Friday, June 12, 2009

Metro Fire District meeting results

The Metro Fire District Board of Directors meeting took place at 6pm on June 11th. I and a couple of other people from our community attended. We were fortunate to have coverage by FOX40, and a segment aired on the 10pm new that evening. (I will post a link to the segment in the next few days.)

Public comment at board meetings is allowed in three-minute intervals. Following my comment, several board members responded to our concerns, including Fire Chief Mette. All were gracious, concerned, and seemed willing to listen, but a couple of the items elicited no response.

This is what I said. Please note the bold sections, which highlight important points.

Board of Directors. I’m here to respond to your intention to close Fire Station #33. We’ve collected hundreds of signatures in opposition to this decision, and I informally represent the vast majority of the community bordering Main, Madison, and the Lake Natoma State Park area.

Our community has the following concerns.

1. We are surrounded on three sides by wildlands. In many ways, this area is similar to the Oakland Hills prior to the 1991 fire. The station closure would double or triple the response time to an area designated by your own CityGate report to be a “High Hazard Severity Zone” with little or know overlapping coverage. While you state that you’ll open Station #33 during “red flag” days, you seem unaware of the microclimate that exists in the area, creating several months of canyon wind from multiple directions, high temperatures, and low-humidity, not to mention recent arson and continuing careless behavior.

Of course, EMT response times would also be adversely affected by the station closure.

2. Regarding the extreme fire danger, there is no mitigation plan for the wildlands that surround our community, land that is in jeopardy of having a devastating wildfire. This land is a precious jewel of Sacramento County, land used by 1000s every year, and there is no inter-agency coordination or communication that we are aware of between the State, Sacramento County Metro Fire, other local officials, and the community.

3. There is no public outreach by the Metro board. While you may have followed the letter of the law with respect to public notices, you’ve not made any effort to involve the very constituents who elected you. Your website is hard to navigate and incomplete.

4. The 2009 final budget has many inconsistencies and lacks important detail. For example, you claim that the primary reason for the station closure is a budget deficit, yet the budget calls for additional land and facilities for additional millions of dollars.

We respectfully request that you revisit this important decision, immediately develop a mitigation plan, and make a concerted effort to keep the community involved and informed.

Thank you!

I tried to keep things brief and to the point. Their response follows. I’ve condensed this into a couple of paragraphs, but their responses were longer and in more detail. Also, following the general meeting, I spoke directly with Fire Chief Mette and Assistant Chief van Brunt. Both were cordial, concerned, and willing to help clarify the situation and make a greater effort to talk to the community.

Note that prior to the meeting, I submitted a Public Records Request (Govt. Code Section 6250 et seq.) for additional information (please refer to the “The closing of Fire Station #33” section on this blog for more information). I receive an acknowledgement by their general counsel, Joe Chavez, in the mail today. The records will be available on or about June 15th.

Item #1: Fire hazard.

I’ve received conflicting definitions of “red flag” days. Prior to the meeting in a telephone discussion with Tom Lawson (President of the Board), he told me that red flag days were when the temperature exceeded 100 degrees, plus low humidity and high winds. After the board meeting, I was told by Assistant Chief van Brunt, that they are very much aware of the microclimate that exists and that red flag days were when the temperature exceeded 80 degrees, plus low humidity and wind at or over 15 mph. The latter seems more in line with the microclimate that exists in our area. I pointed out to them that the reason I used the words “you seem unaware” was because of lack of communication between the Metro Fire District and the public.

Item #2: Lack of mitigation.

No one specifically addressed this issue, which I find disturbing. The only comment seemed to be that there was little they could do, since the wildlands are controlled by the State Park Service. When I pointed out the difficulties of following two sets of guidelines, do nothing in the adjacent wildlands (State Park regulations) and create a defensible space (Metro Fire District recommendations), no one had anything of substance to say. I urged them to make an effort to speak with the State Park officials, but it wasn’t clear whether or not they plan to do this. If nothing else happens, it seems to me this is the most important thing that should be undertaken – open a dialog with other agencies. It seems to me that the Metro Fire District has a greater likelihood of getting a response from the State Parks than individual citizens.

Item #3: Lack of public outreach.

Mr. Lawson, following my talk, said he would make an effort to involve the public. He was a bit vague about when it would take place, but he did say that he would have a “community meeting.” He also cited budget issues that “prevent” the board from having a public outreach program. I have trouble believing this, since things like e-mail distribution and community volunteers would cost little or nothing. They have an Information Officer, Capt. Pebbles, and it seems to me that must be a few creative, low-cost ways to communicate with the constituents.

The cost of reaching out to the public would almost certainly have benefits to the Metro Fire District, as well as to the public. Suggestions on such things as low-impact fire danger mitigation, e-mail distribution of important information, and volunteer action would more than make up for the minor costs involved.

Item #4: Budget concerns.

Everyone who addressed this issue, including Chief Mette and Director Granados, said that my interpretation of the budget was wrong. I certainly accept this as possible and even likely. However, this is in my opinion a symptom of lack of transparency. The published 2009 Final Budget is clearly missing important detail, which means anyone examining could easily come to erroneous conclusions. The website is hard to navigate and is incomplete, and it seems to me that the cost of keeping it and the budget up-to-date would prevent future misunderstandings.

No comments: