HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08031993 - 2.A Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa
FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR County
County Administrator °rr, a
DATE: August 3, 1993
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PLAN ON OPTIONS FOR CONSOLIDATION OF FIRE DISTRICTS
Specific Request(s) or Recommendation(s) & Background & Justification
RECOMMENDATIONS•
1. Acknowledge receipt of attached letters from City of Orinda and Town of
Moraga regarding their joint fire service study by The Davis Company.
2. Accept report from County Administrator outlining conceptual options for
the consolidation of County fire districts.
3 . Direct County Administrator and Fire Chief to aggressively work to
achieve . further efficiencies through functional integration with
specific emphasis on Fire Prevention Bureau activities (inspections,
permits, etc. ) , training and other support services.
4. Direct County Administrator and Fire Chief to continuing exploring the
desirability of consolidation with consideration of the elements which
should be included or excluded as may be financially appropriate when
final budget information is available and input is received from the
various individual communities.
5. Defer final action on fire district reorganization until the complete
and final impacts of the State budget and trailer bills are known.
Continued on Attachment: X YES Signature:�VE/ 'CA
Recommendation of County Administrator
Recommendation of Board Committee
Approve Other
Signature(s) :
Action of Board on: Aiiglist 3, 1 AA3 Approved as Recommended-Other--�L
See attached addendum for approval of the above recommendation, amendments
thereto, and the various votes.
Vote of Supervisors: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
Multiple votes. See attached Addendum. AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
Unanimous (Absent ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
Ayes: Noes: ) BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN.
Contact: T. McGraw (646-4855) Attested: Aums . 199
cc: County Administrator Phil Batchelor, Clerk of
Auditor-Controller the Board of Supervisors
County Counsel and County Administrator
County and Indep. Fire Districts
United. Professional By: 'l DEPUTY
Firefighters Local 1230
Chairs, Boards of Fire Commissioners
f
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND:
On June 15, 1993 the Board of Supervisors received 'the ,preliminary plan for
Fire District Expenditure Reductions and Functional Integration. The Board
received public comment on the Plan and deferred action until July 13 , 1993
to allow time for the Plan to be circulated to interested parties for review
and comment.On July 13, 1993, the Board of Supervisors approved the report
from the County Administrator on the status of functional integration and
expenditure reductions.
The June 15th report on expenditure reductions and functional integration
with respect to the merit system districts proposed an organization
consisting of five divisions: Emergency Operations, Fire Prevention,
Training, Administrative Services and Support Services.
The June 15th report also proposed the functional integration of the
volunteer Bethel Island and East Diablo Fire Districts to improve daytime
staffing in Bethel Island, better utilization of personnel, reduce costs,
eliminate duplicated management positions and provide improved chief officer
coverage.
d
Since most of the basic elements and benefits of consolidation and functional
integration are the same, we believe that functional integration should be
aggressively pursued while consolidation continues to be explored.
The July 13th report also suggested that consolidation may become necessary
because of the potential impacts of the State budget actions on the County' s
interdependent fire district network. After discussing various issues
related to consolidation, the Board directed the County Administrator to
prepare a preliminary plan on various options for consolidating the County
fire districts.
The July 13th report suggested consolidation of the five merit system fire
districts with the Pinole Fire District into one district and the
consolidation of the three east county volunteer (part paid/part volunteer)
districts into one volunteer district.
The Board discussion on July 13, 1993 led to variations of these suggestions
for further consideration. One of these was to consider the feasibility of
making the volunteer districts a distinct division within the consolidated
paid district and leave the Moraga Fire District as a separate entity, either
County governed or independent. These options are discussed below:
A. Consolidate Orinda, Contra Costa, Moraga, Pinole, Riverview and
West County Fire Districts
This option involves the five merit system fully-paid districts and
the Pinole Fire District.
Although the Pinole District is not a merit system district, it is
served by paid firefighters through a contract with the City of
Pinole. The District is subject to the same financial concerns
caused by the State budget actions. Under, this option, fire
district services would continue to be provided to the area by the
City of Pinole Fire Department.
The savings and operational aspects of this option would be very
similar to the functional integration plan proposed in the
June 15th report. Savings and improved personnel utilization would
result from shared administration and the integration of various
functions such as fire prevention and training.
B. Consolidate the Volunteer Districts of Bethel Island, East Diablo
and, possibly, Oakley
The June 15th report recommended the integration/consolidation of
the Bethel Island and East Diablo Fire Districts to achieve
savings, improve daytime staffing in Bethel Island and better
utilize personnel.
2
We recommended caution in combining the volunteer districts with
the paid districts because of the concern that the eight stations
in the volunteer districts would evolve into paid stations at a net
annual cost increase of approximately $7 million. The additional
cost would be far more likely to happen if the districts were
consolidated rather than functionally integrated. Cost increases
of this magnitude would require a new source of local revenue.
While we did not recommend inclusion of Oakley in the integration
plan, there appears to be some interest among involved parties in
East County to include Oakley in any consolidation. Accordingly,
the County Administrator's Office and the chiefs of those three
districts will determine the cost and operational benefits of
consolidating the districts, subject to the financial outcome of
the State budget actions.
C. Consolidate Orinda, Pinole, Contra Costa, Riverview and West County
Under this option, the Moraga Fire District would continue as a
separate district and would not be included in the consolidation
plan. The District will enjoy many of the benefits of functional
integration including less cost, unified training, standardization
of equipment and fire prevention expertise as a County-governed
district and most likely would not as an independent district.
While this arrangement may work operationally, there appear to be
significant added costs for Moraga and the other paid districts.
If the Moraga Fire District remains separate, the shared
administrative cost of the other paid fire districts would be
increased by a minimum of approximately $31,000. This is based on
the annualized cost of the integrated management for fiscal year
1992-1993.
Before the Board of Supervisors combined top management for all
paid merit districts, the district was staffed with a Chief, an
Assistant Chief and a Fire Marshal. It would cost approximately
$353, 000 or a net increase of $322,000 to taxpayers of Moraga over
the present administrative costs to go back to this structure.
D. Consolidate the five paid districts plus Pinole Consolidate the
three east county volunteer districts as a division within the
consolidated paid districts
This arrangement could result in salary savings depending on the
organizational structure of this option. However, as discussed
above in Option B, this option could result in cost increases of
approximately $7 million as a result of mixing fully-paid, paid on
call and volunteer employees into one fire agency.
Conclusion
It is suggested that this report be widely distributed to all interested
parties for review and discussion with the County Administrator' s Office and
Chief Allen Little. As the financial issues solidify over the next sixty
days, discussions should take place to develop preliminary organizational
structures depending on anticipated financial resources.
As indicated in the July 13th report, guidelines for the implementation of
State budget legislation (SB 1135) have not been formulated. The committee,
consisting of the State Controller and.. County Auditors, charged with the
responsibility to develop the guidelines will meet again on August 5th. The
committee expects to develop draft guidelines by September lst and finalize
the guidelines by late September.
Therefore, we suggest that final action on consolidation or functional
integration be deferred until the Auditor' s Committee publishes its
guidelines that will affect the financial resources of all fire districts.
3
COM COSTA COUNTY
ora a, 'Gown of Mora mmm
0
u 2100 DONALD DRIVE
P.O.BOX 188
—_ - MORAGA, CA 94556
oV...
(510)376-2590
e OFFICE OF
mbec, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
July 21, 1993
Honorable Tom Torlakson
Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street
Martinez, A 94553
Dear S ery o lakson,
The Town of Moraga and City of Orinda. have jointly
commissioned the Davis Company of Sacramento to study the
organization alternatives for the provision of fire
services within our communities. The study emphasizes
consolidation of the Moraga and Orinda fire districts,
consolidation with Contra Costa Fire, the provision of
emergency medical services, and other service
improvements. The final report is expected to be received
in mid September.
We believe the study is a valuable tool for our
respective communities and the Board of Supervisors in
determining the future of fire district organization within
our portion of the County. We also understand that the
Auditor Controller will be issuing final financial
information concerning fire district revenue from the
Special District Augmentation Fund about the middle of
August. Preliminary information seems to indicate that
this year the Moraga and Orinda Districts will be spared
the major loss of SDAF funds which were anticipated prior
to State budget passage.
Both the independent consultant' s report and the
auditor controller report are crucial to the decision
making process for future' fire district reorganization.
Under today's circumstances, the sense of urgency with
which the Board has worked to develop reorganization
policies has lessened, giving the Board and the citizenry
time to formulate meaningful policies which will provide
continued fire and emergency medical services in an
effective cost efficient manner.
Therefore, we would urge the Board not to take any
actions concerning fire district reorganization or
consolidation until the study is complete and has been
reviewed by the Councils, the Board, and the public. We
J
ni203 AM03
13VED39-
especially urge you not to rush to the voters with an
advisory ballot which is not based on the fact of
reorganization- or consolidation as described by this
independeAb source.
We are.. sure...that the Board would want the public and
all elected representatives to be fully informed about the
possible changes in fire services. Additionally, some
questions asked of County staff have yet to be answered,
such as the difference in cost saving between "Functional
Integration" and "Full Consolidation" of the fire
district. We believe that both the independent
consultant's report, and the Auditor Controller SDAF
information, are crucial to your future decisions.
Following the study, our community would be happy to
work with the Board -to -develop reorganization proposals
which will provide. our community with the necessary
emergency protection and assist the Board in providing the
most cost efficient fire and emergency medical services.
Your continued interest and concern for the
preservation of fire and emergency medical services is
appreciated.
Sincerely,
Su n L. Noe
Mayor
cc: Members, Board of Supervisors
County Administrator
City of Orinda
Morag.a .Fire..Protection District
City of Lafayette
Michael Davis, Davis Company
/- 70
26 orindo way • orindo • california 94563 • 510 • 254-3900
June 30, 1993
L.i
2 199?
Tom Torlakson, Chair RECEIVED
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street, lith Floor
Martinez, CA 94553 1 1 319
Dear Chairman Torlakson and
CLERK� ,�.�•.._
Members of the Board of Supervisors: C i
The Board of Supervisors is faced with a difficult decision on the
future of fire services in Contra Costa County. The results of the
recent ballot measures indicate that residents are unwilling to pay
to retain existing service levels, and that a merger with an
adjacent fire district(s) is supported. Further, while the 1993-94
state budget impact on fire districts is apparently not as dramatic
as it could have been, future budget impacts may severely and
adversely impact fire services. We understand the necessity of
continuing to explore methods to provide efficient and effective
fire services. We would like to be in a position to assist the
Board of Supervisors in its evaluation of options, and to be able
to support your ultimate decision.
As you are aware, the City of Orinda and the Town of Moraga have
jointly retained The Davis Company to evaluate the options for
alternative fire service delivery. We have received preliminary
verbal reports, from Mike Davis, and we are very pleased with the
progress of the research and the scope of options under evaluation.
The final report will be prepared in August 1993 .
With receipt of the report, we expect that our Council and the
community will better understand the service delivery options, and
the costs associated with those options. The report will also be
provided to the Board of Supervisors and Fire District
Commissioners and staff. The Board of Supervisors may find the
report useful in your deliberations. We would certainly find it
useful in our evaluation, and in our ability to support the Board's
efforts toward cost efficiency and effective service delivery.
The Board of Supervisors will consider placing a measure on the
ballot to merge, or consolidate districts. We ask that the Board
defer its decision until the fire study being conducted by The
Davis Company is received and may be evaluated and considered by
the City Council and Board of Supervisors.
cc: aAO
Printed on Recucled Pope
Tom Torlakson, Chair and
Members of the Board of Supervisors
June 30, 1993
Page Two
Please accept this request in the spirit in which it is made, as a
genuine interest in working with the Board of Supervisors on this
difficult matter.
Sincerely,
04Z-XWillia J. Dabel
Mayor
WJD/TS:nh
cc: Town of Moraga
0
ADDENDUM TO 2.A AUGUST 3, 1993
The County Administrator reviewed the his report prepared
for this item.
Board members discussed the issues in some detail including
functional integration, reorganization and consolidation of fire
districts, and the need to get more information from the State in
terms of what funding will be and how consolidation might change
that funding; whether or not it is desirable to have
consolidation proposals on the ballot as advisory measures in all
the fire districts; whether zones could be established where
there are fire flow taxes; and whether placing the issue of
consolidation on the ballot might distract from fulfilling the
task of functional integration.
Chair Torlakson advised that he believes the Board should
move ahead with some kind of an advisory ballot measure that
would be more inclusive and bring the County closer to a one-
county fire district.
Motion was made by Supervisor Bishop, seconded by Supervisor
Powers, to place the following measure on ballots in all county
dependent districts : "SHOULD EXISITNG SEPARATE FIRE SERVICES BE
CONSOLIDATED TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE INTO ONE FIRE
DEPARTMENT IN ORDER TO SAVE COSTS AND/OR TO PURSUE COST SAVINGS
AND/OR IMPROVE EFFICIENCIES. "
Supervisor Powers urged that the ballot measure be made
countywide, including independent and city districts .
Supervisor Bishop commented that her motion did not cover
independent and city districts, the motion was for all dependent
districts .
The Chair called for a vote and the motion passed by the
following vote:
AYES : Supervisors Powers, Bishop and Torlakson
NOES : Supervisors Smith and McPeak
Supervisor Powers moved to put the same ballot measure
before the voters in E1 Cerrito, Kensington, West County and
Richmond. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Torlakson.
Supervisor Smith inquired what would be done with the
information after it is received inasmuch as the Board does not
have jurisdiction in the city and independent districts .
Supervisor Smith requested the Board to reconsider putting
the measure on the ballots in District II (Orinda, Moraga and the
part of Contra Costra Fire Protection District [Consolidated]
that is in District II) , taking it off the ballots in District II
and putting it on the ballot in West County.
Supervisor McPeak advised she would be voting no on the
motion because she is concerned that there may be some confusion
because people don' t know what the plan of consolidation would be
and she does not want a set back in functional integration.
Supervisor Bishop declared she was not supporting the motion
because the Board had never included in its discussion the
independent districts .
Supervisor Smith inquired as to the cost of the putting the
issues on the ballot, and commented that it he did not believe
the question could be put to the voters in a coherent way because
there is not enough information for people to know exactly what
- 1 -
they are voting on, and therefore he would be voting against the
motion.
The Chair called for a vote on the motion and the vote was
as follows :
AYES : Supervisors Powers and Torlakson
NOES : Supervisors Smith, Bishop and McPeak.
The Chair announced that the motion failed.
County Counsel requested clairification on whether the first
motion was, as the Governing Body of each of the dependent fire
districts, to place the proposition on the question of
consolidation as a separate district measure on the ballot in
each dependent fire district.
The Chair confirmed the clarification, and requested staff
to quantify the costs to each district of placing the advisory
measure on the ballot, and to bring back the information later in
the day.
The Chair then asked for a motion to approve the
recommendations contained in the County Administrator' s Report,
and for setting deadlines for accomplishing the cost savings of
the functional integration and moving ahead with a proposal for
getting consolidation on the LAFCO calendar timetable, pending
results from the voters on the November ballot measure.
Supervisor Smith expressed his concern that by waiting for
the results of the November ballot measure, any action that the
Board would be taking on consolidation will be deferred.
The Chair declared that there is Board direction to keep
moving ahead on functional integration, and a possible course of
action would be to direct staff to pursue the details of
implementing a consolidation with the various options and save
final action until the Board has the votes after the November
election and to pursue full speed ahead all functional
integration issues and implement them as soon as they can
possibly be implemented.
Supervisor Smith voiced his interest in moving ahead today
with a decsion to start the process in Orinda and "Consolidated"
and not wait three months .
The Chair declared that the Board had reached a consensus
on starting the process of getting the paperwork in order for the
LAFCO calendar, but not do it before November, and at that point
the election results would be known.
Board members discussed Recommendation 4 of the County
Administrator' s report, and determined to eliminate "continuing
exploring desirability", and change it instead to: "pursue the
consolidation, legal steps and application to LAFCO, pending the
outcome of. . . . "
Supervisor Smith moved to consolidate Recommendations 3 and
4 and to direct the County Administrator and Fire Chief to
agressivley pursue all functional integration costs savings, and
to pursue consolidation of the fire districts . The motion was
seconded by Supervisor Powers .
Supervisor McPeak objected to combining Recommendations 3
and 4, cautioning the effect would be not to get the job done on
functional integration. She suggested leaving Recommendations 3
and 4 as they are, except adding a time frame, suggesting
September 14 as the deadline under Recommendation No . 3 .
- 2 -
Supervisor Powers moved to change Recommendation No. 4 to:
"prepare appropriate actions for consolidating the districts, and
return those to the Board by September 14, 1993. "
County Counsel advised that the application to LAFCO for
reorganization is pretty much the constitution of what will
happen and LAFCO has virtually no discretion to vary the Board' s
application, and therefore it is very important that the
application be carefully drafted and the Board is staisfied with
it and that it contain all the conditions for the reorganization,
including such things as if there are to be zones created to
preserve special tax measures, and how personnel will be handled.
The Chair noted that there is consensus on Recommendation
No. 3 with September 14 as the deadline, and that with Supervisor
Powers ' motion for Recommendation No. 4, the Board would set
September 14 for a status report on where the process is going,
and set the Tuesday after the November election for a further
status report, and give staff the direction to move ahead on the
consolidation paperwork and option consideration and boilerplate
language and some the merit system kinds of personnel issues .
Supervisor Smith requested that Moraga be left out of the
motion and be dealt with separately.
Supervisor Powers agreed. Supervisor Bishop seconded the
motion.
The Chair called for a vote on the consensus reached on the
recommendations of the County Administrator as listed, with the
amendments agreed to on Recommendations 3 and 4 .
The vote was unanimous .
The Chair declared that this also included eliminating
Pargaraph 4 on page 2 under background of the County
Administrator' s report.
Supervisor Smith moved to request a report back regarding
the State funding for the Moraga District, and potential options
for organization in Moraga, including functional integration and
other possibilities as explored in the staff report. The motion
was seconded by Supervisor Powers .
The Chair inquired if the motion included requesting the
report by September 14 and a more definitive report on the
Tuesday after the November election (November 9, 1993) .
Supervisor Smith agreed.
The vote on the motion was unanimous.
The Chair requested staff to communicate the above actions
of the Board as quickly as possible to the cities and fire
commissions .
++++++++++++++
Following taking up several other items on the agenda,
Supervisor Smith requested reconsideration of the ballot issue
relating to consolidation.
Supervisor Smith advised that he really would prefer not to
have consolidation measures on the ballot in Orinda and Moraga
for the reasons he had stated earlier, and moved that the Board
take the issue off the ballot in Orinda and Morga, and put it on
in West County if Supervisor Powers so desires .
The motion was seconded by Supervisor Powers .
The Board discussed the matter in some detail . Supervisor
3 -
Smith commented that Ordina has already voted on consolidation
. and the citizens of Moraga have made very clear what they want.
Supervisor Bishop questioned the rules for voting for
reconsideration.
Supervisor Powers advised that he had voted on the majority
side, and he would move the above motion. The motion was
seconded by Supervisor Smith.
Chair Torlakson declared he would like to think about the
motion a bit more before voting and suggested that at this time
the County Administrator report on any information on costs of
placing measures on the November ballot he had received from the
Elections Officer. The County Administrator reviewed the cost
information received from the Elections Officer.
Chair Torlakson then ruled that since the Board had been in
session since 9: 00 a.m, and it was now 2 : 00 p.m. , the motion
before the Board would be tabled until after a 20 minute to half
hour break.
++++++++++++++++++++
Following a short break and consideration of matters
scheduled on the agenda at 2 : 00 p.m. , the Board resumed
discussion of matters related to the fire districts . Supervisor
McPeak was absent from the afternoon session.
Supervisor Powers moved to place the ballot measure before
the citizens in the Riverview Fire Protection District and the
citizens of the Richmond, Kensington, El Cerrito and West County
communities . The motion was seconded by Supervisor Smith.
Chair Torlakson explained that this is a new version of
Supervisor Smith' s motion which was tabled before the break.
Supervisor Smith commented that the people of Riverview have
made it clear that they definitely want the opportunity to vote
on the issues, but that the people in District II really don' t
want to vote on the measure, and it appears that the people in
West County do want to vote on the measure. He noted that it
does not make sense to leave Pinole in because they also have
already voted on the issue.
Supervisor Bishop advised that she felt it is important for
people to determine their destiny and was concerned that the
people in "Consolidated" Fire had not had the opportunity to
express their views in a ballot and suggested there should be a
vote on the motion to reconsider prior to further discussion.
Chair Torlakson advised that one issue had been settled by
three votes and the Supervisors Smith and Powers are now raising
the issue of whether it should be modified in any way by either
adding or subtracting districts, and that he was willing to
listen to debate.
The Chair called for a vote on whether to reconsider the
previous motion. The vote on the motion to reconsider was :
AYES : Supervisors Powers, Smith and Torlakson
NOES : Supervisor Bishop
ABSENT: Supervisor McPeak
Supervisor Smith spoke on the merits of deleting Orinda from
the ballot measure as it was already voted on and passed by a
large majority, and eliminating Moraga becuase of the various
alternatives and options, and consideration of fact that there is
- 4 -
no way to frame a ballot argument that gives an adequate range of
options to the populace, noting that the people in "Consolidated"
have already joined in consolidtion in the not so distant past
and made it clear that they value consolidation, and suggested
that the Board consider the ballot measure district by district.
The Chair noted that there had been two motions for
reconsideration, the original one to take Orinda and Moraga out
and add West County.
Supervisor Smith advised there is no reason for Pinole to
have it on the ballot either because Pinole is a contract
district with the City of Pinole, and the concept of
consolidation is a different matter.
Supervisor Bishop disagreed that one could draw the
conclusion that because of the past support for consolidation
that in the current situation citizens would support
consolidation. Supervisor Bishop requested that she be furnished
with numbers showing how many people in "Consolidated" live in
District III and how many live in District II .
Chair Torlakson stated that he could support a motion that
would keep "Consolidated" in so the residents would be able to
have a chance to vote, and all the other districts that been
previously named, all dependent districts, but take out Orinda
and Moraga, and the people in the Pinole County District voted in
the last advisory ballot measure, and he would entertain the
above as a modification to the earlier action.
Supervisor Bishop stated that she felt that Moraga should be
left in because the Board really needs to know the will of the
people.
Supervisor Smith again noted that you simply cannot give the
right ballot argument that gives adequate options because there
are too many options in Moraga; and that the people of Moraga
have communicated with him and he is very confident that he knows
the opinion of the people of Moraga.
Chair Torlakson asked if the modified motion, taking out
Orinda, Moraga and Pinole and adding West County, is acceptable.
Supervisor Smith agreed that it was acceptable to him.
Chair Torlakson then seconded the motion, as just modified;
clarifying that the original motion that was passed with the nine
dependent districts is to be modified to take out Orinda, Moraga
and Pinole and add Richmond, El Cerrito, Kensington and West
County.
Supervisor Powers, after checking with fire personnel from
West County, requested that the West County Fire Protection
District be left out because they have already voted.
Chair Torlakson again clarified the motion stating that the
motion is simply to modify this morning' s motion by taking out
Orinda, Moraga and Pinole Districts and adding Richmond, El
Cerrito and Kensington.
The Chair called for a vote on the modified motion and the
vote was as follows :
AYES : Supervisors Powers, Smith and Torlakson
NOES : Supervisor Bishop
ABSENT: Supervisor McPeak
5 -
Cin 5�c� wul'h ��
kierviAv �•
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
I ire•c:r�,�,,;�>„ „•r>:
ALLEN LI DILE R()KK I BAII)RIDGF
IVRACE A.ENEA
SI(: I ANtiI ROM
RVF11 MIS
III%AHFIII R1mBAI.•1—I
July 29, 1993 EI.WARD SI'FN(—.FR,Ir.
Ir)F I OVAR.Ir.
Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Honorable Board Members:
In view of the unknown impacts of the State Budget and related legislation upon
special fire districts, we request that any action to consolidate the Riverview
Fire Protection District with any other fire agency of Contra Costa County be
postponed until all pertinent budgetary facts are known. Additionally, as in
previous communication from this Commission, we reiterate our request of placing
any consolidation plan affecting Riverview Fire Protection District before the
voters of our District.
Sincerely,
x e""�q
ELIZABETH A. RIMBAULT, Chairperson
Board of Fire Commissioners
EAR:lr
RECEIVED
JUL 3 01993
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA CO.
1500 WFSI'FOURTI I STREET—AN HOC:H,CALIFORNIA 94509-1099 -- THEN]ONE(510)757-1303—FAX(510)754-8852