HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07202021 - Fire Protection DistrictCALENDAR FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
BOARD CHAMBERS, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 1025 ESCOBAR STREET
MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-1229
DIANE BURGIS, CHAIR
FEDERAL D. GLOVER, VICE CHAIR
JOHN GIOIA
CANDACE ANDERSEN
KAREN MITCHOFF
MONICA NINO, CLERK OF THE BOARD AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, (925) 655-2075
LEWIS BROSHARD, III, FIRE CHIEF
To slow the spread of COVID-19, in lieu of a public gathering, the Board of Supervisors meeting will be
accessible via television and live-streaming to all members of the public as permitted by the Governor’s
Executive Order N08-21. Board meetings are televised live on Comcast Cable 27, ATT/U-Verse Channel 99,
and WAVE Channel 32, and can be seen live online at www.contracosta.ca.gov.
PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR
WITH RESPECT TO AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA MAY CALL IN DURING THE
MEETING BY DIALING 888-251-2949 FOLLOWED BY THE ACCESS CODE 1672589#. To
indicate you wish to speak on an agenda item, please push "#2" on your phone. Access via Zoom
is also available via the following link: https://ems8.intellor.com/join/PDtA3bJYor. To indicate
you wish to speak on an agenda item, please “raise your hand” in the Zoom app.
Meetings of the Board of Supervisors are closed-captioned in real time. Public comment generally
will be limited to two minutes. Your patience is appreciated. A Spanish language interpreter is
available to assist Spanish-speaking callers.
A lunch break or closed session may be called at the discretion of the Board Chair.
Staff reports related to open session items on the agenda are also accessible online at
www.contracosta.ca.gov.
ANNOTATED AGENDA & MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
July 20, 2021
Present: Director John Gioia; Director Candace Andersen; Director Diane Burgis; Director Karen Mitchoff;
Director Federal D. Glover
Staff Present:Monica Nino, County Administrator
Lewis Broschard, Fire Chief
10:00 A.M. Convene and call to order.
CONSIDER CONSENT ITEMS (Items listed as C.1 through C.3 on the following agenda) –
Items are subject to removal from Consent Calendar by request of any Director or on request
for discussion by a member of the public. Items removed from the Consent Calendar will
be considered with the Discussion Items.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
D.1 RECEIVE a presentation regarding the final feasibility report on the potential
annexation of the East Contra Costa and Rodeo-Hercules fire protection districts
into the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District; DISCUSS the report; and
CONSIDER providing direction to staff. (Lewis T. Broschard III, Fire Chief)
Written commentary received from Joe Young, Director of East Contra
Costa Fire Protection District (attached).
RECEIVED a presentation on the final annexation feasibility report
related to the potential annexation of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection
District and the Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District;
DISCUSSED the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
annexation feasibility report; and
DIRECTED the Fire Chief to work with the County Administrator and
County Counsel to draft a resolution of application to LAFCO regarding
the annexation of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District and the
Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District.
AYE: Director John Gioia, Director Candace Andersen, Director Diane Burgis,
Director Karen Mitchoff, Director Federal D. Glover
D.2 CONSIDER accepting a report from the Fire Chief providing a status summary
for ongoing Fire District activities and initiatives. (Lewis T. Broschard III, Fire
Chief)
Speaker:
D. 3 CONSIDER Consent Items previously removed.
There were no items removed from consent for discussion.
D. 4 PUBLIC COMMENT (3 Minutes/Speaker)
There were no requests to speak at public comment.
CONSENT ITEMS
C.1 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Fire Chief, or designee, to execute a contract
C.1 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Fire Chief, or designee, to execute a contract
amendment with American Medical Response West (AMR), effective July 13,
2021, to facilitate the provision of on-scene telemedicine services to patients and
require clinical education training related to the facilitation of telemedicine
services, with no change to the contract term or payment limit. (100% CCCFPD
EMS Transport Fund)
AYE: Director John Gioia, Director Candace Andersen, Director Diane Burgis,
Director Karen Mitchoff, Director Federal D. Glover
C.2 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Fire Chief, or designee, to execute an
agreement with Tele911, Inc., for telemedicine and patient navigation services, at
no cost to the District, for the period of July 13, 2021 through July 12, 2024. (No
Cost)
AYE: Director John Gioia, Director Candace Andersen, Director Diane Burgis,
Director Karen Mitchoff, Director Federal D. Glover
C.3 APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Fire Chief, or designee to execute a contract
with Stryker Sales, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $67,000, for maintenance of
emergency medical equipment, for the period July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022.
(100% CCCFPD EMS Transport Fund)
AYE: Director John Gioia, Director Candace Andersen, Director Diane Burgis,
Director Karen Mitchoff, Director Federal D. Glover
GENERAL INFORMATION
The Board meets in its capacity as the Board of Directors of the Contra Costa County Fire
Protection District pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 24-2.402. Persons who wish to address the
Board of Directors should complete the form provided for that purpose and furnish a copy of any
written statement to the Clerk.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and
distributed by the Clerk of the Board to a majority of the members of the Board of Directors less
than 72 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 1025 Escobar Street, First
Floor, Martinez, CA 94553, during normal business hours. All matters listed under CONSENT
ITEMS are considered by the Board of Directors to be routine and will be enacted by one motion.
There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a member of the Board or a
member of the public prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Persons who
wish to speak on matters set for PUBLIC HEARINGS will be heard when the Chair calls for
comments from those persons who are in support thereof or in opposition thereto. After persons
have spoken, the hearing is closed and the matter is subject to discussion and action by the Board.
Comments on matters listed on the agenda or otherwise within the purview of the Board of
Directors can be submitted to the office of the Clerk of the Board via mail: Contra Costa County
Fire Protection District Board of Directors, 1025 Escobar Street first floor, Martinez, CA 94553; by
fax: 925-655-2006, or to clerkoftheboard@cob.cccounty.us.
The District will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to
attend Board meetings who contact the Clerk of the Board at least 24 hours before the meeting, at
(925) 655-2000. An assistive listening device is available from the Clerk, First Floor. Copies of
recordings of all or portions of a Board meeting may be purchased from the Clerk of the Board.
Please telephone the Office of the Clerk of the Board, (925) 655-2000, to make the necessary
arrangements. Applications for personal subscriptions to the Board Agenda may be obtained by
calling the Office of the Clerk of the Board, (925) 655-2000. The Board of Directors’ agenda and
meeting materials are available for inspection at least 96 hours prior to each meeting at the Office
of the Clerk of the Board, 1025 Escobar Street,First floor, Martinez, California.
Subscribe to receive to the weekly Board Agenda by calling the Office of the Clerk of the Board,
(925) 655-2000 or using the County's on line subscription feature at the County’s Internet Web
Page, where agendas and supporting information may also be viewed:
www.co.contra-costa.ca.us
ADVISORY COMMISSION
The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Advisory Commission is scheduled to meet next
on Monday, August 9, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. at the District Administration Building, 2010 Geary Road,
Pleasant Hill, Ca 94523.
AGENDA DEADLINE: Thursday, 12 noon, 12 days before the Tuesday Board meetings.
Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order):
The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District has a policy of making limited use of acronyms,
abbreviations, and industry-specific language in its Board of Supervisors meetings and written
materials. Following is a list of commonly used language that may appear in oral presentations and
written materials associated with Board meetings:
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
AFSCME American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees
ARRA American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District
BayRICS Bay Area Regional Interoperable Communications System
BGO Better Government Ordinance
BOC Board of Commissioners
CALTRANS California Department of Transportation
CAER Community Awareness Emergency Response
CAL-EMA California Emergency Management Agency
CAO County Administrative Officer or Office
CBC California Building Code
CCCPFD (ConFire) Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
CCHP Contra Costa Health Plan
CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority
CCRMC Contra Costa Regional Medical Center
CCWD Contra Costa Water District
CFC California Fire Code
CFDA Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CIO Chief Information Officer
COLA Cost of living adjustment
ConFire (CCCFPD) Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
CPA Certified Public Accountant
CPF – California Professional Firefighters
CPI Consumer Price Index
CSA County Service Area
CSAC California State Association of Counties
CTC California Transportation Commission
dba doing business as
EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District
ECCFPD East Contra Costa Fire Protection District
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EMCC Emergency Medical Care Committee
EMS Emergency Medical Services
et al. et alii (and others)
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FTE Full Time Equivalent
FY Fiscal Year
GIS Geographic Information System
HCD (State Dept of) Housing & Community Development
HHS (State Dept of ) Health and Human Services
HOV High Occupancy Vehicle
HR Human Resources
HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
IAFF International Association of Firefighters
ICC International Code Council
IFC International Fire Code
Inc. Incorporated
IOC Internal Operations Committee
ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance
JPA Joint (exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement
Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area
LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission
LLC Limited Liability Company
LLP Limited Liability Partnership
Local 1 Public Employees Union Local 1
Local 1230 Contra Costa County Professional Firefighters Local 1230
MAC Municipal Advisory Council
MBE Minority Business Enterprise
MIS Management Information System
MOE Maintenance of Effort
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
NACo National Association of Counties
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency Operations Center
OPEB Other Post Employment Benefits
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PARS Public Agencies Retirement Services
PEPRA Public Employees Pension Reform Act
RFI Request For Information
RFP Request For Proposal
RFQ Request For Qualifications
SB Senate Bill
SBE Small Business Enterprise
SEIU Service Employees International Union
SUASI Super Urban Area Security Initiative
SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee
TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central)
TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County)
TRE or TTE Trustee
TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee
UASI Urban Area Security Initiative
UCOA United Chief Officers Association
vs . versus (against)
WAN Wide Area Network
WBE Women Business Enterprise
WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee
RECOMMENDATION(S):
RECEIVE a presentation on the final annexation feasibility report related to the potential annexation of the
East Contra Costa Fire Protection District and the Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District;
DISCUSS the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the annexation feasibility report;
CONSIDER directing the Fire Chief to work with the County Administrator and County Counsel to draft a
resolution of application to LAFCO regarding the annexation of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection
District and the Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District; and
CONSIDER directing the Fire Chief to schedule a special meeting for August 10 for consideration of filing
a resolution of application with LAFCO.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 07/20/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, Director
Candace Andersen,
Director
Diane Burgis, Director
Karen Mitchoff, Director
Federal D. Glover, Director
Contact: Lewis T. Broschard III, Fire
Chief (925) 941-3300
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes
of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: July 20, 2021
Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc:
D.1
To:Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Board of Directors
From:Lewis T. Broschard III, Chief, Contra Costa Fire Protection District
Date:July 20, 2021
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Final Annexation Feasibility Report
FISCAL IMPACT: (CONT'D)
associated with receiving the presentation and final annexation feasibility report.
BACKGROUND:
This action is to receive a presentation from the District’s consultant regarding the final Phase II report
of the annexation study and to discuss the consultant’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
In late summer of 2020, we initiated a process to study the feasibility of annexing the Rodeo-Hercules
Fire Protection District and the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District into the Contra Costa County
Fire Protection District. Phase I of the study, completed in December 2020, concluded that the full
annexation feasibility study should be completed. The full study, referred to as Phase II, was initiated in
December 2020 and concluded in July 2021. The full study report concludes that annexation is feasible
and recommends that the two aforementioned districts be annexed into the Contra Costa County Fire
Protection District.
In addition to the consultant’s study, an adjunct staff report is included covering annexation related
issues and service related topics not contemplated in the Phase II report. Primarily, the staff report
discusses the additional needs for re-staffing the final closed Con Fire engine company as a result of the
great recession as well as the need for funding for the construction and staffing of a planned fire station
in the Brentwood area over the next few years. Both of these issues should be considered as part of the
overall annexation determination.
In addition to the consultant’s study, an adjunct staff report is included covering annexation related
issues and service related topics not contemplated in the Phase II report. Primarily, the staff report
discusses the additional needs for re-staffing the final closed Con Fire engine company that was closed
as a result of the great recession as well as the need for funding for the construction and staffing of a
planned fire station in the Brentwood area over the next few years. Both of these issues should be
considered as part of the overall annexation determination.
CLERK'S ADDENDUM
Written commentary received from Joe Young, Director of East Contra Costa Fire Protection
District (attached).
RECEIVED a presentation on the final annexation feasibility report related to the potential annexation
of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District and the Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District;
DISCUSSED the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the annexation feasibility report; and
DIRECTED the Fire Chief to work with the County Administrator and County Counsel to draft a
resolution of application to LAFCO regarding the annexation of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection
District and the Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District.
AGENDA ATTACHMENTS
Adjunct Staff Report
Annexation Study Presentation
Annexation Feasibility Report - Volume 1
Annexation Feasibility Report - Volume 2
County Fire Chiefs' Measure X Presentation
MINUTES ATTACHMENTS
Correspondence Received
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
.
4005 Port Chicago Highway, Suite 250 • Concord, CA 94520-1180
Telephone: (925) 941-3300 • Fax: (925) 941-3309 • www.cccfpd.org
000.
Adjunct Staff Report to Annexation Feasibility Study
Submitted by: Lewis Broschard, Fire Chief
Date: July 13, 2021
BACKGROUND
The concept for annexation or consolidation of the Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District and
the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District into the Contra Costa County Fire Protection
District has been explored and discussed for several years. However, a full analysis of the
concept was never undertaken until now. With the completion of the annexation feasibility
study, we have a model and a basis for understanding the fiscal impacts and operational
efficiencies of such an endeavor.
In general terms, the merging of the three districts by means of annexation will provide the
opportunity for additional resources to be deployed in the Brentwood and Oakley areas. These
resources have been needed for several years, and their addition will have direct impacts to the
safety of the public within Brentwood, Oakley, and the surrounding communities, as well as
increase firefighter safety and operational efficiency. The City of Antioch will receive a
significant indirect benefit from these additional resources given the reduced reliance on Con
Fire resources to respond into Brentwood and Oakley due to the historic deficit in fire and
rescue resources serving those cities. Other communities, including Pittsburg and Bay Point,
will also see positive indirect benefit from the addition of resources in east county. Those
communities will have fewer of their assigned resources responding into Brentwood and Oakley
or moving into Antioch to cover stations traditionally left vacant due to incidents in east county
areas. Overall, response capacity will be increased throughout Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood,
and Oakley.
The combining of administration, training, apparatus maintenance, and fire prevention will
create consistency in the delivery of public facing services while also doing the same for internal
support services. Training and safety programs will be joined under one leadership structure for
consistency across the battalions that will serve our residents from Hercules to Discovery Bay.
Consistency in training and operational policies will improve safety during emergency operations
while also improving efficiency, productivity expectations, and incident communications.
FISCAL ANALYSIS AND NEEDED RESOURCES
The fiscal analysis of the proposed annexations demonstrates feasibility to provide up to two
additional staffed fire stations in the eastern portions of the county. The analysis, like many, is
Adjunct Staff Report to Annexation Feasibility Study
Page 2 of 3
based on a snapshot in time and the available information and relevant assumptions at that
point in time. The fiscal analysis includes the costs associated with the planned reopening of
Fire Station 4 in Walnut Creek, as well as the additional staffing of Fire Station 55 in the
Oakley/Bethel Island area, and a second fire company in Brentwood to be co-located at Fire
Station 52 until a new fire station is constructed (Fire Station 51).
In addition to those new resources identified in the study, the following known issues need to be
addressed to fully support the annexation and provide appropriate emergency response
capacity:
● Restoration of the 30th, and final, Con Fire engine company that was closed as a result
of the great recession.
○ $3.5M annually to fund equipment, apparatus, and ongoing operational costs
○ Relocated to FS 81 downtown Antioch
■ Address call volume and high unit hour utilization as identified in the
annexation study.
○ Funding included in the regional Measure X request by County Fire Chiefs
● Fire Station 54
○ The “sixth station” necessary to serve Brentwood/Oakley areas
○ $3.5M annually
■ Years 1-4 to fund construction costs, apparatus, and equipment
■ Years 5+ to fund operational costs
○ Funding included in the regional Measure X request by County Fire Chiefs
● Reduced Dispatch Fee Revenues
○ Identified in the annexation study
○ Ongoing replacement funding of $700,000 included in the regional Measure X
request by County Fire Chiefs
● Three District Chiefs
○ Referenced on page 43 of the report.
○ Necessary due to increased span of control within the Emergency Operations
Division.
○ This was already being considered internal to Con Fire due to the size and
increasing complexity of the existing organization prior to annexation
discussions.
○ An internal review of the existing organizational structure and opportunities for
using existing resources to fill this need, use of new resources available as a
result of the annexation, or the addition of positions will need to be evaluated.
Without these additional funds to support the necessary resources and programs to fully support
the fire, rescue, and emergency medical services needs of the areas served, it is likely that the
newly reorganized district will fall short in its ability to provide the necessary emergency service
levels in those communities identified with current service level deficiencies.
Long-term growth in the annexed areas, particularly in east county, will be supported by impact
fee and community facility district programs established by the East Contra Costa Fire
Protection District and those in place or in the process of being formed by the Contra Costa
Adjunct Staff Report to Annexation Feasibility Study
Page 3 of 3
County Fire Protection District. While the long-term funding strategies appear to be appropriate
for future growth, the short- and medium-term needs identified above require the ongoing
support of Measure X funds to make annexation successful in providing improved service levels
to the public and providing sustainable fire, rescue, and emergency medical services to the
region.
In addition, it will be necessary to ensure other funding sources, such as countywide Measure H
funds already being received by the fire districts are continued at a level at least consistent with
current funding levels across the combined agencies.
PLANNING STEPS TAKEN TO DATE
District staff have engaged in early planning discussions between agency representatives
relative to training, emergency operations, and support services. In addition, a lengthy list of
questions related to health benefits, seniority-based issues, retiree benefits, determination of the
appropriate Con Fire salary step for transferred employees, treatment of vacation and sick leave
accruals, and similar issues has been developed. Meetings with County benefits and labor
relations staff are being scheduled to develop answers and implementation strategies should
the annexation move forward.
Weekly planning meetings continue to occur to assist in identifying issues relative to the
potential annexations.
Joint facility inspections have occurred to determine functionality of apparatus and equipment,
as well as overall needs and assessment of the facilities and fleet of the districts proposed to be
annexed.
We have held virtual meetings with the Contra Costa County LAFCO to gain understanding of
the potential timelines associated with these annexations, the necessary steps to initiate the
annexations, as well as the steps involved over the many months leading up to the actual
effective date of annexation. The resolution of application process has been researched, and
exemplar templates have been obtained.
Meetings have also been held with CCCERA staff to discuss the process and implications of the
proposed merging of personnel and their associated pension cost groups. An actuarial
evaluation was requested for the combined safety retirement group. This was completed and
received in early July.
CONCLUSION
Based on the information contained in the annexation feasibility study, it is my recommendation
the annexation process should be initiated. Funding from Measure X is essential to provide the
additional resources identified in this staff report that are necessary to make the annexation
successful given the current known service deficiencies.
VISION INNOVATION SOLUTIONS
FIRE DISTRICT
ANNEXATION STUDY
Contra Costa County FPD
East Contra Costa FPD
Rodeo-Hercules FPD
Introduction
AP Triton, LLC (Triton) was retained to conduct a two-phase study. Phase
One, which was completed in November of 2020, included Triton’s review
and comparison of the conceptual annexation of East Contra Costa Fire
Protection District (ECCFPD) by Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
(CCCFPD), utilizing projected operational costs provided by CCCFPD and
historical and projected revenue data from ECCFPD to include:
•Sources of recurring and non-recurring revenue, including property taxes
•Existing revenue and projections for the next 3–6 years
•Costs of existing levels of service and projections for the next 3–6 years
•Contractual services provided to the district by CAL FIRE
•Indirect costs, cost allocations, and contractual obligations
2
Introduction continued…
The analysis conducted during Phase One concluded
with a preliminary determination that the annexation of
East Contra Costa Fire Protection District into Contra
Costa County Fire Protection District was feasible and
viable.
3
In December of 2020 and based on the positive results from
the Phase One study, Triton was engaged to move forward
with Phase Two of the study. Phase Two added the Rodeo
Hercules Fire Protection District (RHFPD) and includes a
comprehensive analysis of each district’s financial, staffing,
support programs, and operational capabilities related to the
feasibility of annexation of ECCFPD & RHFPD into CCCFPD.
The study also includes Contra Costa County’s Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) Service and Sphere Review
Requirements found in CGC sections 56430 and 56425.
Introduction continued…
4
Overview of All Agency Findings
•All three districts currently participate in a Regional Communications
center. An opportunity exists to reduce operating and
administrative costs through the proposed annexation while
increasing service levels significantly.
•There are no deployment-related impediments to annexation.
•Combined projected recurring revenues are sufficient to provide for
combined currently projected recurring expenses and anticipated
expansion of services in CCCFPD and ECCFPD through the fiscal
projection period identified in the project scope of work.
5
Overview of All Agency Findings
•Annexation will enhance and standardize training throughout
the area.
•Annexation is projected to result in cost savings due to
combining technology infrastructure, fleet maintenance, and
other administrative functions.
•Command and control of multi-company incidents will be
improved as a result of annexation.
•Annexation will enhance and standardize public education
outreach.
6
Overview of Findings continued…
•Each fire district has a comprehensive and extensive training program;
however, training emphasis was inconsistent between organizations.
•There appears to be minimal differences between the three organizations
relating to specific code enforcement.
•Through existing reserves and future development fees, funding and other
non-recurring receipts exists to provide for fire station construction,
apparatus acquisition, and debt service on existing obligations on a
combined basis through the fiscal projection period identified in the project
scope of work.
•Combined projected reserve balances never fall below 35% ($76,000,000)
through the fiscal projection period identified in the project scope of work.
7
Financial Analysis
History of East Contra Costa & Rodeo-Hercules
FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20
Recurring Revenues 12,482,422 14,190,374 14,962,781 16,590,390 16,288,788
Non-Recurring Revenues --703,186 408,349 4,408
Special Restricted 168,524 169,161 172,916 175,881 392,587
Total Revenues 12,650,946 14,359,535 15,838,883 17,174,620 16,685,773
East Contra Costa Fire Protection District
Summary of Page 20, Figure 11
8
FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20
Recurring Revenues 5,794,164 5,937,178 5,408,365 6,324,504 6,373,816
Non-Recurring Revenues 1,093,555 555,204 23,917 --
Special Restricted 65,000 65,000 2,429,756 2,608,977 2,581,957
Total Revenues 6,952,719 6,557,382 7,862,038 8,933,481 9,055,773
Financial Analysis
History of East Contra Costa & Rodeo-Hercules
Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District
Summary of Page 23, Figure 14
9
FY 21/22 FY 22/23 FY 23/24 FY 24/25 FY 25/26
Recurring Revenues 189,012,142 195,340,123 202,503,042 210,255,420 218,346,910
Recurring Expenses 167,916,948 180,189,434 190,433,310 201,294,915 212,777,124
Increase (Decrease)21,095,194 15,150,689 12,069,732 8,960,506 5,569,785
Beginning Operating Reserve -21,095,014 36,245,883 48,315,615 57,276,121
Ending Operating Reserve 21,095,194 36,245,883 48,315,615 57,276,121 62,845,906
Combined Operations
Summary of Page 158/159, Figure 140/141, Recurring Revenues and Recurring Expenses
Fiscal Sustainability of
the Proposed Annexations
10
Combined Special Revenues & Capital Expenditures
Summary of Page 161/162, Figure 142/143, Non-Recurring Revenues and Non-Recurring Expenditures
FY 21/22 FY 22/23 FY 23/24 FY 24/25 FY 25/26
Non-Recurring Revenues 318,087 7,318,087 318,087 318,087 318,087
Special Revenues 392,578 7,411,200 422,054 441,147 460,489
Debt Service 17,794,203 3,747,468 4,489,468 4,532,468 4,010,251
Capital Outlay 1,385,520 8,622,744 9,231,026 1,164,482 1,110,616
Increase (Decrease)(18,479,058)2,359,075 (11,980,354)(4,937,716)(4,342,291)
Beginning Capital Reserve 56,000,000 37,520,942 39,880,017 27,899,663 22,961,948
Ending Capital Reserve 37,520,942 39,880,017 27,899,663 22,961,948 18,619,656
Fiscal Sustainability of
the Proposed Annexations
11
Combined Operating and Capital Reserve Balances
Summary of Page 163, Figure 144
FY 21/22 FY 22/23 FY 23/24 FY 24/25 FY 25/26
Beginning Reserves 56,000,000 58,616,136 76,125,900 76,215,278 80,238,068
Net Operations 21,095,194 15,150,689 12,069,732 8,960,506 5,569,785
Net Capital (Decrease)(18,479,058)2,369,075 (11,980,354)(4,937,716)(4,342,291)
Ending Reserves 58,616,136 76,125,900 76,215,278 80,238,068 78,818,681
Fiscal Sustainability of
the Proposed Annexations
12
Recommendations
Recommendation 1: ECCFPD, RHFPD, and CCCFPD
should move forward with annexation.
Based on the analysis, annexation will increase both the
effectiveness and efficiency of the service delivery system and
the efficiency of the administrative functions.
13
Recommendations
Recommendation 2: Municipal Services Review Update
It is recommended that LAFCO review and adopt the proposed
determinations associated with this MSR update at a public
hearing.
14
Recommendations
Recommendation 3: Adopt Resolutions for Reorganization
Should the three districts decide to pursue annexation, the districts
should adopt substantially similar resolutions initiating the
reorganization, including provision for Sphere of Influence
amendments of all three districts as outlined in the Sphere of
Influence Update to meet LAFCO requirements that SOIs be
consistent for any change of organization.
15
Recommendations
Recommendation 4: ECCFPD, RHFPD & CCCFPD Coordinate
with LAFCO
Should the districts choose to move forward with an application for
reorganization to LAFCO, it is recommended the agencies
coordinate with LAFCO to process the necessary SOI update at a
public hearing prior to consideration of the reorganization
application, as required by LAFCO policy.
16
Recommendations
Recommendation 5: LAFCO Update Sphere of Influence
LAFCO consider and adopt the proposed SOI Update and
associated determinations at a public hearing, consisting of Zero
SOIs for ECCFPD and RHFPD and an expansion of CCCFPD's SOI
to include the territory of the districts to be annexed.
17
Recommendations
Recommendation 6: Standardize training programs
specific to special team response.
Station and apparatus crews will need to be combined with
individuals from separate organizations. It will be the responsibility of
the Training Division to ensure that all firefighters meet minimum
expectations. Individuals from ECCFPD and RHFD will need focused
training and certifications to support existing special assignments.
18
Recommendations
Recommendation 7: Develop a balanced training
program.
A combined organization will need to determine a training
philosophy and develop a standardized program that meets the
community's needs.
19
Recommendations
Recommendation 8: Increase multi-company training for
the annexed areas.
With the potential addition of two new areas to the CCCFPD
system, the combined system should emphasize additional multi-
company training.
20
Recommendations
Recommendation 9: Increase training and response
capabilities for hazmat incidents.
Due to the large oil refineries in the response areas, a combined
organization will need to continue focused training and response
to potentially significant hazmat incidents.
21
Recommendations
Recommendation 10: Develop a standardized public
education program throughout the newly annexed areas.
The development of an outreach program that can be
documented and measured for effectiveness is essential to quality
public outreach. A combined organization should develop a
standardized public education program.
22
Recommendations
Recommendation 11: Develop a company inspection
program for high occupancy/high-risk facilities.
AP Triton recommends on-duty engine companies perform
building familiarization and pre-plan familiarization. This function
supports firefighter safety as well as improved fire ground
operations.
23
Recommendations
Recommendation 12: Reopen ECCFPD Station 55 to
improve service.
Funding is increasing with increased tax values and special
assessments and should be sufficient to complete and staff
Station 55.
24
Recommendations
Recommendation 13: Acquire and staff a Ladder
Company within ECCFPD’s service area.
Recommendation 14: Reopen CCCFPD Station 4.
The deployment modeling has identified a gap in the area that
would be served by Fire Station 4.
25
Enhancements
•Standardization of response protocols and service
throughout the areas
•Training will be standardized throughout the area
•Standardization of apparatus and purchasing
•Operational consistency and enhanced firefighter
safety
•Elimination of duplicative administrative and
operational structures
26
Enhancements
•Reduced legal and auditing costs
•Reduced technology/software costs
•Reduction in insurance costs
•Possible reduction in Board expenses and election
expenses
•Addition of Engine and Ladder Companies
27
VISION INNOVATION SOLUTIONS
QUESTIONS
Fire District
Annexation
Feasibility Study
July 2021
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Fire Protection District
RODEO-HERCULES
Fire Protection District
EAST CONTRA COSTA
Fire Protection District
California
Phase Two
Volume 1
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
i
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................... iii
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... iv
SECTION I-A: BASELINE AGENCY EVALUATIONS .............................................................. 5
Overview of the Communities ..................................................................................................... 6
Population & Demographics ................................................................................................... 6
Demographics of the Fire Districts Combined ....................................................................... 8
Descriptions of the Fire Districts ................................................................................................... 9
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District ......................................................................... 9
East Contra Costa Fire Protection District ............................................................................. 11
Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District ................................................................................. 13
Study Area ................................................................................................................................ 15
Financial Analysis of the Districts ............................................................................................... 16
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District ....................................................................... 16
East Contra Costa Fire Protection District ............................................................................. 18
Rodeo-Hercules Fire District .................................................................................................... 22
Management Components ....................................................................................................... 26
Mission, Vision, & Values ......................................................................................................... 26
Internal & External Communications ..................................................................................... 30
Regulatory Documents & Recordkeeping ........................................................................... 33
Staffing & Personnel Management ............................................................................................ 40
Administrative & Support Staffing .......................................................................................... 40
Staff Allocation to Functions & Divisions................................................................................ 43
Operational Staffing Levels .................................................................................................... 44
Current Standards of Coverage & Staffing for Incidents .................................................... 47
Capital Facilities & Apparatus ................................................................................................... 63
Fire Stations & Facilities ........................................................................................................... 65
Apparatus & Vehicles ............................................................................................................. 67
Capital Medical & Other Equipment .................................................................................... 78
Historical Service Delivery & Performance ............................................................................... 80
Temporal Analysis .................................................................................................................... 82
Unit Workload Analysis ............................................................................................................ 92
Historical System Performance .............................................................................................. 99
Stakeholder Input & Online Survey Results ............................................................................. 114
SECTION I-B: SUPPORT PROGRAMS ............................................................................... 118
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
ii
Emergency Medical Services .................................................................................................. 119
Training & Continuing Education ............................................................................................. 123
Life Safety Programs & Public Education ................................................................................ 133
Special Operations ................................................................................................................... 140
SECTION II: OPPORTUNITIES FOR ANNEXATION ............................................................ 146
General Partnering Options ..................................................................................................... 147
Options for Shared Services ................................................................................................. 148
Annexation ............................................................................................................................. 151
Financial Impact of Annexation .............................................................................................. 155
SECTION III: SERVICE REVIEW & SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE .................................. 164
LAFCO Requirements ................................................................................................................ 165
Municipal Service Review ........................................................................................................ 168
Sphere of influence Update ..................................................................................................... 178
SECTION IV: FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... 186
Findings ...................................................................................................................................... 187
Contra Costa County FPD .................................................................................................... 187
East Contra Costa FPD .......................................................................................................... 187
Rodeo-Hercules FPD ............................................................................................................. 188
All Agencies ........................................................................................................................... 188
Proposed Recommendations .................................................................................................. 190
SECTION V—VOLUME 1: APPENDICES ........................................................................... 195
Volume 1—Appendix A: Table of Figures ............................................................................... 196
Volume 1—Appendix B: References ....................................................................................... 201
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
AP Triton wishes to extend its sincere appreciation to each of those who contributed to this
project—elected officials, fire chiefs, officers, and representatives of the fire districts
included in this study, along with many other individuals who lent their time and assistance
to this project.
Contra Costa County FPD East Contra Costa FPD Rodeo-Hercules FPD
Lewis Broschard
Fire Chief
Brian Helmick
Fire Chief
Bryan Craig
Fire Chief
Mike Quesada
Assistant Fire Chief
Regina Rubier
Chief Admin. Officer
Getachew Demeku-Ousman
Finance Officer
Aaron McAlister
Deputy Fire Chief
Steve Aubert
Fire Marshal
Jackie Lorrekovich
Administrative Services Chief
Ross Macumber
Battalion Chief
Chuck Stark
Assistant Fire Chief
Craig Auzenne
Battalion Chief
Lon Goetsch
Assistant Fire Chief
Jeffrey Burris
Battalion Chief
Chris Bachman
Fire Marshal
Gilbert Guerrero
Battalion Chief
Our sincere appreciation is extended to each of you…
…and to each of the firefighters and prevention
and support staff who daily serve the citizens
and visitors of Contra Costa County
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
iv
INTRODUCTION
AP Triton, LLC (Triton) was retained to conduct a two-phase study. Phase One, which was
completed in November of 2020, included Triton’s review and comparison of the
conceptual annexation of East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD) by Contra
Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD, utilizing projected operational costs
provided by CCCFPD and historical and projected revenue data from ECCFPD to include:
• Sources of recurring and non-recurring revenue, including property taxes
• Existing revenue and projections for the next 3–6 years
• Costs of existing levels of service and projections for the next 3–6 years
• Contractual services provided to the district by CAL FIRE
• Indirect costs, cost allocations, and contractual obligations
The analysis conducted during Phase One concluded with a preliminary determination
that the annexation of East Contra Costa Fire Protection District into Contra Costa County
Fire Protection District was feasible and viable.
In December of 2020, and due to the positive results from the Phase One study, Triton was
engaged to move forward with Phase Two of the study. Phase Two added the Rodeo
Hercules Fire Protection District (RHFPD) and includes a comprehensive analysis of each
district’s financial, staffing, support programs, and operational capabilities related to the
feasibility of annexation of ECCFPD & RHFPD into CCCFPD. The study also includes Contra
Costa County’s Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Service and Sphere Review
Requirements found in CGC sections 56430 and 56425.
The following report represents hundreds of hours of work by Triton’s subject matter experts,
who approached this project from an unbiased perspective without any pre-conceptions.
This study complies with the agreed-upon project scope of work.
The study represents a snap-shot in time and is an in-depth review of all aspects of each
district and concludes with findings and a recommendation that, should the policymakers
agree, the annexation of CCFPD and RHFPD into CCFPD is feasible. In addition, the study
provides the policymakers with the necessary findings and conclusions that comply with
CGC sections 56430 and 56425 as necessary to move forward with LAFCO.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
5
Section I-A:
BASELINE AGENCY EVALUATIONS
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
6
OVERVIEW OF THE COMMUNITIES
Contra Costa County is located in the East Bay region of the Bay Area in California. The
County comprises 720 square miles with six different terrains. The San Andreas, Calaveras,
and Hayward faults run under the Bay Area.
Contra Costa County is home to 19
incorporated cities and many
unincorporated communities.1 The City of
Concord is the most populated, followed by
Antioch, Richmond, San Ramon, and
Pittsburg. Martinez serves as the County seat.
The least populated city is Clayton. Another
32 communities are census-designated
places (e.g., Discovery Bay, Byron, Bay Point).
Population & Demographics
Current and accurate population statistics
specific to each of the fire districts are
minimal. Therefore, Triton has reviewed the
available Contra Costa County statistics. The
U.S. Census Bureau estimates the County’s
2019 population at 1,153,256 persons—which
was an increase of about 10% from 2010.2
More than 18% of the population is age 60 years and over, while over 27% of the
population is age 19 years or younger.3 The majority of the population (64.2%) is comprised
of Caucasians, followed by Hispanic or Latinos (24.4%), Asians (14.7%), and Black or African
American (9.3%).4
The Census Bureau estimates 367,883 individual households in the County have a median
household income in the last 12 months of $73,721, with just over 9% of the population
below the poverty level. Of the County’s total housing units, over 66% are owner-occupied,
and nearly 34% are renter-occupied.5
Figure 1: Contra Costa County, California
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
7
The following figure shows the latest (2010) available population density data from the U.S.
Census Bureau of Contra Costa County and each of the fire districts.
The preceding figure represents population density from the 2010 census; however, it is
likely that the resident populations have grown substantially in each fire district over the last
10 years.
Figure 2: Population Density per Square Mile of the Fire Districts (2010)
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
8
Demographics of the Fire Districts Combined
The following figure lists the combined population and service areas of each of the fire
protection districts.
Figure 3: Combined Populations & Service Areas of the Fire Districts
Fire District PopulationA Service Area
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District 600,000 306 sq. milesB
East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 129,000 249 sq. miles
Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District 34,280 32 sq. miles
Totals: 763,280 587 sq. miles
ABased on estimates provided the districts.
BDoes not include the additional approximately 300 square miles of the ambulance service area.
Although CCCFPD’s basic service area is more than 306 square miles, the District provides
ambulance service to more than 300 additional square miles.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
9
DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FIRE DISTRICTS
The following section provides a general description of each of the three fire protection
districts participating in this annexation study.
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD) was originally formed in 1964
due to the Central Fire Protection District and Mt. Diablo Fire Protection District merger.
Since then, ten other fire protection districts in the region have merged with CCCFPD.
The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District’s primary service area comprises
approximately 306 square miles. More than 300 additional square miles comprises the
response area for ambulance service and transport.6 Data from the U.S. Census Bureau
indicates a 2010 resident population of 574,946 persons, however, the District estimates a
population of approximately 600,000 persons.7 About half the District is considered “urban,”
25% “suburban,” and the remaining 25% “rural” or “remote.”8
Governance
The five-member elected Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors serve as CCCFPD’s
Board of Directors. The Board oversees the Fire Chief, sets general policies, and approves
the budget. The Fire Chief is responsible for the administrative functions and daily
operations of CCCFPD.
District Services
CCCFPD is an all-hazards fire district providing traditional fire protection, wildland
firefighting, medical first-response (MFR), Advanced Life Support (ALS) ambulance
transport, various special operations (e.g., water rescue, hazardous materials response,
marine firefighting, technical rescue, etc.), and a comprehensive life-safety and
prevention program that includes inspections, a dedicated fire investigation unit, code
enforcement, plan reviews, and public education. In 2005, the District was given an
Insurance Services Office (ISO) Public Protection Classification (PPC®) score of 3/8b).
CCCFPD is accredited through the Commission on Accreditation of Ambulance Services
(CAAS).
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
10
CCCFPD deploys its apparatus from 26 staffed fire stations located throughout the District.
Two other stations are currently closed due to a lack of funding and are projected to be
reopened in the near future; an additional station is utilized for the District's reserve
firefighters and staffed on a rotational basis. The District operates a wide variety of fire
apparatus and ambulances (more detail provided under “Capital Facilities & Apparatus”).
Ambulance Transport
In 2016, CCCFPD developed a unique arrangement with American Medical Response, Inc.
(AMR) that they refer to as the “Alliance.” The program utilizes AMR EMS personnel to staff
CCCFPD’s 30 ALS ambulances, assisted by District firefighters certified as EMTs or
Paramedics and functioning in an MFR capacity.
Regional Fire Communications
CCCFPD operates the Contra Costa Regional Fire Communications Center (CCRFCC),
which serves as a secondary Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for most fire and EMS 911
calls in the County. CCRFCC provides dispatch to its district, plus ECCFPD, RHFPD, and four
other fire agencies. The Center dispatches more than 140,000 emergency and non-
emergency fire and EMS incidents annually.9
In 2018, the Center made substantial improvements to the system by adding more staff
and upgrading radio, telephone, and information technology services.
CCRFCC’s 911 Call-Takers are all certified in Emergency Medical Dispatch through the
International Academies of Emergency Dispatch (IAED) and provide pre-arrival instructions
to callers reporting medical emergencies.
Along with its staff, CCRFC houses 13 System Status Management Dispatchers employed by
American Medical Response.
CCCFPD Organizational Structure
CCCFPD currently maintains about 435 funded positions, including staff in the dispatch
center. Thirteen of these positions are financed via the District’s EMS Transport Fund. The
following figure shows the 2021 organizational structure of CCCFPD.
As shown in the following figure, the Fire Chief and Deputy Fire Chief supervise seven
divisions, six of which are managed by an Assistant Fire Chief and one by the Chief of
Administrative Services.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
11
East Contra Costa Fire Protection District
East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD) is a relatively new fire district, having
been formed in 2002 by the consolidation of the East Diablo Fire District (EDFD), Oakley Fire
District (OFD), and Bethel Island Fire District (BIFD). EDFD was originally formed through the
merger of four much older fire districts. After a fire in 1924, the community formed the OFD.
BIFD was created in 1947, was dissolved in 1994, and became part of CCCFPD. In 1999,
BIFD was re-created and became part of East Contra Costa FPD.
The District encompasses an area of approximately 249 square miles. Data from U.S. Census
Bureau data indicates a 2010 resident population of 109,684 persons; however, ECCFPD
estimates a population of approximately 129,000 persons, of which 15% are considered
suburban and 85% rural or remote.
Governance
The East Contra Costa Fire Protection District is governed by a five-member elected Board
of Directors responsible for budget approval and general policies. The Fire Chief manages
the administration and daily operations of the District and answers directly to the Board.
Figure 4: CCCFPD Organizational Structure (2021)
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
12
District Services
ECCFPD is an all-hazards fire district providing traditional structural fire suppression, wildland
firefighting, Basic Life Support (BLS) level medical first response (EMS), rescue, and
hazardous materials response. The District deploys its apparatus and personnel from three
fire stations and has an ISO PPC® rating of 4/9.
ECCFPD’s Fire Prevention Bureau provides inspections, code enforcement, plan reviews,
fire investigations, and various public education programs. In addition, the Bureau
conducts inspections of public and private properties for compliance with its weed
abatement ordinance.
ECCFPD Organizational Structure
The East Contra Costa Fire Protection District employs 37 uniformed and non-uniformed
personnel, which includes 10 firefighters, nine Engineers, nine Captains, four Battalion
Chiefs. The Fire Chief supervises several administrative and support staff positions, the Fire
Marshal, and four Battalion Chiefs (BCs).
Three Battalion Chiefs are responsible for their respective shifts (A, B, and C) in addition to
managing one of three programs—Logistics, Training, or EMS & Safety. A fourth BC
supervises Fire Suppression/Operations.
The Fire Marshal supervises a Deputy Fire Marshal, two Fire Inspectors, and other positions
within the Bureau. The Fire Chief has direct supervision of the Chief Administrative Officer
and several other administrative positions.
The following figure illustrates the current 2021 organizational structure of the East Contra
Costa Fire Protection District.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
13
Several positions within ECCFPD are funded but not yet filled. ECCFPD has elected not to fill
these positions in anticipation of the potential annexation and completion of Triton’s study.
Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District
In 1937, the Rodeo Fire District (RFD) was established to provide fire protection for Rodeo’s
unincorporated community. The City of Hercules was annexed into RFD in 1978 and the
name of the District was changed to the Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District (RHFPD).
The District encompasses an area of approximately 32 square miles. Data from the U.S.
Census Bureau indicates a 2010 resident population of 32,823 persons; however, the District
estimates a population of approximately 34,280 persons.10
Governance
The Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District is governed by a five-member elected Board of
Directors responsible for budget approval and general policies. The Fire Chief manages the
administration and daily operations of the District and answers directly to the Board.
Figure 5: ECCFPD Organizational Structure (2021)
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
14
District Services
RHFPD is an all-hazards fire district providing traditional structural fire protection, wildland
firefighting, ALS-level medical first-response (MFR), technical rescue (auto extrication, high-
angle and low-angle rescue, water rescue, and hazardous materials response). The District
deploys its apparatus and personnel from two fire stations and has an ISO PPC® rating of
2/2.
The District also provides code enforcement, fire inspections, plan reviews, fire cause
investigations, and public education and prevention programs.
RHFPD Organizational Structure
Rodeo-Hercules FPD employs 21 full-time and two part-time uniformed and non-uniformed
personnel. The Fire Chief also serves as the District’s Fire Marshal and supervises an Assistant
Fire Marshal. Operations are divided into three shifts (A, B, and C) with two Captains, two
Engineers, and two Firefighters assigned to each. Each shift and station have at least one
Paramedic assigned. An RHFPD Battalion Chief supervises the operations personnel
assigned to A Shift. The Pinole Fire Department provides a BC for B Shift through a unique
arrangement, and CCCFPD provides a BC for C Shift.
The next figure is an illustration of the current 2021 organizational structure of RHFPD.
Figure 6: RHFPD Organizational Chart (2021)
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
15
Study Area
The following image shows the study area, which includes the service-area boundaries of
each of the fire districts.
The preceding figure illustrates the overall study area with the fire districts shown. The study
area comprises a combined area of approximately 587 square miles and a total resident
population of over 763,280 persons.
Figure 7: Annexation Study Area
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
16
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE DISTRICTS
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
The area of California in which the jurisdiction is located has seen significant growth during
the past several years. Property tax revenue is the most significant contributor of revenue to
CCCFPD each year. This source has grown from $110,339,000 in fiscal 16/17 to an estimated
$132,993,000 in fiscal 19/20, an increase of 20% or almost 7% annually. Total recurring
revenues have increased 14.5% during the same period or almost 5% on an annual basis.
Charges for services include fees for dispatch services to other agencies, plan reviews and
inspections, false alarm charges, and charges to other government agencies. The
following figure provides a historical view of recurring, non-recurring, and total revenues for
CCCFPD from FY 16/17 through budgeted FY 20/21.
Figure 8: CCCFPD Historic & Budgeted Revenues
Revenue FY 16/17
Actual
FY 17/18
Actual
FY 18/19
Actual
FY 19/20
Estimate
FY 20/21
Budget
Property taxes 110,338,530 116,741,014 125,782,571 132,992,783 136,783,250
Other property taxes 806,037 707,002 802,048 513,629 812,000
Charges for services 7,928,777 8,896,459 9,713,007 9,369,694 11,312,850
Intergov. revenues 9,463,654 3,254,195 3,614,903 4,304,856 5,026,205
Recurring Revenue: 128,536,998 129,598,670 139,912,529 147,180,962 153,934,305
Other receipts 1,456,124 4,630,125 1,376,074 1,146,168 1,340,000
Non-Recurring: 1,456,124 4,630,125 1,376,074 1,146,168 1,340,000
TOTAL REVENUES: 129,993,122 134,228,795 141,288,603 148,327,130 155,274,305
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
17
The following figure visually indicates the trends identified from the analysis in the
preceding figure.
The area served by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District is experiencing
significant growth in both residential as well as commercial developments. Revenue
projections for property tax growth have been conservatively estimated at 4% annually.
Charges for services are expected to grow at approximately 4.5% annually as services
expand to meet the increased demand from the development growth. The following
figure uses the above growth factors to indicate projected revenues from FY 21/22 through
FY 26/27.
$129,993,122
$134,228,795 $141,565,453 $148,327,130 $155,274,305
$0
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
$100,000,000
$120,000,000
$140,000,000
$160,000,000
$180,000,000
16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21
Property & other taxes Other property taxes Charges for services Intergovernmental Other
Figure 9: CCCFPD Historic & Budgeted Revenues Indicating Trends
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
18
Figure 10: CCCFPD Revenue Projections (FY 21/22–FY 26/27)
Revenue FY 21/22 FY 22/23 FY 23/24 FY 24/25 FY 25/26 FY 26/27
Property taxes 144,055,800 149,818,032 155,810,753 162,043,183 168,524,911 175,265,907
Other tax revenue 812,000 812,000 812,000 812,000 812,000 812,000
Intergov. revenue 4,481,500 3,709,500 3,443,500 3,443,500 3,443,500 3,443,500
Services charge 11,468,800 11,887,080 12,347,188 12,853,307 13,410,037 14,022,441
Recurring Revenue: 160,818,100 166,226,612 172,413,441 179,151,990 186,190,448 193,543,848
Other revenues 1,105,000 1,105,000 1,105,000 1,105,000 1,105,000 1,105,000
Non-Recurring: 1,105,000 1,105,000 1,105,000 1,105,000 1,105,000 1,105,000
Total Revenues: 161,923,100 167,331,612 173,518,441 180,256,990 187,295,448 194,648,848
East Contra Costa Fire Protection District
Over the past several years, revenues from property taxes have increased substantially,
from $10,353,000 in FY 14/15 to $14,372,000 in FY 18/19, an approximate 40% total increase
or 8% annually. Contra Costa County distributes property tax revenue to ECCFPD under the
Teeter Plan, which provides an option for the District to receive 100% of the property tax
assessments annually. In return, the District allows the County to retain interest and
penalties on the collection of late property tax payments. RDA pass-through revenues
have fluctuated between $390,000 in FY 14/15 (low) and $638,000 in FY 16/17 (high).
Intergovernmental revenues have been received during the prior years from FY 14/15
through FY 17/18 but are not projected into the future periods. In 2016, the Contra Costa
County Board of Supervisors approved a reallocation of property tax funding from the
Byron Bethany Irrigation District to ECCFPD. These funds, beginning in FY 17/18, have
provided more than $800,000 annually to the District. The funding is continuous and will
benefit the entity providing fire and EMS services to the area.
The District assesses a First Responder Fee to recipients of EMS services. Contra Costa
County provides Measure H funding to offset a portion of providing EMS services. Other
recurring revenues include homeowner property tax relief and other “in-lieu” taxes. The
overall reduction in anticipated revenues in FY 19/20 results from decreases in pass-through
income, homeowner property tax relief, charges for services, and intergovernmental
revenues.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
19
It is critical for an agency to have a stable and reliable source of revenue each year. The
definition of recurring revenues are those items that are anticipated and reasonably
quantifiable to be received from year to year. Non-recurring revenues, conversely, are
receipts that may or may not be received annually or that are not reasonably quantifiable
each year. Examples of these receipts may be grant funds, loan proceeds, insurance
proceeds, reimbursements of extraordinary expenses, and any other miscellaneous
receipts.
ECCFPD has entered into agreements with several new developments to collect impact
fees for funding under Government Code Section 66000. These fees are designated to
mitigate the impacts of providing fire services to areas outside of current fire station
response areas and can only be used to provide facilities and equipment.
ECCFPD receives parcel tax revenue from several Community Facilities Districts (CFD)
formed according to the Mello-Roos Act (Gov. Code Section 53311 et seq.). These
revenues primarily fund operating costs to increase service levels for properties
participating in the CFDs. The District also receives revenues from fire facility impact fees
imposed under the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code 66000 et seq.) by the City of Brentwood,
City of Oakley, and Contra Costa County. These are one-time fees paid by new
development to mitigate the capital costs of providing service to this development.
The following figure provides a historical perspective on these revenue sources.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
20
Figure 11: ECCFPD Historic & Budgeted Revenue Sources (FY 15/16–FY 20/21)11
Revenue Description
FY
15/16
Actual
FY
16/17
Actual
FY
17/18
Actual
FY
18/19
Actual
FY 19/20
Estimate
FY 20/21
Budget
Property taxes 11,316,855 12,515,243 13,343,148 14,379,074 14,866,399 15,671,269
Pass-throughs from others 559,464 638,057 477,057 606,234 297,730 477,056
Homeowner tax relief 90,264 90,404 91,324 90,451 44,898 93,150
Other in-lieu taxes 14,950 14,967 14,981 14,426 15,005 15,281
Other revenues 1,993 15,785 — — — —
Use of money & property — — 15,600 15,600 15,000 7,500
Investment earnings — — — — — —
Intergovernmental revenues 498,896 915,918 218,391 534,247 — —
B-B Irrigation District — — 802,280 839,358 892,938 946,514
First Responder Fee — — — 95,000 156,808 160,000
Fire recovery Fee — — — 16,000 — 51,000
Fire Prevention — — — — — 237,000
Recurring Revenue: 12,482,422 14,190,374 14,962,781 16,590,390 16,288,778 17,658,770
Charges for services — — 80,186 379,697 — —
Shea Homes Settlement — — 623,000 — — —
JAC PV Ed Reimbursements — — 28,652 4,408 4,500
Non-Recurring Revenue: — — 703,186 408,349 4,408 4,500
Measure H — — — — 218,087 218,087
BI Development Fee 6,154 3,143 989 — — 1,000
ED Development Fee — — 1,380 — — 1,380
Cypress CFD Fund Revenue 162,370 166,018 170,547 175,881 174,500 181,800
Oakley Development Fee — — — — — —
Delta Coves CFD — — — — — 11,640
Total Special Revenue (Net): 168,524 169,161 172,916 175,881 392,587 413,907
Total Revenues: 12,650,946 14,359,535 15,838,883 17,174,620 16,685,773 18,077,177
The following figure provides a visual format of information from the preceding figure. It
indicates the trend in the growth of property tax and total revenues from Fiscal Years 14/15
to budgeted FY 20/21.12
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
21
Figure 12: ECCFPD Historic & Budgeted Revenues Indicating Trends
Revenue Projections
The initial revenue projections for ECCFPD were provided to AP Triton by the District.
Following a review of these projections, Triton determined that the property tax revenue
growth estimates were extremely conservative, based on the trends of the prior five years.
To better estimate future revenue, adjustments have been made to the figures provided by
the District. Triton used revenue information provided by ECCFPD for FY 21/22 and
increased that by 4% annually. Revenue from Byron-Bethany Irrigation District and the First
Responder Fee revenue, using the CCCFPD First Responder Fee structure and experience,
is projected to increase by 2% annually. The Fire Recovery Fee was eliminated in the
revenue projections. Other revenues are not projected to increase during the period.
The following figure is the revenue portion of the ECCFPD adopted budget for FY 20/21 and
formed the basis for the revenue projections.
$12,650,946
$14,359,535
$15,838,883
$17,174,620 $16,685,773
$18,077,177
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
$16,000,000
$18,000,000
$20,000,000
FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21
Real Estate Taxes Other Recurring Revenue Restricted Revenue Total
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
22
Figure 13: ECCFPD Projected Revenues (FY 21/22–FY 26/27)
Revenue FY 21/22 FY 22/23 FY 23/24 FY 24/25 FY 25/26 FY 26/27
Property taxes 16,875,770 17,550,801 18,252,833 18,982,946 19,742,264 20,531,955
Pass-throughs–other
agencies 477,056 477,056 477,056 477,056 477,056 477,056
Homeowner property tax
relief 93,150 93,150 93,150 93,150 93,150 93,150
Other in-lieu taxes 15,281 15,281 15,281 15,281 15,281 15,281
Other revenues — — — — — —
Use of money & property 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
Investment earnings — — — — — —
Fire Prevention 248,852 256,316 264,005 271,925 280,083 288,485
Byron-Bethany Irrigation
District 956,515 994,431 1,019,292 1,044,774 1,070,894 1,097,666
First Responder Fee 175,000 178,500 182,070 185,711 189,426 193,214
Fire recovery Fee 52,000 53,060 54,122 55,209 56,308 57,434
Recurring Revenue: 18,908,622 19,633,594 20,372,809 21,141,053 21,939,461 22,769,241
JAC PV Ed Reimbursements 4,682 4,776 4,871 4,969 5,068 5,169
Non-Recurring Revenue: 4,682 4,776 4,871 4,969 5,068 5,169
Measure H 218,087 218,087 218,087 218,087 218,087 218,087
Bethel Island Development
Fee Fund Revenue 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
East Diablo Development
Fee Fund Revenue 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380 1,380
Cypress Lakes CFD Fund
Revenue 189,198 195,820 202,674 209,767 217,109 224,708
Oakley CFD 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000
Delta Coves CFD 36,000 48.000 52,000 64,000 76,000 88,000
Total Special Revenue: 510,665 529,287 540,141 559,234 578,576 598,175
Total Revenue: 19,423,969 20,167,657 20,917,821 21,705,255 21,523,105 23,372,585
Rodeo-Hercules Fire District
Over the past several years, RHFD has experienced an average annual increase in
property tax revenue of approximately 13%. Property taxes are the most significant
revenue source to the District, increasing from $2,988,000 in FY 15/16 to an estimated
$4,378,000 in FY 19/20.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
23
Property taxes are collected by the County and distributed to the District under the Teeter
Plan, which allows the District to receive all property taxes in the year in which they are
levied. In return, the County retains any collections of interest and penalties as well as
delinquent property taxes.13 The District also receives pass-throughs from a successor to a
redevelopment agency. In 2014, voters in the District approved a special benefit
assessment that currently produces approximately $1,347,000 annually.
Measure O was approved by the voters within the District in 2016 through Ordinance No.
2016-1 and provides funding for “enhancing the current level of fire prevention,
emergency fire protection, and paramedic response services through increasing staffing
levels.14 The District also receives Development Impact fees from newly developed
properties in certain areas of the RHFD. The following figure provides the historic and
budgeted revenues for the District from FY 15/16–FY 20/21.
Figure 14: RHFD Historic & Budgeted Revenue Sources15
Revenue FY 15/16
Actual
FY 16/17
Actual
FY 17/18
Actual
FY 18/19
Actual
FY 19/20
Estimate
FY 20/21
Budget
Property taxes 2,987,549 3,105,453 3,571,996 4,188,533 4,377,612 4,156,304
Pass-throughs others 305,354 316,063 311,664 466,141 525,570 375,000
Homeowner tax relief 31,031 31,031 30,500 29,956 29,956 29,956
Other in-lieu taxes — — — — 192 —
Other revenues 64,996 16,725 14,645 43,109 23,109 23,109
Charges for services 119,135 118,952 — — — —
Investment earnings — — — — 12,296 12,296
Intergov. revenues — — — 59,812 — —
Benefit District 2,286,099 2,348,954 1,339,548 1,352,535 1,347,040 1,347,040
Fire prevention — — 52,447 98,825 72,448 55,000
Measure H EMS — — 87,565 85,593 85,593 85,593
Recurring Revenue: 5,794,164 5,937,178 5,408,365 6,324,504 6,473,816 6,084,298
AFG Grant 1,093,555 555,204 23,917 — — —
Non-Recurring: 1,093,555 555,204 23,917 — — —
Measure O — — 2,429,756 2,405,916 2,475,105 2,500,704
Develop. Impact Fee — — — 203,061 106,852 100,000
Phillips 66 65,000 65,000 — — — —
Special Revenue (Net): 65,000 65,000 2,429,756 2,608,977 2,581,957 2,600,704
Total Revenue: 6,952,719 6,557,382 7,862,038 8,933,481 9,055,773 8,685,002
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
24
As indicated, property tax revenues and pass-through receipts have seen consistent
growth over the past five-year period. However, the economic effects of the continued
dissolution of redevelopment agencies have resulted in a projected decline, as identified
in the FY 20/21 budget in real estate tax and related revenues in FY 20/21.
Revenues from the Benefit District decreased dramatically in FY 17/18 but stabilized
thereafter. Measure O revenues have remained consistent during the three-year period of
the program’s existence.
The following figure is a graphic representation that shows the revenue growth and trends
for the District from FY 15/16 through FY 20/21.
Revenue Projections
Property tax revenues are projected to increase at 4% annually, with other recurring
revenues remaining constant during the projection period. This is a conservative projection
based on the trend analysis of the past five years. The Measure O revenues are projected
to increase by approximately 3% annually. Both Measure O and the special benefit
assessment revenues must be spent only to enhance services within the RHFD.
$6,952,719 $6,557,382
$7,862,038
$8,933,481 $9,055,773 $8,685,002
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
$10,000,000
FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21
Real Estate Taxes Other Recurring Revenue Restricted Revenue
Non-recurring revenue Total
Figure 15: RHFD Historic Revenues Indicating Trends (FY 15/16–FY 20/21)
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
25
The following figure uses previously mentioned trends to project revenues through FY 26/27.
Figure 16: RHFD Revenue Projections (FY 21/22–FY 26/27)
Revenue FY 21/22 FY 22/23 FY 23/24 FY 24/25 FY 25/26 FY 26/27
Property taxes 4,552,080 4,734,163 4,923,530 5,120,471 5,325,290 5,538,301
Pass-throughs 375,000 375,000 375,000 375,000 375,000 375,000
Tax relief 29,956 29,956 29,956 29,956 29,956 29,956
Other revenues 23,109 23,109 23,109 23,109 23,109 23,109
Benefit District 1,347,000 1,347,000 1,347,000 1,347,000 1,347,000 1,347,000
Fire prevention 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000
Measure H EMS 85,593 85,593 85,593 85,593 85,593 85,593
Recurring: 6,467,738 6,649,821 6,839,188 7,036,129 7,240,948 7,453,959
Measure O 2,500,000 2,540,000 2,616,200 2,694,686 2,775,527 2,858,792
Develop. Impact 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
Special Revenue: 2,600,000 2,640,000 2,716,200 2,794,686 2,875,527 2,958,792
TOTAL REVENUES: 9,067,738 9,289,821 9,555,388 9,830,815 10,116,474 10,412,752
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
26
MANAGEMENT COMPONENTS
Effectively managing a fire district is a complex task, often impacted by financial
constraints, political pressures, and demanding community expectations. Today's fire
districts must address these complexities by ensuring an efficient and flexible organizational
structure, adequacy of response, maintenance of competencies, a qualified workforce,
and financial sustainability.
The development of baseline management components in fire service organizations
enables them to move forward in an organized and efficient manner. In the absence of
foundational management elements, organizations can flounder—lost in ineffective
leadership and divergent views of purpose and vision. The need for baseline management
elements is especially true when organizations are attempting to consolidate more
formally.
A well-organized and efficiently administered organization has appropriate
documentation, policies, and procedures, as well as ways to effectively address internal
and external issues. Organizational processes need to manage information and
communication flow within each fire agency and their respective constituents. To identify
potential opportunities and barriers in consolidating districts, Triton examined each of the
Fire Districts' current efforts in organizational planning and management.
Mission, Vision, & Values
The management of a fire district needs to be grounded in the acceptance and adoption
of a strong mission statement and an organizational vision and values. These fundamental
foundation blocks are necessary to ensure everyone in the organization and community
understands why the organization exists, the level of services provided, the district's vision
over the next three to five years, and the goals and objectives to get there. A successful
strategic planning process enables organizational improvements related to the creation
and maintenance of policies and procedures; enhancement of internal and external
communications practices; improved operational deployment; recordkeeping; and
sustainable financial practices.
For an organization to be effective, mission, vision, and value statements must be part of a
"living" process, consciously evolving as the district changes and grows. The strategic
planning process guides the organization through the change and growth processes. The
following figure compares the status of strategic planning among the three agencies.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
27
Figure 17: Mission, Vision, & Strategic Planning Efforts of the Study Districts
District Mission & Goals CCCFPD ECCFPD RHFPD
Mission Statement adopted Yes Yes Yes
Vision established/communicated Yes Yes Yes
Strategic Plan adopted No Yes Old
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
Mission Statement
"The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District exists to provide you, your family, and our
communities with professional services dedicated to the preservation of life, property, and
the environment."
Vision Statement
"Contra Costa County Fire Protection District is a recognized fire service leader that strives
to become the premier fire organization that honors the past, recognizes the challenges of
the present, and will continue to raise the bar of excellence into the future."
Strategic Plan
The District does not have a strategic plan; instead, the District has a one-year Operational
Plan that sets strategic goals and objectives for each division annually. The purpose is to
provide agility in decision-making. The district was in the process of developing a longer-
term plan when COVID-19 struck. The annual plan is currently is on-track to get back into
the longer-term process once the COVID-19 restrictions are lifted.
East Contra Costa Fire Protection District
Mission Statement:
"To preserve and protect life, property, and the environment with service above all else."
Vision Statement
“Our vision is to be recognized as:
• A district that is a model of excellence in both fire protection and life safety.
• Responsive to the needs of the communities we serve.
• Committed to continuous organizational development.
• Committed to an environment of trust, involvement, innovation, creativity, and
accountability.”
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
28
Strategic Plan
The District has a current 2019–2023 strategic plan that the Fire Board has adopted.
Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District
Mission Statement
"It is the mission of this organization to provide the highest level of service to the community;
to mitigate the devastating effects of fires and other disasters, to deliver emergency
medical services, and to educate the public, and maintain a constant state of readiness."
Vision Statement
"The Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District is dedicated to providing fire and life safety with
PRIDE, EXCELLENCE, and PROFESSIONALISM."
Strategic Plan
The District has a 2012 Strategic Plan that is currently on hold during the annexation
process. The resources required to update the plan are now working on the annexation
project.
Critical Issues
As a part of this study, each district provides a list of the top four critical issues facing their
organization. Triton evaluated the responses, looking for commonalities that could lead to
more cohesive planning in the future. The following figure summarizes the issues facing
each organization.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
29
Figure 18: Critical Issues Identified by the Fire Chiefs
Issue No. CCCFPD ECCFPD RHFPD
1
Lack of adequate
resources in Battalion 8 to
meet internal demand
and dependence on
CCCFPD for automatic
aid to ECCFPD
Lack of sustainable
revenue to increase
service levels
Lack of overhead
support for the
organization
2
Recruitment of qualified
FF/Paramedic candidates
Lack of personnel to
manage and mitigate
ECCFPD's daily
operations
Growth impacts not
being met with
existing funding
streams
3
Lack of diversity in recruit
candidates/organization
Historical lack of local
support from District
citizens and
businesses to increase
revenues
Workforce numbers
are not sufficient to
support the current
services
4
Need for increased
participation and
engagement on issues of
wildland fire
prevention/mitigation and
increased wildland
response/resource needs
from June–November
Three stations with
limited personnel, the
District is not able to
cover sick leave due
to catastrophic
situations such as
COVID-19 and
worker’s
compensation injuries
Unable to meet the
increased call load in
the communities
served with existing
personnel and
equipment levels
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
During an interview, the CCCFPD Fire Chief stated that the ECCCFPD is a very busy area
and draws increasing resources from CCCFPD from an equally busy Antioch, Pittsburg, and
Bay Point area. This is unsustainable."
There is a need to recruit a qualified and diverse workforce to fill vacancies and address
potential growth. One of the challenges is having sufficient paramedics at the firefighter
rank as many have promoted. Recruitment of new paramedics is also a challenge."
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
30
East Contra Costa Fire Protection District
During an interview with ECCFPD Chief Helmick, the Chief shared that the District has
struggled for several years to develop revenue streams to meet the increasing demands
for fire and emergency medical services. This struggle for revenue and the growing
demands for services, coupled with the rising costs to provide services, have led ECCCFD
to close fire stations and direct staffing to station locations that are further apart, increasing
response times and lowering service levels. The critical issues identified by ECCCFD align
with the continuing struggle to create a sustainable funding system that will provide
adequate services and response times based on studies to serve the communities properly.
Property tax revenues have been increasing due to new development occurring within the
District and a Measure H initiative has produced additional revenue stabilizing the revenue
streams.
Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District
Interviews with Chief Craig identified several challenges relevant to a potential annexation.
Currently, RHFPD needs overhead staffing to support training, fire prevention, and
management of the organization. Growth impacts projected in the District within the next
five years are not currently funded or planned to support a third fire station's construction
and staffing. Additionally, workforce numbers are insufficient to sustain staffing levels when
increased injury, illness, and vacation time impact coverage. Overall, the District cannot
meet the increased call load in the communities served with existing personnel and
equipment levels without relying on mutual aid and automatic aid agencies.
Internal & External Communications
In today's "hyper-speed" world of organizational communications, the public expects
strategic, frequent, responsive, and transparent communication from government
agencies. Likewise, employees expect the same when disseminating internal messages.
Poor or a lack of practical organizational communication impact the confidence of both
the public and the employees. The lack of confidence in an organization can spread false
and misleading information throughout the community and the employees. Each fire
district uses the essential tools to communicate internally and externally. The following
figure compares the various internal and external communication tools used by each
organization.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
31
Figure 19: Communications Methods Used by the Fire Districts
Communication Method CCCFPD ECCFPD RHFPD
Regularly scheduled staff meetings Yes Yes Yes
Agency Intranet Yes Yes No
Written memos Yes Yes Yes
Internal newsletters Yes Yes Yes
All-hands meetings Yes Yes Yes
Community newsletter Yes No Yes
District website Yes Yes Yes
Social media accounts Yes Yes No
Community surveys No Not recently Not recently
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
• There is a senior staff meeting every week and an Operations staff meeting is held
once a month. The local bargaining unit has representatives present at each of the
meetings. Each Battalion has Captain meetings once a month.
• All-hands meetings are held via remote conferencing software regularly.
• The Fire Chief visits fire stations monthly with the Operations Chief for tabletop station
meetings, which are currently held virtually.
• The District Intranet system is old and the District is moving everything to the Google
Suite cloud system.
• CCCFD sends out what is known as "CON Fire Bulletins" and an "Admin Bulletin" to
deliver organizational information and directives. The District stores the documents in
the Target Solutions cloud-based document management system.
• An internal web portal called "The Tailboard" is a new internal newsletter for the
organization and is published each Friday. The CCCFPD PIO and the CCCFPD
Training Division produce the newsletter.
• The District uses the NEXTDOOR application as the community newsletter. The
CCCFPD has over 190,000 followers.
• The District has not performed a community survey.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
32
East Contra Costa Fire Protection District
The District uses Target Solutions to manage the internal document storage.
• Written memos are sent to the members of the organization to communicate official
District business needs.
• Internal newsletters are published monthly. The newsletters are distributed internally
to the membership and extended support groups. The Fire Chief and the leadership
have sections to provide updates.
• All-hands meetings are conducted twice a year for all three shifts and stations.
Leadership conducts quarterly meetings with Captains before the all-hands
meetings.
• The District does not publish a community newsletter; however, the Fire Chief hosts a
virtual Townhall Meeting for the community on a quarterly schedule. FaceTime live is
the primary platform to deliver information. There are also additional platforms that
provide a wide broadcast of the information.
• The District website is available for community and member use. The site is updated
monthly and continuously improved. The website design provides transparency, and
the District has received special recognition from the California Special Districts
Association. The District website provides public access to fire district records, fire
district information, and a vast array of topics for the community and members to
view.
• The District uses community surveys when highly charged issues need community
insights to understand how best to plan strategically for the future. The Fire Chief
now utilizes community focus groups and the monthly community influence group.
The website also provides for community comments and questions.
Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District
• The COVID-19 situation has negatively impacted the District's regularly scheduled
staff meetings. There are meetings with line personnel and the shift Battalion Chiefs
assigned to the area.
• The District’s internet is hosted by a third-party that provides 24-hour support.
• Memorandums provide administrative, policy, and general information to the
membership. The memos are kept in storage indefinitely.
• Newsletters are generated annually at mid-year to the membership via email.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
33
• The Chief does all-hands meetings with the fire personnel regularly to meet with
personnel during visits to the stations.
• The District uses the agency website to post community newsletters for the general
public.
• The Fire District does not have a social media presence. The Rodeo-Hercules
Professional Firefighters organization has a Facebook account that publishes the
District's news.
• Community surveys have been used in the past to educate citizens about funding
initiatives and measure community sentiment.
Regulatory Documents & Recordkeeping
Government agencies depend on written policies, standard operating guidelines (SOGs),
and reports as effective management and legal compliance components. Each of the fire
districts in this study uses these methods in different ways toward achieving its mission. The
following figure summarizes the various policies:
Figure 20: Regulatory Documents
Regulatory Documents CCCFPD ECCFPD RHFPD
SOGs available for review Yes Yes Yes
SOGs regularly updated Yes Yes No
SOGs used in training evolutions Yes Yes Yes
District policies available for review Yes Yes Yes
Internally reviewed for consistency Yes Yes Yes
Internally reviewed for legal mandates Yes Yes Yes
Training on policies provided Yes Yes Yes
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
• Target Solutions is the central document storage system for Standard Operational
Policies (SOPs), policies, SOGs, and related documents.
• 2018 was a benchmark year for the CCCFPD to review all of the SOP and policy
documents. The goal is to perform an annual review process for the documents.
• The District does perform annual training for the state and federally mandated
human resource policies. Multiple media resources deliver the information to the
employees. New policies are sent via Target Solutions for each member to review.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
34
East Contra Costa Fire Protection District
• SOGs are reviewed quarterly by committees assigned to handle specific topics. The
District has an Operations Committee that utilizes sub-committees to manage SOGs
and operational items.
• Training SOGs undergo regular updates during the same process noted above. The
Training Standards comprised "job sheets" depict each rank's required tasks and
functions.
• District policies are reviewed quarterly by the District’s Labor/Management review
group. All District policies are on the Target Solutions website for the membership to
review. The policies undergo regular review for consistency and legal mandate
changes. In addition, District personnel train on randomly selected Administrative
Bulletins every month, including those that are statutorily required.
Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District
• SOGs are available for review to the membership.
• SOG updates are on schedule on an as-needed basis due solely to the lack of
support personnel to perform the tasks. The process currently used integrates a
Labor/Management approach for review.
• SOG Training evolutions are used and signed monthly by the Battalion Chief.
• District policies are available to the membership and located on the District
website's members-only section, intranet, and hard copy.
• The policies undergo review for consistency on an as-needed basis.
• Contract legal counsel review the policies.
• The monthly Training Calendar guides the employees for an annual review of
policies.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
35
Documentation & Compliance Testing
Proper recordkeeping and secure record archiving are essential to meet government
agencies' legal, regulatory, and business best practices. Secure document archiving can
also help address legal and other administrative actions confronting a fire district. Each
district's recordkeeping systems are listed below:
Figure 21: Reporting & Recordkeeping by the Fire Districts
Report Type CCCFPD ECCFPD RHFPD
Electronic reports Yes Yes Yes
Software used–Fire Fire RMS® Fire RMS® Fire RMS®
Software used–EMS MEDS4 ESO® ePCR Tablet PCR
Periodic Reports to Elected Officials
Financial reports Yes Yes Yes
Management reports Yes Yes Yes
Operational reports Yes Yes Yes
Annual report produced Yes Video Yes
Required Records Maintained & By Whom
Incident reports Yes Yes Yes
Patient care reports Yes Yes Yes
Exposure records Yes Yes Yes
SCBA testing Internal Internal Contracted
Hose testing Internal Internal Internal
Ladder testing Internal Internal Contracted
Pump testing Internal Internal Contracted
Atmospheric monitors Internal Internal Internal
Vehicle maintenance Internal Internal Contracted
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
• The EMS Division utilizes the AMR Ambulance MDS4 electronic reporting system.
• Monthly and semi-monthly reports submitted to the Board of Directors and Fire
Advisory Commission significant incident reports. The district financial information
resides in the countywide financial reporting documents. The contract cities receive
periodic reports from the District.
• The District publishes annual reports in the first quarter of the calendar year, and
plans to generate a 2020 Annual Report in the next few months and get back on
schedule with annual reporting.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
36
• Fire reports are maintained in a primary server by the District IT Division. The AMR
Ambulance MEDS4 cloud-based system manages EMS documents.
• Contra Costa County Risk Management manages the exposure reporting and
documents. The District also maintains the records locally.
• The District performs the SCBA testing internally.
• Third-party vendors perform hose, vehicle, and ladder testing.
East Contra Costa Fire Protection District
Electronic Reports to the Fire Board
• Finance Committee meetings are held the third week of each month. The
Committee consists of two Board Members, the Fire Chief, Chief Administrative
Officer, and other chief officers. The Fire Board receives a monthly committee report
and the District publishes the report on the agency website.
• The fire board receives monthly management and operational reports. The District
does not create a formal annual report but instead does quarterly and annual
video reports for the community and members to view on the website.
• Operational Records Management is the Operations Chief's responsibility and is also
updated daily by the duty Battalion Chiefs.
Exposure report management is the responsibility of the Infectious Control Nurse
(contracted). The Safety Chief of the District manages this work.
SCBA records management is the Logistics and Support Services Chief's
responsibility with assistance from the assigned Fire Captain.
Hose testing, ladder testing, and pump testing records are the responsibility of
the Logistics and Support Services Chief. A third party performs the actual testing.
Atmospheric monitor records management is the responsibility of the Logistics
and Support Services Chief; testing is performed internally.
Vehicle maintenance records is also the responsibility of the Logistics and
Support Services Chief. A third party performs the actual repair work.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
37
Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District
• Reports to the Fire Board:
Monthly submittals are available for review with complete quarterly and annual
reports. The reports are also attached to the Board Minutes, which the District
publishes on the agency website.
Management reports are provided monthly to the fire board with as-needed
reports for special projects.
The District publishes annual reports in October of each year.
• Incident Reports management is the responsibility of the Administrative Services
Officer. The records are on the server with the Contra Costa County Department of
Information and Technology (DOIT).
• Patient Care Reports management is the responsibility of the Administrative Services
Officer. The records are on the server with DOIT.
• Exposure records management is in Fire RMS software and with the medical provider
should an employee seek medical attention.
• SCBA maintenance records are maintained by a third party with hard copies held
by the District program manager, who is a Fire Captain.
• Almeda County Fire maintains aerial ladder maintenance records with hard copies
held by the District program manager. Ground ladders maintenance records
management is by a third-party vendor with hard copies maintained by the District
program manager.
• Pump Testing records are maintained by a third-party vendor, with hard copies held
by the District program manager.
• The District program manager maintains the atmospheric maintenance records.
• Vehicle maintenance records are maintained by Alameda County Fire, with hard
copies held by the District program manager.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
38
Information Technology Systems
Technology support services, systems, and processes are critical management
components for today's fire services. Triton reviewed the infrastructure, support personnel,
services, systems, and processes that each fire district currently operates and supports.
Figure 22: Information Technology Systems by the Fire Districts
Report Type CCCFPD ECCFPD RHFPD
IT Division Yes No No
Contracted IT Services N/A Yes* Precision IT
IT Infrastructure
Hardened Infrastructure Yes Yes Yes
Back-up Power Supply Yes Yes Yes
Automated Trouble Alert Yes Yes Yes
24-hour support system Yes Yes Yes
Continuity of Operations Plan Yes Yes No
Infrastructure Sustainability
Budgetary replacement plan Yes Yes Yes
System parts & equipment supply Yes Yes Yes
*Provided by CCCFPD & the City of Brentwood
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
The District has its own IT Division with support from Contra Costa County’s IT Division. It
utilizes the County data backbone to move data. The District is working with County IT to
update, further harden, and create additional redundancy in the IT network.
East Contra Costa Fire Protection District
ECCFPD has internal staff who manages their IT system through agreements with Contra
Costa County FPD and the City of Brentwood. Each of the providers offers the infrastructure
and support for the IT systems.
Infrastructure sustainability management is through the District's fiscal planning process and
the providers' funding through the annual budgetary process.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
39
Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District
The District contracts with a third-party to manage the IT network for the District’s IT
Infrastructure.
• The District in-house server network is in a hardened setting. The system is on a back-
up power supply with an automated trouble alert. The system is supported 24 hours
a day by the third-party provider.
• The District does not have a Continuity of Operations Plan.
Infrastructure Sustainability funding management is through a scheduled replacement and
funding plan generated by the third-party provider and funded by the District through the
annual budgetary process.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
40
STAFFING & PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
The most valuable asset of any organization is its people. The effective management of
human resources requires a balance between the maximum utilization of the overall
workforce and the experience of a high level of job satisfaction by individual workers. To
achieve this goal consistently, management must combine reliability with a safe working
environment, fair treatment, the opportunity to provide input, and recognition of the
individual’s commitment and sacrifice. Job satisfaction depends upon this combination of
factors.
During our review, Triton found that the fire districts have highly skilled and motivated
individuals committed to providing the best possible emergency response to their
constituents. The key to success will be to combine disparate cultures into one organization
and ensure the right people are placed in the right positions.
One essential component of a healthy organization is balancing administration, support
staff, and operational resources. This analysis will review the current ratio for each
organization and provide recommendations for a combined staffing model. Annexation
could potentially result in improved efficiency through shared resources. This process will
evaluate various organizational charts and provide a framework for the development of a
unified fire district.
Administrative & Support Staffing
Each of the districts has varying levels of uniformed administrative support positions—due
primarily to their size. A challenge often faced by smaller districts is the necessity of
individuals to serve in multiple capacities. An advantage to the potential annexation will
be increased services available to ECCFPD and RHFPD in administrative support services
(e.g., information technology, human resources, finance, etc.). The following figure
illustrates the various positions in non-uniformed administrative positions.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
41
Figure 23: Comparison of Uniformed Administrative & Support Staff
Position CCCFPD ECCFPD RHFPD
Fire Chief 1 1 1
Deputy Chief 1 — —
Assistant Chiefs 5 — 1
Medical Director 1 — —
Administrative Battalion Chiefs 3 1 —
Administrative Captains* 3 — —
Fire Marshal — 1 —
Deputy Fire Marshal — 1 —
Fire Inspectors 20 2 —
Public Educators 2 — —
Public Information Officer 1 FM —
Fire Investigation Supervisor 1A 1 —
Shift Fire Investigators (56-hour) 3 — —
Fire Investigators (40 hours) 1 — —
Fire Prevention Captains 4 — —
Code Enforcement Supervisor 1A — —
Plan Review Supervisor 1 — —
Building Plan Checker I 2 — —
Fire Prevention Technician 1 — —
Community Risk Reduction 1 — —
ACCFPD has one Plan review Supervisor, on Code enforcement Supervisor,
one Community Risk Reduction Supervisor, one Investigative Supervisor, but
all are also Prevention Captains.
An effective fire organization requires non-uniformed staff to support daily administrative
activities. The following graphic shows the number of non-uniformed staff for each district.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
42
Figure 24: Non-Uniformed Staff
Position CCCFPD
No. of Staff
ECCFPD
No. of Staff
RHFPD
No. of Staff
Chief of Administrative Services 1 0 0
HR Analyst II 2 0 0
Executive Secretary 1 1 1
Administrative Assistant 0 2 1
Secretary Advanced Level 3 0 0
Account Clerk Advanced 3 0 0
District Aides 20 0 0
Fiscal Specialist 1 1 0
Fiscal Officer 1 0 0
Payroll Technician 0 1 0
Senior Level Clerk 5 0 0
Clerical Supervisor 1 0 0
Permit Technician — 1 —
Totals: 38 5 2
Discussion
A combined organization would have a 13% administrative/support staffing to line staffing
based on current staffing levels. This is consistent with similarly sized organizations and,
except for the Fire Chief position, there does not appear to be duplication of support staff.
The following graphic shows a comparison of administrative support staffing to operational
staffing.
Figure 25: Administrative/Support Staff Compared to Operational Staff
Staffing Category CCCFPD
Staff
ECCFPD
Staff
RHFPD
Staff
Combined
No. of Staff
Administrative/Support Staff 38 10 2 45
Operations Staff 317 37 14 343
Percent of Admin. to Operations: 12% 41% 14% 13%
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
43
Staff Allocation to Functions & Divisions
The following section will focus on staffing as it relates to the span of control and the
fireground and incident command.
Divisions
A future consideration relates to the span of control for routine management and
fireground operations. Management engagement is best when a manager has 8–9 direct
reports.16 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1561 recommends an operational
span of control of up to seven. Exceeding the recommended limitations on the span of
control can result in ineffective leadership and fireground incidents.
Currently, the CCCFPD has an Emergency Operations Assistant Chief. During routine
operations, 12 Battalion Chiefs and the Special Operations Battalion Chief report to the
Emergency Operations Assistant Chief. With the addition of two more Battalion Chiefs, the
span of control would exceed recommended limits.
One possible option would be the addition of three Shift District Chief positions. These
individuals would each be responsible for 5–6 Battalion Chiefs (A, B, C shifts), thus
decreasing the Emergency Operations Assistant Chief’s span of control to four direct
reports.
This option would also support major incidents and help reduce the span of control
required by the existing Battalion Chiefs. The incident complexity would dictate whether
the incident commander (IC) would be the District Chief, Emergency Operations Chief, or
Fire Chief.
Shift Scheduling Methodology
CCCFPD, ECCFPD, and RHFPD all utilize the 48/96-line staffing schedule. The total number
of positions required per jurisdiction becomes a policy decision based on the jurisdiction’s
needs. According to policy, the jurisdiction also establishes the number of employees
needed above the minimum to allow for vacancies due to vacation, sick, and other types
of leave, yielding an overall number of full-time employees required to ensure that
necessary staffing, according to policy, is available daily. This staffing methodology is very
common across the Western United States for firefighters to work a 24- or 48-hour shift cycle.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
44
Studies have been undertaken and remain ongoing in an attempt to better understand
the impact of this work cycle on the physiological process. The science indicates that sleep
is important and that going without sleep for too long or interrupting the sleep rhythm leads
to physical and cognitive problems including hypertension, cancer, ulcers, heart attack,
and stroke.
One comparative analysis of the 24-hour and 48-hour schedules indicated that the
work/rest ratio was the same between the two schedules.17 However, with the unique
circumstance of necessary overtime staffing, the employee may be at risk for excessive
fatigue in the second half of the shift. The situation would be worse if their sleep were
disrupted during the first 24 hours. There would be less time for recovery, both mentally and
physically.
Firefighter/EMS Staff Distribution
CCCFPD currently holds the EMS contract for ambulance transport in all three districts.
American Medical Response is the subcontractor for the system and, under the
administrative control of CCCFPD, provides ambulance transport. The CCCFPD/RHFPD
provides paramedic first response to the system, and ECCFPD provides BLS support.
Following the consolidation, the organization could begin developing a paramedic-level
first response system in the previous ECCFPD response area.
Training & Safety Staffing
Annexation of ECCFPD and RHFPD into CCCFPD will not bring additional dedicated
training staff to the overall system. CCCFPD currently has three (effective July 1, 2021) 40-
hour Training Captains to maintain adequate training and fireground safety.
Operational Staffing Levels
An adequate number of properly trained staff of emergency responders is required for
placing the appropriate emergency apparatus and equipment to its best use in mitigating
incidents. Insufficient staffing at an operational scene decreases the effectiveness of the
response.
The first 15 minutes is the most crucial period in the suppression of a fire. How effectively
and efficiently firefighters perform during this period has a significant impact on the overall
outcome of the event. This general concept is applicable to fire, rescue, and medical
situations.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
45
Critical tasks must be performed in a timely manner to control a fire or to treat a patient.
The fire district is responsible for ensuring that responding companies are capable of
performing all of the described tasks in a prompt, efficient, and safe manner. The following
figure lists the minimum staffing of each apparatus and station by individual fire agency.
Figure 26: Fire Districts Staffing by Station & Apparatus (Part 1)
District/Station Assigned Apparatus Minimum
On-Duty Staffing
Contra Costa County FPD
Station 1 Truck 1 4
Engine 1 3
Station 2 Engine 2 3
Station 3 Engine 3 3
Station 4 Unstaffed 0
Station 5 Engine 5 3
Station 6 Engine 6 3
Truck 6 4
Station 7 Engine 7 3
Station 8 Engine 8 8
Station 9 Engine 9 3
Station 10 Engine 10 3
Station 11 Engine 11 3
Station 12 Unstaffed 0
Station 13 Engine 13 3
Station 14 Truck 14 4
Station 15 Engine 15 3
Station 16 Engine 16 3
Station 17 Engine 17 3
Station 19 Reserve Station 0
Station 22 Engine 22 3
Station 69 Engine 69 3
Station 70 Engine 70 3
Squad 70 2
Truck 70 4
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
46
Figure 27: CCCFPD Staffing by Station & Apparatus (Part 2)
District/Station Assigned Apparatus Minimum
On-Duty Staffing
Contra Costa County FPD continued…
Station 81 Engine 81 3
Station 82 Engine 82 3
Station 83 Truck 83 4
Station 84 Truck 84 4
Station 85 Engine 85 3
Station 86 Engine 86 3
Station 87 Hazmat 87 3
Station 88 Engine 88 3
East Contra Costa FPD
Station 52 Engine 52 3
Station 53 Engine 53 3
Station 59 Engine 59 3
Rodeo-Hercules FPD
Station 75 Engine 75 3
Station 76 Engine 76 3
The next figure shows the assorted positions assigned to emergency operations among the
three fire agencies.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
47
Figure 28: Emergency Response Staffing by Position
Position CCCFPD ECCFPD RHFPD Combined
Staff
Assistant Chiefs (operations only) 1 — — 1
Battalion Chiefs 10 3 1 14
Captain 52 9 2 68
Captain Paramedic 39 — 4 39
Engineer 37 9 2 53
Firefighter/Paramedics 37 — 1 41
Firefighters/EMTs 85 10 5 98
Engineer Paramedic 40 — — 40
Shift Training Captain 3 — — 3
Training & Staff Development Specialist 1 — — 1
Fire Control Worker (seasonal) 24 — — 24
Totals: 329 31 22 382
Current Standards of Coverage & Staffing for Incidents
The service area of the three districts is a highly populated urban environment and, as
such, contains an elevated number, density, and distribution of risk. As the actual or
potential risk increases, the need for higher numbers of personnel and apparatus also
increases. With each type of incident and corresponding risk, specific critical tasks need to
be accomplished, and certain numbers and types of apparatus should be dispatched.
Tasks that must be performed at a fire can be broken down into two key components: life
safety and fire flow. Life safety tasks are based on the number of building occupants, and
their location, status, and ability to take self-preservation action. Life safety-related tasks
involve the search, rescue, and evacuation of victims. The fire flow component involves
delivering sufficient water to extinguish the fire and create an environment within the
building that allows entry by firefighters.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
48
The number and types of tasks needing simultaneous action will dictate the minimum
number of firefighters required to combat different types of fires. In the absence of
adequate personnel to perform concurrent action, the commanding officer must prioritize
the tasks and complete some in chronological order rather than concurrently. These tasks
include the following:
Command
Scene safety
Search and rescue
Fire attack
Water supply
Pump operation
Ventilation
Backup/rapid intervention
Critical task analyses also apply to non-fire-type emergencies, including medical, technical
rescue, and hazardous materials emergencies. Numerous simultaneous tasks must be
completed to effectively control an emergency. The ability of the fire districts to muster
needed numbers of trained personnel quickly enough to make a difference is critical to
successful incident outcomes.
The following figure illustrates the minimum emergency incident staffing recommendations
from the Commission on Fire Accreditation, International (CFAI). The following definitions
apply to the figure:
Low Risk: Minor incidents involving small fires (fire flow less than 250 gallons per
minute), single patient non-life-threatening medical incidents, minor rescues, small
fuel spills, and small wildland fires without unusual weather or fire behavior.
Moderate Risk: Moderate-risk incidents involving fires in single-family dwellings and
equivalently sized commercial office properties (fire flow between 250 gallons per
minute to 1,000 gallons per minute), life-threatening medical emergencies,
hazardous materials emergencies requiring specialized skills and equipment, rescues
involving specialized skills and equipment, and larger wildland fires.
High Risk: High-risk incidents involving fires in larger commercial properties with
sustained attack (fire flows more than 1,000 gallons per minute), multiple patient
medical incidents, major releases of hazardous materials, high-risk rescues, and
wildland fires with extreme weather or fire behavior.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
49
Figure 29: Staffing Recommendations Based on Risk
Incident Type High Risk Moderate Risk Low Risk
Structure Fire 29 15 6
Emergency Medical Services 12 4 2
Rescue 15 8 3
Hazardous Materials 39 20 3
Critical Tasking
The following section lists the Critical Task activities and Alarm Assignments as provided by
each district. Critical tasks are those activities that must be conducted early and promptly
by firefighters at emergency incidents to control the situation, to stop loss, and to perform
necessary tasks required for a medical emergency. CCCFPD, ECCFPD, and RHFPD are
responsible for assuring the responding companies are capable of performing all of the
described tasks in a prompt, efficient, and safe manner. These are the minimum number of
personnel needed by incident type. More personnel will be required for incidents of
increased complexity or size.
The following figures list the critical tasking numbers as identified by staff from each of the
fire districts by type of incident. Each figure shows a comparison of CCCFPD, ECCFPD, and
RHFPD. It should be noted that only CCFPD can achieve the critical staffing identified
without utilizing aid from other agencies.
Figure 30: Low-Risk Structure Fire
Task CCCFPD
No. of Staff
ECCFPD
No. of Staff
RHFPD
No. of Staff
Command 2 1 1
Safety 1 1 1
Pump Operations 2 1 1
Attack Line 2 2 2
Backup Line 2 1 1
Search and Rescue 6 2 2
Ventilation 4 2 2
Rapid Intervention Crew 3 3 3
Incident Support / Other 6 2 2
Totals: 28 15 15
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
50
Figure 31: High-Risk Structure Fire (> 5,000 square feet)
Task CCCFPD
No. of Staff
ECCFPD
No. of Staff
RHFPD
No. of Staff
Command/Safety 3 3 3
Accountability — — —
Pump Operations 2 2 3
Aerial Operator (if truck requested) — 1 2
Attack Line 3 3 3
Backup Line/Support 2 2 3
Search and Rescue 7 7 6
Ventilation/Ground Ladders 4 4 6
Rapid Intervention Crew 3 4 3
Incident Support 6 6 9
Totals: 30 32 38
Figure 32: Wildland Fire (High Risk)
Task CCCFPD
No. of Staff
ECCFPD
No. of Staff
RHFPD
No. of Staff
Command 1 1 4
Safety 1 1 1
Pump Operations/Lookout 1 1 5
Attack Line 5 5 10
Exposure Lines — — 4
Structure Protection 6 6 4
Water Supply 3 3 2
Other (Mop-Up, Overhaul) 15 15 2
Totals: 32 32 32
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
51
Figure 33: Aircraft Emergency
Task CCCFPD
No. of Staff
ECCFPD
No. of Staff
RHFPD
No. of Staff
Command/Safety 2 2 2
Aircraft Fire Suppression 3 3 6
Pump Operations 1 1 2
Attack Line 2 2 6
Backup Line — — 3
Rescue 7 7 6
Emergency Medical Care 10 10 8
Water Supply — — 4
Totals: 25 25 37
Figure 34: Hazardous Materials—Low Risk
Task CCCFPD
No. of Staff
ECCFPD
No. of Staff
RHFPD
No. of Staff
Command 1 1 2
Investigation 2 1 —
Decontamination — 6 3
Research/Support 3 3 1
Entry Team & Backup Team — 6 6
Totals: 6 17 12
Figure 35: Hazardous Materials—High Risk
Task CCCFPD
No. of Staff
ECCFPD
No. of Staff
RHFPD
No. of Staff
Command/Safety 4 4 2
Site Control 3 3 —
Air Monitoring 2 2 —
Decontamination 9 9 3
Research Support 2 2 1
Team Leader, Entry Team, & Backup Team 5 5 6
Medical Monitoring 3 3 —
Incident Support 5 5 —
Totals: 33 33 12
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
52
Figure 36: Emergency Medical Aid
Task CCCFPD
No. of Staff
ECCFPD
No. of Staff
RHFPD
No. of Staff
Patient Management 1 1 1
Patient Care 1 1 1
Documentation 1 1 1
Totals: 3 3 3
Figure 37: Major Medical Response (10+ patients)
Task CCCFPD
No. of Staff
ECCFPD
No. of Staff
RHFPD
No. of Staff
Incident Command 2 1 2
Safety 1 1 1
Triage 6 6 3
Treatment Manager 1 1 1
Patient Care 12 12 12
Transportation Manager 1 1 1
Documentation — — 3
Transportation 10 10 —
Totals: 33 32 23
Figure 38: Motor Vehicle Accident (Non-Trapped)
Task CCCFPD
No. of Staff
ECCFPD
No. of Staff
RHFPD
No. of Staff
Scene Management/Documentation 1 1 1
Patient Care/Extrication 2 2 6
Incident Blocking 3 3 —
Totals: 6 6 7
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
53
Figure 39: Motor Vehicle Accident (Trapped)
Task CCCFPD
No. of Staff
ECCFPD
No. of Staff
RHFPD
No. of Staff
Command/Safety 1 1 2
Scene Management 1 1 1
Patient Care 2 2 3
Extrication 3 4 3
Pump Operator/Suppression Line 2 1 3
Vehicle Stabilization 2 2 3
Totals: 11 11 15
Figure 40: Technical Rescue—Water
Task CCCFPD
No. of Staff
ECCFPD
No. of Staff
RHFPD
No. of Staff
Command/Safety 2 2 1
Rescue Team 3 3 3
Backup Team 3 3 3
Patient Care 2 2 3
Rope Tender — — 1
Upstream Spotter 2 2 3
Downstream Safety 2 2 1
Shore Support 11 11 —
Totals: 25 25 15
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
54
Figure 41: Technical Rescue—Rope
Task CCCFPD
No. of Staff
ECCFPD
No. of Staff
RHFPD
No. of Staff
Command/Safety 2 2 2
Rescue Supervisor 1 1 —
Rescue Team 2 2 3
Backup Team 2 2 3
Rigger/Anchor 3 3 —
Haul Team 3 3 —
Patient Care 6 6 3
Rope Tender — — 1
Ground Support 3 3 —
Totals: 22 22 12
Figure 42: Technical Rescue—Confined Space
Task CCCFPD
No. of Staff
ECCFPD
No. of Staff
RHFPD
No. of Staff
Command 2 2 2
Safety 1 1 1
Rescue Team 2 2 3
Backup Team 2 2 3
Overhead Positions 3 3 —
Air Monitoring 3 3 —
Communications 3 3 —
Attendant 1 1 —
Rigging Team 3 3 —
Ground Support 6 3 —
Patient Care 5 6 3
Rope Tender — — 1
Totals: 31 29 13
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
55
Figure 43: Technical Rescue—Trench
Task CCCFPD
No. of Staff
ECCFPD
No. of Staff
RHFPD
No. of Staff
Command/Safety 3 3 2
Rescue Team 2 2 2
Back up Team 2 2 2
Overhead 3 3 —
Air Monitoring 2 2 —
Shoring 8 8 12
Systems 3 3 —
Ground Support 3 3 2
Incident Support 5 5 —
Patient Care — — 2
Totals: 31 31 22
Alarm Assignments
To ensure sufficient personnel and apparatus are dispatched to an emergency event, the
following first alarm response assignments have been established. “Total Staffing Needed”
is the number identified in the previous Critical Tasking Analysis. The number of personnel
and apparatus required to mitigate an active and complex working incident will require
additional resources above and beyond the numbers listed next. With currently available
resources, including automatic and mutual aid, the districts can staff a number of incident
types in accordance with its Critical Tasking Analysis.
The following figures show the alarm assignments for each fire district by type of incident.
Each figure shows a comparison of CCCFPD, ECCFPD, and RHFPD.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
56
Figure 44: Structure Fire—Low Risk
— CCCFPD — — ECCFPD — — RHFPD —
Unit Type No.
Units
No.
Staff
No.
Units
No.
Staff
No.
Units
No.
Staff
Engine 5 15 4 12 4 12
Truck 1 4 0 0 1 3
Air Supply 1 3 — — —
Battalion Chief 2 2 1 1 1 1
Safety Officer 1 1 — — —
Investigator 1 1 1 1 —
ALS Ambulance 1 2 — — —
Total Staffing Provided: 28 13 15
Total Staffing Needed: 28 13 15
Figure 45: Structure Fire—High Risk
— CCCFPD — — ECCFPD — — RHFPD —
Unit Type No.
Units
No.
Staff
No.
Units
No.
Staff
No.
Units
No.
Staff
Engine 5 15 3 9 1 3
Truck 2 8 — — 1 3
Air Supply 1 3 — —
Battalion Chief 2 2 1 1 1 1
Safety officer 1 1 — —
Investigator 1 1 1 1
ALS Ambulance 1 2 — —
Total Staffing Provided: 32 11 7
Total Staffing Needed: 32 31 38
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
57
Figure 46: Wildland Fire (High Risk)
— CCCFPD — — ECCFPD — — RHFPD —
Unit Type No.
Units
No.
Staff
No.
Units
No.
Staff
No.
Units
No.
Staff
Engine 1 3 1 3
Brush Engine 3 9 3 6 1 3
Water Tenders 3 3
Hand Crew 1 14
Dozer 1 1
Battalion Chief 2 2 1 1 1 1
Total Staffing Provided: 29 10 7
Total Staffing Needed: 32 32 32
Figure 47: Aircraft Emergency
— CCCFPD — — ECCFPD — — RHFPD —
Unit Type No.
Units
No.
Staff
No.
Units
No.
Staff
No.
Units
No.
Staff
Engine 2 6 3 9 1 3
Truck 1 4 1 3
ARRF 2 3
Rescue 1 3
ALS ambulance 2 4
AIR Ambulance 1 3
Battalion Chief 2 2 1 1 1 1
Total Staffing Provided: 25 10 7
Total Staffing Needed: 25 25 37
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
58
Figure 48: Hazardous Materials—Low Risk
— CCCFPD — — ECCFPD — — RHFPD —
Unit Type No.
Units
No.
Staff
No.
Units
No.
Staff
No.
Units
No.
Staff
Engine 1 3 3 9 2 6
Hazardous Materials Unit 1 3
Battalion Chief 1 1 1 1
Total Staffing Provided: 6 10 7
Total Staffing Needed: 6 17 12
Figure 49: Hazardous Materials—High Risk
— CCCFPD — — ECCFPD — — RHFPD —
Unit Type No.
Units
No.
Staff
No.
Units
No.
Staff
No.
Units
No.
Staff
Engine 3 9 3 9 2 6
Truck 2 8
Air supply 1 3
Battalion Chief 2 2 1 1 1 1
Safety officer 1 1
Hazardous Materials Unit 1 3
County Hazardous materials
team 1 5
Ambulance 1 2
Total Staffing Provided: 33 10 7
Total Staffing Needed: 33 33 12
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
59
Figure 50: Emergency Medical Aid
— CCCFPD — — ECCFPD — — RHFPD —
Unit Type No.
Units
No.
Staff
No.
Units
No.
Staff
No.
Units
No.
Staff
Engine or Truck 1 3 1 3 1 3
ALS Ambulance 1 2 1 2 1 2
Total Staffing Provided: 5 5 5
Total Staffing Needed: 3 3 3
Figure 51: Major Medical Response (10+ patients)
— CCCFPD — — ECCFPD — — RHFPD —
Unit Type No.
Units
No.
Staff
No.
Units
No.
Staff
No.
Units
No.
Staff
Engine/Paramedic 5 15 3 9 2 5
Rescue 2 6
Battalion Chief 2 2 1 1 1 1
MCI Trailer 1 1
ALS ambulance 5 10 5 10 5 10
Total Staffing Provided: 33 20 17
Total Staffing Needed: 33 20 17
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
60
Figure 52: Motor Vehicle Accident (Non—Trapped)
— CCCFPD — — ECCFPD — — RHFPD —
Unit Type No.
Units
No.
Staff
No.
Units
No.
Staff
No.
Units
No.
Staff
Engine or Truck 2 6 1 3 2 6
Total Staffing Provided: 6 3 6
Total Staffing Needed: 6 6 7
Figure 53: Motor Vehicle Accident (Trapped)
— CCCFPD — — ECCFPD — — RHFPD —
Unit Type No.
Units
No.
Staff
No.
Units
No.
Staff
No.
Units
No.
Staff
Engine 1 3 2 6 1 3
Truck 1 4 1 3
ALS Ambulance 1 2
Rescue 1 3
Battalion Chief 1 1 1 1 1 1
Total Staffing Provided: 13 7 7
Total Staffing Needed: 11 11 15
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
61
Figure 54: Technical Rescue—Water
— CCCFPD — — ECCFPD — — RHFPD —
Unit Type No.
Units
No.
Staff
No.
Units
No.
Staff
No.
Units
No.
Staff
Engine 3 9 3 9 1 3
Truck 1 4 1 3
Water Rescue Unit—RB281 1 3
Rescue 2 6
Battalion Chief 2 2 1 1 1 1
Safety Officer 1 1
Total Staffing Provided: 25 10 7
Total Staffing Needed: 25 25 15
Figure 55: Technical Rescue—Rope
— CCCFPD — — ECCFPD — — RHFPD —
Unit Type No.
Units
No.
Staff
No.
Units
No.
Staff
No.
Units
No.
Staff
Engine 1 3 3 9 1 3
Truck 1 4 1 3
Rescue 2 6
Rescue Helicopter 1 3
ALS Ambulance 1 2
Battalion Chief 2 2 1 1 1 1
Total Staffing Provided: 20 10 7
Total Staffing Needed: 22 22 12
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
62
Figure 56: Technical Rescue—Confined Space
— CCCFPD — — ECCFPD — — RHFPD —
Unit Type No.
Units
No.
Staff
No.
Units
No.
Staff
No.
Units
No.
Staff
Engine 2 6 3 9 1 3
Truck 2 8 1 3
Rescue 3 9
Breathing Support 1 3
Battalion Chief 2 2 1 1 1 1
Safety Officer 1 1
ALS Ambulance 1 2
Total Staffing Provided: 31 10 7
Total Staffing Needed: 31 29 13
Figure 57: Technical Rescue—Trench
— CCCFPD — — ECCFPD — — RHFPD —
Unit Type No.
Units
No.
Staff
No.
Units
No.
Staff
No.
Units
No.
Staff
Engine 2 6 3 9 1 3
Truck 2 8 1 3
Rescue 3 9
Breathing Support 1 3
Battalion Chief 2 2 1 1 1 1
Safety Officer 1 1
ALS Ambulance 1 2
Total Staffing Provided: 31 10 7
Total Staffing Needed: 31 31 22
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
63
CAPITAL FACILITIES & APPARATUS
Typically, three essential resources are required to successfully carry out a fire district's
mission: trained personnel, firefighting equipment (including apparatus and vehicles), and
fire stations. No matter how competent or numerous the firefighters, if appropriate capital
equipment is not available for use by operations personnel, it would be impossible for any
of the fire districts in this study to deliver services effectively. The essential capital assets for
emergency operations are facilities, apparatus, and other emergency response vehicles.
Of course, each district’s financing ability will determine the level of capital equipment it
can acquire and make available for use by emergency personnel. This section of the
report assesses the respective capital facilities, vehicles, and apparatus of CCCFPD,
ECCFPD, and RHFPD.
Fire Station Features
Fire stations play an integral role in the delivery of emergency services for several reasons.
To a large degree, a station’s location will dictate response times to emergencies. A poorly
located station can mean the difference between confining a fire to a single room and
losing the structure and survival from sudden cardiac arrest. Fire stations also need to be
designed to adequately house equipment and apparatus and meet the organization's
needs and personnel.
The fire station activities should be closely examined to ensure the structure is adequate in
size and function. Examples of these functions can include the following:
• Residential living space and sleeping quarters for on-duty personnel (all genders)
• Kitchen facilities, appliances, and storage
• Bathrooms and showers (all genders)
• Training, classroom, and library areas
• Firefighter fitness area
• The housing and cleaning of apparatus and equipment, including decontamination
and disposal of biohazards
• Administrative and management offices, computer stations, and office facilities for
personnel
• Public meeting space
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
64
In gathering information from the three fire districts, Triton asked the organizations to rate
each of their fire stations’ conditions using the next figure’s criteria.
Figure 58: Criteria Utilized to Determine Fire Station Condition
Excellent
Like new condition. No visible structural defects. The facility is clean and
well maintained. Interior layout is conducive to function with no
unnecessary impediments to the apparatus bays or offices. No
significant defect history. Building design and construction match the
building’s purposes. Age is typically less than ten years.
Good
The exterior has a good appearance with minor or no defects. Clean
lines, good workflow design, and only minor wear of the building interior.
Roof and apparatus apron are in good working order, absent any
significant full-thickness cracks or crumbling of apron surface or visible
roof patches or leaks. Building design and construction match the
building’s purposes. Age is typically less than 20 years.
Fair
The building appears to be structurally sound with a weathered
appearance and minor to moderate non-structural defects. The interior
condition shows normal wear and tear but flows effectively to the
apparatus bay or offices. Mechanical systems are in working order.
Building design and construction may not match the building’s purposes
well. Showing increasing age-related maintenance, but with no critical
defects. Age is typically 30 years or more.
Poor
The building appears to be cosmetically weathered and worn with
potential structural defects, although not imminently dangerous or
unsafe. Large, multiple full-thickness cracks and crumbling of concrete
on the apron may exist. The roof has evidence of leaking and/or
multiple repairs. The interior is poorly maintained or showing signs of
advanced deterioration with moderate to significant non-structural
defects. Problematic age-related maintenance and/or major defects
are evident. It may not be well suited to its intended purpose. Age is
typically greater than 40 years.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
65
Fire Stations & Facilities
The following section provides a general overview of the facilities and fire stations at each
fire district. Appendix A lists each fire station’s specific details based on each of the fire
districts’ information and Triton’s walk-through of each station.
Contra Costa County FPD Facilities
CCCFPD currently maintains 30 fire stations throughout the District, of which Stations 4, 12,
and 18 were closed as of 2021. Station 19 is a reserve station and a leased facility. The
following figures describe the features of each fire station operated by the District.
Combined, CCCFPD fire stations have a staffing capacity of approximately 192 personnel,
65 apparatus bays (although some are utilized for exercise equipment), and 144,976
square feet. The years in which CCCFPD’s stations were built range from 1939 to 2021, with
an average age of 43 years; however, several of the older stations have since been
remodeled.
Of the 27 fire stations inventoried, 7% were listed in “Excellent” condition, 67% in “Good”
condition, 15% as “Fair,” and 11% in “Poor” condition. The majority of the stations do not
have modern seismic protection or meet Americans with Disability Act (ADA) standards.
Twelve (44%) facilities have sprinkler systems installed.
East Contra Costa FPD Facilities
ECCFPD currently owns six fire stations, of which three are utilized and staffed with
personnel and apparatus. Although the District owns these stations, Stations 54, 55, and 94
are unstaffed without assigned apparatus. Station 54 is a 64-year-old facility and used
primarily for training and storage. Station 94 is utilized as a shop for the contract mechanic.
Station 55, the newest station, functions as a facility for administrative and prevention staff.
Fire Stations 52, 53, and 59 are staffed and operational. These stations range in age 10 to 20
years. Combined, the fire stations have an average age of 16 years. They have a
combined staffing capacity of 11 personnel, seven apparatus bays, and a total of 22,053
square feet.
The District rates Station 52’s overall condition as “Good,” Station 53 as “Excellent,” and
Station 55 as “Excellent.” When completing its evaluation of the various features and
facilities (e.g., kitchen, showers, exercise equipment, etc.) within each fire station, the
District rated most of these as either “Good” or “Excellent.” In two fire stations, security was
rated as “Fair.”
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
66
Rodeo-Hercules FPD Facilities
RHFPD currently maintains two fire stations. Fire Station 75 was originally built in 1937 but was
remodeled in 1991. Station 76 was built in 1991. Combined, the two stations average 57
years of age.
The maximum fire station staffing capacity of each facility is limited to either three or four
personnel. Combined, the District has eight apparatus bays.
The District rated the overall condition of both of its fire stations as “Good.” Both stations
have sprinkler systems installed.
Combined Fire Station Inventories
The following figure lists the inventories and features of all three fire districts combined.
Figure 59: Combined Station Inventories of the Fire Districts (2021)
Fire District No. of
Stations1
Maximum
Staffing2
Apparatus
Bays
Average
Age3
Total Square
Footage4
CCCFPD 27 192 65 43 years 144,976
ECCFPD 6 23 21 29 years 29,535
RHFPD 2 7 8 57 years 18,690
Totals: 35 222 94 43 years 193,201
1Unstaffed/unused stations excluded. 2Represents maximum staffing capacity.
3Average age of stations combined. 4Square footage of some stations not reported.
The three districts’ combined fire station inventories comprise 32 fire stations with 80 bays
(although in several of them, at least one bay is utilized for exercise equipment) and a
capacity of more than 210 personnel (ECCFPD could house more staff).
Fire stations tend to be older among all three fire districts. The average age of the
combined stations is 41 years. However, this may be somewhat distorted, as this was based
on the original construction dates, and several stations have since had significant
remodeling completed (e.g., CCCFPD Stations 69 and 81).
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
67
Apparatus & Vehicles
A thorough review of each of the three fire districts’ fleet inventories is especially important
if annexation is implemented. Annexation will likely result in a merger of apparatus
inventories and other equipment.
Fire apparatus are unique and expensive pieces of equipment customized to operate for a
specific community and defined mission. Other than its firefighters, officers, and support
staff, the next most important fire protection district resources are likely the emergency
apparatus and vehicles.
Apparatus must be sufficiently reliable to transport firefighters and equipment rapidly and
safely to an incident scene. Such vehicles must be properly equipped and function
appropriately to ensure that the delivery of emergency services is not compromised. For
this reason, they are expensive and offer minimal flexibility in use and reassignment to other
missions.
As a part of this study, Triton requested each fire district provide a complete inventory of
their fleet (apparatus, command and support vehicles, specialty units, etc.). For each
vehicle listed, the districts were asked to rate its condition utilizing the criteria described in
the next figure.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
68
Figure 60: Criteria Used to Determine Apparatus & Vehicle Condition
Evaluation Components Points Assignment Criteria
Age: One point for every year of chronological age, based on
the in-service date.
Miles/Hours: One point for every 10,000 miles or 1,000 hours
Service:
1, 3, or 5 points are assigned based on service—type
received (e.g., a pumper would be given a 5 since it is
classified as severe duty service).
Condition:
This category considers body condition, rust interior
condition, accident history, anticipated repairs, etc. The
better the condition, the lower the assignment of points.
Reliability:
Points are assigned as 1, 3, or 5, depending on the
frequency a vehicle is in for repair (e.g., a 5 would be
assigned to a vehicle in the shop two or more times per
month on average; while a 1 would be assigned to a
vehicle in the shop on average of once every three
months or less.
Point Ranges Condition Rating Condition Description
Under 18 points Condition I Excellent
18–22 points Condition II Good
23–27 points Condition III Fair (consider replacement)
28 points or higher Condition IV Poor (immediate replacement)
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
69
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
The following figure lists the current inventory of Contra Costa County FPD’s frontline fleet.
Figure 61: CCCFPD Type 1 & 6 Engines Frontline Inventory (2021)
Unit Type Manufacturer Year Condition Features
Type 1 Engines
Engine 101 Type 1 Pierce 2018 Good 1500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 102 Type 1 Pierce 2010 Good 1500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 103 Type 1 Pierce 2017 Good 1500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 105 Type 1 Pierce 2015 Good 1500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 106 Type 1 Pierce 2016 Good 1500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 107 Type 1 KME 2008 Good 1500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 108 Type 1 Pierce 2015 Good 1500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 109 Type 1 Pierce 2018 Good 1500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 110 Type 1 Pierce 2016 Good 1500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 111 Type 1 KME 2002 Good 1500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 113 Type 1 Pierce 2015 Good 1500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 114 Type 1 KME 2008 Good 1500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 115 Type 1 Pierce 2016 Good 1500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 116 Type 1 KME 2008 Good 1500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 117 Type 1 KME 2008 Good 1500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 122 Type 1 KME 2008 Good 1500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 165 Type 1 Pierce 2021 Excellent 1500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 166 Type 1 Pierce 2021 Excellent 1500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 169 Type 1 Pierce 2015 Good 1500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 170 Type 1 Pierce 2018 Good 1500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 181 Type 1 Pierce 2018 Good 1500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 182 Type 1 Pierce 2015 Good 1500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 185 Type 1 Pierce 2015 Good 1500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 186 Type 1 Pierce 2015 Good 1500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 187 Type 1 Pierce 2015 Good 1500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 188 Type 1 Pierce 2015 Good 1500 gpm, 500 gal.
Type 6 Engines
Engine 688 Type 6 Skeeter 2019 Good 1700 gpm, 400 gal.
Engine 685 Type 6 Skeeter 2019 Good 1700 gpm, 400 gal.
Engine 619 Type 6 Fouts Brothers 2018 Good 1700 gpm, 400 gal.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
70
Figure 62: CCCFPD Type 3 Engines & Water Tender Frontline Inventory (2021)
Unit Type Manufacturer Year Condition Features
Type 3 Engines
Engine 319 Type 3 International 2000 Good 500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 369 Type 3 International 2001 Good 500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 311 Type 3 International 2002 Good 500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 384 Type 3 International 2002 Good 500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 317 Type 3 International 2002 Good 500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 309 Type 3 International 2002 Good 500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 386 Type 3 International 2002 Good 500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 313 Type 3 International 2005 Good 1000 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 315 Type 3 International 2005 Good 1000 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 308 Type 3 International 2005 Good 1000 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 322 Type 3 International 2005 Good 1000 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 307 Type 3 International 2005 Good 1000 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 302 Type 3 International 2015 Good 500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 381 Type 3 International 2015 Good 500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 303 Type 3 International 2019 Good 500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 383 Type 3 International 2019 Good 500 gpm, 500 gal.
Water Tenders
WT 205 Tender Pierce 2020 Good 500 gpm, 2000 gal.
WT 214 Tender Pierce 2020 Good 500 gpm, 2000 gal.
Figure 63: CCCFPD Frontline Aerials & Rescues Inventory (2021)
Unit Type Manufacturer Year Condition Features
Aerial Apparatus
Truck 1 Tiller Pierce 2016 Good 100-ft. TDA (no pump)
Truck 6 Tiller Pierce 2016 Good 100-ft. TDA (no pump)
Truck 84 Tiller Pierce 2016 Good 100-ft. TDA (no pump)
Truck 70 Tiller Pierce 2021 Excellent 100-ft. TDA (no pump)
Truck 14 Truck Pierce 2019 Good 105-foot (no pump)
Truck 83 Truck Pierce 2017 Good 105-foot (no pump)
Rescues
Rescue 69 Rescue Ford 2007 Good
Rescue 310 Rescue Ford 2004 Good
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
71
Ambulances & the Transport Program
It is important to note (as addressed in other sections of this report) that CCCFPD
ambulances are purchased through a separate enterprise fund as a part of the District’s
unique ambulance transport program (ambulances staffed with AMR employees). As
shown in the following figure, CCCFPD has recently purchased 20 new Type 3 ambulances.
This is the first of a multi-year purchase, with 20 more being acquired next year and an
additional 10 the following year.
Figure 64: CCCFPD Frontline Ambulances & Heavy Rescues Inventory (2021)
Unit Type Manufacturer Year Condition
Unit 1 Type III Ford/AEV 2021 Excellent
Unit 2 Type III Ford/AEV 2021 Excellent
Unit 3 Type III Ford/AEV 2021 Excellent
Unit 4 Type III Ford/AEV 2021 Excellent
Unit 5 Type III Ford/AEV 2021 Excellent
Unit 6 Type III Ford/AEV 2021 Excellent
Unit 7 Type III Ford/AEV 2021 Excellent
Unit 8 Type III Ford/AEV 2021 Excellent
Unit 9 Type III Ford/AEV 2021 Excellent
Unit 10 Type III Ford/AEV 2021 Excellent
Unit 11 Type III Ford/AEV 2021 Excellent
Unit 12 Type III Ford/AEV 2021 Excellent
Unit 13 Type III Ford/AEV 2021 Excellent
Unit 14 Type III Ford/AEV 2021 Excellent
Unit 15 Type III Ford/AEV 2021 Excellent
Unit 16 Type III Ford/AEV 2021 Excellent
Unit 17 Type III Ford/AEV 2021 Excellent
Unit 18 Type III Ford/AEV 2021 Excellent
Unit 19 Type III Ford/AEV 2021 Excellent
Unit 20 Type III Ford/AEV 2021 Excellent
Heavy Rescues
HR 10 Heavy Rescue Pierce 2015 Good
HR 82 Heavy Rescue Pierce 2017 Good
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
72
Figure 65: CCCFPD Vehicles Assigned to Command Staff (2021)
Call Sign Status Manufacturer Year Condition Assigned To
318 Active Chevrolet SUV 2019 Good Fire Chief
317 Active Chevrolet SUV 2019 Good Deputy Chief
206 Active Ford SUV 2017 Good Assistant Chief
310 Active Ford SUV 2016 Good Assistant Chief
311 Active Ford SUV 2016 Good Assistant Chief
312 Active Ford SUV 2016 Good Assistant Chief
313 Active Ford SUV 2016 Good Assistant Chief
314 Active Ford SUV 2017 Good Assistant Chief
316 Active Chevrolet SUV 2018 Good Assistant Chief
226 Active Ford F250 2015 Good Battalion Chief
227 Active Ford F250 2015 Good Battalion Chief
236 Active Ford F250 2015 Good Battalion Chief
315 Active Chevrolet SUV 2019 Good Battalion Chief
203 Active Ford F250 2015 Good Battalion Chief
335 Active Ford F250 2016 Good Battalion Chief
CCCFPD Discussion
Except for new apparatus—which were rated as “Excellent”—the Contra Costa County
FPD rated all of its frontline engines, aerial apparatus, and most other vehicles as in “Good”
condition. This included apparatus in reserve and those assigned to the Training Division.
Along with its substantial fleet of engines, ambulances, aerials, and other apparatus, the
District maintains a range of special operations vehicles (e.g., hazmat unit, UTVs, command
units, fire boat, rescue boat, etc.) and other equipment utilized for wildland and other
operations (e.g., bulldozer, backhoe, dump truck, etc.).
CCCFPD owns multiple pickup trucks, SUVs, and other vehicles but has access to nearly 75
other pickup trucks, staff cars, cargo vans, and assorted miscellaneous vehicles from the
“Enterprise Fleet.”
The District maintains an adequate inventory of reserve engines, aerial apparatus, rescue
squads, and other vehicles. The Training Division has been assigned seven Type 1 engines
along with two aerial apparatus (one being a Quint and the other a tiller), and several
other apparatus.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
73
East Contra Costa Fire Protection District
The following figure lists the current inventory of ECCFPD’s frontline fleet. The District’s
apparatus fleet comprises Type 1 (structural) and Type 3 (wildland) engines and Water
Tenders. All three of the Type 1 engines are nearly new, as they were built in 2020. Each is
equipped with a 1500 gallon per minute (gpm) pump and carries 500 gallons of water.
Figure 66: ECCFPD Frontline Apparatus Inventory (2021)
Unit Type Manufacturer Year Condition Features
Engines (Type 1)
Engine 52 Type 1 Quantum 2020 Excellent 1500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 53 Type 1 Quantum 2020 Excellent 1500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 59 Type 1 Quantum 2020 Excellent 1500 gpm, 500 gal.
Engines (Type 3)
Engine 352 Type 3 International 2005 Good 1250 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 353 Type 3 International 2004 Good 1250 gpm, 500 gal.
Engine 359 Type 3 International 2004 Good 1250 gpm, 500 gal.
Water Tenders
Tender 52 Type 1 Freightliner 2003 Fair 1250 gpm, 3000 gal.
Tender 53 Type 1 Freightliner 2002 Good 1250 gpm, 3000 gal.
Tender 59 Type 1 Freightliner 2001 Good 1250 gpm, 3000 gal.
The District’s Type 3 engines average 17 years of age combined. ECCFPD maintains three
frontline Water Tenders whose combined age is about 19 years. The tenders are each
equipped with a 1,250-gpm pump and have a combined water-carrying capacity of 9,000
gallons. The District also has a reserve fleet of four Type 1 engines in “Poor” condition and
one Water Tender in “Poor” condition.
The next figure lists the inventory of East Contra Costa FPD’s frontline command and
support vehicles.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
74
Figure 67: ECCFPD Frontline Command & Staff Vehicles Fleet Inventory (2021)
Unit Type Manufacturer Year Assigned To
Chief 5100 Command/Admin Ford Expedition 2020 Fire Chief
BC 5111 Command Ford F-250 2020 Administration
BC 5112 Command Ford F-250 2019 Administration
BC 5113 Command Ford F-250 2019 Administration
BC 5114 Command Ford F-250 2015 Administration
5120 Staff Vehicle Ford F-150 2020 Fire Marshal
5123 Staff Vehicle Ford F-150 2020 Inspector
5124 Staff Vehicle Ford F-150 2020 Inspector
Nearly all of East Contra Costa FPD’s command and staff vehicles are less than three years
of age, and all were rated to be in “Excellent” condition. The District has another eight
vehicles in reserve in varying conditions.
Other ECCFPD Capital Equipment
The District also maintains a 2008 Safe Boat and trailer (currently on loan to CCCFPD) and a
utility trailer.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
75
Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District
The following figure lists the current inventory of RHFPD’s frontline fleet.
Figure 68: RHFPD Frontline Apparatus & Other Vehicles Inventory (2021)
Unit Type Manufacturer Year Condition Features
Engines & Aerials
Engine 75 Type 1 Spartan 2014 Excellent 2000 gpm
Quint 76 Quint Smeal 2006 Fair 100 ft. 2000 gpm
Engine 375 Type 3 International 2007 Excellent 500 gpm
Engine 376 Type 3 International 2005 Good 500 gpm
Command/Staff Vehicles
7500 SUV Chevrolet 2017 Excellent
7501 SUV Chevrolet 2017 Excellent
S2 SUV Ford 2005 Poor
S3 SUV Ford 2007 Good
PU 76 Pickup Ford 2005 Fair
RHFPD expects delivery of a new Smeal quint sometime in July 2021. RHFPD maintains two
engines in reserve (Engine 75A and Engine 76). Both are rated as in “Poor” condition. The
District uses a 10-year replacement cycle for its engines.
Collective Apparatus Inventories
The following figure lists the frontline fleet inventories of the three fire districts combined.
Figure 69: Collective Inventory of the Fire Districts Frontline Fleets (2021)
Fire District EnginesA Aerials Ambulances Tenders WildlandB Others
CCCFPD 26 6 20 2 19 24C
ECCFPD 3 — — 3 3 —
RHFPD 1 1 — — 2 1
Totals: 30 7 20 5 24 25
AIncludes Type 1 only. BIncludes Type 3 & Type 6. CApproximate.
In the preceding figure, the “Wildland” category represents Type 3 apparatus. The “Others”
category represents a broad range of vehicles from bulldozers to water craft.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
76
The next figure lists the collective frontline apparatus by type and minimum staffing by fire
station. It is important to note that additional specialty apparatus and other vehicles may
be located at the fire stations below but may be cross-staffed or in reserve.
Figure 70: Collective Apparatus & Minimum Staffing by Fire Station—Part 1 (2021)
Fire Station Engines Aerials Tenders Wildland Minimum
Staffing
Contra Costa County FPD
Station 1 1 1 — — 7
Station 2 1 — — 1 3
Station 3 1 — — 1 3
Station 5 1 — 1 — 4A
Station 6 1 1 — — 8A
Station 7 1 — — — 3
Station 8 1 — — 1 3
Station 9 1 — — 1 3
Station 10 1 — — — 3
Station 11 1 — — 1 3
Station 13 1 — — 1 3
Station 14 1 1 1 — 4
Station 15 1 — — 1 3
Station 16 1 — — — 3
Station 17 1 — — 1 3
Station 22 1 — — 1 3
Station 69 1 — — 1 3
Station 70 1 1B — — 5
Station 81 1 — — 1 3
Station 82 1 — — — 3
Station 83 — 1 — 1 4
Station 84 — 1 — 1 4
Station 85 1 — — 1 3
Station 86 1 — — 1 3
Station 87 1 — — — 3
Station 88 1 — — 1 3
AIncludes on—duty Battalion Chief. BTruck will be staffed in July 2021.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
77
Figure 71: Collective Apparatus & Minimum Staffing by Fire Station—Part 2 (2021)
Fire Station Engines Ambulances Tenders Wildland Minimum
Staffing
East Contra Costa FPD
Station 52 1 — 1 1 4A
Station 53 1 — 1 1 3
Station 59 1 — 1 1 3
Rodeo—Hercules Fire Protection District
Station 75 1 — — 1 3
Station 76 1 — — 1 3
Grand Totals: 29 6 5 21 109
AIncludes on—duty Battalion Chief.
Discussion of the Fleet Inventories
When considering a potential annexation of other fire districts, it will be crucial to obtain an
accurate and detailed inventory of apparatus utilized for emergency operations. As a
result of consolidation, operations personnel may potentially be assigned to apparatus with
which they are not familiar. Therefore, during the planning and implementation process, it
will be crucial to consider orientation and training on all apparatus. It will also be important
to begin to plan to standardize the features and configurations of apparatus throughout
the fire district—particularly among the engines.
Apparatus & Vehicle Maintenance
Contra Costa County FPD
The majority of Contra Costa County FPD’s fleet maintenance is done internally by the
District’s Apparatus Shop. The Fire Apparatus Manager supervises a Fire Service
Coordinator, Driver/Clerk, and six Fire Equipment Mechanics (FEM). The FEMs are certified
by the National Institute for Automotive Service Excellence (ASE) in vehicle repair and the
California Fire Mechanics Academy (CFMA) to maintain fire apparatus.
East Contra Costa FPD
ECCFPD utilizes a non-employee mechanic on contract who provides most of the fleet
maintenance for the District.
Rodeo-Hercules FPD
RHFPD outsources its vehicle maintenance to the Alameda County Fire Department and a
commercial company that specializes in emergency vehicle services.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
78
Capital Medical & Other Equipment
Since Contra Costa County FPD is the provider of ALS-level ambulance service, and
Rodeo-Hercules FPD provides ALS-level medical first-response, it is important to review their
inventories of capital medical equipment. Likely the costliest piece of capital medical
equipment for an advanced life support provider is the cardiac monitor/defibrillator.
Contra Costa County FPD
Contra Costa County FPD utilizes the state-of-the-art Physio-Control Lifepak® 15
Monitor/Defibrillator on its ALS-equipped apparatus and ambulances. The District maintains
63 of these, with features and capabilities to conduct 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECG),
and monitor end-tidal CO2 (EtCO2), blood pressure, and oxygen saturation (SpO2). The
monitor/defibrillators range in age from 2–8 years, with an average age of 7.6 years.
Another significant capital medical expense for ambulances is powered gurneys. CCCFPD
maintains 20 Stryker Power Pro XPS ambulance cots. Powered stretchers are a valuable
piece of equipment for personnel assigned to ambulances, as their use minimizes injuries to
both staff and patients.
The District maintains 30 LUCAS® Chest Compression Systems, which is another costly but
valuable piece of capital medical equipment. This device produces “near-perfect”
automated chest compressions for patients in cardiopulmonary arrest, which frees up EMS
personnel who would normally need to perform manual compressions.
East Contra Costa FPD
Since ECCFPD provides medical first-response at the BLS level, they utilize the Physio-Control
Lifepak® 1000 Automated External Defibrillator. They maintain 12 units which were all
purchased in 2015. The District has four LUCAS® Chest Compression Systems.
Rodeo-Hercules FPD
Consistent with CCCFPD’s equipment, RHFPD maintains two Physio-Control Lifepak® 15
Monitor/Defibrillators along with four Physio-Control Lifepak® 12 Monitor/Defibrillators that
are more than 20 years old. The Lifepak® 15s have the same features as CCCFPD’s
monitors. Rodeo-Hercules FPD also have a variety of eDRAULIC® and other hydraulic
extrication tools that include spreader jaws, cutters, and rams. The District has two LUCAS®
Chest Compression Systems.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
79
Capital Medical Equipment Discussion
All three fire districts utilize Physio-Control Lifepak® products. This is important in the event of
a full annexation, as these expensive products are compatible. Operations personnel
should be familiar with the equipment, which will reduce the necessity of training all
members in the use of different cardiac monitor/defibrillators. Additionally, CCCFPD and
ECCFPD both utilize the LUCAS® Chest Compression System.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
80
HISTORICAL SERVICE DELIVERY & PERFORMANCE
System response workload is an important factor to determine the number of resources
(stations, apparatus, and personnel) that are needed to provide the desired level of
service. Higher service demands can tax resources and can result in diminished response
time performance. The following figures show response workload for each agency over the
past 11 years.
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020IncidentsFireEMSOtherTotal
Figure 72: Response Workload History—CCCFPD
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
81
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020IncidentsFireEMSOtherTotal
Figure 73: Response Workload History—ECCFPD
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
82
Temporal Analysis
A review of incidents by time reveals when the greatest response demand occurs. The
following figures show how activity and demand change for each of the agencies based
on measures of time. The following figure shows response activity by month. There is some
variation by month.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020IncidentsFireEMSOtherTotal
Figure 74: Response Workload History—RHFPD
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecCCCFPD IncidentsFigure 75: Response Workload by Month—CCCFPD
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
83
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct NovECCFPD IncidentsFigure 76: Response Workload by Month— ECCFPD
0
50
100
150
200
250
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecRHFD IncidentsFigure 77: Response Workload by Month—RHFPD
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
84
Next, response workload is compared by day of week. Again, there is a little variation in
response workload by weekday.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri SatCCCFPD IncidentsFigure 78: Response Workload by Day of Week—CCCFPD
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri SatECCFPD IncidentsFigure 79: Response Workload by Day of Week—ECCFPD
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
85
Incident activity by hour of day always shows significant variation. Response workload
directly correlates with the activity of people, with workload increasing during daytime
hours and decreasing during nighttime hours.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri SatRHFD IncidentsFigure 80: Response Workload by Day of Week—RHFPD
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223CCCFPD IncidentsHour
Figure 81: Response Workload by Hour of Day—CCCFPD
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
86
Spatial Analysis
Incident activity varies greatly across each agency’s service area. The greater the
population, the greater the number of incidents in any given area. The following figures
illustrate geographic distribution of incidents for the year 2020.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23ECCFPD IncidentsHour
Figure 82: Response Workload by Hour of Day—ECCFPD
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223HRFD IncidentsHour
Figure 83: Response Workload by Hour of Day—RHFPD
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
87
Figure 84: Incidents per Square Mile—All Incidents (2020)
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
88
Service demand varies by area based on incident types. The following figure displays the
density of fire incidents occurring within the study area in 2020. Fire incidents are also
concentrated in areas of greater population.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
89
Figure 85: Incidents per Square Mile—Fire Incidents (2020)
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
90
Emergency medical incidents also occur in greater concentration in areas of higher
population density. The following figure displays emergency medical incidents per square
mile during 2020.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
91
Figure 86: Incidents per Square Mile—EMS Incidents (2020)
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
92
Unit Workload Analysis
Response unit workload impacts response performance. The greater the utilization of a
response, the greater the likelihood it will be unavailable for an incident in its primary
service area. Although fire stations and response units may be distributed in a manner to
provide quick response, that level of performance can only be obtained when the
response unit is available in its primary service area.
Response Unit Workload
The workload on individual response units for each agency during 2020 is shown in the
following figures. Individual response unit workload can be greater than the workload in its
home station area. Many incidents, such as structure fires, require more than one response
apparatus and other vehicles.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
93
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
E688
E188
E187
E386
E186
E685
E185
T184
E384
E184
T183
E383
E183
R82
R382
E182
E381
E181
SQ70
E170
R369
E369
E169
E322
E122
E619
E319
E317
E117
E116
E315
E115
T114
E114
E313
E113
E311
E111
R310
R10
E110
E309
E109
E308
E108
E307
E107
BS107
T106
E106
WT105
E305
E105
E303
E103
E302
E102
T101
E101
Responses
Figure 87: Responses by Unit—CCCFPD
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
94
The amount of time a given unit is committed to an incident is also an important workload
factor. The following figure illustrates the average time each unit was committed to an
incident, from initial dispatch until it was available for another incident.
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
WT159
E359
E159
WT153
E353
E153
WT152
E352
E152
Responses
Figure 88: Responses by Unit—ECCFPD
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Q176
E376
E176
E375
E175
Responses
Figure 89: Responses by Unit—RHFPD
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
95
Figure 90: Average Time Committed to an Incident—CCCFPD
(minutes.seconds)
Unit Average Unit Average
E101 15.19 E117 21.26
T101 18.09 E317 58.76
E102 19.65 E319 7.96
E302 31.27 E619 29.13
E103 21.95 E122 16.35
E303 30.62 E322 57.55
E105 19.13 E169 18.72
E305 21.55 E369 29.45
WT105 65.54 R369 20.45
E106 15.97 E170 16.56
T106 14.70 SQ70 17.10
BS107 81.39 E181 16.90
E107 18.63 E381 24.78
E307 41.11 E182 17.79
E108 17.84 R382 57.21
E308 34.06 R82 15.96
E109 17.87 E183 12.20
E309 28.76 E383 25.61
E110 18.82 T183 16.03
R10 15.64 E184 17.21
R310 35.33 E384 18.13
E111 18.01 T184 16.19
E311 27.92 E185 16.82
E113 20.84 E685 30.46
E313 35.54 E186 20.86
E114 18.46 E386 25.27
T114 18.14 E187 20.31
E115 21.92 E188 17.43
E315 19.59 E688 35.52
E116 21.88
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
96
Figure 91: Average Time Committed to an Incident—ECCFPD
(minutes.seconds)
Unit Average
E152 17.61
E352 65.87
WT152 125.41
E153 18.29
E353 63.08
WT153 79.21
E159 23.20
E359 85.79
WT159 115.40
Figure 92: Average Time Committed to an Incident—RHFPD
(minutes.seconds)
Unit Average
E175 19.56
E375 59.66
E176 16.74
E376 51.52
Q176 19.22
Unit hour utilization is calculated by dividing the total time a unit is committed to all
incidents during a year divided by the total time in a year. It describes the percentage of
time a unit is not available for response since it is already committed to another incident.
The larger the percentage, the greater a unit’s utilization and the less available it is for
assignment to an incident.
Monitoring unit hour utilization is important for those fire agencies using percentile-based
performance standards. When performance is measured at the 90th percentile, a response
unit with greater than 10% utilization will not be able to provide on-time response to its 90%
target even if response is its only activity.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
97
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%
E688
E188
E187
E386
E186
E685
E185
T184
E384
E184
T183
E383
E183
R82
R382
E182
E381
E181
SQ70
E170
R369
E369
E169
E322
E122
E619
E319
E317
E117
E116
E315
E115
T114
E114
E313
E113
E311
E111
R310
R10
E110
E309
E109
E308
E108
E307
E107
BS107
T106
E106
WT105
E305
E105
E303
E103
E302
E102
T101
E101
Unit Hour Utilization
Figure 93: Unit Hour Utilization—CCCFPD
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
98
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%
WT159
E359
E159
WT153
E353
E153
WT152
E352
E152
Unit hour utiization
Figure 94: Unit Hour Utilization—ECCFPD
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%
Q176
E376
E176
E375
E175
Unit hour utilization
Figure 95: Unit Hour Utilization—RHFPD
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
99
Historical System Performance
Data for incidents occurring between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020, was
evaluated in detail to determine the current response performance of each agency. Data
was obtained from agency incident records and the Dispatch Center’s computer-aided
dispatch system.
Only priority incidents occurring within each agency’s service areas are included. Priority
incidents are those to which the fire district responded “Code 3” (using warning lights and
sirens). Non-emergency public assistance requests were excluded. Performance is reported
based on the type of incident as dispatched. Three categories are used to report
performance:
• Fire—Responses to a report of a possible fire.
• Emergency medical—All emergency medical incidents.
• Other—Any other incident to which the fire district responded with lights and sirens.
Five phases of incident response are included in the evaluation:
1. Call answer time—The time from the phone ringing at the 9—1—1 center until its
answered.
2. Dispatch time—The time from the phone being answered until response units are
notified of the emergency.
3. Turnout time—The time from when response crews are notified until they have
initiated movement towards the incident.
4. Travel time—The time from when response crews begin movement towards the
incident until arrival.
5. Response time—The time from the initial notification of response personnel until
arrival at the incident (turnout time plus travel time).
6. Received to arrival time—The time from when the phone is answered at the
dispatch center until arrival of response personnel at the incident (dispatch time plus
turnout time plus travel time).
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
100
Each phase of the incident response sequence was evaluated to determine current
performance. In keeping with national guidance, all response time elements are reported
at a given percentile. Percentile reporting is a methodology by which response times are
sorted from least to greatest, and a “line” is drawn at a certain percentage of the calls to
determine the percentile. The point at which the “line” crosses the 90th percentile, for
example, is the percentile time performance. Thus, 90% of times were at or less than the
result. Only 10% were longer.
Percentile differs greatly from average. Averaging calculates response times by adding all
response times together and then dividing the total number of minutes by the total number
of responses (mean average). Measuring and reporting average response times is not
recommended. Using averages does not give a clear picture of response performance
because it does not clearly identify the number and extent of events with times beyond
the stated performance goal.
What follows is a detailed description and review of each phase of the response time
continuum.
Detection
The detection of an emergency may occur immediately if someone happens to be
present or if an automatic system is functioning. Otherwise, detection may be delayed,
sometimes for a considerable period. The time for this phase begins with the inception of
the emergency and ends when the emergency is detected and reported. It is largely
outside the control of the fire district and not a part of the event sequence that is reliably
measurable.
Call Processing
Most emergency incidents are reported by telephone to the 9-1-1 center. Dispatch center
personnel must quickly elicit accurate information about the nature and location of the
incident. A citizen well-trained in how to report emergencies can reduce the time required
for this phase. The dispatcher must identify the correct units based on incident type and
location, dispatch them to the emergency, and continue to update information about the
emergency while the units respond. This phase begins when the 9-1-1 call is answered at
the primary public safety answer point (PSAP) and ends when response personnel are
notified of the emergency. This phase, which has two parts, is labeled “call processing
time.”
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
101
Contra Costa Regional Fire Communications Center (CCRFCC) is the primary 9-1-1 call
answer point for the agencies. It answers the 9-1-1 call, queries the call to determine nature
and location, and then dispatches response units.
National Fire Protection Association Standard 1221 recommends that 9-1-1 calls be
answered within 15 seconds, 90% of the time (within 20 seconds, 95% of the time). CCRFCC
reports they answer calls within 15 seconds 99% of the time.
The second part of call processing time, dispatch time, begins when the call is answered
and ends when response units are notified of the incident.
The following figure illustrates performance by the Dispatch Center from the time it answers
the call until it notifies response units for each of the study agencies.
Turnout Time
Turnout time begins at notification of an emergency in progress by the Dispatch Center
and ends when personnel and apparatus begin movement towards the incident location.
Personnel must don appropriate equipment, assemble on the response vehicle, and begin
travel to the incident. Training and fire station design can minimize the time required for this
step.
0:00
0:30
1:00
1:30
2:00
2:30
CCCFPD ECCFPD RHFDCall process minutesEMS Fire Other All
Figure 96: Dispatch Time
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
102
The following figure illustrates turnout time by agency for specific incident types.
Distribution & Initial Arriving Unit Travel Time
Travel time is typically the longest of the response phases. The distance between the fire
station and the location of the emergency influences response time the most. Other
factors include the quality and connectivity of streets, traffic, topography, and
environmental conditions. Only RHFPD has established a goal for travel time at within 4
minutes or less, 90% of the time.
The following figures illustrate the street segments that can be reached from all agency fire
stations in six and nine minutes of travel time. It is based on posted road speeds modified to
account for turning, stops, and acceleration. Much of the agencies’ service areas are
beyond six minutes travel time. However, the areas of greatest incident activity are all
within the six-minute travel coverage area. Better coverage is noted at nine minutes.
0:00
0:30
1:00
1:30
2:00
2:30
CCCFPD ECCFPD RHFDTurnout time minutesEMS Fire Other All
Figure 97: Turnout Time
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
103
Figure 98: Six Minute Travel Coverage
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
104
Figure 99: Nine Minute Travel Coverage
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study CCCFPD/ECCFPD/RHFPD
105
The following figure shows travel time for all priority incidents as well as specific incident
types for each agency.
Incident coverage was evaluated based on the six-minute travel model. The number of
priority incidents within six minutes travel of a fire station for each agency during 2020 was
as follows:
• CCCFPD: 31,074 of 32,161 total priority incidents—96.6%
• ECCFPD: 3,638 of 5,548 total priority incidents—65.6%
• RHFPD: 1,478 of 1,498 total priority incidents—98.6%
Travel Time Performance by Region
Travel time performance by region is variable and influenced by factors such as individual
response unit workload, the size of the station area, and the street system serving it.
Connected, grid-patterned street systems provide faster response times than do areas with
meandering streets and numerous dead ends.
The following figure evaluates travel time performance by area using inverse distance
weighting analysis (IDW). This process uses travel time for known points (actual incidents) to
predict travel time for the area surrounding the actual incident. Better performance is
generally noted near fire stations with progressively longer response times for those
incidents more distant from the stations.
00:00
02:00
04:00
06:00
08:00
10:00
12:00
CCCFPD ECCFPD RHFDTravel minutesEMS Fire Other All
Figure 100: Travel Time
106
Figure 101: Travel Time by Region
107
The proposed annexation and ECCFPD’s budget includes plans to open Station 55 with a
staffed engine company. The proposed annexation will result in the addition of a staffed
ladder truck to Station 52. This will improve travel times, and overall response times, to some
degree.
The following figure illustrates the six-minute travel coverage from Station 55 along with six-
minute travel coverage from existing stations. This station would have put 228 incidents
within six minutes travel from this station.
The next figure illustrates the nine-minute travel coverage from Station 55 along with nine-
minute travel coverage from existing stations. There is some overlap of coverage from
Station 55 into Station 53’s area.
Figure 102: Six-Minute Travel Coverage from Station 55
108
Staffing a ladder truck at Station 52 will also provide some improvement to travel times.
Engine 152’s current unit hour utilization is high at 12 percent. This reduces its reliability for
subsequent incidents. The ladder truck will provide a second unit in that station area to
cover concurrent incidents.
First Arriving Unit Response Time
Response time is the period between the notification of response personnel by the
dispatch center until arrival of the first fire district response unit at the emergency.
The following figure illustrates response time for all priority incidents as well as specific
incident types for each agency.
Figure 103: Nine-Minute Travel Coverage from Station 55
109
First Arriving Unit Received to Arrival Time (Total Response Time)
From the customer’s standpoint, response time begins when the emergency occurs. Their
first contact with emergency services is when they call for help, usually by dialing 9-1-1.
Received to arrival time combines call processing, turnout, and travel time.
The next figure shows received to arrival performance for priority incidents by incident type
for each agency.
00:00
02:00
04:00
06:00
08:00
10:00
12:00
CCCFPD ECCFPD RHFDResponse minutesEMS Fire Other All
Figure 104: Response Times
00:00
02:00
04:00
06:00
08:00
10:00
12:00
14:00
16:00
18:00
20:00
CCCFPD ECCFPD RHFDReceived to arrival minutesEMS Fire Other All
Figure 105: Received to Arrival Time
110
Concentration & Effective Response Force Capability Analysis
Effective Response Force (ERF) is the number of personnel and apparatus to effectively
mitigate an emergency incident. The number of personnel and the number and type of
apparatus needed depends on the specific type of emergency. This resource need is
based on the specific tasks and activities that need to be completed early in emergency
event mitigation.
Only RHFPD has established a goal for the delivery of the ERF. For a low-rise structure fire
(house, small office, small store), that goal is to provide four fire engines, one ladder truck,
and one battalion chief to the incident within 10 minutes of notification of response
personnel, 90% of the time. CCCFPD and ECCFPD have established similar resource
requirements but have not established a time standard.
Response time data for structure fires occurring during 2020 was evaluated to identify each
agency’s current performance. Performance is based on resources needed as identified
by each agency for a low-rise structure fire. Not all building fire incidents received the full
ERF. Many were fires out on arrival or small enough that the initial alarm assignment was not
needed.
CCCFPD
CCCFPD responded to 565 building fires in 2020 and delivered the full ERF 53 times. Full ERF
was delivered within 26 minutes 59 seconds, 90% of the time. The following figure illustrates
the frequency distribution of ERF arrival times for the 53 incidents.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031Incidents
Minutes to ERF arrival
Figure 106: Frequency Distribution of ERF Arrival Times—CCCFPD
111
ECCFPD
ECCFPD responded to 88 reported building fires. However, it did not deliver the full ERF to
any of them. ECCFPD’s alarm assignments call for four fire engines, one ladder truck and
one battalion chief. None of the building fires included the arrival of a ladder truck.
ECCFPD did deliver four engines and a battalion chief within 24 minutes 37 seconds, 90% of
the time (ranging between 9 minutes 35 seconds and 28 minutes 34 seconds). Four engines
and a Battalion Chief only deliver 13 personnel rather than the 17 needed for a low-rise
building fire.
RHFPD
RHFPD responded to 28 building fires during 2020 and delivered a full ERF to two of those.
The time to deliver the ERF was 22 minutes 37 seconds for one and 17 minutes 4 seconds for
the other.
Incident Concurrency
The frequency of concurrent incidents impact response time performance. The greater the
number of concurrent incidents, the less available are response units. The following figure
shows the number of times during the 2020 that one or more incidents occurred
concurrently for each agency.
Figure 107: Incident Concurrency—CCCFPD
No. of Incidents Frequency
1 683
2 1,965
3 3,533
4 4,841
5 5,577
6 5,780
7 5,138
8 4,228
9 3,252
10 2,137
11 1,328
12 710
13 284
14 84
15 16
112
Incident concurrency for ECCFPD is understated. 1,416 out of 7,794 incidents in the record
did not have valid last unit cleared times.
Figure 108: Incident Concurrency—ECCFPD
Concurrent
Incidents Frequency
1 2,694
2 1,936
3 1,012
4 458
5 170
6 68
7 21
8 4
9 6
Incident concurrency for RHFPD is also understated. 450 out of 2,270 incidents in the record
did not have valid last unit cleared times.
Figure 109: Incident Concurrency—RHFPD
Concurrent
Incidents Frequency
1 1,403
2 358
3 50
4 8
5 1
Unit Concurrency
The number of times one or more response units from an agency are committed to
incidents at the same time is also an important measure. The following shows unit
concurrency for each of the agencies during 2020.
113
Figure 110: Unit Concurrency—CCCFPD
Concurrent
Incidents Frequency
1 9,335
2 10,674
3 9,536
4 6,537
5 4,211
6 2,537
7 1,501
8 1,042
9 648
10 316
11 195
12 95
13 62
14 24
15 4
Figure 111: Unit Concurrency—ECCFPD
Concurrent
Incidents Frequency
1 5,780
2 2,194
3 637
4 144
5 107
6 51
7 11
8 3
Figure 112: Unit Concurrency—RHFPD
Concurrent
Incidents Frequency
1 2,103
2 453
3 11
114
STAKEHOLDER INPUT & ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS
At the beginning of this study, Triton developed a web-based survey that was distributed to
the employees and personnel. The survey was designed to be confidential, and neither
Triton nor anyone from the fire districts were aware of the respondents’ names. The primary
intent was to gauge the opinions and attitudes of those respondents affiliated with the fire
districts.
A total of 211 respondents completed the survey, although each did not respond to all
questions. The next figures show the results of the survey. The percentages listed in the
responses were rounded to the nearest integer. Appendix B lists the comments from each
of the questions.
The following figure lists the responses to the question, “I am a member or affiliated with:”
One individual skipped this question.
Figure 113: Fire District Affiliations of the Respondents
Fire District Responses % Total1
Contra Costa County FPD 156 74%
East Contra Costa FPD 40 19%
Rodeo-Hercules FPD 14 7%
Other 1 0.5%
Totals: 211
1Rounded to the nearest integer.
The next figure lists responses to the question, “My current position with one of the fire
districts is…” One individual skipped this question.
115
Figure 114: Positions of the Respondents at each Fire District
Position Responses % Total1
Firefighter/Paramedic/Engineer 94 45%
Fire Officer (Captain) 50 24%
Other Position 25 12%
Administrative Support Staff 20 10%
Command Staff (above Captain's rank) 19 9%
None of the Above 2 1%
Totals: 210
1Rounded to the nearest integer.
As expected, the preceding figure shows that the majority of respondents included
operations staff and officers. Those listing themselves in the “Other” category were primarily
individuals working in Fire Prevention or Communications. In hindsight, it would have been
valuable to include some of these positions in this question.
Since the delivery of Emergency Medical Services is a major element of service provided
by the each of the fire districts, the next question was included in the survey. “My EMS
certification level is…”
53%
27%
20%
EMT-Basic EMT-Paramedic Other
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Figure 115: Respondent’s Level of EMS Certification
116
Not unexpectedly, the results shown in the preceding figure show that by far the majority of
respondents were certified at the EMT-Basic level.
The next figure lists responses to the question, “My opinion of a potential annexation of the
East Contra Costa County and Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection Districts in this study is…”
Figure 116: Respondent’s Opinions of a Potential Fire District Annexation
Opinion/Position Responses % Total1
I am in FAVOR so long as it results in improved services. 137 65%
I am neither in FAVOR or OPPOSED until I know more details. 60 29%
I am OPPOSED to it. 9 4%
I have another position 5 2%
Totals: 211
1Rounded to the nearest integer.
The results found in the preceding figure show that 65% of respondents were in favor of
annexation so long as it resulted in improved services, while 29% were neither in favor nor
opposed to annexation. A small number of respondents (4%) indicated they were opposed
to annexation.
The following figure shows responses to the question, “In my opinion, the top priorities in
both my district and a potential consolidated fire district should be rated as follows (1 being
the highest priority and 6 the lowest priority).”
Figure 117: Areas of Fire Protection & EMS Warranting the Highest Priority
Priority
Area/Topic Description 1 2 3
Fiscal stability/sustainable funding 66% 14% 7%
Improved service delivery to the community 50% 19% 12%
Adequate staffing levels to cover existing fire stations 41% 19% 17%
Cohesive fire services for the CCCFPD service areas 34% 12% 17%
Improved staffing levels to open closed fire stations 32% 34% 11%
Special operations team coordination 31% 16% 18%
1Rounded to the nearest integer.
117
The results shown in the preceding figure indicated that the respondents felt that financial
stability and sustainable funding was the top priority. Improved service delivery to the
community and adequate staffing levels to cover existing fire stations were considered by
the respondents as the next two highest priorities respectfully.
Due to their similarities, when combining the responses to the questions “adequate staffing
levels to cover existing fire stations” and “improved staffing levels to open closed fire
stations,” the result was that 73% of the respondents considered this the number one
priority.
When reviewing the responses from this perspective, the top three most important priorities
of the 211 individuals that responded to this question were as follows:
• Adequate staffing.
• Funding and financial sustainability.
• Improved services to the community.
Triton interviewed a wide variety of the three fire districts' internal and external
stakeholders. The purpose of these interviews was to gain a better understanding of issues,
concerns, and options regarding the emergency service delivery system, opportunities for
shared services, and expectations of community members from the three districts.
It is important to note that the information solicited and provided during this process was in
the form of "people inputs" (stakeholders individually responding to our questions), some of
which are perceptions reported by stakeholders. All information was accepted at face
value without an in-depth investigation of its origination or reliability. The project team
reviewed the information for consistency and frequency of comment to identify specific
patterns and trends. Multiple sources confirmed the observations, and the information
provided was significant enough to be included within this report. Based on the information
reviewed, the team identified a series of statements, recommendations, and needs and
confirmed with multiple sources that all was significant enough to be here.
Interviews included 69 stakeholders from nine separate groups: Elected Officials, Business
Community Leaders, Chief Officers, Labor Leaders, Rank & File Representatives,
Administrative Staff, City and County Management, RHFD Measure O Oversight Committee
Members, and the Contra Costa Fire Advisory Commission.
Results of the interviews can be found in Appendix C.
118
Section I-B:
SUPPORT PROGRAMS
119
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
As with most fire districts and communities, EMS represents the most frequent demand for
services among the three fire districts. EMS service demand is driven by the population and
demographics of a community. The following section describes how each fire district
provides EMS to their respective communities.
EMS in Contra Costa County
It is beyond the scope of this study to address in great detail the various components of the
EMS system in Contra Costa County and among each of the fire districts. However, it must
be noted that the County maintains a robust and effective EMS system.
EMS Administration
The EMS system in the County is administered by Contra Costa EMS (CCEMS). CCEMS is a
division of Contra Costa Health Services and has a broad spectrum of responsibilities
related to the administration of the EMS system. This ranges from ensuring adequate
training and continuing medical education to the certification and accreditation of EMS
providers. CCEMS has a program in place to address frequent users of the EMS system.
Hospitals & Tertiary Care Facilities
There are multiple hospitals located throughout Contra Costa County, as well as tertiary
facilities—such as Children’s Hospital Oakland—outside the County. Some of the larger
facilities include John Muir Health, Concord Medical Center, Contra Costa Regional
Medical Center, John Muir Health, Walnut Creek Medical Center, and Kaiser Medical
Center in Walnut Creek, Richmond, and Antioch
Several of the hospitals in the County are designated stroke centers and also provide
cardiac catheterization. The John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek is designated as a
Level II Trauma Center. Outside of the County, the UC Medical Center in San Francisco is
designated as both an adult and pediatric Level I Trauma Center.
Air Medical Service
Critical care helicopter transport is available in Contra Costa County from a merger of
REACH Air Medical Services and California Shock Trauma Air Rescue (CALSTAR).
120
EMS at Contra Costa County FPD
Medical First Response
CCCFPD provides medical first-response at both the BLS and ALS levels through
deployment of its apparatus and Firefighter/EMTs and Firefighter/Paramedics from the
District’s 27 active fire stations. At least 30 or more apparatus (engines, trucks, rescues) are
configured and equipped as ALS units.
ALS Patient Transport
In order to ensure the provision of advanced life support ambulance service, Contra Costa
County FPD has developed a unique and effective relationship with American Medical
Response (AMR)—referred to as the “Alliance.”
In the Alliance between AMR and CCCFPD, the District provides the medic units
(ambulances), capital equipment, and durable and disposable supplies, while AMR
provides the EMTs and Paramedics to staff each of the medic units. Currently, CCCFPD
maintains a fleet of 20 new (2021) Type III ambulances.
The District maintains a daily schedule of 671 ambulance unit hours, and is staffed with a
minimum of one AMR EMT and one AMR Paramedic working 12-hour shifts. The Alliance
utilizes peak-demand medic units and a System Status Management (SSM) deployment
system. Medic units are not deployed from fixed facilities, but are instead assigned “posts”
at strategic locations. When necessary, CCCFPD can utilize mutual aid from the San
Ramon Valley Fire Protection District or Moraga-Orinda Fire Protection District.
EMS Administration
The District maintains an EMS Division overseen by an Assistant Fire Chief. A Battalion Chief,
Captain, and Administrative Assistant are also assigned to the Division, which also
outsources for the services of a Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Coordinator. AMR
provides an Operations Manager, six EMS Supervisors, and a Regional Director. CCCFPD’s
Medical Director reports directly to the Fire Chief and is a board-certified Emergency
Physician with a Master of Public Health degree.
The EMS Division is responsible for EMS training and continuing medical education, clinical
and operational EMS quality management, and a number of other EMS administrative
functions. The Alliance budget remains at approximately $55 million annually.
121
The next figure is a simple graphic illustration showing Contra Costa County FPD’s EMS
Division budget within its General Operating Fund for the past three fiscal years, and does
not include revenue from the Transport Fund.
EMS at East Contra Costa FPD
ECCFPD provides medical first-response at the BLS level primarily through dispatch and
deployment of its engine companies. The District currently employs 35 certified EMT-Basics.
East Contra Costa FPD relies on CCCFPD’s AMR Alliance program to provide BLS and ALS
patient transport.
The District’s EMS & Safety Division is managed by a Battalion Chief. Two Registered Nurses
are assigned to the EMS Division and are responsible for clinical education, CQI, and
infection control. The Medical Director is a board-certified Emergency Physician and
participates in CQI and ride-alongs, and has frequent interactions with operations
personnel.
EMS Rodeo-Hercules FPD
RHFPD provides both BLS and ALS first response services through deployment of its engine
companies staffed with nine paramedics and 13 firefighters certified as basic EMTs. As
mentioned, RHFPD relies on Contra Costa County FPD tor ALS patient transport services.
$448,400
$357,525
$289,475
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
$450,000
$500,000
FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21
Figure 118: CCCFPD EMS Division Budget (FY 18/19–FY 20/21)
122
One RHFPD Captain oversees EMS, and an independent contractor is utilized to provide
training, CME, and EMS quality management to the District. The District uses the same
Medical Director as ECCFPD, who meets with operations staff on an as-needed basis and
participates in the CQI program, but does not participate in ride-alongs. Personnel training
and CME attendance records are documented in the Target Solutions Training &
Operations Management System.
123
TRAINING & CONTINUING EDUCATION
Training is the foundation of all aspects of emergency services. An individual's ability to
effectively utilize resources and equipment is dependent on the level of training an
organization has provided. The following section provides an overview of the equipment,
facilities, execution, and efficacy of the three fire districts' current training programs. In
consideration of general training competencies, there are differences between the fire
districts.
The following section can serve as a gap analysis to help make a potential combined
organization's training plan.
General Training Competencies
The following figure summarizes the general training topics and certification levels provided
in each district.
Figure 119: General Training Competencies by Fire District
Training Competencies CCCFPD ECCFPD RHFPD
Incident Command System ICS Series ICS Series ICS Series
Accountability Procedures Yes Yes Yes
Training SOGs Yes Yes Yes
Recruit Academy Internal Internal Internal
Special Rescue Training Yes Yes Yes
HazMat Certifications Technician
& Specialist Operations Operations
Vehicle Extrication Training Basic Basic Basic
Driving Program No DO 1A and 1B No
Wildland Certifications S190/130 S190/130 S190/130
Communications & Dispatch Yes Yes Yes
Truck Company Operations Yes No No
Air Operations Yes No No
Fire Boat Operations Yes No Yes
124
Based on the above information, there appears to be an opportunity to improve
emergency vehicle driving programs. Recent research shows that a significant amount of
fire district liability results from emergency apparatus involved in accidents18. In addition to
establishing policies that each district has in place, the organization should consider
adopting a formal driving certification program.
This analysis also identified a gap in training competencies relating to special team, boat
and truck operations. Additionally, the combined organization will need to evaluate the
minimum qualifications for each promotional level. A common challenge during an
annexation process is the unification of crews. Station and apparatus crews will need to
assimilate and create a combined organization. It will be the responsibility of the Training
Division to ensure that all firefighters meet minimum expectations. Individuals from ECCFPD
and RHFPD will need focused training and certifications to support existing special
assignments.
Another topic that will require focused evaluation is the training requirements for individual
firefighters. The following images show a sample of firefighters from each district and
graphs the total number of training hours each individual received in 2019. 2020 data was
not an accurate representation of individual training due to the limitations of COVID-19.
Figure 120: CCCFPD Individual Training Analysis
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
191725334149576573818997105113121129137145153161169177185193201209217225233241249257265273281289
125
Figure 121: ECCFPD Individual Training Analysis
Figure 122: RHFPD Individual Training Analysis
All three fire districts demonstrated limited consistency in training hours that individuals had
received in 2019. The data supports the need to develop a consolidated program with
specific training topics and hours required by an individual firefighter. EMS education was
not included since levels of certification would determine the particular hours. Additionally,
it is understood that roles such as Engineer require specific training, but there appears to be
the need to establish minimal annual training requirements for all line personnel.
Training Topics Discussion
The following figure summarizes the general training topics and the emphasis each district
had for each discipline in 2019, compared to the incident percentage for each discipline.
0
50
100
150
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1234567891011121314151617181920212223
126
Figure 123: Training Emphasis per Fire District
District Incident Type Training Topic
Percentage
Incident
Percentage
CCCFPD
EMS/Rescue (300) 11% 57.3 %
Fire (100) 79% 5.0 %
Hazmat (400) 2% 1.7 %
Other 8% 36.0 %
ECCFPD
EMS/Rescue (300) 47% 56.8 %
Fire (100) 40% 4.6 %
Hazmat (400) 7% 2.0 %
Other 6% 36.6 %
RHFPD
EMS/Rescue (300) 56% 58%
Fire (100) 30% 6%
Hazmat (400) 4% 2%
Other 9% 34%
While each fire district has a comprehensive and extensive training program, CCCFPD
places more emphasis on fire-related training. A contributing factor to the difference in fire-
related training was the special teams, truck operations, boat operations, and CCCFPD
flight training. RHFPD placed a higher emphasis on medical education, and ECCFPD had a
higher percentage of HazMat-related training. A combined organization will need to
determine a training philosophy and develop a standardized program that meets the
community's needs.
Training Methodologies & Delivery
CCCFPD, ECCFPD, and RHFPD organized and dedicated training programs with a training
schedule exceeding re-certification requirements. All three districts utilize traditional
methodologies to bring on-duty crews into a combination of regionalized and centralized
locations for most medical and fire-related training.
Most organizations face challenges balancing the need to maintain district response
resources to perform multi-company training sessions. Travel time for Battalions 7, 8, and 9
to arrive at the centralized training can exceed 30 minutes.
127
Immersion Training
A common challenge for any training program is the development of training that
translates to improved efficacy. Current research supports the effectiveness of immersion
training that creates the illusion of an actual event. Individuals face evolutions with a high
level of realism resulting in a metaphorical immunization to some of the event's stress and
challenges. An example would be an active shooter exercise that involves volunteer
victims wearing "cut suits," which allows a paramedic to perform advanced procedures
while law enforcement stabilizes the scene.19 There are difficulties associated with these
types of events. They tend to be labor intensive and cost-prohibitive due to the overtime
required. A solution to the problem is to create immersion training on a smaller scale and
design the trainings to be mobile.
Training Repetition
Another perspective relates to the success found over the past ten years in King County,
Washington. Efficacy has been shown based on the use of repetitive skills training for
mastery of specific skills. King County has demonstrated one of the highest advanced
airway successes in-country based on redundant skills training.20
Numerous organizations have pursued and purchased high-fidelity simulators for enhanced
EMS training. The simulators provide excellent real-time feedback during a training
scenario. The devices' limitations include a cost between $60,000–$110,000, extensive
maintenance, and a lack of mobility. They have proven effective in a hospital setting or
training facility where the end-users are in one location. A more cost-effective and
proficient solution is the use of mid-fidelity mannequins. For the same amount of funding,
multiple mannequins can be purchased and then deployed throughout the organization.
This option can provide training without significant drive times to central training facilities
and allow paramedics to have repetitive skill practice sessions. Another benefit of mid-
fidelity training mannequins is the opportunity to develop proper sequencing. Identifying
the order of critical interventions is critical to the success of patient outcomes.
The previous concepts also apply to fireground training and the need for repetitive
evolutions. By de-centralizing fire or special team training, individuals have the opportunity
to perform multiple evolutions and, again, develop proper sequencing for critical tasks and
objectives.
128
CCCFPD currently uses a three rotational model. Training is provided in Battalion 8, 7, 1,
and 2, with sessions in the morning and afternoon. With a shared Battalion Chief on B-shift,
RHFPD also participates during the corresponding rotation. Following an annexation, a new
cycle will need to be developed to address each district's geographic distances. As stated
earlier, de-centralization of training will be essential.
Focused Training
Another component of a balanced training program includes focused training. An
organization's training schedule should consist of a percentage of training reflecting
retrospective statistical data from actual incidents. The districts should look for areas of
improvement relating to actual emergency responses. The preceding” Balanced Training
Program” figure shows that each district lacks a balance between actual incident volume
and training topic percentage. This gap is often attributed to the necessity to maintain
regional and State certification requirements. Also, organizations must allocate a
disproportionate amount of training to high-risk/low incidence events to maintain
fireground safety. AP Triton recognizes these limitations, but there should be a focus on
training relating to service demand when possible.
A good example is the region’s specific training relating to the current COVID-19
pandemic. Responders were required to learn enhanced body substance isolation, triage
protocols, and critical interventions specific to the pandemic. Another example is based
on current incident data showing an increase in mental health-related responses. Data
shows that incident call volume relating to behavioral emergencies is approximately 15%.
The training program should look for opportunities for additional levels of patient care or
service.
Recertification Training
Regional and State requirements for certifications are generally not an option for non-
compliance. When an opportunity exists, organizations should perform a cost/benefit
analysis on the various optional certifications.
129
Training Delivery & Scheduling
The following figure summarizes the training methodologies utilized by each of the districts.
Figure 124: Methodologies Utilized in Training by District
Training Methodologies CCCFPD ECCFPD RHFPD
Manipulative skills & tasks Yes Yes Yes
Fire training hours requirements Yes 20 hours/month Yes
EMS training hours requirements LEMSA1 See above 36 hours
Annual training hours tracked Yes Yes Yes
Use of lesson plans Yes Yes Yes
Night drills Yes No Annual
Multi-agency drills Yes No Quarterly
Disaster drills Yes No No
Pre-fire planning included Yes Yes Yes
1Local EMS Agency
Discussion
This analysis identified several opportunities for improvement relating to training delivery
and scheduling. The first relates to multi-agency multiple casualty incident (MCI) drills. It
appears that it has been 10+ years since the last exercise. Each organization trains each
year for MCI associated events. However, in consideration of the increase in active shooter
and other violent events, multi-agency coordination is essential. The annexation will help
ensure a consistent and coordinated response.
A second opportunity relates to the lack of multi-company and multi-agency training
involving ECCFPD. Due to station closures and a corresponding lack of operations staff,
ECCFPD has conducted very few multi-company training sessions. With the potential
addition of two companies to the ECCFPD system, additional training will be available.
Training Program Administration
A training program must be closely monitored, supported, and funded to function
effectively. Administrative program support is essential, along with program guidance in
developing training plans and establishing goals and specific training objectives.
130
All three fire districts have established administrative processes specific to their training
programs. This analysis identified that all three districts were inconsistent in their
requirements and documentation of training hours. Training efficacy, funding, and
compliance are often associated with the documented training hours. The organization
should consider a focused review of the documentation process. Following is a comparison
of each organization's training budget to the allocation of funding.
Figure 125: Annual Training Hours & Training Budget by District
Description CCCFPD ECCFPD RHFPD
Annual training hours 21,993 2,030/hrs. 2,461
Annual training budget Class 1: $3 million
Class 2: $250,000 $80,000 $17,300
Training Facilities & Resources
In today's fire service, multiple resources are necessary to arm the trainer with the tools
needed to provide realistic, practical, and verifiable training. Gordan Graham, the
research consultant, described the necessity to focus on "high risk/low frequency" events.21
This concept is evident in the amount of training for structure fires required compared to
actual call volume. An organization must have adequate training facilities to prepare for
the infrequency and inherent danger of structure fires. Following is a summary of the
current training resources and facilities available for each district.
Figure 126: Training Facilities & Resources by District
Facilities & Resources CCCFPD ECCFPD RHFPD
Adequate training ground space Yes No Yes
Training building/tower Yes No Mobile
Burn room at the training building Yes No Yes
Live fire props Yes No Yes
Driver's course/rodeo No No No
SCBA obstacle course/CFS No No No
Adequate classroom facility Yes Yes Yes
Computers & simulations Yes No Yes
EMS props & mannequins Yes No Yes
131
Discussion
CCCFPD has adequate facilities to support the initial training of recruits. As previously
discussed, the challenge for the combined organization will be the limitations of
centralized training. The drive time from RHFPD and ECCFPD will compromise the effective
response force when units are out of service for a prolonged time. Emphasis should
continue on regionalized training programs. Future considerations should include adding a
training facility to the east side of the district.
132
Figure 127: CCCFPD Training Center/Mechanic Shop/Supply Warehouse
Address/Physical Location: 2945 Treat Blvd., Concord, CA 94518
General Description:
The CCCFPD training facility includes several
features that include: a ventilation prop, training
tower & structure (house), high/low angle rescue,
disentanglement, firefighter safety, and survival
props, and a heavy equipment and apparatus
driving course.
Structure
Date of Original Construction 1967
Seismic Protection No
Auxiliary Power CAT Generator
General Condition Fair
Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-through Bays 1 Back-in Bays 6
ADA Compliant No
Total Square Footage 12 acres
Facilities Available
Sleeping Quarters 2 Bedrooms 2 Beds 0 Dorm Beds
Maximum Staffing Capability 2
Exercise/Workout Facilities Yes
Kitchen Facilities Yes
Individual Lockers Assigned Yes
Bathroom/Shower Facilities Yes
Training/Meeting Rooms Yes
Washer/Dryer No
Safety & Security
Station Sprinklered Some buildings sprinklered
Smoke Detection Yes
Decontamination/Bio. Disposal Yes
Security System Yes
Apparatus Exhaust System Yes
133
LIFE SAFETY PROGRAMS & PUBLIC EDUCATION
Fire prevention and life safety code enforcement is a critical component of community
safety. Fiscal responsibility is manifested through the prevention of working fires and
minimizing human suffering. The following section will analyze the current Life Safety
Programs for CCCFPD, ECCFPD, and RHFPD, and reference national standards established
by NFPA and the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI). The criteria
established by CFAI are considered industry best practices and will help evaluate the
organization's current state and potential areas for improvement.
The National Fire Protection Association recommends a multifaceted, coordinated
risk reduction process at the community level to address local risks. This requires
engaging all segments of the community, identifying the highest priority risks, and
then developing and implementing strategies designed to mitigate the risks.22
Community Risk Reduction
The Community Risk Reduction (CRR) plan begins with a Community Risk Assessment (CRA).
Every community is unique, and an assessment process will help identify specific risks. The
process should evaluate residential, commercial, and industrial properties. The following
graphic shows a systematic approach for completing a CRR:
Figure 128: Steps of a CRR Plan
134
The organizations have numerous areas for risk assessment. A few examples include
interface fires, environmental emergencies, active shooter incidents, hazardous materials
release involving the railroad, and events associated with large bodies of water.
The organizations must perform a combined CRA collaborating with private and public
entities. After a CRA has been completed and the risks prioritized, the organization should
consider risk reduction strategy revisions. The following table lists the components and
specific elements required to address risk reduction adequately. The remaining section will
analyze each component and areas that the combined organization can consider
opportunities for improvement.
Figure 129: Risk Reduction Strategy
Risk Reduction Strategy Program Elements Needed to Address
Public Education Program
• Public education
• Specialized education
• Juvenile firesetter intervention
• Prevention information dissemination
Code Enforcement Program
• Existing structure/occupancy
inspections
• Internal protection system design
review
• Storage and handling of hazardous
materials
Emergency Response
• Respond effectively and quickly
• Firefighter competency
• Appropriately equipped
Fire Prevention & Building Code
• Applicable building and fire codes
• Proposed construction and plans
review
• New construction inspections
• Built-in fire protection
• Emergency response techniques
135
Public Education Programs
CCCFPD and ECCFPD have robust public education programs. RHFPD has limited public
education resources; however, during Triton's site visit, interviews with District
representatives stated they have excellent interaction with the community. Both CCCFPD
and ECCFPD emphasize wildland interface issues. Programs include the use of Fire Wise®
weed abatement and community information sessions.
CCCFPD and ECCFPD have a unique bilingual education program for the juvenile fire
starter team. This program would translate well to ECCFPD and RHFPD. All three
organizations currently provide annual education at the grade school; however, COVID-19
limited school activities in 2019. A combined organization should consider additional
educational outreach opportunities either in person or in a virtual setting. Workplace
seminars can help property managers, fire wardens, and building engineers effectively
respond to a wide variety of emergencies. Response guidelines for fires, workplace
violence, medical emergencies, and natural disasters can help citizens take appropriate
action when emergencies occur.
Another example specific to the region would be seminars designed to educate the
community on how to respond during wildfire events. Residential evacuation routes and
emergency communication are topics that are commonly covered. Most of these
programs have minimal fiscal requirements and can demonstrate remarkable success. The
following graphic shows a comparison of the three districts.
136
Figure 130: Public Education Programs
Education Programs CCCFPD ECCFPD RHFPD
Annual fire prevention report distributed Yes Yes No
Babysitting safety classes No No No
Bilingual info available Focused No No
Calling 9-1-1 Yes Yes Yes
Carbon Monoxide Alarm installations Yes No Yes
CPR courses, BP checks Yes No No
Curriculum used in schools Yes Yes Yes
Exit Drills in the Home (EDITH) Yes Yes Yes
Eldercare and safety Yes No No
Fire brigade training No No No
Fire extinguisher use Yes Yes Yes
Fire safety Yes Yes Yes
Injury prevention Yes Yes No
Juvenile fire-starter program Yes Yes No
Publications available to the public Yes Yes No
Smoke alarm installations Yes Yes Yes
Wildland interface education offered Yes Yes No
During the site visit interviews, it was clear that the community is delighted with each
organization's performance, and public education can help maintain this working
relationship. This effort can translate to future fiscal and political support in the future.
Fire Code Enforcement
CCCFPD and ECCFPD have a fully staffed prevention bureau. The majority of prevention
activities are accomplished in the RHFPD by the Fire Chief. Based on the site-visit interviews,
the combined organization would have the capacity to meet current demand and
support in the RHFPD area. All three organizations face significant growth over the next few
years due to numerous single-family neighborhoods in development.
137
Commercial growth is also increasing. In 2020, CCCFPD performed 7,267 mandatory code
enforcement inspections and 333 non-mandatory inspections. Recent economic
challenges associated with COVID-19 resulted in numerous business closures. There has
been a significant increase in changes of occupancy, translating to a greater need for
inspections. The following graphic shows a comparison of the current code enforcement
by each district.
Figure 131: Code Enforcement Among the Fire Districts
Code Enforcement Activity CCCFPD ECCFPD RHFPD
Consulted on new construction Yes Yes Yes
Fees for inspections or reviews Yes Yes Yes
Hydrant flow records maintained Partial Yes No
Key-box entry program Yes Yes No
Perform occupancy inspections Yes Yes Limited
Perform plan reviews Yes Yes Yes
Sign-off on new construction Yes Yes Yes
Special risk inspections Yes Yes No
Storage tank inspections County Yes No
Company Inspections (pre-plan) No Limited No
There appears to be minimal differences between the three organizations relating to
specific code enforcement. Following are general guidelines for fire inspection
frequency.23
138
Figure 132: Recommended Fire Inspection Frequencies
Hazard
Classification Example Facilities Recommended
Inspection Frequency
Low
Apartment common areas, small stores and
offices, medical offices, storage of other than
flammable or hazardous materials. Triennially
Moderate
Gas stations, large (>12,000 square feet) stores
and offices, restaurants, schools, hospitals,
manufacturing (moderate hazardous materials
use), industrial (moderate hazardous materials
use), auto repair shops, storage of large
quantities of combustible or flammable
material.
Biennially
High
Nursing homes, large quantity users of
hazardous materials, industrial facilities with high
process hazards, bulk flammable liquid storage
facilities, facilities classified as an "extremely
hazardous substance" facility by federal
regulations (SARA Title III).
Annually
One area that may warrant additional attention is on-duty engine companies' necessity to
perform building familiarization and pre-plan familiarization. This function supports firefighter
safety as well as improved fire ground operations. ECCFPD is currently using First Due®
software to help occupancies submit critical information and development of pre-plans for
the majority of commercial structures. CCCFPD has an existing system to develop and
distribute electronic pre-plans to MDTs in the Tablet Command program.
The system was initiated in 2020 as a beta test with full implementation and transfer of the
pre-plans to the mobile data terminals (MDT)s by 2021. The fire crews’ familiarization of the
businesses' internal layout is a requirement for improving ISO ratings.24 The process can help
prevent catastrophic fires.
139
Fire-Cause Determination & Investigation
CCCFPD has staff who are certified peace officers with arresting powers and the capacity
to perform all functions of a fire-cause investigation. ECCFPD is in the process of getting
members qualified to be certified peace officers. The fire investigation team for CCCFPD
conducted almost 900 investigations in 2020. Current members of the
ECCFPD fire investigation team have worked in the past with CCCFPD, which speaks well
for a smooth transition to a combined organization should an annexation occur.
140
SPECIAL OPERATIONS
CCCFPD, ECCFPD, and REFPD provide services in a very dynamic environment, often
requiring specialty response. The County has numerous bodies of water ranging from a
large bay to tributaries, which are often susceptible to flooding. Large hazardous material
production includes manufacturing and oil refinery facilities as well as an extensive
transportation network. The region has numerous rail services, including Union Pacific,
Amtrak, BART, and BNSF. Combined with extensive major roadways, the potential for
hazardous materials incidents is high. Industrial production, environmental events, and an
urban population all contribute to the necessity for technical rescue capabilities. Wildfire
response is a significant special team requirement. A large percentage of the region are
located in Fire Hazard Severity Zones, including areas designated as “High.”25
Special Team Response Service Demand
Special team responses are staffing-, apparatus-, and equipment-intensive events.
Moderate to significant events generally require a coordinated regional response. The
following graphic shows the breakdown of special team responses for each jurisdiction.
Figure 133: Special Team Responses by Jurisdiction (2020)
Incident Type CCCFPD ECCFPD RHFPD Total
Hazmat Incidents 657 178 69 904
Technical Rescues 64 13 3 80
Water Rescues 9 6 1 16
For this analysis, data from all three jurisdictions have been combined, providing a regional
perspective. The majority of special team resources come from CCCFPD, and then the
events are supported by trained personnel from ECCFPD and RHFPD. The following graphic
shows a breakdown of special team responses by category in 2020.
141
Figure 134: Regional Special Team Response (2020)
The previous figure supports that the majority of regional special team response is for
hazardous materials incidents. The following graphic is a temporal perspective showing the
time of day when incidents requiring special teams occur.
Hazmat
Incident
56%
Technical Rescue
6%
Water Rescue
1%
Wildland Fire
37%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Wildland Hazmat Technical Rescue Water Rescue
Figure 135: Regional Special Team Responses by Time of Day (2020)
142
Apparatus & Staffing for Special Teams
Incidents requiring special team responses primarily occur during the late afternoon and
early evening. This situation can be exacerbated by the large number of commuters
returning home to the surrounding areas. As previously discussed, special team responses
generally require a large number of personnel and resources to mitigate the specific event.
The following graphic shows the number of regional apparatus necessary for each
response category (hazmat, water rescue, technical rescue). The chart shows the number
of events on the Y-axis and the number of required apparatus on the X-axis.
Wildfire incidents require the highest number of apparatus and staffing. The following
graphic shows the apparatus required and the number of incidents for each level of
response.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
3 Units 4 Units 5 Units 6 Units 7+ Units
Hazmat Incident Technical Rescue Water Rescue
Figure 136: Required Apparatus for Specific Special Team Response (2020)
143
In addition to a large number of personnel and apparatus required for special team
responses, the events had a prolonged duration due to mitigation complexity. The
following graphic shows the average amount of total response time needed for each
special team response category.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
3 Units 4 Units 5 Units 6 Units 7+ Units
Figure 137: Required Apparatus for Wildfire Responses (2020)
2:01:33
1:07:03
0:40:58
2:02:14
1:29:12
0:40:58
1:55:40
2:11:40
1:31:47
1:48:40
1:07:28
0:00:00 0:28:48 0:57:36 1:26:24 1:55:12 2:24:00
Fire-Boat on Wtr
Haz-Nat Gas Brk
Haz-Nat Gas Leak
HazMat Inc
HazMat-Minor
Resc-Conf Space
Resc-Limited Access
Resc-Rope/Vert
Resc-Water (Bay/Delta)
Resc-Water Swift (Canal)
Wildfire Response
Figure 138: Total Response Time for Special Team Response (2020)
144
The prolonged total response time described above translates to increased concurrent
incidents. The increased requirements for special team response support the potential
consolidation of CCCFPD, ECCFPD, and RHFPD.
Special Team Resources
ECCFPD and RHFPD will not bring specialized apparatus for special team response to the
potential consolidation. Both organizations have personnel with specific
training/certifications to support the regional response. The following graphic shows the
station location of specialty units within the CCCFPD.
Figure 139: CCCFPD Special Team Units
CCCFPD Station Specialty Unit
Station 10 Heavy Rescue/USAR, Light Rescue Squad
Station 69 Light Rescue
Station 81 Light Rescue Boat
Station 82 Heavy Rescue
Station 85 Fire Boat
Station 87 HazMat Response (Type II Team)
Buchanan Field Type 3 Helicopter
Station 20 (training) D4/D5 Bulldozer
Station 12 14-person specialized hand crew during wildfire season
Special Teams Discussion
As previously discussed, hazardous material incidents (hazmat) constitute the most
significant number of special team responses. Due to the large oil refineries in the response
areas, a combined organization will need to continue focused training and response to
potentially significant HazMat incidents. The Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires
Contra Costa County to have a FEMA-approved Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to be
eligible for certain pre-and post-disaster mitigation funds.
The County adopted its first Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2006. The Plan has been updated
every five years since 2006, with the most recent update currently under review. Hazardous
materials response functions under a cooperative effort under the guidance of Contra
Costa Health Services. The potential consolidation would increase the capacity for
regional response to hazardous materials incidents.
145
Wildfire response is the most demanding event for staffing and resources. CCCFPD has an
extensive wildland response team, including specialty equipment and increased hand
crews during the wildfire season. The potential annexation brings additional staffing and
Type 3 apparatus.
146
Section II:
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ANNEXATION
147
GENERAL PARTNERING OPTIONS
The concept of regional cooperation and service delivery in the California fire service has
significantly developed since the 1970s. While the scope and manner in which these
partnerships are formed and managed has evolved and changed, the fundamental
desired outcomes have stayed consistent. The recent wildland fire siege of 2020, the Loma
Prieta and Northridge earthquakes, as well as California’s unique and ongoing urban
interface and wildland fire problem, continue to point to the need for integrated and
seamless regional service delivery models.
In addition, a consistent rise in the cost of personnel, benefits, post-retirement medical
benefit liabilities, and supplies and services has resulted in significant, and sometimes
unmanageable, cost increases. These cost increases have been combined with post-
Proposition 13 property tax reductions and significant economic downturns that have
negatively impacted other government funding mechanisms. These significant cost
increases and revenue reductions have created an environment under which government
and public safety agencies must create greater efficiencies while finding ways to provide
effective and adequate public safety services.
Having completed the evaluation of the current conditions, Triton has developed the
information necessary to effectively evaluate the options that exist for shared service
delivery opportunities between the participating agencies. There are many ways that fire
districts can work together. These can include fundamental sharing of resources and
programs or legal assimilation of multiple agencies into one, in the form of a reorganization,
consolidation, or annexation. The scope of this study is to compare the status quo
operations of the three Districts with a potential annexation into the existing CCCFPD.
LAFCO code sections provide various options to achieve consolidation or annexation.
These options will be presented with insight and guidance where appropriate.
Triton’s experience is that any of these options must have general alignment and
agreement between the communities, elected officials, District leadership, fire
administration, and labor groups to be successful. Any recommended model that does not
have basic support and reasonable alignment of expectations from the aforementioned
stakeholders stands a high likelihood of not succeeding. Triton has attempted to create
recommendations and system modeling around the concepts and system design that
have a reasonable chance for support and success.
148
This report provides a clear and understandable analysis of the current fire service delivery
system. This current condition analysis was utilized to develop possible models and analyze
their potential for operational enhancements and financial and administrative
effectiveness and efficiencies.
The general themes identified and addressed in this report center around redundancy,
local identity, cost allocation, financial and operational sustainability, governance, and
oversight and implementation. While no report can address every issue, question, and
perspective completely, we have presented a significant amount of detail and
recommendations to present a path forward for RHFPD, ECCFPD, and CCCFPD.
Options for Shared Services
The following discussion identifies and explains multiple approaches that may be accessed
in the State of California for sharing services or partnering in the delivery of services with
neighboring agencies. The presented approaches fall in a range from limited levels of
partnering, many of which are already in place in the study area, up to complete
integration of participating agencies into a single entity. While we will briefly discuss various
options in accordance with the project scope, Triton has focused the report analysis and
recommendations on comparing the status quo option to an annexation model.
To adequately discuss the partnering continuum, the terminology and statutory provisions
that are available to decision makers must be understood. The following partner strategies,
while not necessarily described by statute, differentiate between various approaches to
partnering:
Status Quo (continuation of cooperative agreements and systems)
This option continues the current status of the Districts without change. All three agencies
continue to do business as they are today, including service provision to their respective
jurisdictions and joint response areas. There is no change to governance, staffing, or
deployment of resources other than those in each agency’s 20/21 budgets including
ECCFPD’s plan to staff Station 55 .
149
The three districts would continue to operate independently under this initiative, as they do
at the time of this writing. Each retains its own governance structure, under the direction of
its existing separate Fire District Board of Directors, and the administration of each agency
continues to operate individually. While existing cooperative efforts between all the
participating agencies continue, the advantages that can be gained through annexation
will not be realized.
Advanced Auto Aid Systems
An Advanced Auto Aid System is when two or more agencies participate in a full boundary
drop approach to dispatching the closest resource first regardless of jurisdiction. This
process can be greatly enhanced with the utilization of automatic vehicle location
technology.
Functional Consolidation
When two or more agencies enter a collaborative relationship, typically through a contract
for service, no permanent organizational commitment is made, and all decision-making
power remains with each individual organization. Interagency collaboration can take
many forms and may include shared administrative and support functions, combined
operational practices, participation of fire agencies in activities such as local fire
management bodies (e.g., fire boards), mutual aid agreements, and interagency disaster
planning exercises. It can also provide for complete service delivery as an
integrated/consolidated fire agency from one local agency to another.
One form of functional consolidation is through Contract for Service or Intergovernmental
Agreement (IGA), described in greater detail below.
Contract for Service-Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)26
In the State of California, authorization for an intergovernmental agreement (contract for
service) for the provision of fire services between agencies as provided for by California
Statute and Government Code (CGC) Section 55613-55614, and the California Public
Contracting Code (CPCC) Section 20811 are commonly referred to as a “Contract for
Service.”
The California Government Code and Public Contracting Code is written with the intent of
being liberally construed relating to contracting for public safety services by cities and fire
districts, and states, in part, that:
150
“CPCC 20811. When a district board determines that it is in the public interest, a
district may contract with any other public agency for fire protection services,
rescue services, emergency medical services, hazardous material emergency
response services, ambulance services, and any other emergency services for
the protection of lives and property.”
This permissive statute allows for a local agency, which includes cities and districts, to enter
into a written agreement with any other unit or units of a local agency for the performance
of any or all fire services and activities that a party to the agreement, its officers, or
agencies, have authority to perform. The agreement may provide for the performance of
a function or activity:
• By a consolidated and fully integrated district.
• By jointly providing for administrative officers and services.
• By means of facilities or equipment jointly constructed, owned, leased, or operated.
• By services and/or functions provided by one of the parties for any other party.
Collaborative approaches under the CGC can include shared or contracted
programmatic services, often referred to as functional unification or functional
consolidation. Approaches may include shared administrative service, training programs,
fire prevention outreach, or numerous other functional collaborative strategies. This
approach can also include a fully integrated/consolidated fire district with services
contracted to another local agency.
California law, regulations, and policy directives declare intergovernmental cooperation as
a matter of statewide concern and grants special districts broad power to contract with
other governmental entities for any function or activity the agencies have authority to
perform.
Operational Consolidation
Operational consolidation occurs when two or more separate districts join operationally or
administratively to form one organization. The entities remain largely separate; however,
they deliver service as if they were one agency.
Full operational consolidation would allow re-distribution of personnel and resources across
jurisdictional boundaries, putting them where they are needed.
151
Joint Powers Authority (CGC Section 6500, et seq.)
Joint powers are exercised when the public officials of two or more agencies agree to
create another legal entity or establish a joint approach to work on a common problem,
fund a project, or act as a representative body for a specific activity.
Before 2016, Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCO) did not have authority over
contracts between government agencies such as Joint Powers Agreements/Agencies
(JPAs). However, changes in the law require cities and districts to apply to LAFCO for
approval of a JPA in certain circumstances.
Many of the changes in the laws governing LAFCO are in response to confusion among
citizens regarding who and how their local government services are provided. Also,
constituents are requesting increased transparency in government. LAFCOs are expected
to provide resources to sort out government service providers, as well as assist in the
coordination and long-range planning of those services. LAFCO’s role has expanded from
oversight of boundary changes to conducting studies that analyze the efficient and
economical provision of local government services.
Annexation
Annexation Process
The initiation of a proposal through application to LAFCO can occur as follows:
1. Resolution of Application by the districts: (CGC Section 56853)
It is most effective if the involved districts pass substantially similar resolutions of
application for annexation or reorganization (an application consisting of more than
one action).
The Commission is required to approve or conditionally approve the proposal. The
resolutions of application may contain the terms and conditions of the annexation. It
is expected the districts would have negotiated and come to an agreement on
board composition, employee MOUs, and effective date. The Commission may
order any material change in the conditions; however, the districts are to receive
mailed notice and no action may occur for 30 days. If either district requests, action
can only occur after notice and hearing.
152
2. Petition: (CGC Sections 56864.1, 56865, and 56870)
Application can be made to LAFCO by petition. In the case of fire protection
districts, registered voters within the districts would be required. The number of
signatures required depends on the changes of organization requested in the
application. For example, an application for consolidation of districts would require
signatures from at least 5 percent of the registered voters within each of the districts.
3. LAFCO Resolution Initiating Proposal: (CGC Section 56375)
The Commission has the authority to initiate a proposal for consolidation but not
annexation. Initiation of consolidation by the Commission must be as the result of the
recommendations of a study including a Service Review and/or Sphere of Influence
(SOI) study or update. The current study by Triton qualifies as the necessary study.
Although the Commission has this authority, it would be most unlikely for Contra
Costa LAFCO to take this action based on precedent set and response to local
conditions by the Commission. Each LAFCO has the authority to adopt Policies and
Procedures which reflect local conditions. Also, the Commission is composed of
locally elected officials responding to the needs of their constituents.
Terms & Conditions
Many of the issues brought forward during the interview of stakeholders can be addressed
in LAFCO’s terms and conditions. The legislature provided the Commission with a full range
of terms and conditions which can be determined as part of LAFCO approval of a
proposal. The full text of the code section is provided in Appendix D. The following is a
summary of this section of the enabling act (CGC Sections 56885 et seq.).
1. Authorize continuation of another relevant legislative hearing.
2. The completion of another change of organization.
3. The approval or disapproval of a resolution ordering a change of organization.
4. In the case of district dissolution, prohibit increasing compensation or obligating
revenue beyond the current budget.
5. Continue or hold relevant action for a period not to exceed six months.
6. Set the election date to coordinate with another change of organization.
7. Require a single ballot question regarding more than one change of organization
considered at the same time.
8. Not provide conditions that directly regulate land use.
9. Payment for transfer or use of existing property, real or personal.
153
10. The levying of taxes or assessments for the payment for existing property.
11. The transfer or apportionment of bonds, contracts, or other obligations.
12. The incurring of new indebtedness on behalf of all or any part of any local agency
and the establishment of zones of benefit in accordance with the principal act.
13. The acquisition, improvement, disposition, sale, transfer, or division of any property,
real or personal.
14. The disposition, transfer, or division of any moneys or funds, including cash on hand
and moneys due but uncollected, and any other obligations.
15. The establishment, continuation, or termination of any office, department, or board
including any of their functions as authorized by the principal act.
16. The employment, transfer, or discharge of employees, the continuation,
modification, or termination of existing employment contracts, civil service rights,
seniority rights, retirement rights, and other employee benefits and rights.
17. Designation of a districts as the successor to any district that is extinguished as a
result of a change of organization, for the purpose of succeeding to the rights,
duties, and obligations of the extinguished district.
18. As provided in the principal act of the district, the designation of the legislative
body, method of selection and number of members.
19. The initiation, conduct, or completion of proceedings of another proposal.
20. The fixing of the effective date or dates of a change of organization.
21. Any terms and conditions authorized or required by the principal act with respect to
any change or organization.
22. The continuation or provision of any service provided at that time, or previously
authorized by an official act of the district.
23. The levying of assessments, general or special taxes subject to voter approval.
24. The extension or continuation of any previously authorized assessment by the district
or a successor district.
25. Any other matter necessary or incidental to any of the terms and conditions
specified in Article 2. Terms and Conditions.
26. Any or the terms and conditions may be made applicable to all or any part of any
district or any territory annexed or detached from the district.
154
Protest Provisions (CGC Sections 57051, 57077.2)
The Commission may order the consolidation without confirmation by the voters if it has
been initiated by district resolutions. However, the Commission is required to order the
consolidation or reorganization subject to voter confirmation if one of the following occurs:
• Written protests have been submitted by at least 25% of landowners owning at least
25% of the assessed value of land within the territory.
• Written protests have been submitted by at least 25% of the registered voters
residing within the territory.
If the Commission has initiated the proposal, confirmation by the voters is required if either
of the following occurs:
• Protests have been signed by at least 10% of the landowners within the territory who
own at least 10% of the assessed value of land within the territory.
• Protests have been signed by at least 10% of the registered voters entitled to vote
within the territory.
155
FINANCIAL IMPACT OF ANNEXATION
Emergency response agencies require adequate staffing, facilities and equipment, and
related operating costs to perform their mission. The following figures reflect the
anticipated revenue streams available for the combined operation of the three agencies
under Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, with CCCFPD applying its cost structure
to the staffing of ECCFPD and RHFD fire stations for the projections. The projections include
maintaining the existing staffing levels of three ECCFPD and two RHFPD stations with the
expansion of adding two additional three-person companies to be staffed over the
following 12 months.
Additionally, the projections consider the anticipated cost savings due to combining
technology infrastructure, fleet maintenance, and other administrative functions. The
projections also anticipate the expenditure of capital funds to construct new stations,
remodel another station, and acquire fire apparatus.
The projections will be divided into two categories: operations and capital. Operations will
include the recurring revenues from property taxes and fees for services, with normal
recurring expenses for salaries, services, and supplies being deducted. Capital will include
the special revenues from various development fees, loan and lease proceeds, sales of
equipment, grants, etc., with deductions for capital improvements, equipment acquisition,
and debt service.
Operations
Revenue projections have been previously described in the analysis of each of the three
participants. Adjustments to these projections were made for items such as dispatch fees
currently paid by ECCFPD and RHFD to CCCFPD, and this adjustment is shown in the
following presentation.
Combined property tax revenue is projected to increase annually at a 4% rate. Combined
property tax revenue is forecast to increase from $165,500,000 in FY 21/22 to $201,300,000 in
FY 26/27. Other recurring revenues are projected to increase at an annual average rate of
1.6%. In view of the trends from the historical information, it is felt these escalator rates are
conservative. Including the adjustment for dispatch services, Recurring Revenues increase
from $189,012,000 in FY 21/22 to $226,794,000 in FY 26/27, a 3.8% annual rate.
156
Salaries and benefits, which include Medicare payroll taxes, health insurance, and pension
costs for the line positions—Captains, Engineers, and Firefighters—were assumed to be
entering the CCCFPD system at the Step 3 level in the CCCFPD salary schedule for this
analysis. The ECCFPD Captain and Engineer classifications include nine positions each in
the first year of the operation and grow to fifteen in the second year. Ten ECCFPD
firefighter positions are included in the initial year of operations, but the additional six
positions added in the second year will be firefighter/paramedics. The RHFD Fire Chief and
administrative positions have elected to retire, but the remainder of the twenty-two
operations staff will be absorbed in the annexation and enter at Step 6 level in the
CCCFPD salary schedule.
Overtime is calculated at 13% of personnel costs based on CCCFPD historical overtime
cost experience. As previously stated, the projections include maintaining the existing
staffing levels of three stations with the expansion of adding two additional three-person
companies to be staffed over the following 12–18 months. These personnel costs are
projected to increase 10% annually in the first five years and 6% annually beginning in the
sixth year of the projections.
Other post-employment benefits (OPEB) prepayments and retiree health costs are
additional benefit costs that are projected to increase 3% annually. Fire prevention
personnel are assumed to be “cost neutral” for this analysis due to fee revenue associated
with fire prevention activities.
Administrative personnel (one Chief Administrative Officer, one accountant, two clerical
positions, one payroll clerk and one Permit Tech position) will be absorbed into the existing
CCCFPD staffing. Additional program support for grant applications and grant
management, as well as cost recovery, may be able to be fully supported by these
additional positions.
OPEB and retiree health insurance benefit costs for ECCFPD and RHFPD are stated
separately to indicate those long-term costs are considered in the projections.
157
The financial projection of the combined organization contemplates adding personnel for
specific expansion of services. In FY 21/22, the combined organization anticipates
reopening ECCFPD Station 55 and staffing ECCFPD Truck 52, and, in FY22/23, CCCFPD will
reopen Station 4. These additions, combined with the previously identified escalators,
increase total salaries and benefits from $149,303,000 in FY 21/22 to $161,016,000 in FY
22/23. Annual compensation and benefits increase approximately $10,000,000 for each of
the following four years.
Services and supplies expenses include, but are not limited to, station and apparatus
operating costs, repairs and maintenance, small tools and equipment replacement,
training costs, radio and technology costs, medical and firefighting supplies, turnout gear
and uniform costs, and professional services. These costs are conservatively estimated to
increase 3% annually. It is anticipated that there will be a significant benefit in
consolidating certain administrative costs such as technology, training, and apparatus
maintenance.
The operations portion of the combined districts is anticipated to produce positive cash
flow for each of the six years of the projections. This allows the combined operation to
accumulate a significant reserve balance or to take advantage of other opportunities
during the projection period. The following figure combines the revenues from the previous
projections for each agency with expected operating expenses and anticipated
modifications from increased staffing and related expenses to develop annual operating
cash flows and accumulated operating fund balances through FY 26/27.
158
Figure 140: Recurring Revenue/Expense Projections—Combined Operations (Part 1)
Revenue/Expenses FY 21/22 FY 22/23 FY 23/24 FY 24/25 FY 25/26 FY 26/27
Operations
Property Taxes
CCCFPD 144,055,800 149,818,032 155,810,753 162,043,183 168,524,911 175,265,907
ECCFPD 16,875,770 17,550,801 18,252,833 18,982,946 19,742,264 20,531,955
RHFPD 4,552,080 4,734,163 4,923,530 5,120,471 5,325,290 5,538,301
Total Property Tax Revenues 165,483,650 172,102,996 178,987,116 186,146,600 193,592,465 201,336,163
Other Recurring Revenue
CCCFPD 17,767,300 17,413,580 17,607,688 18,113,807 18,670,537 19,282,941
ECCFPD 2,037,534 2,087,569 2,124,847 2,163,075 2,202,265 2,242,456
RHFPD 4,415,658 4,455,658 4,531,858 4,610,344 4,691,185 4,774,450
Total Other Recurring Revenue: 24,220,492 23,956,807 24,264,393 24,887,226 25,563,987 26,299,847
Total Recurring Revenue: 189,704,142 196,059,803 203,251,509 211,033,826 219,156,452 227,636,010
Adjustments to Revenue
Reduced Dispatch Revenue (692,000) (719,680) (748,467) (778,406) (809,542) (841,924)
Revised Recurring Revenues: 189,012,142 195,340,123 202,503,042 210,255,420 218,346,910 226,794,086
Current Salaries & Benefits (CCCFPD Rates)
CCCFPD 127,022,889 134,180,390 141,835,095 149,946,066 158,540,531 167,647,339
ECCFPD - line positions 9,037,150 9,920,865 10,891,752 11,877,510 12,955,640 13,732,979
ECCFPD - admin positions 900,000 954,000 1,011,240 1,071,914 1,136,229 1,204,403
RHFPD 6,418,400 6,867,688 7,348,426 7,862,816 8,413,213 9,002,138
Total Salaries & Benefits: 143,378,439 151,922,943 161,086,512 170,758,307 181,045,613 191,586,858
OPEB & Retiree Health Insurance
ECCFPD
OPEB 275,000 283,250 291,748 300,500 309,515 318,800
Retiree Health Insurance 363,000 373,890 385,107 396,660 408,560 420,816
RHFPD
OPEB 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000
Retiree Health Insurance 303,170 303,170 303,170 303,170 303,170 303,170
Total Health Insurance: 1,081,170 1,100,310 1,120,025 1,140,330 1,161,245 1,182,786
159
Figure 141: Recurring Revenue/Expense Projections—Combined Operations (Part 2)
Revenue/Expenses FY 21/22 FY 22/23 FY 23/24 FY 24/25 FY 25/26 FY 26/27
Staffing Increases by Agency
CCCFPD
Reopening Station 4 — 2,664,371 2,850,877 3,050,438 3,263,969 3,492,447
ECCFPD
Station 55 2,422,155 2,664,371 2,850,877 3,050,438 3,263,969 3,492,447
Truck 52 2,422,155 2,664,371 2,850,877 3,050,438 3,263,969 3,492,447
Total Salary & Benefits Increases: 4,844,310 7,993,113 8,552,631 9,151,314 9,791,907 10,477,341
Total Salaries & Benefits: 149,303,919 161,016,366 170,759,168 181,049,951 191,998,765 203,246,985
Services & Supplies
CCCFPD 17,200,949 17,642,131 18,096,549 18,564,599 19,046,691 19,543,246
Station 4 Maintenance — 51,500 53,045 54,636 56,275 57,964
Station 4 Equip Costs — 25,000 25,750 26,523 27,318 28,138
ECCFPD 1,157,903 1,194,269 1,231,792 1,325,144 1,366,730 1,416,761
RHFPD 254,177 260,168 267,005 274,062 281,445 288,862
Total Services & Supplies: 18,613,029 19,173,068 19,674,141 20,244,964 20,778,459 21,334,971
Total Recurring: 167,916,948 180,189,434 190,433,310 201,294,915 212,777,124 224,581,956
Increase to Operating Funds: 21,095,194 15,150,689 12,069,732 8,960,506 5,569,785 2,212,130
Beginning Op Fund Reserve: — 21,095,194 36,245,883 48,315,615 57,276,121 62,845,906
Ending Op Fund Reserve: 21,095,194 36,245,883 48,315,615 57,276,121 62,845,906 65,058,036
Capital
The second component of the proposed annexation to be analyzed is the funding
available to acquire capital resources such as fire stations and equipment. Each of the
three districts receives funding from special assessments that are restricted to use only
within the jurisdiction from which the revenues are received. These restricted revenues
include developer fees from subdivisions that are being developed outside the response
areas of existing fire stations. The funds are to be used to build and equip new stations.
Certain funds are to staff and operate stations or to provide specialized services, and,
again, those funds are restricted to the jurisdiction from which the funding is derived.
A fire station is projected to be constructed within the boundaries of ECCFPD’s service
area. Funding for a portion of the building has been identified as development fees in the
amount of approximately $7,000,000 from the City of Brentwood. It is anticipated that the
remaining $7,000,000 would be provided by financing, with the debt service payment
being $700,000 per year.
160
Each of the three districts will require the expenditure of funds for debt service payments,
capital expenditures for apparatus and equipment, and the remodel or construction of fire
stations during the next six years. CCCFPD has a debt obligation related to the issuance of
bonds to extinguish a portion of its unfunded actuarial liability for employee pension costs.
An additional payment for “Pension Bond Stabilization” is required in addition to the debt
service; however, FY 21/22 is the final year of the debt and stabilization obligation. The
extinguishment of the obligation will free up $14,056,000 annually.
Several apparatus of various types are anticipated to be acquired during the next six
years. Funding for these acquisitions is expected to be from the use of cash from the
reserve funds existing at the time of the annexation, as well as the additions to the reserves
from the restricted revenue streams.
The balance in the Capital Reserve Fund is anticipated to decrease five of the six years in
the projection period as significant debt is extinguished and apparatus are acquired for
cash. The following figure combines the non-recurring revenues, including restricted
revenues from development fee assessments, loan proceeds and other receipts from the
previous projections for each agency with expected debt payments and capital
expenditures and anticipated modifications from increased staffing and related expenses
to develop annual operating cash flows and accumulated operating fund balances
through FY 26/27.
161
Figure 142: Non-Recurring Projections—Capital Costs (Part 1)
Revenue/Expenses FY 21/22 FY 22/23 FY 23/24 FY 24/25 FY 25/26 FY 26/27
Capital
Non-Recurring Revenues
CCCFPD 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
ECCFPD 218,087 218,087 218,087 218,087 218,087 218,087
RHFPD — — — — — —
Total Non-Recurring Receipts: 318,087 318,087 318,087 318,087 318,087 318,087
Loan/Lease Proceeds
CCCFPD — — — — — —
ECCFPD — 7,000,000 — — — —
RHFPD — — — — — —
Total Loan/Lease Proceeds: — 7,000,000 — — — —
Funding from Development Fees
CCCFPD — — — — — —
ECCFPD 292,578 311,200 322,054 341,147 360,489 380,088
RHFPD 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
City of Brentwood — 7,000,000 — — — —
Total Development Fee Funding: 392,578 7,411,200 422,054 441,147 460,489 480,088
Total Non-Recurring Receipts: 710,665 14,729,287 740,141 759,234 778,576 798,175
Lease & Debt Payments
CCCFPD 2,944,538 2,944,538 2,944,538 2,944,538 2,944,538 2,944,538
ECCFPD 534,217 614,217 1,356,217 1,399,217 877,000 877,000
RHFPD 269,114 188,713 188,713 188,713 188,713 188,713
Total Payments: 3,747,869 3,747,468 4,489,468 4.532.468 4,010,251 4,010,251
Apparatus & Equipment Acquisition
CCCFPD 698,390 630,000 630,000 630,000 630,000 630,000
ECCFPD — 800,000 — — 270,000 800,000
RHFPD — — 402,500 330,000 — —
Total Acquisition: 698,390 1,430,000 1,032,500 960,000 900,000 1,430,000
Fire Station Construction
CCCFPD — — — — — —
ECCFPD 500,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 — — —
RHFPD — — — — — —
Total Fire Station Construction: 500,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 — — —
162
Figure 143: Non-Recurring Projections—Capital Costs (Part 2)
Revenue/Expenses FY 21/22 FY 22/23 FY 23/24 FY 24/25 FY 25/26 FY 26/27
Additions to Replacement Reserves
CCCFPD — — — — — —
ECCFPD 130,930 134,858 138,904 143,071 147,363 151,784
RHFPD 56,200 57,886 59,623 61,411 63,254 65,151
Increases to Replacement
Reserves 187,130 192,744 198,526 204,482 210,616 216,935
Other Non-Recurring Payments
CCCFPD
Pension Bonds 11,451,540 — — — — —
Bond Stabilization 2,604,794 — — — — —
Total Other Non-Recurring: 14,046,334 — — — — —
Total Non-Recurring Expenses: 19,189,723 12,370,212 12,720,494 5,696,950 5,120,867 5,657,186
Increase (Decrease) to Operating: (18,479,058) 2,359,075 (11,980,354) (4,937,716) (4,342,291) (4,859,011)
Capital Reserves
CCCFPD 38,000,000 — — — — —
ECCFPD 13,000,000 — — — — —
RHFPD 5,000,000 — — — — —
Beginning Capital Reserves: 56,000,000 37,520,942 39,880,017 22,899,663 22,961,948 18,619,656
Ending Capital Reserves: 37,520,942 39,880,017 27,899,663 22,961,948 18,619,656 13,760,645
Combined Reserve Balances
It is prudent to review the reserve balance in its totality to understand the impact of the
annexation on the combined financial strength of the District. The combined reserve
balances project a viable condition for the District and annexed areas for the foreseeable
future. The following figure combines the beginning reserve balances with both the annual
operating results and the annual net capital improvement expenditures through FY 26/27.
163
Figure 144: Projected Combined Operational & Capital Reserve Balances
Revenue/Expenses FY 21/22 FY 22/23 FY 23/24 FY 24/25 FY 25/26 FY 26/27
Beginning Reserves
CCCFPD 38,000,000 — — — — —
ECCFPD 13,000,000 — — — — —
RHFPD 5,000,000 — — — — —
Total Beginning Reserves: 56,000,000 58,616,136 76,125,900 76,215,278 80,238,068 81,465,562
Combined Net Operations: 21,095,194 15,150,689 12,069,732 8,960,506 5,569,785 2,212,130
Combined Net Capital
(Decrease) (18,479,058) 2,359,075 (11,980,354) (4,937,716) (4,342,291) (4,859,011)
Combined Ending Reserves: 58,616,136 76,125,900 76,215,278 80,238,068 81,465,562 78,818,681
164
Section III:
SERVICE REVIEW &
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE
165
LAFCO REQUIREMENTS
This chapter is prepared pursuant to legislation enacted in 2000 that requires LAFCOs to
conduct a comprehensive review of municipal service delivery and update the spheres of
influence (SOIs) of all agencies under LAFCO’s jurisdiction. This section discusses the legal
requirements for preparation of the municipal service review (MSR) and SOI updates. The
following sections present the required components for the service review covering the
three fire protection districts and proposes SOI updates for each of the districts for the
Commission’s consideration.
LAFCO Overview
LAFCO regulates, through approval, denial, conditions and modification, boundary
changes proposed by public agencies or individuals. It also regulates the extension of
public services by cities and special districts outside their jurisdictional boundaries. LAFCO is
empowered to initiate updates to the SOIs and proposals involving the dissolution or
consolidation of special districts, mergers, establishment of subsidiary districts, and any
reorganization including such actions. Otherwise, LAFCO actions must originate as petitions
or resolutions from affected voters, landowners, cities, or districts.
Municipal Service Review Legislation
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH) requires
LAFCO review and update SOIs every five years, or as necessary, and to review municipal
services before updating SOIs. The requirement for service reviews arises from the identified
need for a more coordinated and efficient public service structure to support California’s
anticipated growth. The service review provides LAFCO with a tool to study existing and
future public service conditions comprehensively and to evaluate organizational options
for accommodating growth, preventing urban sprawl, and ensuring that critical services
are provided efficiently.
Government Code §56430 requires LAFCO to conduct a review of municipal services
provided in the county by region, sub-region, or other designated geographic area, or by
type of service, as appropriate, for the service or services to be reviewed, and prepare a
written statement of determinations with respect to each of the following topics:
• Growth and population projections for the affected area.
• The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated
communities within or contiguous to the SOI.
166
• Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services,
including infrastructure needs or deficiencies (including needs or deficiencies
related to sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in
any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the SOI).
• Financial ability of agencies to provide services.
• Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities.
• Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and
operational efficiencies.
• Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery, as required by
commission policy (none identified for Contra Costa LAFCO).
Municipal Service Review Process
The MSR process does not require LAFCO to initiate changes of organization based on
service review findings, only that LAFCO identify potential government structure options.
However, LAFCO, other local agencies, and the public may subsequently use the
determinations to analyze prospective changes of organization or reorganization or to
establish or amend SOIs. Within its legal authorization, LAFCO may act with respect to a
recommended change of organization or reorganization on its own initiative (e.g., certain
types of consolidations), or in response to a proposal (i.e., initiated by resolution or petition
by landowners or registered voters).
Contra Costa LAFCO has conducted two countywide MSRs regarding fire services—the first
in 2009 and the second in 2016. The three subject fire districts were reviewed within these
reports in addition to other fire providers in the County. This report consists of content to
meet the legally mandated MSR requirements for CCCFPD, ECCFPD, and RHFD, which will
be the third MSR for these agencies.
The 2009 Fire MSR found that while annexation of the ECCFPD area to CCCFPD was a
governance structure option, there were identified barriers to potential consolidation,
specifically differences in revenue per capita between the two agencies equating to a
lack of adequate funds on the part of ECCFPD to support CCCFPD service levels.27
Annexation of RHFD by CCCFPD was not identified as an option in the 2009 MSR.
167
The 2016 Fire MSR found that consolidation of ECCFPD with CCCFPD had the potential to
degrade the service levels to the CCCFPD service area, and without significant additional
new taxes from ECCFPD residents, a financial drain on CCCFPD is likely due to outstanding
pension and OPEB liabilities, and due to differentials in pay and benefits that would need
to be reconciled.28 Although the report does not specifically analyze the potential of
RHFPD consolidation with CCCFPD, it does consider consolidation of West County fire
providers, including City of Pinole, RHFD, and CCCFPD, but identifies major historical
impediments to implementing this recommendation including political, financial,
operational, employee compensation, and training differences, as well as an expressed
lack of interest.29
This MSR and attached Annexation Feasibility Study includes analysis on the opportunity
and feasibility of CCCFPD annexing the territory currently served by ECCFPD and RHFD and
the subsequent dissolution of the two districts, thus forming a consolidated fire and EMS
provider. As indicated in the proposed determinations, the annexation scenario has been
found to be financially feasible based on multi-year projections and would promote
operational efficiencies. The potential for annexation to occur is dependent on
concurrence and follow through by the three subject agencies.
168
MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW
One of the functions of this study is to update the MSRs of CCCFPD, ECCFPD, and RHFD.
Required MSR determination factors are listed and addressed, or the corresponding
section of the report is provided which addresses the subject.
Growth & Population Projections for the Affected Area
This topic is discussed in Section 1-A: Baseline Agency Evaluations. The 2016 MSR
determined that countywide population growth from 2015 through 2020, based on the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projections, would average 0.7 percent
annually, which was approximately the same rate of growth as the County realized from
2010 through 2015. East and West County growth is greater than the countywide average,
and Central County exhibits slightly below-average rates. Current ABAG projections from
2020 through 2040 anticipate 22.9% in population growth countywide, with the greatest
growth over the 20-year period anticipated in the eastern and western portions of the
County, particularly in the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Concord, El Cerrito, Hercules,
Oakley, Pittsburg, Richmond, and Walnut Creek.30
Proposed Determinations
• ABAG projects growth of 22.9% between 2020 and 2040 countywide, with the
greatest growth in cities located in each of the three subject fire districts.
• ECCFPD is anticipated to have the highest growth among the three fire districts with
significant projected growth of 60.1% in the City of Brentwood and 53.9% in the City
of Oakley from 2020 to 2040.
• ECCFPD struggles to create a sustainable six (6) station funding system that will
provide adequate services and response times to serve the community properly.
• Growth in RHFPD is anticipated to be highest in the City of Hercules equating to
14.2% over the period through 2040.
• RHFPD cannot meet the increased call load in the communities served with existing
personnel and equipment levels without relying on mutual aid and automatic aid
agencies.
• Population growth within CCCFPD is projected to be concentrated in the cities of
Antioch (26.2%), Concord (38.1%), Pittsburg (25.4%) and Walnut Creek (17.8%)
augmented by high growth in the unincorporated areas of 17.6% through 2040.
169
The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged unincorporated
communities within or contiguous to the SOI
LAFCO is required to evaluate disadvantaged unincorporated communities as part of this
service review, including the location and characteristics of any such communities.
Senate Bill (SB) 244 (Wolk) was adopted into law in 2011 and took effect on January 1,
2012. Now codified as Government Code §56425(e)5, its purpose is to begin to address the
complex legal, financial, and political barriers that contribute to regional inequity and
infrastructure deficits within disadvantaged unincorporated communities (DUCs).
Identifying and including these communities in the long-range planning of a city or a
special district which provides water, wastewater, or fire protection services, is required by
Government Codes §56425(e)5.
Government Code §56033.5 defines a DUC as 1) all or a portion of a “disadvantaged
community” as defined by §79505.5 of the Water Code, and as 2) “inhabited territory” (12
or more registered voters), as defined by §56046, or as determined by Commission policy.
The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act (CKH) requires LAFCO
to make determinations regarding DUCs when considering a change of organization,
reorganization, SOI expansion, and when conducting Municipal Service Reviews. For any
updates to an SOI of a local agency (city or special district) that provides public facilities or
services related to sewer, municipal and industrial water, or structural fire protection,
LAFCO shall consider and prepare written determinations regarding the present and
planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services, and infrastructure
needs or deficiencies for any disadvantaged unincorporated community within or
contiguous to the SOI of the subject city or special district.
Contra Costa LAFCO does not have additional policies related to DUCs.
170
Contra Costa LAFCO has identified DUCs throughout the County through the use of the
American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates for the time frame 2015–2019. The following
Figure shows the locations of the identified disadvantaged communities throughout the
County, a majority of which are within the incorporated boundaries of a city and do not
meet the definition of a Disadvantaged Community (DAC).
Of the DUCs identified that meet the definition outlined above, there is one within
ECCFPD’s boundaries and SOI, four within CCCFPD’s boundaries, and one within RHFD’s
boundaries as described below:
RICHMOND
RICHMOND
ANTIOCHCONCORD OAKLEY
DANVILLE
PITTSBURG
HERCULES
ORINDA
PINOLE
SAN
RAMON
LAFAYETTE
MARTINEZ
WALNUT
CREEK
BRENTWOOD
MORAGA
CLAYTONPLEASANT
HILL
EL
CERRITO
SAN
PABLO
Alamo
Byron
Knightsen
Bay Point
Rodeo
Blackhawk
Discovery
Bay
Bethel
Island
Diablo
Norris
Canyon
El
Sobrante
Reliez Valley
Vine Hill
Saranap
Crockett
North
Richmond
Kensington
Pacheco
Camino
Tassajara
Clyde
Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) Determination
American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2015 - 2019)
INCORPORATED CITIES AND TOWNS
Unincorporated Census Designated Places (CDP)
2015-2019 Disadvantaged Communities
Disadvantaged City or CDP
Disadvantaged Community includes Census Tracts, Block Groups,
and Places where the median household income is less than 80%
of the statewide median household income
Figure 145: Contra Costa Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities
171
• The entirety of the Census Designated Place of Bethel Island is considered a DUC
and located within ECCFPD. The 2016 MSR identified two DUCs within ECCFPD;
however, the community of Knightsen no longer meets the definition of a DUC. The
2016 MSR also noted that the Bethel Island DUC experiences lengthy response times
beyond average response times in other areas of ECCFPD’s boundaries and well-
below national standards for best practices.31
• Station 95 (Bethel Island Station) has been replaced by Station 55 and Station 55 will
be the primary station to serve the Bethel Island area. it is unlikely that the lengthy
response times have been reduced over the last five years.
• A majority of the Bay Point Census Designated Place is considered a DUC located
within CCCFPD boundaries. This area is within a mile of CCCFPD’s Stations 86 and 87
and thus experiences similar or shorter response times compared to neighboring
areas.
• Two unincorporated islands surrounded by the City of Antioch are DUCs within
CCCFPD’s boundaries. The islands are located within a mile of CCCFPD’s Stations 81
and 83.
• An unincorporated area to the east of Martinez is considered a DUC also within
CCCFPD. This community is located within one mile of CCCFPD’s Station 14.
• Portions of the unincorporated communities of Rodeo and Crockett are identified as
a DUC within RHFD’s boundaries. The area is within one mile of RHFPD Station 75, and
therefore response times for the first-arriving engine company should meet or
exceed Best Practice norms.
Proposed Determinations
• The Census Designated Place of Bethel Island continues to be identified as a DUC
within ECCFPD’s boundaries with extensive response times beyond “Best Practices.”
• The four DUCs within CCCFPD’s boundaries are within near vicinity of a fire station
enabling rapid response times to these communities comparable to other
surrounding areas.
• The unincorporated communities of Rodeo and Crockett are identified as a DUC
within RHFD’s boundaries. Given the location of a station within near vicinity of the
community, response times should meet industry standards.
172
Present and planned capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services,
including infrastructure needs or deficiencies
LAFCO is required to come to this determination including needs or deficiencies related to
sewers, municipal and industrial water, and structural fire protection in any disadvantaged
unincorporated communities within or contiguous to the SOI.
This subject has been analyzed in the Capital Facilities & Apparatus section of this report, as
well as the Historical Service Delivery and Performance section.
Of significance from the 2016 MSR is that the number of stations had declined by 15% from
2009. Specifically, five ECCFPD stations and six CCCFPD stations were closed or used as
reserve stations as of 2016, and RHFD was at risk of closing one of its stations at that time as
well. Since then, two ECCFPD stations and two CCCFPD stations have reopened.
Proposed Determinations
• Of CCCFPD’s 27 fire stations, 7% were listed in “Excellent” condition, 67% in “Good”
condition, 15% as “Fair,” and 11% in “Poor” condition. The majority of the stations do
not have modern seismic protection or meet Americans with Disability Act standards
and 44% have sprinkler systems installed.
• CCCFPD rated all of its frontline engines, aerial apparatus, and most other vehicles
as in “Good” or “Excellent” condition. The District maintains an adequate inventory
of reserve engines, aerial apparatus, squads, and other vehicles.
• ECCFPD rates Station 52’s overall condition as “Good,” Station 53 as “Excellent,”
and Station 55 as “Fair. Within each fire station, the various features and facilities
were identified as in either “Good” or “Excellent” condition. Security was rated as
“Fair” in two of the fire stations.
• A majority of ECCFPD’s frontline apparatus were identified as being in “Good” or
“Excellent” condition.
• RHFD rated the overall condition of both of its fire stations as “Good” with few
infrastructure needs identified.
• RHFD’s frontline apparatus generally range in condition from “Excellent” to “Fair”
with one command SUV identified as being in “Poor” condition and in need of
replacement.
• Fire stations tend to be older among all three fire districts. The average age of the
combined stations is 39 years. However, this is based on the original construction
dates, and several stations have since had significant remodeling completed.
173
• Three ECCFPD and two CCCFPD stations remain closed due to inability to fund
costly infrastructure needs or inability to finance staffing for the stations.
• ECCFPD has budgeted for only 2 stations remain closed due to inability to finance
staffing, the 3rd station (Station 55) is scheduled to open in the upcoming fiscal year
FY21/22 with or without annexation.
• Based on Unit Hour Utilization, each of CCCFPD’s, ECCFPD’s, and RHFD’s units are
utilized between 0% and 12% of available time, indicating sufficient capacity for
existing workload; however, all three agencies indicated that staffing levels are not
sufficient to meet existing needs.
• Capacity to serve anticipated future growth and development will depend primarily
on adequate financing levels.
• The agencies have fairly comparable dispatch times and turnout times. ECCFPD
experiences lengthier travel times than CCCFPD and RHFD. First arriving unit
response times from time of dispatch to arrival on scene varies by provider and type
of service call—CCCFPD and RHFD average about 9 minutes for a majority of
service call types with CCCFPD nearing 7 minutes for fire calls and RHFD averaging
over 11 minutes for fire calls. ECCFPD averages between 10 and 11 minutes for all
call types.
• Only RHFPD has established a goal for travel time at within 4 minutes or less, 90% of
the time. Much of the agencies’ service areas are beyond six minutes travel time
from stations. However, the areas of greatest incident activity are generally within
the six-minute travel coverage area.
• The three fire districts appear to provide adequate services based on response
times; however, there are opportunities for improvements. The proposed annexation
budget includes plans to staff Station 55 with an engine company and add a
staffed ladder truck to Station 52. This will improve travel times and overall response
times within ECCFPD’s service area, to some degree.
• Of the six DUCs identified within or adjacent to the study area, Bethel Island Census
Designated Place, within ECCFPD’s boundaries, is the only one that experiences
extensive response times beyond “Best Practices” and is in need of enhanced
service levels, possibly through significant infrastructure improvements at the
presently closed station.
174
Financial Ability of Agencies to Provide Service
This factor has been analyzed in the Financial Analysis of the Districts section of this report.
As of 2016, ECCFPD was facing significant financial challenges forcing the closure of five of
its stations since 2009 and resulting in significantly increased response times. The 2016 MSR
found that ECCFPD faces a number of significant and some severe challenges related to
financing that will require extraordinary efforts to address, including low property tax shares
in a majority of the District’s tax rate areas, fiscal impact of Contra Costa County
Employees' Retirement Association (CCCERA’s) reallocation of costs, and voter fatigue
and resistance to additional ongoing charges due to impacts of benefit assessments and
community facility districts.32
Since then, circumstances have somewhat improved for ECCFPD as a result of increased
property tax revenues. In particular, the reallocation of property tax funding from the Byron
Bethany Irrigation District to ECCFPD, beginning in FY 17/18, has provided more than
$800,000 annually to the District.
In 2016, RHFD was also facing a decline in revenues with the end of its SAFER grant and the
elimination of its 2014 benefit assessment, which would have resulted in the closure of one
of its stations. RHFD’s financial outlook was greatly improved when voters approved
Measure O, which became effective in FY 17/18. Measure O is a parcel tax of $222 (FY
19/20) to be used to enhance funding of operations at the District’s two fire stations.
Similarly, CCCFPD faced declining revenues associated with the decline in property values
and thus property tax income after 2008, combined with increased costs associated with
retirement liabilities. A significant increase in property tax revenues over the last four fiscal
years has strengthened CCCFPD’s financial position.
Proposed Determinations
• Between FY16/17 and FY 19/20, each of the three districts have benefitted from
significantly increasing property tax revenues—CCCFPD’s increased by 20%,
ECCFPD increased by 40%, and RHFD increased by 47%. Property tax revenues in
upcoming years are somewhat unpredictable due to the unknown extent of the
economic effects of the pandemic; however, enhanced demand for real estate is
anticipated to drive continued growth in property values.
175
• ECCFPD has greatly improved its financial position since 2016, through increased
property tax revenue, a reallocation of property tax funds and a Measure H
initiative, enabling the scheduled reopening of fire station 55 in FY 21/22. Revenues
for the District are anticipated to continue to increase by about 4% annually through
FY 25/26, indicating the ability to continue to provide the existing level of service;
however, the District will continue to struggle with closure of two stations and
constrained staffing levels.
• RHFD’s financial outlook has greatly improved over the last four fiscal years with the
enhanced revenues from the Measure O parcel tax and increased property tax
income. The additional revenues have enabled the District to keep both of its
stations open. Property tax revenues are projected to continue to increase by 4%
annually and Measure O revenues by 3% annually, indicating sustainable funding
sources enabling the District to maintain at least its existing service levels.
• CCCFPD has faced financial constraints in prior years associated with declining
property tax revenues and increased pension liabilities. More recently, the area
within CCCFPD is experiencing significant growth in both residential as well as
commercial developments, resulting in significantly increased property tax revenues
and enabling the restaffing of five companies the reopening of three fire stations
over the last decade. Property tax revenues are projected to continue to grow
approximately 4% annually through FY 25/26. r
• Projected combined finances of the three districts for operational and capital
expenditures indicate that the annexation of ECCFPD and RHFD by CCCFPD is a
financially feasible option. The combined finances of the consolidated agency
would allow for expansion of adding two additional three-person companies to be
staffed over the following 12 months, construction of new stations, remodel of
another station, and acquisition of fire apparatus. This financing structure capitalizes
on cost savings resulting from reduced costs of dispatch, eliminated chief positions,
and by combining technology infrastructure, fleet maintenance, and other
administrative functions.
Status & Opportunities for Shared Facilities
The Opportunities for Annexation section of this report identifies General Partnering
Options, which range from various shared resources scenarios to full consolidation of the
districts through annexation. The Financial Analysis includes analysis and projections
through FY 25/26 for the annexation scenario of ECCFPD and RHFD in the Combined
Financials portion.
176
Proposed Determinations
• While the districts do not practice facility sharing of structures, they do practice
resource sharing that enhances efficiency of services offered through shared service
agreements and mutual and automatic aid agreements.
• Current resource sharing practices include provision of dispatch services by CCCFPD
to ECCFPD and RHFD, IT support provided by the City of Brentwood and CCCFPD,
and participation in the Battalion 7 configuration by RHFD and CCCFPD for shared
staffing and coordination.
• The report outlines options for shared services beyond existing practices, including
advanced auto aid systems, functional consolidation in the possible form of a
contract for service or intergovernmental agreement, operational consolidation
such as a Joint Powers Authority, or full consolidation through annexation by a
successor agency.
Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and
operational efficiencies
Matters relating to this factor have been addressed in the following sections of this report:
Descriptions of the Fire Districts
Financial Analysis
Management Components
Staffing and Personnel Management
Capital Facilities & Apparatus
Historical Service Delivery & Performance
Stakeholder Input
Proposed Determinations
• A well-organized and efficiently administered organization has appropriate
documentation, policies, and procedures, and ways to effectively address internal
and external issues. Based on review of the three districts’ planning practices, critical
issues reported by each agency, internal and external communication tools used,
availability and use of SOGs and policies, recordkeeping and reporting practices,
and IT systems in place, each district is considered well-organized.
177
Potential improvements include adoption of a strategic plan by CCCFPD, update of
RHFD’s strategic plan, regular updating of RHFD’s SOGs, and greater use of
community surveys for external communication purposes by all three districts.
• The Annexation Feasibility Study has found that the annexation of ECCFPD and RHFD
by CCCFPD is financially feasible and would create cost and operational
efficiencies through streamlining of dispatch services, elimination of fire chief
positions, and by combining particular functions.
178
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE
In addition to the MSR Update, one of the functions of this report is to update the Sphere of
Influence (SOI) for each of the three districts for consistency with the recommended
annexation of ECCFPD and RHFD by CCCFPD.
Sphere of Influence Updates
Pursuant to Government Code § 56425, the Commission is charged with developing and
updating the Sphere of Influence (SOI) for each city and special district within the county.
SOIs must be updated every five years or as necessary. In determining the SOI, LAFCO is
required to complete an MSR and adopt the seven determinations previously discussed.
An SOI is a LAFCO-approved plan that designates an agency’s probable future boundary
and service area. SOIs are planning tools used to provide guidance for individual boundary
change proposals and are intended to encourage efficient provision of organized
community services and prevent duplication of service delivery. Territory cannot be
annexed by LAFCO to a city or a district unless it is within that agency's SOI; consequently,
the agency’s SOI must be consistent with any application for reorganization to LAFCO. In
the case of the three agencies reviewed here, the SOI for CCCFPD must be amended to
encompass the entirety of the two districts to be annexed and Zero SOIs must be adopted
for RHFD and ECCFPD in order to reflect the anticipation that RHFD and ECCFPD territories
will be annexed by CCCFPD and the two agencies dissolved. Contra Costa LAFCO
requires that when an SOI amendment is requested, the proponent shall submit
documentation to support the determinations the Commission must make pursuant to
§56425(a) as outlined in this report.
Additionally, Contra Costa LAFCO has a policy that SOIs generally will not be amended
concurrently with an action on the related change of organization or reorganization,
meaning the application for an SOI amendment must be processed at a meeting prior to
the public hearing when the reorganization is considered. Contra Costa LAFCO’s policies
also note that a change of organization or reorganization will not be approved solely
because an area falls within the SOI of any agency.33
SOIs are for planning and shaping the logical and orderly development and coordination
of local government agencies.
179
In adopting or amending an SOI, LAFCO must establish the nature, location, and extent of
any functions or classes of services provided by existing districts and specify the functions or
classes of services provided by those districts. Additionally, LAFCO must make
determinations regarding the following:
• Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space
lands;
• Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area;
• Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public service that the
agency provides or is authorized to provide;
• Existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the
Commission determines these are relevant to the agency; and
• Present and probable need for water, wastewater, and structural fire protection
facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated communities within the
existing SOI.
As a precursor to boundary changes, requests for SOI amendments should address all of
the relevant factors of §56668. Such requests should also specify how the policies of the
CKH Act will be fostered with respect to the 1) orderly formation of local agencies [§56001]
and 2) preservation of open space [§56059] and prime agricultural land [§56064], both
within the existing boundaries of the agency and the proposed SOI of the agency
[§56377].
Additionally, Contra Costa LAFCO requires that a request to expand an SOI should
designate clearly the territory that may be sought for annexation and the anticipated
timeframe. By statute, LAFCO must notify affected agencies 21 days before holding the
public hearing to consider the SOI and may not update the SOI until after that hearing. The
LAFCO Executive Officer must issue a report including recommendations on the SOI
amendments and updates under consideration at least five days before the public
hearing.
Existing Spheres of Influence
The SOIs of the districts were updated following either the 2009 or 2016 MSRs, which
included recommendations for SOI Updates.
180
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
The SOI for CCCFPD was last updated on October 14, 2009. The SOI changes sought to
align boundaries with land use development and service responsibilities of the primary
service provider; the changes were not associated with major organizational changes
(consolidations, etc.).
CCCFPD’s SOI extends beyond its boundaries in four areas—the Roddy Ranch area to the
east of the City of Clayton, territory just south of the City of Antioch, Winter Island, and the
Tesoro Golden Eagle Refinery.
In 2009, LAFCO expanded CCCFPD’s SOI to include the Roddy Ranch area just south of the
City of Antioch, and removed the area from ECCFPD’s SOI; however, no related
annexation has been proposed and the area remains in ECCFPD’s boundary. Similarly,
there exists a small area of overlap just outside the boundaries of the City of Clayton.
CCCFPD’s boundary and SOI are depicted in the following Figure.
Figure 146: CCCFPD Boundaries & Sphere of Influence
181
East Contra Costa Fire Protection District
ECCFPD’s SOI was last updated on October 12, 2016 as a provisional SOI. The 2016 MSR
recommended that the ECCFPD SOI be designated as “provisional,” requiring that ECCFPD
report back to LAFCO on at least an annual basis to inform LAFCO as to ECCFPD’s progress
in implementing the recommendations of the MSR, and in meeting the objectives of
independent governance, adequacy of services, and long-term financial sustainability.
The 2016 SOI Update also mentioned the potential of a Zero SOI indicating that the District
would be annexed into another provider; however, there were no prospects for service by
another agency at that time.
ECCFPD’s SOI is generally coterminous with its boundaries with the exception of the Roddy
Ranch area and a small area east of the City of Clayton. As mentioned, the Roddy Ranch
area was removed from ECCFPD’s SOI and added to CCCFPD’s SOI in 2009; however, the
area has not yet been annexed by CCCFPD and remains in ECCFPD’s boundaries but
outside its SOI. ECCFPD’s boundary and SOI are depicted in the following figure.
Figure 147: ECCFPD Boundaries & Sphere of Influence
182
Rodeo-Hercules Fire District
RHFD’s SOI was last updated on October 12, 2016 as a provisional SOI. The 2016 MSR
recommended that the RHFPD SOI be designated as “provisional,” requiring that RHFPD
report back to LAFCO on at least an annual basis to inform LAFCO as to RHFPD’s progress
in implementing the recommendations of the MSR, and in meeting the objectives of
adequacy of services and long-term financial sustainability. The 2016 SOI Update also
mentioned the potential of a Zero SOI indicating that the district would be annexed into
another provider; however, there were no prospects for service by another agency at that
time.
RHFD’s SOI is coterminous with its boundaries and encompasses a majority of the City of
Hercules and the unincorporated community of Rodeo. RHFD’s SOI and boundaries extend
into the San Francisco Bay; this area in the Bay was considered for detachment as part of
the options noted in the 2009 MSR. The 2009 MSR also considered detachment of the
refinery area. These boundaries and SOI changes have not occurred. RHFD’s boundary
and SOI are depicted in the following figure.
Figure 148: RHFPD Boundaries & Sphere of Influence
183
Proposed Sphere of Influence Update
The SOI is used to indicate an anticipated boundary change or change of organization by
LAFCO. Every subject agency’s SOI must be consistent with any application to LAFCO for
consideration. Consequently, should CCCFPD, ECCFPD, and RHFD choose to pursue the
annexation scenario, an SOI Update will be required indicating the anticipated
reorganization.
The proposed SOI Updates consist of the following and are shown in the following figure:
• Expand CCCFPD’s SOI to include the entirety of RHFD’s and ECCFPD’s boundaries.
The portion of RHFD’s boundaries that extends into the San Francisco Bay could be
excluded from the SOI expansion, indicating that the annexation would not include
the territory in the Bay, if desired by the subject agencies.
• Adopt a Zero SOI for RHFD, indicating the anticipation that another agency will take
on services within RHFD’s boundaries and the District will be dissolved.
• Adopt a Zero SOI for ECCFPD, indicating the anticipation that another agency will
take on services within ECCFPD’s boundaries and the District will be dissolved.
Figure 149: Proposed Spheres of Influence
184
Draft Sphere of Influence Determinations
The following draft determinations are proposed for adoption by LAFCO to meet the
requirements for updating the SOIs of CCCFPD, ECCFPD, and RHFD.
The nature, location, and extent of any functions or classes of services
Provided (districts only)
• The nature, location, and extent of services provided by the three districts have not
changed significantly since the 2016 SOI Update.
Present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space
lands
• The present and planned land uses within the boundaries of each of the three
districts has not changed since the 2016 MSR. The three districts continue to
encompass a wide variety of land use types given the expansive nature of three
districts. While there has been significant growth and development in the three
districts over the last five years, there have been no substantial General Plan
changes that would affect zoning and/or land use in the County. The only city that
has updated the land use portions of their respective General Plans is the City of
Clayton within CCCFPD’s boundaries.
• Contra Costa County is undergoing a General Plan Update, that has the potential
to adjust land uses within the unincorporated portions of the County. Several cities
have initiated 20-year updates of their General Plans, which could similarly alter
planned land uses throughout the study area.
Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area
• Growth within all three districts is anticipated to result in an increased demand for
fire and EMS from the subject agencies, which will likely necessitate enhanced
resources to maintain present service levels.
Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public service that the
agency provides or is authorized to provide
• Three ECCFPD and two CCCFPD stations remain closed due to inability to fund
costly infrastructure needs or inability to finance staffing for the stations.
• ECCFPD has budgeted for two stations to remain closed due to inability to finance
staffing. The third station (Station 55) is scheduled to open in the upcoming fiscal
year (FY21/22) with or without reorganization.
185
• Capacity to serve anticipated future growth and development will depend primarily
on adequate financing levels.
• The agencies have fairly comparable dispatch times and turnout times. ECCFPD
experiences lengthier travel times than CCCFPD and RHFD. First arriving unit
response times from time of dispatch to arrival on scene varies by provider and type
of service call-CCCFPD and RHFD average about 9 minutes for a majority of service
call types with CCCFPD nearing 7 minutes for fire calls and RHFD averaging over 11
minutes for fire calls. ECCFPD averages between 10 and 11 minutes for all call types.
• Only RHFPD has established a goal for travel time at within 4 minutes or less, 90% of
the time. Much of the agencies’ service areas are beyond six minutes travel time
from stations. However, the areas of greatest incident activity are generally within
the six-minute travel coverage area.
• The three fire districts appear to provide adequate services based on response
times; however, there are opportunities for improvements. The proposed annexation
budget includes plans to staff Station 55 with an engine company and add a
staffed ladder truck to Station 52. This will improve travel times, and overall response
times within ECCFPD’s service area, to some degree.
Existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the
Commission determines these are relevant to the agency
• Social or economic communities of interest have not changed since the 2016 report
and continue to the be the various cities and unincorporated communities within
CCCFPD, ECCFPD, and RHFD.
• There is a present and probable need for water, wastewater, and structural fire
protection facilities and services of any disadvantaged unincorporated
communities within the existing SOI.
• Of the six DUCs identified within or adjacent to the study area, Bethel Island Census
Designated Place, within ECCFPD’s boundaries, is the only one that experiences
extensive response times beyond “Best Practices” and is in need of enhanced
service levels, possibly through significant infrastructure improvements at the
presently closed station.
186
Section IV:
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
187
FINDINGS
Contra Costa County FPD
• CCCFPD is a large, well-funded all-risk fire district.
• CCCFPD has a stable and growing revenue stream.
• CCCFPD's processes for funding facility remodeling and new fire stations will
streamline the process of improvements throughout the annexed service areas.
• CCCFPD has a unique bilingual education program for the juvenile fire starter team.
This program would translate well to ECCFPD and RHFPD.
• CCFPD has previously experienced a significant reduction in funding due to an
economic downturn, resulting in a decrease in staffing and the closure of fire
stations.
East Contra Costa FPD
• ECCFPD has previously experienced a significant reduction in funding due to an
economic downturn, resulting in a decrease in staffing and the closure of fire
stations.
• ECCFPD cannot meet the increased call load in the communities served with
existing personnel and equipment levels without relying on mutual aid and
automatic aid agencies.
• ECCCFD struggles to create a sustainable funding system that will provide adequate
services and response times to serve the communities properly. ECCFPD is
experiencing some level of revenue growth.
• ECCFPD is projected to receive over $500,000 annually from developer fee
revenues.
• All existing ECCFPD personnel will be absorbed into CCCFPD. A potential annexation
would not result in layoffs.
• ECCFPD’s FY 20/21 budget includes funds to staff fire station 55
• The combined organization contemplates staffing of a ladder company at an
existing station.
• Annexation will result in the implementation of Advanced Life Support (Paramedic)
level service on ECCFPD apparatus.
188
Rodeo-Hercules FPD
• RHFPD is a smaller district that has seen growth in property value but has
experienced a projected (budgeted) decline in property tax revenues.
• Property tax revenues continue to be negatively impacted by the dissolution of
redevelopment agencies and the continued property development within City of
Hercules Redevelopment Area. This impact will continue until 2025 when the
Recognized Obligation Payments of the redevelopment agency and its successor
are extinguished.34
• RHFPD cannot meet the increased call load in the communities served with existing
personnel and equipment levels without relying on mutual aid and automatic aid
agencies.
• RHFPD Measure O and the 1998 Benefit Assessment District funds will continue to be
committed to funding services within the RHFPD service area.
• RHFPD and CCCFPD share battalion chief coverage as Battalion 7. RHFPD has
minimal administrative support.
• All existing RHFPD personnel that desire to do so will be absorbed into CCCFPD. The
potential annexations will not result in layoffs.
All Agencies
• All three districts currently participate in a Regional Communications center. An
opportunity exists to reduce operating and administrative costs through the
proposed annexation while increasing service levels significantly.
• There are no deployment-related impediments to annexation.
• Combined projected recurring revenues are sufficient to provide for combined
currently projected recurring expenses and anticipated expansion of services in
CCCFPD and ECCFPD through the fiscal projection period identified in the project
scope of work.
• Funding exists through existing reserves and future development fees, and other
non-recurring receipts to provide for fire station construction, apparatus acquisition,
and debt service on existing obligations on a combined basis through the fiscal
projection period identified in the project scope of work.
• Annexation will enhance and standardize training throughout the area.
• Annexation is projected to result in cost savings due to combining technology
infrastructure, fleet maintenance, and other administrative functions.
189
• Command and control of multi-company incidents will be improved as a result of
annexation.
• Annexation will enhance and standardize public education outreach.
• Each fire district has a comprehensive and extensive training program; however,
training emphasis was inconsistent between organizations.
• There appears to be minimal differences between the three organizations relating to
specific code enforcement.
• Through existing reserves and future development fees, funding and other non-
recurring receipts exists, to provide for fire station construction, apparatus
acquisition, and debt service on existing obligations on a combined basis through
the fiscal projection period identified in the project scope of work.
• Combined projected reserve balances never fall below 35% ($76,000,000) through
the fiscal projection period identified in the project scope of work.
Other
On November 3, 2020, voters throughout the County approved Measure X authorizing an
additional countywide sales tax of 0.5% for 20 years. Per the measure's language, the intent
was to support essential services, including emergency response and others.
190
PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1: ECCFPD, RHFPD, and CCCFPD should move forward with annexation.
Based on the analysis, annexation will increase both the effectiveness and efficiency of the
service delivery system and the efficiency of the administrative functions.
Estimated cost to implement: Legal and administrative costs related to the documentation
of the annexations, costs associated with the required LAFCO study and application
process, costs associated with rebranding equipment, if desired. Anticipated that a
significant portion of the implementation costs would be offset by annual savings resulting
from the annexation.
Figure 150: Contra Costa LAFCO Application Processing Costs (2021)
Process Cost
Reorganization Application (two or more changes of organization if
included in one application)—includes annexation of two districts and
dissolution of both districts
$7,836
SOI Update—Concurrent review of corresponding SOI amendments with a
change of organization or reorganization $2,060
CEQA—as the applicant, the district will be the Lead Agency and will be
required to prepare CEQA Categorical Exemption documentation No fee
CEQA Filing $50
County Surveyor Deposit—for map review $1,200
Maps and Legal Descriptions—to be completed by a certified surveyor TBD1
State Board of Equalization Fees—dependent on actions & acreage $7,000
Election Costs—if an election is required based on protest proceedings TBD2
1To be determined by surveyor. 2To be determined by County Elections.
Recommendation 2: Municipal Services Review Update
It is recommended that LAFCO review and adopt the proposed determinations associated
with this MSR update at a public hearing.
Estimated cost to implement: There is no additional cost associated with LAFCO processing
an MSR update that has been drafted and submitted for consideration.
191
Recommendation 3: Adopt Resolutions for Reorganization
Should the three districts decide to pursue annexation, the districts should adopt
substantially similar resolutions initiating the reorganization, including provision for Sphere of
Influence amendments of all three districts as outlined in the Sphere of Influence Update to
meet LAFCO requirements that SOIs be consistent for any change of organization.
Estimated cost to implement: Costs are limited to any additional staff time associated with
drafting and agendizing of the resolution and public notice requirements for the meeting
where the resolution will be considered.
Recommendation 4: ECCFPD, RHFD & CCCFPD Coordinate with LAFCO
Should the districts choose to move forward with an application for reorganization to
LAFCO, then it is recommended that the agencies coordinate with LAFCO to process the
necessary SOI update at a public hearing prior to consideration of the reorganization
application, as required by LAFCO policy.
Estimated cost to implement: Administrative staff time to act as liaison with LAFCO
throughout application process.
Recommendation 5: LAFCO Update Sphere of Influence
LAFCO consider and adopt the proposed SOI Update and associated determinations at a
public hearing, consisting of Zero SOIs for ECCFPD and RHFD and an expansion of
CCCFPD's SOI to include the territory of the districts to be annexed.
Estimated cost to implement: Administrative staff time to complete and file an application
with LAFCO and associated LAFCO filing fees.
Recommendation 6: Standardize training programs specific to special team response.
Station and apparatus crews will need to be combined with individuals from separate
organizations. It will be the responsibility of the Training Division to ensure that all firefighters
meet minimum expectations. Individuals from ECCFPD and RHFD will need focused training
and certifications to support existing special assignments.
Estimated Cost to Implement: With the addition of three Training/Safety Officers, the
training program should be able to balance the technical rescue capabilities of all three
organizations.
192
Recommendation 7: Develop a balanced training program.
A combined organization will need to determine a training philosophy and develop a
standardized program that meets the community's needs.
Estimated Cost to Implement: Staff time necessary to balance the training schedule.
Recommendation 8: Increase multi-company training for the annexed areas.
With the potential addition of two new areas to the CCCFPD system, the combined system
should emphasize additional multi-company training.
Estimated Cost to Implement: Additional training will require staffing costs associated with
the number of training sessions provided.
Recommendation 9: Increase training and response capabilities for hazmat incidents.
Due to the large oil refineries in the response areas, a combined organization will need to
continue focused training and response to potentially significant hazmat incidents.
Estimated Cost to Implement: Training staff time and possible overtime.
Recommendation 10: Develop a standardized public education program throughout the
newly annexed areas.
The development of an outreach program that can be documented and measured for
effectiveness is essential to quality public outreach. A combined organization should
develop a standardized public education program.
Estimated Cost to Implement: Development of metrics for measured effectiveness would
have minimal additional cost.
Recommendation 11: Develop a company inspection program for high occupancy/high-
risk facilities.
AP Triton recommends on-duty engine companies perform building familiarization and pre-
plan familiarization. This function supports firefighter safety as well as improved fire ground
operations.
Estimated Cost to Implement: Utilization of on-duty crews translates to minimum additional
cost.
193
Recommendation 12: Reopen ECCFPD Station 55 to improve service.
Funding is increasing with increased tax values and special assessments and should be
sufficient to complete and staff Station 55.
Estimated cost to implement: Employee costs, station maintenance costs and equipment
costs as indicated in the following figure.
Figure 151: Costs Associated with Re-Opening ECCFPD Station 55 (FY 21/22–FY 26/27)
Expenses FY 21/22 FY 22/23 FY 23/24 FY 24/25 FY 25/26 FY 26/27
Operations
ECCFPD Station 55
Fire Captain (3) 841,500 925,650 990,446 1,059,777 1,133,961 1,213,338
Fire Engineer (3) 759,000 834,900 893,343 955,877 1,022,788 1,094,384
Firefighter/Paramedic (3) 543,000 597,300 639,111 683,849 731,718 782,938
Overtime 278,655 306,521 327,977 350,935 375,501 401,786
Total Salaries & Benefits 2,422,155 2,664,371 2,850,877 3,050,438 3,263,968 3,492,446
Station Operations 50,000 51,500 53,045 54,636 56,275 57,964
Costs to Re-Open: 2,472,155 2,715,871 2,903,922 3,105,074 3,320,243 3,550,410
Recommendation 13: Acquire and staff a Ladder Company within ECCFPD’s service area.
Estimated cost to implement: Employee and equipment costs as indicated in the following.
Figure 152: Costs Associated with Staffing a Ladder Company (FY 21/22–FY 26/27)
Expenses FY 21/22 FY 22/23 FY 23/24 FY 24/25 FY 25/26 FY 26/27
Operations
Staffing Ladder 52
Fire Captain (3) 841,500 925,650 990,446 1,059,777 1,133,961 1,213,338
Fire Engineer (3) 759,000 834,900 893,343 955,877 1,022,788 1,094,384
Firefighter/Paramedic (3) 543,000 597,300 639,111 683,849 731,718 782,938
Overtime 278,655 306,521 327,977 350,935 375,501 401,786
Total Salaries & Benefits 2,422,155 2,664,371 2,850,877 3,050,438 3,263,968 3,492,446
Apparatus Operating &
Maintenance Costs 50,000 51,500 53,045 54,636 56,275 57,964
Costs to Staff Ladder 52: 2,472,155 2,715,871 2,903,922 3,105,074 3,320,243 3,550,410
194
Recommendation 14: Reopen CCCFPD Station 4.
The deployment modeling has identified a gap in the area that would be served by Fire
Station 4.
Estimated cost to implement: Employee costs, station maintenance costs and equipment
costs as indicated in the following figure.
Figure 153: Costs Associated with Re-Opening CCCFPD Station 4 (FY 21/22–FY 26/27)
Expenses FY 21/22 FY 22/23 FY 23/24 FY 24/25 FY 25/26 FY 26/27
Operations
CCCFPD Station 4
Fire Captain (3) — 925,650 990,446 1,059,777 1,133,961 1,213,338
Fire Engineer (3) — 834,900 893,343 955,877 1,022,788 1,094,384
Firefighter/Paramedic (3) — 597,300 639,111 683,849 731,718 782,938
Overtime — 306,521 327,977 350,935 375,501 401,786
Total Salaries & Benefits: — 2,664,371 2,850,877 3,050,438 3,263,968 3,492,446
Station Operations — 51,500 53,045 54,636 56,275 57,964
Costs to Re-Open: — 2,715,871 2,903,922 3,105,074 3,320,243 3,550,410
195
Section V—Volume 1:
APPENDICES
196
VOLUME 1—APPENDIX A: TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Contra Costa County, California .................................................................................... 6
Figure 2: Population Density per Square Mile of the Fire Districts (2010) ..................................... 7
Figure 3: Combined Populations & Service Areas of the Fire Districts ........................................ 8
Figure 4: CCCFPD Organizational Structure (2021) ..................................................................... 11
Figure 5: ECCFPD Organizational Structure (2021) ...................................................................... 13
Figure 6: RHFPD Organizational Chart (2021) .............................................................................. 14
Figure 7: Annexation Study Area .................................................................................................. 15
Figure 8: CCCFPD Historic & Budgeted Revenues ...................................................................... 16
Figure 9: CCCFPD Historic & Budgeted Revenues Indicating Trends ....................................... 17
Figure 10: CCCFPD Revenue Projections (FY 21/22–FY 26/27) ................................................... 18
Figure 11: ECCFPD Historic & Budgeted Revenue Sources (FY 15/16–FY 20/21) ..................... 20
Figure 12: ECCFPD Historic & Budgeted Revenues Indicating Trends ...................................... 21
Figure 13: ECCFPD Projected Revenues (FY 21/22–FY 26/27) .................................................... 22
Figure 14: RHFD Historic & Budgeted Revenue Sources ............................................................. 23
Figure 15: RHFD Historic Revenues Indicating Trends (FY 15/16–FY 20/21)................................ 24
Figure 16: RHFD Revenue Projections (FY 21/22–FY 26/27) ......................................................... 25
Figure 17: Mission, Vision, & Strategic Planning Efforts of the Study Districts ............................ 27
Figure 18: Critical Issues Identified by the Fire Chiefs .................................................................. 29
Figure 19: Communications Methods Used by the Fire Districts ................................................ 31
Figure 20: Regulatory Documents ................................................................................................. 33
Figure 21: Reporting & Recordkeeping by the Fire Districts ....................................................... 35
Figure 22: Information Technology Systems by the Fire Districts ................................................ 38
Figure 23: Comparison of Uniformed Administrative & Support Staff ....................................... 41
Figure 24: Non-Uniformed Staff ..................................................................................................... 42
Figure 25: Administrative/Support Staff Compared to Operational Staff ................................ 42
Figure 26: Fire Districts Staffing by Station & Apparatus (Part 1) ................................................ 45
Figure 27: CCCFPD Staffing by Station & Apparatus (Part 2) .................................................... 46
Figure 28: Emergency Response Staffing by Position ................................................................. 47
Figure 29: Staffing Recommendations Based on Risk ................................................................. 49
Figure 30: Low-Risk Structure Fire ................................................................................................... 49
Figure 31: High-Risk Structure Fire (> 5,000 square feet) ............................................................. 50
197
Figure 32: Wildland Fire (High Risk) ................................................................................................ 50
Figure 33: Aircraft Emergency ....................................................................................................... 51
Figure 34: Hazardous Materials—Low Risk .................................................................................... 51
Figure 35: Hazardous Materials—High Risk ................................................................................... 51
Figure 36: Emergency Medical Aid .............................................................................................. 52
Figure 37: Major Medical Response (10+ patients) ..................................................................... 52
Figure 38: Motor Vehicle Accident (Non-Trapped) .................................................................... 52
Figure 39: Motor Vehicle Accident (Trapped) ............................................................................ 53
Figure 40: Technical Rescue—Water ............................................................................................ 53
Figure 41: Technical Rescue—Rope ............................................................................................. 54
Figure 42: Technical Rescue—Confined Space .......................................................................... 54
Figure 43: Technical Rescue—Trench ........................................................................................... 55
Figure 44: Structure Fire—Low Risk ................................................................................................. 56
Figure 45: Structure Fire—High Risk ................................................................................................ 56
Figure 46: Wildland Fire (High Risk) ................................................................................................ 57
Figure 47: Aircraft Emergency ....................................................................................................... 57
Figure 48: Hazardous Materials—Low Risk .................................................................................... 58
Figure 49: Hazardous Materials—High Risk ................................................................................... 58
Figure 50: Emergency Medical Aid .............................................................................................. 59
Figure 51: Major Medical Response (10+ patients) ..................................................................... 59
Figure 52: Motor Vehicle Accident (Non—Trapped) .................................................................. 60
Figure 53: Motor Vehicle Accident (Trapped) ............................................................................ 60
Figure 54: Technical Rescue—Water ............................................................................................ 61
Figure 55: Technical Rescue—Rope ............................................................................................. 61
Figure 56: Technical Rescue—Confined Space .......................................................................... 62
Figure 57: Technical Rescue—Trench ........................................................................................... 62
Figure 58: Criteria Utilized to Determine Fire Station Condition ................................................. 64
Figure 59: Combined Station Inventories of the Fire Districts (2021) .......................................... 66
Figure 60: Criteria Used to Determine Apparatus & Vehicle Condition ................................... 68
Figure 61: CCCFPD Type 1 & 6 Engines Frontline Inventory (2021) ............................................ 69
Figure 62: CCCFPD Type 3 Engines & Water Tender Frontline Inventory (2021) ...................... 70
Figure 63: CCCFPD Frontline Aerials & Rescues Inventory (2021) .............................................. 70
Figure 64: CCCFPD Frontline Ambulances & Heavy Rescues Inventory (2021) ....................... 71
198
Figure 65: CCCFPD Vehicles Assigned to Command Staff (2021) ............................................ 72
Figure 66: ECCFPD Frontline Apparatus Inventory (2021) ........................................................... 73
Figure 67: ECCFPD Frontline Command & Staff Vehicles Fleet Inventory (2021) .................... 74
Figure 68: RHFPD Frontline Apparatus & Other Vehicles Inventory (2021)................................ 75
Figure 69: Collective Inventory of the Fire Districts Frontline Fleets (2021) ................................ 75
Figure 70: Collective Apparatus & Minimum Staffing by Fire Station—Part 1 (2021) ............... 76
Figure 71: Collective Apparatus & Minimum Staffing by Fire Station—Part 2 (2021) ............... 77
Figure 72: Response Workload History—CCCFPD ....................................................................... 80
Figure 73: Response Workload History—ECCFPD ........................................................................ 81
Figure 74: Response Workload History—RHFPD ........................................................................... 82
Figure 75: Response Workload by Month—CCCFPD .................................................................. 82
Figure 76: Response Workload by Month— ECCFPD .................................................................. 83
Figure 77: Response Workload by Month—RHFPD ...................................................................... 83
Figure 78: Response Workload by Day of Week—CCCFPD ...................................................... 84
Figure 79: Response Workload by Day of Week—ECCFPD ....................................................... 84
Figure 80: Response Workload by Day of Week—RHFPD ........................................................... 85
Figure 81: Response Workload by Hour of Day—CCCFPD ........................................................ 85
Figure 82: Response Workload by Hour of Day—ECCFPD ......................................................... 86
Figure 83: Response Workload by Hour of Day—RHFPD ............................................................ 86
Figure 84: Incidents per Square Mile—All Incidents (2020) ......................................................... 87
Figure 85: Incidents per Square Mile—Fire Incidents (2020) ....................................................... 89
Figure 86: Incidents per Square Mile—EMS Incidents (2020) ...................................................... 91
Figure 87: Responses by Unit—CCCFPD ....................................................................................... 93
Figure 88: Responses by Unit—ECCFPD ........................................................................................ 94
Figure 89: Responses by Unit—RHFPD ........................................................................................... 94
Figure 90: Average Time Committed to an Incident—CCCFPD ............................................... 95
Figure 91: Average Time Committed to an Incident—ECCFPD ................................................ 96
Figure 92: Average Time Committed to an Incident—RHFPD ................................................... 96
Figure 93: Unit Hour Utilization—CCCFPD ..................................................................................... 97
Figure 94: Unit Hour Utilization—ECCFPD ...................................................................................... 98
Figure 95: Unit Hour Utilization—RHFPD ......................................................................................... 98
Figure 96: Dispatch Time .............................................................................................................. 101
Figure 97: Turnout Time ................................................................................................................. 102
199
Figure 98: Six Minute Travel Coverage ....................................................................................... 103
Figure 99: Nine Minute Travel Coverage .................................................................................... 104
Figure 100: Travel Time ................................................................................................................. 105
Figure 101: Travel Time by Region ............................................................................................... 106
Figure 102: Six-Minute Travel Coverage from Station 55 .......................................................... 107
Figure 103: Nine-Minute Travel Coverage from Station 55 ....................................................... 108
Figure 104: Response Times .......................................................................................................... 109
Figure 105: Received to Arrival Time ........................................................................................... 109
Figure 106: Frequency Distribution of ERF Arrival Times—CCCFPD .......................................... 110
Figure 107: Incident Concurrency—CCCFPD ........................................................................... 111
Figure 108: Incident Concurrency—ECCFPD ............................................................................ 112
Figure 109: Incident Concurrency—RHFPD ................................................................................ 112
Figure 110: Unit Concurrency—CCCFPD ................................................................................... 113
Figure 111: Unit Concurrency—ECCFPD .................................................................................... 113
Figure 112: Unit Concurrency—RHFPD ....................................................................................... 113
Figure 113: Fire District Affiliations of the Respondents ............................................................. 114
Figure 114: Positions of the Respondents at each Fire District ................................................. 115
Figure 115: Respondent’s Level of EMS Certification ................................................................ 115
Figure 116: Respondent’s Opinions of a Potential Fire District Annexation ............................ 116
Figure 117: Areas of Fire Protection & EMS Warranting the Highest Priority ............................ 116
Figure 118: CCCFPD EMS Division Budget (FY 18/19–FY 20/21)................................................ 121
Figure 119: General Training Competencies by Fire District .................................................... 123
Figure 120: CCCFPD Individual Training Analysis ....................................................................... 124
Figure 121: ECCFPD Individual Training Analysis ........................................................................ 125
Figure 122: RHFPD Individual Training Analysis ........................................................................... 125
Figure 123: Training Emphasis per Fire District ............................................................................ 126
Figure 124: Methodologies Utilized in Training by District ......................................................... 129
Figure 125: Annual Training Hours & Training Budget by District .............................................. 130
Figure 126: Training Facilities & Resources by District ................................................................ 130
Figure 127: CCCFPD Training Center/Mechanic Shop/Supply Warehouse ........................... 132
Figure 128: Steps of a CRR Plan ................................................................................................... 133
Figure 129: Risk Reduction Strategy ............................................................................................ 134
Figure 130: Public Education Programs ...................................................................................... 136
200
Figure 131: Code Enforcement Among the Fire Districts .......................................................... 137
Figure 132: Recommended Fire Inspection Frequencies ......................................................... 138
Figure 133: Special Team Responses by Jurisdiction (2020) ..................................................... 140
Figure 134: Regional Special Team Response (2020) ............................................................... 141
Figure 135: Regional Special Team Responses by Time of Day (2020) ................................... 141
Figure 136: Required Apparatus for Specific Special Team Response (2020) ....................... 142
Figure 137: Required Apparatus for Wildfire Responses (2020) ................................................ 143
Figure 138: Total Response Time for Special Team Response (2020) ...................................... 143
Figure 139: CCCFPD Special Team Units .................................................................................... 144
Figure 140: Recurring Revenue/Expense Projections—Combined Operations (Part 1) ....... 158
Figure 141: Recurring Revenue/Expense Projections—Combined Operations (Part 2) ....... 159
Figure 142: Non-Recurring Projections—Capital Costs (Part 1) ............................................... 161
Figure 143: Non-Recurring Projections—Capital Costs (Part 2) ............................................... 162
Figure 144: Projected Combined Operational & Capital Reserve Balances ........................ 163
Figure 145: Contra Costa Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities ............................ 170
Figure 146: CCCFPD Boundaries & Sphere of Influence .......................................................... 180
Figure 147: ECCFPD Boundaries & Sphere of Influence ........................................................... 181
Figure 148: RHFPD Boundaries & Sphere of Influence............................................................... 182
Figure 149: Proposed Spheres of Influence ................................................................................ 183
Figure 150: Contra Costa LAFCO Application Processing Costs (2021) ................................. 190
Figure 151: Costs Associated with Re-Opening ECCFPD Station 55 (FY 21/22–FY 26/27) ..... 193
Figure 152: Costs Associated with Staffing a Ladder Company (FY 21/22–FY 26/27) ........... 193
Figure 153: Costs Associated with Re-Opening CCCFPD Station 4 (FY 21/22–FY 26/27) ...... 194
201
VOLUME 1—APPENDIX B: REFERENCES
1 Contra Costa County website.
2 U.S. Census Bureau.
3 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey.
4 Ibid
5 Ibid.
6 Contra Costa County FPD Data Table 1.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Contra Costa County FPD website, Communications Division page.
10 Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District website.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.
13 Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District Audited Financial Statements, June 2020
14 Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District Ordinance No. 2016-1
15 Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District June 30, 2015 Audit Report, Pg. 5
16 Quantum Workplace, What’s the Optimal Span of Control for People Manager?
17 Koen, S., 24/48 vs. 48/96 Work Schedules: A Comparative Analysis, Round the Clock
Systems, 2005.
18 Firehouse, Fire Law: Incident-Related Liability.
19 American Journal of Disaster Medicine, Active Shooter Training.
20 FireEMS, Training for Success.
21 Gordon Graham website.
22 Kirtley, Edward, Fire Protection Handbook, 20th Edition, 2008, NFPA, Quincy, MA.
23 National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 1730.
202
24 Insurance Services Office, Fire Suppression Rating Schedule 2012, Section 1022.
25 Contra Costa Government, Wildfire.
26 California Government Code and California Public Contracting Code, Sections 55513–
55614, 55631, 55632, 20811.
27 Burr Consulting, Contra Costa Fire Municipal Service Review, 2009, p. 143.
28 Municipal Resource Group, LLC and Berkson Associates, Contra Costa Fire Municipal
Service Review, 2016, p. 9.
29 Municipal Resource Group, LLC and Berkson Associates, Contra Costa Fire Municipal
Service Review, 2016, p. 10.
30 ABAG, Plan Bay Area 2040 - Projections 2040 by Jurisdiction, 2016.
31 Municipal Resource Group, LLC and Berkson Associates, Contra Costa Fire Municipal
Service Review, 2016, p. 55.
32 Municipal Resource Group, LLC and Berkson Associates, Contra Costa Fire Municipal
Service Review, 2016, p. 50.
33 Contra Costa LAFCO, Commissioner Handbook, 2.1 Policies and Standards, Part D.
34 Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Budget, pg. 12
Fire District
Annexation
Feasibility Study
July 2021
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Fire Protection District
RODEO-HERCULES
Fire Protection District
EAST CONTRA COSTA
Fire Protection District
California
Phase Two
Volume 2: Appendices
1
CONTENTS
Appendix A: Detailed Fire Stations & Facilities Analysis ........................................................... 3
East Contra Costa FPD .............................................................................................................. 3
Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District ................................................................................... 9
Appendix B: Comments from the Survey Respondents .......................................................... 11
Appendix C: Compilation of Stakeholder Interviews .............................................................. 19
Appendix D: Sample LAFCO Resolution ................................................................................... 50
Appendix E: LAFCO Law & Policy Guidance ........................................................................... 55
Appendix F: Measure O & 1998 Benefit Assessment Memo ................................................... 68
Appendix G: Table of Figures .................................................................................................... 71
2
Volume 2:
APPENDICES
3
APPENDIX A: DETAILED FIRE STATIONS & FACILITIES ANALYSIS
East Contra Costa FPD
The following figures describe the features of each fire station operated by the District.
Figure 1: ECCFPD Station 52
Address/Physical Location: 201 John Muir Parkway, Brentwood, CA 94513
General Description:
Excellent facility. Immediate needs include a
security gate into the facility due to increased
crime activity in the area. There is capacity to hold
a truck/tower but limited for a dual company.
Structure
Date of Original Construction 2001
Seismic Protection Yes
Auxiliary Power Yes
General Condition Good
Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-through Bays 2 Back-in Bays 0
ADA Compliant Not reported
Total Square Footage 6,841
Facilities Available
Sleeping Quarters 4 Bedrooms 12 Beds 3 Dorm Beds
Maximum Staffing Capability 4
Exercise/Workout Facilities Yes (excellent)
Kitchen Facilities Yes
Individual Lockers Assigned Yes
Bathroom/Shower Facilities Yes
Training/Meeting Rooms No
Washer/Dryer Yes
Safety & Security
Station Sprinklered Yes
Smoke Detection Yes
Decontamination/Bio. Disposal Yes
Security System Yes
Apparatus Exhaust System Yes
4
Figure 2: ECCFPD Station 53
Address/Physical Location: 530 O’Hara Avenue, Oakley, CA 94561
General Description:
Excellent condition. Currently it is the only facility
with a classroom. This could be a training necessity
during consolidation. The station is designed for a
single company.
Structure
Date of Original Construction 2011
Seismic Protection Yes
Auxiliary Power Yes
General Condition Excellent
Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-through Bays 3 Back-in Bays 0
ADA Compliant Yes
Total Square Footage 9,165
Facilities Available
Sleeping Quarters 4 Bedrooms 12 Beds 0 Dorm Beds
Maximum Staffing Capability 4
Exercise/Workout Facilities Yes
Kitchen Facilities Yes
Individual Lockers Assigned Yes
Bathroom/Shower Facilities Yes
Training/Meeting Rooms Yes
Washer/Dryer Yes
Safety & Security
Station Sprinklered Yes
Smoke Detection Yes
Decontamination/Bio. Disposal Yes
Security System Yes
Apparatus Exhaust System Yes
5
Figure 3: ECCFPD Station 59
Address/Physical Location: 1685 Bixler Road, Discovery Bay, CA 94513
General Description:
Immediate need for a security gate due to
increased criminal activity in the area. Bunker gear
is stored in the living area, which limits cancer
prevention. Consider additional storage for PPE in
the bay. The length of the bay limits the capacity to
house multiple apparatus or future truck. The
footprint supports future construction.
Structure
Date of Original Construction 2002
Seismic Protection Yes
Auxiliary Power Yes
General Condition Fair
Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-through Bays 2 Back-in Bays 0
ADA Compliant Not reported
Total Square Footage 6,047
Facilities Available
Sleeping Quarters 4 Bedrooms 4 Beds 0 Dorm Beds
Maximum Staffing Capability 4
Exercise/Workout Facilities Yes
Kitchen Facilities Yes
Individual Lockers Assigned Yes
Bathroom/Shower Facilities Yes
Training/Meeting Rooms No
Washer/Dryer Yes
Safety & Security
Station Sprinklered Yes
Smoke Detection Yes
Decontamination/Bio. Disposal Yes
Security System Yes
Apparatus Exhaust System Yes
6
Figure 4: ECCFPD Station 54
Address/Physical Location: 739 First Street, Brentwood, CA 94513
General Description:
Station 54 is utilized primarily for storage. No
personnel or apparatus are assigned to this facility.
The facility would require significant renovations to
become a fully functional fire station, which makes
new construction more feasible.
Structure
Date of Original Construction 1957
Seismic Protection No
Auxiliary Power No
General Condition Poor
Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-through Bays 0 Back-in Bays 4
ADA Compliant N/A
Total Square Footage Unknown
Facilities Available
Sleeping Quarters 4 Bedrooms 3 Beds 0 Dorm Beds
Maximum Staffing Capability 3
Exercise/Workout Facilities No
Kitchen Facilities Yes
Individual Lockers Assigned Yes
Bathroom/Shower Facilities Yes
Training/Meeting Rooms No
Washer/Dryer Yes
Safety & Security
Station Sprinklered No
Smoke Detection Yes
Decontamination/Bio. Disposal Yes
Security System Yes
Apparatus Exhaust System Yes
7
Figure 5: ECCFPD Station 55
Address/Physical Location: 3200 East Cypress Rd, Oakley, CA 94561
General Description:
Fire Station 55 serves as the Prevention facility for
the District, along with additional storage. No
emergency operations personnel or apparatus are
assigned to this station. Some amenities remain to
be purchased.
Structure
Date of Original Construction 2019
Seismic Protection Yes
Auxiliary Power Yes
General Condition Excellent
Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-through Bays 2 Back-in Bays 4
ADA Compliant Yes
Total Square Footage 7,482
Facilities Available
Sleeping Quarters 4 Bedrooms 3 Beds 3 Dorm Beds
Maximum Staffing Capability 4
Exercise/Workout Facilities Yes
Kitchen Facilities Yes
Individual Lockers Assigned Yes
Bathroom/Shower Facilities Yes
Training/Meeting Rooms Yes
Washer/Dryer Yes
Safety & Security
Station Sprinklered Yes
Smoke Detection Yes
Decontamination/Bio. Disposal Yes
Security System Yes
Apparatus Exhaust System Yes
8
Figure 6: ECCFPD Station 94
Address/Physical Location: 15 A Street, Knightsen
General Description:
Station 94 is currently unstaffed with no vehicles or
apparatus assigned. It is being utilized by the
District’s contract mechanic as a repair shop. The
facility is still using well water with an outdated
septic system, Significant infrastructure would have
to be developed to utilize the property as a fire
station in the future.
Structure
Date of Original Construction 1963
Seismic Protection No
Auxiliary Power No
General Condition Poor
Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-through Bays 2 Back-in Bays 2
ADA Compliant Not reported
Total Square Footage Unknown
Facilities Available
Sleeping Quarters 3 Bedrooms 3 Beds 3 Dorm Beds
Maximum Staffing Capability 3
Exercise/Workout Facilities Yes
Kitchen Facilities Yes
Individual Lockers Assigned Yes
Bathroom/Shower Facilities Yes
Training/Meeting Rooms No
Washer/Dryer Yes
Safety & Security
Station Sprinklered No
Smoke Detection Yes
Decontamination/Bio. Disposal Yes
Security System Yes
Apparatus Exhaust System Yes
9
Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District
The following figures describe the features of each fire station operated by the District.
Figure 7: RHFPD Station 75
Address/Physical Location: 326 Third Street, Rodeo, 94572
General Description:
Station is in good condition. Limited capacity for
expansion, however, the location supports local
call volume.
Structure
Date of Original Construction 1937 (remodeled in 1991)
Seismic Protection Yes
Auxiliary Power Yes
General Condition Good
Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-through Bays 0 Back-in Bays 4
ADA Compliant Yes
Total Square Footage 5,916
Facilities Available
Sleeping Quarters 3 Bedrooms 3 Beds 0 Dorm Beds
Maximum Staffing Capability 3
Exercise/Workout Facilities Yes (located in apparatus bay)
Kitchen Facilities Yes
Individual Lockers Assigned Yes
Bathroom/Shower Facilities Yes
Training/Meeting Rooms No
Washer/Dryer Yes
Safety & Security
Station Sprinklered Yes
Smoke Detection Yes
Decontamination/Bio. Disposal Yes
Security System Yes
Apparatus Exhaust System Yes
10
Figure 8: RHFPD Station 76
Address/Physical Location: 1680 Refugio Valley Road, Hercules 94547
General Description:
Workout facilities and training and meeting rooms
are located in another auxiliary building. Station is in
excellent condition. Driveway is in poor condition
and RHFPD is currently making arrangements for
repair. Footprint includes a training area with burn
building and portable tower.
Structure
Date of Original Construction 1991
Seismic Protection Yes
Auxiliary Power Yes
General Condition Good
Number of Apparatus Bays Drive-through Bays 4 Back-in Bays 0
ADA Compliant Yes
Total Square Footage 12,774
Facilities Available
Sleeping Quarters 4 Bedrooms 4 Beds 0 Dorm Beds
Maximum Staffing Capability 4
Exercise/Workout Facilities Yes (in an auxiliary building)
Kitchen Facilities Yes
Individual Lockers Assigned Yes
Bathroom/Shower Facilities Yes
Training/Meeting Rooms Yes (in an auxiliary building)
Washer/Dryer Yes
Safety & Security
Station Sprinklered Yes
Smoke Detection Yes
Decontamination/Bio. Disposal No
Security System Yes
Apparatus Exhaust System Yes
11
APPENDIX B: COMMENTS FROM THE SURVEY RESPONDENTS
The following lists the respondent comments from those questions in which comments were
documented. In some cases, the comments were excluded so as to ensure confidentiality.
There was a total of 212 respondents who answered most, but not all, of the survey
questions.
Question #1: “I am a member or affiliated with:”
• Comments excluded, not relevant.
Question #2: “My current position with one of the fire districts is:”
• Comments excluded, not relevant.
Question #3: “My EMS certification level is…”
• Comments excluded, not relevant.
Question #4: “My opinion of a potential annexation of the East Contra Costa County
and Rodeo-Hercules fire protections districts in this study is…”
• I believe that the current district does need additional funding to adequately serve
the community. However, ECCFPD has a unique and special small-town relationship
with the community, that type of relationship normally does not exist within a larger
organization. I have seen many improvements in the district and would like to see
this growth and development continue and I believe that can occur within the
same structure and district that exist today.
• The top priority for me is financial impact on the district. My concern is that although
the numbers seem to add up right now, how will they look during a downturn in
economy? How will they look when we need to add additional stations through the
years at east con due to increased population? East Con tax bracket is just unfair to
the rest of the county, and my fear is the long-term impact on the district.
• As a citizen of one of ECC I feel it is a great move that will open more stations and
give better coverage with paramedics. As an employee of CCCFPD I feel it is a bad
move that will just end up costing our dept money that may not be there in the
future.
• I am in favor as long as it won't negatively fiscally impact the department. For
example- apparatus shop, raises, class coverage and benefits.
12
• As of today, I have heard a lot of rumors and speculation and wish to have more
transparency in the entire process (beginning to end). There has only been hearsay
and all members of the organization need to be informed as work progresses!
• Sustainable future funding to not only take over these districts, but open their closed
stations for the foreseeable future? Our apparatus shop is already understaffed with
our current size, how would they manage if we were to add more apparatus to our
fleet through this potential annexation?
• I'm in favor of Rodeo-Hercules but not East Contra Costa.
• I would like to see Contra Costa Fire stations completely open up (Station 4) before
we consolidate with other Districts.
• In a financial document that I saw, ECC is not a long-term sustainable model for 6
crews and is questionable for 5 crews.
• I've heard nothing but East County closing stations and budget issues. I don't
understand how now it makes fiscal sense. I don't want to be subsidizing East
County.
• At this point not too, much information has been provided to prevention staff on
how the consolidation will impact us.
• I haven’t seen any data on long term feasibility if East Con funding runs out. There is
also no plan to provide ALS services and we do not have a sufficient of paramedics
on the lower ranks.
• I am heavily in favor! It will provide better services for the citizens which we are
supposed to put them before us!
• I am in favor as long as agencies coming in do not keep seniority and there is zero
fiscal loss for ConFire in the long run (5-year,10-year, 20 year).
• Would like to see all phases of study completed prior to decision.
• I'm concerned that taking on East Contra Costa may be a drain on our overall
budget and ability to open stations, provide pay raises, etc. I don't share the same
concerns about Rodeo due to their budget and the fact that you aren't adding any
stations to the model anytime soon. East Con has everything to gain and we have
much more to possibly lose by agreeing to take them on. I'm not totally against it
but I am very concerned.
• It will improve response times in East County and safer/more effective operations on
the fireground.
13
• As long as our services do not take a hit and we can remain financially stable
without relying on Measure X. Adequate training for the new personnel prior to the
merger would be a must.
• I am in support of the annexation as long as it does not negatively affect current
employee seniority, pay, future union negations, or negatively affect staffing levels.
• What will the paramedic situation look like? We are currently understaffed at
CCCFPD with regard to Paramedics. Will the annexation exacerbate this issue?
• Ideally, I would like to see all Battalion 7 agencies under one roof.
• I am concerned about the fiscal burden on CCCFPD without firm, dedicated and
noted financial support for an annexation. If measure X money is used, then all
stakeholders, politicians, resident, and all fire employees should be made aware
that if in the future measure X money is withdrawal then whatever resources have
been added will be reduced e.g., open a fire station with measure x money, then if
that same funding stream is withdrawn then that fire station is closed. That should be
written down so everyone is aware for the future.
Question #5: “In my opinion, the top priorities in both my district and a potential
consolidated fire district should be rated as follows (1 being the highest priority and
6 the lowest priority).”
• Seems budgets are getting tight with our existing programs and morale for these
programs are going south. Our focus should be to improve our existing services
rather than expand and see what we've built diminish.
• East Contra Costa is going to be a drain on Con Fire because that area of the
county cannot handle a downturn in the economy with its funding model. It relies
too heavily on inflated property values.
• Fiscal Stability/sustainability is the only one that actually matters—without that one
item none of the remaining matter.
• We cannot consider picking up additional agencies if there's a likely or higher than
likely potential for ConFire to becoming fiscally unstable or in a bad financial
position (i.e., 2010 Recession) after merging. Paramedic staffing is a problem as it is
now for ConFire and any merger with ECC will further cause the problem to grow!
14
• Fiscal stability/sustainable funding is paramount to function as an organization. All of
these other items are important as well and should follow as long as the funding is
managed in an appropriate fashion for today and years to come. Without
adequate funding and financial stability, all of the other points listed are
unattainable or will suffer as a result.
• It is my hope that through economies of scale we can improve the staffing of our
specialty teams as well as put additional resources into service.
• Improved service delivery to my own agency’s residents is important. I don’t feel
obligated to burden our residents with the financial burden of improving services to
other agencies residents. Those residents have voted repeatedly to not pay for
improved services and should be given them now on the shoulders of con fires
taxpayers.
• I selected 1 for two priorities, as I believe they are the same priority.
• If the money is there the rest will follow. This consolidation is long overdue and as the
Grand Jury has stated for 25+ years it should be done.
• All categories need to be high priority.
• No layoffs.
• As a member of CCCFPD, I feel we meet the expectations of the residents we serve.
We need to make sure any merger does not prioritize the other districts residents
over our own by downgrading or spreading out our current resources.
• From my position, we are a single resource currently responsible for fire investigations
for the entire Contra Costa County Fire District. With staffing levels at one
investigator 24 hours a day, at times currently we are overwhelmed with calls for
service and the incidents that are occurring. With the annexation, East Contra Costa
adds 249 square miles and Rodeo-Hercules adds roughly 30 square miles. I hope
considerations will be taken for staffing levels of single resource units like the fire
investigator position and safety captain positions.
Question #6: “Please share any other comments you have below:”
• A comprehensive transition and training plan need to be developed. Overall, the
service levels at Con Fire exceed CCE and RDO. All Divisions need to be reinforced
to absorb the additional workload. The Operations Division needs to be re-organized
and Command Staff expanded.
• Thanks for all the hard work to get this in motion...
15
• Let’s make this merge happen. For better services to our communities, we serve.
• I would really like to see this district continue as ECCFPD. I truly believe that
maintaining this district is the best thing for East County. Yes, there are challenges,
but I believe prior to the discussion of consolidation that we were on the right track
and addressing those challenges. I see positives in some aspects of consolidation,
yet I believe that maintaining the district is a better path for the Yes, long-term
sustainability, and service of our community.
• VERY concerned with how integration will affect overall seniority and operational
integration.
• This is the best possible thing that could ever happen for the citizens of East Contra
Costa as well as the staff and rank of ECCFPD.
• I believe there should be a larger benefit for us (Contra Costa) to take over the
smaller departments considering the risk we are taking on, such as seniority in
bidding over them rank for rank based on the training, time in programs etc. we
have.
• I would like to see more information as it becomes available.
• This long overdue. There is no question that it is what is best not only for the safety of
our communities but for fire service personnel as well. This will allow for much
improved coverage, ALS patient care and a standardized approach to the services
we provide, not to mention more efficient use of valuable taxpayer dollars. I look
forward to helping achieve the goal of annexation to whatever extent I can.
• This has been long time coming. Needs to happen asap.
• I would like to see an on-boarding at each rank. Making sure everyone is on the
same page and trained up to the same level.
• I am in favor even if the cost and service to the community remains neutral for the
citizens of Rodeo Hercules Fire Dist. I see a large benefit for us being that with the
annexation we would not have employee retention problems. We are losing
employees to other departments losing money invested into their training and
invaluable experience.
• I am very excited for this annexation to come through because I feel it opens up a
lot of opportunities. This annexation will also put all of us under one roof and make
every day service better for the communities we serve.
16
• Have enough money to support the annexation and not have the margins be razor
thin. Need to leave money on the table for future raises. If the raises dwindle, I feel
there will be resentment amongst the troops. Revisit the station closure matrix and
have it affect the newly acquired stations first. It would be unfair to the original
shareholders to take the closures.
• What is going to happen with current promotional lists? How is seniority going to
work? How are bids going to work? Are we going to do a huge retraining academy
for all 3 fire agencies to get everyone on the same page? Are we going to revisit the
station closure matrix to add in the new fire districts should there be another
financial downturn?
• I am fully in favor of a consolidation. I believe it will improve the safety of all
personnel and the communities we serve.
• Majority of concern being the financial stability over time and if it feasible to remain
fundable in future years in these new cover areas. Additionally, making sure the new
members joining us are trained up to our level before being able to move around
the district and work in new areas they are unfamiliar with.
• For the speed at which ECC is growing fire protection is a growing concern every
day.
• All of the items need to be a priority.
• Very concerned about how our salary and benefits will be affected and who and
how these negotiations will take place.
• I am completely for the consolidation and very excited for this process to continue
moving forward.
• Heavily in favor.
• If it’s truly feasible, this could be amazing.
• I think it’s a great idea.... I also think we should be exploring 4-0 staffing on most
engines and more double company houses. Those 2 alone would increase moral,
ease workload on employees, and give better services to the community we are
sworn to protect.
• My concern is the merging of three standalone districts into one. The consolidation
process concerning personnel and divisions and the absorption and delegation of
duties.
17
• Geographically, land size is shy of double if the merge occurs (Far East County). With
that comes the booming population of Brentwood, Oakley, and Discovery Bay. I
feel the merge is absolutely a positive win-win for all, the community, and the Fire
Service.
• Excited for the annexation of west county stations.
• Both East Con and Con Fire currently have shuttered stations and underserved
response areas. These stations or areas being serviced appropriately (without
running our personnel ragged) needs to be a top priority whether A consolidation
happens or not. FF Safety, both on emergency scenes w/adequate manpower; and
by reducing the workload on our busy stations/crews.
• I am for growing as a department but I feel there are major hurdles that have to be
answered. I feel that on day one of taking over a new district we need to have the
same expectations and same service model that we have with our current district. I
am more familiar with East con then I am with Rodeo so I will speak on that. When
we take over East Con we will need to open up two stations (ideally 3) however
they only have one station that can be opened up right now. We would have to
Build new stations out there which would delay new stations we are planning to
build in our current district. We would need at least one truck company as we
cannot pull from Antioch and Pittsburg leaving a large hole in battalion 8 truck
coverage. We would need a rescue out there as Rescue 82 will not be able to
respond to discovery bay removing an engine from Antioch.
• Let’s make this happen!
• Make sure there is enough support staff to handle the new stations, admin offices,
maintaining engines, radios, network, and lite duty vehicles.
• We need to spend a large amount of time and effort to try to get all operations
personnel on the same page. There are several different cultures and norms
throughout the stations and shifts we are talking about combining. If we don't make
a significant effort to get operations personnel to work from the same playbook and
emergency scene expectations, we will have problems with firefighter safety and
customer service. I'm talking about training of ALL operations personnel. BC
academies, Captain academies, Engineer academies, and Firefighter skills training
for ALL personnel from all three agencies. This should be the focus of the training
division and all personnel involved in the annexation. If we fail to focus on this need,
the annexation will be viewed as a disaster by many of our members.
18
• Make sure there is enough support staff to handle the new stations, admin offices,
maintaining engines, radios, network, and lite duty vehicles.
• Include line staff to identify “Best Practices” through work groups and committees of
all agencies.
• I believe that this is going to be bad for morale at CCFPD. I think we would be better
served focusing our energy on improving what we already have (staffing, number of
companies etc.). I believe we have been in a good path and this annexation has
the potential to derail us.
19
APPENDIX C: COMPILATION OF STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
Triton interviewed a wide variety of the three fire districts' internal and external
stakeholders. The purpose of these interviews was to gain a better understanding of issues,
concerns, and options regarding the emergency service delivery system, opportunities for
shared services, and expectations from the three districts' community members.
It is important to note that the information solicited and provided during this process was in
the form of "people inputs" (stakeholders individually responding to our questions), some of
which are perceptions reported by stakeholders. All information was accepted at face
value without an in-depth investigation of its origination or reliability. The project team
reviewed the information for consistency and frequency of comment to identify specific
patterns and trends. Multiple sources confirmed the observations, and the information
provided was significant enough to be included within this report. Based on the information
reviewed, the team identified a series of statements, recommendations, and needs and
confirmed with multiple sources that all was significant enough to be included within this
report
Interviews included Sixty-nine Stakeholders from eight separate groups: Elected Officials,
Business Community Leaders, Chief Officers, Labor Leaders, Rank & File Representatives,
Administrative Staff, City and County Management, Rodeo Hercules Fire Department’s
Measure O Oversight Committee Members, and the Contra Costa Fire Advisory
Commission.
20
Elected & Appointed Officials & Community Members:
CCCFPD:
In your opinion, what are the advantages/positives/strengths of the existing emergency
service delivery system?
• CCCFPD's strength is the largest in the County and can offer better services to the
east and west county areas. The agencies work well together, and they can work
better.
• County-wide system, good standards, and response times. Auto aid/mutual aid
able to cover emergencies.
• The current management of the agency is one of the best teams in 35-40 years.
Functionally, cut response times and dispatch. CCCFPD doesn't lose many fires. Five
engines on 1st alarm
• Impressed with FD where I live. They are respectful.
• EMS & the medical system is very responsive.
• We have great people. Well trained, organized, efficiently managed. Great
response times.
• Lots. Built within itself good tax revenue. AMR contract, dispatch, good
management team. Forward-thinking.
• Diverse skills and services. Contract with AMR. Innovative.
• Capabilities County-wide is first-rate. CCCFPD has a sound structure, and the
leadership is good.
• CCCFPD has higher tax revenue. They are protected from spreading out to the
smaller tax-base. The current tax-base structure and area give CCCFPD a financial
advantage. The tax revenue is adequate for the district.
• Solid leadership for the organization. Clear path and vision forward.
• In numbers, a lot of resources to draw from in a large system. Unified command
systems. The training is consistent throughout the organization. The fire equipment is
the same. Familiar.
• Deliver a consistent service model across the service area. Strong in fire and EMS
response. The CCCFPD reputation is strong within Contra Costa County these days.
21
What are the disadvantages/negatives/weaknesses of the existing system?
• The east county area residents do not necessarily understand the tax distribution
processes and the level of services they need.
• More and more firestorms. Preparedness for wildfires. Demand and power.
Coverage in East County takes longer. East County draws CCCFPD resources.
• Lack of a capital replacement program in the beginning but fixed now.
• Fluctuating economy effects CCCFPD
• Other operational incidents from other districts impact it due to mutual aid. The
differences in tax-base across the County create an inequality of revenue.
• The largeness of the organization tends to lose the identity
• Some fire stations are too busy in the southern part of the service area. The west side
of the County seems to get less service coverage.
Does the existing system provide the residents and community with acceptable
protection?
• No, not for the east and west portions of the County.
• CCCFPD, yes. East County does not have sufficient coverage.
• On a day-day basis, it's as good as any. In summer, when grass fires happen, there
can be a hole.
• I live in Antioch. Yes, pretty well spaced-out stations.
• Yes, they do. Acceptable is never good enough, but CCCFPD does a great job.
They can always find ways to seek continuous improvement in service delivery
programs.
• Yes, we have an acceptable level of service. We can always seek better ways to do
things.
• For the most part, yes. I do have a concern about the long-term service voids
caused by prior station closures. When we have not opened our closed stations, the
worry of taking on other districts is problematic
22
How important do you think it is for the district to have its fire department?
• The need for one's fire department does not work well in today's world.
• Not overly important. Need liaison for each city. Consolidation works well. I prefer
a large arsenal to deploy for major events.
• Community pride
• There are two sides: responsive to specific community needs, but consolidated
resources give you more equipment, larger service.
• It's been tried before. Communities on their own did not work out.
• I don't think it's important. CCCFPD can bring good resources to other areas.
• Important for a community as long as you have a department that is involved with
the community.
• Dollars and cents issue; afford service.
• I don't rank that very high. I prefer a more regional response being responsive to the
total system.
• Yes, I do. I think it is important to have people we know. They know who we are. I
believe CCCFPD has a sense of community service and ownership of the fire
services.
• I do not think it is critical. We do have a large fire department. If the training is the
same and the services are delivered consistently, I see no difference in a smaller
department.
• The politics of fire service provision comes to play when discussing funding for local
departments moving towards a regionalized fire system. I see the benefits of
regional fire services. As long as someone has a good fire department and has a
history, it is harder to give up.
Do you believe there would be advantages to consolidating/partnering with the other
agency(s)?
• Yes. The 9-1-1 caller does not know where the fire truck is coming from, and they
want the services, not necessarily a specific department.
• Yes. Dispatch, utilization of resources, good equipment. Strategic deployment.
• There could be, as long as additional service areas can financially support the
services.
• Absolutely.
23
• If done correctly, yes. Financial assessments. Steps to try to increase the revenue of
East County. Measure X funds to help. One large system with less duplicative
management.
• There are advantages to those areas coming into CCCFPD.
• The advantages align with creating consistency in response, equipment, policies,
rules, and services across the jurisdiction. An annexation or partnership needs to be
case-specific based on the finances.
• There is a benefit to those areas joining CCCFPD. The use of CCCFPD to bring other
areas up to standard.
Do you believe there would be disadvantages to consolidating/partnering with the other
agency(s)?
• No. There is a need for consolidating fire services to provide consistent levels of
services for the County.
• Local control lost. Financial; sufficient tax revenue? Measure X. Labor costs; pay
equity.
• Imbalance of East County. Mostly money. Training issues; differences with the way
each does things. Fire prevention small. Capital expenditures.
• As a resident, the community seems to think that East county may have some
hidden problems with finances.
• I think an area with lower service resources and response levels would be a drain on
Central County.
• Without trying to equalize revenue could be an issue. The risk of not being done
correctly would cause a negative service to existing CCCFPD residents.
• If there are existing service area delivery problems, CCCFPD will need to correct
them. Be selective in taking on service areas that are not trained and not tooled to
handle. I have a concern for an economic downturn that reduces funding and
causes cuts in services.
• The challenge of inheriting problems of another fire district and CCCFPD having to
fix them. There may be a different type of services that we are not used to
providing.
24
• CCCFPD would be taking on the lower revenue fire districts and financially
supporting the new areas. The concern for taking on fire districts that their
communities did not vote to support the districts' requests for tax increment
increases financially.
If annexation were to move forward, what is the one issue that would be a deal-breaker if
not appropriately addressed?
• The east county residents demand more than the initial plan offers in the current
annexation proposal.
• Fiscal. It needs to be revenue-neutral.
• If the funds to support the annexation are taken from Central County. Measure H
money (County tax)
• Finances. How would we incorporate the cost?
• Retirement system (deficit)
• Viability with plans for communities; tax base (money)
• Augmenting the revenue into the system that includes service area of all areas
(existing Con and annexed area)
• The level of services differences provided by the other agencies and CCCFPD and
the investment needed to balance
• The additional funds that from Central County taxpayers to support the annexation
of those lower funded fire districts.
ECCFPD
In your opinion, what are the advantages/positives/strengths of the existing emergency
service delivery system?
• The ECCFPD is a trusted organization within the community; polling and community
surveys are positive with the district.
• A local group of committed people serving the community. The Fire Chief has been
proactive in telling the story of the current status of the situation.
• Local group of people doing good stuff. Chief Helmick's leadership has been
exceptional. The employees are a part of the community.
• The local representation of the fire services provided to this area is strong and
provides oversight. Versus, the proposed County Board of Supervisors proposed
direction. Residents get to oversee the fire services today. The personnel today
primarily reside in the areas they service.
25
• A small community with a large area that feels like a small town. The desire to re-
build the ECCFPD response capabilities and funding. The members of ECCFPD are
community-oriented. The sense of ownership of an ECCFPD to a CCCFPD is a
concern, but the gains of annexation for the employees and community are
positive.
• Historical perspective of the communities. ECCFPD is a product of multiple fire
districts. The personnel here were members of those organizations who cherished the
community events. The fire personnel are familiar with the area for the response to
incidents. Local experience to the types of fires and calls in the area. The trust that
the fire department members have built with the community. Concern for loss of
local control.
• Leadership by the Chief has been key. The professionalism of the employees is
excellent.
• Under the Chief's leadership has become a well-run organization cleaning up the
legacy issues of the past. Things are going extremely well.
• Local control is the biggest strength.
• Past issues with the CCCFPD Weed Abatement process. Local control fixed the
problems. Water tender response and isolated response area on the island
What are the disadvantages/negatives/weaknesses of the existing system?
• The response times are high and have been a challenge for the district.
• Geographically large area with only three stations. Staffing challenges lead to
defensive fire attacks.
• Need for mutual aid from CCCFPD. Confusion of who provides the services to the
areas.
• Lack of funding has created a response system that is less than desirable.
• Long response times to difficulty breathing, and the level of medical services is low.
• The shuttered fire stations
• Grossly underfunded need for six stations we currently have three. Studies have
shown a need for additional stations.
• Lack of resources to handle the increasing population and development.
• Lack of funding to support growing the district.
26
• Lower pay than other fire agencies.
• Lack of coverage in Discovery Bay.
Does the existing system provide the residents and community with acceptable
protection?
• Long response times to difficulty breathing, and the level of medical services is low.
Large response areas to cover. Lower pay to employees impacts employee
retention.
• Significantly below levels of services throughout the service area.
• No paramedic services.
• No. It is an unacceptable level of service to the community.
• No. do not comply with NFPA response times and staffing of structure fires.
• Do not have the ladder trucks to serve the large buildings.
• ECCFPD does not respond to low-level medical calls. The ambulance company
handles those incidents under contract with the Contra Costa County EMS.
How important do you think it is for the district to have its fire department?
• Evolving sense that it would be ok to move to a service level and not necessarily
have a local fire district.
• Not crucial if services improve.
• It has been important for the agency to have someone locally aligned with the East
County. We need someone to be the face of the east county fire services.
• Some constituents believe in having local control and fear of turning it over to the
Board of Supervisors.
• The district is run well. Local control will disappear.
• Local Boards are more responsive to local concerns.
• Localized control is the main factor. Concern for equitable tax funding for the
services was a challenge before 2000 and still is.
• The perception is a local FD has higher local control over the service.
27
Do you believe there would be advantages to consolidating/partnering with the other
agency(s)?
• Comparatively, East county has lower differing services compared to other areas of
Contra Costa County. Seeking community support is positive to move forward. It
makes sense fiscally and timing-wise to streamline and enhance the services.
• Yes. The other avenues are not meeting the needs. Annexation seems to be
sustainable with the appropriate service levels.
• Yes. Additional funding is made possible with the annexation. The annexation brings
added personnel to cover vacations and sick leave. Support during incidents will
become readily available.
• Yes. More diverse membership. Better response to the community. No additional
needs for tax increases. Better training and succession opportunities. Public access
to paramedic services and special teams services.
• Yes. Definitely. Consistent emergency responses regardless of boundaries. Special
teams are easily accessible. Medical helicopters that have fire response capabilities.
Urban search and Rescue services first response and member training opportunities.
Opportunity to hire a diverse workforce.
• Yes. Allegedly, the CCCFPD cost per station is lower than ECCFPD.
• CCCFPD brings maturity and leadership depth. The response system is more robust.
• An annexation into CCCFPD would eliminate the auto-aid imbalance conflict.
• CCCFPD has an air operations program that could provide added financial benefit.
• Firefighters pay and benefits and promotional opportunities—an increase in fire
resources for the region.
• Staffing levels improved.
• Retention of personnel. The annexation fixes the auto-aid issues, the pay disparity of
the firefighters and possibly improves its benefits.
Do you believe there would be disadvantages to consolidating/partnering with the other
agency(s)?
• Perhaps the rotation of firefighters to other geographic areas. Not familiar with the
regions. Anything that moves away from a local service, local control becomes less
involved.
• Regional government operations are generally less accountable.
28
• The loss of local control of the fire district will impact specific administrative and
political controls.
• The wildfire fuels abatement program in ECCFPD is exceptional compared to
CCCFPD.
• Concern that the annexation will delay the additional fire stations.
• Concern that CCCFPD will not work hard to create CSD's to help fund growth.
• The Bethel Island response issue will only be solved when Station 55 has firefighters.
• Sizeable unfunded CCCFPD liability for the pension.
• The transfer/sharing of that debt is concerning.
• Inequitable services to the Discovery Bay area.
If annexation were to move forward, what is the one issue that would be a deal-breaker if
not appropriately addressed?
• Fire stations are not put into place as planned.
• The failure of CCCFPD and the Board of Supervisors' firm commitment to provide the
stated service levels and the schedule to achieve.
• Equity of the response system and services to the community.
• The desire for a joint policy board meeting with the Board of Supervisors and
Rodeo/Hercules Fire Board.
• The failure of the CCCFPD to provide the resources to the east county area as
promised.
• A long-term plan for providing services to the area that addresses the potential
growth.
• Vision of where the fire service is going.
• Equitable treatment in tax fund distribution. Goals and how they are being
obtained/attained.
29
RHFPD: Board members, Committee/Advisory members, and Hercules City Council
members
In your opinion, what are the advantages/positives/strengths of the existing emergency
service delivery system?
• RHFPD provides excellent service to our communities.
• Local firefighters know the area and the community.
• The department does a great job serving the community.
• The department is local, close to the area—the close-knit connection to the
communities. The department responds to assist our neighbors.
• The FD has done a lot in the past three years: better budget, better use of budget,
local control, and close-knit community.
• The department has solid community engagement with community backing and a
small-town feel.
• The fire department is community-based.
• The department provides good mutual aid services to our neighbors.
• The ability to respond quickly. Turn more on a dime to make changes.
What are the disadvantages/negatives/weaknesses of the existing system?
• The economies of scale are a challenge.
• Limited opportunities for the firefighters to advance.
• Financial limitations of a small community.
• Fighting the wildfire risks in the community.
• There is a need for additional administrative support.
• The department sends fire engines to medical calls when only an ambulance is
needed.
• Big development growth might get too much for just two fire stations.
• Staffing levels are not where they should be.
• Rodeo is not growing. Hercules has growth needs that need to be addressed.
• Lack of depth of resources and personnel.
• No efficiencies of scale.
• Access to fire academies. We do "on-the-job-training."
30
Does the existing system provide the residents and community with acceptable
protection?
• Generally, yes. The department is close by for response to emergencies.
• The service demands are primarily medical responses.
• Yes. We have a dedicated workforce in the district.
• We receive benefits from the CCCFPD Battalion 7. We offer and receive good
mutual aid.
• Calls to 9-1-1 are prompt and courteous.
• An informal poll of a group showed that the citizens are happy and positive towards
the service provided.
How important do you think it is for the district to have its fire department?
• Very important. There is a local connection between the firefighters and the
community.
• Very important. The refinery deserves enhanced fire protection.
• People want to be safe, have good response times, and lower insurance rates.
• Yes. People voted for Measure O because of that support for local fire protection.
• Very important. One of the reasons we passed Measure O was to provide funding
for our community, not any other.
• It is a sense of pride to have our own fire department. We control the level of
services we desire.
Do you believe there would be advantages to consolidating/partnering with the other
agency(s)?
• We stand to gain: administrative services, fleet management; fleet maintenance;
and personnel management.
• Better relations with the communities we serve.
• Firefighters have increased training opportunities with CCCFPD.
• Yes. Tremendous advantage. The firefighters gain training and career
advancement. The firefighters also would gain special teams knowledge and skills
working with different resources.
31
Do you believe there would be disadvantages to consolidating/partnering with the other
agency(s)?
• Once under a bigger group, you lose control of where the dollars go.
• Being a part of a large group, you lose individuality.
• Loss of local control. Loss of funding and fees.
• Concern for response times increasing.
• Concern for being ignored in west County. Past experiences of dealing with larger
systems in the County have caused us concern for being ignored.
• The large unfunded liabilities for the pension systems and the OPEB are a concern
for how and who pays for that?
If annexation were to move forward, what is the one issue that would be a deal-breaker if
not appropriately addressed?
• The finances. Will this be financially beneficial?
• The impact of Measure O funding and who and how is it controlled?
• The economics of the planned annexation. If assimilated into the CCCFPD family,
what would the funding be?
• We need a third fire station. Where will that funding come from?
• What happens with the current RHFPD Fire Chief?
City & County Managers & Department Heads
CCCFPD
In your opinion, what are the advantages/positives/strengths of the existing emergency
service delivery system?
• The fact that we have local representation of CCCFPD providing services to the city.
• The relationship with the fire chief is positive and open. The city council facilitates the
creation of CFDs to support the fire department.
• Level of mutual aid and resources, depth of experience. Fiscally solvent.
• Great response times. The current leadership, Chief is respected and good assistant
chiefs.
• Strong professional relationships between the fire chief and the city.
32
What are the disadvantages/negatives/weaknesses of the existing system?
• CCCFPD currently supports responses to the east County all of the time. There is a
need for an additional fire station.
• The lack of transparency and consistency with how CCCFPD serves other
communities in the County.
• The varying differences of how other cities pay and receive services from CCCFPD.
• CCCFPD negotiates separate agreements across the County.
• Give more to other districts (mutual aid) than receive.
• Provide so much mutual aid to East County. Resource availability to boundaries.
Does the existing system provide the residents and community with acceptable
protection?
• Yes
• Yes, I believe they do a really good job.
• Yes, 100%
How important do you think it is for the district to have its fire department?
• Not necessary. It is too expensive.
• The economy of scale is improved when there is a regional fire district
• It is too expensive to operate a small fire department.
• Not as important as having effective services available. As long as citizens are
getting quality services,
• It doesn't matter who provides them.
• Having a local image in the community is important.
Do you believe there would be advantages to consolidating/partnering with the other
agency(s)?
• An advantage to the partnering districts, especially funding.
• A bigger organization can provide a better level of service.
• Physical gains; additional equipment and fire houses, more tax revenue.
• Operationally create standards in training for all of the uniformed personnel.
• Response times could improve to outlying areas.
33
Do you believe there would be disadvantages to consolidating/partnering with the other
agency(s)?
• The potential for an increase in costs to provide services to the East County.
• The policy board changes as a result of the merger.
• A risk to the larger organization; give up more than anticipated.
• The cost. We have a good tax base now in CCCFPD.
If annexation were to move forward, what is the one issue that would be a deal-breaker if
not appropriately addressed?
• If the annexation impacts the potential development of Antioch.
• If the costs for fire protection increase or there is a loss in services.
• Measure X/governance: how will the County allocate the approved funding to the
fire districts?
• The funding of the annexed areas being sustainable and not become a drain on
the CCCFPD budget.
ECCFPD
In your opinion, what are the advantages/positives/strengths of the existing emergency
service delivery system?
• Local control and community access to the fire district.
• The district residents have a good opinion of the services.
• The manner in which ECFPD figures out how to provide services to a large area with
limited resources.
What are the disadvantages/negatives/weaknesses of the existing system?
• A vocal part of the community that fights growth and utilizes the "lack of fire
services" to deter the growth.
• Multiple jurisdiction service areas and the appearance of the unequitable service
deliveries. A concern of disparate services in East County.
Does the existing system provide the residents and community with acceptable
protection?
• Not acceptable. No long-term sustainability.
• The current demands on the system are not sustainable.
34
How important do you think it is for the district to have its fire department?
• The sense that the changing times would be ok to move to an improved service and
necessarily a particular district.
• Not concerned about brand.
• Today, the evolution of fire services' thought is all about the service and not who
provides it.
Do you believe there would be advantages to consolidating/partnering with the other
agency(s)?
• Anytime you can consolidate resources and funding, it is more valuable to
consolidation.
• The challenges are low compared to the value brought by the consolidation of
governmental services.
• The concept of consolidation to leverage the efficiency of doing things together.
Do you believe there would be disadvantages to consolidating/partnering with the other
agency(s)?
• The perceptions of lack of local control.
• Community access is needed to the Board of Supervisors to counter any concerns.
• The concern for the loss of local control.
• Concern from the development community and paying for services and equipment
they are paying for is going elsewhere.
If annexation were to move forward, what is the one issue that would be a deal-breaker if
not appropriately addressed?
• Measure X funds being inequitable to fund the services.
• If Measure X funding is not allocated equitably to the east County and the cities
would have to put up additional funds would be a deal-killer.
RHFPD
In your opinion, what are the advantages/positives/strengths of the existing emergency
service delivery system?
• They are focused on a limited-service area.
• Understand the needs of the area.
• High level of community support. Cost-effective agency.
35
What are the disadvantages/negatives/weaknesses of the existing system?
• Financial sustainability.
• Reliance on mutual aid.
• The limited ability for training and special resources.
Does the existing system provide the residents and community with acceptable
protection?
• Believe so.
How important do you think it is for the district to have its fire department?
• Providing service should be cost-effective, not driven by having one's own district.
Do you believe there would be advantages to consolidating/partnering with the other
agency(s)?
• Potentially yes. It needs to be driven by the economics of the transaction.
• Look at the pros and cons. Pay/benefits will improve for the firefighters.
Do you believe there would be disadvantages to consolidating/partnering with the other
agency(s)?
• Cost.
• Staff rotation.
• Lose local touch by FF's.
• Lose local focus.
• A potential reduction of stations may be possible.
If annexation were to move forward, what is the one issue that would be a deal-breaker if
not appropriately addressed?
• From the Hercules perspective, if the station were to be closed.
36
Chief Officers
CCCFPD
What strengths contribute to the success of the fire department? What do they do well?
• The labor/management relationship is for the district is excellent.
• The support functions and leadership of the district are right-sized for the complexity
of the organization.
• The relationship with the County Administrator's office and the County Supervisors is
open and honest.
• The relations with the city partnerships are still strong and good.
• The relationships with the cities allow the district to seek new revenue opportunities
using Community Facilities Districts.
• The district special operations teams continue to grow and excel in the services.
• The organization's size and associated revenue streams allow CCCFPD to look at
financial stability and growth opportunities.
• The ambulance transport system successes enable the district to improve
communications and data management networks.
• The collaboration between the leadership and labor is strong.
• The ability to deliver excellent fire and ems services to the community.
• The Battalion Chiefs are assigned to the cities and work with them.
• The size of CCCFPD offers leadership in response and organizational support.
• Organizational strengths are the inclusion and empowerment of the employees. The
benefits of engaging the employees provide opportunities to excel in many areas
• The ability to adapt and innovate programs that are forward-thinking and impactful.
• The development of strategies to tackle emerging problems.
What are some areas in which you think the department could make improvements?
• The Emergency Operations Division requires realignment to manage the span of
control and support to the field operations personnel.
• The expansion of the Operations Division allows for improved safety and
accountability.
• There are not enough emergency response resources to provide the services
necessary to maintain low response times.
37
• The challenge to maintain the training standards is ongoing given the district's busy
stations and other business needs. Internal and communications processes can
always seek improvement.
• There is a need to improve the inspection of existing buildings in the district. There is
also a need to provide training to improve the consistency and quality control of the
response data entry into the report management system.
• The District and County's business practices can improve to increase the speed of
procurement processes. The need for technology requires improvement.
• The training division could better address the training needs for all of the divisions
with additional staff.
What do you see as the top critical issues faced by the fire department today?
• There is a need to keep pace with the current service demands and planning for
the increased growth in the east county areas.
• The district has a lot of new employees who need increasing experience to perform
safer and better.
• There is a continuing need for recruitment and hiring diverse employees that reflect
the community we serve.
• There are increasing demands for protecting properties from wildfires.
• The fuels abatement program is a challenge for the region.
• The seasonal call volume is challenging during the summer.
• Emerging incidents of violence in the communities served.
• There is a need for a career development program.
• The transient homeless population impacts increasing fire responses.
What opportunities, in your view, are available to improve the service and capabilities in
the event annexation were to take place?
• The annexation will allow for additional resources and the re-allocation of resources
to provide coverages to the district's east and west sides.
• The additional revenues and the personnel coming over to the district will give the
people resources to support the operations and training divisions.
• The annexation project offers the opportunity to create consistencies in policies,
procedures, practices, and processes.
• The annexation also provides increases in mid-management personnel.
38
• The opportunity to work collectively with the annexed areas without jurisdictional
and operational issues.
• The east County receives more resources to balance the call load and the service
needs. The west county receives increasing coordination & balancing of Battalion 7.
• Bringing the organizations under one organization improves all that we do.
• The consistency of being able to provide fire investigation service across the County.
• The annexation will improve the consistency in fire code requirements, enforcement,
and development. The Plans review process will come to CCCFPD instead of
outsourcing the work.
• Operating on the same page in the operations division cleans things up.
What challenges do you see to annexation?
• Cultural blending will require work to develop an environment that embraces each
other as equals and helps those that need assistance.
• The fleet apparatus shop still requires more staffing to handle the demands for
servicing the fire vehicles.
• There is a political challenge to make the annexation feasible.
• There will be a need to provide additional training personnel to bring the new
people up to standard.
• The process of change will be challenging for each of the agencies to manage and
learn together.
• The increasing ratio for the chain of command and span of control in the larger
response area.
Before the annexation proceeds, what critical issues do you believe will need to be
corrected?
• All three agencies need to coordinate an annexation plan. Take the time to
develop an overarching strategy that encompasses all we do.
• Assurances that any special tax measures and fees will survive the annexation
process.
• Support services deployment plan for servicing the east county areas.
• An implementation plan that operationalizes the new service area.
• A process that addresses problems that arise during the annexation deployment
processes.
39
ECCFPD
What strengths contribute to the success of the fire department? What do they do well?
• Team approach to making stuff happen.
• Meetings cycles to discuss the system and processes.
• Multi-levels of support.
• Ability to plan change with the internal team and external stakeholders.
• We do well with few resources.
• We do well in mitigating incidents and act based on the circumstances.
• The resiliency of the employees and organization.
• Overcoming insufficient resources for years has created a workforce that rises to the
challenges.
What are some areas in which you think the department could make improvements?
• Revenue is a challenge.
• Not enough people to get stuff done to maintain staffing on the fire units.
• Short on fire prevention staffing to carry out inspections.
• Procurement of services for maintenance and equipment is a challenge.
• Staffing.
What do you see as the top critical issues faced by the fire department today?
• Staffing.
• Training.
• Advanced Life Support
• Lack of overhead support for the organization.
• Growth impacts not being met with existing funding streams.
What opportunities, in your view, are available to improve the service and capabilities in
the event annexation were to take place?
• Add personnel, stations without adding taxes.
• Depth of staffing to fill vacancies.
• Expanded scope of services. Special teams, Paramedicine, truck operations,
fireboat operations.
40
• The up staffing of apparatus and stations in the East County to improve citizen
services.
• Increased opportunities
• Increased safety systems provide redundancy in resources and support on incidents.
• CCCFPD's ability to support fire suppression with a fully staffed training division with
facilities and equipment.
What challenges do you see to annexation?
• The blending of the organizations' policies.
• Provide training for personnel in the various operations that CCCFPD provides.
• Change in policies and SOPs between the organizations.
• The unknown of what impacts the employees will have to deal with if the
annexation occurs.
• The merging of two systems together that act differently is a challenge.
Before the annexation proceeds, what critical issues do you believe will need to be
corrected?
• Training; policies; up staffing
• Adding resources that they are not used to having available.
• Local politics east county representation.
• Staffing placement.
• Will advanced life support services be provided?
• Training to the CCCFPD policies.
• Where will ECCCFD people be placed when the annexation occurs?
• Is ALS coming, when will it be here, and where will it be deployed?
RHFPD
What strengths contribute to the success of the fire department? What do they do well?
• Customer relations are top-notch with our community.
• One-on-one service style that treats our community as a family member.
• We provide cutting-edge training to our firefighters.
• We buy the latest and best equipment for our employees.
• We do many tasks very well for an all-risk response agency
41
What are some areas in which you think the department could make improvements?
• Provide a better pathway for succession planning for our employees.
• We need to make the pathway to being successful clear and concise for our folks.
• This potential annexation is essential for building an organization and being
successful.
What do you see as the top critical issues faced by the fire department today?
• Lack of overhead support for the organization.
• Growth impacts not being met with existing funding streams.
• Not able to meet the future call load due to growth in the communities we serve
with existing personnel and equipment.
What opportunities, in your view, are available to improve the service and capabilities in
the event annexation does to take place?
• The depth of the organization will increase with the CCCFPD annexation.
• The firefighter personnel will gain several opportunities that will provide career paths.
• The annexation will enhance the buying power of the region.
What challenges do you see to the annexation?
• The community will have a loss of identity and local control.
• The community members believe they will lose their voice on the crucial fire issues.
• The successor agency will need to address the current retirement benefits for the
district employees.
Before the annexation proceeds, what critical issues do you believe will need to be
corrected?
• We need to do an outstanding job communicating with our community members
about the annexation's pros and cons.
• Should the annexation occur, the residents should feel comforted to know that the
services they will receive will be the same and enhanced under the CCCFPD service
systems.
• How the current funding sources be retained and transferred to the successor
agency?
• The successor agency must retain the current Rodeo-Hercules employees with the
same or better compensation and benefits programs.
42
Labor Group:
This group opted to be interviewed collectively. Member representatives from each
agency responded to questions pertaining to their specific district.
What strengths contribute to the success of the fire department? What do they do well?
CCCFPD:
• The day-to-day ops performance is well.
• Training, personnel, leadership, organizationally aligned, well-funded.
• CCCFPD has developed an identity that melded the organization together.
• The organization has processes for bringing people along together with a focus
towards one agency.
• The district responds to a variety of different incidents throughout the community.
• The district is very diverse in risks and response.
• The strengths align with how well CCCFPD adapts well to the challenge.
• An excellent relationship with labor and management that has strong
communication amongst the groups.
• The district can expand into new programs.
ECCFPD:
• We have a young, dynamic fire chief to make things better for the agency.
• Good relations with CCCFPD Batt 8.
• Active fire department. Small and able to maneuver.
• We have really good teamwork and great community support.
• We overcompensate for the lack of resources.
RHFPD
• We have multiple agencies working together within a Battalion that does well.
• We can mirror the big brother agency.
• Youthful organization and growing pride.
• Desire to be a part of a bigger organization.
• Successful with political opportunities.
43
What are some areas in which you think the department could make improvements?
CCCFPD
• Finish what we started.
• Auto-Aid system review and reset with ECCFD that makes sense and improved
firefighter safety.
• The ability to change for opportunities that can address problems
• Need for a change of the identity of CCCFPD's perceptions by other agencies.
• Recruit a diverse and ethnically balanced organization.
• Be open to change.
• Seek consistent responses to incidents regionally.
• We could do a better job at implementing change.
• There is a need to begin adding more firefighters and battalion chiefs.
ECCCFPD
• Auto-Aid system needs improvement.
• Open stations and increase personnel
• Ladder Truck in the first response areas.
• Paramedic staffing on the fire engines.
• Training division and training grounds.
• Funding that allows for sustainability.
• Create a reliable response system for the community.
• Standardization of all of the systems and processes for the region.
RHFPD
• Improve consistency of responses and resources to incidents.
• Consistent leadership that has a standardized policy and SOP/SOG.
• Alignment with other agencies with the response and resource processes.
• Consistent communications network and systems.
• The organization is lean on leadership depth and capacity to look ahead.
• Recruit a diverse membership.
44
What do you see as the top critical issues faced by the fire department today?
CCCFPD
• Paramedic coverage.
• Staffing levels for those stations that are busy
• The special teams (HAZMAT) staffing.
• Lack of succession planning and new members' desire to promote within the
organization.
• Liability concerns for acting-up programs.
• Planning for future economic sustainability for the organization and membership
• Expansion of programs that are not able to sustain
• The apparatus shop is understaffed and needs additional personnel to maintain the
fleet adequately.
• Need for additional depth in the Support Services (Logistics) for the agencies
• The level of experience amongst the operations division members is lower given the
more recent influx of employees over the years.
ECCFPD
• Staffing and stations located in the right location
• Need for a ladder truck
• Succession planning
• Staffing and response times
• Project workloads in addition to the call load
• Need for rehab of personnel on critical incidents
RHFPD
• Growth of population and not the organization
• Succession planning
• Need for leadership of the organization
45
What opportunities, in your view, are available to improve the service and capabilities in
the event annexation were to take place?
CCCFPD
• Create consistency across the county fire response programs, systems, processes,
policies, and SOGS. Business practices are identical across the board.
• Leadership becomes consistent.
• Improve the safety of personnel on the eastside.
• Annexation creates an opportunity to acquire great and talented personnel to
provide additional depth to the organization.
• Improvements to the service levels to the community and organizationally.
• The annexation project brings together operations groups to respond to incidents
regardless of borders.
ECCFPD
Firefighter safety improves on the eastside.
Consistency in standardized SOP's & policies. Staffing and equipment improvement.
Firefighters gain improved regional exposure to the services, call loads, and various
tasks.
New programs and services. Long-term financial stability for the organization long
term.
Personnel depth and desire to do the special programs in CCCFPD
RHFPD
• The desire amongst the youthful members to get into the busy call areas and special
teams.
• Clear and known leadership of where the organization is going.
• Formulized and standardized training programs that enhance firefighter safety.
• The gain of a regional unity for the membership.
• Regional relationships improve with local governments.
• There are opportunities for expanding the annexation efforts to other agencies.
46
What challenges do you see to annexation?
CCCFPD
• Multiple incidents may create a resource drain on the central part of the district.
• Additional shift training Captains to cover the increased area.
• EMS Captains responding across the County.
• Cultural orientation for the new annex members.
• Concern for financial burdens of annexing the other districts.
• Concern for Measure X and other measures that may impact the funding.
• Pension costs increase to employees.
• What will the costs be for hiring additional personnel to provide services to the
newly annexed areas?
• Funding streams may be a challenge.
• There needs to be a direct training component before the annexation taking effect.
ECCFPD
• Training differently will change.
• What will the seniority bid, overtime, and other staffing processes look like after the
annexation?
• Challenge of becoming familiar with one another in the post annexation new
organization.
• What will be the timing for opening stations on the eastside?
• The distribution of the funding that ECCFD brings to the annexation.
• Learning the CCCFPD way.
• ECCFD is bringing reserve funds to the annexation.
RHFPD
• Retirement system differences.
• Retirees are concerned about their current benefits.
• What will the change in wages and benefits be?
• Reserve funds.
• Process for informing the members of the possible changes.
47
Administrative Staff from CCCFPD and ECCFPD. RHFPD did not provide anyone for
the interview.
CCCFPD
If the two districts move forward with consolidation, what duplicated costs do you believe
would be eliminated and or consolidated to result in an economy of scale?
• The duplicated costs include administrative tasks such as payroll, human resources,
finance administration, apparatus maintenance.
Are there processes, systems, or services within fire administration that need improvement?
• The processes within a large organization, particularly with a County government,
some systems are antiquated and require updating.
What do you see as the top three critical issues faced by the fire department today?
• The uncertainty of future revenue for planning fiscal sustainability for the district is a
critical issue.
• The severity of the weather and the increasing wildfire season impacts.
• The ongoing concern for the district's future fiscal accountability and fiscal viability
weighs heavy.
What opportunities, in your view, are available to improve the service and capabilities in
the event annexation were to take place?
• The inclusion of the new areas into the CCCFPD service area provides a better
response to the communities.
• The current concerns of providing mutual and auto aid no longer exist with the
approval of the annexation.
• The services that CCCFPD provides are exceptional.
What challenges do you see to annexation?
• The concern for the culturally blending of the three organizations will be
challenging.
What drawbacks do you see to the agencies combining?
• One of the drawbacks is bringing in other entities that may negatively impact
CCCFPD's financial health.
• The addition of new personnel from the various agencies will be exciting and
potentially challenging.
48
What are the three critical issues that you believe will need to be addressed before moving
forward with annexation?
• There is a need for a financial analysis of the annexation project that considers all
the consolidation process facets.
• The cultural blending of the multiple organizations needs to be a focus of the
organization.
• The alignment of fiscal caution with the annexations' operational needs and the
community needs requires constant attention.
ECCFPD
If the two districts move forward with consolidation, what duplicated costs do you believe
would be eliminated and or consolidated to result in an economy of scale?
• Permit technician not familiar with the admin positions.
• Does not yet know what the system looks like today or tomorrow.
Are there processes, systems, or services within fire administration that need improvement?
• Things are good now.
• The new fire prevention division is constantly evolving.
• The services are improving, and we have an enhanced support network.
• The organization is set up quite well.
What do you see as the top three critical issues faced by the fire department today?
• The necessity for additional stations and engines to cover the area.
• The need for additional fire prevention staff. Stay up with the growth of the
community.
• The need to add more firefighters.
• Support from the community to fund the services and systems of the agency.
What opportunities, in your view, are available to improve the service and capabilities in
the event annexation were to take place?
• Unknown
• Staffing opportunities may improve with annexation.
What challenges do you see to annexation?
• Unknown
49
What drawbacks do you see to the agencies combining?
• Unknown
What are the critical issues that you believe will need to be addressed before moving
forward with annexation?
• Compliance with fire prevention elements comes easier.
• There is a high level of fire prevention services to the community, ease of access.
• The ability to leverage communication with the community with a smaller
organization is better than a larger CCCFPD system
• A very close community. Small agency. The organization would lose that
connection.
50
APPENDIX D: SAMPLE LAFCO RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. ____
RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE ____________ FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT REQUESTING THE
CONTRA COSTA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO
INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF CERTAIN
TERRITORY INTO THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION
DISTRICT
Resolved, by the Board of Directors of the _________ Fire Protection District (the District”), that:
WHEREAS, the District desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Local
Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government
Code, for annexation of the territory within ___________ Fire Protection District and _______________ Fire
Protection District by Contra Costa County Fire Protection District; and
WHEREAS, the ____________ Fire Protection District and ____________ Fire Protection District also desire
to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000,
commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, for reorganization; and
WHEREAS, the District, _________ Fire Protection District, and __________ Fire Protection District are
formed and operating pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 13800, et seq. and have
similar powers; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 56853 authorizes the Contra Costa Local Agency
Formation Commission to order the reorganization of the Districts without an election except as
provided for therein; and
WHEREAS, notice of intent to adopt this resolution of application has been given, and this Board
has conducted a public hearing based upon this notification, and has received and considered
comments presented at that hearing; and
WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be reorganized is considered to be inhabited (more than 12
registered voters) and a description of the boundaries of the territory to be annexed as set forth in
Exhibits A and B, and a map of the proposed boundary designated as set forth in Exhibit C, are attached
hereto and by this reference incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, the reorganization would be consistent with the proposed respective spheres of
influence of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, East Contra Costa Fire Protection District,
and the Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District in that the resulting boundaries of Contra Costa County
Fire Protection District would have a sphere of influence consisting of the combined spheres of
influence of the three districts; and
51
WHEREAS, the reasons for the proposed reorganization are as follows:
1. The fire protection districts provide essentially the same services within adjoining boundaries
and reorganization would allow the new district to better meet the emergency fire, rescue and medical
needs of its communities.
2. The reorganized District will implement a phased plan for creating a uniform level of service
within the entirety of its territory which would allow:
a. Better utilization of resources.
b. Enhanced capital asset planning and streamlined improvement process.
c. Enhanced response to emergency incidents based on expanded personnel, fleet, and station
readiness.
d. Reduced operating and administrative costs while increasing service levels.
e. Enhanced efficiency of management through combining of technology
infrastructure, fleet maintenance, and other administrative functions.
f. Enhanced and standardized public education outreach; and
WHEREAS, the following agencies would be affected by the proposed jurisdictional changes:
1. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District;
2. East Contra Costa Fire Protection District;
3. Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to require that the proposed reorganization be subject to the following terms
and conditions:
1. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District shall annex the entirety of the territories of
East Contra Costa Fire Protection District and Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District, as identified in
Exhibit A (map and legal description of East Contra Costa Fire Protection District territory proposed for
annexation) and Exhibit B (map and legal description of Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District
territory proposed for annexation).
2. East Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection
District shall be dissolved, and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District named the successor
district of both districts.
3. The resulting boundaries of Contra Costa County Fire Protection District shall include all
territory identified in Exhibit C (map of proposed Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
boundaries).
4. The effective date of the reorganization shall be upon recordation of the Certificate of
Completion by LAFCO.
5. The sphere of influence for the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District shall be the
updated sphere of influence proposed for LAFCO’s consideration as part of the reorganization
application.
52
6. The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District shall be the successor agency to all rights,
responsibilities, properties, contracts, assets and liabilities, and functions of the East Contra Costa Fire
Protection District and the Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District, and any funds to which it succeeds
may be expended and properly disposed of as provided by Division 12, Part 2.7, Chapter 1, Health &
Safety Code, Fire Protection District Law of 1987 (commencing with Section 13800 et seq.
7. All employees of the dissolved East Contra Costa Fire Protection District and the Rodeo-
Hercules Fire Protection District shall become full-time employees of the successor agency with
[description of process for transition or alteration of employment structure.]
8. The successor agency shall function under and carry out all authorized duties and
responsibilities assigned to a Fire Protection District as outlined in the Division 12, Part 2.7, Chapter 1,
Health & Safety Code, Fire Protection District Law of 1987 (commencing with Section 13800 et seq.)
and other applicable laws.
9. All income, from taxes or any other source, which has been a continuing right to tax
distribution, or historical distribution or allocation of funds to each District shall continue to be
distributed to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District.
10. All previously authorized charges, fees, assessments, and/or taxes currently in effect, now
levied or collected by each District, including improvement or assessment districts thereof, shall
continue to be levied and collected by the successor Contra Costa County Fire Protection District.
11. The appropriation limit of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District shall be set in
the amount of $__________for fiscal year _______.
12. [For consideration, if desired by the districts.] Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
shall establish two service zones, areas of benefit, and/or such other structure as may be necessary to
ensure that the debts and obligations of the respective Dissolved Districts are borne by the customers
residing in the territory of the Dissolved District which incurred the debt or obligation. The service
zones, areas of benefit, or other structures shall correspond to the existing service territory of the
Dissolved East Contra Costa Fire Protection District and Dissolved Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection
District.
13. Indebtedness of each District shall remain the legal obligation of only the lands and areas
which incurred such indebtedness; however, the outstanding indebtedness of each District at the time
of consolidation shall remain the obligation of the successor Contra Costa County Fire Protection
District.
14. Reorganization of the Districts shall not change the rights of the lands in the respective
Districts as they existed immediately prior to the reorganization.
15. The composition of the successor Contra Costa County Fire Protection District board of
directors shall remain unchanged. [Dependent on the desires of the districts. Can be negotiated.]
16. The services to be provided by the successor Districts shall be provided in a manner
consistent with the “Plan for Services” attached hereto as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein by
reference.
53
WHEREAS, this proposal includes all of the territory within the proposed spheres of influence for East
Contra Costa Fire Protection District and Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District, and will be consistent
with the amended spheres of influence for the Districts; it is proposed that the sphere of influence for
the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District be established to include its existing sphere of
influence and the spheres of influence of East Contra Costa Fire Protection District and Rodeo-Hercules
Fire Protection District; and
WHEREAS, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District assumed Lead Agency status for
this project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) on behalf of the threed component
districts; and
WHEREAS, the District has determined that this project is categorically exempt from CEQA
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21084 and 14 CCR 15320(b) as a project determined not to
have a significant effect on the environment; and.
WHEREAS, this Board has determined that since a majority of the members of each of the
legislative bodies of the three local agencies are adopting substantially similar resolutions of
application for this reorganization, the Resolution of Application meets the criteria for requesting a
waiver of election proceedings and a waiver of the final Conducting Authority hearing, as set forth in
Government Code Section 56853.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the District as follows:
SECTION 1. Adoption of Resolution of Application. This Resolution of Application is hereby adopted
and approved, and the Local Agency Formation Commission of Contra Costa County is hereby
requested to take proceedings for the reorganization of territory described in Exhibits A and B (Maps
and Boundary Descriptions) to annex to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District according to
the terms and conditions stated above and in the manner provided by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg
Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, Government Code Section 56000, et seq.
SECTION 2. Other Acts. The Officers and staff of the District are hereby authorized and directed,
jointly and severally, to do any and all things, to execute and deliver any and all documents, which, in
consultation with District Counsel, they may deem necessary or advisable in order to effectuate the
purposes of this Resolution, and any and all such actions previously taken by such Officers or staff
members are hereby ratified and confirmed.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption.
54
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the ____________ Fire Protection
District at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of ___________________________, 2021, by the following
vote:
AYES: ________
NOES: _______
ABSTENTIONS: _______
ABSENT: _______
____________________________________________________
President
______________________________________ Fire Protection District
ATTESTED:
___________________________________________________
District Secretary
Attachments:
Exhibit A, Map and Legal Description of proposed annexation of East Contra Costa Fire Protection District
Exhibit B, Map and Legal Description of proposed annexation of Rodeo Hercules Fire Protection District
Exhibit C, Map of proposed Contra Costa County Fire Protection District boundaries
Exhibit D, Plan for Services
55
APPENDIX E: LAFCO LAW & POLICY GUIDANCE
LAFCO law is defined by the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization
Act of 2000 (CKH) commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code.
The reorganization process is largely determined by LAFCO law and augmented by Contra
Costa LAFCO policy. LAFCO approval is generally required for any change in governance
structure or boundaries, such as consolidation, reorganization (proposal of more than one
action), annexation/detachment of territory, and dissolution.
The annexation scenario discussed in this report is defined as a reorganization in LAFCO law
as the proposal would consist of two or more changes of organization initiated in a single
proposal (Government Code §56073) —two annexations of two district territories and two
subsequent dissolutions.
Initiation of Proceedings & LAFCO Review Process
Proceedings for a reorganization may be initiated by petition or by resolution of the
governing body of any affected county, city, district, or school district (Government Code
§56650). For the purposes of this outline of the process, it is assumed that the districts will
initiate the process by resolution.
1. Initiation by Resolution:
An adopted resolution of application by the legislative body of any affected local
agency shall contain the following content (Government Code §56654) and shall
be submitted with a plan for services prepared pursuant to Government Code
§56653:
(1) State that the proposal is made pursuant to this part.
(2) State the nature of the proposal and list all proposed changes of organization.
(3) Set forth a description of the boundaries of affected territory accompanied by a
map showing the boundaries.
(4) Set forth any proposed terms and conditions.
(5) State the reason or reasons for the proposal.
(6) Request that proceedings be taken for the proposal pursuant to this part.
(7) State whether the proposal is consistent with the sphere of influence of any
affected city or affected district.
56
At least 21 days before the adoption of the resolution, the legislative body may give
mailed notice of its intention to adopt a resolution of application to the commission
and to each interested agency and each subject agency. The notice shall
generally describe the proposal and the affected territory. (Government Code
§56654 (c))
A sample resolution is included as Appendix C of this report.
2. Application to LAFCO
The districts shall compile a complete application to LAFCO to include all content
outlined in the Application Content section of this appendix.
3. LAFCO Processing
LAFCO must accept and process the application to initiate proceedings in
accordance with Government Code §56658.
4. Tax Sharing Negotiations
Once LAFCO sends notice to commence property tax negotiations according to
Revenue and Taxation Code §99(b), the affected agencies must now agree on
how the property taxed will be reallocated, unless there is a master tax sharing
agreement in place. The County Assessor has 30 days from the date of LAFCO
notification to provide information to the County Auditor who has the responsibility
under Section 99 to provide information within 45 days from the date of this letter
(an additional 15 days) to the County Administrator and the affected agencies,
who have 60 days from the date of receipt of the Auditor’s letter to conclude a
negotiated agreement and an additional 30 days should a request for an extension
be submitted to LAFCO. Such an agreement is required prior to LAFCO issuing a
certificate of filing for the application and proceeding with the consideration of the
reorganization.
5. Commission Proceedings
Commission proceedings shall be deemed initiated on the date a petition or
resolution of application is accepted for filing and a certificate of filing is issued by
the executive officer of the commission of the county in which the affected territory
is located. (Government Code §56651)
57
If a majority of the member of each of the legislative bodies of two or more districts
adopt substantially similar resolutions of application making a proposal for either the
consolidation of all the districts, or the reorganization of all or any part of the districts
into a single district, the Commission shall approve, or conditionally approve, the
proposal (Government Code §56853).
At any time not later than 35 days after the conclusion of the hearing, the
commission shall adopt a resolution making determinations approving or
disapproving the proposal, with or without conditions, the plan of reorganization, or
any alternative plan of reorganization as set forth in the report and
recommendation of a reorganization committee. If the commission disapproves the
proposal, plan of reorganization, or any alternative plan of reorganization, no further
proceedings shall be taken on those proposals or plans. (Government Code §56880)
The resolution making determinations shall also do all of the following (Government
Code §56881):
(a) Make any of the findings or determinations authorized or required pursuant to
Section 56375.
(b) For any proposal initiated by the commission pursuant to subdivision (a) of
Section 56375, make both of the following determinations:
(1) Public service costs of a proposal that the commission is authorizing are
likely to be less than or substantially similar to the costs of alternative means of
providing the service.
(2) A change of organization or reorganization that is authorized by the
commission promotes public access and accountability for community
services needs and financial resources.
(c) If applicable, assign a distinctive short-term designation to the affected
territory and a description of the territory.
(d) Initiate protest proceedings pursuant to Part 4 (commencing with Section
57000) in compliance with the resolution.
58
6. Protest Proceedings
A. Protest proceedings shall be conducted pursuant to Government Code §
57000, et seq. and in compliance with the Commission’s resolution of
approval.
B. Unless waived the Commission shall conduct a noticed public hearing not
less than 21 nor more than 60 days after the notice is given.
C. Not more than 30 days after the conclusion of the hearing LAFCO shall make
a finding regarding the value of written protests filed and not withdrawn and
take one of the following actions:
1) Order the reorganization without election;
2) Order the reorganization subject to an election if the proposal was
not initiated by LAFCO, and an affected city or district has not
objected by resolution, and petitions requesting and election have
been submitted by 25% of the number of voters; or
3) Terminate proceedings if protests represent 50% of the registered
voters within the territory.
7. Confirmation of Election
The Commission shall execute, within 30 days of the canvas of the election, a
Certificate of Completion confirming the order of the reorganization, if a majority of the
votes cast upon the question are in favor of the reorganization in either of the following
circumstances (Government Code §57176):
A. At an election called in the territory ordered to be reorganized; or
B. At an election called within the territory ordered to be reorganized and within
the territory of the affected agency.
Application Content
1. Application Requirements
Each application shall be in the form as the commission may prescribe and shall contain all
of the following information (Government Code §56652):
(a) A petition or resolution of application initiating the proposal.
(b) A statement of the nature of each proposal.
(c) A map and description, acceptable to the executive officer, of the boundaries
of the affected territory for each proposed change of organization or
reorganization.
59
(d) Any data and information as may be required by any regulation of the
commission.
(e) Any additional data and information, as may be required by the executive
officer, pertaining to any of the matters or factors which may be considered by the
commission.
(f) The names of the officers or persons, not to exceed three in number, who are to
be furnished with copies of the report by the executive officer and who are to be
given mailed notice of the hearing.
2. Plan for Services Requirements
A plan for reorganization must include a plan for providing services within the affected
territory to include the following in addition to any additional information required by the
commission or the executive officer (Government Code §56653):
(1) An enumeration and description of the services currently provided or to be
extended to the affected territory.
(2) The level and range of those services.
(3) An indication of when those services can feasibly be extended to the affected
territory, if new services are proposed.
(4) An indication of any improvement or upgrading of structures, roads, sewer or
water facilities, or other conditions the local agency would impose or require within
the affected territory if the change of organization or reorganization is completed.
(5) Information with respect to how those services will be financed.
Factors to be Considered in the Review of a Proposal
LAFCO is charged with considering multiple factors during review and consideration of the
application.
Government Code §56668
Factors to be considered in the review of a proposal shall include, but not be limited to, all
of the following:
(a) Population and population density; land area and land use; assessed valuation;
topography, natural boundaries, and drainage basins; proximity to other populated
areas; and the likelihood of significant growth in the area, and in adjacent
incorporated and unincorporated areas, during the next 10 years.
60
(b)(1) The need for organized community services; the present cost and adequacy
of governmental services and controls in the area; probable future needs for those
services and controls; and probable effect of the proposed incorporation,
formation, annexation, or exclusion and of alternative courses of action on the cost
and adequacy of services and controls in the area and adjacent areas.
(2)"Services," as used in this subdivision, refers to governmental services whether or
not the services are services which would be provided by local agencies subject to
this division, and includes the public facilities necessary to provide those services.
(c) The effect of the proposed action and of alternative actions, on adjacent areas, on
mutual social and economic interests, and on the local governmental structure of the
county.
(d) The conformity of both the proposal and its anticipated effects with both the
adopted commission policies on providing planned, orderly, efficient patterns of urban
development, and the policies and priorities in Section 56377.
(e) The effect of the proposal on maintaining the physical and economic integrity of
agricultural lands, as defined by Section 56016.
(f) The definiteness and certainty of the boundaries of the territory, the
nonconformance of proposed boundaries with lines of assessment or ownership, the
creation of islands or corridors of unincorporated territory, and other similar matters
affecting the proposed boundaries.
(g) A regional transportation plan adopted pursuant to Section 65080
(h) The proposal's consistency with city or county general and specific plans.
(i) The sphere of influence of any local agency that may be applicable to the proposal
being reviewed.
(j) The comments of any affected local agency or other public agency.
(k) The ability of the newly formed or receiving entity to provide the services that are
the subject of the application to the area, including the sufficiency of revenues for
those services following the proposed boundary change.
(l) Timely availability of water supplies adequate for projected needs as specified in
Section 65352.5.
61
(m) The extent to which the proposal will affect a city or cities and the county in
achieving their respective fair shares of the regional housing needs as determined by
the appropriate council of governments consistent with Article 10.6 (commencing with
Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7.
(n) Any information or comments from the landowner or landowners, voters, or residents
of the affected territory.
(o) Any information relating to existing land use designations.
(p) The extent to which the proposal will promote environmental justice. As used in this
subdivision, "environmental justice" means the fair treatment and meaningful
involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes, and national origins, with respect
to the location of public facilities and the provision of public services, to ensure a
healthy environment for all people such that the effects of pollution are not
disproportionately borne by any particular populations or communities.
(q) Information contained in a local hazard mitigation plan, information contained in a
safety element of a general plan, and any maps that identify land as a very high fire
hazard zone pursuant to Section 51178 or maps that identify land determined to be in a
state responsibility area pursuant to Section 4102 of the Public Resources Code, if it is
determined that such information is relevant to the area that is the subject of the
proposal.
Government Code §56668.3
(a) If the proposed change of organization or reorganization includes a city
detachment or district annexation, except a special reorganization, and the
proceeding has not been terminated based upon receipt of a resolution requesting
termination pursuant to either Section 56751 or Section 56857, factors to be considered
by the commission shall include all of the following:
(1) In the case of district annexation, whether the proposed annexation will be for
the interest of landowners or present or future inhabitants within the district and
within the territory proposed to be annexed to the district.
(2) In the case of a city detachment, whether the proposed detachment will be for
the interest of the landowners or present or future inhabitants within the city and
within the territory proposed to be detached from the city.
62
(3) Any factors which may be considered by the commission as provided in Section
56668.
(4) Any resolution raising objections to the action that may be filed by an affected
agency.
(5) Any other matters which the commission deems material.
(b) The commission shall give great weight to any resolution raising objections to the
action that is filed by a city or a district. The commission's consideration shall be based
only on financial or service-related concerns expressed in the protest. Except for
findings regarding the value of written protests, the commission is not required to make
any express findings concerning any of the other factors considered by the commission.
Government Code §56668.5
The commission may, but is not required to, consider the regional growth goals and policies
established by a collaboration of elected officials only, formally representing their local
jurisdictions in an official capacity on a regional or subregional basis. This section does not
grant any new powers or authority to the commission or any other body to establish
regional growth goals and policies independent of the powers granted by other laws.
Terms and Conditions
LAFCO is empowered to condition approval of an application on certain factors.
Government Code §56855.5
(a) In any commission order giving approval to any change of organization or
reorganization, the commission may make that approval conditional upon any of the
following factors:
(1) Any of the conditions set forth in Section 56886.
(2) The initiation, conduct, or completion of proceedings for another change of
organization or a reorganization.
(3) The approval or disapproval, with or without election, as may be provided by this
division, of any resolution or ordinance ordering that change of organization or
reorganization.
63
(4) With respect to any commission determination to approve the disincorporation
of a city, the dissolution of a district, or the reorganization or consolidation of
agencies that results in the dissolution of one or more districts or the disincorporation
of one or more cities, a condition that prohibits a district that is being dissolved or a
city that is being disincorporated from taking any of the following actions, unless it
first finds that either an emergency situation exists as defined in Section 54956.5, or
the legislative body of the successor, as designated by the commission has taken
action approving one or more of the following actions:
(A) Approving any increase in compensation or benefits for members of the
governing board, its officers, or the executive officer of the agency.
(B) Appropriating, encumbering, expending, or otherwise obligating, any
revenue of the agency beyond that provided in the current budget at the time
the commission approves the dissolution or disincorporation.
(b) If the commission so conditions its approval, the commission may order that any
further action pursuant to this division be continued and held in abeyance for the
period of time designated by the commission, not to exceed six months from the date
of that conditional approval.
(c) The commission order may also provide that any election called upon any change
of organization or reorganization shall be called, held, and conducted before, upon
the same date as, or after the date of any election to be called, held, and conducted
upon any other change of organization or reorganization.
(d) The commission order may also provide that in any election at which the questions
of annexation and district reorganization or, incorporation and district reorganization, or
disincorporation and district reorganization are to be considered at the same time,
there shall be a single question appearing on the ballot upon the issues of annexation
and district reorganization or incorporation and district reorganization.
64
Government Code §56886
Any change of organization or reorganization may provide for, or be made subject to one
or more of, the following terms and conditions. If a change of organization or
reorganization is made subject to one or more of the following terms and conditions in the
commission’s resolution making determinations, the terms and conditions imposed shall
prevail in the event of a conflict between a specific term and condition authorized
pursuant to this section and any of the general provisions of Part 5 (commencing with
Section 57300). However, none of the following terms and conditions shall directly regulate
land use, property development, or subdivision requirements:
(a) The payment of a fixed or determinable amount of money, either as a lump sum or
in installments, for the acquisition, transfer, use, or right of use of all or any part of the
existing property, real or personal, of any city, county, or district.
(b) The levying or fixing and the collection of any of the following, for the purpose of
providing for any payment required pursuant to subdivision (a):
(1) Special, extraordinary, or additional taxes or assessments.
(2) Special, extraordinary, or additional service charges, rentals, or rates.
(3) Both taxes or assessments and service charges, rentals, or rates.
(c) The imposition, exemption, transfer, division, or apportionment, as among any
affected cities, affected counties, affected districts, and affected territory of liability for
payment of all or any part of principal, interest, and any other amounts which shall
become due on account of all or any part of any outstanding or then authorized but
thereafter issued bonds, including revenue bonds, or other contracts or obligations of
any city, county, district, or any improvement district within a local agency, and the
levying or fixing and the collection of any (1) taxes or assessments, or (2) service
charges, rentals, or rates, or (3) both taxes or assessments and service charges, rentals,
or rates, in the same manner as provided in the original authorization of the bonds and
in the amount necessary to provide for that payment.
(d) If, as a result of any term or condition made pursuant to subdivision (c), the liability
of any affected city, affected county, or affected district for payment of the principal
of any bonded indebtedness is increased or decreased, the term and condition may
specify the amount, if any, of that increase or decrease which shall be included in, or
excluded from, the outstanding bonded indebtedness of that entity for the purpose of
the application of any statute or charter provision imposing a limitation upon the
principal amount of outstanding bonded indebtedness of the entity.
65
(e) The formation of a new improvement district or districts or the annexation or
detachment of territory to, or from, any existing improvement district or districts.
(f) The incurring of new indebtedness or liability by, or on behalf of, all or any part of any
local agency, including territory being annexed to any local agency, or of any existing
or proposed new improvement district within that local agency. The new indebtedness
may be the obligation solely of territory to be annexed if the local agency has the
authority to establish zones for incurring indebtedness. The indebtedness or liability shall
be incurred substantially in accordance with the laws otherwise applicable to the local
agency.
(g) The issuance and sale of any bonds, including authorized but unissued bonds of a
local agency, either by that local agency or by a local agency designated as the
successor to any local agency which is extinguished as a result of any change of
organization or reorganization.
(h) The acquisition, improvement, disposition, sale, transfer, or division of any property,
real or personal.
(i) The disposition, transfer, or division of any moneys or funds, including cash on hand
and moneys due but uncollected, and any other obligations.
(j) The fixing and establishment of priorities of use, or right of use, of water, or capacity
rights in any public improvements or facilities or any other property, real or personal.
However, none of the terms and conditions ordered pursuant to this subdivision shall
modify priorities of use, or right of use, to water, or capacity rights in any public
improvements or facilities that have been fixed and established by a court or an order
of the State Water Resources Control Board.
(k) The establishment, continuation, or termination of any office, department, or board,
or the transfer, combining, consolidation, or separation of any offices, departments, or
boards, or any of the functions of those offices, departments, or boards, if, and to the
extent that, any of those matters is authorized by the principal act.
(l) The employment, transfer, or discharge of employees, the continuation,
modification, or termination of existing employment contracts, civil service rights,
seniority rights, retirement rights, and other employee benefits and rights.
66
(m) The designation of a city, county, or district, as the successor to any local agency
that is extinguished as a result of any change of organization or reorganization, for the
purpose of succeeding to all of the rights, duties, and obligations of the extinguished
local agency with respect to enforcement, performance, or payment of any
outstanding bonds, including revenue bonds, or other contracts and obligations of the
extinguished local agency.
(n) The designation of (1) the method for the selection of members of the legislative
body of a district or (2) the number of those members, or (3) both, where the
proceedings are for a consolidation, or a reorganization providing for a consolidation or
formation of a new district and the principal act provides for alternative methods of
that selection or for varying numbers of those members, or both.
(o) The initiation, conduct, or completion of proceedings on a proposal made under,
and pursuant to, this division.
(p) The fixing of the effective date or dates of any change of organization, subject to
the limitations of Section 57202.
(q) Any terms and conditions authorized or required by the principal act with respect to
any change of organization.
(r) The continuation or provision of any service provided at that time, or previously
authorized to be provided by an official act of the local agency.
(s) The levying of either of the following:
(1) Assessments or fees, including the imposition of a fee pursuant to Section 50029
or 66484.3. For the purposes of this section, imposition of a fee as a condition of the
issuance of a building permit does not constitute direct regulation of land use,
property development, or subdivision requirements.
(2) General or special taxes subject to approval by the voters.
(t) The extension or continuation of any previously authorized charge, fee, assessment,
or tax by the local agency or a successor local agency in the affected territory.
67
(u) The transfer of authority and responsibility among any affected cities, affected
counties, and affected districts for the administration of special tax and special
assessment districts, including, but not limited to, the levying and collecting of special
taxes and special assessments, including the determination of the annual special tax
rate within authorized limits; the management of redemption, reserve, special reserve,
and construction funds; the issuance of bonds which are authorized but not yet issued
at the time of the transfer, including not yet issued portions or phases of bonds which
are authorized; supervision of construction paid for with bond or special tax or
assessment proceeds; administration of agreements to acquire public facilities and
reimburse advances made to the district; and all other rights and responsibilities with
respect to the levies, bonds, funds, and use of proceeds that would have applied to
the local agency that created the special tax or special assessment district.
(v) Any other matters necessary or incidental to any of the terms and conditions
specified in this section. If a change of organization, reorganization, or special
reorganization provides for, or is made subject to one or more of, the terms and
conditions specified in this section, those terms and conditions shall be deemed to be
the exclusive terms and conditions for the change of organization, reorganization, or
special reorganization, and shall control over any general provisions of Part 5
(commencing with Section 57300).
68
APPENDIX F: MEASURE O & 1998 BENEFIT ASSESSMENT MEMO
69
70
71
APPENDIX G: TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: ECCFPD Station 52 ............................................................................................................ 3
Figure 2: ECCFPD Station 53 ............................................................................................................ 4
Figure 3: ECCFPD Station 59 ............................................................................................................ 5
Figure 4: ECCFPD Station 54 ............................................................................................................ 6
Figure 5: ECCFPD Station 55 ............................................................................................................ 7
Figure 7: ECCFPD Station 94 ............................................................................................................ 8
Figure 8: RHFPD Station 75 ............................................................................................................... 9
Figure 9: RHFPD Station 76 ............................................................................................................. 10
MEASURE X
Contra Costa County Fire Service Proposal
Presented by
Paige Meyer
Lewis Broschard
Brian Helmick
INTRODUCTION
COUNTY-WIDE FIRE SERVICE CHALLENGES
•Extreme wildfire danger
–Most communities are located in areas of increased wildfire risk
–Lack of vegetation management
•Closed Fire Stations
•Lack of qualified firefighter/paramedic candidates
–Improve diversity in the workforce
•Aging infrastructure
•Lack of training facilities
•Antiquated Communications/Emergency Operations Centers
•Increased medical calls
LEVERAGING MEASURE X FUNDS TO ACHIEVE
CONSOLIDATION OF FIRE AGENCIES
•Enhancing Services
–Improved Response Times
–Administrative Efficiencies
–Operational Efficiencies
–Increased services for underserved
communities
–Equitable Distribution of Measure X
Funds
–Additional 48 Firefighters/5 Stations
Countywide
LEVERAGING MEASURE X FUNDS TO ACHIEVE
CONSOLIDATION OF FIRE AGENCIES
Request
•Ongoing -$9.8M
Stations will serve:
•Oakley/Knightsen/Bethel Island
area
•Brentwood (2)
•Antioch/Pittsburg
•Pinole/Briones
Reopening Closed Fire
Stations/Staffing
Agency Station Cost
CON Fire 1 $ 3.5M
East Contra Costa 3 $ 10.5M
Pinole 1 $ 2.0M
Total 5 $ 16.0M
*$7.0M to be funded through annexation efficiencies
4th Firefighter on Truck
Richmond $ 785,000
Total $ 16.785M
WILDFIRE STAFFING AND MITIGATION
Objectives
•Seasonal staffing and local
Prepositioning throughout
the County during extreme
fire danger
•Respond more rapidly and
efficiently to wildland fires
•Maintain both Fire and
Emergency Medical
response levels within the
County
587,000
acres
WILDFIRE STAFFING AND MITIGATION
WILDFIRE STAFFING AND MITIGATION
Request
•Ongoing -$7.0M
•*Fuels Reduction
and Seasonal
Upstaffing is an
immediate need
Wildfire Staffing/Fire Mitigation Cost
Vegetation Management & Response $ 2.5 M
CON Fire Crew 12 –Available
Countywide throughout the year
Wildfire mitigation –fuels reduction*$ 2.0 M
Seasonal Fire Engine Upstaffing*$ 2.5 M
Seasonal Staffing/High Fire Risk
Events
(Red Flag Warning)
Total $ 7.0 M
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
Consolidation benefit
Improving levels of
service while taking on
more agencies
Richmond –safety for
first responding
firefighters
Back-up
communications center
for the County
Specialized Dispatch
training in response to
increasing and changing
demands
EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
Request
•Ongoing -$4.15M
–Consolidation of Contra Costa Regional Fire
Communications Center
–New SRV Communications/Emergency Operations
Center
•Back-up for all fire agencies in the county
–East Bay Regional Communications System
Authority –local infrastructure
•Year 1 and 2 –Purchase of Mobile
Communication Units
•Year 3+ –Replace portable/mobile radios for all
Agencies
Agency Cost
East Contra Costa $ 540,000
Crockett 45,000
El Cerrito 180,000
Moraga-Orinda 200,000
Pinole 168,000
Rodeo-Hercules 153,000
Richmond 700,000
San Ramon Valley 1,150,000
EBRCS Sustainability 1,000,000
Total $ 4,136,000
FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
•Ongoing -$3.0M
•Seismic retrofit of
existing fire stations
•Upgrade of Emergency
Operation Systems
$3.0M
Request
COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION
Request
•Ongoing -$1.6M Regional Inspectors -8
Wildfire Risk Reduction
Defensible Space
•Education
•Enforcement
Con Fire (3) Pinole Rodeo-Hercules
El Cerrito Richmond
Moraga-Orinda
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS/PLANNING
Request
•Ongoing -$500,000 •Emergency Preparedness
–Countywide Emergency Preparedness
Manager
–Earthquake Early Warning Systems
–Disaster Preparedness Training for staff
–Emergency Operations Center Upgrades
(Countywide)
TRAINING
Request
•Ongoing -$1.3M
Regional Paramedic Program -$600,000
•Funding for Paramedic Training
–Richmond Fire
•Scholarship Program
–Promote diversity
•Upgrade current Firefighter capabilities to Advanced Life
Support
South County Training Facility -$700,000
•Currently no training facility
•CON Fire training facility cannot accommodate regional
training needs
•Maintain fire resources in District and available for
emergency calls and requests for mutual/automatic aid to
neighboring jurisdictions
HELICOPTER –CURRENT FIRE SEASON NEED
•Type 2 Helicopter
–July 1 -October 31, 2021
–CalFire resources strained –extreme
drought
–Staffed daily
–Available for all fires within the county
–300-gallon capacity
–Non-recurring request –2021 only
–Will reevaluate need for 2022
Request
•One-time -$1.5M
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
Ongoing Costs
(expressed in millions)
Reopening of Closed Fire
Stations/Staffing $ 9.80
Wildfire Staffing/Fire Mitigation*7.00
Emergency Communications 4.15
Facilities and Infrastructure 3.00
Community Risk Reduction 1.60
Emergency Preparedness/Planning 0.50
Training 1.30
Total Ongoing Request $27.35
One-Time Costs*
(expressed in millions)
Helicopter $ 1.50
Total One-Time Request $1.50
Total = $28.85M
*Portion of these funds are
needed for current fire
season
QUESTIONS
From: joe hisboat.com <joe@hisboat.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 12:15 PM
To: Clerk of the Board <ClerkOfTheBoard@cob.cccounty.us>; Supervisor Candace Andersen
<SupervisorAndersen@bos.cccounty.us>; Supervisor_Burgis <Supervisor_Burgis@bos.cccounty.us>;
SupervisorMitchoff <SupervisorMitchoff@bos.cccounty.us>; District5 <District5@bos.cccounty.us>; John_Gioia
<John_Gioia@bos.cccounty.us>
Cc: Brian Helmick <BHelmick@eccfpd.org>; Lewis Broschard (cccfpd) <lewis.broschard@cccfpd.org>
Subject: Comments Item D1 ‐ July 20, 2021 CCCFPD Meeting
Clerk of The Board
Below and attached are my written comments which were summarized orally during the meeting regarding
the Annexation Process and Item D1 of the Subject Meeting.
July 20, 2021
Clerk of The Board
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
Via Email
Comments regarding Items D1 of the July 20, 2021, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Special Board
Meeting.
I am Joe Young, an elected director of ECCFPD representing 128,000 East County residents. My comments
today are my opinions. They are not the position of the ECCFPD Board. They will be discussed extensively by
the Board tomorrow and your attendance and input is welcomed.
First, I want to thank the staff of both agencies for countless hours of work to get to this point.
Second, Thank you, the supervisors, for the 180 degree paradigm shift on consolidation. In the past ECCFPD
has been the ugly duckling no one wanted.
I believe consolidation can work. Numerous Reports have been completed on the subject. However, the
Reports are not a plan or a commitment by the parties.
In moving forward, a commitment must be made. This is essentially a marriage between the agencies, and I
believe the consolidation resolution being discussed and developed is the vehicle to document the
commitments.
The commitments must include:
Placing station 51 and 55 into service in March and July of 2022. Note that regardless of the
consolidation outcome, ECCFPD will place station 55 into service this fiscal year.
Implement a plan to place station 54 into service by the end of the 5 year Report planning period
Complete planning, funding, and startup of the 3 additional stations starting as early as 2030 in the
East County Area.
Assuring wage parity and job security for all current personnel
Identifying and addressing any governance issues for the combined agency during the LAFCO process
Providing additional funding need to meet the East County service improvement needs.
There are significant hurdles to fulfilling these needs. The commitment to do so should not be made lightly.
These hurdles include:
The existing funding of the joint agency is inadequate for stations 51 and 55 before the end of the 5
year planning period
The Impact Fees and CFD’s recently put in place by ECCFPD for building and operation of 3 additional
station by 2030 may be insufficient under the joint agency proposal.
The Adjunct Report has specifically stated that the improved service goals for ECCFPD can likely not be
met by the combined agencies without additional funding from Measure X
The annexation of ECCFPD is in a sense a marriage between the Prince and the ugly duckling. A marriage of
that type must have a prenup, or in this case a clear resolution identifying the commitments.
The most significant external funding change since the formation of ECCFPD has been the passage of Measure
X. The County asked for and received key support from ECCFPD for Measure X. That support was provided
with a clear understanding that service issues in the ECCFPD would be resolved with Measure X funding.
If these commitments cannot be specifically stipulated in the consolidation process, I would ask that the
County immediately commit 15% of the Measure X funds to ECCFPD, and we will resolve the service issues
directly.
Thank you for your time and I am available for questions.
Joe Young
Item: D.2 – Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Board of Directors Meeting for July 20, 2021
Comments made by: Brian J Oftedal‐ Board President‐ East Contra Costa Fire Protection District
Good afternoon Madam Chair and all members of the Contra Costa County Fire Board.
My name is Brian Oftedal and I am the President of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District.
I first and foremost would like to thank the entire Board for your willingness to explore the possibility of
Consolidation.
In years past, the idea of consolidation was an illusion and completely unrealistic.
The East Contra Costa Fire Board has worked extremely hard to create policy and provide direction to clean up
items from years past, which made the situation unrealistic.
ECCFPD staff has done an amazing job carrying out that direction, while continuing to provide a high level of
customer service.
ECCFPD is currently working through a 5 year strategic plan.
Working along with the Board of Supervisors and both City Councils of Brentwood and Oakley we have updated
the Developer Impact Fees.
We have created a fire centric Community Facility District.
This Community Facility District and updated Developer Impact Fee’s will address future growth. The dollars will be
sufficient to build firehouses and staff, what we refer to as stations 7, 8 & 9.
ECCFPD has cut unfunded liability in half over the last 5 years.
We have improved communication and transparency, which has been recognized by the California Special Districts
Association.
Dropping the current automatic aid and mutual aid borders will improve public safety for Contra Costa County
residents and firefighter safety will dramatically increase.
I believe we have built a very strong foundation, worthy of continued annexation consideration.
Con Fire is a very well respected organization in the California Fire Service arena. I trust that your Board will
continue to work through our strategic plan, with the goal of operating 9 fire stations, in the next 20 years (which
is the rough time frame for East Contra Costa build out).
I believe that our communities would be in good hands under the direction of the Contra Costa Fire Board of
Directors and would encourage a “Yes” vote, to continue into the LAFCO review process.
The idea of annexation is supported by ECCFPD constituents and by the ECCFPD Board of Directors.
Thank you again for your consideration and for your years of being such a great fire district neighbor and public
safety partner.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
ACCEPT a report from the Fire Chief providing a status summary for ongoing Fire District activities and
initiatives.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact.
BACKGROUND:
At the request of the Contra Costa County Fire Board of Directors, the Fire Chief is providing a report on
the status and progress of the various District initiatives.
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 07/20/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
Contact: Lewis T. Broschard III, Fire
Chief (925) 941-3300
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes
of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: July 20, 2021
Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: , Deputy
cc:
D.2
To:Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Board of Directors
From:Lewis T. Broschard, III, Chief, Contra Costa Fire Protection District
Date:July 20, 2021
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Fire Chief's Report - July 13, 2021
CLERK'S ADDENDUM
Speaker:
ATTACHMENTS
Fire Chief's Report July 2021
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
.
4005 Port Chicago Highway, Suite 250 • Concord, CA 94520-1180
Telephone: (925) 941-3300 • Fax: (925) 941-3309 • www.cccfpd.org
000.
July 13, 2021
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Lewis T. Broschard III, Fire Chief
RE: Fire Chief’s Report
______________________________________________________________________
Operations/Fire Weather Update. Hot, dry, and windy weather continues to
contribute to heightened fire danger across the District, county, and region. In June,
we dispatched on numerous grass and vegetation fires managing, through a
combination of early reports and quick and overwhelming responses, to keep all but
two of these small.
On June 27, we responded to assist Federal Fire with a fire on MOTCO property
which burned approximately 40 acres though no structures were threatened. Again,
in the early afternoon hours of July 4, a fire that began with a vehicle accident on
Kirker Pass Road between Clayton and Pittsburg burned approximately 73 acres
before being brought under control by Con Fire, other local agencies, and Cal Fire.
We continued to up-staff a complete wildland fire engine and crew through the
Independence Day holiday, and it was de-staffed after the holiday. However, our
Crew 12 hand crew continues to be staffed seven days per week and has proven
invaluable in its new configuration.
ConAir 1 maintenance is almost complete with a required mechanical service which
includes the installation of additional radios to better communicate with Cal Fire,
other air resources, and fire companies on the ground. We expect it back in service
mid-July.
The new ladder truck has been delivered to Fire Station 70 in San Pablo. The crews
at the station are currently training on its features and working towards completing
driving competencies. We anticipate the ability to place the truck in service
sometime in August. Truck 70 will replace the two-person EMS Squad 70. Funding
for two of the four ladder truck positions continues to be supported directly by the
City of San Pablo through their sales tax measure.
Independence Day Holiday Weekend Staffing. Historically, Independence Day
evening, as well as the days leading up to and those following it, represents
extremely high fire danger due to illegal fireworks use across the county. Each year,
we up-staff significantly to ensure our preparedness for the increase in service
demand – in particular, fire responses.
Fire Chief’s Report – July 13, 2021
Page 2
This Independence Day was no exception, and owing to the ultra-high fire danger as
a result of the drought, we redoubled our preparation efforts. Throughout the entire
weekend, we up-staffed an additional Crew 12, for a total of 24 fire control workers;
a second fire dozer; and an additional wildland fire crew. On the holiday evening, we
initially staffed two complete task forces, each led by chief officers, and, as a result
of fire activity, established a third task force mid-evening. We also fielded all five of
our fire investigators for law enforcement activities and stood up our District
Operations Center staffed by the Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief, Assistant Chiefs, and
support personnel.
On the evening of July 4, between 9 p.m. and midnight, we responded to 48 grass,
vegetation, and exterior fires and five structure fires, most resulting from fireworks.
Fireworks Safety Public Communications. Since kicking off our fireworks safety
messaging campaign with law, city, and county partners in early June, we continued
to share a variety of traditional and social media messages across our platforms as
well as with partners for repurposing on their social media platforms. We also
created a special new page on our website dedicated to the topic and conducted a
second fireworks dangers media event in the days before Independence Day. All of
this has resulted in a very high-level of safety messaging visible across the county,
Bay Area, and nation.
On the evening of July 4, we also up-staffed with a PIO in our District Operations
Center and two field PIOs with an embedded pool reporter and photographer to help
share the dangers of fireworks in near real time, resulting in further visibility for the
issue.
Fire Chief’s Report – July 13, 2021
Page 3
As a result of this combined effort, there was widespread media attention focused on
Contra Costa County fireworks issues, including significant social media and web
presence.
Fire District Annexation Feasibility Study Update. Following last month’s
presentations of the contractor’s preliminary findings, report author AP Triton makes
its presentation of the final report at today’s Fire Board meeting. Similar
presentations are also scheduled for the East Contra Costa and Rodeo-Hercules
boards.
Fire Prevention Bureau Update. Our inspectors reviewed and approved applications
for three Independence Day fireworks displays for last week’s holiday. Each was
reviewed to ensure the safety of those in attendance in addition to the safety of the
surrounding areas. Inspectors were on hand at each of the displays at set up and
during the fireworks shoots to ensure the correct product was brought to the site, the
explosives were set correctly, and the shoot was done safely. An engine and crew
was also on scene at each display to immediately address any spot fires that
occurred. The approved shows took place in Antioch, Concord , and Pleasant Hill.
Fire investigators continued their undercover investigations in recent weeks taking
illegal fireworks off our streets at the point of sale. In the three-week period leading
up to Independence Day, they conducted seven sales “busts,” resulting in seizure of
fireworks with a street value in the thousands of dollars. O n July 4, investigators
were on area streets in force, issuing 10 citations and confiscating some 70 pounds
of fireworks.
In the first of a series of Chipping Days, three Lafayette Firewise neighborhoods took
advantage of this service provided late last month by Con Fire, Cal Fire, and the City
of Lafayette to further reduce risk of wildfire danger in their communities.
Communications Division Update. Mission Critical Partners is now under contract to
provide professional subject matter expert advice in coordination with our other
partners in the initial design phases of the pending fire communications center
rebuild in the old Administration building.
The installation of the two new permanent UPS units and all dual power supplies is
now complete, and the fire communications center has reliable backup power.
Fire Chief’s Report – July 13, 2021
Page 4
The Everbridge paging system went live for the District and all contract dispatch
agencies on June 28. This system should provide a more effective and efficient
notification system for management and staff recalls.
Our Fire Communications Manager will be leaving the District on July 9. The District
and Senior Staff would like to thank and acknowledge Traci Barkley for her
knowledge, dedication, and care for her employees over the last three years while
leading several fire communications center improvements. We wish Traci great
success in her future endeavors. The District will begin a recruitment process for
this critical position this month.
COVID-19 Update. Reacting to CDC, state, and county guidance, we began to
accept employee attestations of their vaccination statuses and allowed mask
removal by those vaccinated, if desired. Unvaccinated employees continue to be
required to wear masks at work. We are encouraging vaccinations for all un-
vaccinated employees.
We continue to monitor for guidance on return to work requirements and are
prepared to update related policies, as needed.
AB 389 Update. This bill is scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Health Committee
on July 14.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Fire Chief, or designee, to execute a contract amendment with American
Medical Response West (AMR), effective July 13, 2021, to facilitate the provision of on-scene telemedicine
services to patients and require clinical education training related to the facilitation of telemedicine services,
with no change to the contract term or payment limit.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There are no additional costs associated with this contract amendment.
BACKGROUND:
Effective January 1, 2016, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (District) became the exclusive
operator of emergency ambulance service within Exclusive Operating Areas 1, 2, and 5 in Contra Costa
County. The District contracts with American Medical Response West (AMR) to provide the emergency
ambulance services. The District intends to implement a telemedicine program utilizing qualified
telemedicine service providers. The District, with the approval of Contra Costa County Emergency Medical
Services Agency, will develop protocols, policies, and procedures
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 07/20/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, Director
Candace Andersen,
Director
Diane Burgis, Director
Karen Mitchoff, Director
Federal D. Glover, Director
Contact: Terry Carey, Assistant Chief
925-941-3300
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of
the Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: July 20, 2021
Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc:
C.1
To:Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Board of Directors
From:Lewis T. Broschard III, Chief, Contra Costa Fire Protection District
Date:July 20, 2021
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Contract Amendment for American Medical Response West (AMR)
BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)
for the provision of telemedicine services. Under the program, the on-scene field provider and patient can
be connected to a qualified healthcare provider for evaluation and patient navigation.
This contract amendment will provide for AMR to facilitate the provision of on-scene telemedicine services
to patients, in accordance with all applicable District and CCCEMSA protocols, policies, and procedures. It
will also require paramedic personnel to receive additional training specific to the facilitation of
telemedicine services, including but not limited to: proper identification of patients appropriate for
telemedicine services; the relevant protocols, policies, and procedures; and use of technology to initiate,
establish, and conduct an on-scene telemedicine contact.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Fire Chief, or designee to execute a contract with Stryker Sales, LLC, in
an amount not to exceed $67,000, for maintenance of emergency medical equipment, for the period July 1,
2021 to June 30, 2022.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funds are budgeted in the CCCFPD EMS Transport Fund (fund 204000).
BACKGROUND:
The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (District) uses highly technical emergency medical
equipment to provide care on the scene of medical emergencies. LifePak defibrillators are utilized by
EMTs and Paramedics to analyze the heart's rhythm and, if necessary, deliver an electrical shock
(defibrillation) to help the heart re-establish an effective rhythm. They can also be used as a pacing device
and conduct 12-lead electrocardiograms. LUCAS chest compression systems provide consistent chest
compressions to cardiac arrest patients. Maintenance of this equipment is provided by the manufacturer,
Stryker Corporation.
The service plan obligates the District to hold Stryker harmless from and indemnify Stryker for any third
party claims or losses or injuries or death arising from the District's actions in performing the service
agreement.
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 07/20/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, Director
Candace Andersen,
Director
Diane Burgis, Director
Karen Mitchoff, Director
Federal D. Glover, Director
Contact: Terry Carey, Assistant Chief
925-941-3300
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of
the Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: July 20, 2021
, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc:
C.3
To:Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Board of Directors
From:Lewis T. Broschard III, Chief, Contra Costa Fire Protection District
Date:July 20, 2021
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Contract for Emergency Medical Equipment Maintenance Service Plan
RECOMMENDATION(S):
APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Fire Chief, or designee, to execute an agreement with Tele911, Inc., for
telemedicine and patient navigation services, at no cost to the District, for the period of July 13, 2021
through July 12, 2024.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Contractor shall perform the telemedicine and patient navigation services at no cost to the District. The
Contractor will seek payment by billing and collecting from patients for whose benefit the services are
provided.
BACKGROUND:
The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (District) is the exclusive emergency ambulance service
provider in emergency response areas 1, 2, and 5 of Contra Costa County. District first responders,
including District's subcontractor American Medical Response West (AMR), provide treatment and
transport to persons in the District service area 24 hours a day, every day. The District desires to add
telemedicine and patient navigation services to the services it provides to the persons in its service area.
Contractor is a technology company that integrates with Emergency Medical Service agencies to provide
telemedicine and patient navigation services by
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 07/20/2021 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, Director
Candace Andersen,
Director
Diane Burgis, Director
Karen Mitchoff, Director
Federal D. Glover, Director
Contact: Dr. Peter Benson, Medical
Director 925-941-3300
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes
of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: July 20, 2021
Monica Nino, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc:
C.2
To:Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Board of Directors
From:Lewis T. Broschard III, Chief, Contra Costa Fire Protection District
Date:July 20, 2021
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Telemedicine and Patient Navigation Services Agreement
BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)
connecting board-certified physicians with patients and directing, when appropriate, medically stable
patient transport to appropriate healthcare facilities. Contra Costa County Emergency Medical Service
Agency (CCCEMSA) has reviewed the agreement, the District will work with CCCEMSA and contractor
to develop telemedicine policies and protocols.
The proposed agreement does not guarantee that District will request any telemedicine contacts under the
agreement; and it does not provide any guarantee as to the volume of work that may be offered to
contractor by District. This agreement also does not establish an exclusive contract between District and
contractor. District expressly reserves all rights, including but not limited to the right to utilize others to
perform work of the type specified in this agreement.
An amendment to the District/AMR contract will be considered by the Board under a separate item to
address implementation of the telemedicine services contemplated in this agreement.