Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03081994 - IO.1 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I .O.-1 ``�•SE..`'°F Contra yt FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Costa o� L x� _� •�°� County February 28, 1994 f;.. `� r�, y4o DATE: a cbuN`� SUBJECT: REPORT ON MEETING WITH BOARDS OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS OF FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS AFFECTED BY THE ANNEXATION APPLICATION PENDING WITH LAFCO SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: 1 . DIRECT the County Administrator to prepare a packet of information to send to the commissioners in the six fire protection districts (Contra Costa County, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Riverview, West County) which will be affected by the annexation application currently pending with LAFCO. The packet is to include the following information: ♦ The assessed value of each of the six fire protection districts, as well as the assessed value of each city 'and the unincorporated area in each of these six fire protection districts . ♦ The population in each of the cities in the six fire protection districts . ♦ A copy of the current County Ordinance Code sections pertaining to the duties of boards of fire commissioners . ♦ A copy of the portion of the Health & Safety Code which determines the size, term of office and other relevant information regarding members of boards of fire commissioners . ♦ A copy of the annexation application submitted to LAFCO. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COU TY AD I ST ATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE T SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD.ONAPPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE A_UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. i ATTESTED Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF CC: See Page 4 SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY / DEPUTY 2 . DIRECT the County Administrator to include with the above packet of information a request that each of the six boards of fire commissioners review the packet of information and then provide the County Administrator' s Office with their comments and recommendations on the following questions by no later than April 15, 1994 : ♦ Assuming there will be one new seven-member board of fire commissioners for the newly consolidated fire protection district, how would you recommend that it be structured in terms of representation and selection process, recognizing that the Board of Supervisors ultimately retains the final decision regarding appointments to the board of fire commissioners? ♦ How would you like to see the role of the board of fire commissioners defined, recognizing that the board of fire commissioners will be advisory to the Board of Supervisors and the Fire Chief? ♦ Since there can only be a seven-member board of fire commissioners for the newly consolidated fire protection district, would you recommend the use of advisory committees to provide input to the board of fire commissioners and, if so, how would you propose that such committees be structured and appointed? ♦ How would you propose that the Board of Supervisors respond to a situation where one or more of the six boards of fire commissioners is having difficulty achieving a quorum for meetings or where membership actually falls below a quorum prior to the time LAFCO approves the annexation application? 3 . DIRECT the County Administrator to write to the fire chiefs in the Los Angeles County, Sacramento County, and some of the other large fire districts in the state, asking how their boards of fire commissioners are structured and how members are selected. 4 . AGREE that it is the intent of the Board of Supervisors that the boards of fire commissioners of those fire protection districts which are annexed to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, including the current Board of Fire Commissioners of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, will be abolished effective with the date the annexation of the district to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District is effective. 5 . AGREE that it is the intent of the Board of Supervisors to replace the existing boards of fire commissioners of those districts which are annexed to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, including the Board of Fire Commissioners of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, with a new seven member board of fire commissioners pursuant to Health & Safety Code S 13844 . 6 . DIRECT Chief Little to report to the Board of Supervisors on a management structure for the newly consolidated district, . assuming that the district will have one Fire Chief, no more than three Assistant Chiefs, and the current number of battalion chiefs and to propose any changes in the management structure that he believes are necessary for the sound and professional management of the district. 7 . DETERMINE what process will be used to select a permanent chief for the newly consolidated fire protection district. 8 . AUTHORIZE the Internal Operations Committee to meet again with the commissioners of the six fire protection districts once responses have been received by the April 15, 1994 deadline and make further recommendations to the Board of Supervisors thereafter. 2 BACKGROUND: On February 28, 1994, the Internal Operations Committee met with 12 of the commissioners from the six fire protection districts which will be affected by the annexation application which is currently pending with LAFCO, along with Chief Allen Little, Russ Greenlaw from Firefighters Union, Local 1230 and other staff. On March 1, 1994, the Board of Supervisors ratified our decision to hold this meeting. At the February 28, 1994 meeting, Chief Little described the status of the application to LAFCO. It is our understanding that the application will be discussed at the March LAFCO meeting, but that no final action will be taken at that meeting. Commissioner Lewis from Riverview Fire Protection District reviewed the attached correspondence from the Riverview Board of Fire Commissioners, setting forth their thoughts about how a seven- member Commission might be structured and selected. Mr. Lewis noted that the Riverview Commission' s original thought had been that there should be a nine-member commission. Commissioner Harguth from the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District noted that when the fire code was reorganized in 1987 there were no suggestions that the maximum size of a fire commission be expanded beyond seven members . It was noted that the Los Angeles County Fire District, which serves dozens of cities, has a seven-member board of fire commissioners . Commissioner Chapman from the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District asked what the timeframe was for LAFCO action on the annexation application and suggested that it might be premature to try to structure a commission until LAFCO acts. Supervisor Smith responded that he expects that LAFCO will act on the application either in April or May. Commissioner Chapman suggested that we need to know from other large fire districts in California how their boards of fire commissioners are structured and selected so we do not have to "reinvent the wheel" . Commissioner Haynes from the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District suggested that each board of fire commissioners needs to do what Riverview had done and structure their own recommendations within the next 30 days. Supervisor McPeak agreed with Commissioner Haynes and asked that staff provide each commission with data on the assessed value and population of each fire district and each city within each district so the commissioners could get a sense of what would be needed for something close to a "one person - one vote" commission. She asked that each commission provide its comments and recommendations within the next 30 days . In response to a question from Commissioner Haynes about what the role of the new commission would be, Supervisor McPeak suggested that the commissioners review the current County Ordinance Code language and the relevant portions of the Health & Safety Code and asked that staff include these items in the package being prepared for each commissioner. Supervisor Smith responded to this same question by suggesting that the LAFCO application proposes that each of the other fire districts be annexed to the existing Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and therefore the duties of the new commission would more than likely parallel the current responsibilities of the Board of Fire Commissioners of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, recognizing that the final decisions will be made by the Board of Supervisors . Several questions were raised about filling vacancies on the existing commissions since at least one commission is having trouble getting a quorum for meetings . We have, therefore, asked each commission to comment on this issue. We did indicate, however, that we do not believe it makes any sense to appoint new 3 I .O..-1 commissioners at this time since it generally takes a year or more for a new commissioner to get "up to speed" on the activities of a fire district. It was also noted that the state law (Health & Safety Code § 13843) specifically provides that the term of office for a commissioner is "four years or until his or her successor qualifies and takes office. . . " and that there is, therefore, no problem with commissioners whose terms of office have expired continuing to serve in the interim. It may be that a commission should suspend operations for the time being if it is unable to get a quorum for meetings . Based on further discussion with the commissioners and staff who were present, our Committee has formulated the above recommendations . Although everyone seems to assume that the new commission will consist of seven members, we feel that it is appropriate for the Board of Supervisors to specifically decide this issue now so that we can work out a proposed structure and selection process with the size as a given. Our Committee is suggesting that the Board of Supervisors needs to determine what process is going to be used to select the permanent chief for the newly consolidated district. Our Committee feels that Chief Little is doing an excellent job. Supervisor McPeak, in particular, suggested that she sees no need for an open recruitment for the Chief 's position. We are recommending that Chief Little be asked to outline how he would see the management structure of the newly consolidated district. We are concerned that in consolidating the districts we not lose the savings we have made in reducing the management overhead to date. We are, therefore, asking that Chief Little assume that there will only be one Chief, three Assistant Chiefs and the current number of battalion chiefs . There may be other positions which are currently vacant which Chief Little believes need to be filled. We would like to have those positions identified so the Board of Supervisors can see what the overall management of the newly consolidated district will look like. We will probably ask to meet with the commissioners again on April 25, 1994 to review their response to the above questions and to formulate additional recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. cc: County Administrator Allen Little, Fire Chief County Counsel Scott Tandy, Chief Assistant Administrator Terry McGraw, CAO's Office 4 kivervi'm FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT February 25, 1994 Fire Commissioners: Chief ROBERT BALDRIDGE ALLEN LITTLE HORACE A.ENEA Contra Costa Board of Supervisors SIG LANSTROM IS Supervisor Tom Torlakson BOB LEWELIZABETH RIMBAULT 300 East Leland Road EDWARD SPENCER,Jr. JOE TOVAR,Jr. Pittsburg, CA 94565-4961 Subject: Modification to the Original Proposed Commission Formation for a New Consolidated Fire District Dear Tom and Members of the Board of Supervisors: As we have stated in the past, now that consolidation appears imminent, the members of the Riverview Fire Commission have turned their thoughts to the formation of the new fire commission and fairness throughout the County. Within the past few weeks it has come to our attention that the number of members on the Fire Commission is restricted by the Health and Safety Code to a five (5) or seven (7) member board. In our original proposal there was a nine (9) member panel. In order to stay within the parameters of the Health and Safety Code we would propose the following changes to our original proposal: 1. The number of seats for unincorporated area representatives would be reduced from three (3) to two (2) . Using a similar approach as we proposed with the Cities in each District rotating the seat. The Board of Supervisors would select one (1) commissioner from each of the unincorporated regions of the County. One East County representative from the unincorporated areas of East County, one from Central County and one from West County. Once again, any unincorporated area that has been contracting with the County for fire service would qualify in this category. This produces three (3) commissioners who would be rotated in the two (2) seats. 2. The number of seats for industry area representatives would be reduced from two (2) to one (1) . The Council on Industry shall recommend for appointment by the Board of Supervisors two (2) representatives of industry. One (1) representative shall be from the West County area and one (1) representative shall be from an East County industry. These two areas have the greatest impact from local industries. This would produce the two (2) commissioners who would be rotated in the one (1) seat. To summarize the make-up of the seven (7) member Fire Commission would be as follows: Cities 4 Unincorporated Area 2 Industry 1 I hope you will give these suggestions strong consideration. Sincerely, ROBERT LEWIS Chair, Riverview Fire Commission RL:lr Attachmq�WEST FOURTH STREET—ANTIOCH,CALIFORNIA 94509-1099—TELEPHONE(510)757-1303—FAX(510)754-8852 kiverview FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Fire Commissioners: Chief ROBERT BALDRIDGE ALLEN LITTLE HORACE A.ENEA SIG LANSTROM January 19, 1994 BOB LEWIS ELIZABETH RIM BAULT EDWARD SPENCER,Jr. JOE TOVAR,Jr. Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Supervisor Tom Torlakson 300 East Leland Road Pittsburg, CA 94565-4961 Subject: Commission Formation for a New Consolidated Fire District Dear Tom and Members of the Board of Supervisors: Now that consolidation appears imminent, the members of the Riverview Fire Commission have turned their thoughts to the formation of the new fire commission and fairness throughout the County. We are concerned about any imbalance that could occur and therefore believe the first four (4) seats on a new commission should go to cities currently parties to existing districts. Any city that contracts for services with the County as opposed to being a member city of a district would be counted within the County territories, i.e. , Pinole. Only incorporated cities within a given district would share the rotational seat. For example, the Riverview District is currently made up of Pittsburg, Antioch and the County area. The cities of Pittsburg and Antioch would rotate the one (1) seat on the new commission. This system, when applied to the five merit system districts, would produce four (4) commissioners. The Board of Supervisors would select one (1) commissioner from each of the unincorporated regions of the County. One East County representative from the unincorporated areas of East County, one from Central County and one from West County. Once again, any city that has been contracting with the County for fire service would also qualify in this category. This produces three (3) commissioners. The Council on Industry shall recommend for appointment by the Board of Supervisors two (2) representatives of industry. One (1) representative shall be from the West County area and one (1) representative shall be from an East County industry. These two areas have the greatest impact from local industries. This would produce the last two (2) commissioners for a total of a nine (9) member commission. At any time in the future should non-merit system districts be added to the consolidation, their areas will be added to the County territory for selection of the three (3) County district commissioners. If any additional merit system department is added to the new district, the incorporated cities of that department will be added to the list of cities for rotation between cities within that region. 1500 WEST FOURTH STREET—ANTIOCH,CALIFORNIA 94509-1099—TELEPHONE(510)757-1303—FAX(510)754-8852 r County Board of Supervisors Supervisor Tom Torlakson January 19, 1994 Page 2 The representatives of the cities and other commissioners shall always be non- fire personnel as they are to represent the citizenry of the district, not administration, and not labor of the fire districts. The choice of who shall represent the cities within the district shall belong to the cities themselves and only be officially ratified, but not selected, by the County Board of Supervisors. The industry representatives must have a physical plant located within East County and/or West County. The industries to share representation must be of a size that they have fire equipment and/or a fire department of their own on the plant site or in close proximity to their plant site. The industry representatives may be fire personnel and would be a great asset to the commission due to their knowledge of impact on adjacent communities. These are just a few of the suggestions I have at this time, and I believe we should all have the opportunity to add to this list for the formation of a strong board of commissioners that would have its eye to cost savings wherever possible, revenue sources, station locations, growth impacts and organizational structuring of the department. I do not necessarily believe the cities' representatives need to be current sitting council members. I do believe they need to have the time and the will to produce a well functioning fire district and that they should be given a strong voice in the operation of that district with their relationship to administration and the Board of Supervisors. I hope you will give these suggestions strong consideration. Sincerely, ELIZABETH A. RIMBAULT Chair, Riverview Fire Commission EAR:lr