Consolidate the Eight*

Conclusions 1

• CL1
  The Grand Jury understands that consolidation or reorganization of the fire districts at the sub regional level is difficult and may take years to fully implement. Many of these districts were formed over 70 years ago, are steeped in tradition, and are closely identified with the communities they serve. Lack of leadership, financial problems, and alleged criminal activity as discovered in MRFD show what can happen when there is a lack of oversight and transparency. Although there are many options available to join forces and services of the fire districts, the Grand Jury believes Consolidation of Districts at Sub Regional Level is the best path going forward. Consolidation would provide financial stability, unity of command, equality of employee pay and benefits, and elimination of redundancies. Strategic planning opportunities would be positive aspects to a more efficient delivery of safety, protection, and service to the public. Depending upon the number of board members selected for the new agency more than 87 elected and appointed positions could be eliminated. Many of these positions are not salaried and there would not be a substantial loss of income to individuals who serve on these boards. Many of the board members have served on the board of fire districts for many years. The foremost objective to consider for any consolidation is the level of service. The quality of service for fire protection must be maintained or improved as a result of any changes in organization. Financial considerations also must be given great weight. Governments, including special districts, must consider new ways to do business given the present fiscal constraints. Services must be effective and efficient. Disclaimers Grand Jury reports are based on documentary evidence and the testimony of sworn or admonished witnesses, not on conjecture or opinion. However, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing such evidence except upon the specific approval of the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or another judge appointed by the Presiding Judge (Penal Code Sections 911, 924.1 (a) and 929). Similarly, the Grand Jury is precluded by law from disclosing the identity of witnesses except upon an order of the court for narrowly defined purposes (Penal Code Sections 924.2 and 929). Response Requirements California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 require that specific responses to all findings and recommendations contained in this report be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court within 90 days of receipt of the report: Mokelumne Rural Fire District shall respond to Findings F1.1, F1.2, F1.3, F2.1, and F2.2 Waterloo-Morada Fire District shall respond to findings F1.3, and F2.2 Waterloo-Morada Fire District, Collegeville Fire Protection District, French Camp-McKinley Rural Fire District, Liberty Fire District, Montezuma Fire Protection District, Thornton Fire District, Woodridge Fire District, and Clements Rural Fire District shall respond to Finding F2.2 and Recommendation R3.1 and R3.2. The Local Agency Formation Commissioners shall respond to Finding F3.1 and Recommendations R3.1, and R3.2. Mail or hand-deliver a hard copy of the response to: Honorable Lesley Holland, Presiding Judge San Joaquin County Superior Court P.O. Box 201022 Stockton, CA 95201 Also, please email the response to Ms. Trisa Martinez, Staff Secretary to the Grand Jury at grandjury@sjcourts.org -