HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10291985 - F.C TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Finance Committee ^w.
tra
C )s}a
DATE: CO
October 24 , 1985 ^
SUBJECT;
CLEARING OF REFERRALS TO FINANCE COMMITTEE
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
A. Indicate the Board' s intention to designate the Disaster Council as
the lead agency in seeking funding for an updated Emergency Communica-
tions Systems.
B. Clear as referrals to the Finance Committee the following items:
1 . Review of Communications Systems;
2 . Sheriff Department management staffing; and
3 . Cadillac Ambulance Service Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
On October 21, the Finance Committee met. Several items were discussed and
the following actions are recommended:
1. Review of Communications System
A status report on' this issue was received by the Committee (copy
attached) on October 21. Various groups are continuing work on the
Emergency Communications System. A report is being prepared by the
Disaster Council which is expected to be presented on November 19.
That report includes specific recommendations regarding equipment
acquisition and a countywide communications system. Funding for the
enhancements is expected to total $600, 000 - $700 , 000. The Finance
Committee considered various groups which wouid best be able to pursue
funding and recommends that the Disaster Council be considered because
of the broad base of its membership.
2 . Sheriff ' s Department Management Staffing
The Finance Committee reviewed the report provided by the administra-
tor which indicates the Sheriff is "in the middle" in numbers of
administration compared to other counties. The Committee made note of
the fact that specific aspects of management staffing in the Sheriff ' s
department are being included in the consolidation study now underway.
For these reasons, it is recommended that this item be cleared as a
referral to this Committee.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION O B MITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE s : Supervisor Sunne MCPeak sor Robert Schroder
ACTION OF BOARD ON Oeteber 29 192-55 APPROV D AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
_X_ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT T ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT; ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: County Administrator ATTESTED O
County Counsel 7 i.
Health Services Director PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Sheriff-Coroner SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Emergency Services
Personnel Director l
M382/7-83 BY' �� ����J�-�� t� ,DEPUTY
3 . Cadillac Ambulance Service Agreement
This referral was based upon a notice received from Cadillac ambulance
that their services were being terminated. Based on subsequent
conversations between the company and the Health Services Department,
it appears services will continue as before. For that reason, it is
recommended that this item be cleared as a referral to the Committee.
Attachments.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Board of Supervisors
To: Finance Committee Date:
via Phil Batchelor October 17, 1985
County Administrator
From: . Mark Finucane Subject: view of�oiinfy emergency— --
Health Services Director Medical Services
by Dan Bergman �`,r A� " _ Communications System
Gi
Assistant Health Serces Director
Environmental Health
This status report is submitted for your consideration in response to your April 4,
1985 referral to the Board of Supervisors addressing the need to upgrade the
County' s existing Emergency Medical Services Med-Com system.
Your Finance Committee expressed two recommendations which included :
1. Concur with an overall review of the communication system in the County
under the auspices of the Disaster Council with the understanding that a
written progress report will be submitted by ,lune 30, 1985.
2. Authorize preparation of an application to the Office of Traffic Safety
for a matching grant to upgrade the Med-Com system with the understanding
local share commitments will be reviewed in conjunction with preparation
of the budget for the 1985-1986 fiscal year.
In reponse to this directive, the Office of Emergency Services is preparing a
status report from the Disaster Council 's Emergency Communications Subcommittee
detailing efforts to date to define, categorize, and prioritize County emergency
communications deficiencies and to clarify viable solutions including costs and
funding mechanisms.
The Disaster Council ' s report prioritizes the identified emergency communication
deficiencies which include:
- Insufficient medical channels
- No standardized dispatcher protocol
- Inadequate emergency system site stabilization
- Interjurisdictional communication system not compatible
A-41 iJ81
Finance Committee -2- October 17, 1985
Their report concludes that "no one solution can singularly or completely cure
the emergency communication system deficiencies and suggests prob e' em so�tions
including:
INSTALL A MEDCOM SYSTEM:
Installation and operation of a properly designed MEDCOM Advance Life Support
(ALS), Radio telemetry system will enable paramedics to perform theirduties
utilizing any of the ten radio medical channels
signalling between patient and emergency room personnel instead of relying on
the one medical channel available at present.
A $500,000 grant from the State Office of Traffic Safety is being pursued by
EMS. The additional $600,000 needed to complete the implementation can be par-
tially funded through user fees charged to the hospitals and ambulance services.
The details of a lease purchase arrangement are being explored by EMS and
possible MEDCOM vendors.
The Office of Emergency Medical Services has been exploring alternative funding
sources to finance the proposed MEDCOM system. Our efforts have included pur-
suit of an Office of Traffic and Safety Grant; discussions with prospective ven-
dors, specifically Motorola, for a lease purchase agreement for the required
equipment; community funding sources; and a special tax measure for voter
consideration.
OFFICE OF TRAFFIC AND SAFETY GRANT
An ad hoc communications committee consisting of representatives from police,
fire, ambulance, and communications personnnel reviewed the EMS system needs,
existing problems, and California State EMS authority guidelines, and developed
a proposal for grant application which was forwarded to Mr. Ken Logan, Office
of Traffic Safety on June 12, 1985.
The proposal was reviewed by the State agency. Mr. Logan stated as early as
July, 1985 and as recently as September, 1985, that Contra Costa County's grant
proposal is in the "State' s plan" tentatively scheduled for October, 1985. The
Office of Traffic and Safety is waiting for appraisal and release of funds from
the Federal National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) .
Mr. Logan has stated his intent to meet with Contra Costa County representatives
to work out the details of the application, to discuss guidelines and con-
ditions, review the County' s proposal to match the funds, and to outline steps to
be followed.
The Contra Costa County Disaster Council ' s Emergency Services Subcommittee has
also reviewed the priority of the communication problem and has recommended to
the Board of Supervisors that action on this issue not be delayed.
Finance Committee -3- October 17, 1985
MOTOROLA PROPOSAL
Vendor representatives from Motorola have submitted a proposal detailing two
hypothetical alternatives for lease purchase agreements with user base supported
fees with accompanying amortization schedules, and a third hypothetical wherein
the. County could finance the lease purchase payments out of earnings on the
principle from the acquired grant funds and matching funding sources.
Motorola' s proposals are being reviewed as an initis o ering or ins con-
sideration with other vendor proposals that will be solicited in a competitive
bid process in the event that the grant and matching funding materialize through
our ongoing efforts.
ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCES TO ACQUIRE THE REQUIRED COUNTY MATCHING SHARE ((8$600,000)
In conjunction with the Health Services Department Emergency Medical Services
and under the direction of Dr. Greg Rhodes, EMCC Chair, the EMCC is currently
forming a financing committee to develop recommendations for alternative funding
sources including: industry donations; media and civic organization assisted
community-wide donation benefit to fund the communications system, any other
potential private funding sources.
SPECIAL TAX MEASURE
This potential alternative funding source has been under County consideration
for several years. A significant amount of analytical work has been pursued to
support a Special Tax Measure for voter consideration to fund Emergency Medical
Services in the County through the creation of an Emergency Medical Services
District.
On May 17, 1983, the County Administrator' s Office directed the EMS Office to
prepare a proposed scope of services to be covered by such a tax for con-
sideration. The proposed scope of services was submitted on May 20, 1983,
outlining EMS District Program Guidelines including: assure availability of
paramedic units county-wide; funding necessary to assure adequate and continued
training of paramedic personel , hospital personnel , and firefighters who are
first-in responders; assure adequate medical control and coordination of an
emergency medical services system; and to provide radio communications equipment
essential to the service which enables the medical direction of the base hospi-
tal and paramedic units. The enhanced communications system has been and
remains at the heart of assuring the effective delivery of Emergency Medical
Services county-wide.
The County Administrator additionally recommended to the Board of Supervisors in
a March 21, 1983 memorandum from the Internal Operations Committee that "if the
Board wishes to generate additional revenue to finance some, or all , of the
Emergency Medical Services system in the County, that a special tax measure be
placed on the June, 1984 ballot. . .after resolution of a number of issues
including the proposed scope of services".
Finance Committee -4- October 17, 1985
The Internal Operations Committee believed that placing this matter on the
ballot is the most appropriate course of action providing that all concerned
groups and individuals reach a consensus on how the Emergency Medical Services
should be operated and how it should be financed.
The EMCC was directed by the Board, as a result of the Board' s consideration of
the Internal Operations Committee recommendations, to undertake whatever
discussion, public hearings, and coordination they believe necessary in order to
i en , y all issues surrounding this-matter, and to insure that all concerned
parties have an adequate opportunity for input.
The EMCC response to the Board in a January 19, 1984 communication regarding the
special tax for Emergency Medical Services contained a recommendation to place
the tax measure on the November, 1984 ballot for voter consideration instead of
on the June, 1984 ballot.
In a related memorandum to the Board from William Walker, M.D. , Acting Health
Services Director, dated January 19, 1984, the Department recommended that the
Board adopt an ordinance proposing a special tax for EMS throughout Contra Costa
County, to be placed on the November ballot subject to the Board' s further
consideration.
The Board adopted an order on January 24, 1984, after receiving significant
negative testimony on the issue of the proposed special tax measure to support
Emergency Medical Services from concerned parties, directing that the proposal
for a special tax to fund Emergency Medical Services be referred to the Internal
Operations Committee for review and recommendation as to the parameters that
need to be established prior to requesting the electorate to vote on a ballot
measure.
The EMCC financing committee that is currently being formed intends to further
review the special tax as a viable and appropriate potential funding source for
Emergency Medical Services in this County, including the enhancement of our
existing communications system. The Office of Emergency Medical Services will
continue to support and assist this effort.
It is our recommendation that all potential funding sources to finance the
upgrading of the existing communications system continue to be pursued as a
priority matter considering the expressed concerns of all involved agencies to
correct existing communications deficiencies as soon as possible.
A coordinated effort involving the EMS, OES, Disaster Council , EMCC, and County
Admininstrator' s Office is necessary to develop an effective strategy to acquire
and commit necessary funding and to specify a timetable for completing this
effort. We will continue to provide staff support and assistance to the extent
possible and remain available to work with other departments and interested par-
ties to accomplish this goal .
DB:rm
cc: William Walker, M.D. , Medical Director Cecil Williams, OES
Lauren Kovaleff, Acting EMS Director Greg Rhodes, M.D. , Chair, EMCC
OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Administration Building
Martine:, California
To: FINANCE COMMITTEE Date: October 4, 1985
SUPERVISOR S. MCPEAK, Chair
SUPERVISOR R. SCHRODER
From : KERRY HARMS, Assistant Subject ; SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT
County Administrator STAFFING REPORT
On April 9, 1985, the Board of Supervisors reviewed and accepted a report from
this Office on management staffing in the Contra Costa County Sheriff's
Department as compared to eleven other departments throughout the State. That
report was referred to the Finance Committee.
Basically, the study found that our Sheriff's Department was in the middle
area with respect to various categories of administrators per 100 personnel
and that the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department compared quite favorably
to the other departments included in the study. (See attached report. )
This Office recommends that this item now be cleared from the agenda of the
Committee. Please note that specific aspects of management staffing in the
Sheriff's Department are being included in another study currently underway
which will look at the possibility of consolidating selected functions of the
Marshal's Office and Sheriff's Department.
KH:GR:pk
Attach.
92TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR o t `�"
County Administrator Costa
DATE: March 28, 1985 County
SUBJECT: REPORT ON MANAGEMENT STAFFING: TWELVE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENTS,
INCLUDING CONTRA COSTA'S
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
Accept report of County Administrator on the management staffing of twelve California I
Sheriff's Departments, including Contra Costa's.
BACKGROUND:
In response to a request of your Board, this Office reviewed management staffing levels in
various Sheriff's Departments throughout the state and compared those with the management
structure currently existing in the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department. Departments
selected for the study were comparable in number of personnel; the only two similarly-sized
departments omitted were Santa Barbara (failed to provide any of the requested data) and
San Francisco (not comparable in organization--no patrol or field functions) . The study
involved the following Sheriff's Departments (personnel figures represent authorized
personnel as of February 1985) :
Total Total
Personnel Personnel
San Bernardino 1,157 Kern 711
Sacramento 1,142 Contra Costa 625
Alameda 1,097 Fresno 613
Riverside 940 San Joaquin 433
Santa Clara 937 San Mateo 430
Ventura 789 Sonoma 401
The data was gathered and verified by the County Administrator's Office in cooperation with
the Personnel and Sheriff's Departments and like departments in the 11 other counties. .
(See Attachment 1.)
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION:
1. Assistant Sheriff/Undersheriff (Contra Costa County - 2)
For counties in the study, the number of Assistant Sheriff/Undersheriffs varies from
zero (Riverside County) to three (Ventura and San Bernardino) ; five counties have one
such position; four counties have two. In some of the counties where there is only
one Undersheriff, there are multiple Chief Deputies, each in charge of a,major operation
or program. When there are two Assistant Sheriffs, one is generally in charge of Field
Operations and the other supervises Corrections and/or Administration (similar to
Contra Costa) .
5
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATI N F BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) 44,✓Lll�
ACTION OF BOARD ON 7 7 21 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER .. _
REFERRED above mentioned report to Finance Committee for review
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS, ON THE DATE SHOWN[.
CC: Sheriff-Coroner ATTESTED �iZ.�����
Personnel Director ,
County Administrator's Office - Justice PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
System Programs SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
OV r1CPIlTY
Report on Management Staffing: Twelve
Sheriff's Departments, including Contra Costa's
Page 2
March 28, 1985
2. Chief Deputy (rank between Captain and Assistant Sheriff in compensation and authority:
Contra Costa County - 0)
Of the eleven other counties surveyed, three do not utilize a Chief Deputy rank. All
three of these counties are smaller in size (total personnel) than Contra Costa. Of
the remaining eight counties, two have a single Chief Deputy; two counties have two
Chiefs, three counties have four Chiefs; and one county has eight Chiefs.
In general, Chief Deputies are placed over the major Divisions or functions in a
Department: Corrections (6 of the 8 counties) , Field Operations/Patrol (6 of the 8
counties) ; Administrative or Management Services (5 of the 8 counties) ; and, in some.
instances, Investigations, Emergency Services, Court Services, Special Services,
Scientific Services.
Chief Deputies report to the Assistant Sheriffs or Sheriff, and have one or more
Captains/Commanders reporting to them. Chiefs are generally responsible for a broad
group of programs or a major functional area and/or multiple facilities, and their
span of control generally involves at least 100-200 employees. The Contra Costa
Sheriff's Department does not. have a Chief Deputy position. To make a valid comparison
of the two top management levels in the Sheriff's Departments studied, the number of
Assistant Sheriffs and Chief Deputies have been combined and compared to overall
personnel.
Asst. Sheriffs & Ratio per
Chief Deputies 100 personnel
Eleven Sheriff's Departments average 4 average .54
median 4 median .44
Contra Costa County current 2 .32
3. Captain/Commander (rank between Lieutenant and Chief Deputy in compensation and
authority: Contra Costa - 6)
There is considerable variation in the number of Captains in the counties surveyed;
from three in Sonoma County to nineteen in San Bernardino (including one for each of
11 Patrol sub-stations) . The average number is 7.7 Captains per department, and the
median is six. In general, Captains command Divisions or major Bureaus. In the smaller
Sheriff's Departments in this study (Sonoma, San Mateo, Fresno) , there is generally one
Captain for each major function (Corrections, Operations, Services, Administration) ..
The "medium-sized" jurisdictions (Kern, Ventura) begin to have multiple Captains in the
major divisions (e.g., two Captains in Patrol, three in Operations, two or three in
Detention) . The larger jurisdictions in the study (Alameda, Sacramento, Riverside,
San Bernardino) have multiple Captains in more than one major functional area (e.g.,
three in Patrol and four. in Detention) . In Contra Costa, the responsibilities and span
of control of Captains varies greatly. The Captain in charge of the Detention Division
has a $14 million budget, a staff of 235, and responsibility for 950 inmates. At the
other end of the scale is the Coroner's Office, with a budget of $620,810 and a staff
of nine. Only two of the other eleven Sheriffs have Coroner responsibility.
Capt/ Total Positions: Capt. & Above
Commander Capt. & Above per 100 personnel
Eleven Sheriff's Depts. average 7.7 11.6 1.5
median 6 10 1.3
Contra Costa County current 6 8 1.3
4. Lieutenant (Contra Costa - 19)
This rank has been included in the study as it generally represents the first management
level in the sworn ranks. The range in number of Lieutenants among the departments
studied is from seven (San Joaquin) to forty-eight (Sacramento) . Lieutenants are
generally in charge of Bureaus, programs, sub-stations and small facilities, and serve
as Watch Commanders in Patrol and Detention.
Total Positions: Lt. and Above
Lieutenants Lt. and Above per 100 personnel
Eleven Sheriff's Depts. average 21.1 32.7 4.1
median 19 26 3.8
Contra Costa County current 19 27 4.3
E
.Sheriff's departments, including Contra Costa's
Page 3
March 28, 1985
SUMMARY•
i
There is no standard organizational structure for Sheriff's Departments in California, but
counties comparable to Contra Costa generally have 1-2 Assistant Sheriffs and one or more
Chief Deputies in charge of major functional areas. Seven of the eleven departments studied
have both Assistant Sheriff and Chief Deputy classifications. In all management classifica-
tions, Contra Costa is in the middle range of "administrators per 100 personnel". The
average number of management positions (Lieutenants and above) for the other eleven counties
is 32.7 for a ratio of 4.2 administrators per 100 personnel. In Contra Costa County, the
total number of such positions is 27 for a ratio of 4,3 per 100 personnel. The overall
averages are as follows:
Average of
11 Counties studied Contra Costa
Number of Personnel 786 625
Assistant Sheriff 1.5 2
Chief Deputy 2.4 0
Chief Deputy and above 3.9 2
Captains 7.7 6
Captains and above 11.6 8
Lieutenants 21.1 19
Lieutenant and above 32.7 27
Total management positions
(Lieutenants and above) 32.7 27'
Ratio of total management positions
per 100 personnel 4.2 4,3
ro fn fn v1 KJ n 7K C fn pa �'- cn (n
n o a Al n o m m a r• Fr . a a
b O m(n R :3rpt (< M
D n
rr a an P °no o a (A 0 (
T m aa ,.
Y. n 0 0 r
N m
o
n
r a a
0 0
G
rt
b m
p� r r r n rt H
3 •
F+. A AP Bob a% 01 J J tD t0 O r r O O rt
o w w r N r m w Ab W A. u, " " a
w to tr J O J N J O W r
(n m N
rt r m
� a
a
rt
ui c u,
a m
M m rt
M r r N N N r W r O N r W N cn
�9 fi M
r• r-
M M
0 M \
rt -
n
a
o n
0 o O N O O N r r � 4 Ob co '7 P.
rt,
rot M
"<
n
0
c
rt r
ro En N
n m ryr rr n
. . . . . . . . . . .
En n r b
N N tD W W .P zn to A Ut p tD o O t'
0% W N W N N r 01 N to Ab o r cn H x
ry• m O m O O a
LST!
a
r cr)
ko x En
°° a o tri >
0 n I 'j
W A N ,p d1 01 01 �p O d1 r ko a�0 'l N
\ \ \ \ N. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ rt O
a u+ r ON m t.0 r m r r r w a s (n
m 0 A N Q) 0 O F•• m
< 0 n 0
m z
y r
m ro V rt cn
H r W r r r r r r N n m a H_
(n ►i o
O r J lD A In o y�
O a% m m J J .P l0 �o O w 0 r b' n
:3 O O a
Fm•+ O m art
a
r r r r N N r N p W :3 m
OD N J .A %D m k0 O w J co O Cb C
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ rt
r r N N N N W N W W61 (M m
N J W O J J w a% W 1D 4 O 0
< z
m rt >
m rt
rt
a
0
co ro w m
N W to W .D W da N W W to In (S m a rt rt
r
• cn M F•-
LD 1D W N W m %D J Ln Ui a% r O O (_A
W V1 r 0% N O 4 J r Q► O m z r
O 0 o r
m O < rt
r m
n n n c n n n n n n n n n
a a xa a x o a x x o' N
b 10 r• a b a N• b r N w r• (n n
rt rt m m rt rr m rr m m m m rt o n
a a M n a a M a a M M M M • n x1
F+• W (n W W FO-
0 :y 0 a :3 d d d d cn m n
M m m m m m m m x n %Q
,a ti ro n ro ro b am rtm
rt M rt rt rt rt rt. w O O :3
`< '< '< '< M O M
N. M !n