425 7,879,280 Benefits 2,699,218 3,040,465 3,396,587 3,746,898 4,279,475 Strike Team Costs 765,129 431,136 128,258 442,529 412,656 Salaries & Benefits 9,873,196 10,506,151 10,903,968 11,713,852 12,571,411 Services & Supplies 1,449,320 1,618,274 1,584,474 1,693,976 1,680,178 Capital 391,199 1,836,566 328,652 513,659 307,561 Mitigation Expenses 256,507 1,106,495 191,631 1,154,594 222,082 Total Expenditures 11,970,222 15,067,486 13,008,725 15,076,081 14,781,232 Surplus (Deficit) 749,837 (1,614,010) 139,927 (617,203) (93,749) Beginning Fund Balance 5,268,140 6,017,977 4,403,967 4,543,894 3,926,691 Ending Fund Balance 6,017,977 4,403,967 4,543,894 3,926,691 3,832,942 70 South Placer Fire Protection District Adopted Budgets, FY 2021/FY 2022/FY 2022/FY 2023. 249 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Financial Projections Revenues The South Placer FPD anticipates property tax revenues to continue to increase, forecast to grow at an annual rate of 5%. Property tax growth is limited by California’s Prop 13 legislation that was enacted many years ago. The special assessment parcel taxes are anticipated to grow at 2% annually and ambulance revenues are anticipated to increase at 3% annually. Expenses SPL’s expenses have been reviewed by the Fire Chief to create a more cost-effective operation that may be sustained with the existing revenue streams. This restructuring is evident in the FY 2023 budget cycle and results in the closure of a station and a deployment model with two engines staffed by two personnel each. The stop-gap has been to assign the transport firefighter/paramedics, should they be in quarters, to an engine to respond to a fire. This model is also budgeted to reduce the significant use of overtime from the callback of off-duty firefighters. SPL issued $5,375,000 of Certificates of Participation to fund a significant portion of the CalPERS unfunded actuarial liability (UAL). It appears payments on these certificates are included in the benefits section of the budget. These payments are scheduled to increase from the FY 2022 amount of $135,00 to $490,000 in FY 2037. Combined with the remaining UAL payments, the payments for that portion of the pension costs are forecast to decrease marginally for the next several years as the increase in the payments on the certificates will be more than offset by the decrease in the remaining UAL payments. Salaries and other forms of compensation are forecast to escalate 3% annually. Other operating costs are forecast to increase between 2% and 3% other operating costs, and capital expenditures are forecast at $324,000 annually. The following figure summarizes the forecast revenues and expenditures for SPL. Figure 162: SPL General Fund Projected Revenues and Expenses Summarized Revenue/ Budgeted FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Expenses FY 2023 Revenue 14,419,924 14,927,623 15,510,693 16,120,635 16,758,736 17,426,350 Expenditures 14,554,283 14,059,721 14,367,392 14,714,355 15,010,870 15,347,208 Surplus (Deficit) (134,359) 867,901 1,143,301 1,406,280 1,747,867 2,079,143 250 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Capital Planning SPL maintains a list of capital resources including acquisition date. SPL’s limited funding in relation to its operating costs does not allow for the replacement of these resources in a planned manner. A formal capital improvement plan is in place and is approved by the Board of Directors annually. Demand for Services SPL is a suburban 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 September 30, 2022. This analysis focuses on incidents within the statutory and contractual areas where SPL responds. The following figure is the overview statistics for SPL. Figure 163: SPL Performance Overview Avg. Annual Incidents per 90th Percentile Agency Incident Vol. 1,000 Population Total Time South Placer Fire District 3,096 80 09:07 Incident categories closely follow the National Fire Incident Reporting System’s code grouping, classifying incidents based on general hazards. Medical responses account for over 58% of SPL’s operations, while actual fires account for approximately 1% of total responses. This proportion is similar to many fire agencies that provide emergency medical services. The category “Good Intent” is used when the situation found didn’t require the unit to take action. Examples might be a smoke check that turned out to be smoke from a chimney, or a report of an accident on the freeway that couldn’t be located, or the unit being cancelled by another agency prior to arrival. The following figure shows the total number of incidents between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2022, including the percentage of overall incidents. 251 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 164: SPL’s Total Incident Response by Type with Percentage Rescue-Medical 58% Good Intent 15% False Alarm 14% Service 8% Hazardous Condition 3% Special 1% Fire 1% Overpressure 0% Disaster 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Typically, an analysis of incidents by year can yield a trend or give an idea of the call volume in the next few years. However, 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 SPL’s case, they have rebounded to a growth rate more consistent with pre-pandemic call volume levels. By analyzing 2022, they the data shows an upward trend in incident volume. The aid given was calculated by filtering the geolocation against any incident outside the agency’s boundaries. Aid received relies on that data point provided by the agency. The following figure shows the annual incident volume by year. Aid given includes both Mutual Aid and Automatic Aid provided to neighboring agencies. Mutual aid to AMR for ambulance transport service is not reflected in these statistics. In 2022, SPL provided aid to AMR 473 times, with AMR provided aid to SPL 36 times. 252 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 165: SPL’s Annual Incidents by Year 3,835 3,274 2,659 2,614 552 318 339 292 207 167 187 89 2019 2020 2021 2022 Aid Given Service Area Incidents Service Area Aid Received Additional temporal studies show that the monthly call volume variation is insignificant, and the agency does not experience significant variation by season. However, SPL, like many similar agencies, does see a substantial increase in incident volume during the day. SPL sees over 72% of its incidents daily between 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM. The following figure shows the general variation of the complete incident data set by the hour of the day. 253 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 166: SPL’s Incident Percentage by Hour 7% 6% s t n 5% e d ic 4% n I f o t 3% n e c r 2% e 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 254 Fire Service Review Placer 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 and day of the week. Figure 167: SPL Day and Hour Incident Heat Map Hour Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Color Incidents 0–1 134–151 1–2 112–135 2–3 102–113 3–4 90–103 4–5 69–91 5–6 47–70 6–7 39–48 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 Incident volumes remain generally consistent throughout the week, with 10:00 AM and noon on Monday and Wednesday being heavy load times. Sunday is consistently slower than the rest of the week, as is Thursday. 255 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Emergency Response Performance SPL’s response performance was also evaluated. The performance times use computer- aided dispatch data (CAD) to complete the analysis using the 90th percentile statistic. SLP’s dispatch center provided data from January 1, 2019, through September 30, 2022. The 90th percentile is typically used in the fire service and is considered the standard for measuring incident response performance. Every effort was made to try and get only those incidents requiring emergency response. Only high-priority dispatches were considered for this study. Three unique time segments were 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 enroute to the call (turnout time); and the 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. SPL indicated they use 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 as a benchmark measure. Between January 1, 2019, and September 30, 2022, SPL’s performance for 10,513 priority incidents of all types within the fire response area was a total response time of 9 minutes, 7 seconds (9:07) 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 high-priority call types. Figure 168: SPL’s Adopted Standard vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance NFPA Standard 1/2019–9/2023 Performance Fire 6:20 or less, 90% of the time 11:32 or less, 90% of the time EMS 6:00 or less, 90% of the time 8:31 or less, 90% of the time The following figure shows the performance of the total response time for each major incident type for all high-priority incidents within the data set. 256 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 169: SPL High Priority Incidents’ 90th Percentile Total Response Times (January 2019–September 2022) 12:00 11:32 09:58 10:00 08:29 08:00 06:00 04:00 02:00 00:00 Fire * Other Medical 90% Total Response Time Total Time Benchmark The final analysis investigated the unit usage question for all apparatus within the system. Three dimensions were studied in this report. The first 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 second is the average time a unit was committed to an incident. And the third is the average number of incidents a unit was deployed daily. 257 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Unit data was evaluated for all dates within the data set. The data for each cross-staffed unit is combined into the primary apparatus. SPL stations 18 and 20 are staffed with one crew but frequently respond in multiple units. In addition, the status of several units was changed throughout the study period. However, all units were included in the analysis. The following figure shows the general statistics for each frontline apparatus. Figure 170: SPL Fire Unit Statistics Unit Hour Utilization Avg. Time per Avg. Incidents Per Unit (UHU) Incident Day Engine 17* 0.6% 28 Minutes 0.3 Truck 17* 3.7% 24 Minutes 2.2 Station 18 Units 4.1% 25 Minutes 2.3 Station 20 Units 7.4% 60 Minutes 1.8 Engine 19* 3.3% 26 Minutes 1.9 * Engine 19 and Truck 17 were closed in October 2022. Truck 17 may have been the primary unit at station 17 during its time. Still, Engine 17 had multiple responses throughout the reporting period. SPL Indicated that it currently staffs Engine 16 and Medic 16. It was noted in the response data that Engine 16 had a few responses in 2019 and then again in September 2022. Medic 16 appeared to be in service starting sometime in January 2020, ending sometime in September 2020, and then again in service beginning in September 2022. Since these units' start and stop dates were not readily understood, they were not included in the above analysis. 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 the area has 90% availability from unscheduled events. Stations with multiple engines and quint companies should aggregate to less than 10% UHU for all similar units. In addition, firefighters from the primary apparatus that cross-staff other units should avoid aggregated UHUs of over 10%. 258 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Staffing The following figure shows the total number of personnel for SPL organized by the various divisions. Figure 171: SPL Staffing Assignment Staffing Uniformed Administration 4 Non-Uniformed Administration 5 Fire Prevention (included above) Operations Staff 48 Emergency Communications PCSO Volunteers, Reserve, On Call 1 Total Personnel 58 The following figure shows the minimum 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). There is one member per shift for relief staffing not accounted for in the chart below. Figure 172: SPL Daily Staffing Station Daily Staffing Unit Staffing 15 0 Station is currently closed. 16 4 Engine (2), Ambulance (2) 17 4 Engine (3), Battalion Chief (1) 18 3 Engine (3) 19 0 Station is currently closed. 20 4 Engine (2), Ambulance (2) Total 15 259 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO South Placer Fire Stations The following figures outline the basic features of each of the SPL’s fire stations. The condition of the stations is rated based on the criteria identified in the introduction to this section of the report. Figure 173: South Placer Fire Stations Address/Physical Location: 4650 East Roseville Parkway, Granite Bay, CA General Description: The SPFD Company 15 Station is currently closed, however, the station and grounds are consistently maintained by SPFD personnel. This station meets the needs of a modern fire service facility. SPFD Truck 17 (out of service) is stored at this station. Structure Date of Original Construction 1987 General Condition Excellent Seismic Protection Yes Auxiliary Power Yes ADA Compliant Yes Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 2 Back-Ins Total Bays: 2 Total Square Footage 3,420 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 4 Beds 3 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 4 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities 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 Yes/Yes/No Safety & Security Station Sprinklered Yes Smoke Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System Yes 260 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Address/Physical Location: 5300 Olive Ranch Road, Granite Bay, CA General Description: The Company 16 Station is a well-maintained facility, meeting most of the needs of a modern fire service facility. SPFD Engine 16, Medic 16, and Brush 16 (which is cross staffed) respond from this station. Structure Date of Original Construction 2008 General Condition Good Seismic Protection Yes Auxiliary Power No ADA Compliant Yes Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 2 Back-Ins 0 Total Bays: 2 Total Square Footage 6,500 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 Yes 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 Yes/Yes/No Safety & Security Station Sprinklered Yes Smoke Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System Yes 261 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Address/Physical Location: 6900 Eureka Road, Granite Bay, CA General Description: SPFD Company 17 station is in poor condition, lacking features necessary for today’s modern fire stations. SPFDs Administrative and Prevention staff are collocated within this facility. SPFD Engine 17, Grass 17 (cross-staffed), and a Battalion Chief respond from Company 17. Structure Date of Original Construction 1975 General Condition Poor Seismic Protection No Auxiliary Power No ADA Compliant No Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 3 Back-Ins 0 Total Bays: 3 Total Square Footage 9,920 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 6 Beds 7 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 7 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities Yes 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/Yes/Yes Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System Yes 262 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Address/Physical Location: 5840 Horseshoe Bar Road, Loomis, CA General Description: The SPFD Company 18 station is 43 years old and lacks many of the features needed for a modern fire station, however, crews take pride in the upkeep of this facility. Response from this station includes Engine 18 and Brush 18 (cross-staffed). Structure Date of Original Construction 1980 General Condition Fair Seismic Protection No Auxiliary Power Yes ADA Compliant No Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 1 Back-Ins 1 Total Bays: 2 Total Square Footage 4,756 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 4 Beds 5 Dorm Beds 0 Maximum Staffing Capability 5 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities Yes 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/Yes/Yes Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System Yes 263 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Address/Physical Location: 7070 Auburn Folsom Road, Granite Bay, CA General Description: SPFD Company 19 Station is closed at the time of this report, however, it is still well-maintained by on- duty district crews and the Battalion Chiefs. This station meets most of the needs of a modern fire service facility. Company 19 serves as a storage facility for unstaffed equipment including Water Tender-19, a reserve Brush Unit, a reserve Medic Unit, and OES4106. Structure Date of Original Construction 2003 General Condition Good Seismic Protection Yes Auxiliary Power Yes ADA Compliant Yes Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-Throughs 3 Back-Ins 0 Total Bays: 3 Total Square Footage 7,527 Facilities Available Sleeping Quarters Bedrooms 2 Beds 7 Dorm Beds 6 Maximum Staffing Capability 7 (Total number of staff that can be housed at station) Bathroom/Shower Facilities Yes 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 Yes/Yes/Yes Safety & Security Station Sprinklered Yes Smoke Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System Yes 264 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Address/Physical Location: 3505 Auburn Folsom Road, Loomis, CA General Description: Although the crews take pride in the maintenance of SPFD Company-20, the facility is rated in “Poor” condition and lacks most features necessary for a modern fire station. The responding apparatus includes Engine 20 (with 2-0 staffing), and Medic 20. In addition, Grass 20 is cross staffed with on duty personnel. Structure Date of Original Construction 1985 General Condition Poor 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 3,500 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 Yes Gender Segregation (Y/N) Bathrooms Y Showers Y Bedrooms Y Exercise/Workout Facilities Yes (in apparatus bay) Kitchen Facilities Yes Individual Lockers Assigned No Training/Meeting Rooms No Washer/Dryer/Extractor Yes/Yes/No Safety & Security Station Sprinklered No Smoke Detection Yes Decon & Biological Disposal No Security System No Apparatus Exhaust System Yes 265 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Fire Stations Discussion Only one of the SPFD fire stations was considered in "Excellent" condition. Three of the remaining five fire stations were rated as “Good” or "Fair," and Station 17 and Station 20 are rated "Poor" in condition. Fire station ages range from 15 to 65 years, with an average of just over 37 years. The following figure summarizes the SPL fire stations and their features. Figure 174: Station Configuration and Condition Staffing General Station Apparatus Bays Station Age Capacity Condition Station 15 2 4 Excellent 36 years Station 16 2 4 Good 15 years Station 17 3 7 Poor 48 years Station 18 2 5 Fair 65 years Station 19 3 7 Good 20 years Station 20 3 4 Poor 38 years Totals/Average: 15 31 37 years average Generally, SPL's stations are well maintained and functional. 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 access to charging stations for electric vehicles and battery-operated equipment. The older SPL stations are no exception. For example, older buildings do not meet the requirements due to the need to decontaminate personnel and equipment after 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 continuous occupancy by a minimum of three adults. Multiple departures and returns of heavy apparatus also affect these structures. 266 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Facility Remodels The Fire Chief has indicated that major deferred maintenance projects will come due soon. There are three stations that are ready for major overhaul work due to the expansion of District services and the changing deployment model. Status of Shared Facilities SPL does not currently share any facilities, however, there is potential for sharing vehicle maintenance services with other fire agencies. The shop facility has the capacity to service a larger number of vehicles; this option will be explored further when an additional mechanic is in place and performing competently. Apparatus Apparatus was evaluated by SPL staff based on age, miles/hours, service, condition, and reliability. Fleet maintenance is provided in-house by SPL mechanics and systems are in place for emergency assistance after hours. The criteria are defined in the introduction section of this report. The following figures represent all apparatus and vehicles operated by SPL. 267 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 175: SPL Apparatus Unit Type Status Year Condition Features Engines & Aerial Apparatus Engine 16 Type 1 Frontline 2018 Excellent 1500 GPM/500 G Tank Engine 17 Type 1 Frontline 2021 Excellent 1500 GPM/600 G Tank Engine 18 Type 1 Frontline 2021 Excellent 1500 GPM/600 G Tank Res. Engine 17 Type 1 Reserve 2005 Poor 1500 GPM/600 G Tank Res. Engine 20 Type 1 Reserve 2001 Poor 1250 GPM/800 G Tank Engine 20 Type 1 Frontline 2005 Poor 1500 GPM/600 G Tank Res. Engine 18 Type 1 Reserve 2004 Poor 1500 GPM/600 G Tank Truck 17 Truck Reserve 2013 Excellent 100’ Aerial Ladder Brush 17 Type 3 Frontline 2013 Excellent 500 GPM/500 G Tank Brush 18 Type 3 Frontline 2013 Excellent 500 GPM/500 G Tank Res. Brush Type 2 Reserve 2007 Good 1000 GPM/750 G Tank Grass 16 Type 6 Frontline 2008 Good 150 GPM/340 G Tank Grass 20 Type 6 Frontline 2008 Good 150 GPM/340 G Tank Medics/Rescues/Other Medic 16 Ambulance Frontline 2017 Excellent Medic 20 Ambulance Frontline 2017 Excellent Res. Medic Ambulance Reserve 2013 Excellent WT 17 Water Tender Frontline 1985 Fair 4,300 Gallon Tank 268 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 176: Supervisor & Command Vehicles Unit Assigned To Manufacturer Year Condition Chief 1700 Fire Chief Ford Expedition 2021 Excellent Chief 1701 Deputy Chief Ford Expedition 2020 Excellent Fire Marshal Division Chief/Prevention Ford F250 Pickup 2017 Excellent Chief 1702 Division Chief/EMS Ford Expedition 2009 Poor BC 17 Duty Battalion Chief Ford Expedition 2016 Excellent Res. BC Battalion Chief Reserve Ford Expedition 2009 Poor Shop Mechanic 1 Ford F550 2006 Fair Res. Shop Mechanic Ford F550 1998 Poor Utility Pool Vehicle GMC 2500 2002 Poor Pool Truck Pool Vehicle Ford F150 Pickup 2014 Poor Pool Van Admin/Training Ford Transit van 2020 Excellent Pool Car Pool Vehicle Ford Crown Vic 2003 Poor Utility Flatbed Reserve/Pool Utility Vehicle Ford F350 Flatbed 2001 Good Fleet maintenance is accomplished through a combination of in-house mechanics and outsourced vendors. The SPL mechanic is a qualified/certified Emergency Vehicle Technician (EVT). Maintenance manuals are available; preventative maintenance checks are conducted regularly; maintenance records are kept for all apparatus and vehicles; pump tests are performed annually per industry standards. The shop facility has the capacity to provide fleet maintenance to other agencies. However, SPL is short of the personnel needed to expand services. 269 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Dispatch & Communications PCSO operates the SPL 911 Public Safety Answer Point (PSAP) and Dispatch Center. The center provides service for several fire districts in the County. See Section IV for a detailed report on dispatch functions. Figure 177: PSAP and Dispatch Center Item Description Central Square, running Tiburon Command CAD Application CAD Telephone System Intrado Viper Repeated conventional VHF system with three Radio System high-site repeaters Fire/EMS Notification ComTech 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 Ability for PSAP to communicate CAD-to-CAD Phone call only (how do you transfer a call to another center): Emergency Medical Dispatch (Priority Criteria-based dispatch system in place: Dispatch) Trained QA dispatchers complete Quality Assurance (QA) audits. Audits are completed Formal EMD quality assurance program in place: on 15% of the calls. (10 calls per week/520 calls per year). Dispatchers receive a copy of the completed audits. Options for non-emergent calls not requiring EMS: None AVL used on fire apparatus: No AVL used on ambulances & EMS units: No Tiburon Mobile Data on a Verizon cellular and MDTs/MDCs in all fire & EMS vehicles: Netmotion Closest unit dispatched via AVL: No No. of 911 calls: 2021 – 49,881 No. of 10-digit incoming emergency calls: 2021 – 24,247 270 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Infrastructure Needs SPL has two fire stations and one former fire station that are currently not staffed. SPL has undertaken a Master Planning process to determine the appropriate number of fire stations for the community and their optimal locations. The Master Plan indicates that SPL should reopen and restaff both Station 15 and Station 19 in the mid-term. A long-term recommendation is to site, construct, and staff Station 21 in the central section of the district. The City of Rocklin has plans to locate an additional fire station near the Loomis border. SPL’s Master Plan did not evaluate the impact this new station might have on the deployment model. The City of Rocklin expressed that they were not interested in sharing their new station. Governance Structure Options Governance options for SPL include remaining as an independent special district with continued services by district staff or reorganizing with one or more neighboring fire agencies. More specifically options for SPL consist of the following: • Option #1: Remain an independent special district with continued services provided directly by district staff, the same as the existing service structure. • Option #2: Reorganize SPL, NEW, and RYN into one sub-regional independent district. • Option #3: Contract for service with RSV, ROK, or both. All options would require a SOI update. SOI options are discussed as follows. It is essential that the reorganization option have buyoff by all affected agencies. 271 Fire Service Review Placer 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 I of this report, the following determinations are proposed for the South Placer Fire Protection District. Growth and Population Projections 7-1: The South Placer Fire Protection District (SPL) had an estimated 2020 U.S. Census population of 34,768. 7-2: Based on California Department of Finance projections of 0.55% through 2060, the territory within SPL could reach 41,000 by 2060. Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence 7-3: No DUCs were identified by LAFCO at the Census Block Group level within or contiguous to the SPL SOI that meet the definition based on population and income. 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 7-4: Based on unit hour utilization and ISO ratings, SPL is able to provide a minimally adequate level of services with sufficient capacity within its coverage area. The area would benefit from improved response times closer to the NFPA 1710 response time standard; however, opportunities to reduce response times are reliant on the ability to reopen and staff necessary fire stations. 7-5: SPL has experienced an increase in incident volume of 47% from 2019 to 2022. During that time, there has also been a decrease in outside aid given and aid received of -47% and -57% respectively. 7-6: SPL’s facilities are generally in good repair, but some deferred maintenance projects will be required soon. There are three stations that need major overhaul work due to the changing deployment model. There is also a need for an additional station. Apparatus are considered top-notch. 272 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 7-7: After failure to pass an additional benefit assessment, the district was forced to close two stations and remove the only truck company from service. While the measure’s defeat did not result in direct layoffs, six full-time equivalent positions were eliminated through attrition with no current plans to replace them. 7-8: SPL has two fire stations and one former fire station that are currently not staffed. SPL undertook a Master Planning process that determined that SPL should reopen and restaff both Station 15 and Station 19 in the mid-term and site, construct and staff Station 21 in the central section of the district in the long term. 7-9: The primary challenges/issues for SPL are finding adequate funding, as expenses are rising faster than revenue, a need for improved communications among the five fire dispatch centers, and improvements in automatic/mutual aid. 7-10: In a fragmented system, SPL provides ambulance transport service to the unincorporated areas of the district, while AMR provides service to the Town of Loomis. The mutual-aid agreement is imbalanced; in 2022 SPL provided aid to AMR 473 times while AMR provided aid to SPL 36 times. The Master Plan recommends that the EMS agency be petitioned to expand SPL transport service to Loomis to enhance efficiency. 7-11: All districts would benefit from training to ensure consistent data collection within the district and between districts, as well as to enable ease of data extraction for use. Inconsistent and unavailable data posed a particular challenge in this service review. Financial Ability of Agency to Provide Services 7-12: SPL faces financial constraints and has operated at a deficit three of the last five fiscal years. As a result of significant cost reductions, SPL is projected to operate with an increasing surplus from fiscal year 2024 to 2028. However, additional revenue continues to be critical to open fire stations and return to an adequate level of services. 7-13: SPL has made efforts to increase revenues; however, the most recent special tax measure did not pass. Other options to enhance revenues within the current operational and governance structure are limited. 273 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 7-14: SPL participates in the CalPERS pension system and has incurred a significant unfunded actuarial liability on its pension obligations, for which annual payments are projected at more than $930,000 per year, increasing to over $1 million next year and will continue to increase for the foreseeable future. The unfunded liability represents a very significant portion of SFPD’s costs associated with providing services to the community. SPL has issued bonds to reduce the unfunded liability and accrue a lower rate of interest. Status and Opportunities for Shared Services 7-15: SPL practices resource sharing through the Western Placer County Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid Agreement providing for the dispatch of the closest resource; maintenance and operation of an OES Engine under an agreement with the Office of Emergency Services; an automatic and mutual aid agreement with AMR for ambulance transport; participation in the Placer County Incident Management Team; and receipt of HazMat Level A services from Roseville FD and PCF. 7-16: SPL does not currently share any facilities, however, there is potential for sharing vehicle maintenance services with other fire agencies. The shop facility has the capacity to service a larger number of vehicles; this option will be explored further when an additional mechanic is in place and performing competently. Accountability for Community Service Needs, Including Governmental Structure and Operational Efficiencies 7-17: SPL maintains a website where it makes several documents available and easily accessible to the public. SPL is the only special district reviewed that engages in master and strategic planning and has compiled a standards of cover and related assessments; however, these documents are not made available on its website. 7-18: Cost minimization efforts have resulted from reducing resources, including 1) Stations 15 personnel moved to Station 16 and Station 15 and 19 were closed, 2) the ladder truck was taken out of service, 3) a new deployment model was implemented that pairs a transport ambulance with a 2-person engine at two stations, and 4) daily minimum staffing was reduced from 18 to 15 firefighters. These strategies were used to reduce the significant use of overtime from the callback of off-duty firefighters. 7-19: The top three opportunities to increase value and/or efficiency for the public, as identified by SPL, consist of 1) reorganization of smaller fire districts in the County, 2) creation of a regional fire dispatch center serving all the non-CAL FIRE areas and cities, and 3) community paramedicine. 274 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 7-20: Governance options specific to SPL consist of detachment of the Sierra Bluffs area (TRAs 004-030 and 004-035) annexed to Rocklin and extension of ambulance services to Division 1. Sphere of Influence Update Existing SOI Based on LAFCO records, it appears that SPL does not have an adopted SOI. During the prior MSR process in 2017, it was recommended that a single SOI for fire providers in Western Placer be adopted to indicate the need for a single fire provider serving the area; however, while the Commission adopted the MSR, it appears that the SOI was never formally approved. SOI Options The SOI options for SPL consist of the following: • SOI Option #1: Establish a coterminous SOI to SPL boundaries indicating continued services by SPL or a service contract with another agency. • SOI Option #2: Adopt a single Sphere of Influence for SPL, NEW, and RYN, indicating the anticipation of reorganization of the three districts. Recommended SOI Reorganization of SPL, NEW, and RYN into a single independent district would 1) reduce or eliminate duplication of effort and redundancies found in the current organizational model. Analysis of this option indicates that it is potentially feasible but does not address the structural financial or operational issues facing the district. SPL is facing significant financial constraints that have reduced the level of services provided and greatly limited its response capability. There also does not appear to be any governance option that would materially improve SPL’s financial position or service delivery model without an additional funding source. Therefore, it is recommended that a SOI that is coterminous with the current district boundary be adopted, which would allow for continued service by District personnel. Proposed SOI Determinations LAFCO is required to prepare a written statement of determination with respect to the following areas when updating a special district’s Sphere of Influence, as specified by Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. The following determinations are proposed for the South Placer Fire Protection District. 275 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO The nature, location, extent, functions, and classes of services provided 7-21: SPL provides fire protection, community risk reduction, and Advanced Life Support (Paramedic) emergency medical treatment and ambulance transportation the communities of Granite Bay, Folsom Lake State Recreation Area, and the southern areas of Newcastle and Penryn. The district provides all services except ambulance transportation in the Town of Looms. Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands 7-22: Land uses within SPL consist mainly of rural residential in its unincorporated areas, and residential agricultural in the Town of Loomis. 7-23: Fire services are needed in all areas, are already being provided, and do not, by themselves, induce or encourage growth on agricultural or open space lands. Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area 7-24: As indicated by the continued increase in service call volume and projected increase in service demand, there is a present and anticipated continued need for fire protection services within SPL. 7-25: Within SPL are several special hazards and critical infrastructure components which enhance demand for services, including two rail lines, Interstate 80, Roseville water treatment facility, and a high-pressure fuel pipeline. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide 7-26: Based on unit hour utilization and ISO ratings, SPL is able to provide a minimally adequate level of services with sufficient capacity within its coverage area. The area would benefit from improved response times closer to the NFPA 1710 response time standard; however, opportunities to reduce response times are reliant on the ability to reopen and staff necessary fire stations. 7-27: SPL has experienced an increase in incident volume of 47% from 2019 to 2022. During that time, there has also been a decrease in outside aid given and aid received of -47% and -57% respectively. 7-28: SPL’s facilities are generally in good repair, but some deferred maintenance projects will be required soon. There are three stations that need major overhaul work due to the changing deployment model. There is also a need for an additional station. Apparatus are considered top-notch. 276 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 12-29: After failure to pass an additional benefit assessment, the district was forced to close two stations and remove the only truck company from service. While the measure’s defeat did not result in direct layoffs, six full-time equivalent positions were eliminated through attrition with no current plans to replace them. 7-30: SPL has two fire stations and one former fire station that are currently not staffed. SPL undertook a Master Planning process that determined that SPL should reopen and restaff both Station 15 and Station 19 in the mid-term and site, construct and staff Station 21 in the central section of the district in the long term. 7-31: The primary challenges/issues for SPL are finding adequate funding, as expenses are rising faster than revenue, a need for improved communications among the five fire dispatch centers, and improved automatic/mutual aid. 7-32: In a fragmented system, SPL provides ambulance transport service to the unincorporated areas of the district, while AMR provides service to the Town of Loomis. The mutual-aid agreement is imbalanced; in 2022 SPL provided aid to AMR 473 times while AMR provided aid to SPL 36 times. The Master Plan recommends that the EMS agency be petitioned to expand SPL transport service to Loomis to enhance efficiency. Existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area 7-33: The population within SPL’s boundaries is a community of interest for the district, which includes both unincorporated Placer County and the Town of Loomis. 7-34: Areas that receive SPL’s services through automatic and mutual aid, as well as contracts and agreements are also considered communities of interest. Present and probable need for public facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the existing sphere of influence 7-35: No DUCs were identified by LAFCO at the Census Block Group level within or contiguous to the SPL SOI that meet the definition based on population and income. 277 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Section III: FIRE DISPATCH REVIEW 278 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Dispatch Services for Placer County West Slope Overview Six agencies currently provide emergency fire dispatching on the West Slope of Placer County. Placer County has five primary public safety answering points (PSAPs)—Placer County Sheriff, the City of Lincoln, the City of Rocklin, the City of Roseville, and the City of Auburn. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) operates the Grass Valley Emergency Command Center (GVECC), which is a secondary PSAP for Nevada, Yuba, and Placer Counties. Only the three city dispatch centers are reviewed in detail in this report. Figure 178: Overview of City Dispatch Centers Number of Dispatch Agency Fire Agencies Dispatched Dispatch Workstations City of Lincoln Lincoln FD 4 Police Dispatch City of Rocklin Rocklin FD 4 Police Dispatch City of Roseville Roseville FD 9 Police Dispatch The number of workstations in the preceding figure refers to the capacity of the center. With the exception of the City of Lincoln, none of the dispatch centers were fully staffed at the time of the evaluation. Facilities All three of the dispatch centers are located within the headquarters of the respective law enforcement agencies. It is unknown if all these facilities were constructed to California Essential Services standards, but any public safety building built after 1986 is required to meet these standards. It is unknown if the National Fire Protection Association 1225 Standard for Emergency Services Communications was considered during the construction of these facilities.71 71 National Fire Protection Association 1225 Standard for Emergency Services Communications, 2022 Edition. 279 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO All the dispatch centers have adequate space for their operations and room for emergency expansion of positions if needed for their agency. Any consolidation discussions would require conducting a detailed space planning analysis to ensure that the expansion of responsibilities could be accommodated at any of the existing dispatch facilities. Workload/Call Volumes With the exception of an ongoing reduction in the number of non-emergency calls, call volume in all dispatch centers has remained relatively constant. Based on 9-1-1 call volumes, Roseville Dispatch is the busiest center, with Rocklin Dispatch the next busiest. Lincoln Dispatch Center processes the least number of calls. Figure 179: Total 9-1-1 Call Volume (2019–2022) *2022 data was unavailable for Lincoln. Lincoln Dispatch has more 10-digit emergency number calls than all centers, as shown in the following figure. 280 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 180: Calls Received via 10-Digit Phone Lines (2019–2022) *2022 data was unavailable for Lincoln and Roseville. All the dispatch centers are showing a drop in non-emergency calls. The following figure illustrates the declining number of non-emergency calls processed by the dispatch centers. The decline is likely attributable to the availability of online information about local government services. Figure 181: Volume of Non-emergency Calls Received (2019–2022) *Data was unavailable for Lincoln. 2022 data was unavailable for Roseville. 281 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Staffing Staffing is considered to be at a crisis level for many dispatch centers and is considered to be the most critical issue facing dispatcher centers nationally. Staffing challenges are greater in the larger centers than in the smaller centers. There are many reasons for the staffing issues: • Low Pay: Dispatchers have traditionally been classified as clerical staff and paid accordingly. • High Stress: Dispatchers deal with people in crisis and are exposed to traumatic situations, often without any resolution. • Undesirable Working Days/Hours: Nights, weekends, and holidays are a part of the job. Because of staffing shortages, overtime is mandatory and considered to be a significant deterrent. • Poor Working Conditions: Older dispatch centers are generally small, cramped areas without windows or adequate ventilation. • Minimum Hiring Standards: the minimum standards for becoming a dispatcher usually involve a background investigation, with illegal drug use and criminal activity being an automatic disqualification. • Hiring Processes: while an employee can give little or no advance notice that they are leaving, hiring a new employee can take three to six months or more. • Training: training to become a qualified dispatcher who can work independently can take three to 18 months. Until they are “signed off,” they do not count toward staffing. Generally, dispatch centers are not allowed to “over-hire” in anticipation of losing people, so the dispatch centers are always behind on the hiring curve. The following figure details the staffing levels at each of the fire dispatch centers in this study. Figure 182: Dispatch Center Staffing Authorized Actual Minimum Staffing Dispatch Center Dispatcher/Line Dispatcher/Line Day/Night Supervisor Positions Supervisor Positions Lincoln 7/1 7/1 1 Rocklin 10/2 9/2 2 Roseville 19/4 18/4 5/3 282 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Funding, Financial Obligations, and Expenditures Funding for dispatch is usually included within the budget of the individual agencies. These dispatch centers are part of a larger organization, so financial obligations are usually tied to the city, county, or state agency. Budgeting for the dispatch center is typically a separate budget category within the larger department or jurisdiction budget. None of the dispatch centers identified funding as an issue. Training The law enforcement dispatch centers are all California Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) agencies. POST requires all dispatch personnel to take the POST Basic Telecommunicator course within one year of employment. The dispatch centers are encouraged to send their personnel who will be training new hires to the POST Communications Training Officer (CTO) course. POST requires 24 hours of continuing education every two years to maintain certification. Each dispatch center also provides supplemental training on agency-specific operations, CAD, and 9-1-1 using on-the-job training techniques. It was acknowledged by dispatch management that the fire department training needs to be improved in all of the dispatch centers. Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) certification is completed through the National Academies of Emergency Dispatch (NAED). All the dispatch centers comply with NAED standards, with the exception of Lincoln Dispatch, which does not perform EMD. Lincoln The Lincoln Police Department’s training staff is put through the POST CTO course. New dispatchers receive supplemental training on Lincoln Police Department and Lincoln Fire Department operations, CAD, and 9-1-1 using on-the-job training techniques. It was acknowledged that the fire department training needs to be improved. Lincoln Dispatch transfers calls requiring pre-arrival instructions to AMR Sacramento dispatch. Roseville Training is a high priority for Roseville Dispatch. Four Communications Training Officers (CTO) receive a 5% stipend for being a CTO, and dispatchers can apply and interview to become a CTO annually. In-service training sessions are held twice a year. Fire Department staff participate in its training activities. New hires ride with a Battalion Chief for four hours. Conversely, fire crews are rotated in for sit-alongs with the dispatchers. 283 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Rocklin Rocklin entry-level training takes nine to 12 months, and lateral hires (those with previous dispatching experience) take four to six months. Rocklin Dispatch has a fire training manual that covers procedures specific to the fire department. Operational Policies/SOPs/SOGs Overall, fire service policies are brief or non-existent compared to law enforcement policies. Some policies are incorporated into the training manuals and not listed separately. With the exception of Roseville, a review of fire policies does not occur on a regular basis. Lincoln The Lincoln Dispatch Procedures Manual appears to cover all appropriate topics. Revision dates were not listed. Roseville Roseville Dispatch maintains a Communications Procedure Manual and a Communications Training Manual. The manuals cover all the essential dispatching functions—CAD, radio, telephone, and some physical security issues, but have only two sections on fire department operations. Rocklin Rocklin Dispatch has a Communications Section as a part of the overall Police Department Operational Policies. The policies cover position responsibilities and basic policies related to call interrogation and dispatching but nothing specific to fire department operations. Performance Standards The National Emergency Number Association (NENA) and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) have established the same standard for answering emergency lines. Dispatchers are expected to answer emergency calls within 15 seconds, 90% of the time, and within 20 seconds, 95% of the time. All the dispatch centers met the minimum requirements. At the time of this report, Lincoln Dispatch was not able to produce the compliance data needed. The following figure shows compliance with national standards for answering emergency lines. 284 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 183: Emergency Call Answer Compliance (2019–2022) *Data was unavailable for Lincoln. Roseville Dispatch’s call-answering time standard exceeds the national standard and is to answer 95% of incoming 9-1-1 calls within 15 seconds. Technology Technology in a dispatch center primarily consists of a Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) system, a 9-1-1 telephone system, and a radio system. All the dispatch centers have kept up with the current technology trends. In a few instances, there have been some efforts towards having the same or compatible systems, most notably the hosted 9-1-1 solution between Roseville, Rocklin, and Lincoln. Figure 184: Technology Characteristics by Fire Agency AVL/ Primary Service Primary CAD MDC Closest Fire Station Dispatch Center 9-1-1 Radio Provider PSAP Product Software Unit Alerting System Dispatch Zetron Model Lincoln Sunridge Intrado Analog VHF Lincoln FD Lincoln Police Mobile RIMS No 25/ Rip and Police RIMS Viper Repeated Run Printer Rocklin Sunridge Intrado Analog VHF RIMS/ Phoenix Rocklin FD Rocklin Police Mobile RIMS Yes Police RIMS Viper Repeated G2 Roseville Intrado Digital 800 Roseville FD Roseville Police Tyler Tyler Mobile Yes Phoenix G2 Police Viper Trunked 285 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) The dispatch centers have different CAD systems, with Lincoln and Rocklin sharing one system. Aside from the Lincoln-Rocklin connection, none of the dispatch center CAD systems can communicate with each other. All modern CAD systems have some level of ability to share information with other CAD systems. The information shared is up to the dispatch centers—it can be any or all of the following data points: • Event transfers • Pending/Ongoing event information • Current resource status and status changes • Instant messaging • Resource control It is up to the dispatch centers and the CAD vendors to work together if they want to achieve some level of shared information and resources. Fire Station Alerting Lincoln PD has a basic dual-tone paging system transmitted over an analog VHF radio frequency to alert fire stations and personnel carrying a pager. This type of system has been in use for over 50 years. Rocklin and Roseville have upgraded their fire station alerting to a wired digital system that can include rip-and-run printers, activation of in-station public address systems, and relays that can control lights, doors, and more. Both Rocklin and Roseville have upgraded those systems to Phoenix G2. Mobile Data Computers (MDC) All the dispatch centers offer an MDC solution. Rocklin and Roseville utilize a mobile application their CAD vendor provides. Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL)/Closest Unit Dispatch Rocklin and Roseville have installed AVL on their apparatus so the dispatchers can see their location on a map in dispatch. This opens the potential for the CAD system to utilize the current location of the apparatus to determine the closest, most appropriate unit(s) to the scene of an emergency. This is not currently the case with all agencies. 286 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Telephone (9-1-1) All 9-1-1 customer premise equipment (CPE) is allocated to the dispatch centers by the California 9-1-1 Branch. Roseville, Rocklin, and Lincoln are all on a hosted Intrado Viper 9-1- 1 solution, with Roseville and Rocklin housing the primary and backup servers. While these are separate systems, they are all connected to the state-wide 9-1-1 system and can quickly transfer calls between them. With the implementation of Next Generation 911 (NG911), there will be additional capabilities to seamlessly allow 9-1-1 calls to route to another dispatch center if a primary center is offline or overloaded. Radio Lincoln and Rocklin use analog VHF radio systems to communicate. Each agency operates on a separate frequency for normal operations. The City of Roseville operates on its own 700/800 digital trunked radio system. Roseville has separate radios (or multi-band radios) on the analog VHF radio system, allowing them to communicate with the other West Slope agencies that are on analog VHF systems for automatic and mutual aid. 287 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 185: VHF Fire Radio Channels Frequency License Alpha Tag Description 154.3550 KJR202 PlacerCo FD Disp Fire Dispatch (West) 156.2400 WPIS457 PlacerCo FD Cmd Fire Command (XPL CMD) 154.1750 KTS763 PlacerCo FD T1 Fire Tac 1 (simulcast with Roseville 800 Tac 4) 155.0250 WQHC490 PlacerCo FD T2 Fire Tac 2 154.0100 WPMB620 PlacerCo FD T3 Fire Tac 3 158.8050 WNEB547 PlacerCo FD T4 Fire Tac 4 154.2350 WPDB675 PlacerCo FD T5 Fire Tac 5 155.4000 WNQN942 PlacerCo FD T6 Fire Tac 6 154.1300 WPNP952 PlacerCo FD T7 Fire Tac 7 154.0700 WPGB795 PlacerCo FD T8 Fire Tac 8 153.8900 WPGB795 PlacerCo FD T9 Fire Tac 9 154.2050 WPGB795 PlacerCo FD T10 Fire Tac 10 152.3225 WQII599 AMR Placer AMR Placer County 154.1450 WPBE306 Rocklin FD Fire Dispatch 154.0400 WNEB547 Roseville FD1 Fire Dispatch VHF 151.0100 KDT354 Lincoln FD1 Fire Dispatch Other Fire Dispatch Centers The Placer County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO) dispatches for the following fire agencies: • Foresthill Fire Protection District • Newcastle Fire Protection District • Penryn Fire Protection District • Placer Hills Fire Protection District • South Placer Fire Protection District CAL FIRE and Placer County Fire Department, along with Auburn Fire Department, are dispatched by CAL FIRE’s Grass Valley Emergency Command Center (GVECC). 288 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) All the dispatch centers have adopted Priority Dispatch’s Emergency Priority Dispatch System (EPDS), except for the City of Lincoln. The EPDS gives dispatchers a comprehensive solution, allowing them to use a structured call-taking methodology, drawing on validated protocols. The Lincoln dispatch center transfers medical events to the American Medical Response’s (AMR) dispatch center in Sacramento for pre-arrival questioning and instructions and for dispatching a transport ambulance. To adequately deliver EMD protocols, a minimum of two dispatchers are required to be on duty at all times. This is due to the need for the dispatcher to devote their time to the caller and not be required to answer other calls or radio traffic. Lincoln will occasionally have a single dispatcher on duty. This is one reason Lincoln transfers their EPDS calls to AMR. Figure 186: Emergency Medical Dispatch Call Process Origin of 9-1-1 Call Processing the Medical Emergency Incorporated Cities 9-1-1 calls are answered by the police department. EMD is of Roseville, Rocklin performed, and fire/ambulance is directly dispatched. 9-1-1 calls are answered by the police department. Fire is City of Lincoln dispatched directly, and the call is transferred to AMR for EMD and ambulance dispatch. None of the dispatch centers have attempted to attain accreditation status with the International Academies of Emergency Dispatch (Accredited Center of Excellence—ACE). To earn ACE distinction, centers must meet rigorous performance guidelines and have collected extensive data on their program. This process is time-consuming and requires considerable staff time to gain and maintain accreditation. The centers all transfer calls to AMR. Roseville has a CAD-to-CAD connection; all the other centers make a 10-digit phone call to request an ambulance. 289 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Section IV: COMMUNICATIONS CENTER PROFILES 290 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO City of Lincoln Dispatch & Communications The City of Lincoln Police & Fire Communications Center (LNC) handles law, fire, and medical calls for service. Lincoln has a population of 50,649 as of the 2020 U.S. Census. Governance The PSAP is operated by the City of Lincoln and the Lincoln Police Department (LPD). The budget for dispatch is incorporated into the overall LPD budget, and there are no separate line items specific to dispatch. Capital Improvement funding is planned in advance, but there are no large expenses for the dispatch center in the budget for the next two years. Facilities The Lincoln Dispatch Center is located in the Police Department headquarters at 770 7th Street in the City of Lincoln. The building is of Type 1A modular steel construction. The building was built around 1971. The City of Lincoln owns the building. Physical Security An evaluation was made of the security features of the facility and the findings were made available to the agency. Power An evaluation was made of the power supply features of the facility and the findings were made available to the agency. Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) An evaluation was made of the HVAC features of the facility and the findings were made available to the agency. 291 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Workstations On the dispatch floor, there are four Eaton sit-stand workstations. The workstations had a makeover only a few weeks before the site visit (new counters, lift motors, etc.). Backup Center Lincoln Dispatch has a mobile communications center configured to be a backup dispatch center in case an evacuation of the center is required. There is also an agreement with Rocklin to cohabitate in their dispatch center. Since they have the same 9-1-1 and CAD systems, it is a practical solution for a long-term outage. Workload/Call Volumes Incoming phone calls have decreased in the past three years. While abandoned calls have decreased, the number of abandoned calls is significant. An abandoned call is when the caller disconnects before the dispatcher answers the call. Disconnects can be technical issues with the phone network (not uncommon with wireless calls) or the caller hanging up for some reason. Lincoln has a policy of attempting to call back all abandoned calls. Figure 187: Lincoln Dispatch Phone Calls (2020–2022) Call Type 911 10-Digit Emergency 2020 2021 2022A 2020 2021 2022A Inbound 12,935 12,728 11,248 26,446 25,995 25,795 Abandoned 2,766 2,798 1,987 1,002 1,003 853 Total Inbound 15,701 15,526 13,235 27,448 26,998 26,648 Outbound 19,305 20,274 18,071 A Through 12/15/2022 The fire department workload has steadily increased over the past three years, as shown in the following figure. Figure 188: Lincoln Dispatched Event Count (2019–2021) Event Type 2019 2020 2021 % Increase from 2019 Fire 138 154 160 15.94% EMS 3,410 3,657 3,932 15.31% Other 1,418 1,521 1,907 34.49% Totals 4,966 5,332 5,999 20.80% 292 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO These are the fire department responses only, which can comprise five to 20% of the total workload for Lincoln Dispatch. Staffing Lincoln Dispatch has the following authorized staff: • 7 Dispatchers • 1 Dispatch Supervisor Lincoln Dispatch is currently at full staff. They will be asking for an eighth dispatcher in the next budget cycle so that all shifts can have two people scheduled to work. The dispatchers work 12-hour shifts from 0600 to1800 and from 1800 to 0600. A third shift (when available) is 1200–0000 to cover the busy period. They will go down to one person if someone is off sick or on paid time off. Backfilling the second position during peak call volume periods is an option. Dispatchers average four hours of overtime work per week. The Lincoln Peace Officers Association represents the staff. Training The Lincoln Police Department is a California Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) agency. All training staff are put through the POST CTO course. All personnel are required to take the POST Basic Telecommunicator course within one year of employment. New dispatchers receive supplemental training on LPD/LFD operations, CAD, and 9-1-1 using on- the-job training techniques. Continuing education is through POST. It was acknowledged that the fire department training needs to be improved. Lincoln Dispatch is not trained in Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) but will transfer calls requiring pre-arrival instructions to AMR Sacramento dispatch. Operational Policies/SOPs/SOGs The Lincoln Dispatch Procedures Manual appears to cover all appropriate topics. Revision dates were not listed. I. DISPATCH PROTOCOL 100 Dispatch Call Taking 101 Answering 9-1-1 Calls 102 Cellular 9-1-1 Calls 103 Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) 104 Calls from Telematic Service Providers 105 Use of TTY /TDD Telephone Software 106 Misrouted Emergency/Non-Emergency Calls 107 Emergency Medical Dispatch 293 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 108 General Call Taking Information/Descriptions 109 Dispatch Telephone Etiquette 110 Radio Communications 111 Radio/Telephone Recorder 112 Be on the Lookout Broadcasting (BOLO) 113 Broadcasting Non-Priority Calls 114 LAWNET Channel/TAC Channel 115 Com link 116 Channel Marker/Alert Tones 117 Linking Radio Channels 118 Portable Radio Emergency Alert Buttons and Dispatch Response 119 Broadcasting Confidential Information (10-12) 120 Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) 121 Power Outage I Generator Failure/ Telephone Failure 122 Alternate PSAP Switch 123 CAD Failure II. INCIDENT MANAGEMENT 124 Domestic Violence 125 Physical Fights in Progress and Batteries 126 Sexual Assault 127 Child Abuse Reports 128 Missing Person 129 Welfare Check 130 Suicidal Person 131 Hostages or Barricaded Subjects 132 Hostage Negotiation/Situations 133 Traffic Stops 134 Stolen Vehicle 135 Located/ Recovered Stolen Vehicle 136 Repossessed Vehicle/Private Property Tow 137 Pursuits 138 Illegally Parked Vehicles 139 Abandoned Vehicles 140 Vehicle Collision 141 Hit and Run Collision 142 Aircraft Accidents 143 Train Accidents 144 Vehicle Lockout 145 Suspicious Person/Vehicle 146 Prowler 147 Petty Theft/Grand Theft 148 Alarm Calls 149 Arrest Warrant Procedures 150 Civil Standby 151 Animal Control Calls 152 Man Down 153 Vacation Checks 154 Flooding 294 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 155 Hazardous Material Spills/Accidents 156 Bomb Threat 157 Coroner Calls 158 Medical/Law Enforcement Helicopters – Fixed Wing Aircraft 159 SWAT Callout 160 Media Releases 161 Recovered Stolen Property CLETS Notification 162 Restraining Order System Entries 163 Routine Cover Responses 164 Officer Needs Emergency Assistance 165 Fire Dispatch III. APPENDIX A Standardized Abbreviation List B Radio Codes Workflow The dispatchers are multi-tasking—answering phones, talking on the radio, entering information into CAD, etc. If more than one dispatcher is working, they will work as a team to ensure all requests and documentation are processed. For requests for medical assistance, they do the basic call interrogation (location, caller information, nature of request) and transfer calls that require pre-arrival instructions to AMR Sacramento. To get a transport ambulance response, they also call AMR Sacramento on the phone to get their response. Lincoln shares jurisdictional boundaries with Roseville and Rocklin. The dispatchers report many instances of duplication of resources on events in those boundary areas. Performance Standards Lincoln Dispatch does not have a quality assurance (QA) program in place. Aside from the 9-1-1 call answer standard that the California 9-1-1 Branch monitors (90% of emergency calls answered within 15 seconds), they do not regularly monitor call processing times. Lincoln Dispatch meets or exceeds the 90% compliance standard for 9-1-1 calls, with notable exceptions in 2022 during the 0900-hour and 1500-hour time periods. 295 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 189: LNC Dispatch 911 Call Answer Time Compliance 100% 98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% 2020 2021 2022 NFPA/NENA Standard The following figure shows that compliance with the 90% standard for 10-digit emergency calls is significantly different from 9-1-1 calls, with the 0600 to 1800-hour time period not in compliance. Figure 190: LNC 10-Digit Emergency Call Answer Time Compliance 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :0 :1 :2 :3 :4 :5 :6 :7 :8 :9 :0 :1 :2 :3 :4 :5 :6 :7 :8 :9 :0 :1 :2 :3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2020 2021 2022 NENA/NFPA Standard With the exception of September 2021 and February 2022, Lincoln Dispatch meets or exceeds compliance with the 9-1-1 call standard, as shown in the following figure. 296 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 191: LNC 9-1-1 Compliance by Month 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 2020 2021 2022 NENA/NFPA Standard For 10-digit emergency calls, Lincoln Dispatch was only able to meet the 90% compliance standard in May and October, as shown in the following figure. Figure 192: LNC 10-Digit Compliance by Month 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 2020 2021 2022 NFPA/NENA Standard 297 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Technology Dispatch centers are dependent on a variety of technologies from multiple vendors. It is also incumbent on the dispatch center (or the parent agency) to be able to maintain the technology. The city has an IT department that is responsible for the hardware. The vendor usually maintains the software, with configurations/data entry being accomplished by dispatch or IT staff. Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) Lincoln Dispatch operates a computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system from Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. The software is called RIMS CAD, running RIMS v29.06.1, and was installed in 2005. The hardware was last updated/replaced in August of 2021. Lincoln shares this hosted CAD system with Rocklin and Auburn PD and has diverse/redundant servers in Rocklin and Lincoln (vSphere Cluster) with a dark fiber network. Rocklin is the system administrator. While most RMS information is siloed by agency, resources and events are visible in all three dispatch centers. System time is synchronized using a Netclock device. Lincoln Dispatch reports a lot of downtime on the system and is taking steps to get its own RIMS system and set up a CAD-to-CAD interface with Rocklin. Interfaces Aside from the interface between Lincoln and Rocklin, there are no other CAD-to-CAD interfaces. Mapping The geographic database is on an ESRI ArcGIS platform, but the City is currently using a Google map base. Fire Station Alerting The RIMS CAD is interfaced with a Zetron Model 25 two-tone paging system to automatically send out tones to the first responders. All stations have a Rip and Run printer. Paging The RIMS CAD does not send any text or email pages. Lincoln Dispatch utilizes ActiveAlert to send SMS pages to smartphones. The fire department has a few Minitor pagers left, but most personnel use ActiveAlert (formerly Active911). Mobile Data Computers First responders are using Mobile RIMS on iPads. 298 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Closest Unit/AVL Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) is currently not used by the fire department, although there is a project underway to implement AVL in the future. RIMS uses station order—six stations deep. Closest unit dispatching is possible in RIMS CAD but cannot be implemented until AVL is implemented. Records Management System (RMS) The RMS system used for LPD is Sunridge RMS—which is a part of the CAD system. The fire department uses a third-party application that receives event data from CAD. Radio The City of Lincoln operates on a VHF repeated conventional system. Placer County T- Comm is under contract to maintain radio systems, including consoles in dispatch. LFD has two frequencies—Main and TAC. The West Slope fire agencies have pooled their TAC channels—XPLTAC1, 2, 3, and 4. XPLTAC2 is a law TAC channel shared with Roseville, Rocklin, and Lincoln. Dispatchers monitor TAC channels but are not required to answer; the Incident Commanders (ICs) know to return to the main channel to talk to dispatch. Lincoln Dispatch cannot hear the TAC channels in some areas—they are not repeated channels. Tactical channels are assigned only on request by the IC. Dispatchers are required to listen to the Police and Fire main channels at a minimum. Mass Notification Lincoln Dispatch uses Everbridge software for mass notification. Activations are done by dispatch staff. 9-1-1 9-1-1 is a hosted solution with Roseville, Lincoln, Rocklin, Placer County Sheriff’s Office, and Auburn Police Department. The Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) is provided by Intrado and maintained by AT&T. Roseville Police Department and Placer Sheriff share hosting sites. The business phone system is from Mitel and not integrated with the 9-1-1 consoles. The State of California 9-1-1 Branch is deploying Next Generation 911 (NG911), and all PSAPs are being set up in preparation for the move to NG911. Interoperability Roseville is on a 700/800 trunking system, so most mutual/automatic aid responses are handled on mutual aid channels. AMR has taken the mobile radios out of their units and is reliant on smartphones to communicate with their dispatch center in Sacramento and with Lincoln Dispatch. 299 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO City of Roseville Dispatch & Communications The Roseville Police & Fire Communications (RSV) handles law, fire, and medical calls for service within the City. Roseville has a population of 147,773 as of the 2020 U.S. Census. Governance The PSAP is operated by the City of Roseville and the Roseville Police Department (RPD). The Communications Administrator reports to the Chief of Police. Dispatch is part of the RPD budget. The Center Manager creates the budget with the assistance of the Finance Department. Budget approvals go up the RPD chain of command and then to the City Manager and City Council for final approval. All Capital Improvement is planned out one or more years in advance. Facilities The facility is of concrete masonry block construction and was built in 1997 under the building codes of that time, and it is assumed to meet California Essential Services and NFPA 1221 (1225) standards. The City of Roseville owns the building. The dispatch center was remodeled in approximately 2005. The dispatch floor is ADA-accessible. Physical Security An evaluation of the security features of the facility was conducted and the results were made available to the agency. Power An evaluation of the power supply for the facility was conducted and the results were made available to the agency. Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) An evaluation of the HVAC system for the facility was conducted and the results were made available to the agency. Workstations Nine ergonomic dispatch workstations manufactured by Xybix were installed in 2016. 300 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Real-Time Crime Center (RTCC) Roseville now has a basic RTCC but is in the process of upgrading the technology. They have license plate readers on the street and 24 cameras in the city. They also have access to cameras in Lincoln and Rocklin. Backup Dispatch Center The City’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) has space set aside as a backup for the dispatch center. It is a cold backup, with the infrastructure in place (network, phone lines, etc.), but they must bring in equipment. There is also a mobile command vehicle that they can use as another option. A Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) is in place. Workload/Call Volumes Because Roseville Dispatch is a combined law/fire center, it is impossible to separate law calls from fire and EMS calls, so the numbers represent the entire workload of the center. As seen in the following figures, call volumes for Roseville Dispatch remain relatively constant from month to month. While overall call volume shows a slight decrease between 2019 and 2021 (complete 2022 data was unavailable), 2020 was an anomaly for all PSAPs due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It should be noted that non-emergency calls exceed 9-1-1 calls by a significant number. 301 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 193: RSV Dispatch Call Volume (2019–2021) Total Incoming Year Admin 10-Digit Emergency 9-1-1 Outgoing Calls 2019 165,477 85,691 14,755 65,031 59,033 2020 156,344 82,058 12,640 61,646 59,196 2021 164,745 81,953 13,232 69,560 61,406 Figure 194: RSV Call Volumes by Month (2019–2021) 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 - Admin Calls 10-Digit Emergency 9-1-1 Outgoing Staffing Roseville Dispatch has the following authorized staffing: • 21 Dispatchers (plus two part-time at 30 hours each) • 3 Floor supervisors • 1 Administrative Supervisor • 1 Manager They currently have three dispatchers in training and no vacancies. All dispatchers are cross-trained in law and fire. The pool of qualified candidates hiring has been small, even though they pay better than the average and have a good benefits package. Roseville Dispatch prides itself on having a positive professional culture. The RPD has a lot of community support, which extends to the dispatchers. 302 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Dispatchers work a 10-hour day, 40-hour work week. Five people are the minimum daily staff on the day, relief, and swing shifts. The minimum staffing on the graveyard shift is three, with a maximum of five. There is an average of 92 hours of overtime a week. Dispatchers are represented by the Roseville Police Association (RPA). Training Training is a high priority for Roseville Dispatch. There are four Communications Training Officers (CTO) who receive a 5% stipend for being a CTO. Dispatchers can apply and interview to become a CTO on an annual basis. RPD is a California Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) agency, so all the dispatchers are required to attend the POST Basic Dispatchers Course within the first year of employment. While virtual classes are now available, Roseville Dispatch’s goal is to have them attend in person when possible. In- service training sessions are held twice a year. The RSV participates in their training activities. New hires do a ride-along with the Battalion Chief for four hours. Conversely, fire crews are rotated in for sit-alongs with the dispatchers. Operational Policies/SOPs/SOGs Roseville Dispatch maintains a Communications Procedure Manual and a Communications Training Manual. The Procedure Manual was updated in October 2024. The Training Manual is in the process of being updated. Workflow Incoming 9-1-1 calls are answered by a dispatcher who interrogates the caller and enters the information into CAD. A radio dispatch position then picks up the event, and the event is broadcast. Dispatch has preemptive priority on the radio system. For most events, units respond on the main dispatch channel. Tactical channels/talk groups are automatically assigned for pre-designated call types. The Incident Commander (IC) may also request a tactical channel/talk group if needed. There are six tactical talk groups on the 800MHz system and two channels on the VHF system. If a tactical channel/talk group is assigned, a dispatcher is assigned to that channel/talk group. 303 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO All dispatchers are trained as emergency medical dispatchers as a part of their new-hire training. They are currently using Priority Dispatch Paramount/ProQA software. Dispatchers are required to initiate EMD protocols on all medical calls except third-party callers. They have five EMD-Qs trained to do two quality assurance audits (using Priority Dispatch’s AQUA software) per dispatcher per month. Roseville Dispatch is not accredited in EMD by the International Academies of Emergency Dispatch (IAED), but they are working towards that goal. Priority Dispatch also has Emergency Fire Dispatch and Emergency Police Dispatch protocols, but Roseville Dispatch does not feel those would work in their circumstances. Performance Standards Roseville Dispatch’s call-answering time standard is 95% of incoming 9-1-1 calls answered within 15 seconds. This exceeds both the NENA and NFPA standards by 5%. Their call- transfer and call-processing time standards are “as soon as possible.” Technology Roseville Dispatch’s Public Safety IT staff report to the City of Roseville IT Department and share resources across the city to support other departments besides Public Safety. They do have a CAD Administrator that is dedicated to dispatch. Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) Tyler Technologies (formerly known as New World) provides Roseville Dispatch's CAD system. The Tyler Enterprise solution was installed in May 2015 and was last updated in June 2022. The City is heavily invested in the whole suite of Tyler products in addition to CAD. Roseville Dispatch likes that Tyler is customizable to their needs. The fire module works well for them because it is very customized. The fire department was very involved in the provisioning of CAD. Roseville Dispatch pays an annual maintenance fee, including all system upgrades. CAD hardware was replaced in 2024, and Windows 2019 was implemented in 2023. Systems time is synchronized with Netclock services. Interfaces There is a CAD-to-CAD interface with AMR in Sacramento for ambulance responses. Both sides can send calls to the other; they can see the other’s unit status but cannot make any status changes. There is no messaging feature as a part of the interface, so any interaction other than sending requests for units has to be done by telephone. 304 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Mapping Roseville Dispatch uses ESRI ArcGIS for mapping. The city has a GIS Department, and it works with the fire department on all map updates. The CAD map is updated every quarter. Paging Off-duty/Volunteer paging is done using ActiveAlert (formerly known as Active911). The application is available for all members; however, the Fire Department does not practice off-duty responses. Fire Station Alerting Roseville Dispatch installed the US Digital Designs Phoenix G2 system department-wide in 2024. Mobile Data Computers (MDC) All RSV units have MDCs in their vehicles. Currently, they are Panasonic Toughbook CF-33s running Tyler Mobile software on a Verizon backbone and Netmotion VPN. RSV is looking at Tyler’s Mobility app for iPads/smartphones. Units can change their status from the MDC and can see CAD events. Closest Unit/Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) AVL data is available on fire apparatus but not on AMR ambulances. CAD uses the closest unit (proximity dispatch) as the primary method of unit recommendation, followed by station area. Records Management System (RMS) RSV uses Zoll FireRMS. Other RMS system interfaces include Tyler Technologies and Telestaff. Data is provided to various applications and databases. Radio Roseville operates two systems—their own 800MHz P25 Simulcast trunked radio system and an analog VHF repeater with voter receivers. There are encrypted channels/talk groups on the trunked system. There is an analog simplex channel for fire ground operations and interoperable channels. There is a radio tower on site. It is located within a walled-off secure area with access controlled by card-keyed gates. Cables running up the tower and from the radio tower to the building are not shielded. 305 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 9-1-1 Roseville Dispatch has an Intrado Viper-hosted 9-1-1 system that was last upgraded in 2016. AT&T maintains the system. The Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) is Consolidated Communications (CCI). Diverse copper cable is installed from CCI. The hosted solution is with Roseville, Rocklin, Lincoln, Placer County, and Auburn. The host equipment is located at the Placer County Sheriff’s Office, with Roseville as the backup site. All agencies are on the same upgrade schedule as the state, which makes funding simpler. The State of California 9-1-1 Branch is deploying NG911, and all PSAPs are being set up in preparation for the move to NG911. Roseville is active in the CA 9-1-1 Branch’s Northern Region NG911 group, keeping track of current status updates from the State and neighboring PSAPs. The group has not yet decided which vendor will be used when they upgrade. The 9-1-1 Branch had held up any upgrades for over a year while a lab could be developed to test Next Generation 911 (NG911) solutions. That hold has been lifted, but only a limited number of vendors have passed certification from the State 9-1-1 Branch, so the group has elected to wait until more options have been identified and testing is completed. The City’s Avaya PBX business phone system is integrated with the 9-1-1- CPE via analog lines. Mass Notification The City uses the Everbridge mass emergency notification system. Everbridge is a web application, so there is no hardware at the dispatch center. 306 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO City of Rocklin Dispatch & Communications The Rocklin Police & Fire Communications (ROK) handles law, fire, and medical calls for service within the City. Rocklin has a population of 71,601 as of the 2020 U.S. Census. Governance The PSAP is operated by the City of Rocklin and the Rocklin Police Department (RNPD). The Records and Communications Manager reports to the Investigations and Support Services Captain, who reports to the Police Chief. Dispatch is part of the RNPD budget. The Center Manager creates the budget with the assistance of the Finance Department. Budget approvals go up the RNPD chain of command and then to the City Manager & City Council for final approval. All Capital Improvement is planned out one or more years in advance. Facilities The dispatch center is located within the police department. It is of brick and steel construction, built in 2005, and was built to Essential Services and NFPA 1221 (1225) standards. The City of Rocklin owns the building. The dispatch floor is ADA- accessible. The dispatch center is 1/3 of a mile away from railroad tracks and 1/3 of a mile away from a major freeway. Physical Security An evaluation was made of the facility security features and the findings were made available to the agency. Power An evaluation was made of the facility power supply and the findings were made available to the agency. 307 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) An evaluation was made of the facility HVAC system and the findings were made available to the agency. Workstations Four ergonomic dispatch workstations manufactured by Watson were installed in 2017 and maintained by Placer County Telecommunications. The countertops and lift kits were recently updated. All workstations are equipped the same with CAD, 9-1-1, and radio. Backup Dispatch Center Rocklin Dispatch has three options in case of an evacuation of the dispatch center. They have a mobile command post they can set up in the RNPD parking lot (or anywhere), or they can go to either Roseville or Lincoln since they have the same phone systems. There is a Continuity of Operations Plan in place. Workload/Call Volumes Rocklin Dispatch has seen a decrease in the number of fire and emergency medical calls over the past four years. While the numbers from 2020 are understandable due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2022 numbers show a potential downward trend; the police department also shows a significant drop in call volume, as shown in the following figures. Figure 195: ROK Dispatched Event Summary (2019–2022) Event Percent Change 2019 2020 2021 2022 Types from 2019 Fire 177 150 185 149 -15.82% EMS 4,652 3,802 4,822 4,521 -2.82% Other 916 815 833 749 -18.23% Total 5,745 4,767 5,840 5,419 -5.67% Police 58,079 49,977 52,489 45,517 -21.63% 308 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 196: ROK Fire Call Summary (2019–2022) 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 Fire Events EMS Events Other Events Staffing Rocklin has the following authorized staffing: • 1 dispatch manager • 2 supervisors • 10 full-time dispatchers • 2 part-time dispatchers (this will vary) Rocklin Dispatch was at full staffing at the time of our analysis. Dispatchers work 40 hours per week—two 12-hour shifts and two eight-hour shifts. The minimum daily staffing is two. On average, there are 15 to 20 hours of overtime per person per week. The Rocklin Police Officer’s Association represents the dispatchers. Hiring There is a lot of competition for dispatcher candidates. The City of Roseville has a better retirement system, but salaries are comparable. Hiring takes three to six months, depending on how long it takes to complete the background checks. They do some background checks internally but have the option to contract them out. Candidates must come into dispatch for a sit-along tour before the testing process. Rocklin Dispatch prefers to hire laterals, but they do not always have a pool of lateral candidates. 309 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Training RNPD is a California Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) organization, so dispatchers are required to attend the POST Public Safety Dispatcher Basic Telecommunicator Course. Entry-level dispatchers also receive their Priority Dispatch Emergency Medical Dispatcher (EMD) certification prior to being released to work in dispatch. Rocklin Dispatch’s supervisors are POST-certified Communications Training Officers (CTOs). Entry-level training takes 9 to 12 months, and lateral hires (persons with previous dispatching experience) take four to six months. Rocklin Dispatch has a fire training manual that covers procedures specific to the fire department: 1. Purpose of Scope 2. Call Taking Procedures 3. Call Taking—Specific Incidents 4. Mutual Aid and Strike Teams 5. Call Taking—Hazardous Materials Incidents 6. Call Taking—Advanced Emergency Medical Dispatching (EMD) 7. Call Taking—Non-Emergency Transport Requests 8. Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) 9. Closed Loop Communication 10. Radio Traffic Communication Priorities 11. Radio Traffic Terminology 12. Dispatching Procedures 13. Dispatching—Alerting Systems 14. Dispatching—Station Toning 15. Dispatching/Command Frequency 16. Dispatching—Single Resources 17. Dispatching—Multiple Resources 18. Dispatching—Use of Assigned Tactical Channels 19. Dispatching—Greater Alarms 20. Dispatching—Time Checks 21. Mayday/Emergency Button Procedures 22. Dispatching—Move-Ups/Station Coverage 23. Dispatching—Special Circumstances 24. Premise Hazard Records 25. Person Down 26. Police Officer Required 27. Resources 28. Incident Command System Overview 29. Glossary of Fire Terminology 310 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Operational Policies/SOPs/SOGs Rocklin Dispatch has a Communications Section as a part of the overall Police Department Operational Policies. The policies cover position responsibilities and basic policies related to call interrogation and dispatching. Policy 801 – Communications Center 801.1 Purpose and Scope 801.2 Policy 801.3 The Communications Center Security 801.3.1 Officer Identification and Communication 801.4 Responsibilities 801.4.1 Communications Manager 801.4.2 Additional Procedures 801.4.3 Supervisors 801.4.4 Dispatchers 801.4.5 Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) 801.5 Call Handling 801.5.1 Emergency Calls 801.5.2 Non-Emergency Calls 801.5.3 Wireless and Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) 9-1-1 Telephone Calls 801.6 Radio Communications 801.6.1 Federal Communications Commission Compliance 801.6.2 Radio Identification 801.7 Documentation 801.8 Confidentiality 801.9 Training and Certification Workflow The two or three dispatchers that are on duty have separate job responsibilities. One will handle RNPD Dispatch, and one will handle ROK Dispatch and call-taking. When there are three dispatchers on duty, one handles RNPD Dispatch, one handles ROK Dispatch, and one handles call-taking. On medical calls, they do not do a pre-alert; instead, they take EMD to the determinant and dispatch the event. Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) Rocklin Dispatch uses Priority Dispatch’s EMD software. Supervisors do weekly quality assurance audits of each dispatcher. There is no effort to obtain EMD accreditation at this time. 311 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Performance Standards Rocklin Dispatch conforms to the NENA/NFPA call-answering time standard of 90% of emergency calls being answered within 15 seconds and 95% being answered within 20 seconds. The event processing time standard is 90% of calls have to be processed (from the time of call answer until field units are notified of an event) within 64 seconds, and 95% of calls have to be processed within 106 seconds. This is an older NFPA standard that Rocklin should consider revising. Figure 197: ROK 9-1-1 Compliance by Hour 100% 98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :0 :1 :2 :3 :4 :5 :6 :7 :8 :9 :0 :1 :2 :3 :4 :5 :6 :7 :8 :9 :0 :1 :2 :3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2019 2020 2021 2022 NENA/NFPA Standard 312 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Technology Rocklin IT staff work on systems across the city to support all departments, including the dispatch center. Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) Sunridge System’s RIMS CAD application is used at Rocklin Dispatch. The system was implemented in the 1980s. They are running on software version 29.06.2, which was installed in 2022. The system is designed with redundant servers, and all hardware is updated on a planned basis. The system is shared with Lincoln PD/FD and Auburn PD. Agencies are siloed for the most part—fire departments share, police departments do not. Rocklin PD takes care of the common database, and they are the CLETS host. All information is shared across the platform. Each agency can have its own customizations—it does not have to be a global change. Dispatch recommendations are by the closest unit to the event location. Interfaces Apart from the shared CAD system with Lincoln and Auburn, there are no additional external system interfaces in place. Mapping The City GIS Department updates maps. Maps are loaded into CAD by Sunridge. Fire Station Alerting A network connection to the fire station is done through the City’s fiber network. RIMS sends data to a printer and can trigger a basic relay system for lights, doors, etc. U.S. Digital Design’s Phoenix G2 system was installed in January 2024. Paging Fire station alerting is accomplished through the US Digital Design Phoenix G2 system. Mobile Data Computers (MDC) MDCs are installed on all vehicles for RNPD and RSV. Closest Unit/Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) The use of an AVL system on fire apparatus allows the dispatch of the closest, most appropriate resources. In Rocklin, AVL is only on fire apparatus and is running on dual connections with Verizon and AT&T. ROK is not using AVL for closest-unit dispatching, in part because dispatchers cannot see other agency units that might be closer. 313 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Records Management System The Rocklin Police and Fire Departments use the Sunridge RMS system. Radio The City of Rocklin operates its own analog VHF system. They have one dispatch channel (repeated) and three shared (with Lincoln and Roseville) tactical channels (not repeated). TAC channel assignments are programmed into RIMS. Tactical channels are assigned only on request of the Incident Commander. Dispatchers are not required to monitor the tactical channels. Roseville has XPLTAC2, Rocklin has XPLTAC3, and Lincoln has XPLTAC 4. There are other state and national tactical channels to use if required and available. Fire captains carry two radios; battalion chiefs carry three. 9-1-1 Rocklin Dispatch is part of a hosted solution with the cities of Roseville and Lincoln, as well as the Placer County Sheriff’s Office. The 9-1-1 Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) is Intrado Viper. The system is maintained by AT&T. The system was last upgraded in 2016. There is also a Mitel phone connected to the City’s business phone system. The State of California 9-1-1 Branch is deploying Next Generation 911 (NG911), and all PSAPs are being set up in preparation for the move to NG911. Mass Notification The City uses the Everbridge mass emergency notification system. Everbridge is a web application, so there is no hardware at the dispatch center. Interoperability Neighboring Roseville is on a 700/800 trunking system, so most mutual/automatic aid responses are handled on VHF mutual aid channels. 314 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Analysis Dispatch Models The dispatch centers that are a part of this analysis are owned and operated by law enforcement agencies. Each is a dispatch center that is integral to a single jurisdiction with comprehensive policies and procedures under a single chain of command. In all three agencies reviewed here, dispatching services are managed by the police department. The advantage of a single jurisdiction law/fire communications center is the potential for seamless interoperability between police officers and firefighters. There is usually an interoperable radio system in use by the jurisdiction. The primary advantage is having the dispatchers in the same room, so they can relay information between the two disciplines without the need for telephone or radio communications. This configuration's primary disadvantage is the interoperability issues within the surrounding region. Agencies in the surrounding region may be on a different radio system. Dispatchers are in separate dispatch centers, requiring telephone calls or a CAD-to-CAD interface to be able to relay information back and forth, creating delays. This issue is especially important in the fire discipline, where resources regularly respond across jurisdictional boundaries and interact with other agencies on emergency incidents. It is not uncommon for law enforcement to dominate the activities of the dispatch center. While the law portion of a dispatch center comprises 80 to 95 percent of the workload, both law and fire activity need the same level of commitment on the part of the dispatch center. Having dispatchers who are highly trained in all aspects of their job is the goal, but the reality is that training in fire subjects can be lacking in dispatch centers run by a law agency. There are many reasons for this: • Lack of subject matter experts in fire dispatching • Lack of time dedicated to fire training • Lack of fire department involved in the dispatch center operations Regionalization Efforts There has been some movement towards regionalization. Several years ago, the City of Auburn moved its fire dispatch to GVECC, which also dispatches several local government fire agencies in neighboring counties. The Placer County Sheriff dispatches for Foresthill, Newcastle, Penryn, Placer Hills, and South Placer Fire Districts. 315 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Roseville, Lincoln, Rocklin, and PCSO are all members of a hosted 9-1-1 system. Lincoln, Auburn (PD), and Rocklin share a CAD system. While there have been discussions about the regionalization of dispatch services, the concept has never progressed beyond the discussion phase. Historically, law enforcement has been resistant to regionalization. The fire service, however, has been open to regional fire dispatching. GVECC is one example, and the Sacramento Regional Fire/EMS Communications Center (SRFECC) is another. SRFECC dispatches for all of the fire departments/districts in Sacramento County, while there are six separate law enforcement dispatch centers. There are potential advantages and disadvantages to creating a regional fire dispatch center. Advantages: • Dispatchers trained in fire-specific operations. • Seamless interoperability within the fire service in the region. • Resource sharing/coordination. • Closest unit response. Disadvantages: • Potential for lost/missed communications between law and fire dispatch centers. • Delays in receiving assistance from the other discipline. • Dispatchers unfamiliar with a larger geographic area. None of the disadvantages are without some mitigation solutions, either procedurally or technically. Provisioning the CAD system with landmarks, common places, and area familiarization training can give dispatchers a broader knowledge of an area. And CAD-to- CAD interfaces are becoming more common, even between disparate systems that would allow for rapid requests for assistance. Communications Interoperability Interoperability can be defined as the ability of disparate agencies to be able to communicate quickly and easily. The largest obstacle to communications interoperability is the inability of the CAD systems to communicate seamlessly. Dispatchers are forced to place a telephone call to a neighboring center and read the information from their computer terminal to another dispatcher, who manually enters the information into their terminal. Complicating matters are the different radio systems: 316 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO • Roseville operates two systems—their own 800MHz P25 Simulcast trunked radio system and an analog VHF repeater with voter receivers. • Rocklin operates its own analog VHF system. • Lincoln operates on a VHF-repeated conventional system. Each of the dispatch centers operates on a separate radio system for day-to-day operations. With the exception of Roseville, all the fire agencies operate in the same VHF band but are licensed on different frequencies. Roseville vehicles carry radio equipment capable of communicating on the VHF bands. When responding on borderline, mutual aid, or automatic aid events, there are shared channels used for interoperable communications. Placer County-specific frequencies are designated for mutual/automatic aid response—XPLTAC1, XPLTAC2, XPLTAC3, and XPLTAC4. The State of California also makes frequencies available for these responses which are designated as VFIRE21, VFIRE22, and VFIRE23. These frequencies are accessible by the dispatch centers. Response Each agency establishes its responses based on agency and community needs. Responses are generally based on industry best practices and national standards. Coordination is essential for “borderline” calls—when each agency gets a 9-1-1 call for an area that is on the border between their agency and a neighboring agency. The tendency is for each agency to send an appropriate response for the type of event, resulting in a duplication of resources at the scene. Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL)/Closest Unit Dispatching The lack of situational awareness between the dispatch centers hinders borderline and automatic aid responses. With the exception of Lincoln and Rocklin, who share a CAD system and can view the resources from both agencies, there is no system in place to share resource availability or location between the dispatch centers. Regionalization Creating a single regional fire dispatch center for the three cities is technically possible and may be desirable, but moving all the fire agencies into a new center simultaneously is not practical. A long-term strategic plan would have to be developed to plan the migration of agencies in an orderly fashion. Governance There are different governance models available for a shared or combined dispatch center: 317 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO • Create a new, independent fire dispatch center within the framework of a JPA. • Consolidate the fire dispatch functions of the three cities within one of the three existing dispatch centers. Creating a new, independent fire dispatch center would provide a method of exercising control over how the system is run, but it would be a very expensive option. In this model, a JPA would likely be needed to handle an independent agency's administrative tasks (hiring staff, creating a funding model, etc.). Depending on many factors, a new dispatch center would run into millions of dollars, with variables such as using an existing building or locating a plot of land to use for the construction of a new building. Centralizing the three fire agencies into one of the existing city dispatch centers is probably the most practical solution, but it is not without issues. The Roseville Dispatch Center has the best infrastructure to add the other two fire agencies, but deciding how the fire dispatching would be managed could be problematic. A very detailed contract would need to be negotiated, addressing how the fire dispatch operation would be managed and funded. The ability of the fire departments to have a say in the fire dispatch operation would be a key component of any shared center. Whether fire dispatch operations would be a component of the police department in terms of staffing, funding, operational policies, and training or managed as a “center within a center” would need to be determined. Facility As previously stated, of the three cities, the Roseville Dispatch Center has the best infrastructure in place to handle a regional fire dispatch operation. Physical security measures are already in place. Whether there is adequate space in the existing dispatch center for a fire “pod” would need to be determined. A physical expansion of the current Roseville center may be necessary to allow for the addition of workstations. Technology Roseville Dispatch is already the host of the 9-1-1 system for the three cities. Since all three fire departments operate on a VHF system (Roseville for mutual/automatic aid only), the current VHF system could be reworked to ensure coverage through all three agencies. Another more intensive option would be to have Rocklin and Lincoln move to Roseville’s 800-trunked system, which would require the purchase of new radios for those agencies and might require additional sites to address coverage issues. 318 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Roseville Dispatch has a Tyler CAD system; Rocklin and Lincoln could be added to that system. A CAD-to-CAD interface with the Sunridge RIMS CAD (shared by ROK and LNC) would be necessary to allow the sharing of joint law/fire event information. If the three fire agencies desire to develop a seamless fire/EMS dispatch system that automatically and immediately dispatches the closest appropriate resources regardless of jurisdictional boundaries, then developing the response plans for the Tyler CAD would need to be a high-priority project. Lincoln would have to add AVL to their units for AVL/Closest Unit dispatch to work. Communications Interoperability Interoperable communications become problematic when multiple systems are in use. While multi-band radios are available to accommodate different radio frequencies, the challenge is not overwhelming the end user. How easy or difficult it is to be on the right channel/talk group, how many times units have to change channels based on the location they are responding to, who they will be talking to, or what function they have on the fireground are all factors that can render a technologically sophisticated system useless to a responder. It is a fact that finding available frequencies in the VHF band is difficult, especially in the Sierra Foothills, where radio propagation can affect agencies across Northern California. To determine and detail the specific challenges to a consolidated radio system, a radio study would need to be conducted. AP Triton can offer general considerations for further research. Rocklin and Lincoln have their own licensed VHF frequencies that could be pooled and made available on multiple tower sites (depending on FCC approval). A practical option would be for the Roseville Fire Department to operate on a VHF system while maintaining the ability to interoperate with the Roseville Police Department on the City’s trunked system. Response The potential benefits of regional dispatching can be maximized if the fire departments were to operate as if they were one entity, without regard for jurisdictional boundaries. The agencies should develop a standard set of policies, standards, and guidelines concerning dispatch protocol and field operations. 319 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Integrating units from multiple agencies in one single response can maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of resources committed to any one event. The simplest solution is to program the responses in each of the disparate CAD systems and set policies and procedures so the dispatch center communicates and coordinates the response. It would also benefit the fire agencies to program automatic boundary-less responses in CAD, saving time in the decision-making process and allowing the dispatchers to proceed without delay. Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL)/Closest Unit Dispatching Rocklin and Roseville have installed AVL on their apparatus so the dispatchers can see their location on a map in the dispatch center. The CAD system in these agencies could utilize the current location of the agency’s apparatus to determine the closest, most appropriate unit(s) to the scene of an emergency. Other fire agencies are starting to update their mobile equipment to accommodate AVL. Software systems are currently available (commonly called a CAD-to-CAD interface) that can gather situational awareness from multiple agencies and either display them on a separate monitor or integrate them into a CAD system to allow those units to be seen and utilized by multiple agencies. Integrating this type of system could facilitate a more rapid response of the most appropriate resources in a timely manner. A potential challenge is the ability of an agency’s CAD system to integrate with one of these systems. Lincoln, Rocklin, and Roseville have newer CAD systems that can integrate with these systems. This approach creates the possibility of including all of the fire dispatch centers in a coordinated system. There are also non-technical challenges to take into consideration, such as getting agreement between the agencies on what information is shared and how much control the other agencies give to commit resources. This will require extensive discussion and concurrence to codify how such a system would operate and who would be the host. The development of common Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and a boundary-less response plan would be necessary to fully capitalize on the potential of an AVL-based system that allows for the automatic dispatch of the closest available unit. 320 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Recommendations Recommendation 4-1: The three fire agencies should adopt policies promoting the concept of full boundary drop, closest resource response system utilizing AVL dispatch. All response apparatus and each dispatch center should be equipped to utilize AVL technology. Recommendation 4-2: All of the dispatch centers that provide fire dispatch services should adopt performance standards in accordance with NFPA 1225: Standard for Emergency Services Communications Performance. Recommendation 4-3: A CAD-to-CAD software interface solution should be implemented that would allow the dispatch centers to maintain real-time resource status of all system response resources, with the ability to dispatch the closest appropriate resource to an emergency incident, regardless of agency ownership or jurisdictional boundary lines. Recommendation 4-4: The fire agencies should adopt standards for apparatus typing, staffing, capabilities, and training. Dispatch protocol should evaluate both the closest resource and the closest appropriate resource for each event type. Recommendation 4-5: The fire agencies should develop a common set of Standard Operating Procedures relative to dispatch assignments for various event types, risk levels, hazard classes, and other factors that would influence the assembly of an Effective Response Force to each incident. Recommendation 4-6: A VHF radio plan should be developed that would utilize existing radio frequency licenses to create dispatch, command, and tactical channels; allow all potential responding units to communicate seamlessly and effectively utilizing one radio; and minimize the number of times a given user has to change channels on an incident. Recommendation 4-7: The dispatch centers that perform EMD should form a coalition to share QA responsibilities and collect and report data. Further, the centers providing EMD should pursue accreditation through the International Academies of Emergency Dispatch (IAED) to ensure compliance with protocol and standards. 321 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Section V: APPENDICES 322 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Appendix A: Unincorporated Placer County Fire Service Reorganization/Consolidation 323 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 324 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 325 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 326 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Appendix B: Placer Hills Fire Protection District Response 327 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 328 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 329 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 330 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 331 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 332 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 333 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 334 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 335 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 336 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO 337 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Appendix C: Table of Figures Figure 1: Staffed Fire Stations ............................................................................................................ xi Figure 2: System Performance Metrics ........................................................................................... xiii Figure 3: Fire Agency Funding-Unincorporated Areas ................................................................ 15 Figure 4: Criteria Utilized to Determine Fire Station Condition .................................................... 19 Figure 5: Apparatus and Vehicles Evaluation Criteria................................................................. 21 Figure 6: LNC Service Area .............................................................................................................. 23 Figure 7: LNC Overview of Services Provided ............................................................................... 24 Figure 8: LNC Organizational Chart ............................................................................................... 25 Figure 9: LNC Transparency and Accountability ......................................................................... 26 Figure 10: City of Lincoln Estimated Population (2010–2060) ..................................................... 27 Figure 11: LNC DUCS ........................................................................................................................ 28 Figure 12: LNC DUC Locations ........................................................................................................ 29 Figure 13: City of Lincoln Summarized General Fund Revenues & Expenses (FY 2018–FY 2022) ..................................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 14: City of Lincoln Summarized General Fund Revenues & Expenses (FY 2018–FY 2022) ..................................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 15: LNC Expenses (FY 2018–FY 2022)................................................................................... 33 Figure 16: Lincoln General Fund Summarized Projected General Fund Revenues & Expenditures ............................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 17: LNC Performance Overview ......................................................................................... 34 Figure 18: LNC Total Incident Response by Type with Percentage ........................................... 35 Figure 19: LNC Annual Incidents by Year ...................................................................................... 36 Figure 20: LNC Incident Percentage by Hour ............................................................................... 37 Figure 21: LNC Day and Hour Incident Heat Map ....................................................................... 38 Figure 22: LNC Adopted Standard vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance.................. 39 Figure 23: LNC High Priority Incidents’ 90th Percentile Total Response Times, January 2019– September 2022 ........................................................................................................................ 40 Figure 24: LNC Fire Unit Statistics ..................................................................................................... 41 Figure 25: LNC Staffing ..................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 26: LNC Daily Staffing ........................................................................................................... 42 Figure 27: LNC Fire Stations & Apparatus Staffing ........................................................................ 43 Figure 28: LNC Station Configuration and Condition .................................................................. 46 Figure 29: LNC Apparatus ................................................................................................................ 47 338 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 30: LNC Supervisor & Command Vehicles ........................................................................ 48 Figure 31: LNC PSAP and Dispatch Center ................................................................................... 49 Figure 32: NEW Service Area ........................................................................................................... 55 Figure 33: NEW Overview of Services Provided ............................................................................ 56 Figure 34: NEW Organizational Chart ............................................................................................ 58 Figure 35: NEW Transparency and Accountability ...................................................................... 59 Figure 36: NEW Estimated Population (2010–2060) ...................................................................... 61 Figure 37: NEW Revenues, FY 2018–FY 2022 .................................................................................. 63 Figure 38: NEW Historical Expenditures .......................................................................................... 64 Figure 39: NEW Summarized Revenues and Expenditures .......................................................... 65 Figure 40: NEW Summarized Projected General Fund Revenues & Expenditures................... 65 Figure 41: NEW Performance Overview ........................................................................................ 66 Figure 42: NEW Total Incident Response by Type with Percentage .......................................... 67 Figure 43: NEW Annual Incidents by Year ..................................................................................... 68 Figure 44: NEW Incident Percentage by Hour .............................................................................. 69 Figure 45: NEW Day and Hour Incident Heat Map ...................................................................... 70 Figure 46: NEW’s Adopted Standard vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance .............. 71 Figure 47: NEW High Priority Incidents’ 90th Percentile Total Response Times (January 2019– September 2022) ....................................................................................................................... 72 Figure 48: NEW Fire Unit Statistics .................................................................................................... 73 Figure 49: NEW Staffing .................................................................................................................... 73 Figure 50: NEW Daily Staffing........................................................................................................... 74 Figure 51: NEW Fire Station .............................................................................................................. 75 Figure 52: NEW Station Configuration and Condition ................................................................. 76 Figure 53: NEW FPD Apparatus ....................................................................................................... 77 Figure 54: NEW PSAP and Dispatch Center .................................................................................. 78 Figure 55: RYN Service Area ............................................................................................................ 87 Figure 56: RYN Overview of Services Provided ............................................................................. 88 Figure 57: RYN Organizational Chart ............................................................................................. 90 Figure 58: RYN Transparency and Accountability ....................................................................... 91 Figure 59: RYN Community Plan Land Use Designations ............................................................. 92 Figure 60: RYN Estimated Population (2010–2060) ....................................................................... 94 Figure 61: RYN Revenues, FY 2018–FY 2022 ................................................................................... 96 Figure 62: RYN Historical Expenditures ........................................................................................... 97 339 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 63: RYN Summarized Revenues and Expenditures ........................................................... 97 Figure 64: RYN General Fund Summarized Projected General Fund Revenues & Expenditures ............................................................................................................................... 98 Figure 65: RYN Performance Overview ......................................................................................... 99 Figure 66: RYN Total Incident Response by Type with Percentage ........................................... 99 Figure 67: RYN Annual Incidents by Year .................................................................................... 101 Figure 68: RYN Incident Percentage by Hour ............................................................................. 102 Figure 69: RYN Day and Hour Incident Heat Map ..................................................................... 103 Figure 70: RYN Adopted Standard vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance ................ 104 Figure 71: RYN High Priority Incidents’ 90th Percentile Total Response Times (January 2019– September 2022) ..................................................................................................................... 105 Figure 72: RYN Fire Unit Statistics ................................................................................................... 106 Figure 73: RYN Staffing ................................................................................................................... 106 Figure 74: RYN Daily Staffing .......................................................................................................... 107 Figure 75: RYN Fire Station ............................................................................................................. 108 Figure 76: RYN Station Configuration and Condition ................................................................ 109 Figure 77: RYN Apparatus .............................................................................................................. 111 Figure 78: RYN PSAP and Dispatch Center ................................................................................. 112 Figure 79: PHF Service Area ........................................................................................................... 121 Figure 80: PHF Overview of Services Provided ............................................................................ 122 Figure 81: PHF Organizational Chart ............................................................................................ 124 Figure 82: PHF Transparency and Accountability ...................................................................... 125 Figure 83: Placer Hills FPD Estimated Population (2010–2060) .................................................. 127 Figure 84: PHF Revenues, FY 2018–FY 2022 .................................................................................. 130 Figure 85: PHF Historical Expenditures .......................................................................................... 131 Figure 86: PHF Summarized Revenues and Expenditures.......................................................... 132 Figure 87: PHF General Fund Summarized Projected General Fund Revenues and Expenditures ............................................................................................................................. 132 Figure 88: PHF Performance Overview ........................................................................................ 133 Figure 89: PHF’s Total Incident Response by Type with Percentage ....................................... 134 Figure 90: PHF’s Annual Incidents by Year .................................................................................. 135 Figure 91: PHF Incident Percentage by Hour .............................................................................. 136 Figure 92: PHF Day and Hour Incident Heat Map ...................................................................... 137 Figure 93: PHF’s Adopted Standard vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance .............. 138 340 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 94: PHF High Priority Incidents 90th Percentile Total Response Times, (January 2019– September 2022) ..................................................................................................................... 139 Figure 95: PHF Fire Unit Statistics .................................................................................................... 140 Figure 96: PHF Staffing .................................................................................................................... 141 Figure 97: PHF Daily Staffing .......................................................................................................... 141 Figure 98: PHF Fire Stations ............................................................................................................. 142 Figure 99: Station Configuration and Condition ........................................................................ 147 Figure 100: PHF Apparatus............................................................................................................. 148 Figure 101: Supervisor & Command Vehicles ............................................................................. 149 Figure 102: PSAP and Dispatch Center ....................................................................................... 150 Figure 103: Rocklin Fire Department Service Area ..................................................................... 159 Figure 104: Overview of Services Provided ................................................................................. 160 Figure 105: Rocklin Fire Department Organizational Chart ...................................................... 162 Figure 106: Transparency and Accountability............................................................................ 163 Figure 107: City of Rocklin Estimated Population (2010–2060) ................................................. 164 Figure 108: City of Rocklin Summarized General Fund Revenues & Expenses (FY 17/18–FY 21/22) ........................................................................................................................................ 167 Figure 109: Graphical Presentation of Summarized General Fund Revenues and Expenses (FY 2018–FY 2022) .................................................................................................................... 167 Figure 110: ROK Expenses (FY 2018–FY 2022) .............................................................................. 168 Figure 111: ROK Summarized Projected General Fund Revenues and Expenditures ........... 168 Figure 112: ROK Performance Overview ..................................................................................... 169 Figure 113: ROK's Total Incident Response by Type with Percentage..................................... 170 Figure 114: ROK's Annual Incidents by Year ................................................................................ 171 Figure 115: ROK's Incident Percentage by Hour ........................................................................ 172 Figure 116: ROK Day and Hour Incident Heat Map ................................................................... 173 Figure 117: ROK Adopted Standard vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance ............. 175 Figure 118: ROK All Incidents' 90th Percentile Total Response Times (January 2019– September 2022) ..................................................................................................................... 176 Figure 119: ROK Fire Unit Statistics ................................................................................................. 177 Figure 120: ROK Staffing ................................................................................................................. 178 Figure 121: ROK Daily Staffing ....................................................................................................... 178 Figure 122: ROK Fire Stations ......................................................................................................... 179 Figure 123: ROK Station Configuration and Condition .............................................................. 184 Figure 124: ROK Apparatus ........................................................................................................... 186 341 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 125: ROK Supervisor & Command Vehicles .................................................................... 186 Figure 126: ROK PSAP and Dispatch Center ............................................................................... 187 Figure 127: Roseville FD Service Area........................................................................................... 193 Figure 128: Overview of Services Provided ................................................................................. 194 Figure 129: Roseville Fire Department Organizational Chart .................................................... 197 Figure 130: Transparency and Accountability............................................................................ 198 Figure 131: City of Roseville Estimated Population (2010–2060) ............................................... 199 Figure 132: City of Roseville Summarized General Fund Revenues & Expenses, FY 2018–FY 2022 ........................................................................................................................................... 202 Figure 133: Graphical Presentation of Summarized General Fund Revenues & Expenses, FY 2018–FY 2022 ............................................................................................................................ 204 Figure 134: Roseville Fire Department Historical Expenditures by Category .......................... 205 Figure 135: Roseville Fire Department Expenses, FY 2018–FY 2022 ........................................... 206 Figure 136: Roseville General Fund Summarized Projected General Fund Revenues and Expenditures ............................................................................................................................. 208 Figure 137: Roseville FD Forecast Expenditures .......................................................................... 208 Figure 138: RSV Performance Overview ...................................................................................... 210 Figure 139: RSV Total Incident Response by Type with Percentage ........................................ 210 Figure 140: RSV's Annual Incidents by Year ................................................................................. 211 Figure 141: RSV's Incident Percentage by Hour ......................................................................... 212 Figure 142: Day and Hour Incident Heat Map ........................................................................... 213 Figure 143: RSV Adopted Standard vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance .............. 214 Figure 144: RSV High Priority Incidents' 90th Percentile Total Response Times (January 2019– September 2022) ..................................................................................................................... 215 Figure 145: RSV Fire Unit Statistics .................................................................................................. 216 Figure 146: RSV Staffing .................................................................................................................. 217 Figure 147: RSV Daily Staffing ........................................................................................................ 218 Figure 148: Roseville Fire Stations .................................................................................................. 219 Figure 149: Station Configuration and Condition ...................................................................... 227 Figure 150: RSV Apparatus ............................................................................................................ 229 Figure 151: Supervisor & Command Vehicles ............................................................................. 230 Figure 152: PSAP and Dispatch Center ....................................................................................... 231 Figure 153: SPL Service Area ......................................................................................................... 238 Figure 154: Overview of Services Provided ................................................................................. 239 Figure 155: SPL Organizational Chart ........................................................................................... 241 342 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 156: Transparency and Accountability............................................................................ 242 Figure 157: Planned Land Use Percentages—Granite Bay ...................................................... 243 Figure 158: Planned Land Use Percentages—Loomis ............................................................... 243 Figure 159: SPL Estimated Population (2010–2060) ..................................................................... 245 Figure 160: SPL General Fund Revenues and Expenses Summarized ..................................... 248 Figure 161: SPL General Fund Revenues, Expenses and Fund Balances, FY 2018–FY 2022 .. 249 Figure 162: SPL General Fund Projected Revenues and Expenses Summarized ................... 250 Figure 163: SPL Performance Overview ....................................................................................... 251 Figure 164: SPL’s Total Incident Response by Type with Percentage ...................................... 252 Figure 165: SPL’s Annual Incidents by Year ................................................................................. 253 Figure 166: SPL’s Incident Percentage by Hour .......................................................................... 254 Figure 167: SPL Day and Hour Incident Heat Map ..................................................................... 255 Figure 168: SPL’s Adopted Standard vs. Actual Total Response Time Performance ............ 256 Figure 169: SPL High Priority Incidents’ 90th Percentile Total Response Times (January 2019– September 2022) ..................................................................................................................... 257 Figure 170: SPL Fire Unit Statistics ................................................................................................... 258 Figure 171: SPL Staffing ................................................................................................................... 259 Figure 172: SPL Daily Staffing ......................................................................................................... 259 Figure 173: South Placer Fire Stations ........................................................................................... 260 Figure 174: Station Configuration and Condition ...................................................................... 266 Figure 175: SPL Apparatus ............................................................................................................. 268 Figure 176: Supervisor & Command Vehicles ............................................................................. 269 Figure 177: PSAP and Dispatch Center ....................................................................................... 270 Figure 178: Overview of City Dispatch Centers .......................................................................... 279 Figure 179: Total 9-1-1 Call Volume (2019–2022) ........................................................................ 280 Figure 180: Calls Received via 10-Digit Phone Lines (2019–2022) ............................................ 281 Figure 181: Volume of Non-emergency Calls Received (2019–2022) ..................................... 281 Figure 182: Dispatch Center Staffing ........................................................................................... 282 Figure 183: Emergency Call Answer Compliance (2019–2022) ............................................... 285 Figure 184: Technology Characteristics by Fire Agency ........................................................... 285 Figure 185: VHF Fire Radio Channels ............................................................................................ 288 Figure 186: Emergency Medical Dispatch Call Process ............................................................ 289 Figure 187: Lincoln Dispatch Phone Calls (2020–2022) .............................................................. 292 Figure 188: Lincoln Dispatched Event Count (2019–2021) ........................................................ 292 343 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 189: LNC Dispatch 911 Call Answer Time Compliance ................................................. 296 Figure 190: LNC 10-Digit Emergency Call Answer Time Compliance ..................................... 296 Figure 191: LNC 9-1-1 Compliance by Month ............................................................................ 297 Figure 192: LNC 10-Digit Compliance by Month ........................................................................ 297 Figure 193: RSV Dispatch Call Volume (2019–2021) ................................................................... 302 Figure 194: RSV Call Volumes by Month (2019–2021) ................................................................ 302 Figure 195: ROK Dispatched Event Summary (2019–2022) ....................................................... 308 Figure 196: ROK Fire Call Summary (2019–2022) ......................................................................... 309 Figure 197: ROK 9-1-1 Compliance by Hour................................................................................ 312 Figure 198: Reorganized Fire District Organizational Chart ...................................................... 330 Figure 199: Reorganized Fire District Revenue & Expenditure .................................................. 331 Figure 200: Reorganized Fire District General Reserves ............................................................. 331 Figure 201: Reorganized Fire District Summary Budget ............................................................. 331 Figure 202: Staffing ......................................................................................................................... 332 Figure 203: Daily Staffing ................................................................................................................ 332 Figure 204: Reorganization Option #1 Fire Stations ................................................................... 333 Figure 205: 1.5-Mile, 2.5-Mile, 5-Mile Travel Distance ................................................................. 334 Figure 206: PCF Organizational Chart.......................................................................................... 338 Figure 207: Reorganized Fire Districts Summarized Revenues and Expenditures, FY 2023–FY 2027 ........................................................................................................................................... 339 Figure 208: North Auburn-Ophir Zone 193 Summarized Projected Revenues and Expenditures ............................................................................................................................. 339 Figure 209: ZOB 193 With Station 182 Closing FY 2025 ............................................................... 340 Figure 210: Reorganized Districts and Station 182 Closed FY 2025 .......................................... 340 Figure 211: PCF Combined Revenue/Expense (Sta 182 Closed FY 2025) .............................. 340 Figure 212: Additional Support Staffing ....................................................................................... 340 Figure 213: Reorganization Area Daily Staffing .......................................................................... 341 Figure 214: Reorganization Option #2 Fire Stations ................................................................... 342 Figure 215: 1.5-Mile, 2.5-Mile, and 5-Mile Travel Distance ......................................................... 343 Figure 216: Travel Distance 1.5- and 2.5-Mile Penryn Detail ..................................................... 344 Figure 217: Station 182 1.5- and 2.5-Mile Detail .......................................................................... 345 Figure 218: Reorganized Fire District Organizational Chart ...................................................... 349 Figure 219: Unit Cost Comparison ................................................................................................ 350 Figure 220: Integrated System Revenue Potential ..................................................................... 350 344 Fire Service Review Placer LAFCO Figure 221: Projected Fire District Expense .................................................................................. 351 Figure 222: Integrated System Projected Revenue/Expense ................................................... 351 Figure 223: Fire District Staffing ...................................................................................................... 351 Figure 224: Fire District Daily Staffing ............................................................................................ 352 Figure 225: Integrated Model Staffed Fire Stations .................................................................... 353 Figure 226: Integrated System Travel Distance........................................................................... 354 Figure 227: Resource Availability by Option ............................................................................... 356 Figure 228: Financial Projection by Option ................................................................................. 356 Figure 229: RYN and NEW Summarized Projected Revenues ................................................... 359 Figure 230: Potential Assessment Revenue FY 2025 ................................................................... 359 Figure 231: SPL 3-Person Engine Costs.......................................................................................... 360 Figure 232: SPL Paramedic Ambulance Costs ............................................................................ 361 Figure 233: Reorganization Area Revenue & Expenditures ...................................................... 361 Figure 234: Total Potential Revenue with Assessment Overlay ................................................ 362 Figure 235: Reorganized SPL Staffing ........................................................................................... 362 Figure 236: Fire Station Daily Staffing ........................................................................................... 363 Figure 237: SPL Reorganization ..................................................................................................... 364 Figure 238: 1.5-, 2.5-, and 5-Mile Travel Distance ....................................................................... 365 Figure 239: SPL Reorganization Analysis....................................................................................... 367 Figure 240: SPL City Service Contract SWOT Analysis ................................................................ 370 345