Cover Art Work The painting of Mt. Konocti – with the representational tiny fire tower – was created by

Recommendations 12

• R1
  Continue current practices that support the needs of Tehama County youth and the needs of youth in surrounding counties.
• R2
  On CAL FIRE funds that have time constraints for encumbrance and liquidation, the Department of Finance should allow longer timelines to facilitate collaborative large-scale forest management planning.
• R3
  The State of California should lead a policy shift from fire suppression to using fire as a tool. • This should include creating dedicated prescribed fire crews. These job classifications should be designed to attract the state’s top talent, with pay comparable to non-prescribed fire crews.
• R4
  Treating the land at the scale outlined in the draft Forest Carbon Plan will require more resources. CAL FIRE, local air districts and other affected agencies should develop a list of potions they will need to meet the draft Forest Carbon Plan goals of treating 500,000 acres of nonfederal land per year, 500,000 acres of USDA Forest Service land per year and 10,000 to 15,000 acres of acres of Bureau of Land Management land per year. State agencies should assume that at least part of the federal lands acreage treated will be by state entities working under the Good Neighbor Authority, and predict their staffing needs accordingly. The Legislature should then fund these extra positions, including the positions at the local level. • As more funding ñ such as the jump from $40 million to more than $200 million in Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funds between FY 2016-17 and 2017-18 ñ is allocated for forest management to CAL FIRE and other agencies, these entities must be responsible for properly planning for its use, including an adequate number of staff with necessary skills. If new positions are necessary, CAL FIRE and other agencies and departments should not be penalized for developing the resources needed to successfully administer the forest management program.
• R5
  The California Air Resources Board, land managers and other stakeholders should continue to actively work to find ways to increase prescribed burning through better use of technology, including modeling software, traditional portable air quality monitoring and new low- cost sensor monitoring. Page | 274 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report • State agencies and other stakeholders should continue to participate to the extent possible in the Fire MOU and Air, Land and Water meetings, as well as other collaborative cross-jurisdictional efforts to overcome the barriers to prescribed fire. Pertinent agencies that currently do not participate in these efforts should participate.
• R6
  The State of California should encourage the development of additional infrastructure to utilize material removed from the forests as part of long-term forest management. • The California Natural Resources Agency, along with members of the steering committee and the interagency leads for each recommendation, should report back to the Commission on the implementation of the SB 859 working group’s recommendations. • The state should issue grants to small communities so they can develop infrastructure according to their needs. • The state should develop a statewide biomass policy that takes into account the needs of different parts of the state. All stakeholder communities, including environmental justice, should provide input into this policy. • Part of this plan should explore the potential of biomass near forested communities with newer, cleaner facilities vis-a-vis the economies of scale provided by larger facilities. • Additionally, this should include research on the public benefits provided by biomass energy within the context of the Renewables Portfolio Standard policy of “least cost best fit,” and whether those benefits qualify biomass energy as the best in certain situations. Further, analysis of public benefits should give consideration to whether biomass should receive subsidies to lower costs in certain cases, particularly in facilities developed or retrofitted with cleaner technology. • Recommendation 7: To better educate Californians about the suite of benefits healthy forests provide to the state, the state should consider the following: Page | 275 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report • The state should invest in a long-term forest health campaign similar to Save our Water by contracting with an organization that can use its expertise to raise public awareness of forest health issues. A high-ranking person within the Governor’s Administration - preferably the Governor - must champion this effort. Outreach messages should be based on research. • The Legislature should fund extensive statewide public outreach campaigns for CAL FIRE to continue to educate the public on the benefits of healthy forests and prescribed fire. • The California Natural Resources Agency should work with the Department of Education to catalog existing educational resources on resilient forests, the history of fire in California’s ecological development and from where pupils’ water originates to allow teachers to easily access and incorporate the information into their curricula. Additionally, the California Natural Resources Agency should advertise this collection to teachers to spread awareness of these resources. • The California Natural Resources Agency should collaborate with state colleges and universities offering forestry programs to increase awareness of forest health concerns in their communities, to both educate the public and increase enrollment • In these programs. Forestry technical advisors affiliated with universities should be consulted on where they are encountering educational gaps to help identify where efforts should be targeted. • Water districts should play a greater role in educating their customers on the sources of their water. To facilitate this, the state should provide funding for an organization to create educational toolkits that water agencies easily can customize. • The state should provide grant funding for an educational organization to bring lawmakers, policymakers and their staff to forests to teach them about the benefits provided by forests, the consequences of forest neglect and the different forest treatment outcomes. The organization should work closely with the Legislature and other appropriate bodies to overcome logistical hurdles. Page | 276 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report • Californians’ knowledge levels and attitudes toward forest health should be measured at the onset of educational campaigns, and policymakers should set clear goals for the changes they would like to see in those attributes. These should be measured throughout the campaigns, with course corrections designed as necessary if the state does not meet its outcomes. • Recommendation 8: The Tree Mortality Task Force should evolve into a forest management planning entity, with dedicated funding. • It should help set a strategic direction for forest management, identify measureable goals, decide how to track results and recommend course corrections to better achieve those goals. • It should advise on how to incorporate technology in assessing and improving forest health. • This should include reviewing the planning process and developing recommendations on where streamlining can occur.
• R7
  That a Board Ordinance be established and implemented that allow the department to charge and collect appropriate fees for annual inspections of business and residential facilities. (F-10)
• R8
  That the LFPD make a formal arrangement with a Chaplain or mental health specialist in-County to be on-call to assist the firefighters in processing traumatic events. (F-13)
• R9
  The California Natural Resources Agency, its relevant departments and the California Environmental Protection Agency should regularly report to the Legislature and post online progress on the metrics listed in the Forest Carbon Plan, as well as the steps it is taking to begin implementing the plan. The Commission may hold a follow-up hearing on these steps as well as the progress made on its recommendations. Page | 277 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Exhibit 2 Page | 278 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 279 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 280 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 281 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Exhibit 3 Page | 282 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 283 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 284 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 285 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 286 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 287 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 288 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 289 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 290 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 291 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 292 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 293 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 294 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 295 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 296 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 297 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 298 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 299 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 300 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Page | 301 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Exhibit 4 Lake County - Aligning to Action Healing the Land, Healing the People Prepared by the Community Mitigation Assistance Team - May 27, 2021 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Large wildfires over the past six years, which scorched thousands of acres and resulted in the loss of several thousand homes, served as wake-up call to the residents and land managers in Lake County. In 2019, talk about bringing in a Community Mitigation Assistance Team (CMAT) began. Those same fires, as well as the pandemic in 2020, delayed the Team’s start but both the community and the CMAT recognized the need and finally made it happen, albeit virtually. The County has many things going for it - numerous Firewise USA® Communities working to increase mitigation with their neighborhoods; strong relationships between CAL Fire and the local fire departments; adoption of both the Wildland Urban Interface Code and Buildings Codes; a partnership between the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians, Robinson Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians, USFS, BLM, and New Paradigm College formed a non- Page | 302 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report profit, the Tribal EcoRestoration Alliance (TERA) to create a training program for Tribal members to increase the mitigation workforce in the County. In 2018, the County adopted a Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Ordinance, though implementation has been slowed by the pandemic. Though efforts were underway, mitigation leaders, residents, organizations, and governmental agencies recognized that they often didn’t know who was doing what and that their efforts had minimal cohesive focus. Amazing work and partnerships were flourishing with some groups and in some areas of the County but not at the level everyone felt was needed. Lake County and the Mendocino National Forest requested a CMAT to enhance Lake County’s collaborative efforts and evaluate their wildfire mitigation strategy, including relevant plans, programs, and activities. They also requested CMAT develop priorities, clarify roles and responsibilities of involved parties, and provide them with an actionable plan to implement. This report summarizes the CMAT’s findings and provides recommendations that incorporate wildfire mitigation best practices to support the further development of collaborative efforts and increase mitigation actions across Lake County, California. This CMAT assignment was conducted virtually due to travel and in-person gathering restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Team Members undertook an extensive review of existing mitigation resources and documents, followed by hosting an intensive SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) exercise with active members of the mitigation community, and followed up with numerous individual and small group dialogues which enhanced the CMAT’s understanding of the situation. An additional interactive workshop focused on learning about successful mitigation efforts from CMAT members. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The report captures findings and provides actionable recommendations to increase public participation in mitigation activities and enhance the overall effectiveness of Lake County’s strategies and tactics. The Mitigation Guiding Principles are overarching best practices gleaned from numerous successful practitioners and should be used to guide all partner’s mitigation and Page | 303 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report engagement efforts. The Team’s findings and recommendations fall into two categories, Collaboration and Mitigation. CMAT has created an online Community Toolbox (link) that contains research and reference documents related to the specific recommendations provided in this report. GUIDING PRINCIPLES Consider these guiding principles when developing your Lake County wildfire mitigation strategy and the projects that comprise it; they will make your efforts more effective. Page | 304 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Work together -A group of people who share the same goals can get more done together than separately. They plan together, piggyback on strengths, share resources, staff, and the work. A partnership is more likely to get supporting funding. Collaboratively planning, implementing, sharing successes and lessons learned is an essential first step in building a common vision and gaining broad community support. Be strategic - Be strategic by creating larger landscape fuel treatments and helping clusters of homes reduce risk but realize this takes time. Incremental actions, (one home / one acre), is progress! No boundaries - Wildfires do not stop at jurisdictional boundaries. Link fuel reduction and defensible space projects to benefit cross-boundary areas. Engage with other neighborhoods and other jurisdictions to accomplish work on adjoining properties. Promote home hardening and defensible space -Having homeowners prepare their yard and structure for wildfire is the most important thing they can do to avoid loss and is always where work should begin. Help underserved populations - Provide mitigation assistance for low-income, elderly, and disabled residents who may be unable to accomplish this work on their own. Face-to-face engagement - Sharing with residents is best done face-to-face through a home assessment and conversations about actions they must take. Page | 305 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Often this discussion has to take place many times before someone takes action. Stretch project funds - Homeowner contributions should be part of the funding equation, but expectations for investment vary by community and homeowner. When and where appropriate, require an investment of labor, time, or financial resources. This investment empowers the homeowner to take responsibility for what’s theirs and makes them more likely to maintain their project over time. Think creatively to meet unfunded needs - Always engage local and regional partners that have something to lose or gain; these individuals and businesses may have financial resources to contribute. Even when a grant received does not have a match requirement, consider asking for some percent (5-10%) of the sub award amount from the homeowner group or resident that could be used to help increase the overall value of the project or program. Funds could be used to: Assist with coordination or administrative costs, provide support for the underserved or chipping programs, or conducting fuel reduction assessments. Invest most of your time and resources on risk reduction actions - Meetings, recognition programs, news releases, or going to events do not accomplish mitigation. Respect everyone’s time. Do not hold additional meetings if wildfire mitigation discussions can be consolidated into existing forums. Make meetings short and strategic. Ensure tasks and initiatives are clear at the end of each meeting and are moving the partnership forward. Celebrate success! - Sustained participation in any partnership will require frequent communication and recognition of everyone’s contributions. Recognition does not have to be formal and can be as simple as a handwritten thank you. Recognition in the presence of peers and partners goes a long way toward retaining volunteers. Share accomplishments through media, presentations, yard signage, or site visits to build momentum for mitigation work. Stories, especially those from the perspective of the property owner, often have the biggest impact. Page | 306 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report INTRODUCTION Located in the west-central portion of northern California, Lake County lies midway between the Pacific Ocean and the Sacramento Valley. Clear Lake, the oldest and largest lake in California, sits in at the center of the County, surrounded by burned and unburned ridges. The diverse topography of Lake County ranges from level valleys and rolling hills to rugged mountains. Public lands comprise just over half of the County’s acreage. The area experiences warm, dry summers and cool winters with moderate precipitation. Lake County is home to seven Tribal Nations, and as of 2018, had a population of 64,382. Recreation and tourism make up a significant sector of the County’s economy along with vineyards, pear, and walnut orchards. Mining and timber harvesting are a minor component of the economy. Wildfires have impacted the majority of Lake County, resulting in numerous homes lost and almost every resident being evacuated at least once. Since 2015, three of California’s largest wildfires have occurred in and adjacent to Lake County, including the Valley Fire (2015), Ranch Fire (2018), and August Complex (2020), renewing the community’s interest in wildfire mitigation. Planning efforts have been extensive. A revision of the 2009 Community Wildfire Protection Plan is currently underway and is expected to be approved in late June. Both the County of Lake and the cities of Lakeport and Clearlake have current Natural Hazard Mitigation Plans. The Tribal Nations developed a Multi-Tribal Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, the first in the nation, that has been approved by FEMA. The County has also formally adopted the Wildland Urban Interface Code as well as the 2008 Building Code. In 2018, they adopted a Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Ordinance. Page | 307 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report In 2017, the County formalized the Risk Reduction Authority, which under a Joint Powers Authority (JPA), is responsible for a wide variety of programs and projects for all hazards COLLABORATION Lake County, California has a multitude of resources focused on all phases of wildfire. Individual neighbors, groups, organizations, agencies, and governments are arranged in formal (with authority) and informal (without perceived authority) working groups. Some organizations have a clear chain of command and hierarchy in place for decision making and action, while others have little oversight and decision-making accountability. The County is geographically large and demographically diverse. Because of this, programs do not always cover the entire land area or populations. To frame this section of the findings and recommendations, CMAT focuses on the activities of: 1. County-wide organizations: Risk Reduction Authority, Fire Safe Councils 2. Individual organizations (Partners) which provide mitigation services within Lake County. County-wide organizations, such as the Risk Reduction Authority (RRA) and Lake County Fire Safe Council (LCFSC) act as convening bodies for the individual organizations and have a vital role to play in fostering collaborative mitigation. There are several individual organizations with independent and autonomous governing oversight bodies that invest in the community, provide resources, and add to the overall mitigation ecosystem. Their inclusion in this section is intended to highlight the value they bring and the opportunities that may be enhanced. If an organization was not included, this was not intended to reduce their value, rather it is because they did not fit within the context of the analysis or we did not directly interact with them. Page | 308 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report CMAT compiled a Lake County Partners List to be used as a template (link). The Collaborative - Developing a Common Direction A well-defined structure of an organization allows participants to easily understand the flow of information, how decisions are reached, expectations, and where to go for assistance. In the fire response world, the hierarchy is known as the Incident Command System. This structure focuses on accountability, action planning, unity of command, personal responsibility, span of control, and resource tracking. In this section we highlight the current structure and strongly suggest some changes. 1. Finding - Work occurs in organizational silos and while some good work is getting done, often it is not being completed together. Three organizations appear to carry a great deal of responsibility and there is no clear definition of which organization is responsible for which activity. a. The Risk Reduction Authority (RRA), under the Joint Powers Authority (JPA), is responsible for a wide variety of programs and projects for all hazards. These include: i. Development of low- or no-cost resources to reduce the risks of fire from hazardous vegetation, earthquakes, and environmental causes. ii. Development of community infrastructure improvements. iii. Development of property inspection programs with scoring and assessment tools to prioritize the level of individual and community risk. iv. Development and management of funding sources necessary to the Authority's risk reduction programs. v. Development of educational and training tools to assist Authority members, the public and non-member Page | 309 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report governmental agencies in discovering, assessing, reducing the risks associated with fire and other disasters, and mitigating potential impacts. vi. Development of community programs to improve the resilience of our local forested areas. vii. Enforcement of County, State, and Federal laws. b. The Lake County Fire Safe Council is currently a stand-alone organization, staffed by one individual. c. The vision of the Lake County Fire Safe Council is to foster a fire adapted county developed through ongoing public education, training, community collaboration, and is responsible for a wide variety of programs and projects. These include: i. Implementing the Lake County CWPP and supervising the re-write of the document. (The CWPP process by its very nature is collaborative. Collaboration is not the current process.) ii. Empowering Lake County residents and businesses with the information, knowledge, and support to protect their families and properties from wildfire. d. The South Lake Fire Safe Council (SLFSC) has taken responsibility for coordinating wildfire mitigation efforts within the boundaries of the South Lake Fire District since the early 2000s. They are incorporated as a501(c)(3) with a volunteer Board of Directors and no staff. 2. Finding - Due to the extensive responsibility placed on the Risk Reduction Authority (RRA) it is evident that they need to delegate responsibility to other partners. Recommendations: a. Agree upon and formally designate one entity to pull the entire group together. b. The Risk Reduction Authority (RRA) will serve as the bridge to provide high level direction and support to the overall goals and objectives of wildfire risk reduction activities throughout the entire county (amongst other RRA duties.) c. Fire Safe Councils will act as the convening body for partners in wildfire mitigation work and must develop working groups to focus on specific tasks. The working groups should include, at a minimum: Page | 310 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report i. Implementation ii. Communications - Outreach, Education and Training iii. Science and Monitoring d. The role of the Fire Safe Council will be multi-pronged and include the following: i. Community liaisons to local organizations and citizens ii. Education, outreach iii. Implementation of a consistent communication strategy iv. Source for available resources and programs v. Grant clearinghouse (sharing, informing, and assisting with grant applications) vi. See Appendix A ( ) for details e. To achieve these recommendations, consideration must be given to the structure, funding, and staffing of the Fire Safe Council. See
• R10
  That the Board approve and adopt organizational and operational Policies and Procedures that include specifying periodic rotation of the role of Chairman. (F-2, F-3)
• R11
  That the Board make a consistent effort to interact informally/socially with the firefighters in order to improve morale and trust. (F-11, F-14, F-15, F-20, F-21)
• R12
  That the 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury continue this investigation to follow-up on the above Recommendations and report on further developments, including the hiring of a new Chief. (F-1 through F- 21) RESPONSES In response to Penal Code § 933 (c), the following Response is required: Lakeport Fire Protection District (R-1 through R-12) 90 Days Lakeport City Council (R-9) 90 Days Page | 68 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report EXHIBIT 1 - SEPARATELY TRACKED LAKEPORT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 445 North Main Street, Lakeport, CA 95453 Telephone: (707) 263-4396 Fax: (707) 263-7087 April 20, 2022 Beverly Benedict Hill Foreperson Lake County Civil Grand Jury P.O. Box 1078 Kelseyville, CA 95451 Re: REVISED Measure M reporting for fiscal years 2019/20 and 2020/21 Dear Foreperson Benedict Hill, This report has been revised from the April 18 version to correct the amount of revenue reported, as well as correcting a typo in the table of figures (total INCLUDES payroll). First off, please allow us to apologize for not providing this report to you by your requested date of April 15. Second, below please find a report indicating revenue received and expenses associated with Measure M for fiscal years ending June 30, 2020 and June 30, 2021. This report will encompass both years, but future reports will be done annually. Below are revenues received from Measure M, per the final year-end financial statement from the County: FYE 06/2020 = $ 1,307,537 FYE 06/2021 = $ 1,440,789 2-yr total = $ 2,748,326 The following information was taken from the final year-end financial statements provided by the County. Increased Staffing Levels was one of the priorities established by Measure M. In 2018, Lakeport Fire Protection District (LFPD) had to lay off 50% of its firefighting staff due to budget shortages. This resulted in the three (3) firefighting shifts being staffed by 2 firefighters, rather than 4 firefighters. One of the first things done, post-Measure M, was to re-hire back these Page | 69 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report firefighters. Post-layoffs, LFPD's monthly average payroll cost was approximately $62,000. The current payroll for a fully-staffed station is approximately $93,000, Measure M Report for 2019/20 and 2020/21 April 20, 2022 resulting in a $31,000 monthly increase in payroll, post-Measure M. Annualized, these increased payroll costs amount to $372,000/year, or $744,000 over the last 2 years. Increased Equipment Maintenance was another priority established by Measure M. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2019 (pre-Measure M), approximately $9,000 was spend on equipment maintenance. For the FYE June 30, 2020, approximately $75,000 was spent on equipment maintenance (a $66,000 increase over the prior/pre-Measure M year) and for the FYE June 30, 2021, approximately $90,000 was spent on equipment maintenance (an $81,000 increase over the pre-Measure M year). Increased Building Maintenance was another priority established by Measure M. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2019 (pre-Measure M), approximately $4,600 was spent on building maintenance. For the FYE June 30, 2020, that number increased by almost $9,500 as $12,000 was spent to upgrade the Station 50 lobby/admin area. Upgrading and Maintaining Fixed Assets was another priority established by Measure M. In the FYE ending 06/2019 (pre-Measure M), LFPD spent $0 on Fixed Assets- Equipment. For the FYE 06/2020, approximately $51,000 was spent on the purchase of a used Engine ($40,000) and a Lucas/chest compression device ($10,600). For the FYE ending 06/2020, approximately $425,000 was spent on Fixed Assets-Equipment. This included approximately $160,000 for SCBA equipment and $200,000 as a down payment toward a Pierce Pumper (Total to be spent is approximately $900,000). In addition, approximately $17,000 was spent on firehoses and approximately $43,000 was spent on extrication equipment. Page | 70 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report The explanations above are summarized in the table below: 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Increased Payroll to return laid off workers $372,000 $372,000 Vehicle/Equip Maintenance $9,197 $74,691 $90,031 Building Maintenance $4,603 $14,075 $4,271 Equip Rental/Lease $28,821 $28,613 $33,003 Tools/Instruments 613 $2,647 $7,625 Fixed Assets - Equipment $50,593 $424,635 Fixed Assets - Building Total $43,234 $542, 619 $931,565 Future uses of Measure M money for equipment include continued payments to pay off the Pierce Pumper purchased in 2020 (approx. $700,000 still owed), a diesel exhaust system for stations 50 & 52 (approximately $200,000 for both), as well as making Station 52 a fully Measure M Report for 2019/20 and 2020/21functional, habitable station (approximately $100,000 + exhaust system already noted). Future uses for staffing include a 25% increase in staffing from 4 per shift to 5 per shift and hiring a Fire Marshall and a Fleet Manager. Additionally, LFPD would like to start a Rescue Watercraft Program and funds will be needed to staff and equip this program. Sincerely, Finance & Administration cc: Fire Chief LFPD Board of Directors Page | 71 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report EXHIBIT 2 - BROWN ACT SUMMARY The Brown Act requirements that the Grand Jury found that the Board were not following are bolded below. What is a “Meeting”? A meeting is “any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at the same time and place to hear, discuss, or deliberate upon any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body” (§54952.2 (a)). For instance, regarding LFPD, when the quorum for a Board of Directors reaches the number necessary to be a majority (i.e., 3 out of 5), that is considered a meeting under the Brown Act. Also, when the same or a greater number of directors are attending a social gathering, for which no meeting notice was given, and they start discussing business under the jurisdiction of their legislative body, that would be considered a meeting that falls under Brown Act regulations. The key elements for a meeting are quorum and discussion or hearing about or deliberating the issues. The meetings need not to be formally convened in order to be subject to the Act. That means that “informal,” “study,” “discussion,” “informational,” “fact-finding,” or “pre-council” gatherings of a quorum of the members of the Board are within the scope of the Act as “meetings.” Exceptions - Meetings Not Covered by the Brown Act Conferences and retreats, other public meetings, meetings of other legislative bodies, and social or ceremonial events are exempt from the Brown Act provided that Board members follow certain rules such as limiting the discussion to the agenda in the conference and not discussing among themselves the business of the LFPD. Regulations for these exceptions to meetings are contained in §54952.2(c). Also excluded are individual contacts or conversations between a member of the Board and any other person (§54952.2(c) (1), defined as a non-staff or non-Board member. Page | 72 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Serial Meetings The Brown Act explicitly prohibits the use of “direct communication, personal intermediaries [e.g., an attorney or staff member], or technological devices [i.e., phones, emails, texts] employed by a majority of the members of the legislative body to develop a collective concurrence [consensus] as to action to be taken on an item by the members of the legislative body” (§5495.2(b)). Serial meetings involve communication between members of the Board that are less than a quorum (3) but, when all participants are counted, constitute a majority. For example, a chain of communications involving contact from Director A to Director B who then communicates with Director C would constitute a "serial meeting" involving a “quorum.” Similarly, when a Director acts as the hub of a wheel (Director A) and communicates individually with the various spokes (Directors B and C), a serial meeting has occurred. Closed Sessions The Brown Act allows closed sessions under the scope of a regular meeting. It stipulates that they (1) shall comply with agenda-posting and (2) be held within the jurisdiction of the Board meeting room (§ 4954), and (3) the open- meeting agenda shall include a description of the topics to be discussed (§54954.2) [emphasis added]. In addition, prior to holding any closed session, the Board must disclose verbally, in an open meeting, the item or items to be discussed in the closed session (§ 54957.7). [emphasis added] Subjects that can be discussed by the Board in Closed Session are, according to §54954.5: • License or permit determination (§54956.7) • Conference with real property negotiators (§54956.8) • Conference with legal counsel regarding existing or anticipated litigation (§54956.9) • Liability claims (§54956.95) • Threat to public services or facilities (§54957(a)) • Public employee appointment, employment, performance evaluation, discipline, dismissal or release (§54957(b)) • Conference with labor negotiators (§54957.6) Page | 73 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report • Case review or planning (§54957.8) • Report involving trade secret or hearings (§54956.87, California Health and Safety code §§1461,32106 and 32155; or California Government Code §§ 37606 and 37624.3) • Charge or complaint involving information protected by federal law (§54956.86). • The Board should publicly report actions, along with the vote and abstention count, taken as result of a closed session (§54957.1). [emphasis added] Documentation relative to the reports should be available to any person on the next business day following the meeting (§54957.1(c)). Special Meetings Either the Chairman of the Board or the majority of the Directors may call special meetings at any time by delivering to each of its members a written notice and by notifying the media (which has previously requested notification of special meetings). The notice shall be received at least 24 hours in advance before the meeting. Special meetings notice shall be also posted at least 24 hours prior to the meeting and it should be held in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public. The discussions at the special meeting are limited to the issues posted in the agenda. No other business shall be considered (§54956) [emphasis added]. What Rules Must a Meeting Follow? The Board, in order to comply with the Brown Act, shall: Hold open and public meetings (§54953 (a). In addition, the District shall not conduct any meeting in a facility that prohibits the admittance of any person(s) on the basis of: race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex; or that is inaccessible to disabled persons, or where the public, in order to gain access to the facility, needs to pay or purchase something (§54961 (a) [emphasis added]. • Vote publicly, no secret ballots are allowed (§54953 (c)) • Comply with the protections and prohibitions of Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (§54953.2) Page | 74 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report • NOT require public registration, as a condition for attendance; the public is not required to register, provide any other information –such as self-identification--, or fulfill any condition precedent to its attendance. If an attendance list is circulated, it shall clearly state that the signing, registering, or completion of the document is voluntary (§54953.3) • Allow recording of the proceeding (videotape, audiotape) provided that recording is done in an undisruptive way (§54953.5) • NOT prohibit or restrict broadcasting unless there is a finding that this would be disruptive to the proceedings (§54953.6) • Post notice of meetings and include specified time and location, except for advisory or standing committees (§54954 (a)) • Post agendas at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting and it shall contain a brief general description of each item of business (§54954.2(a)) [emphasis added] [This requirement was reinstituted by the Board.] • NOT take action or discuss any item not appearing on the posted agenda except under certain conditions (§54954.2(a), conditions appear on subsection (b)) • Hold meetings in the jurisdiction of the legislative body (§54954 (b)) • Allow and honor any person’s request to be provided by mail a copy of the agenda at the time the agenda is posted (at least 72 hours in advance) or of all the documents of the agenda packet of any meeting (§54954.1) [emphasis added] • Provide an opportunity for comment from members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public on every agenda for regular meetings (§54954.3(a)) • Allow public criticism of the legislative body (§54954.3(c)) • Hold at least one public meeting, allowing for public comment, before adopting any new or increased general tax or increased assessment, and the legislative body shall provide at least 45 days public notice of such meeting (§54954.6) • Not charge fees for the attendance to a meeting or for carrying out any provision in the Brown Act (§54956.6). The only exception is when legislative bodies are allowed to charge a fee that covers the cost of mailing an agenda or agenda packet (§54954.1). A related requirement is found on §54961(a) that prohibits meetings in a place where the public needs to pay or purchase something Page | 75 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report • Disclose to the public the agendas of public meetings and any other writings [i.e., Agenda packet of materials] distributed to all, or a majority of all, of the members of a legislative body of a local agency.] In addition, under the California Public Records Act these documents shall be made available upon request and without delay (§54957.5) • Preserve the order in meetings. Moreover, if a group willfully interrupts a meeting and the order can only be restored by the removal of disruptive individuals, then the legislative body may order the meeting room to be cleared. The session might be reinitiated, and representatives of the media shall be allowed to stay and attend the session. The legislative body may also establish a procedure for readmitting individual(s) not responsible for the disruptive conduct that caused the meeting room to be cleared (§54957.9) Violations of the Brown Act Each member of the legislative who has taken action in violation of any provision of the Brown Act, and where there was willful deprivation of information to the public, is guilty of a misdemeanor (§54959). Civil remedies (injunction, mandamus, declaratory relief, and voiding past actions of the Board) are provided in case of violation of the Brown Act (§§54960 and 5490.1) pursuant to §§54953, 54954.2, 54954.5, 54954.6, 54956, and 54956.5 (that is, for violations to requirements for: general open meeting, agenda posting, closed sessions, tax and assessment, special meetings and, emergency meetings). A court may award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to the plaintiff in an action brought pursuant to §§54960 and 5490.1. In order to correct a violation to the Brown Act, the legislative body can act to correct its error of its own volition or in response to a complaint by an interested party. If the legislative body fails to correct the challenged action, the complainant may file suit. (§54960.1) Page | 76 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report EXHIBIT 3 – Lake LAFCO 2007 Review Fire Protection Municipal Service Review: Resolution 2007-0007 Fire Protection Districts Sphere of Influence: Resolution 2007-0008 Adopted October 19, 2007 6. LAKEPORT FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 6.1 Lakeport Fire Protection District Background The Lakeport Fire Protection District provides fire protection and emergency medical services in and around the City of Lakeport. The district is the result of a merger in 2000 in which the district merged with the City of Lakeport’s Fire Department. The City of Lakeport, California is located in Lake County. Lakeport is located on the western shore of Clear Lake. State Highway 29 is located on the west side of the City, and provides access to Napa to the south and Ukiah to the west via State Highway 20. The “Lake County General Plan Goals and Policies Report” describes the City of Lakeport as follows: The City of Lakeport, which is the County Seat for Lake County, is located on the western shore of Clear Lake. The City, which was incorporated in 1888, still contains many of the historic buildings from the turn of the century. The City’s Library Park, which is located at the Clear Lake shoreline, is the site of many annual events (e.g., fishing tournament and boat races). The City also is home to the Lake County Fairgrounds, which hosts the annual Lake County Fair and County Rodeo. The 2000 population was 4,820. The Lakeport Unified School District has two elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. The City is located two miles from the Lampson Field Airport. Water supply and wastewater service is provided by the City of Lakeport. Municipal water sources include a combination of groundwater and surface water. Lakeport is within the Big Valley Water Inventory Unit. Point of Interest include the Lake County Museum, Library Park, Lake County Fairgrounds and Speedway. Page | 77 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 6.2 Lakeport Population Data Although the Lakeport Fire Protection District includes a larger area than the City of Lakeport, population data is only available for the City. However, the population data for the City should be indicative of the population characteristics for the district. As of the U.S. Census of 2000, there were 4,820 people, 1,967 households, and 1,233 families residing in the City. There were 2,394 housing units. There were 1,967 households out of which 29.7% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 44.7% were married couples living together, 12.6% had a female householder with no husband present, and 37.3% were non- families. 31.0% of all households were made up of individuals and 16.2% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average size was 2.36 and the average family size was 2.93 in the City of Lakeport. The median age was 41 years. For every 100 females there were 86.9 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 84.7 males in the City of Lakeport. The median income for a household in the city was $32,226, and the median income for a family was $37,900. Males had a median income of $36,719 versus $25,089 for females. The per capita income for the city was $17,215. About 13.5% of families and 15.7% of the population were below the poverty line, including 20.9% of those under age 18 and 5.6% of those aged 65 or over. 6.3 Lakeport Fire Protection District Personnel The Lakeport Fire Protection District has nine sworn safety employees and one clerical employee. The district also uses 21 volunteer fire fighters. The ISO rating in town is 4. 6.4 Lakeport Fire Protection District Facilities and Equipment Lakeport Fire Protection District Fire Stations Station Number Location Type 50 445 North Main Street, Lakeport Full 52 3600 Hill Road East, Lakeport Substation Lakeport Fire Protection District Equipment Vehicle Station Type Year Engine 152 52 Mack 1974 Page | 78 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Engine 150 50 Pierce 1987 Engine 250 50 Spartan 2001 Engine 350 50 International 1975 Engine 252 52 International Navistar 1997 WT 152 52 Kenworth 1984 T-150 50 American La France Aerial 1980 Has Mat 150 50 Ford Haz Mat 1982 Air 150 50 Chevy Air Truck 1986 M-250 50 Ford Ambulance 1988 M-150 50 Lifeline Ambulance 1993 M-350 50 Lifeline Ambulance 2004 M-450 50 Lifeline Ambulance 2000 W-150 (Utility) 50 Chevy Pickup S-10 1995 500 50 Chevy Blazer 1996 6.5 Lakeport FPD Calls for Service Lakeport FPD Calls for Service Type of Call 2000 2001 2006 Emergency Medical Service 936 1000 2121* Fire 141 150 74 Note: The district recently took over Ambulance services. In 2006, 1500 calls were attributable to transporting people. Source: Lakeport Fire Protection District, September 2007 The district provides its own ambulance service. The average response time for Fire/EMS services within district boundaries is two to four minutes from receipt of call to personnel movement, plus travel time. Travel time to specific emergencies is dependent upon distance from responding stations to the emergency, as well as the condition of roadways along the route. The average remote distance response time is eight minutes. There are some remote areas within the district in which these response times are further extended, especially during winter months. 6.6 Lakeport Fire Protection District Water Supply Fire flows within the District service area are generally adequate. Hydrants within the Findley service area no longer experience poor flow rates since Kelseyville County Waterworks District water is being supplied to Findley. Page | 79 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 6.7 Lakeport Fire Protection District Finances Lakeport FPD Reported Income Fiscal Year Property Tax Revenue Charge for Services Total Revenue EOY Balance 04-05 $617,317 $1,493,670 $1,619,260 $125,590 00-01 $362,125 $373,324 $815,170 $87,348 01-02 $539,126 $407,146 $1,194,113 $457,750 02-03 $489,981 $335,062 $880,965 $151,615 Source: 2004-2005 Annual Special Districts Report, State Controller’s Office, 2000-2001 Annual Special Districts Report, State Controller’s Office, 2003- 2004 Adopted Budgets, County of Lake. The Lakeport Fire Protection District Budget for 2006-2007 is $1,723,625. 6.8 Lakeport Fire Protection District Board The Lakeport Fire Protection District is governed by a five-member Board of Directors. The Lakeport FPD holds regularly scheduled meetings of its Board on the second Tuesday of every month. The district posts meeting agendas on public bulletin boards at fire district facilities. Representatives of the district appear to be open and accessible to the public. The Phone Number for the District is 707-263-4396. 6.9 MSR Lakeport Fire Protection District Written Determinations 6.9.1 Lakeport FPD infrastructure needs or deficiencies 1-1) The district is planning to develop a new Main Station. The property is being secured and construction should be completed in approximately 2 years. The district is also working with the County on securing property at the Airport. The district is also working on a possible addition to Station 52 within the next 2 years and replacing the ladder truck with a new model. 6.9.2 Lakeport FPD growth and population projections for the affected area Page | 80 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 2-1) The Lakeport FPD does not project population, but rather relies on incremental improvements and upgrades to address additional service demands related to growth. A Possible Growth scenario is 473 Single Family Dwellings proposed in the City of Lakeport as of March 2007, 60 units of affordable housing, and 12 duplex units. Lake County Community Development Departments has projected 2,576 lots in the Lakeport Fire Protection District could be subdivided. 2-2) It is common for fire districts in rural areas to rely on this method of accommodating projected growth. 2-3) The district has adopted and implemented mitigation fees for new development, which is intended to offset costs of growth on District operations. 2-4) The district appears able to adequately accommodate increased service demand associated with population growth. 6.9.3 Lakeport FPD financing constraints and opportunities 3-1) The Lakeport FPD maintains sufficient budgetary reserves and has maintained a positive balance in accounts over the past five years. 3-2) The district uses a modified cash basis for financial statements, which varies from generally accepted accounting principles. 3-3) The district has submitted budgetary documents on time, and the merging of the district with the Lakeport Fire Department increased revenues while allowing for economies of scale to be realized. 3-4) The District’s financial status is considered good. 6.9.4 Lakeport FPD cost avoidance opportunities 4-1) The Lakeport FPD has had significant budget increases in each of the last three years, with a 28 percent total increase between FY 2001/02 and FY 2003/04. Page | 81 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 4-2) Budgetary increases have primarily been in the areas of salaries and benefits for employees (including rising costs associated with provision of health and worker’s compensation insurance), and the implementation of set- aside monies for contingencies. 4-3) The district uses all available income generation options, including service fees for fire and emergency services, mitigation fees, and other miscellaneous revenue sources. 6.9.5 Lakeport FPD opportunities for rate restructuring 5-1) Lakeport FPD, as a fire service provider, is a non-enterprise district. 5-2) Funding for the fire protection services of the district is derived from a combination of property taxes, service charges for emergency medical services, interest from investments, and local, State, and Federal grants. 5-3) The current rate structure of the district has been sufficient to supplement other revenue sources and allow for financial stability within the district’s operations. 5-4) The rate structure of the district is considered appropriate. 6.9.6 Lakeport FPD opportunities for shared facilities 6-1) Each of Lake County’s fire protection districts has a verbal agreement with CDF, which allows the Fire Protection Districts within the County to call on CDF for assistance in major fires that are beyond the control of that particular Fire Protection District. 6-2) The district participated in the Operation Get Ready (OGRE) training exercises with other districts in 2000. 6-4) The district is adjacent to three other fire districts in the County, and may have the potential to share administrative or equipment resources with other districts. 6-5) Given the financial stability of the district and the location of the two fire stations, it is not likely that such arrangements would be cost-effective. Page | 82 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 6-6) There are no existing or proposed facilities sharing arrangements within the district. 6.9.7 Lakeport FPD government structure options 7-1) The Lakeport FPD encompasses the City of Lakeport and some surrounding areas, and has a Sphere of Influence that extends southwest to the county line. 7-2) The existing physical boundaries of the district are appropriate, given the location of facilities and the structure of the district. 7-3) Current SOI boundaries are also logical and appropriate, as Lakeport FPD is the only district contiguous to most of the SOI area. 7-4) The boundaries and SOI of the district are considered suitable for continued efficient operation of fire services in this area of the County. 6.9.8 Lakeport FPD evaluation of management efficiencies 8-1) The Lakeport FPD has a management structure appropriate and sufficient to ensure fire and emergency service provision within its district boundaries and SOI. 8-2) The district maintains a sound financial and management system, with adequate personnel and equipment to provide service and meet internal thresholds for service adequacy. 8-3) The management structure of the district, consisting of a governing Board of Commissioners, with an appointed Fire Chief overseeing a department of firefighters and administrative staff, is appropriate for provision of fire and emergency services. 6.9.9 Lakeport FPD local accountability and governance 9-1) The Lakeport FPD holds regularly scheduled meetings of its Board on the second Tuesday of every month. Page | 83 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 9-2) The district posts meeting agendas on public bulletin boards at fire district facilities. Representatives of the District appear to be open and accessible to the public. Page | 84 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report EXHIBIT 4 – LAKEPORT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Adopted July 18, 2012 3.3 Fire Protection 3.3.1 Fire Protection - Issues The following is a general discussion of matters of interest and standards related to fire protection, including mutual aid, dispatch, response times, staffing and water supply: A. Fire Protection Mutual Aid Most of the fire protection and EMS providers primarily serve their own jurisdictions. Given the critical need for rapid response, however, there are extensive mutual aid efforts that cross jurisdictional boundaries. Mutual aid refers to reciprocal services provided under a mutual aid agreement, a prearranged plan and contract between agencies for reciprocal assistance upon request by the first-response agency. In addition, the jurisdictions rely on automatic aid primarily for coverage of areas with street access limitations and freeways. Automatic aid refers to reciprocal services provided under an automatic aid agreement, a prearranged plan or contract between agencies for an automatic response for services with no need for a request to be made. 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 Actual Budget Revenue $ $53,049 $177,789 $198,215 $203,405 $240,472 Expenditures Salaries/Benefits $43,281 $41,935 $167,647 $183,839 $187,052 $220,856 Operating Expense 15,409 10,986 10,142 14,376 $15,953 $19,410 Capital Outlay 0 127 0 0 400 $206 Total Expense $58,689 $53,049 $177,789 $198,215 $203,405 $240,472 B. Fire and EMS Dispatch Page | 85 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Dispatch for fire and medical calls is increasingly becoming regionalized and specialized. This increased regionalization and specialization is motivated by the following nine factors: 1) Constituents increasingly expect emergency medical dispatching (EMD), which involves over-the-phone medical procedure instructions to the 911 caller and requires specialized staff. 2) Paramedics increasingly rely on EMD, which also involves preparing the paramedic en route for the type of medical emergency and procedures. 3) Dispatch technology and protocols have become increasingly complex. 4) Modern technology has enabled better measurement and regulatory oversight of Fire Department (FD) response times, and increased pressure for FDs to meet response time guidelines. 5) FDs need standard communication protocols, due to their reliance on mutual aid. 6) Dispatching of calls from cell phones is particularly inefficient due to multiple transfers, length of time the caller spends on hold, and lack of location information. Response times are further delayed when callers that are unfamiliar with the area are unable to describe rural locations to the dispatch personnel. 7) All new cell phones are now equipped with GPS; however, it will take a few years for all old phones to be replaced by phones with GPS capability and/or construction of specialized cell phone towers. 8) The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) recommends a 60- second standard for dispatch time, the time between the placement of the 911 call and the notification of the emergency responders. The Center for Public Safety Excellence recommends a 50-second benchmark for dispatch time. Page | 86 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 9) There are clear economies of scale in providing modern fire and medical dispatch services. C. Fire Protection and EMS Response Time Response times reflect the time elapsed between the dispatch of personnel and the arrival of the first responder on the scene. For fire and paramedic service, there are service standards relating to response times, dispatch times, staffing, and water flow. Particularly in cases involving patients who have stopped breathing or are suffering from heart attacks, the chances of survival improve when the patient receives medical care quickly. The National Fire Protection Association is a non-profit association of fire chiefs, firefighters, manufacturers and consultants. Similarly, a quick fire suppression response can potentially prevent a structure fire from reaching the “flashover” point at which very rapid fire spreading occurs—generally in less than 10 minutes. The guideline established by the NFPA for fire response times is six minutes at least 90 percent of the time, with response time measured from the 911-call time to the arrival time of the first-responder at the scene. The fire response time guideline established by the Center for Public Safety Excellence (formerly the Commission on Fire Accreditation International) is 5 minutes, 50 seconds at least 90 percent of the time. D. Fire Protection Staffing For structure fires, NFPA recommends that the response team include 14 personnel—a commander, five water supply line operators, a two-person search and rescue team, a two-person ventilation team, a two-person initial rapid intervention crew, and two support people. The NFPA guidelines require fire departments to establish overall staffing levels to meet response time standards, and to consider the hazard to human life, firefighter safety, potential property loss, and the firefighting approach. Page | 87 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report NFPA recommends that each engine, ladder or truck company be staffed by four on-duty firefighters, and that at least four firefighters (two in and two out), each with protective clothing and respiratory protection, be on-scene to initiate fire-fighting inside a structure. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard requires that when two firefighters enter a structure fire, two will remain on the outside to assist in rescue activities. For emergency medical response with advanced life support needs, NFPA recommends the response team include two paramedics and two basic-level emergency medical technicians. E. Fire Protection Water Supply For structure fires, NFPA recommends the availability of an uninterrupted water supply for 30 minutes with enough pressure to apply at least 400 gallons of water per minute. NFPA Standard 1710, 2004. Guideline for a full structure fire is response within ten minutes by a 12-15 person response team at least 90 percent of the time. Commission on Fire Accreditation International, 2000 21 29 CFR 1910.134. 3.3.2 City of Lakeport Fire Protection Lakeport Fire Protection District provides fire protection and emergency medical services in and around the City of Lakeport. The District is the result of a merger in 2000 in which the District merged with the City of Lakeport’s Fire Department. The Lakeport Fire Protection District (LFPD) is an independent fire district which serves the City of Lakeport and unincorporated Lakeport areas. There are two stations in the District as follows: 1) Station 50 which is the Main Fire Station, located at 445 North Main Street 2) Station 52 is the District’s Sub-Station located at 3600 Hill Road. The main station is staffed with four personnel on duty at all times. Page | 88 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report LFPD's website is located at lakeportfire.com. The phone number for the District is 707- 263-4396. The ISO rating in town is 4. Fire protection equipment includes the following: • 4 Ambulances • 1 Utility Truck • 1 Air Trailer • 4 Engines • 1 Water Tender • 1 Ladder Truck The paid staff includes 1 chief, 1 deputy chief, 3 captains, 6 firefighters, and 1 district secretary. (Six of the staff members are qualified as paramedics.) The volunteer staff includes 8 fire apparatus engineers, and 12 firefighters. (Four volunteers are qualified as paramedics.) The mission of the District is as follows: The Lakeport Fire Protection District’s mission is to be a leading emergency service Department by: • Meeting the needs of our community in fire prevention, fire suppression, and rescue • Utilizing and improving the dedication and skills of our people • Constantly improving all of our services and operation In carrying out this mission The Lakeport Fire Protection District Will: • Give top priority to firefighter safety and equipment concerns • Encourage the professional and personal development of our members • Work as teams to take full advantage of our skills, knowledge and creativity • Communicate openly and honestly to our members and community to inspire trust and confidence The District provides ambulance services. The average response time for Fire/EMS services within the City of Lakeport boundaries is four to seven Page | 89 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report minutes for emergency calls and ten minutes for non-emergency calls. Travel time to specific emergencies is dependent upon distance from responding stations to the emergency, as well as the condition of roadways along the route. The average remote distance response time is eight minutes. There are some remote areas within the District in which these response times are further extended, especially during winter months. Lakeport Fire Protection District responds to over 2,200 calls per year including structure and wildland fires, vehicle accidents, and medical aid. Activity for a typical month is shown below: October 2009 Monthly Report Number/Percent Medical Assist 88 /42 Inter-facility Transport 79 /37 Traffic Accident 9 /5 Fire Structure 0 Vehicle 0 Vegetation 2 Other 1 Total Fire 3 /2 Hazmat 0 False Alarm 5 /3 Good Intent Call 24 /11 _____________________________________ Total 208 /100.00 Other significant events: 1) Continue trial of Lifepak 15 cardiac monitor 2) Purchase EZ-IO equipment and conduct training for all paramedics 3) Seek funding options for Zoll Autopulse Page | 90 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report EXHIBIT 5 – Lake LAFCO 2015 Review 5.2 Lakeport FPD Overview 5.2.1 Lakeport FPD History The Lakeport Fire Department was formed in 1894 to provide fire protection to the City of Lakeport. In 1956 the Lakeport County Fire Protection District was formed to provide fire protection to the unincorporated areas of Lakeport. The Lakeport County Fire Protection District merged with the Lakeport Fire Department to provide unified fire protection for the area. 5.2.2 Lakeport FPD Contact Information Contact Information for the Lakeport Fire District is as follows: Mailing Address: 445 North Main Street, Lakeport CA. 95453 Phone and E-mail: 707-263-4396, [email protected] Fire Chief: [name omitted] 5.2.3 Lakeport FPD Board of Directors Board Members are appointed by the Lake County Board of Supervisors and are as follows: [names omitted] The Board of Directors meets at 6:00 pm on the second Tuesday of each month at the Main Station, 445 North Main Street, Lakeport, CA 95453. The agendas are posted at the Fire Station. 5.2.4 Lakeport FPD Mission Statement The Lakeport Fire Protection District’s mission is to be a leading emergency service Department by: • Meeting the need of our community in fire prevention, fire suppression, and rescue • Utilizing and improving the dedication and skills of our people • Constantly improving all of our services and operation In carrying out this mission, The Lakeport County Fire Protection District will: Page | 91 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report • Give top priority to firefighter safety and equipment concerns • Encourage the professional and personal development of our members • Work as teams to take full advantage of our skills, knowledge and creativity • Communicate openly and honestly to our members and community to inspire trust and confidence 5.2.5 Personnel The Lakeport Fire District provides fire protection and ALS ambulance service to the citizens in the unincorporated and incorporated areas of Lakeport. The Lakeport Fire District operates out of two fire station locations: • Headquarters (Station 50) is located at 445 North Main Street. • Substation (Station 52) is located at 3600 Hill Road East. Lakeport Fire responds to over 3,000 calls per year including structure and Wildland Fires, vehicle accidents, and medical aid. The Main Station (Station 50) is staffed with 4 personnel on duty at all times. The District uses a combination fire department, paid and volunteer as follows: • Paid staff includes 1 Chief, 3 Captains, 6 Firefighters, and 1 District Secretary. • Volunteer staff includes 1 Deputy Chief, 3 Lieutenants, 5 Fire Apparatus Engineers, and 14 Firefighters. • 58 Training drills are held on the first Wednesday of each month from 6 to 9 pm. 5.2.6 Lakeport FPD Equipment The Lakeport Fire District has the following equipment: HM-5011 1982 Ford Haz-Mat response vehicle Air-5011 1986 Chevy Air Support vehicle WT-5011 1984 Kenworth Water Tender E-5211 1987 Pierce Type 1 Fire Engine E-5011 1991 Seagrave Type 1 Fire Engine E-5012 2001 Spartan Type 1 Fire Engine Page | 92 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report E-5021 1997 Navistar Type 2 Fire Engine E-5031 1975 International Type 3 Fire Engine T-5011 1999 Seagrave Type 1 Ladder Truck (75 foot) U-5011 1995 Chevy Type 1 Utility Pick-up U-5021 1996 Chevy Type 2 Utility SUV M-5011 1993 Ford ALS Ambulance M-5012 2008 Dodge ALS Ambulance M-5013 2004 Ford ALS Ambulance M-5014 2009 Dodge ALS Ambulance M-5015 2002 Ford ALS Ambulance C-500 2008 Dodge Type 1 Utility Pick-up 58 Lakeport County FPD, http://www.lakeportfire.com/about/, January 28, 2014. 5.2.6 Lakeport Fire District Calls and Response Time The Lakeport Fire District calls for 2012 are shown below: Calls Received in 2012 Structure fires 47 Medical 2,102 Grass fires 14 False alarms 107 Public assist 106 Hazard conditions 12 Other 474 Total Calls 2,862 As is common with most fire protection districts, the medical calls (74%) outnumber all other calls combined. The ISO Rating for the Lakeport Fire District was done January 28, 2008 with the following classifications: CLASS 4, applies to properties within 5-road miles of a recognized fire station and within 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant or alternate water supply. Page | 93 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report CLASS 8B, applies to properties beyond 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant but within 5-road miles of a recognized fire station. CLASS 10, applies to properties over 5-road miles of a recognized fire station. The average response time for all responses within district boundaries is two to four minutes. Travel time to specific incidents is dependent upon distance from station location. Time is also dependent on the season, traffic, weather and remoteness. Difficulties during winter months include road conditions, road surface, traffic, weather (rain or snow) and areas in remote locations. 4.2.7 Lakeport County FPD Water Supply The Lakeport Fire District has hydrants in the following areas: Finley City of Lakeport Konocti Vista Casino Mission Rancheria North Lakeport (in the County) Robin Hill 4.2.8 Lakeport Volunteer Firefighter's Association The Lakeport Volunteer Firefighter’s Association is a nonprofit organization that is made up of both professional and volunteer firefighters, from the Lakeport Fire District. The association currently has 28 members. The association officers are as follows: [names omitted] Starting in 2010, the Association has raised funds by holding an Annual Dinner, Dance, and Auction in October. 5.2.9 Lakeport FPD Budget Lakeport County Fire Protection District Budget 2013-14 REVENUE PROPERTY TAXES 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 10-10 Current Secured 709,628 739,941 725,500 10-20 Current Unsecured 18,038 17,803 17,900 10-25 Supplemental 813-Current (1,736) (3,797) 0 Page | 94 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 10-35 Supplemental 813-Prior 2,065 2,447 2,000 10-40 Prior Unsecured 665 672 0 PERMITS 21-60 Other 8,142 8,441 8,000 FINES, FORFEIT, PENALTIES 31-95 Penalties and Cost on Delinquencies 7 24 0 RENTS AND CONCESSIONS 42-10 Rents and Concessions 2,520 2,520 2,500 REVENUE FROM USE OF MONEY 42-01 Interest 1,039 2,809 2,000 STATE AID 54-60 HOPTR 10,842 10,721 10,000 54-90 Other 33,792 0 0 OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 56-30 Other 128,055 73,763 16,303 PUBLIC PROTECTION 68-60 Institutional Care and Services 1,081,525 1,191,952 735,685 OTHER CURRENT SERVICES 69-29 Fire Protection* 217,830 221,554 214,000 OTHER 79-90 Miscellaneous 28,035 2,144 0 79-91 Cancelled Checks 0 57 0 OPERATING TRANSFERS 81-22 In 42,348 97,443 42,348 RESIDUAL EQUITY TRANSFERS 81-31 Residual Equity Transfer 0 47,537 0 TOTAL REVENUE 2,282,795 2,416,031 1,759,933 Page | 95 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report *Fire assessment from Prop. 218 passed 2002. The City of Lakeport and the County area each have a separate assessment schedule. A single-family home in the City of Lakeport would pay $39.60 per year and in the County a single- family home would pay $30.00 per year. Other types of structures would pay according to the schedule. Lakeport County Fire Protection District Budget 2013-14 EXPENSES 2011-12 Actual 2012-13 Actual 2013-14Adopted SALARIES AND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 01-11 Permanent 580,179 629,746 696,760 01-12 Extra Help 274,141 336,540 309,000 01-13 OT, Holiday, Standby 96,331 119,263 170,000 02-21 FICA 19,678 23,731 35,000 02-22 PERS 243,179 265,072 291,500 03-30 Health/Life Insurance 235,463 248,331 256,000 03-31 Unemployment 8,405 0 7,500 03-39 State Disability 0 0 5 04-00 Worker’s Comp 67,725 74,028 90,000 SERVICES AND SUPPLIES 11-00 Clothing & Perl Sup 8,822 8,674 9,350 12-00 Communications 4,240 6,014 7,000 14-00 Household Expense 1,875 2,055 2,500 15-10 Other 29,093 31,136 33,400 17-00 Maintenance-Equip 10,535 94,166 20,000 18-00 Maintenance Buildings & Improvements 1,771 6,189 11,000 20-00 Memberships 3,096 2,565 3,800 22-70 Supplies 2,787 3,393 4,800 22-71 Postage 850 991 1,200 22-72 Books & Periodicals 1,125 1,424 1,300 23-80 Professional/Special 58,222 56,473 59,000 24-00 Publ and Legal Notices 57 105 250 25-00 Rents & Leases-Equip 42,348 42,348 42,348 26-00 Rents & Leases- Buildings/Improvements 0 0 5 Page | 96 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report 27-00 Small Tools and Instr 256 234 4,100 28-30 Supplies and Services 623 2,693 2,500 28-48 Ambulance Expense 109,844 133,188 130,000 29-50 Trans & Travel 3,815 2,948 4,500 30-00 Utilities 59,952 6,219 65,000 OTHER CHARGES 48-00 Taxes and Assessments 42 42 50 CAPITAL ASSETS 62-71 Office 5,000 0 0 62-72 Autos & Light Trucks 0 38,875 0 62-74 Other 117,818 5,363 5,500 TOTAL EXPENDITURES/ APPROPRIATIONS 1,987,272 2,198,206 2,263,368 Net Cost (295,523) (217,825) 503,435 Page | 97 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report COMMUNITY CAT MANAGEMENT SUMMARY Feral cats (un-owned community cats) represent a daunting problem for local animal care organizations whose shelters, budgets, and staff are limited. Feral cats are particularly problematic in that they are fearful of people and not adoptable as household pets and tend to collect in “colonies.” The number of offspring of these stray cats grows exponentially, creating more unwanted felines. The reality is that animal shelters are increasingly no longer accepting feral or “community cats” for admission. Admitting these cats to the shelter contributes to overcrowding and usually results in their euthanasia, and does not provide a long-term solution to the problem of managing community cat colonies. Controlling food sources and using humane methods to deter cat gathering is ultimately a more successful solution. Modern targeted approaches support sterilization and vaccination programs (TNRM – Trap, Neuter, Return, and Monitor – earlier referred to as only TNR). Cats that have been sterilized have the tip of one ear removed Page | 98 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report (“tipping”), which identifies them as sterilized when they are returned to their colony. When possible, and as funds are available, trapping the cats and having them spayed/neutered/returned decreases their number over time, decreases unwanted behaviors such as spraying and fighting, and improves their health and welfare. Left in their natural habitat, these cats can benefit neighborhoods by providing natural rodent control. The involvement of local veterinarians and animal welfare non-profits are crucial components of TNR programs, which depend as well on committed caretaker volunteers. METHODOLOGY In response to a complaint from a Clearlake resident, the Grand Jury revisited the issue of community feline overpopulation in Lake County. Members visited and interviewed officials with Lake County Animal Care and Control, a County agency, and Clearlake Animal Control, which functions under the auspices of the Police Department. The city of Lakeport contracts with the County for animal control services. The Grand Jury also interviewed veterinarians and principals of animal rescue organizations in Lake, Napa, and Sonoma Counties. Internet research into “best practices” was also conducted. BACKGROUND Free-roaming unowned cats are the same species as our pet cats, but have had limited contact with people, or over time have lost contact with people. Many of these cats are born to former house cats, and some even used to be house cats. They live outdoors “in the wild” surviving on their own, and in many areas will thrive in and around our neighborhoods. Some of these cats become accustomed to people and may be seen regularly frequenting certain areas, mainly where there is food and shelter for them, but most do not have owners. Cats are bonded to their territory. Feeding stations can result in a level of familiarity with humans, as well as bring cats to a central location where trapping for TNR is an easier task. Feral cats are highly adaptable, which has helped their survival over the last 10,000 years living alongside Page | 99 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report people. Since they do not enjoy the company of people and do not adjust to living indoors, they are not suitable for adoption. Even caging such a cat is stressful for the cat. These neighborhood cats, our community cats, reproduce at an alarming rate, averaging three litters per year and 6 kittens per litter. Their average life expectancy is about three years, compared with 14 years for a domestic cat. Page | 100 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report The number of community cats in the U.S. is estimated to be, at least, several million to tens of millions. TNRM is the method of humanely trapping community cats, having them spayed or neutered and vaccinated against rabies, and then returning them to their managed location to live out their lives. TNRM also involves a cat caretaker who provides food and monitors the cats' wellbeing, as well as identifies and quickly traps new intact cats. TNRM has been shown to be the most humane and efficient way of stabilizing community cat populations. By sterilizing at least 75% of cats in a group within a six-month period (and continuing to sterilize at least 75% of the remaining fertile cats), TNRM helps stabilize the population of community cats and, over time, will reduce the number of cats. The goal is to sterilize all cats present and monitor the location for any intact newcomers. The Humane Society states the following reasons for strong TNRM programs: ● Vaccinations of feral cats, including for rabies, decrease health risks to humans. ● Kittens in colonies are young enough to be socialized and can be removed to homes. Page | 101 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report ● Community cat programs lead to long-term population management and reduction and eventual elimination of outdoor cat populations through natural attrition. ● Better allocation of municipal funds is possible than with trapping, sheltering, euthanizing, and disposing of community cats. ● Spring and Fall births of kittens that overwhelm rescue groups and shelters are reduced. ● Nuisance complaints around cat fighting, cat spraying, and defecation in yards and gardens are decreased. One of the most important recent advances in TNRM is the strategy of targeting - the focus of resources such as outreach, trapping, and provision of lower-cost sterilization in a high concentration area. By spaying and neutering animals before they are adopted and offering programs for low-income residents, overpopulation is better combatted. An innovative solution in some communities is to offer mobile-van vaccination, sterilization, and adoption. Every community is different, but collaboration among municipal agencies, shelters, veterinarians, and rescue groups has an increased chance of humanely reducing community cat overpopulation. Available vaccination and sterilization programs for community cats were seriously impacted by pandemic restrictions these past two years. Veterinary clinics were required to restrict interpersonal contacts with pet owners. These restrictions caused many clinics to experienced staff and funding cutbacks. Under California law, community cats are theoretically protected by anti- animal cruelty statutes. Penal Code § 597 prohibits animal abuse, which is definedas maliciously killing, harming, maiming, or torturing an animal. The offense can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony and carries a sentence of up to 3 years in jail or prison. As well, the intentional poisoning of animals is specifically prohibited by Penal Code § 596. Page | 102 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report LAKE COUNTY Neither of the two animal control agencies accepts feral cats into their shelters. The County shelter in Lakeport, which has a full surgical bay, initiated a community-cat vaccination/sterilization program in 2012 that operated on approximately 1,000 cats annually. However, it had slowed to a glacial pace in the last several years due to COVID restrictions and staff shortages. In March 2022, the shelter announced the resumption of the program, only to suffer the unexpected death of its sole veterinarian, Dr. Richard Bachman, a few weeks later. In June, 2022, the intended surgeries took place with the assistance of “volunteer” veterinarians. The future of the County program is unknown at present. Animal Care and Control has a designated volunteer Advisory Committee, some members of which have a special interest in feline welfare, but the Committee has not met during the pandemic. The City of Clearlake has invested in a new animal care facility, including an exercise yard, since the Grand Jury was last there four years ago. The facility Page | 103 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report does not have a surgery unit and cannot offer sterilization procedures. A part- time veterinarian is available for other shelter needs. The City now contracts with North Bay Animal Services in Petaluma for animal control officers. The agency also transfers dogs to out-of-county animal welfare groups to improve opportunities for adoption. Clearlake Animal Control does not appreciate that there is a problem with community cats in their area. The bulk of vaccinations and sterilizations for community cats is provided by non-profits in Lake County, both by the SPCA and by animal welfare groups such as Animal Refugee Response and Hidden Valley Rescue. As of the writing of this report, Hidden Valley Rescue is planning a “free” clinic for community cats at the SPCA in Kelseyville. They note that the cost will be $3,500 for 50 community cats, or $70 per cat, with money raised through donations. Non-profits from Napa County, such as Jameson Humane, which does have a mobile vet unit, and from Sonoma County, such as Dogwood Animal Rescue, periodically come into Lake County to provide services at one of the veterinary clinics. These groups also provide vouchers to residents for low-cost veterinary services at Lake County clinics. Page | 104 2021-2022 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Clearlake specifically is a “target” community for these non-profits, because of the number of low-income residents who are unable to afford expensive veterinary care. Until her just-recent retirement, the head of Animal Coalition used her thrift-store income for years to provide vouchers for low- cost procedures at one of the Clearlake vet clinics or SPCA. The elderly and disabled in Lake County were assisted with the costs of veterinary care by the Acme Foundation. The reality is, these services often thrive based on the passionate commitment of a few key persons, who eventually age and die. The perpetual question is, “How can we assure continuity of animal care, especially community cats?” FINDINGS