Score: -1
(0/5/1)
Contra Costa County Grand Jury
• 2007-2008
Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report 0801 Compliance and Review Committee Report The Contra Costa County Civil Grand
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 30 findings
F1
Page 2
The five-member elected Board of Supervisors is the governing body of Contra Costa County, responsible for the County budget and the operations of the County government. Response: Agree.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Page 2
The California Constitution provides that the Board of Supervisors shall prescribe by ordinance the compensation of its members: Article XI, Section I, Subsection (b). Response: Agree.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Page 2
The California Penal Code, section 927, reads as follows: “A grand jury may, and when requested by the board of supervisors shall, investigate and report upon the needs for increase or decrease in salaries of the county-elected officials. A copy of such a report shall be transmitted to the board of supervisors.” Response: Agree.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Page 2
As elected County officials, Supervisors receive a salary that is paid without regard to hours worked. Given the commitments of the many boards, committees, and authorities, most Supervisors work 50-70 hours per week. Response: Agree.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Page 2
As of December 2006, Contra Costa County Supervisors received a monthly salary of $4,993 ($59,916 annually) and an auto allowance of $550 per month, plus a mileage reimbursement. The County contributed $60 per month plus $6,000 annually, to their deferred compensation account. Supervisors are entitled to the same benefits as all other County employees. Response: Partially disagree. The Supervisors are not eligible to earn the paid leave credits earned by other County employees, such as vacation, sick leave, administrative leave, and floating holiday leave. 2 6. Typically, each supervisor serves on more than 25 County and regional boards, commissions and authorities, most of which do not pay stipends (fixed sum of money paid periodically for services). Estimated total stipends range from approximately $300 to $600 monthly per Supervisor. Paying stipends to supervisors is a common practice in California. Response: Agree, with the clarification that for 2007, each Supervisor serves on between 20 to 25 regional boards, commissions, and authorities.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Page 9
County healthcare plan participation is available to “eligible dependents.” Eligible dependents are defined as legal spouses, qualified domestic partners, unmarried children under the age of 19 for whom the employee or retiree has legal responsibility, and children under the age of 25 that, according to IRS regulations, are more than 50% dependent on the employee or retiree, and who are anticipated to be claimed as dependent children on the employee’s or retiree’s income tax return. Eligible dependents between the ages of 19-25 need not be full-time students to be eligible to participate in the healthcare plans. Disabled children over the age of 19 are also eligible to participate provided their disability occurred prior to their reaching the age of 19, and that they also are dependents as defined by IRS regulations. Response: Agree with clarification. The County’s requirement is that the dependent is an IRS Qualifying dependent. IRS regulations (IRS Publication 501) require (with some exceptions) student status for dependents over age 19.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Page 3
The six other elected County officials’ annual current salaries range from $120,519 to $183,393. The twenty-one County executives’ and department heads’ salaries range from $86,841 to $271,000. Response: Agree, with the clarification that the high end of the department head salary range includes special differential pay for on-call duty.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
Page 3
Twenty-four percent (24%) of all County employees (union and non-union) have higher salaries than Supervisors. Response: Agree.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
Page 3
The County has a history of maintaining competitive compensation for the workforce. This has been demonstrated in past years by salary increases and cost- of-living adjustments (“COLA”) for union and non-union employees. The Supervisors have not followed this practice for their own positions. The Supervisors' last salary adjustments of 2.02 % ($85 per month) and 3.55% ($152 per month) occurred in June and October 1998, respectively. Their last COLA adjustment of 4.1% ($198 per month) occurred in October 2001. Response: Agree.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Page 3
To evaluate the relative compensation of the BOS, the Grand Jury selected six counties of comparable population and budget sizes as follows: California County Comparison (based on population and budget sizes)(October 2006) County Monthly Monthly Auto Deferred County Budget Population Salary* Allowance Compensation (Billions) Alameda $10,046 $310.56 biwkly $8,000/yr $2.19 1,500,000 Ventura $8,790 $375 Up to $263/mo $1.47 742,000 Fresno $7,534 $250 $0 $1.28 824,000 San Mateo $6,981 $385 biwkly $0 $1.48 707,000 Kern $6,854 $584 $0 $1.30 703,000 Sacramento $6,593 $500 $0 $2.35 1,219,000 Contra Costa $4,993 $550+mileage $60/mo + $6,000/yr $1.45 1,000,000 3 Notes: *Salary formula (10/2006): Alameda sets their BOS salaries at 80% of Superior Court Judges. **County/regional committee stipends and county benefit payments were also considered but excluded because it was difficult to obtain accurate and comparable data. The fees and benefit practices were consistent among the counties studied. Response: Agree that compared to counties of similar population and budget, Contra Costa Board member compensation was the lowest in October 2006 when excluding retirement and health benefits.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
Page 4
The County salary comparison used all income items paid to the Supervisors for which comparable and consistent data were available, including salary, auto allowance (excluding mileage) and deferred compensation. The total supervisor compensation for counties included in the survey was then adjusted for cost of living differences, compared to the Contra Costa County base of 100.0%. Following is the summary with the compensation dollars adjusted for cost-of-living differences: County Base Salary Cost-of-Living Adjusted Defer Comp, & Car Index by County* Compensation Alameda $11,386 104.0% $10,948 Ventura $9,428 93.0 $10,138 Fresno $7,784 83.0 $9,378 San Mateo $7,815 114.0 $6,855 Kern $7,438 77.0 $9,660 Sacramento $7,093 84.0 $8,440 Contra Costa $6,103 100.0% $6,103 Six counties: Average = $9,237, or 51.4% above Contra Costa County’s total compensation (salary, auto allowance and deferred compensation) for Supervisors. Note: *Cost-of-living differences in the six counties selected for comparisons incorporates consumer purchasing, housing, transportation, taxes, health care, and miscellaneous items (i.e., private schools and recreation). The source of data is from the Economic Research Institute (ERI). Response: Agree that in October 2006, Contra Costa Board member compensation was the lowest when excluding retirement and health benefits and when adjusted by the cost- of-living index.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
Page 4
Based primarily on the geographic size of the districts, Supervisors for Districts I, II and IV are entitled to four and one-half (4 1/2) Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) staff members. The Supervisor for District III is entitled to six (6) FTE staff members. The Supervisor for District V is entitled to five (5) FTE staff members. Supervisors may split FTE positions into several part-time positions in order to extend office coverage. Following is a list of positions and monthly salaries for the Supervisors’ FTE staff members: 4 BOS Chief of Staff $5,329.30 BOS Specialist $4,602.87-4,833.02 BOS General Secretarial $3,507.83-4,385.34 BOS General Office $2,440.01-3,433.35 Staff members are hired by the elected Supervisors and are employed as “at will” employees as a condition of their employment. These four positions are in unique County classifications not used by other County departments. As such, they are not regularly market-surveyed in regard to compensation. The last salary adjustment, (other than COLA), was given in 1998 when the positions were re-titled and the salaries were increased by 5.02%. All positions are eligible for COLA increases approved by the County for non-union employees. In 2004, all non-union County employees were granted an increase of 3.0%. Response: Agree.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
Page 5
The Supervisors’ staff positions are not comparable to other County job classifications. The salary ranges for the Supervisors’ staff are established relative to the Chief of Staff position. Using the same methodology as for Supervisors, following is a summary of the survey information and adjusted compensation based on the cost-of-living index. County BOS Chief of Staff Cost-of-Living Adjusted Monthly Salary Index by County Compensation Alameda $8,411 104.0% $8,088 Ventura $6,257 93.0 $6,728 Fresno $4,563 83.0 $5,498 San Mateo $5,751 114.0 $5,045 Kern $4,334 77.0 $5,629 Sacramento $4,892 84.0 $5,824 Contra Costa $5,329 100.0% $5,329 Six counties: Average = $6,135, or 15.1% above Contra Costa County’s salary for BOS Chief of Staff Response: Agree that Contra Costa County Supervisors’ staff positions have the lowest salaries among similar counties when excluding retirement, health, and other benefits. Note however that a comparison of Supervisor staff and job classifications among similar counties is not as simple as comparing the Supervisors’ salaries. Although the staff positions are “at will”, they are eligible for the same array of benefits as County management employees. Benefits such as retirement, group health insurance, and retiree health figure significantly in the total compensation package. Consequently, a comparison of staff positions compensation should consider all material compensation factors. Moreover, the job classifications and requirements for the staff positions may 5 differ significantly from county to county depending on how the Board and County Administrative functions are organized.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
Page 6
Each County Supervisor’s budget is prepared in cooperation with the County Administrator and subsequently adopted by the BOS. While Supervisors may request special consideration for budget adjustments, including staff salary increases, they have not done so. Response: Agree. Supervisors staffing and salary levels have been maintained at consistent service levels since 2001. Budget allocations have been increased commensurate with cost-of-living and employee benefits increases.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
Page 11
The healthcare eligibility benefits administration computer system, installed in 1989, does not allow for automated, self-service inquires and information updates by eligible employees, retirees, and dependents. The system’s limited flexibility also does not allow the HR department to easily generate the ad hoc reports necessary to help analyze eligibility data. Response: Agree.
No recommendations for this finding
F16
Page 11
The HR department hopes to replace its aging healthcare benefits administration system. Qualified data processing system vendors will be given the opportunity to submit proposals for a new system to meet the County’s requirements. Response: Agree with clarification. It is our intent to upgrade the current PeopleSoft Human Resources System to include the Benefits Administration module. It would not be a new system, but the inclusion of functions currently available through PeopleSoft/Oracle.
No recommendations for this finding
F17
Page 18
Since 1980, Contra Costa County’s population has increased from approximately 656,000 to more than 1.1 million. BOS Response: Agree. OS Response: Agree.
No recommendations for this finding
F18
Page 18
The Lab makes use of a 40-year old functional model that requires criminalists to divide their time between performing laboratory-based scientific tests and conducting crime scene investigations. Statistics for 2005 show that 36% of total criminalists’ work hours were devoted to crime scene investigations. BOS Response: Agree. OS Response: Agree.
No recommendations for this finding
F19
Page 18
The County requires scientifically trained criminalists to be sworn peace officers; i.e., County Deputy Sheriffs. Contra Costa is the last county in the state with the 18 sworn officer requirement. The next to last, San Bernardino County, eliminated the requirement 20 years ago. BOS Response: Agree. OS Response: Agree.
No recommendations for this finding
F20
Page 19
The County received applications from only two qualified, experienced candidates for the vacant Deputy Sheriff-Criminalists positions during the 2005 recruitment effort, due in part to the sworn officer requirement. BOS Response: Agree. OS Response: Agree.
No recommendations for this finding
F21
Page 19
Few of the local police agencies the Lab’s Criminalistics Section serves have their own dedicated Crime Scene Investigation (“CSI”) units. Instead, they rely on the Criminalistics Section to provide such support, reportedly in some cases, coverage for simply unavailable, ill or vacationing investigators in some local police departments. BOS Response: Agree. OS Response: Agree.
No recommendations for this finding
F22
Page 19
By comparison to the Lab’s newer and larger Muir Road facility, the available space for the Criminalistics Section’s staff at the Escobar Road location is outdated and inadequate from a square footage standpoint to meet current staff, testing, and storage requirements, let alone future, needs if it were appropriately staffed. BOS Response: Agree. OS Response: Agree.
No recommendations for this finding
F23
Page 19
The County’s Office of the District Attorney (“DA”) points to a consistently high level of test quality and Lab staff professionalism. The DA is unaware of any instances when his office was not able to expedite Lab testing if necessary for a felony case that finally went to trial. BOS Response: Agree, with confirmation from the District Attorney. OS Response: Agree. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Sheriff should seek approval to increase the number of authorized and budgeted criminalists in the Lab from the current 1980 level of 11, to between 20 and 24, to be assigned as required in the Criminalistic Section’s Biology, Firearms, and Trace & Impression sub-units. BOS Response: Has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future once funding is available. County funding is not available for the expansion of criminalist staffing in the upcoming Fiscal Year 07/08. The Sheriff’s Office is actively pursuing federal and state grants to augment existing staff pending availability of county funding. OS Response: The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. The timeframe to implement this recommendation can not be accurately determined given the current budget constraints. The Sheriff’s Office is supportive of the recommended increase in the number of authorized and budgeted criminalists. However, county funding is required to meet this recommendation. The Sheriff’s Office is actively pursuing federal and state grants to augment existing staff until county funding becomes available. County funding is not available for the expansion of criminalist staffing in the upcoming fiscal year 07/08.
No recommendations for this finding
F24
Page 40
San Pablo’s Redevelopment Agency encourages real estate development. Yet, while fire agencies are charged with protecting new developments, the tax increases generated by the developments go to the Redevelopment Agency. Some of the new tax increases are passed through to CCCFPD by negotiation or by statute, but they are insufficient to support the city’s needs related to fire and medical emergency protection. BOS Response: Agree. SPCC Response dated August 23, 2007: The Agency has an agreement with the County that recognizes the needs of San Pablo for new, safe development to offset the current blighted state of the community. This is standard practice throughout the State of 40 California, and these revenues are being used wisely to assist the community with the lowest per capita income in the Bay Area. SPCC Response dated October 1, 2007: The City of San Pablo agrees with the finding, but wishes to clarify that there have been no “tax increases” in the normal sense of the word; rather, redevelopment activities within the City result in increased property tax revenue based on higher assessed valuations by the County Assessor’s office. Further, the City agreed to supplement the redevelopment monies provided to CCCFPD by “negotiation or statute” by an additional $180,000 for fiscal year 2006-2007.
No recommendations for this finding
F25
Page 41
The CCCFPD’s single engine company located in San Pablo is the busiest in the County, and one of the busiest in California. It has three firefighters on duty at any given time, who respond to a population in excess of 35,000 people. Three firefighters are not sufficient to fight a structure fire, so in every case, the occupants, contents, and structure are at risk until firefighting crews and equipment arrive from other departments in West County. BOS Response: Agree. SPCC Response dated August 23, 2007: The County Board of Supervisors sets the budget that delivers the service level for fire protection throughout all of the CCCFPD. Only the Board can address this question. SPCC Response dated October 1, 2007: The City of San Pablo partially disagrees. The portion of the finding disagreed with concludes that three firefighters are not sufficient to fight a structure fire, placing occupants, contents and structure at risk “in every case.” Structure fires presumably vary by size, type of construction materials, contents of the building, and whether they contain fire sprinkler systems. The City disagrees that the San Pablo engine company as presently constituted is insufficient in every case to fight a structure fire.
No recommendations for this finding
F26
Page 41
In West County, El Cerrito and Kensington maintain a ratio of one firefighter for every 3,400 in population. Richmond’s ratio is about one for 5,300. Pinole and Rodeo-Hercules maintain one for every 6,000 people. The San Pablo station would require two more engine companies to match Richmond’s ratio. Meanwhile, it falls to the agencies adjoining the San Pablo area to answer calls on a regular basis in San Pablo and environs. BOS Response: Agree. In addition, the presence of Casino San Pablo has increased the number of calls. In 2004, CCCFPD responded to 28 emergency calls at the Casino. As the Casino expanded, the number of required responses increased, with 101 responses in 2006. RCC Response: Respondent partially disagrees with the finding. Richmond’s ratio is about one for 3875 41 SPCC Response dated August 23, 2007: San Pablo is part of the CCCFPD which is governed by the County Board of Supervisors who establishes funding and service levels. San Pablo is paying up to $180,000 per year to the CCCFPD to cover expenses owed to Richmond for out-of-area service calls. Additionally, perhaps the composition of the area to be protected dictates the number of firefighters. As an example, Richmond and Rodeo must be prepared to respond to refinery fires.. SPCC Response dated October 1, 2007: The City of San Pablo agrees with the finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F27
Page 42
The CCCFPD engine company in San Pablo is housed in temporary structures. It is inadequate to house an additional truck or engine, and another engine company. BOS Response: Agree. SPCC Response: We accept the Grand Jury’s finding.
No recommendations for this finding
F28
Page 42
Richmond terminated its automatic aid agreement with CCCFPD, effective August 1, 2002. The initial reasons given by Richmond were that the assumption of control of two El Sobrante stations by CCCFPD, and CCCFPD’s refusal to utilize Richmond’s 800 MHz radio, were somehow “unsafe.” Later, Richmond claimed it was financially subsidizing CCCFPD, by virtue of its need to respond to an excess number of calls in and around San Pablo, along with dispatching greater numbers of personnel and equipment to the emergency scene. Automatic aid was resumed in July 2006 based upon a written one-year agreement. The agreement requires the agency responding more often to the other agency’s calls to reimburse that agency based on an hourly formula that includes the number of firefighters dispatched. BOS Response: Agree. RCC Response: Respondent disagrees with the finding. Richmond Fire discontinued automatic aid with the county for a number of reasons. The biggest challenge was that the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District was not interested in working collaboratively with us to resolve response issues. There was also no interest in training, common dispatching, working the same shift schedule, or compensation to the city of Richmond for services provided. The Richmond Fire Department was expected to provide fire service into North Richmond, San Pablo, East Richmond Heights and El Sobrante at no cost to the County (See #26).
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Page 44
or otherwise. BOS Response: Has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented at the appropriate time when the system costs are identified for each agency. RCC Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The City of Richmond has signed a letter of intent and a joint powers agreement to become a member of the East Bay Regional Communicators System. Funds for this purpose are in the current budget. 5. That Richmond complete its study of the AVL system, and join the AVL system of this report. BOS Response: Required from the Richmond City Council. RCC Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented. The Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) system would have to be an added component to the New World Computer Aided Dispatch System utilized in the Richmond Police/Fire Dispatch Center. The estimated cost of this system is $45,000. Additional funding would be required before acquisition and implementation occurred. The Richmond Fire Department has already been programmed into Contra Costa County Fire’s AVL system and has been an active user for over a year. 6. That Contra Costa County and Richmond, of this report, enter into a long-term agreement that will fairly compensate for the net difference in cost of emergency responses across Richmond’s city limit lines. BOS Response: Has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented as soon as possible. A temporary agreement is currently in effect between Contra Costa County Fire District and Richmond Fire. RCC Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented. The Richmond Fire Department on behalf of the City of Richmond is working with the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District to finalize a permanent automatic aid agreement in the next six months. The current preliminary automatic aid agreement has a formula for payment that will reimburse the appropriate fire agency for the net difference in calls. 7. That Contra Costa County and San Pablo, of this report, enter into an agreement that will provide that San Pablo pay the approximate net difference in costs of automatic aid responses into the city by other agencies. BOS Response: Requires further analysis. The mutual/automatic aid system is designed to provide assistance to other agencies without compensation. The system has worked successfully for decades, and has leveraged the resources of fire districts to the benefit of all. The current one year agreement with the City of Richmond is an anomaly. If a contractual relationship is necessary to assure automatic aid response upon expiration of the contract with the City of Richmond, then the Fire District will conduct an analysis to identify available options SPCC Response dated August 23, 2007: That Contra Costa County and San Pablo, of this report, enter into an agreement that will provide that San Pablo pay the approximate net difference in costs of automatic aid responses into the city by other Agencies. SPCC Response dated October 1, 2007: The recommendation will not be implemented as far as a formal written agreement within such time period. The City did not enter into 45 a written agreement earlier this year based on the lack of contractually definite terms and provisions specifying the exact obligations of each party; and further out of a fiscally responsible desire to review services provided under the automatic aid relationship. Due to the uncertainties and lack of specific information involved, and the lack of time before the deadline expressed in the Grand Jury’s recommendation, the City believes that a written agreement cannot be finalized in such a short period. The City Council has, however, demonstrated its commitment to ensure that San Pablo pays its fair share of fire protection costs. It adopted Resolution 2007-21, which provides that San Pablo will pay its pro-rata share of automatic aid responses from the City of Richmond Fire Department into the City of San Pablo for fiscal year 2006-2007. Again, the San Pablo City Council has publicly expressed its wiliness, and demonstrated its commitment to support the CCFPD to the extent fair and necessary, as witnessed by Resolution 2007-21. The City unilaterally continued this obligation by appropriating $180,000 in its budget for fiscal year 2007-2008. As further information becomes available, the city is not adverse to memorializing this commitment into a fair written agreement. 8. That Contra Costa County, of this report, publish, and within one year adopt, a plan to increase from one to two engine companies within the city or environs of San Pablo. BOS Response: Requires further analysis. The Fire District will invite the City of San Pablo to join with them in assessing the fire protection and medical emergency response needs of the city of San Pablo, including Casino San Pablo. , the Fire District will produce a plan on how to meet those needs, including capital improvement, staffing and financing options. SPCC Response: Only the Board of Supervisors can respond to this recommendation. 9. That Contra Costa County, of this report, publish, and within one year adopt, a plan for fire station construction in San Pablo which will provide adequate housing for at least two engines and crews. BOS Response: Has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in accordance to the Grand Jury recommended time frame. The Fire District will invite the City of San Pablo to join with them in assessing options for constructing and financing a new fire station in San Pablo. The District will formulate its recommended plan with six months. SPCC Response: Only the Board of Supervisors can respond to this recommendation. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT 0708 MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY! THE COUNTY DRIFTS EVER CLOSER TO THE “OPEB” ROCKS Growing Retiree Health Care Costs Demand Board of Supervisors Action
F29
Page 42
In 2007, San Pablo agreed to reimburse CCCFPD up to $180,000 annually for fire and medical emergency service costs incurred within the city, because of the formula in CCCFPD’s written agreement with Richmond. CCCFPD has agreed to augment this sum with up to $70,000 annually, such funds available for reimbursement to Richmond. BOS Response: Agree. RCC Response: Respondent agrees with the finding. SPCC Response dated August 23, 2007: San Pablo assumes that the CCCFPD amount is to reimburse Richmond for calls into the unincorporated areas to which Richmond responds. SPCC Response dated October 1, 2007: The City of San Pablo agrees with the finding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Page 44
or otherwise. BOS Response: Has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented at the appropriate time when the system costs are identified for each agency. RCC Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The City of Richmond has signed a letter of intent and a joint powers agreement to become a member of the East Bay Regional Communicators System. Funds for this purpose are in the current budget. 5. That Richmond complete its study of the AVL system, and join the AVL system of this report. BOS Response: Required from the Richmond City Council. RCC Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented. The Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) system would have to be an added component to the New World Computer Aided Dispatch System utilized in the Richmond Police/Fire Dispatch Center. The estimated cost of this system is $45,000. Additional funding would be required before acquisition and implementation occurred. The Richmond Fire Department has already been programmed into Contra Costa County Fire’s AVL system and has been an active user for over a year. 6. That Contra Costa County and Richmond, of this report, enter into a long-term agreement that will fairly compensate for the net difference in cost of emergency responses across Richmond’s city limit lines. BOS Response: Has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented as soon as possible. A temporary agreement is currently in effect between Contra Costa County Fire District and Richmond Fire. RCC Response: The recommendation has not yet been implemented. The Richmond Fire Department on behalf of the City of Richmond is working with the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District to finalize a permanent automatic aid agreement in the next six months. The current preliminary automatic aid agreement has a formula for payment that will reimburse the appropriate fire agency for the net difference in calls. 7. That Contra Costa County and San Pablo, of this report, enter into an agreement that will provide that San Pablo pay the approximate net difference in costs of automatic aid responses into the city by other agencies. BOS Response: Requires further analysis. The mutual/automatic aid system is designed to provide assistance to other agencies without compensation. The system has worked successfully for decades, and has leveraged the resources of fire districts to the benefit of all. The current one year agreement with the City of Richmond is an anomaly. If a contractual relationship is necessary to assure automatic aid response upon expiration of the contract with the City of Richmond, then the Fire District will conduct an analysis to identify available options SPCC Response dated August 23, 2007: That Contra Costa County and San Pablo, of this report, enter into an agreement that will provide that San Pablo pay the approximate net difference in costs of automatic aid responses into the city by other Agencies. SPCC Response dated October 1, 2007: The recommendation will not be implemented as far as a formal written agreement within such time period. The City did not enter into 45 a written agreement earlier this year based on the lack of contractually definite terms and provisions specifying the exact obligations of each party; and further out of a fiscally responsible desire to review services provided under the automatic aid relationship. Due to the uncertainties and lack of specific information involved, and the lack of time before the deadline expressed in the Grand Jury’s recommendation, the City believes that a written agreement cannot be finalized in such a short period. The City Council has, however, demonstrated its commitment to ensure that San Pablo pays its fair share of fire protection costs. It adopted Resolution 2007-21, which provides that San Pablo will pay its pro-rata share of automatic aid responses from the City of Richmond Fire Department into the City of San Pablo for fiscal year 2006-2007. Again, the San Pablo City Council has publicly expressed its wiliness, and demonstrated its commitment to support the CCFPD to the extent fair and necessary, as witnessed by Resolution 2007-21. The City unilaterally continued this obligation by appropriating $180,000 in its budget for fiscal year 2007-2008. As further information becomes available, the city is not adverse to memorializing this commitment into a fair written agreement. 8. That Contra Costa County, of this report, publish, and within one year adopt, a plan to increase from one to two engine companies within the city or environs of San Pablo. BOS Response: Requires further analysis. The Fire District will invite the City of San Pablo to join with them in assessing the fire protection and medical emergency response needs of the city of San Pablo, including Casino San Pablo. , the Fire District will produce a plan on how to meet those needs, including capital improvement, staffing and financing options. SPCC Response: Only the Board of Supervisors can respond to this recommendation. 9. That Contra Costa County, of this report, publish, and within one year adopt, a plan for fire station construction in San Pablo which will provide adequate housing for at least two engines and crews. BOS Response: Has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in accordance to the Grand Jury recommended time frame. The Fire District will invite the City of San Pablo to join with them in assessing options for constructing and financing a new fire station in San Pablo. The District will formulate its recommended plan with six months. SPCC Response: Only the Board of Supervisors can respond to this recommendation. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT 0708 MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY! THE COUNTY DRIFTS EVER CLOSER TO THE “OPEB” ROCKS Growing Retiree Health Care Costs Demand Board of Supervisors Action
F30
Page 43
Consolidation of all West County fire departments has been studied a number of times, but never adopted. Currently there is not sufficient political support for a total consolidation. Most of the perceived benefits of consolidation can be accomplished by agreements among the West County departments, as has been done so successfully for the coverage of geographic areas. BOS Response: Agree. RCC Response: Respondent agrees with the finding. SPCC Response dated August 23, 2007: San Pablo has no jurisdiction in this area. SPCC Response dated October 1, 2007: The City of San Pablo agrees with the finding. The City has not studied fire consolidation and has no information regarding this subject.
No recommendations for this finding
Agency Responses 5
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.