Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11171992 - 2.3 2 . 3 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on November 17 , 1992 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson, McPeak NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Organizational Alternatives for County Fire Protection Districts and Results of Meetings with County Fire Commissions and Fire Chiefs The Board considered the recommendations of the County Adminis- trator as presented in his report on "Organizational Alternatives for County Fire Protection Districts and on Results of meetings with County Fire Commissions and Fire Chiefs." (A copy of the report is attached and included as a part of this document. ) Supervisor McPeak spoke on the need to organize and prepare for next year ' s fiscal challenge, and therefore recommended that the Board establish today a coordinating committee that would have the task of looking at all of the County' s budget and revenue options as well as a preferred organizational structure for the fire service to be consistent with that budgeting. She proposed that the membership of the Coordinating. Committee be as follows: A commissioner from each of the fire districts, two Supervisors, a representative of management selected from the fire chiefs, a representative of Local 1230, a member of the Contra Costa Tax Payers ' Association, and two members representative of business and labor at-large. Supervisor McPeak further recommended the establishment of a Liaison Committee comprised of a representative of each of the cities served by the five fire districts. She suggested that the Coordinating Committee begin looking at all of the budgeting options and that each fire district be requested to establish a labor/management team. Supervisor McPeak also recommended that the Board begin meeting monthly as the ex officio governing board of the fire protection districts beginning December 8, 1992, and the first meeting of each month thereafter. She expressed the belief. that this would allow for all fire matters to be brought to public focus through that agenda item. Supervisor McPeak spoke on the need to have dialogue on how to best coordinate service deliveries in the fire prevention area particularly in terms of personnel structure and training. Supervisor Powers concurred with the additional recommendations proposed by Supervisor McPeak as amended to insure adequate staffing for the particular activity. In referring to Supervisor McPeak' s comments on coordinating fire prevention activities, he proposed that consideration be given to doing some specific items in terms of the Orinda Protection District as follows: 1) Direct the staff to work with the Commission, the District and the City in order to explore ways to immediately develop revenue sources with a report to the Board of Supervisors as soon as possible; and 2) defer filling the position of Chief at this time pending the exploration of cost saving alternatives which would include contracting with the adjacent districts for administrative and other related services. Supervisor Powers then moved that the Board add Recommendation No. 9 which would establish the Coordinating and Liaison Committees as well as providing for the Board to meet on the first meeting of the month as the governing board of County Fire Protection Districts commencing with the Board Meeting of December 8 , 1992; and Recommen- - 1 - dation No. 10 to direct staff and appropriate Orinda community fire authorities to look at revenue sources for next year, to defer filling the chief' s. position, and to explore contracting with adjacent fire districts for administrative and other services. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Torlakson. Supervisor Schroder expressed concern with the magnitude of the charge given to the committee requiring consideration of all the alternatives presented in the report as referenced in Recommendation No. 7 . He moved to amend the motion to remove from consideration the service bureau proposal at this time with direction to the Committee to review the regional consolidation and integration concept. Fanden seconded the motion. She advised that she had some concerns relative to the service bureau proposal. Supervisor Torlakson advised that he could support the original motion. He referred to Recommendation No. 7 and proposed that it be further amended to include "with special emphasis on regional consolidation. " He expressed concern with the removal of the service bureau concept because of the possibility of overlooking potential cost saving measures that a service bureau might provide. Supervisor Torlakson proposed the addition of Recommendation No. 11 which would provide for the development of standardized requirements for volunteer firefighter recruitment programs relative to experience and training as well as requirements for continuing training once a volunteer firefighter position is secured. Supervisor Torlakson proposed that there be joint meetings of Boards of Fire Commissions within a region to fully discuss and explore the functional integration concept. Supervisor Powers commented on the need to emphasize regional cooperation that this Board is placing on the process. He then moved a substitute motion that includes a review of all the alternatives set forth in the County Administrators report while expressing the Board' s preference for regional consolidation, and Recommendations 9 and 10 as noted above. He further moved that the Board add Recommendation No. 11 to explore volunteer recruitment and training programs and to work with local commissions. Supervisor Torlakson seconded the substitute motion. Supervisor McPeak advised that she would support the substitute motion. Supervisor Schroder inquired as to the role of the fire commissions in the future and emphasized that care should be taken so as not to diminish their value. He voiced concern with the proposed assignment to the Coordinating Committee and expressed the belief that it should be the work of the fire commissions. Supervisor Fanden advised that she would like to hear from the fire chiefs who have been meeting on these issues. The Chair invited those who had expressed a desire to speak to come forward, and the following persons spoke: Sue Noe, 23 La Salle Drive, Moraga, expressed appreciation to -the Board for permitting the inclusion of the fire flow tax measure on the November 3 , 1992 ballot which. passed by 68. 8 percent of the vote in the District. Ms. Noe referred to a letter dated August 5, 1992, from Commission Chair Gordon Mason in which he requested that specific language be added to the Board' s Resolution No. 80/184 Section 3 providing that the full revenue derived from the tax will be retained and managed by the District. She advised that to date this has not been addressed but noted that it had been provided nominally. G - Ed Haynes, Vice Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, advised of his Board' s opposition to the service bureau concept as proposed. However, he expressed support for consolidation and functional integration on a regional basis. Chuck Blue, Board of Fire Commissioners, Orinda Fire Protection District, advised of the Commission' s support for the appointment of Walter Luihn, assistant chief, to the position of provisional chief or acting chief. Supervisor McPeak reviewed the provisions of the substitute motion. She noted that Item 7 was amended to state the Board' s preference for regional consolidation plus integration with continued consideration of other services integration options including the services bureau option. She recommended that Recommendation No. 8 be amended to add "and to explore the options proposed by Local 1230. " Supervisor Torlakson commented on the need to include in the review options to reduce overtime costs. Supervisor McPeak referred to Recommendation No. 9 establishing a Coordinating Committee with the composition as proposed and referral to the County Administrator for further review. She noted that this recommendation also includes the establishment of the Liaison Committee with the cities, and the establishment of the first meeting of each month for the Board of Supervisors to meet as the ex officio governing board of the Fire Districts. Supervisor McPeak further referred to Recommendation No. 10 relating to the Orinda Fire Protection District and the exploration of all funding options and streamlining the administration, and to refrain from filling the Chief 's position on a permanent basis pending review of all those options. She advised that the Board of Supervisors will take under consideration the request of the Orinda Fire Commission to make an interim apppointment and to have a recommendation back from the County Administrator on that. Suprvisor McPeak referred to Recommendation. No. 11 relative to a volunteer firefighter program. Supervisor Fanden advised that she could support the substitute motion with the exception of Recommendation No. 7 as it relates to the fire service bureau. Supervisor Schroder also concurred. There was agreement to withdraw their amended motion. The Chair called for the vote on the substitute motion to approve the County Administrator' s Recommendations Nos. 1, 2, 3 , 4 , 5 , 6, and 8 as amended, and Recommendations 9 through 11 as presented above. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson, McPeak Noes: None Absent: None i 3 - The Chair then called for the vote on Recommendation No. 7 of the County Administrator as amended to state the Board' s preference for regional consolidation plus integration with continued consideration of other services integration options including the service bureau option. The vote was as follows: Ayes: Supervisors Powers, Torlakson, McPeak Noes: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder Absent: None 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 altowe. ATTESTED: /7' /-2y ;?- PHIL BATCHELOR,Cleric of the Board of Supervisors and Cw*AdminMMor By Deputy cc: County Administrator County & Independent Fire Districts United Professional Firefighters, Local 1230 Auditor-Controller County Counsel 4 - 2.3 Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR a: Count County Administrator �'•yr t 1 COU_ DATE: November 17, 1992 SUBJECT: Report on Organizational Alternatives for County Fire Protection Districts and on Results of Meetings with County Fire Commissions and Fire Chiefs Specific Request( s) or Recommendation( s) & Background & Justification RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Accept this report on organizational alternatives for County fire districts and on the results of meetings with County fire commissions and fire chiefs. 2. Acknowledge the extremely negative . economic projections regarding the State budget that may result in further substantial budget reductions for fire districts. 3 . Acknowledge work and input of the fire chiefs regarding the pros and cons of the various organizational alternatives included in this report. 4. Review organizational alternatives presented in this report including the input provided on each option by County fire commissions and fire chiefs. 5. Acknowledge recommendation of County fire commissions in support of retaining local identity of fire districts. 6. Acknowledge recommendation of Fire Chiefs, detailed below, that serious consideration be .given to utilizing a regional approach in any further efforts to streamline County fire services, increase revenues, and obtain further cost efficiencies. 7 . Provide direction to the County Administrator and fire districts for further review of organizational alternatives. 8. Provide direction to the County Administrator and the fire chiefs to explore the potential for cost savings with Local 1230 as appropriate through the possible reduction and/or reclassification of personnel as discussed in this report. Continued on Attachment: X YES Signature: — Recommendation of County Administrator Recommendation of Board Committee Approve Other Signature(s) : Act of Board on: Approved as Recommended—tithe Vote of Supervisors: I HEREBY IFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CO CT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN Unanimous (Absent ERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE Ayes: Noes: ) ARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN. Contact: Terry McGraw (646-4 ) Atteste - cc: County Administrato hil Batchelor, Clerk of Auditor-Control th oard of Supervisors County Coun and Co y Administrator County a Indep. Fire Dist. Unit Professional By: DEPUTY firefighters Local 1230 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND: On September 8, 1992 , the Board of Supervisors accepted the report of the County Administrator on the status of the ongoing discussion and review of the concept of the functional integration of the fire districts. The report described the activities of fire agencies in east and west county in exploring the potential of regional coordination and functional integration. The Board directed the County Administrator' s Office to meet with the fire chiefs, fire commissioners and representatives of Local 1230 to discuss functional integration and other organizational alternatives. A team from the County Administrator' s Office (Scott Tandy, George Roemer and Terry McGraw) has scheduled meetings with the fire chiefs and commissions of the five merit system fire districts. As of November 17, 1992, the team will have met with four of the commissions. The Moraga Fire Commission was not able to schedule a meeting until November 23 , 1992. The objective of the meetings with the commissions was to outline and discuss the following organizational alternatives: 1. Current District Structure 2. Independent Districts 3 . Functional Integration 4. Regional Integration/Consolidation 5. Service Bureau On October 21, 1992, the CAO .team met with the chief and commission of the Riverview Fire District. The commissioners expressed concern about retaining the operational integrity of the District and the ability to raise revenue to be retained for the benefit of the District. While the commissioners recognized the necessity to review alternatives, they also believed that the reorganization proposal cannot be developed in a few months time. The commission concluded that regional integration would be the best alternative for the east county. On October 27 , 1992, - the CAO team met with the Orinda Fire Protection District Chief and Commission. The commissioners were adamant about maintaining the local identity of the District. In view of the financial situation, the commissioners indicated a willingness to consider further elements on functional- integration. The CAO team met with the West County Fire Commission on November 10, 1992 . The commission is very cognizant of the bleak financial condition of the fire districts and is extremely concerned about the financial viability of the District. I The commissioners are very receptive to virtually any organizational change that will enable the District to continue the provision of fire services to the residents of the District. The commissioners stressed the need to involve area elected officials in the reorganization process. Local 1230 was invited to attend the meetings with the fire commissions. One or more representatives of Local 1230 attended the meetings with the Riverview, Orinda and West County Fire Protection Districts. A meeting is scheduled with the Contra Costa County Fire Commission for November 12, 1992 . Over the past couple of weeks, the CAO team has held group meetings with the chiefs and other representatives of all of the county and independent fire districts to discuss organizational alternatives. The chiefs thoroughly discussed all aspects of the organizational alternatives . The discussion resulted in defining the alternatives and developing positive and negative characteristics of each alternative as outlined below: Alternative Organizational Concepts Current District Structure This alternative describes the districts as they exist today. This title was chosen rather than Status Quo or Do Nothing because those titles imply stagnation or inability to change. On the contrary, the current district structure has provided for organizational change and functional integration. In fact, a couple of the current districts are the result of consolidation. Pro' s System Works Local Identity/Input Community Support Business Industry Citizens Local Control on Service Level Local Revenue Generation Possibilities Specialized Service Opportunity Retains Existing Structures Allows for Internal/External Reorganization Allows for Shared; Economies and Services Con' s 0 Lack of Local Control on Service Levels Inadequate Funding More Costly Allows Redundancies Does Not Foster Change Obstacle to Major ' Restructuring Due to Multiple Localized Community Identification Independent Districts This alternative could be implemented with the current configuration of districts or in conjunction with the mergers of two or more districts. Pro' s Local Elected Board Local Control Administrative Flexibility Legal Auditor Personnel Payroll Meet/Confer Accounts Payable General Services Control of Codes and Ordinances Can Carry Over Any $ Surplus Easier to Impose Benefit Assessments or Other Revenue Enhancements Con' s Local Elected Board Local Control Loss of Bailout More Difficult to . Merge Districts Raises Question of Fair Share Functional Integration Functional Integration involves an agreement between two existing agencies to integrate functions by one of the agencies performing a function 3 for the other agencies. This alternative somewhat overlaps with the Current District Structure in that the Current District Structure has provided for several instances of functional integration. Notable examples of functional integration that have been implemented include communications and dispatch service provided by Contra Costa County Fire to Moraga, Orinda and the four east county districts and Fire Prevention Bureau services provided by Riverview Fire to the east county volunteer districts. Pro' s Eliminate Duplication Services and Equipment Improve Efficiency Sharing Resources Foster Standardization Increase Flexibility More Politically Acceptable at Community Level Insures Continuation of Local Input Utilize Existing Expertise and Skills Tend to Strengthen Programs Allow for Special Equipment Acquisition Result in Long-Term Savings Retain Local Identity Con' s Potential for Local Resistance Some Additional Short-Term Costs Issues Needs: Workload Analysis Job Descriptions Regional Consolidation/Integration Similar to Functional Integration but the integration would occur on a regional basis rather than county-wide. This alternative could also involve actual consolidation of districts. Pro' s - All Regions Standardize Training Uniformity for Operations Builds on Current Efforts in East and West County Promotes/Preserves Greater Degree of Local Identity ♦ Greater Support for Local Assessments ♦ Facilitates Different Levels of Services and Political Jurisdictions, i.e. , City, County and Independent Fire Agencies as in West County Con' s - East (Consolidation) Labor Opposition Differing Service Levels Paid Volunteers Added Costs to Train to Standard Levels Community Opposition Loss of Local Control Issue $1 Million per Station Annual Cost to Convert from Volunteer to Paid Personnel 4 Con' s - Central (Consolidation) Differing Service Levels Paramedic Ambulance Added Cost to Train to Standard Levels Community Opposition Loss of Control Con' s - West (Consolidation) Loss of Control by Political Entities Differing Salary and Benefit Levels Service Bureau This alternative involves the creation and staffing of a new organization that would relieve the. fire districts of responsibility for all activities other than fire suppression and medical emergency response. Some of the services provided by the Bureau would include budget, training, Fire Prevention Bureau functions, personnel, dispatch, vehicle maintenance and purchasing. Pro' s Budget Uniformity May Encourage Standardization of Stores ( ? ) Encourages Communication Promotional Opportunities Con' s Loss of Budget Cost Control and Containment Loss of Emergency Personnel Promotional Opportunity Reduced New. Bureaucracy Too Many Functions Cannot Accommodate Diversity of Equipment/Needs Loss of Personnel Flexibility Duplicates Existing Systems Disrupts Existing Systems that Work Now Less Responsive Increased Costs with Reduced Services Separates Authority from Responsibility Erodes Local Control - Diminishes Chiefs' Ability to Maintain Service Levels and Respond to Local Needs Service Bureau Chief/Director Would Become the De Facto County Fire Chief More Costly - Less Efficient Duplication of Personnel Degradation of Emergency Services Would Generate Conflicts Between Cities, Fire Commissions, Citizens, the Bureau and the Board of Supervisors Would Be Staffed with Non-Safety Personnel Would Eliminate Joint (Multi Tasks) Use of Personnel Service Bureau - Subdivision A and B A. Standard ratios for management/line staff. Salaries of management standardized and based on span of supervision/number of personnel. 1. Incident Command System (ICS) 2. Staffing review should involve all ranks 3 . 15. 3% between Senior Firefighter and Captain B. Same as A but would include fire suppression and emergency response. 5 Advisory Council Commissions 1230 Board of Supervisors City Representation Alternatives Could Contract for Selected Elements Training Arson Prevention/Plan Check Weed Abatement/Fire Trails Discussion After meeting for four half-days on the organizational issues, the fire chiefs unanimously agreed that the regional approach was the best alternative for dealing with the changes that must occur as a result of the current and projected funding problems. The chiefs believe that reorganization or functional integration on a regional basis will have community support and offer the best opportunity for developing additional revenues. Regardless of which organizational alternatives are pursued, the economic climate dictates that district staffing and salary patterns be examined to identify any potential cost savings through staff reductions or reclassifications. The fire districts should be reviewed in relation to each other from the standpoint of the following: Span of control • Numbers of fire stations and other facilities • Workload of the various divisions with the districts • Relationship. of classification levels to assignments and responsibilities • Comparison of County fire district staffing hierarchy and salary levels to other fire agencies This review should apply to all positions in the fire districts from firefighters and clerical to chief officers. Attached is a matrix which outlines the staffing patterns of fire suppression, emergency medical response, administration, clerical, Fire Prevention Bureau ( inspections, plan check, etc. ) and training functions that should be examined. The review should also explore the concept of the possible reclassification of a number of captain positions to lieutenants. 6 Attachment to 11/17/92 Report On Organization Alternatives for County Fire Protection Districts Districts Classification/ Contra West Function Costa County Moraga Orinda Riverview County Total No. of Stations 19 2 3 7 2 33 Fire Chief 1 1 1 1 0 4 Assistant Chief 3 1 1 2 0 6 Administrative Officer 2 0 0 1 0 3 Battalion Chief 8 0 0 3 1 12 Captain , 51 6 9 24 6 96 Senior Firefighter . 72 11 9 24 6 122 Firefighter 91 10 15 36 9 161 Fire Prevention Bureau 21(A) (D) 1 1 10(C) 1 34 Clerical 11 1(B) 1. 5 8 1 22. 5 Training 3 0 0 1 0 4 (A) Includes one assistant chief. counted above. (B) Full time equivalent position. ( C) Plus four hourly (PI ) fire education specialists. (D) Plus three hourly (PI ) fire education specialists.