Orange County Grand Jury
• 2017-2018
Orange County Fire Authority – Financial Flames on the Horizon?
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 7 findings
F1
The 1995 OCFA JPA agreement, requiring that all SFF funds be allocated to OCFA, did not anticipate the disproportionate property values and growth in the City of Irvine, resulting in the current inequity issue.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
Starting immediately, all three parties (the City of Irvine, OCFA, and the County of Orange) should be included in all discussions addressing Irvine’s SFF inequity issue to reach a mutually satisfactory interim agreement to avoid Irvine’s withdrawal from OCFA. (F1, F2, F3, F4)
R6
All parties should commit to revisiting the JPA agreement with the goal of resolving outstanding issues prior to the 2030 expiration of the JPA. (F1, F5, F6, F7) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . §933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933(c) are required or requested from: Responses Required:
F2
The imminent deadline of June 30, 2018, for members to notify OCFA of intent to withdraw leaves insufficient time to finalize a mutually agreeable plan to resolve the inequity issue.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
Starting immediately, all three parties (the City of Irvine, OCFA, and the County of Orange) should be included in all discussions addressing Irvine’s SFF inequity issue to reach a mutually satisfactory interim agreement to avoid Irvine’s withdrawal from OCFA. (F1, F2, F3, F4)
R2
Prior to June 30, 2018, the City of Irvine should adopt a contingency plan to ensure uninterrupted fire and emergency services in the event of the City’s intended withdrawal from OCFA. (F2, F6)
F3
The bilateral discussions between Irvine and OCFA, without the County’s involvement, have not resolved the inequity concerns and cannot resolve them without joint discussions and mutual agreement among all principal parties.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Starting immediately, all three parties (the City of Irvine, OCFA, and the County of Orange) should be included in all discussions addressing Irvine’s SFF inequity issue to reach a mutually satisfactory interim agreement to avoid Irvine’s withdrawal from OCFA. (F1, F2, F3, F4)
F4
The disagreement between Irvine and the County regarding the application of Tax Equity Allocation (TEA) funds complicates the resolution of the inequity issue.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Starting immediately, all three parties (the City of Irvine, OCFA, and the County of Orange) should be included in all discussions addressing Irvine’s SFF inequity issue to reach a mutually satisfactory interim agreement to avoid Irvine’s withdrawal from OCFA. (F1, F2, F3, F4)
F5
In the event of a Structural Fire Fund (SFF) member’s withdrawal from OCFA, the JPA agreement does not clearly address the disposition of that member’s SFF contributions, which may result in litigation.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
By June 1, 2018, OCFA and the County of Orange should provisionally define the disposition of a member’s SFF contributions in the event of that member’s withdrawal. (F5)
R6
All parties should commit to revisiting the JPA agreement with the goal of resolving outstanding issues prior to the 2030 expiration of the JPA. (F1, F5, F6, F7) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . §933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933(c) are required or requested from: Responses Required:
F6
In the event of Irvine’s withdrawal from OCFA, the conflicting positions between the City and OCFA regarding ownership of fire stations and equipment located in Irvine may result in litigation.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2
Prior to June 30, 2018, the City of Irvine should adopt a contingency plan to ensure uninterrupted fire and emergency services in the event of the City’s intended withdrawal from OCFA. (F2, F6)
R4
By June 1, 2018, OCFA and the City of Irvine should resolve ownership of the Division 2 fire stations and associated equipment located in the City of Irvine. (F6)
R6
All parties should commit to revisiting the JPA agreement with the goal of resolving outstanding issues prior to the 2030 expiration of the JPA. (F1, F5, F6, F7) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . §933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933(c) are required or requested from: Responses Required:
F7
In the event of a member’s withdrawal from OCFA, the JPA agreement does not define the disposition of that member’s share of OCFA’s unfunded liabilities, which may result in litigation.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5
By June 1, 2018, OCFA should provisionally define the disposition of a member’s share of OCFA unfunded liabilities in the event of that member’s withdrawal. (F7)
R6
All parties should commit to revisiting the JPA agreement with the goal of resolving outstanding issues prior to the 2030 expiration of the JPA. (F1, F5, F6, F7) RESPONSES The following excerpts from the California Penal Code provide the requirements for public agencies to respond to the findings and recommendations of this Grand Jury report: §933(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head or any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. . . . §933.05 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision-making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code §933(c) are required or requested from: Responses Required:
Conclusions 1
-
CL1The equity issue within OCFA has been a long-standing one, with multiple attempts made over the years by OCFA and its members to address it. As a result of the most recent legislation (SB 302), however, any proposed resolution will be even more difficult to reach with the addition of more parties needed for agreement. Strategic and Financial Impacts As previously noted, OCFA’s Division 2, located in the City of Irvine, is situated in the geographic center of the OCFA service area (Figure 2). Irvine’s withdrawal from OCFA would disrupt the strategic integrity of a uniform service area with regard to placement of fire stations as well as distribution of firefighting equipment and personnel. The withdrawal would also have a negative effect on OCFA’s operating budget, financial stability, response times, and overall operations. These possible effects make it apparent that it would be in the best interest of OCFA, the City of Irvine, other member cities, and the County to negotiate a mutually agreeable solution. Why Inequity is Inevitable Inequities are a feature of any representative democratic government. Wealthier communities send more tax revenue to a central government than less wealthy communities, which is redistributed for the common good. These revenues are allocated to give all communities the same basic services as their needs require. A prime example of this is funding for public schools. In a hypothetical scenario, two homes on the same block may pay significantly different amounts of property taxes, depending upon the date of sale (defined base year) and the assessed value of the home. For example, if a home was purchased in 1975 with a sale price of $95,000 and has not changed hands for the past 43 years, the property taxes would be significantly lower than 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 21 ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY – FINANCIAL FLAMES ON THE HORIZON? those of a home next door which was purchased in the base year of 2017 with a sale price of $975,000. Yet these next-door neighbors receive the same public school accessibility. This is also true of OCFA, whose fire and emergency services are provided equally to the residents of all member agencies and are not based on the ability to pay. If they were, Irvine would take the majority of fire services and other smaller and less affluent member cities would have a lower level of services. The City of Irvine is not attempting to abrogate its civic responsibilities, but rather is seeking more equitable treatment. Future Negotiations Recently there have been informal discussions between the City of Irvine and OCFA regarding the equity issue. These discussions have not included the County of Orange, which might have provided an avenue for additional input or options. Instead, OCFA advised the County that any position they have regarding the equity issue must be presented to the OCFA Board of Directors. Now, with the recent passage of SB 302, all parties to the discussion, including the County, are required to approve any proposed solutions to the equity issue – which would necessitate that all parties participate in any discussions. If a consensus is not achieved in the short term by June 30, 2018, and no further action is taken before the next withdrawal notice deadline of June 30, 2028, then the OCFA JPA will automatically renew on July 1, 2030 – resulting in the same terms and conditions with the same unresolved issues, possibly leading to the breakup of OCFA. 2017-2018 Orange County Grand Jury Page 22 ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY – FINANCIAL FLAMES ON THE HORIZON?
Agency Responses 4
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Orange County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office