San Mateo County Grand Jury • 2011-2012

The County, San Carlos and Cal Fire, a Missed Opportunity?

Published: June 30, 2012 97 pages Consolidated Report
View Original PDF

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F8, F10, F12

Findings 14 findings

F1 Page 4
What would the impact on CAL FIRE be given the state’s budget problems and the Governor’s remark, as cited by Supervisor Tissier, that CAL FIRE should get out of the urban fire-fighting business? To this question, the CAL FIRE Unit Chief explained in the meeting that the Governor’s remarks had no bearing on the cooperative agreements that CAL FIRE had with either San Mateo County or the Coastside Fire District.3 2. What regional efforts to consolidate fire-fighting services are underway in the County? A discussion ensued in which members of the F&O Committee expressed support for regionalization. The “shared” Fire Chief for the San Mateo and Foster City Fire Departments, who was present at the meeting, volunteered that he would return in a month with a regionalization plan for five of the cities in the county: Foster City, San Mateo, Belmont, Redwood City and San Carlos. The Committee also requested its Staff to provide comparative 2 Although San Carlos was paying about $6.3 million from its general fund, the actual cost for fire services was $7.1 million, which is $800,000 more than cited in the Staff Report. It would, therefore, be more correct to say that the savings to San Carlos was between $1.4 million and $3.3 million annually. (The $800,000 was coming from the Belmont-San Carlos fire department reserves, which were deliberately being drained.) 3 In his 2011-2012 Budget Summary, dated January 10, 2011, Governor Brown recommended the realignment of CAL FIRE services in State Responsibility Areas. The recommendation would not affect contracts such as the ones CAL FIRE has with Coastside, San Mateo County and other local entities in which the contract covers the cost. http://2011-12.archives.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/FullBudgetSummary.pdf ( ) 4 cost data for a five-city approach. 4 (As a result, Staff subsequently requested CAL FIRE to submit a proposal for coverage of the five cities.) A follow-on F&O Committee meeting was scheduled for February 15, 2011 to allow time for the development of these proposals. The F&O Committee reconvened on February 15, 2011. The Staff Report prepared for that meeting (See, Appendix C) indicated that if CAL FIRE were to provide the above mentioned five cities with fire services, the combined annual savings to those cities would be an estimated $16.8 million. That includes salary reductions of existing fire personnel to the top-step level of the CAL FIRE salary scale, a 72-hour work week (versus the 56 hour work week that most city fire fighters are on), and closing one redundant station. The estimated annual savings would be $6.9 million if “red circling” of current employees was utilized. The Fire Chief for the San Mateo and Foster City Fire Departments did not present a five-city estimate as he had volunteered to do, nor did he appear at the meeting. From the audio transcript of this meeting we learned that the supervisors: 1. Wanted to promote regionalization as a primary means to reduce the cost of fire protection services for the cities in the County.
F2 Page 5
Stated that the County should not be in the fire-service business and that, since the January 18, 2011 meeting, other cities have asked the County for permission to subcontract for CAL FIRE services through the County’s CAL FIRE contract.
F3 Page 5
Stated that CAL FIRE itself needs to get out of urban services, as they interpreted the Governor to have “said.” 4. Stated that the Belmont-San Carlos Fire Department should be extended for at least three more years to allow regionalization to proceed, although, as Supervisor Groom stated, that might take “15 to 20” years.
F4 Page 6
Differences between work shifts of CAL FIRE and municipal fire departments, and differences in the wage rates and benefits, allow CAL FIRE to offer comparatively less expensive fire services in the Bay Area.
F5 Page 5
Stated that through mediation there was still an opportunity for the cities to reach an agreement on extending the joint fire department. The two Supervisors extended an offer to pay for mediation services between Belmont and San Carlos and to otherwise let the issue drop by not forwarding the matter to the full Board. The Supervisors did not address the potential savings to the County, to the cities, or to San Carlos presented in the staff reports prepared for either the January 18 or February 15, 2011 meetings. As anticipated by most of those interviewed, mediation failed. San Carlos Fire went on to contract with the Redwood City Fire Department for shared use of its command staff. While significant savings were achieved by San Carlos, the savings would have been greater if the City had been allowed to sub-contact with CAL FIRE under the County’s contract. Audio Transcripts of Committee Meetings may be obtained from the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Investigation The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury: 1. Read staff reports from the City of San Carlos and the County, 2. Watched a recording of the November 22, 2010 City of San Carlos Council meeting, 3. Listened to audio tapes of the County Finance and Operations Committee Meetings, 4. Read the Governors 2011-12 Budget Summary, press conference comments, and the Legislative Analyst’s Office interpretation of CAL FIRE realignment.
F6 Page 6
San Mateo County has contracted with CAL FIRE for services to its unincorporated areas since 1962. The current contract expires on June 30, 2012.
F7 Page 6
As of October, 2011 the San Mateo County budget deficit stood at $50 million.5 8. San Carlos requested that the County Board of Supervisors allow San Carlos to obtain fire protection services from CAL FIRE through the County’s contract with CAL FIRE. 5 http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/Attachments/cmo/pdfs/Budget%20&%20Performance/SeptemberRevisions_2011.pdf 6 The issue came before the two-member Finance and Operations Committee (the F&O Committee) on January 18, and February 15, 2011.
F9 Page 7
From the County staff report of January 18, 2011, adjusted for a budgetary mistake, CAL FIRE could have saved San Carlos between approximately $600,000 and $2.5 million per year.6 10. From the County staff report of January 18, 2011, in addition to substantial savings for San Carlos, bringing San Carlos under the County contract with CAL FIRE could have saved the County an additional $650,000 per year. Neither the savings to San Carlos or the County were discussed by the F&O Committee on January 18.
F11 Page 7
From the County staff report of February 15, 2011, “County Fire has a budget reduction target of $218,877 for FY 2011/12 with the goal of eventually eliminating all $1 million in general fund contributions.” (See, Appendix C) 12. In response to a request from the F&O Committee, CAL FIRE prepared a cost estimate for delivery of fire protection to five County cities (Redwood City, San Carlos, Belmont, Foster City and San Mateo). According to the County staff report of February 15, 2011, the estimated aggregate cost savings to those five cities could be between $1.7 million and $16.8 million per year.
F13 Page 7
The CAL FIRE service cost estimates and potential savings for the County and the five County cities were not discussed by the Committee members at the February 15, 2011, F&O Committee meeting.
F14 Page 7
From the audio transcripts of both the January 18 and February 15, 2011 F&O Committee meetings, Supervisor Adrienne Tissier said that the Governor had called for CAL FIRE getting out of the urban fire-fighting business.
F15 Page 7
The Governor’s January 10, 2011 recommendations on CAL FIRE realignment only applied to State Responsibility Areas and did not apply to contracts with local jurisdictions, such as its contracts with San Mateo County or the Coastside Fire District. There was no suggestion from the Governor that CAL FIRE should curtail delivery of urban fire protection services funded by counties or cities.
F16 Page 7
Also during the February 15, 2011 F&O Committee meeting, the Supervisors said that the County does not want to be in the fire-fighting business. The Supervisors further said they strongly supported regional fire-protection solutions in the County as a means to reduce redundant administrative and infrastructure costs to the cities.
F17 Page 7
The Supervisors recommended that Belmont and San Carlos enter into mediation to continue their joint fire department while regionalization alternatives could be explored. From interviews and meeting transcripts, most San Carlos and Belmont officials stated there was little chance for mediation to be successful. The Staff Report states that San Carlos was paying about $6.3 million from its general fund. This is true, but the actual cost for fire services was $7.1 million, which is $800,000 more than cited in the Staff Report. It would, therefore, be more correct to say that the savings to San Carlos was between $1.4 million and $3.3 million. 7 18. From the letter of the CAL FIRE Acting Director, quoted above, and from interviews with officials from various cities and fire-protection agencies, there is reluctance to consider expanding CAL FIRE’s role in San Mateo County because of opposition by the International Association of Firefighters, Local 2400. Conclusions The Grand Jury concludes as follows: 1. The County has been well served by CAL FIRE since 1962 and is well served today.

Recommendations 4

Conclusions 8

No Responses Found 2

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Agency
San Carlos City