Nevada County Consolidated Fire District to Be or Not to Be, That is the Question

Recommendations 6

• R1
  The Nevada County Fire Chief's Association should continue moving forward to integrate administrative functions under a JPA in western Nevada County. Response The City agrees .
• R2
  The Nevada County Board of Supervisors should direct lAFCo to begi n research on the steps necessary to reorgan ize western Nevada County fire districts into a single fire authority. This should be a priority for the safety of residents in western Nevada County. Response The City partly agrees with the recommendation. The City supports research into the concept of a single fire authority by a committee of Fire Chiefs and elected officials. LAFCO is an independent state-agency w hich is not subject to direction by the County. Moreover, a collaborative solution is, in the City's view, more likely to succeed than one imposed by others.
• R3
  The proposed new fire authority should consider: Having one governing board selected by Board of Supervisors, using the current district designations for representation purposes Have one chief and one business office Retaining current fire tax fees for each current district Telephone (530) 274-4310 - Fax (530) 274-4399 Have a plan to implement a leveling of the fees within four years Being called the Western Nevada County Fire Authority Not initially including Ophir Hill Fire Protection District, Peardale ­ Chicago Park Fire, Rough and Ready Fire or North San Juan Fire District. Response: The City partly agrees with the recommendation. Conceptually, the City agrees that the concept of a single Western Nevada County Fire Authority has merit. The proposed Shared Administrative Services agreement had included many of the suggestions in the Grand Jury report. Complex issues such as governance and legal restrictions on revenues necessitate participation from all fire agencies. Development of a single agency for western Nevada County must include all agencies for the benefit of all residents.
• R4
  An interim JPA should be established which would be an interim governing body. That governing body would be a transitional board until a permanent board is established. The interim board would consist of one elected official and one staff member from each agency and one member from the Nevada County Board of Supervisors. Response The City partly agrees with the recommendation. Dialogue in development of the proposed Shared Services agreement between Nevada City, Grass Valley and Nevada County Consolidated included governance consisting of the City Managers and a board member from Nevada Co. Consolidated Fire. Should a JPA be established as described by this recommendation, the governance structure considered by the Shared Service proposal may be suitable in the interim and long term. Telephone (530) 274-4310 - Fax (530) 274-4399
• R5
  The included districts in the new fire authority should begin discussion for reorganization into an independent fire authority that is under the supervision of the Nevada County Board of Supervisors in order to preserve fire protection services in western Nevada County. Response The City partly agrees with the recommendation. The City will participate in discussions to consider an independent fire authority in western Nevada County. Governance of an independent fire authority can only be determined by those participating in the fire authority discussions. The City must fulfill its service responsibilities in the meantime and will advocate for its residents to ensure adequate, appropriately funded services, as other local governments should do for those they serve. This response was reviewed and approved by City Council at its September 23, 2014, meeting. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, a~ Dan Miller Mayor cc: City Council Tim Kiser, Public Works Director/City Engineer Telephone (530) 274-431 0 - Fax (530) 274-4399 N e v ada County LA FC o Lo ca l 95 0 Maidu A venu e A ge ncy Nevada C ity, CA 95 959-8617 F ormati on Phone 530 265 7180 Fax 530 265 9862 C om mi ssion E mail [email protected] On the vl'eh at: 11:"),!'H'. In)mevadacoull(v. w nz/nc//uj(;() Richard Anderson County Patrick Flora September 22, 201 4 Cities Kurt Grundel The Honorable Thomas Anderson Districls Presiding Judge of the Nevada County Grand Jury Lisa Swarthout Nevada County Courthouse Cities Alternate 201 Church Street Paul Norsell. Vice-Chair Nevada City, CA 95959 Public Hank Weston, Chair RE: Nevada LAFCo's Responses to the 2013-2014 Nevada County Civil County Grand Jury Report: "Nevada COlmty Consolidated Fire District - To Be or Not Nick Wilcox to Be, That is the Question" Districts Dear Judge Anderson: Nate Beason County A Itemate As required by California Penal Code Section 933, Nevada County's Local Agency Formation Commission (Nevada LAFCo) hereby submits responses to Ed Beckenbach Districts Alternate the subject Grand Jury Report, dated June 24, 2014. These responses were approved by the Commission on September 18,2014. Robert Bergman Cities On behalf of Nevada LAFCo, I would like to thank the 2013-20 14 Grand Jury Josh Susman Public Alternate panel for their participation and effort in preparing their reports, and for participating in the Grand JUly process. SR Jones Executive Officer Jttk-W~ P. Scot1 Browne Legal Counsel Hank Weston, Chair Deborah Gilcrest Nevada LAPeo Clerk/A nalyst Kate Duroux Cc: Keith Overbey, Foreman, Grand Jury \ / AssIstant Clerk SR Jones, LAFCo Executive Officer NEVADA LAFCO RESPONSES TO 2013-2014 Nevada County Civil Grand Jury Report "Nevada COWlty Consolidated Fire District - To Be or Not to Be, That is the Question" June 24, 201 4 These responses to the Grand Jury's Findings and Recommendations were approved by Nevada LAFCo at their September 18, 2014 meetj ng. Response to Findings: Fi. Since NCCFD isfailingfinancially, LAFCo could review and approve changes of organization, reorganization, or consolidation. Disagree ,,,ith the first assertion and agree with the second. The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) does not agree with the assertion that the Nevada County Consolidated Fire District (NCCFD) is "failing financially." The district's FY 12-13 audit and financial reports for FY 13-14 indicate improvements in the district's financial situation. Relative to LAFCo's authority to review and approve changes of organization, reorganization and consolidations, pmsuant to Government Code § 56375, the Commission is responsible for reviewing all proposed changes of organization and reorganizations, including consolidations. In certain circumstances, and when sUPPolied by the recommendation or conclusion of a special study, LAFCo can initiate proposals for consolidation, dissolution, merger, establishment of subsidiary district, or formation of a new district (GC § 56375 (a) (2». It should be noted that any reorganization proposal can be subject to an election if protested by a specific percentage of voters. Reorganizations that are initiated by LAPCo are generally subject to a lower protest threshold than proposals initiated by the affected local agencies or by voter petition. However, in the absence of a special study, it is not clear that a reorganization including NCCFD and (presumably) several other fire agencies would resolve NCCFD's financial problems without adversely impacting the service levels of the others. Fi. The lack offiduciary responsibility on the part ofthe Board may lead to {he eventual downfall ofNCCFD. Neither agree or disagree. LAFCo does not have facts that pemlit it to agree or disagree with the conclusion. Fi. The Jury found that Teeter Funds are needed by NCCFD 10 remain in operation. Even though this is a legal practice used by special districfs for constant supply ofoperationalfunds, NCCFD is forced to borrow againstfuture tax revenue. Agree. LAFCo is aware that NCCFD has utilized Teeter Plan funds. As the Grand Jury notes, this practice is legal and the County's Auditor-Controller indicates that two other rue districts, one school district, and one city have also utilized Teeter Plan funding for FY 2013 -201 4. Fi. Forming a single Nevada County fire authority would allow opportunities to stafffor promotion opportunities, uniform-advanced training, diversity ofassignments, cost savings for taxpayers, and uniform operations for the residents across western Nevada County. Partially Agree. Many of the listed benefits are already being realized through the Joint Operating Agreement and through agreements and contracts between the fire agencies. Relative to training and operations, the Joint Operating Agreement provides for standardized operational response and joint training. This agreement was initially established in 2001 between NCCFD, Grass Valley and Nevada City; and since that time, Penn Valley Fire has joined the JOA. The JOA can be expanded to accommodate other fire agencies. Countywide dispatch procedures already allow for the closest available resource to respond to any type of emergency, regardless of agency boundaries. Regarding uniform operations throughout western Nevada County, LAFCo notes that each of the fire districts and cities serve a distinct community with unique service needs. Generally speaking, establishing a uniform level of operations throughout the western COWlty will require some fire agencies to increase their service levels, the cost of which would in turn need to be financed by residents. LAFCo also points out the progress that has been made county-wide in the last twenty ­ five years toward increasing the efficiency and accountability of the fire and emergency services system. Since 1990, five Western County fire districts have been consolidated (Bullion, Gold Flat, Alta Oaks-Sunset, Watt Park and Forty-Niner Fire Protection Districts). In the eastern county, the fire and emergency response operations ofthe Soda SpringslKingvale area were transferred from Donner Summit Public Utility District to Truckee Fire Protection District. Each of these reorganizations involved lengthy and extensive negotiations between elected officials, labor representatives, and citizen groups. Each proceeded at its own pace, with LAFCo's involvement including the provision of technical assistance and impartial review ofthe resulting reorganization proposals. In several cases, an extended period of "functional consolidation" between agencies provided a very useful "adjustment period" ofjoint operations wherein personnel and administrative issues could be addressed in advance of a fonnal consolidation. Fi. Ifa JPA is successful, there will be substantial savings in administrative overhead costs. Partially Agr'ee. LAFCo recognizes that carefully crafted JPAs can potentially assist agencies to contain (i.e., not necessarily reduce) administrative costs. However, in the absence of the specific terms of such an agreement, the assertion of "substantial savings" appears to be speculative. Fi.13 The four fire agencies, NCCFD, GV}J), PVFPD and NCFD serving the vast majority of western Nevada County will soon be without fire chiefs, the highest level ofmanagement, creating an opportune lime 10 explore reorganization. Agree. LAFCo is aware that the listed agencies have engaged in discussions about consolidating administrative operations and fire chief positions. Fi. When the SAFER grant expires within two years, the HFPD will be unable to Jully staff their stations. This would be an ideal time to work toward reorganization. Agree. LAFCo is aware that HFPD's financial position results from the district voters' decision to not approve a tax measure to fund enhanced fire and emergency services. LAFCo also observes that HFPD's financial situation could present an obstacle to its full participation in a wider fire agency reorganization (i.e., if HFPD is underfunded, consolidation would require the partner agencies to subsidize services to the Higgins area). Response to Recommendations: R. The proposed new fire authority should consider: • having one governing board selected by Board o[Supervisors, using the current district designationsJor representation pwposes, • having one chieJ and one business office, • retaining current fire laxJees Jor each current district, • having a plan to implement a leveling ojthe Jees within Jour years, • being called the Western Nevada County Fire Authority, • not initially including Ophir Hill Fire Protection District, Peardale-Chicago Park Fire, Rough and Ready Fire, or North San Juan Fire District. This recommendation cannot be implemented by LAFCo for the following reason. It is not clear whether the recommendation is to establish a 10int Powers Authority (presumably comprised of several existing fire agencies) or to reorganize the existing fire agenCies. LAFCo has no authority to either establish a lPA or to unilaterally require any agency to join alPA. Relative to a reorganization of several existing agencies, no such proposal has been submitted for LAFCo's consideration at this time. Although LAFCo can in certain circumstances initiate reorganization proposals, such action can only be taken after a comprehensive study ofthe financial and govemance circumstances and implications of the proposed reorganization on all involved agency service levels. Given that several of the agencies presumably included in the recommendation appear to be financially stable and capable of providing service at the level desired by their residents, there does not appear to be justification for allocating the significant resources that would be req uired to conduct such a study. As a practical matter, LAFCo notes that a plan to "level fees" tlu'oughout the western county will need to balance the service needs of each community with its financial ability to participate, and must also provide for consistency with Propositions 13 and 218. R. An interim JP A should be established which would be an interim governing body. That governing body would be a transitional board until a permanent board is established. The interim board would consist 0/one elected official and one staffmember from each agency and one member from the Nevada County Board o/Supervisors. This recommendation cannot be implemented by LAFCo for tbe following reason. Local Agency Fonnation Commissions do not have authority to initiate the formation of Joint Powers Authorities. R. The included districts in the new fire authority should begin discussions Jor reorganization into an independent fire authority that is under the supervision oJthe Nevada County Board oj Supervisors in order to preserve fire protection services in western Nevada County: Nevada County Consolidated Fire District, • Penn Valley Fire Protection District, • Rough and Ready Fire Protection District, Grass Valley Fire Department, • Nevada City Fire Department, Higgins Area Fire Protection District, • North San Juan Fire Protection District, Ophir Hill Fire Protection District, Peardale-Chicago Park Fire District, Washington County Water Fire District. See
• R20
  I Church-Stree"Mmite-6- ..!) /() /;( <:L I? .5::-)­ Nevada City, CA 95959 RE: Response to 2013114 Nevada County Consolidated Fire District to be or not to be, that is the question Dear Grand Jury Members, Attached is the Penn Valley Fire Protection District's response as approved by the Board of Directors at the 9/2/14 regular board meeting. Thank you. SSt> '8 10 . <"9'11 e?'/ Board Chairman