📋

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.

Nevada County Grand Jury • 2007-2008

Wildfire Danger in Nevada County Reason for Investigation California has recently experienced severe wildfires in the

Published: December 21, 2007 24 pages

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ 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

Some areas of Nevada County are not within the boundaries of any fire district and rely on Cal Fire and/or USFS for response in the event of a fire. (See Figure 3, Fire Agencies) Wildfire Danger 3 | Pa ge

Nevada County fire agencies rely on paid staff and/or volunteers. Many of the volunteers work out of the area and are not available to respond to all emergency calls. Volunteers and paid staff have to complete the same considerable amount of training time required for certification.

Nevada County fire agencies are losing well-trained emergency professionals to wealthier districts, to Cal Fire, and to the USFS.

In spite of limited budgets and staff, cooperative efforts have to date allowed the various fire agencies to perform their fire suppression functions in an adequate manner.

Successful mergers between fire agencies usually result from the desire to improve services and reduce costs. In general, mergers occur between agencies with similar financial resources.

The voters must approve taxes or assessments to increase funding for fire protection. Proposition 13 requires a 2/3 majority for any tax increase. However, under Proposition 218, a fire district assessment requires only a simple majority. (See Figure 7,Voter Requirements For Different Types of Elections and Assessments)

Availability of effective fire services is a factor in determining insurance rates for property in Nevada County. Recently, several insurance companies have stopped writing insurance policies in Nevada County because of the increasing risk of catastrophic fires.(See Figure 8, Insurance Service Office (ISO) Rating’s of Nevada County Fire Agencies)

A recent election sponsored by Chicago Park /Peardale FPD to finance improved fire services failed while the property owners approved a similar election sponsored by the Truckee FPD.

Many residents of Nevada County are not aware that the County has no statutory duty to provide fire protection services within the County and assumes no responsibility for providing these services

F10

There is a great disparity among fire agencies in the scope and quality of services. (See Figure 6 Emergency Response Time, and Figure 9, Costs and Population Served)

F11

The BOS treatment of the Fire Plan on April 8, 2008 significantly reduced the importance of the Fire Plan, shifting its focus from mandates and requirements to persuasion and cooperation. Conclusions

Recommendations 9

R1

The BOS should request that LAFCO commission a study to determine by fire agency the accurate cost of fire protection services in Nevada County. This could be done as a separate study or by modifying the next scheduled MSR on Fire Protection and Emergency Services and by having that Review conducted earlier than is now planned.
R2

The BOS should initiate a concerted public education program to increase public awareness and understanding of fire services and how they are financed. Such a program would extend beyond the goal proposed under Nevada General Plan Goal FP-10.9 that directs the County to “Encourage fire safety education and support programs to promote participation, voluntary compliance, and community awareness of fire safety issues.” Wildfire Danger 5 | Pa ge
R3

The BOS should sponsor a meeting including LAFCO and all agencies and districts that relate to fire services to discuss the feasibility of developing a uniform and consistent set of services and the potential for future efficiencies through consolidation.
R4

The BOS should reassess their action of April 8, 2008 and return the teeth to the Fire Plan that their actions removed. They should strengthen the proposed update to the Nevada County General Plan Safety Element, (Chapter 10; Safety). The changes should include rewording of Goal FP-10.12 to read; “The County should implement policies FP- 10.12.1.1 through FP-10.12.1.28 prioritizing by the order in which they appear and designate them to be Action Policies.” (Attachment 10 provides the current wording of the Goal and the Advisory Policies.) Response Required Nevada County Board of Supervisors October 3, 2008 Attachments
R5

Emergency Responses by Fire Agency Source, MSR
R6

Emergency Response Times by Agency Source, MSR
R7

Voter Requirements for Different Types of Elections and Assessments Source, MSR
R8

Insurance Service Office (ISO) Rating’s of Nevada County Fire Agencies Source, Nevada County Grand Jury Report on Fire Districts, 2005 modified
R9

Costs and Population Served Source, MSR 10.GOAL FP-10.12 “AS desirable and as funding becomes available; the County should consider Advisory Policies FP-10.12.1.1 through FP-10.12.1.28” Source, Nevada County General Plan; Chapter 10: Safety-DRAFT Wildfire Danger 6 | Pa ge

Conclusions 8

CL1 Page 5

Voter approval of increased financing for fire protection could favorably influence insurance rates.
CL2 Page 5

Recently modified by the BOS, the Fire Plan now does not appear to require adequate action by the County against the threat of catastrophic fires as it no longer “…provides the Board of Supervisors with recommendations to reduce the risk and impacts from wildland fires to life, property and natural resources in Nevada County.” (Nevada County Fire Plan) 8. The BOS approval of their modified Fire Plan does not provide the governmental structure or funding process originally envisioned by the FPC, and fails meet Nevada County citizens’ desperate needs.
CL3 Page 4

There is a lack of public understanding about who is responsible for the financing, providing, and coordinating of fire protection services within the County. Many residents Wildfire Danger 4 | Pa ge are incorrect on their belief that the County government has a significant role in fire protection services.
CL4 Page 5

Fire protection is affected by the complex geography of the fire agencies and an even more complex set of funding methods that provide inconsistent and irregular funding for equipment and staffing
CL5 Page 5

To date, because of the good will and cooperation of the various fire services, fire suppression activities in Nevada County has been adequate.
CL6 Page 5

The citizens of Nevada County currently do not receive equal levels of fire services across jurisdictions within the county.
CL7 Page 5

The public should be concerned that a local electorate rejected a ballot measure to increase support for fire services.
CL8 Page 5

The BOS approval of their modified Fire Plan does not provide the governmental structure or funding process originally envisioned by the FPC, and fails meet Nevada County citizens’ desperate needs.

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Nevada County Board of Supervisors Elected County Office