HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06081993 - 2.A aE. Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS i
Costa
Coun}��
FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR
County Administrator °°s -=-; '�*y `�'
DATE: June 8, 1993
SUBJECT: FIRE DISTRICT MANAGEMENT COST ALLOCATION OPTIONS
Specific Request(s) or Recommendation(s) & Background & Justification
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Acknowledge receipt of report from County Administrator regarding the
allocation of management costs of the five integrated merit system fire
districts.
2. Consider action to be taken to allocate integrated management costs.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND:
On March 30, 1993 the Board of Supervisors approved an integrated management
structure for the five merit system County fire protection districts on an
interim basis until a more long-term plan can be determined in consultation
with the chairs of each of the five fully paid merit districts and chiefs of
the volunteer districts.
The interim integrated command and management plan designated Allen Little,
the Riverview Chief, as the Acting Chief for the other four paid districts
(Contra Costa, Orinda, Moraga and West County) . The three Assistant Chiefs
in the Contra Costa Fire District have assumed duties in the other four
districts.
Members of the Riverview, Contra Costa County and Moraga Fire Commissions
have expressed concerns about the allocation of the costs of the four
management positions and, in the case of Contra Costa County and Riverview
Fire, reimbursement for the costs of district staff assigned management
responsibilities in other districts.
Continued on Attachment: X YES Signature:
Recommendation of County Administrator
Recommendation of Board Committee
Approve Other
Signature(s) :
Action of Board on: June 8 . 1993 Approved as Recommended--L---OtherL-
Also REFERRED the report to the Chairs , Boards of Fire Commissioners , for
discussion at the June 10 , 1993 , 5 p.m. , joint meeting with the Board of
Supervisors at the Training Institute.
Vote of Supervisors: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
XX Unanimous (Absent ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
Ayes: Noes: ) BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN.
Contact: T. McGraw (646-4855) Attested: June 8 , 1993
cc: County Administrator Phil Batchelor, Clerk of
.Auditor-Controller the Board of Supervisors
County Counsel and County Administrator
County and Indep. Fire Districts ✓% .�
United Professional By: , DEPUTY
Firefighters Local 1230
Page 2, 6/8/93
The Board discussed this issue at the April 6, 1993 Workshop with the Chairs
of the Boards of Fire Commissioners. It was agreed that the costs of the
integrated management system would be apportioned to the five .merit system
districts on an equitable basis.
Accordingly, the County Administrator' s Office was requested to develop a
matrix for the allocation of costs using a number of alternative statistics.
Attached is a matrix showing each district' s percentage share of various fire
district characteristics. The categories used in the matrix reflect the
suggestions of the Board of Supervisors, the Chairs of the Board of Fire
Commissions,. fire district staff and the County Administrator ' s Office.
In considering the appropriate characteristic to be used to allocate costs,
it is suggested that the chosen statistic be easily determined, verified and
calculated. The statistic should relate to the activities of the fire
districts and reflect the time demands on the management staff.
Stations, engine companies, personnel and incidents all relate to the major
activity of the fire districts; however, incidents have a minimal
relationship to management demands. Information on these categories is
readily available.
The budget amounts meet all of the criteria including reflecting all of the
activities of the fire districts.
Parcels, population and assessed valuation have little or no direct
connection to management workload. Although population has an indirect
relationship to fire workload, its impact is more accurately reflected in the
stations, engine companies, personnel and budget statistics. Also, of all of
the characteristics under consideration, population is the most difficult to
determine and verify.
The salary and benefit costs of the four positions currently assigned to the
integrated management structure is $506,263 . For purposes of illustration,
if the current costs were allocated on the basis of the 1992-93 budgets, the
cost/revenue impacts on the districts would be as follows:
Less Credit Net District
1992-93 Cost for District Cost or
District Budgets Allocation Cost (Revenue)
Contra Costa 56. 3 $285,026 $366,974 $( 81, 948)
Moraga 6. 1 30,882 0 30,882
Orinda 7. 3 36,957 36, 957
Riverview 25. 2 127,578 139,289 ( 11,711)
West County 5. 1 25,819 25,819
In addition to the cost/savings impacts of the management cost allocation
illustration outlined above, there are also savings in each district as a
result of chief officer retirements that will not be filled. The effects of
the retirements on the management cost allocation are shown below:
Page 3, 6/8/93
Net District
Cost or Retirement Net District
District (Revenue) Savings Savings
Contra Costa $( 81,948) $157, 942 $239, 890
Moraga 30, 882 228,007 (A) 197,125
Orinda 36, 957 245,984 209,027
Riverview ( 11,711) 267, 363 279,074
West County 25,819 100,000 (B) 74,181
(A) Does not include Fire Chief retirement prior to 1992-93 at an
additional savings of approximately $125,000.
(B) No retirement. Savings are from elimination of management contract
with the City of Richmond.
It should be noted that the above allocation is only an example of the
potential methodology for allocating the costs of the functional integration.
The total amount to be allocated is unknown at this time. As the functional
integration plan is further developed and implemented, it is very likely that
other positions and costs will be added to the equation. ,
r
4a
O
. I d► b N O M .1 LO
r 1 FI r-I cl1 in to 10 N
D8r�
iC
44 w
O
W b dP
O tr
rI p A N � M M N co
D O d�
R�
00
tw
O
Won dP
tm G co O Cn co n
cn 0 -4 � N
O
b �
M O O
O1 rA •.i dP
I W +.1 r- M 00 N n
O ON W N d� d' O d�
O1 W ri 10 N
M W
Ct +� dP
1 M U I M N .•�
r N
O1 b 1D 10 n N to
HU to N
U H
H VJ
ca 0
a HHi ri do�
F-I
A U W +J W %D 00 %D d�
C�] r
,rF=•ij 10 N
W
O
z dP
0 U d r. OD . l N M
H H to b 10 N M A O1
a J 1
•U 1 N
U
A
W dP
4 O O %.0 00 r-
al
d� U O M M 00
1D N
a
as
M M Ln co r O
O
ra r� tri r� ri tri
Fr N N
a)
a
m
ai
d •rl dP
•r{ N t` 19 O1 t`
IC
N b+ r4- to OD N to
In N
rA
C.' dP
O 9 to r� 10 N
-1 +J d' tD M N 1D
to N N
H •rl O
W 14 O+ b FDI U
A s~ 14 •,11 D W
8 o a