📋
Extraído del Informe Consolidado
Esta investigación fue publicada originalmente como parte de un informe consolidado más amplio que contiene múltiples investigaciones. Consulte el PDF consolidado para ver el documento completo.
Placer County Grand Jury
• 2014-2015
Placer County Grand Jury Examination of Fire Hydrant Inspection and Maintenance June 26, 2015 City of Roseville Call
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 11 findings
F1
Inspection and maintenance of hydrants within the county is not uniform. If a fire hydrant needs repair, replacement, etc., the responsiveness is not consistent.
F2
Cost is often a factor for smaller private services such as those provided by homeowners associations and the like.
F3
Availability of functioning hydrants is a primary factor in Insurance Standards Organization (ISO) ratings which determine property owners’ fire insurance rates. This gives local districts an additional incentive to insure that their hydrants are maintained.
F4
There is disagreement among some fire and water districts as to who actually owns the fire hydrants in some jurisdictions. Some water district personnel interviewed indicated that the hydrants are owned by the fire department, while some fire department personnel indicated that hydrants are owned by the water agencies.
F5
Improperly functioning fire hydrants are a threat to public health and safety.
F6
Despite the lack of standardization, the Grand Jury did not identify any area in which hydrants are not kept operational.
F7
The local water and fire districts seem to work well together to see that hydrants are maintained.
F8
Some water and fire districts serving a given geographic area have entered into formal written agreements.
F9
In some areas, there are less formal agreements between the fire and water agencies’ respective management teams.
F10
Generally, the fire district does inspection and light maintenance and the water districts do the heavier maintenance and repairs. Staff seemed to think that that arrangement makes sense in that it takes advantage of the skills of each agency’s employees.
F11
The Grand Jury did not find any specific inadequacies in the operation of fire hydrants.
Recommendations 1
-
R1The Placer County CEO should consider whether a fire hydrant inspection and maintenance program be established to ensure uniformity throughout the county. Request for Responses: Recommendations Requiring Response Response Due Date Mr. David Boesch R1 August 24, 2015 Placer County CEO 175 Fulweiler Avenue Auburn, CA 95603 Copies Sent to: Fire Districts Newcastle Fire Protection District P.O. Box 262 Alta Fire Protection Department Newcastle, CA 95658 33950 Alta Bonnynook Rd. Alta, CA 95701 North Tahoe Fire Protection District P.O. Box 5879 Auburn City Fire Department Tahoe City, Ca 96145 1225 Lincoln Way Auburn, CA 95603 Northstar Community Services District 910 Northstar Drive California Department of Forestry Truckee, CA 96161 2840 Mt. Danaher Rd. Camino, CA 95709 Penryn Fire Protection District P.O. Box 219 Colfax City Fire Department Penryn, CA 95663 P.O. Box 1233 Colfax, CA 95713 Placer County Fire Protection Districts 13760 Lincoln Way Foresthill Fire Protection District Auburn, CA 95603 P.O. Box 1099 Foresthill, CA 95631 Placer Hills Fire Protection District P.O. Box 350 Lincoln City Fire Department Meadow Vista, Ca 95722 126 Joiner Parkway Lincoln, CA 95648 Rocklin City Fire Department 4060 Rocklin Road Loomis Fire Protection District Rocklin, CA 95677 P.O. Box 606 Loomis, CA 95650 Roseville City Fire Department 401 Oak Street #402 Roseville, CA 95678 South Placer Fire Protection District 6900 Eureka Road Granite Bay, Ca 95746 Squaw Valley Public Services District P.O. Box 2522 Olympic Valley, CA 96146 Truckee Fire Department P.O. Box 2768 Truckee, CA 96160 Public Water Agencies Alpine Springs County Water District City of Roseville Water Department 270 Alpine Meadows Rd. Vernon Street Alpine Meadows, CA 96146 Roseville, CA 95678 Auburn Valley Community Service District Donner Summit Public Utility District P.O. Box 8138 P.O. Box 610 Auburn, Ca 95604 Soda Springs, CA 95728 Christian Valley Park Community Service District Foresthill PUD P.O. Box 3138 P.O. Box 266 Auburn, Ca 95604 Foresthill, CA 95631 City of Lincoln Georgetown Public Utility District Water Department P.O. Box 4240 600 Sixth Street Georgetown, CA 95634 Lincoln, CA 95648 Meadow Vista County Water District P.O. Box 278 Heather Glen Community Service District Meadow Vista, CA 95722 P.O. Box 715 Applegate, CA 95703 Midway Heights County Water District Tahoe City Public Utility District P.O. P.O Box 5249 Meadow Vista, CA 95722 Tahoe City, CA 96145 North Tahoe Public Utility District Truckee Donner Public Utility District P.O. Box 139 11570 Donner Pass Road Tahoe Vista, CA 96148 Truckee, CA 96161-4947 PCWA P.O. Box 6570 Auburn, CA 95604 Sierra Lake County Water District P.O. Box 1039 Soda Springs, CA 95728 San Juan Water District P.O. Box 2157 Granite Bay, Ca 95746 South Tahoe PUD 1275 Meadow Crest Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Squaw Valley Public Services District P.O. Box 2026 Olympic Valley, Ca 96145-2026 Suburban Pines Community Service District P.O. Box 576 Colfax, CA 95713