Berkeley City Council
March 22, 2022

382
firefighting activity and found that reactive hyperemia, a measure of microvascular blood flow, and pressure-controlled arterial stiff- ness (central pulse wave velocity/aMAP) increased significantly after firefighting (21). The cause of increased vascular stiffness after firefighting is not known. The increased central vascular stiffness observed after firefighting activities could be a compen- satory mechanism to counteract the profound skin vasodilation in an attempt to facilitate blood flow to the heart and brain or it could reflect a detrimental response to the stressors encoun- tered during firefighting. Addi tional studies are necessary to better understand the cause and consequences of arterial stiff- ness and to elucidate what populations of firefighters who, through underlying disease or CVD risk factors, may have a greater risk of experiencing acute vascular changes that may result in SCD.

Because changes in vascular function may be caused by re- active oxygen species or prostaglandin production, we had conducted studies that used antioxidant supplementation or as- pirin. We have investigated the effect of vitamin C supplemen- tation on vascular responses to firefighting in young healthy firefighters and found that 2 g of vitamin C did not affect mea- sures of vascular stiffness or microvascular function (6). We also have investigated the effect of aspirin supplementation on vas- cular changes associated with firefighting in older subjects and found that 2 wk of aspirin supplementation did not affect microvascular (reactive hyperemia) or macrovascular (arterial stiffness/central blood pressure) responses to firefighting (21).

Collectively, research has shown that firefighting and exercise- induced heat stress lead to vascu lar alterations , specifically, reduced vascular reactivity/endothelial function (6) and in- creased central arterial stiffness (7,22), which may play roles in arterial-ventricular uncoupling in response to firefighting activity and heat stress (26,35). The uncoupling of the arterial- ventricular system may explain the oxygen supply-demand mis- match observed after firefighting and exercise-induced heat stress (22), leading to ischemia. Increased arterial stiffness after firefighting may be detrimental because of increased cardiac work (increased afterload) or impaired vascular function (com- promised vasodilation), and this effect is likely more pro- nounced in individuals with underlying CVD. Furthermore, overweight/obese and older firefighters may be at increased risk for abnormal vascular responses associated with firefighting and heat stress because the vasculature of these persons is stiffer at rest without the external influence of occupational stressors (7).

Hemostatic Responses
Firefighting leads to an increase in blood pressure and sweating. Accordingly, we have documented a decrease of ap- proximately 15% in plasma volume after an 18-min bout of firefighting (30). In turn, this resultant hypovolemia decreases central venous pressure, causes hemoconcentration, and in- creases blood viscosity.

Firefighting likewise seems to disrupt hemostatic balance.

We conducted a large study (N = 114) to examine the acute ef- fects of firefighting on platelet number and function. Live-fire firefighting drills (~18 min) caused a modest change in T co
(0.7°C) and a peak HR of 167 beats min −1 and resulted in in- creased platelet number and decreased platelet closure time (in- creased aggregation) in young (29 ± 8 yr) apparently healthy firefighters (31). In a follow-up study, we evaluated the effects of firefighting activities on platelets, coagulation, and fibri- nolytic activity and documented the extent to which these variables recovered 2 h after completion of the firefighting ac- tivity in young (25 ± 5 yr) apparently healthy firefighters (27).

Platelet number, platelet activity, and coagulatory potential increased immediately after firefighting, and many variables (platelet function, activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) and factor VII) continued to reflect a procoagulatory state even after 2 h of recovery. Fibrinolysis also was enhanced immediately after firefighting but returned to baseline values 2 h after firefighting. Research with athletes has similarly indicated that strenuous physical activity acutely increases platelet number and platelet activation (4) and leads to a hypercoaguable state that is normally offset by simultaneous increases in fibrino- lysis (16). This hypercoaguable state persists longer into the postactivity recovery period than does the increase in fibrinoly- sis, potentially reflecting a “vulnerable period” after strenuous exercise (16). In situations of abnormal hemostatic balance, the exercise-induced procoagulatory state may result in in- creased incidence in cardiovascular events during and immedi- ately after strenuous physical activity. These data support the hypothesis that firefighting leads to a hemostatic imbalance that is primarily prothrombotic during the recovery period from firefighting activities.

INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS AND

UNDERLYING CVD RISK
As we have summarized in a previous review (32), individual factors may mediate the magnitude of the cardiovascular strain of firefighting. Although firefighting results in significant car- diovascular strain, most firefighters recover from firefighting ac- tivities with no untoward event. However, the cardiovascular strain of firefighting interacts with an individual's health and fitness status to determine whether responses to the strain of firefighting are limited to transient physiologic disruptions or re- sult in the activation of pathophysiologic pathways that may lead to sudden cardiac events (32). Underlying cardiovascular health status is determined largely by the prevalence of cardio- vascular risk factors. As shown in the Table, such risk factors greatly increase the risk of cardiacdeath in the fire service, with smoking, hypertension, diabetes, and old age all associated with a greatly elevated risk. However, the greatest risk was associated with previous CHD diagnosis (32). In addition, low fitness also likely contributes to the increased risk of sudden cardiac events (2) because fit individuals can do more work at the same level of cardiovascular strain or they experience less strain at the same level of work. Unfortunately, there is substantial evidence that firefighters often lack high levels of fitness and a large pecentage are overweight or obese (2,7,32).

A potential linkage between vascular alterations and the risk of SCD also may be related to individual factors, including obe- sity. Obesity (body mass index (BMI), ≥30 kg·m
−2) is a global
epidemic affecting all members of society, including first re- sponders. In the fire service, obesity has been found to increase the relative risk of an on-duty coronary heart disease fatality threefold (32). Obesity is a we ll-established risk factor for CVD and has been associated with reduced arterial function and increased aortic blood pressures (10). We examined the in- fluence of body weight on vascular structure and function in a group of 110 firefighters (30 ± 8 yr). Firefighters were evenly 94 Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews www.acsm-essr.org Copyright © 2016 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

383
divided into tertiles according to BMI (<25.9, 25.9 –29.4, and ≥29.5 kg·m −2). We found increased arterial stiffness in the obese (≥29.5 kg·m −2) and overweight (25.9–29.4 kg·m −2)f i r e - fighters compared with that in lean (<25.9 kg·m −2) firefighters (7). Furthermore, carotid artery β stiffness was greatest in the obese group compared with the overweight and lean
groups (5.9 ± 0.3, 5.1 ± 0.3, and 4.9 ± 0.3, respectively). How- ever, measures of endothelial function did not differ by BMI classification (7).

We also have investigated the effect of obesity on coagu- latory response to acute firefighting activity (28). An 18-min bout of live-fire training caused a significant increase in co- agulatory and fibrinolytic markers, including an overall shift toward a procoagulatory state, as evidenced by a decrease in aPTT and an increase in platelet activity. We also found that obese firefighters exhibited lower baseline levels of fibrinolytic activity (lower tissue plasminogen activator and higher plas- minogen activator inhibitor-1), which is consistent with prev- ious literature. However, contrary to our hypothesis, we did not detect an increase in baseline coagulatory measures in obese firefighters nor did we find a greater coagulatory response among obese firefighters. Additional research is necessary to better understand how age, body composition, fitness, and car- diovascular risk factors affect vascular-hemostatic balance after firefighting because it is known that the vascular-hemostatic re- sponses to exercise differ between healthy individuals and those with underlying CVD or CVD risk factors (34).

TRIGGERING A CARDIOVASCULAR EVENT
Atherosclerosis and structural heart changes, such as left ven- tricular hypertrophy (LVH), generally develop during a period of many years — even decades. Although CVD may progress with or without symptoms for many years, a plaque rupture or arrhythmia can lead to the rapid onset of severe symptoms and even SCD. Understanding what precipitates, or triggers, such an event is of interest to researchers, clinicians, and those involved in health policy.

Classic studies have temporally linked heavy physical exertion/ strenuous work (such as running or snow shoveling) to the on- set of acute cardiovascular events, with the risk being con- centrated among individuals who are unaccustomed to such levels of exertion (1,12). Sympathetic nervous activation caused by emotional stress, such as excitement and frustration/ anger, also is associated with triggering cardiovascular events in individuals with known CHD (32). In addition, environ- mental conditions such as elevated levels of air pollution have been shown to be associated with increased rates of sudden car- diac events among susceptible individuals (23).

Although a series of complex pathophysiological processes are involved in SCD, pump failure usually caused by terminal cardiac arrhythmias is ultimately the cause of death. Terminal arrhythmias may be caused by a primary electrical conduction problem (primary arrhythmia) or as complications of plaque rupture and thrombus formation that causes a myocardial in- farction. SCD can be caused by many underlying conditions; however, a very large percentage of SCD is caused by CHD (i.e., atherosclerosis) and/or cardiomegaly/LVH (13,36).

Firefighting as a Trigger for Sudden Cardiac Events
The work of a firefighter is characterized by long periods of low-intensity work, such as inspection, chores, and public ed- ucation, unpredictably punctuated by episodes of strenuous work. During these intense intervals, firefighting activity in- volves heavy muscular work and requires high levels of oxygen consumption. Thus, during firefighting, multiple stressors may function independently or more likely synergistically to precip- itate acute CVD events among susceptible firefighters (32).

Multiple studies have provided compelling evidence that firefighting activities can trigger cardiovascular events in sus- ceptible firefighters (19,20). These studies found highly ele- vated and remarkably consistent odds for SCD and other
acute CVD events during emergency firefighting activities com- pared with nonemergency duties. The largest of these studies (19) investigated line-of-duty deaths (n = 449) attributed to CHD between 1994 and 2004 and found that, although
firefighting ( i.e., active fire suppression) represents between 1% and 5% of a firefighter's annual working time, firefighting accounted for more than 30% of line-of-duty CHD deaths. This resulted in a relative risk of SCD during fire suppression of roughly 10 to 100 times the risk encountered during nonemer- gency duties (19).

The aforementioned physiological disruption and cardiac strain associated with firefighting do not normally pose a signif- icant risk in healthy individuals. However, in susceptible indi- viduals, the stress of firefighting can serve as a trigger for SCD.

Most sudden cardiac events are likely caused by myocardial in- farctions in individuals with CHD or fatal arrhythmias in indi- viduals with CHD or cardiomegaly/LVH.

TABLE. Relative risk of cardiovascular outcome by risk factor in firefighters On-Duty CHD Fatalities,
OR (95% CI) (20)
Non-CHD Cardiovascular Retirements,
OR (95% CI) (16)
CHD Retirements,
OR (95% CI) (16)
Current smoking 8.6 (4.2 –17) 2.5 (1.2 –5.1) 3.9 (2.5 –6.2) Hypertension 12 (5.8 –25) 11 (6.1 –20) 5.4 (3.7 –7.9)
Obesity, BMI ≥30 kg∙m−2 3.1 (1.5–6.6) 3.6 (2.0 –6.4) 1.4 (0.96 –1.93) Cholesterol ≥5.18 mmol∙L−1 (200 mg∙dL−1) 4.4 (1.5–13) 1.1 (0.51–2.24) 2.4 (1.6–3.6) Diabetes mellitus 10.2 (3.7–28) 7.7 (2.9–20) 13 (6.1–28) Prior diagnosis of CHD 35 (9.5–128) NA 30 (9.1–96)
Age ≥45 yr 18 (8.5–40) 26 (13–51) 63 (35–111)
BMI, body mass index; CHD, coronary heart disease; CI, confidence interval; diabetes mellitus, defined as random blood glucose level more than 8.3 mm ol∙L−1 (150 mg∙dL−1), previous diagnosis, or receiving insulin or hypoglycemic medications; hypertension, defined as resting blood pressure of 140/90 mm Hg or higher, previous diagnosis of hypertension, or receiving anti- hypertensive therapy; OR, odds ratio. (Reprinted from (32). Copyright © 2011 Wolters Kluwer Health. Used with permission.) Volume 44  Number 3  July 2016 Firefighting and Sudden Cardiac Events 95 Copyright © 2016 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

384
Coronary Heart Disease
Studies that have examined autopsy findings of firefighters who suffered SCD have found that roughly 90% of victims had evidence of coronary atherosclerosis (13,20). CHD is characterized by atherosclerotic plaque in the arterial wall, which is preceded by endothelial dysfunction as the onset of the atherosclerotic process. As the plaque progresses, it results in stenosis and can cause ischemia. Death from a myocar- dial infarction frequently involves the rupture of vulnerable plaque, exposing blood to underlying connective tissue that is highly thrombotic. Platelets begin to adhere to the vessel and aggregate to each other to form a plug. Ultimately, this may re- sult in the formation of an occlusive thrombus that causes a myocardial infarction.

Firefighting leads to increased shear stress that may increase the risk of plaque rupture. Furthermore, firefighting increases platelet number and activity and leads to a procoagulatory con- dition that may make thrombus formation more likely. Thus, although most firefighters recover from the cardiovascular strain of firefighting without incident, an individual with underly- ing atherosclerotic plaque, especially vulnerable plaque, is at a greatly increased risk of plaque rupture and thrombus formation during firefighting activity.

Cardiomegaly/LVH
Cardiomegaly (increased heart size and mass) and LVH (in- creased wall thickness and mass) are structural abnormalities that increase the risk of SCD caused by arrhythmia. LVH is a powerful predictor of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in population-based studies (3), and there is a strong graded as- sociation between left ventricular mass and increased cardio- vascular risk (14). LVH is frequently associated with fatal arrhythmias (33). Research has found that the increased risk as- sociated with LVH is independent of other factors such as age, sex, smoking status, diabetes, and serum cholesterol. In a major- ity of cases, LVH is typically a result of hypertension with or without obesity and/or CHD. Obstructive sleep apnea, which also is commonly associated with hypertension and obesity, is another risk factor for LVH. In cases of firefighting SCD, CHD and LVH are frequently comorbid (13,20,36). Myocardial fibrosis is thought to be an important mediator of increased risk of SCD associated with LVH, although the precise mechanisms by which LVH causes cardiovascul ar morbidity and mortality are not fully understood. However, vascular changes, such as in- creased arterial stiffness, altered wave reflections and arterial- ventricular uncoupling may lead to the development of LVH.

A recent retrospective study found that cardiomegaly/LVH is a frequent cause of SCD in the general public and is highly as- sociated with obesity and death at a younger age than CHD (33). There is mounting evidence that LVH/cardiomegaly is common among US firefighters and plays a major role in
CVD events in the fire service. Kales et al. (20) conducted a case-controlled investigat ion of on-duty CHD fatalities and found evidence for LVH in 76% of the CHD deaths
where the autopsy results were available. Subsequently, a larger follow-up case-fatality study was conducted to compare fire- fighters succumbing to on-duty CHD fatalities with firefighters suffering nonfatal CHD events leading to retirement. Among the fatalities, LVH/cardiomegaly was mentioned in summary reports of almost 60% of the available autopsies (13). In addition, Yang et al. (36) studied younger (<45 yr) firefighters and found a greater than 100-g difference in heart weight among SCD cases compared with trauma fatality controls. Fur- thermore, approximately 66% of cardiac cases had evidence of cardiomegaly (heart weight, >450 g), and this conveyed a five- fold increase in relative risk of SCD. These studies provide con- vincing evidence that LVH/cardiomegaly plays a role in a large percentage of firefighter fatalities.

As illustrated in Figure 3, firefighting may lead to several car- diac and vascular changes that increase the risk of arrhythmia, particularly in individuals with underlying vascular dysfunc- tion and/or structural heart abnormalities. Obviously, firefight- ing leads to increased cardiac work. Furthermore, our research suggests that firefighting also leads to increased arterial stiffen- ing and decreased arterial compliance. The combination of in- creased cardiac work and decreased arterial compliance may lead to ischemia that could provoke an arrhythmia, particularly in individuals with underlying CHD and/or structural heart changes that include myocardial fibrosis, which likely increases susceptibility to electrical abnormalities.

CONCLUSIONS
The proposed model suggests that the cardiovascular strain associated with firefighting may trigger a sudden cardiac event in a susceptible person through several biological pathways. In- creases in shear stress may cause rupture of vulnerable plaque, resulting in thrombus formation and the occlusion of coronary arteries, which may be exacerbated by hypercoagulability that is known to increase the risk of thrombotic events. Alternately, acute risks encountered during firefighting activities may in- crease the risk of fatal arrhythmias. Ischemia (caused by an in- crease in myocardial oxygen demand that exceeds myocardial supply) may result in electrical, mechanical, and biochemical dysfunction of the cardiac muscle. Exposure to environmental conditions (such as gaseous and particulate toxicants in smoke) also may increase susceptibility to arrhythmias (23), particularly in those with LVH and other forms of cardiomegaly or in the context of ischemia.

Additional research is necessary to better understand how in- dividual characteristics affect the cardiovascular responses to firefighting and the precise mechanisms by which firefighting leads to an increased risk of fatal arrhythmias and plaque rup- ture. Additional research also is needed to identify the types of physical fitness training programs that provide the greatest potential for reducing the risk of sudden cardiac events in the fire service. Firefighters accept great risks to protect their com- munities. Exercise professionals have a unique opportunity to help improve the health of this remarkable occupation, which is so important to our public safety.

Acknowledgments
The authors express their appreciation to Steve Ives and Kevin Heffernan who provided a review of the manuscript.

D. L. Smith and J. P. DeBlois were supported by FEMA-AFG EMW-2013- FP00749.

References

1. Albert CM, Mittleman MA, Chae CU, Lee IM, Hennekens CH, Manson JE. Triggering of sudden death from cardiac causes by vigorous exertion.

N. Engl. J. Med. 2000; 343:1355–61.
96 Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews www.acsm-essr.org Copyright © 2016 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

385

2. Baur DM, Christophi CA, Kales SN. Metabolic syndrome is inversely re- lated to cardiorespiratory fitness in male career firefighters.J. Strength Cond.

Res. 2012; 26:2331–7.

3. Bluemke DA, Kronmal RA, Lima JA, et al. The relationship of left ventricular mass and geometry to incident cardiovascular events: the MESA study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2008; 52:2148–55.

4. El-Sayed MS, Ali N, Ali ZE-S. Aggregation and activation of blood plate- lets in exercise and training. Sports Med. 2005; 35:11–22.

5. Fabian TZ, Borgerson JL, Gandhi PD. Characterization of firefighter smoke exposure. Fire Technol. 2014; 50:993–1019.

6. Fahs CA, Huimin Y, Ranadive S, et al. Acute effects of firefighting on arte- rial stiffness and blood flow. Vasc. Med. 2011; 16(2):113–8.

7. Fahs CA, Smith DL, Horn GP, et al. Impact of excess body weight on arte- rial structure, function, and blood pressure in firefighters. Am. J. Cardiol . 2009; 104:1441–5.

8. Fahy RF, LeBlanc PR, Molis JL. Firefighter Fatalities in the United States — 2014. Quincy (MA): National Fire Protection Association; 2015.

9. Fehling PC, Haller JM, Lefferts WK, et al. Effect of exercise, heat stress and dehydration on myocardial performance.Occup. Med.2 0 1 5 ;6 5 : 3 1 7–23.

10. Fernhall B, Agiovlasitis S. Arterial function in youth: window into cardio- vascular risk. J. Appl. Physiol . 2008; 105:325–33.

11. Fernhall B, Fahs CA, Horn G, Rowland T, Smith D. Acute effects of firefighting on cardiac performance.Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2012; 112:735–41.

12. Franklin BA, Bonzheim K, Gordon S, Timmis GC. Snow shoveling: a trig- ger for acute myocardial infarction and sudden coronary death. Am. J.

Cardiol. 1996; 77:855–8.

13. Geibe JR, Holder J, Peeples L, Kinney AM, Burress JW, Kales SN. Predic- tors of on-duty coronary events in male firefighters in the United States.

Am. J. Cardiol. 2008; 101:585–9.

14. Haider AW, Larson MG, Benjamin EJ, Levy D. Increased left ventricular mass and hypertrophy are associated with increased risk for sudden death.

J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 1998; 32:1454–9.

15. Haynes HJG, Molis JL. US Firefighter Injuries — 2014. Quincy (MA): Na- tional Fire Protection Association; 2015.

16. Hegde SS, Goldfarb AH, Hegde S. Clotting and fibrinolytic activity change during the 1 h after a submaximal run.Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2001; 33:887–92.

17. Horn GP, Blevins S, Fernhall B, Smith DL. Core temperature and heart rate response to repeated bouts of firefighting activities. Ergonomics. 2013; 56:1465–73.

18. Horn GP, Gutzmer S, Fahs CA, et al. Physiological recovery from fire- fighting activities in rehabilitation and beyond.Prehosp. Emerg. Care. 2011; 15:214–25.

19. Kales SN, Soteriades ES, Christophi CA, Christiani DC. Emergency duties and deaths from heart disease among firefighters in the United States. N.

Engl. J. Med. 2007; 356:1207–15.

20. Kales SN, Soteriades ES, Christoudias SG, Christiani DC. Firefighters and on-duty deaths from coronary heart disease: a case control study. Environ.

Health. 2003; 2:14.

21. Lane-Cordova AD, Ranadive SM, Yan H, et al. Effect of aspirin supple- mentation on hemodynamics in older firefighters. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc . 2015; 47:2653–59.

22. Lefferts WK, Heffernan KS, Hultquist EM, Fehling PC, Smith DL. Vascular and central hemodynamic changes following exercise-induced heat stress.

Vasc. Med. 2015; 20:222–9.

23. Mittleman MA. Air pollution, exercise, and cardiovascular risk. N. Engl.

J. Med . 2007; 357:1147 –9.

24. NFPA 1582. Standard on Comprehensive Occupational Medical Pro- gram for Fire Departments . Quincy (MA): National Fire Protection Association; 2013.

25. Rakebrandt F, Palombo C, Swampillai J, et al. Arterial wave intensity and verntricular-arterial coupling by vascular ultrasound: rationale and methods for the automated analysis of forwards and backwards running waves.Ultra- sound Med. Biol. 2009; 35:266–77.

26. Smith DL, DeBlois JP, Wharton M, Fehling PC, Ranadive SM. Effect of moderate exercise-induced heat stress on carotid wave intensity.

Eur. J. Appl. Physiol . 2015; 115:2223 –30.

27. Smith DL, Horn GP, Petruzzello SJ, Fahey G, Woods J, Fernhall BO.

Clotting and fibrinolytic changes after firefighting activities.Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2014; 46:448–54.

28. Smith DL, Horn GP, Petruzzello SJ, et al. Effect of obesity on acute he- mostatic responses to live-fire training drills. A m .J .C a r d i o l.2 0 1 4 ;1 1 4 :
1768–71.

29. Smith DL, Manning TS, Petruzzello SJ. Effect of strenuous live-fire drills on cardiovascular and psychological responses of recruit firefighters.

Ergonomics. 2001; 44:244–54.

30. Smith DL, Petruzzello SJ, Chludzinski MA, Reed JJ, Woods JA. Effects of strenuous live-fire fire fighting drills on hematological, blood chemistry and psychological measures.J. Therm. Biol. 2001; 26:375–9.

31. Smith DL, Petruzzello SJ, Goldstein E, et al. Effect of live-fire training drills on firefighters' platelet number and function. Prehosp. Emerg. Care. 2011; 15:233–9.

32. Soteriades ES, Smith DL, Tsismenakis AJ, Baur DM, Kales SN. Cardiovas- cular disease in US firefighters: a systematic review. Cardiol. Rev.2 0 1 1 ; 19:202–15.

33. Tavora F, Zhang Y, Zhang M, et al. Cardiomegaly is a common arrhythmo- genic substrate in adult sudden cardiac deaths, and is associated with obe- sity. Pathology. 2012; 44:187–91.

34. Womack CJ, Rasmussen JM, Vickers DG, Paton CM, Osmond PJ, Davis GL. Changes in fibrinolysis following exercise above and below lactate threshold. Thromb. Res. 2006; 118:263–8.

35. Ya
n H, Fahs CA, Ranadive S, et al. Evaluation of carotid wave inten- sity in firefighters following firefighting. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol .2 0 1 2 ; 112:2385–91.

36. Yang J, Teehan D, Farioli A, Baur DM, Smith D, Kales SN. Sudden cardiac death among firefighters ≤45 years of age in the United States. Am. J.

Cardiol. 2013; 112:1962–7.

Volume 44  Number 3  July 2016 Firefighting and Sudden Cardiac Events 97 Copyright © 2016 by the American College of Sports Medicine. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

386
R E V I E W Open Access
Prostate cancer in firefighting and police
work: a systematic review and meta-
analysis of epidemiologic studies
Jeavana Sritharan 1,2* , Manisha Pahwa 1, Paul A. Demers 1,2,3,4*, Shelley A. Harris 1,4,5, Donald C. Cole 4 and Marie-Elise Parent 6
Abstract
Objectives: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate potential associations between firefighting and police occupations, and prostate cancer incidence and mortality.

Methods:Original epidemiological studies published from1980 to 2017 were identified through PubMed and Web of Science. Studies were included if they contained specific job titles for ever/never firefighting and police work and associated prostate cancer risk estimates with 95% conf idence intervals (CI). Study quality was assessed using a 20-point checklist. Prostate cancer meta-risk estimates (mRE) and corresponding 95% CIs were calculated for firefighting and police work separately and by variou s study characteristics using random effects models.

Between-study heterogeneity was evaluated using the I
2 score. Publication bias was assessed using Begg ’sa n d Egger’st e s t s .

Results: A total of 26 firefighter and 12 police studies were included in the meta-analysis, with quality assessment scores ranging from 7 to 19 points. For firefighter studies, the prostate cancer incidence mRE was 1.17 (95% CI = 1.08–1. 28, I2 = 72%) and the mortality mRE was 1.12 (95% CI = 0.92 –1.36, I2 = 50%). The mRE for police incidence studies was 1. 14 (95% CI = 1.02–1.28; I2 = 33%); for mortality studies, the mRE was 1.08 (95% CI = 0.80 –1.45; I2 = 0%). By study design, mREs for both firefighter and police studies were similar to estimates of incidence and mortality.

Conclusion: Small excess risks of prostate cancer were observed from firefighter studies with moderate to substantial heterogeneity and a relatively small number of police studies, respectively. There is a need for further studies to examine police occupations and to assess unique and shared exposures in firefighting and police work.

Keywords: Firefighters, Police, Occupation, Prostate cancer risk, Incidence, Mortality, Meta-analysis, Systematic review, Epidemiology
Background
Prostate cancer is one of the most commonly diagnosed
cancers in men worldwide but its etiology remains poorly understood [1 –5]. The only established risk factors for prostate cancer are older age, positive family history of prostate cancer, and African-American ethnicity [1, 2, 4, 5].

There is some evidence linking prostate cancer to differ- ences in socioeconomic status, increased height, increased obesity, reduced physical activity, and active smoking and alcohol use [3, 5–10]. There is growing evidence that occu- pation may be a risk factor, and previous studies have
shown increased risks associated with employment in agri- culture/farming, management and administration, rubber
production, metal work, and transportation [11–13]. Some studies have also suggested associations between prostate cancer risk and employment in protective services occupa- tions [11, 12, 15–17].

Protective services occupations include firefighting,
police, military, and other groups (eg. security guards).

Previous epidemiological studies have demonstrated
consistent associations between firefighting and different * Correspondence: [email protected]; [email protected]
1Occupational Cancer Research Centre, Cancer Care Ontario, 525 University Avenue, Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © The Author(s). 2017 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Sritharan et al. Environmental Health (2017) 16:124
DOI 10.1186/s12940-017-0336-z

387
types of cancer, with some evidence for prostate cancer [14]. In 2007, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified firefighting as “possibly” car- cinogenic to humans (IARC Group 2B) [16]. IARC ’s
evaluation was based on evidence from 42 epidemio-
logical studies, including two previous meta-analyses on firefighting and cancer [14, 18]. Based on studies pub- lished at the time, IARC evaluated multiple cancer sites and identified statistically significant increased risks of prostate cancer, testicular cancer, and non-Hodgkin
lymphoma [16]. Since the IARC evaluation, 11 new stu-
dies have been published that included assessments of
prostate cancer risk in firefighters. Relatively less is known about prostate cancer risk in police occupations, as this group is often understudied and findings have
been inconsistent [11, 12, 15, 19, 20].

Only one meta-analysis, published over a decade ago,
focused on firefighting and cancer risks that included
prostate cancer [14]. This study found a significant asso- ciation with prostate cancer incidence (summary risk
estimate: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.15 –1.43) based on evidence
from 6 cohort studies [14]. Recently, a narrative review examined cancer risk in police work. Eight studies re-
ported on prostate cancer risk in police work, with
mixed findings [15]. The objective of the present syste- matic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the qual- ity of the epidemiological evidence on firefighting and police employment in association with prostate cancer
incidence and mortality, and to conduct a quantitative
synthesis. Based on the availability of epidemiologic lit- erature, this meta-analysis focused on firefighting and police work, and not protective services as a whole.

Material and methods
Search strategy
A search was conducted on PubMed and Web of Sci-
ence to identify epidemiological studies published be-
tween January 1980 and December 2017 in English or
French about employment in firefighting and police
occupations, and risk of prostate cancer. Various combi- nations of MeSH terms were used to search for studies
that included firefighter and police occupations (fire- fighting OR firefighter OR fire fighter OR fire OR police OR police officer OR policeman OR policemen) and that
reported on associations with prostate cancer risk (pros- tate OR prostate neoplasm OR neoplasm OR cancer).

Cited references in individual papers and review papers that resulted from the search were used to identify any additional studies.

Inclusion criteria
To be included in the meta-analysis, articles must have reported results for original case –control or cohort stud- ies that contained specific job titles related to ever/never firefighting and police work and that examined associ-
ated prostate cancer incidence and/or mortality using
any type of relative risk estimator (hazard ratio (HR), odds ratio (OR), relative risk (RR), standardized mortal- ity ratio (SMR), or standardized incidence ratio (SIR)) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Reviews,
meta-analyses, editorials, and experimental studies were excluded. For any articles with overlapping study popu- lations, only the most recently published study with
prostate cancer incidence and/or mortality results was
included. Furthermore, studies were excluded if reported risk estimates were only based on internal comparisons
between different occupational groups rather than based on comparisons to the general population. Titles and
abstracts were initially screened for eligibility, and for those eligible, full-text articles were reviewed.

Data extraction
Information on author(s), date of publication, title, coun- try of study, study design, number of cases/deaths and
controls/non-cases, data collection method, effect sizes and 95% CIs for prostate cancer, and covariates was ex- tracted from and tabulated for each study included in
the meta-analysis. Effect sizes and 95% Cls recorded
from included studies were for ever vs. never firefighter or police employment in models that were adjusted for
the maximum number of potentially confounding
variables.

Quality assessment
The quality of each study included in the meta-analysis was independently assessed by two authors (JS and MP)
using a modified quality assessment checklist by Downs
and Black [21]. Checklist items that were irrelevant to observational studies were omitted, resulting in a max- imum of 20 achievable points for reporting (9 points),
external validity (2 points), internal validity (bias and confounding) (8 points), and power (1 point) [21]. Any
disagreement of ratings was discussed and a consensus
was arrived at mutually or by consulting a third author, if earlier consensus could not be reached.

Statistical analysis
Reported ORs, HRs, RRs, SIRs, and SMRs were consid-
ered as RRs in meta-analyses and used in forest plots. A random effects model was used to calculate meta-risk esti- mates (mREs) in all meta-analyses due to potential vari- ance in effect sizes between the included studies. mREs were calculated separately for firefighting and police occu- pations and prostate cancer risk. mREs were calculated for subgroups based on the following characteristics: inci- dence versus mortality, study design (i.e. cohort versus case–control, and administrative linkage-based studies, Sritharan et al. Environmental Health (2017) 16:124 Page 2 of 12

388
defined as large studies that used multiple linked adminis- trative databases, e.g. census data and tumour registries.

For each mRE, heterogeneity was evaluated using the
I2 statistic. The I 2 statistic is a percentage that describes the variation between studies that is not due to chance [22]. Two-sided p-values for the I2 statistic were re-
ported. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals for the I2 statistic were calculated to address small numbers of included studies ( N < 5) in some subgroup meta-
analyses. In addition, the Galbraith plot was used to
visualize if individual studies fell within or outside of the 95% confidence region. Studies outside of the 95% confi- dence region can contribute to high heterogeneity.

These studies were removed in sensitivity analyses to
evaluate the impact of decreased heterogeneity on
mREs [23].

Begg’s test and Egger ’s test were used to assess publi- cation bias. Begg ’s test uses the correlation between
ranks of effect sizes and variances, whereas Egger ’s test uses a funnel plot to plot the effect estimates against sample size [24, 25]. All statistical analyses were
performed using STATA version 14.2 (StataCorp LLC,
College Station, USA).

Results
The literature search resulted in 366 unique studies pu- blished in English or French. Based on the screening of titles and abstracts, 318 (87%) were excluded due to non- observational/non-human studies, missing job titles, miss- ing effect estimates for prostate cancer, duplicate studies, or irrelevancy to the objective of this meta-analysis. Of the remaining 48 studies that were obtained in full text, 17 were excluded because they did not include reports of rela- tive risks for prostate cancer with 95% CIs, had overlapping study populations, or were studies of military workers. As a result, 31 unique studies were included (Fig. 1).

Of these, 24 were cohort and seven were case –control
studies. Nineteen studies only included investigations of firefighters (Table 1) and five focused on police workers (Table 2); seven contained investigations of both fire- fighters and police workers (Table 3). In all studies that included firefighters ( N = 26), there were 5712 incident cases of prostate cancer and 428 deaths from prostate
cancer. In all studies that included police workers
(N = 12), there were 1510 incident cases and 49 deaths.

The characteristics of each included study are summa-
rized in Tables 1 (firefighters), 2 (police workers), and 3 (both). Covariates included in the risk estimates selected from each of the seven case –control studies are shown
in Additional file 1: Table S1.

Of all the firefighter studies, 2 pairs of studies (Ma et al., 2005 & Ma et al., 2006; Demers et al., 1992 & Demers et al., 1994) [26 –29] examined the same respective popula- tions but reported on different prostate cancer outcomes (incidence and mortality). In the meta-analyses of prostate cancer incidence and mortality in firefighters, respective results from both pairs of studies were retained and used.

Two studies [30, 31] published results for both prostate cancer incidence and mortality, and each estimate was
used [31, 32]. For the police studies, [28, 29] reported on the same populations with different outcomes of incidence and mortality, and each estimate was used. Each incidence and mortality outcome was used only in their respective categories and not included together for any meta-risk
estimates.

Quality assessment
The overall quality assessment of all 31 included studies ranged from 5 to 19 points (Table 4). Scores were similar for firefighter, police, and firefighter and police studies across the different quality assessment categories. The mean score for reporting was 6 out of 9, based on clear 366 unique studies identified in
PubMed and Web of Science
48 full-text articles obtained
31 included studies
318 titles and abstracts excluded based
on study design (non-observational/non-
human studies), missing appropriate job
titles, missing appropriate association
measures, overlapping study
populations, irrelevancy to objective
17 full-text articles excluded
- 12 military studies
- 4 missing prostate cancer risk estimates
- 1 overlap of study population
Fig. 1 Descriptive flow chart of study selection in this meta-analysis Sritharan et al. Environmental Health (2017) 16:124 Page 3 of 12

389
and detailed reporting of aims/hypotheses, outcomes
measures, participant information, confounder informa-
tion, and loss to follow-up. Studies were generally found to be externally valid, and there was minimal bias.

Studies of firefighters had higher scores for confounding factors than studies of police workers. Only one study
reported a power calculation making it difficult to eva- luate this category.

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies on firefighting and prostate cancer risk ( N = 19) Author/
Year
Location of Study Study
Design
Incidence or
Mortality
Follow-
up period
Number of
Cases/
Deaths
Cohort Size/Total
Number of
Cases
a
Prostate Cancer Risk Estimates
for Ever versus Never
Employment
b
Glass et al.
2016 [63]
Australia Cohort Incidence 1980 –
2011
478 30, 057 SIR 1.31, 95% CI 1.19 –1.43
Brice et al.
2015 [64]
France Cohort Mortality 1979 –
2008
17 10, 829 SMR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 –0.86
Daniels
et al. 2014
[32]
USA Cohort Incidence;
Mortality
1950–
2009
1261 cases
282 deaths
29, 993
29, 993
SIR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 –1.09;
SMR 1.09, 95% CI 0.96 –1.22
Pukkala
et al. 2014
[17]
Denmark, Finland,
Iceland, Norway
and Sweden
Cohort
(linkage)
Incidence 1961 –
2005
660 16, 422 SIR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03 –1.22
Ahn et al.
2012 [65]
Korea Cohort Incidence 1996 –
2007
9 33, 416 SIR 1.32, 95% CI 0.60 –2.51
Ma et al.
2006 [27]
USA Cohort Incidence 1981 –
1999
209 34, 796 SIR 1.10, 95% CI 0.95 –1.42
Ma et al.
2005 [26]
USA Cohort Mortality 1972 –
1999
21 34, 796 SMR 1.08, 95% CI 0.67 –1.65
Baris et al.
2001 [66]
USA, USA Cohort Mortality 1925 –
1986
31 7, 789 SMR 0.96, 95% CI 0.68 –1.37
Bates et al.
2001 [67]
New Zealand Cohort Incidence 1977 –
1995
11 4, 221 SIR 1.08, 95% CI 0.50 –1.90
Tornling
et al. 1994
[31]
Sweden Cohort Incidence;
Mortality
1951–
1986
28 cases
14 deaths
1, 116
1, 091
SMR 114, 95% CI 76 –165;
SMR 121, 95% CI 66 –202
Aronson
et al. 1994
[68]
Canada Cohort Mortality 1950 –
1989
16 5, 373 SMR 132, 95% CI 76 –215
Giles et al.
1993 [69]
Australia Cohort Incidence 1980 –
1989
5 2, 865 SIR 2.09, 95% CI 0.67 –4.88
Guidotti
1993 [70]
Canada Cohort Mortality 1927 –
1987
8 3, 328 SMR 146.1, 95% CI 63.1 –287.9
Beaumont
et al. 1991
[33]
USA Cohort Incidence 1940 –
1982
8 3, 066 RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.16 –0.75
Grimes
et al. 1991
[71]
USA Cohort Mortality 1969 –
1988
4 205 PRR 2.6, 95% CI 1.4 –5.0
Vena &
Friedler
1987 [72]
USA Cohort Mortality 1950 –
1979
5 470 SMR 0.71, 95% CI 0.23 –1.65
Tsai et al.
2015 [73]
USA Case–
control
(linkage)
Incidence 1988 –
2007
1397 3, 996 OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.25 –1.69
Kang et al.,
2008 [74]
USA Case–
control
(linkage)
Incidence 1986 –
2003
577 285, 964 SMOR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 –1.24
Krstev et al.
1998 [75]
USA Case–
control
Incidence 1986 –
1989
12 981 OR 3.34, 95% CI 1.13 –9.91
acohort size represents the total sample size in only cohort studies, and the total number of cases is only applicable to case –control studies bHR – hazard ratio, SIR – standardized incidence ratio, SMR – standardized mortality/morbidity ratio, RR – relative risk, PRR – proportionate risk ratio, OR – odds ratio, NR – not reported
Sritharan et al. Environmental Health (2017) 16:124 Page 4 of 12

390
Firefighter and prostate cancer meta-analyses
There were significantly elevated prostate cancer risks for firefighting occupations for incidence outcomes, cohort studies, and administrative linkage-based studies. For inci- dence studies, the mRE was 1.17 (95% CI: 1.08 –1.28;
I2 = 72%, 95% CI: 55– 82%, p-value <0.001; 19 studies)
(Fig. 2); for mortality studies, it was 1.12 (95% CI: 0.92 –

1.36; I2 = 50%, 95% CI: 0– 76%, p-value = 0.04; 10 studies) (Fig. 3). In cohort studies, the prostate cancer mRE was

1.14 (95% CI: 1.03–1.26; I2 = 67%, 95% CI: 46–80%, p-value <0.001; 18 studies) (Additional file 2: Figure S1). The meta- analysis of case–control studies resulted in an mRE of 1.27 (95% CI: 0.95– 1.69; I 2 = 78%, 95% CI: 53– 90%, p-value <0.001; 6 studies) (Additional file 3: Figure S2). The mRE for census or administrative linkage-based studies was 1.19 (95% CI: 1.06–1.34; I
2 = 61%, 95% CI: 0–85%, p-value = 0.04;
5 studies) (Additional file 4: Figure S3).

Police work and prostate cancer meta-analyses
There were significantly elevated prostate cancer risks for police occupations by incidence outcomes and in case –
control studies. The mRE for prostate cancer incidence
studies was 1.14 (95% CI: 1.02 –1.28; I
2 = 33%, 95% CI: 0–
74%, p-value = 0.16; 9 studies) (Fig. 4) while the mRE for prostate cancer mortality studies was 1.08 (95% CI: 0.80 –

1.45; I2 =0 % ,9 5 %C I :0 %–90%, p-value = 0.62; 3 studies) (Fig. 5). The mRE for case –control studies was higher
compared to the mRE for cohort studies (case –control
studies: mRE = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.03– 1.44; I2 = 0% (95% CI 0%–85%, p-value = 0.42; 4 studies) (Additional file 5:

Figure S4) versus cohort studies: mRE = 1.10, 95% CI:

0.96–1.26; I
2 = 37%, 95% CI: 0– 79%, p-value = 0.15; 7 stu-
dies) (Additional file 6: Figure S5). There were no adminis- trative linkage-based studies of police workers and prostate cancer risk.

Table 2 Characteristics of included studies on police work and prostate cancer risk ( N =5 ) Author/Year Location of
Study
Study
Design
Incidence or
Mortality
Follow-up
Period
Number of
Cases/Deaths
Cohort Size/Total
Number of Cases
a
Prostate Cancer Risk Estimates for Ever
versus Never Employment
b
Vena et al. 2014
[19]
USA Cohort Mortality 1980 –
2005
31 3, 424 SMR 1.18, 95% CI 0.80 –1.67
Gu et al. 2011
[76]
USA Cohort Incidence 1976 –
2006
104 2, 234 SIR 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 –1.07
Finkelstein 1998
[20]
Canada Cohort Incidence 1964 –
1995
85 22, 197 SIR 1.16, 95% CI 0.93 –1.43
Forastiere et al. 1994
[77]
Italy Cohort Mortality 1973 –
1991
7 3, 868 SMR 0.77, 95% CI 0.31 –1.50
Bouchardy et al. 2002
[78]
Switzerland Case –
control
Incidence 1980 –
1993
129 9, 126 OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.00 –1.50
acohort size represents the total sample size in only cohort studies, and the total number of cases is only applicable to case –control studies bHR – hazard ratio, SIR – standardized incidence ratio, SMR – standardized mortality/morbidity ratio, RR – relative risk, OR – odds ratio Table 3 Characteristics of included studies on both firefighting and police work and prostate cancer risk ( N =7 ) Author/Year Location of
Study
Study
Design
Incidence or
Mortality
Follow-up
Period
Number of
Cases/Deaths
Cohort Size/Total
Number of Cases
a
Prostate Cancer Risk Estimates for
Ever versus Never Employment
b
Sritharan et al, 2017b* Canada Cohort
(linkage)
Incidence 1991 –
2011
165 firefighters;
325 police
1,100,000
1,100,000
HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.01 –1.36;
HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09 –1.36
Zeegers et al.
2004 [11]
Netherlands Cohort
(linkage)
Incidence 1986 –
1993
709 firefighters;
693 police
58, 279
58, 279
RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.05 –6.33;
RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.62 –4.27
Demers et al.
1994 [28]
USA Cohort Incidence 1974 –
1989
66 firefighters;
28 police
2, 447
1, 878
SIR 1.40, 95% CI 1.10 –1.70;
IDR 1.10, 95% CI 0.70 –1.80
Demers et al.
1992 [29]
USA Cohort Mortality 1945 –
1989
30 firefighters;
11 police
4, 546
3, 676
SMR 1.34, 95% CI 0.90 –1.91;
SMR 1.02, 95% CI 0.51 –1.82
Sritharan et al.
2017a [79]
Canada Case –
control
Incidence 1995 –
1998
38 firefighters;
35 police
1, 737
1, 737
OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.94 –2.95;
OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.66 –1.99
Sritharan et al.
2016 [80]
Canada Case –
control
Incidence 1994 –
1997
53 firefighters;
12 police
760
760
OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 –1.01;
OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.41 –1.63
Sauve et al.
2016 [12]
Canada Case –
control
Incidence 2005 –
2009
26 firefighters;
45 police
1, 937
1, 937
OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.88 –3.37;
OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.00 –2.40
acohort size represents the total sample size in only cohort studies, and the total number of cases is only applicable to case –control studies bHR – hazard ratio, SIR – standardized incidence ratio, SMR – standardized mortality/morbidity ratio, RR– relative risk, IDR – incidence density ratio, OR – odds ratio *manuscript submitted and currently being revised for publication Sritharan et al. Environmental Health (2017) 16:124 Page 5 of 12

391
Between-study heterogeneity
There was high heterogeneity (72%) for the meta-analysis of all 19 firefighter incidence studies. As a sensitivity ana- lysis, the Galbraith plot was used and one study [33],
appeared outside of the 95% confidence region. Removal
of this study resulted in a minimal change in heterogeneity (72 versus 69%, respectively). For the meta-analysis of the 10 mortality studies, there was moderate heterogeneity
(50%). High heterogeneity was observed for the six case – control studies (78%), 18 cohort studies (67%) and the five administrative linkage-based studies (61%). When plotting these subgroups using the Galbraith plot, no studies ap- peared outside of the 95% confidence region.

For police studies, heterogeneity ranged from none to
moderate. Moderate heterogeneity was observed for the
nine incidence studies (33%) and seven cohort studies
(37%), but no heterogeneity (0%, 95% CI: 0 –90%) was ob- served for the mortality (three studies) and case –control (four studies) subgroups. I
2 values of 0% are biased and
imprecise, likely because of the small number of studies in these subgroups ( n < 5) [34]. Using the Galbraith plot, none of the police studies appeared outside of the 95%
confidence region.

Publication bias
There was no evidence of publication bias according to
Begg’s test ( p = 0.86) and Egger ’s test ( p = 0.11) for the meta-analysis of all 19 firefighter incidence studies. No publication bias was evident for the 9 police incidence studies (Begg ’s test: p = 0.60, Egger ’s test: p = 0.68).

There were also no statistically significant findings for Table 4 Quality assessment of included firefighter and police studies Quality Assessment Category Maximum Attainable
Score
Studies on firefighters
(n = 19)
Studies on police
workers (n = 5)
Studies on both firefighters
and police workers (n = 7)
All studies ( n = 31)
Range Mean Range Mean Range Mean Mean
Reporting 9 4–9 6.0 1 –8 5.4 4 –8 6.1 5.9
External Validity 2 1–2 1.8 0 –2 1.6 1 –2 1.6 1.7
Internal Validity: Bias 4 3–4 3.8 3 –4 3.8 4 4 3.8
Internal Validity: Confounding 4 2–4 3.2 1 –4 2.8 3 –4 3.6 3.2 Power 1 0 0 0 0 0 –1 0.1 0.0
Total 20 10–19 14.8 5 –18 13.6 12 –18 15.4 14.6
Fig. 2 Forest plot and mRE of all included prostate cancer incidence studies on firefighters Sritharan et al. Environmental Health (2017) 16:124 Page 6 of 12

392
publication bias for mortality studies, case –control, co- hort, and administrative linkage-based studies.

Discussion
In this meta-analysis of 31 epidemiological studies of pro- tective services workers, nearly identical and small statisti- cally significant excess risks of prostate cancer were found for ever working in firefighting and police work. Statisti- cally significant and borderline prostate cancer mREs were found for firefighters in separate evaluations of incidence studies, cohort studies, and administrative linkage studies, as well as in each meta-analysis of police worker incidence studies and case –control studies. Most studies were of average quality, with opportunities for improvement in
reporting and study power assessment. As expected, case – control studies compared to cohort studies generally had more information on variables that can act as potential confounders of the firefighter/police work and prostate cancer associations. All case –control studies reported prostate cancer risk estimates that were adjusted for age; Fig. 3 Forest plot and mRE of all included prostate cancer mortality studies on firefighters Fig. 4 Forest plot and mRE of all included prostate cancer incidence studies on police workers Sritharan et al. Environmental Health (2017) 16:124 Page 7 of 12

393
most were also adjusted for ethnicity. Fewer case –control studies adjusted risk estimates for family history of pros- tate cancer and potentially confounding variables such as socioeconomic status, physical activity, height, obesity, active smoking, and alcohol consumption. Overall, find- ings from this meta-analysis support positive associations found between prostate cancer risk and firefighting in the epidemiological literature, and indicate a potential rela- tionship with police work as well.

There are a few hypotheses that may explain why em-
ployment in protective services occupations could be as- sociated with increased prostate cancer risk. Firefighting and police jobs are inherently dangerous occupations
that involve stressful, and, at times, life-threatening, situ- ations with exposure to multiple hazards [14– 16]. Psy- chological stressors can influence biological processes and lead to decreased immune function, increased pro-
inflammatory cytokine secretion, and cancer progression [15]. Shift work, which is common in protective services work, was significantly associated with increased pros- tate cancer risk in a recent meta-analysis of eight case – control and cohort studies [35]. Firefighters are also ex- posed to toxins released by fire and smoke including
benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde and at times can
be exposed to other compounds such as radiation, diesel exhaust, asbestos, metals (arsenic and cadmium), and
PAHs [14, 16, 27]. The chemical reactions during com-
bustion and the age and type of building or material on fire can contribute to exposure to these compounds
[16]. Police work involves fewer chemical exposures
compared to firefighting, although exposure to ionizing radiation from radar devices is a concern for overall can- cer risk [11, 12]. Firefighters and police workers may
also be exposed to air pollution on the job, as ambient concentrations of ultrafine particles and NO
2 have been
previously linked to prostate cancer risk [36, 37]. Of the described chemical exposures, only x and gamma radi-
ation, arsenic compounds, and cadmium compounds
have been linked to prostate cancer by IARC based on
limited evidence in non-occupational settings. However, IARC has classified benzene, ionizing radiation, diesel exhaust, asbestos, arsenic compounds, cadmium com-
pounds, and air pollution as all Group 1 carcinogens,
based on evidence for other cancer sites [38]. There is a need to further examine these chemical exposures in
both firefighting and police work to understand if these exposures are involved in prostate cancer risk.

Evaluating potential associations between shift work
and prostate cancer is an active area of ongoing
research [39 –41]. Shift work can disrupt the body ’s
endogenous circadian rhythm (sleep-wake cycle) and
contribute to increased susceptibility to acute and
chronic diseases. However, the biological mechanisms
t h a tm a yb ei n v o l v e di np r o s t a t ea n do t h e rc a n c e r s have not been established [18, 42]. One hypothesis is
that night shift work can lead to decreased melatonin,
which can then lead to continuous testosterone pro-
duction, influencing the growth and differentiation of
prostate cancer cells [16]. In addition, decreased sun- light exposure in night shift workers reduces the pro-
duction of vitamin D, thereby compromising the
effects of vitamin D on suppressing the production of
prostate cancer cells [16].

Psychological stress also has been linked to cancer
progression, but there is limited evidence for how this impacts cancer promotion [43]. Firefighting and police
work involve constant stressors that can potentially
affect cancer progression, particularly prolonged stress over years of employment in these jobs [44]. A recent
study on stress at work and cancer outcomes found that
Fig. 5 Forest plot and mRE of all included prostate cancer mortality studies on police workers Sritharan et al. Environmental Health (2017) 16:124 Page 8 of 12

394
the highest prevalence of stress at work was reported
among firemen when compared to other types of occu-
pations [45].

Another factor that may influence our meta-analysis
results is prostate cancer screening. Although prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing varies across different
countries and within countries, it is believed that pro- tective services workers have frequent and better access to health resources compared to other workers, includ-
ing access to cancer screening [32]. In North America,
for example, firefighters are provided with health infor- mation and recommendations on what to consider when
completing a health examination with their primary
physician, including recommendations for prostate can-
cer screening [46]. However, it is up to each fire depart- ment to disseminate this information and ultimately up
to each firefighter to request screening from their pri- mary physician. In this meta-analysis we found slightly lower mortality mREs compared to incidence mREs for
firefighters and police officers. As increased screening of prostate cancer leads to the identification of more early stage cases (increased incidence), this may be indicative of a screening effect. However, the mREs for both inci- dence and mortality were so similar that it was difficult to attribute these differences to screening. Also, prostate cancer screening may not be of high importance in fire- fighting compared to other cancers (ex. brain, bladder, and colon) and health conditions that have been consist- ently associated with firefighting. We evaluated study
estimates based on different follow-up periods defined
as pre-PSA period (prior to 1990 before the PSA test
was introduced), during the introduction of PSA testing (early 1990s), and after the introduction of PSA testing (late 1990s and onwards). Although we included studies
from different nations, most of the studies were North
American so we loosely defined the time periods based
on North America. We identified a number of pre-PSA
period firefighter studies and observed a meta-risk esti- mate of 1.26 (95% CI 0.96 –1.67) for these studies. For firefighter studies that had follow-up periods during and after the introduction of PSA testing, we observed a
meta-risk estimate of 1.13 (95% CI 1.02 –1.25). It was
challenging to define firefighter study follow-up periods as post PSA testing (late 1990s onwards) since most of
these studies had follow-up periods that overlapped the early 1990s when PSA testing began. We identified only
a few firefighter studies that had later follow-up periods (late 1990s and early 2000s) and observed a meta-risk
estimate of 1.58 (95% CI 1.09– 2.29) for these studies.

Overall, we observed an elevated risk for firefighter stud- ies that were conducted before the introduction of PSA
testing, and a statistically significant elevated risk for firefighter studies that took place during and after the introduction of PSA testing. These findings may be
representative of the increased screening that took place over this time period. We attempted to evaluate police
studies as well but were limited as almost all included police studies had follow-up periods overlapping periods with and without PSA testing.

Our findings of a slight excess risk of prostate cancer in firefighting and police services should be cautiously interpreted. As expected, there was considerable hetero- geneity between studies, particularly in subgroup meta- analyses of police workers and prostate cancer risk
that involved small numbers of studies. This makes it
challenging to interpret mRE values with precision
[34]. Heterogeneity was likely due to differences in
study design and populations studied, follow-up years,
occupational exposure assessment and job coding,
and adjustment of relative risk values for known or
potential covariates. Specifically, there were differ-
ences in how the study populations were defined, in
terms of paid or unpaid work, full time vs. part time,
and eligible employment duration. Some heterogeneity
may also be attributed to different follow-up periods
in each study, especially those overlapping the pre
and post PSA era. The variation in age distribution
across included studies could also contribute to het-
erogeneity based on differences in how studies strati-
fied by age. Some studies had relatively younger
populations than other studies and we observed a
similar elevated meta-risk estimate for these younger
population studies as we did for the overall estimates
Publication bias was also considered, but was not rec-
ognized as a significant factor as a majority of the
included studies were cohort designs. The cohort
studies generally looked at multiple cancer sites as
outcomes, so it is unlikely that publication bias would have been of concern based on solely prostate cancer
results.

A major strength of this meta-analysis is that it was
the first to assess prostate cancer risk in both firefighting and police work, replete with subgroup analyses and as- sessments of study quality, heterogeneity, and publica- tion bias. This meta-analysis captured all previously and newly published studies since the IARC evaluation of
firefighting in 2007, and also quantitatively evaluated prostate cancer risk in police studies which had not been done before. Firefighting and police work should be pri- ority areas for investigation because these occupations frequently involve exposure to multiple chemical, bio-
logical, physical, and psycho-social hazards. Exposure to some hazards may be associated with increased risk of
prostate cancer, although the strength and consistency
of associations varies across studies and there are sub- stantial research gaps. Altogether, this research can be used to help identify opportunities for further research on occupation and prostate cancer risk.

Sritharan et al. Environmental Health (2017) 16:124 Page 9 of 12

395
Other occupations of interest with respect to prostate
cancer risk are military workers. While we initially sought to include military studies in this meta-analysis, they were ultimately not included because these studies were pri- marily based on specific historical events (ex. Gulf war) or internal comparisons between military groups [47 –62].

This made it difficult to compare findings to other studies that did not focus on single events or that compared
workers to the general population. Future assessments can separately consider military studies.

Conclusions
Overall, the slight excess risks of prostate cancer in fire- fighting and police services found in this meta-analysis of 31 studies were generally robust to subgroup analyses by outcome (incidence and mortality) and study design. Our findings are important as they show the importance of
prostate cancer incidence and mortality among protective services workers, and as this is the first meta-analysis to include both firefighting and police work and prostate
cancer risk. The observed findings suggest that screening may not entirely explain our findings, but further investi- gation into actual screening rates and screening behav- iours in firefighting and police work is warranted. Also, further investigations should be designed to assess specific exposures such as benzene, radiation, diesel exhaust, ar- senic and cadmium compounds, PAHs, asbestos, and air
pollution which are involved in firefighting. Little evidence on how they may relate to prostate cancer risk has been accrued. There is also a need for future studies to examine prostate cancer risk in police work given the small num- ber of police workers published to date. By addressing
these important issues in future studies, there will be bet- ter understanding on prostate cancer risk in firefighting and police work.

Additional files
Additional file 1: Table S1. Covariates adjusted for in firefighter and police case –control studies (DOCX 12 kb)
Additional file 2: Figure S1. Forest plot and mRE of all included cohort studies on firefighters. (DOCX 285 kb)
Additional file 3: Figure S2. Forest plot and mRE of all included case–control studies on firefighters. (DOCX 137 kb)
Additional file 4: Figure S3. Forest plot and mRE of all included administrative linkage-based studies on firefighters. (DOCX 153 kb) Additional file 5: Figure S4. Forest plot and mRE of all included cohort studies on police workers. (DOCX 175 kb)
Additional file 6: Figure S5. Forest plot and mRE of all included case–control studies on police workers. (DOCX 117 kb)
Abbreviations
CI: Confidence Interval; HR: Hazard Ratio; IARC: International Agency for Research on Cancer; mRE: Meta-risk Estimate; OR: Odds Ratio; PSA: Prostate Specific Antigen; RR: Relative Risk; SIR: Standardized Incidence Ratio; SMR: Standardized Mortality Ratio
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge Sheila Kalenge ’s contribution to prostate cancer screening behaviours in firefighters.

Data availability statements
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Funding
The corresponding author is supported by the Occupational Cancer Research Centre which is funded by the Canadian Cancer Society, Cancer Care Ontario and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Grant number 2014 –703257.

Authors’ contributions
The corresponding author, JS, is the main contributor in the design and conceptualization of the study, analysis and interpretation of the data, drafting the work and revising content critically, final approval of the work to be published. MP contributed to the design and conceptualization of the study, analysis and interpretation of the data, drafting and revising the work critically, and final approval of the version to be published. PD contributed to the conceptualizing and design of the study, acquisition and interpretation of the data, drafting the work and revising content critically, and final approval of the work to be published. SH and DC contributed to the design and interpretation of the work, drafting and revising content critically, and final approval of the version to be published. MEP contributed to the design and conceptualization of the study, interpretation of the data, drafting and revising the work critically, and final approval of the version to be published.

Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not Applicable.

Consent for publication
Not Applicable.

Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’sN o t e
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Author details
1Occupational Cancer Research Centre, Cancer Care Ontario, 525 University Avenue, Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada. 2Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, 525 University Avenue, Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada. 3CAREX Canada, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada. 4Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 525 University Avenue, Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada. 5Population Health and Prevention, Cancer Care Ontario, 525 University Avenue, Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada. 6INRS-Institut Armand-Frappier, University of Quebec, 531 Boulevard des Prairies, Laval, Quebec H7V 1B7, Canada.

Received: 20 September 2017 Accepted: 27 October 2017
References

1. International Agency for Research on Cancer. GLOBOCAN 2012: estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012. Lyon IARC. 2016. http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_cancer.aspx. Accessed 5 May 2017.

2. Canadian Cancer Society. Prostate cancer statistics. 2015. http://www.cancer. ca/en/cancer-information/cancer-type/prostate/statistics/?region=on.

Accessed 5 May 2017.

3. Dy GW, Gore JL, Forouzanfar MH, Naghavi M, Fitzmaurice C. Global burden of urologic cancers, 1990 –2013. Eur Urol. 2017;71:437 –336.

4. Plato BA, Concepcion MT. Prostate cancer epidemiology. Arch Esp Urol. 2014;67(5):373–82.

5. Bashir MN. Epidemiology of prostate cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015; 16:5137–41.

Sritharan et al. Environmental Health (2017) 16:124 Page 10 of 12

396

6. Singh GK, Jemal A. Socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparities in cancer mortality, incidence, and survival in the United States, 1950 –2014: over six decades of changing patterns and widening inequalities. J Environ Public Health. 2017;2819372:1–19.

7. Zuccolo L, Harris R, Gunnell D, Oliver S, Lane JA, Davis M, Donovan J, Neal D, Hamdy F, Beynon R, Savovic J, Martin RM. Height and prostate cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2008;17(9):2325 –36.

8. Zhao J, Stockwell T, Roemer A, Chikritzhs T. Is alcohol consumption a risk factor for prostate cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2016;16:845.

9. Parikesit D, Mochtar CA, Umbas R, Hamid ARAH. The impact of obesity towards prostate diseases. Prostate Int. 2016;4(1):1 –6.

10. Freedland SJ, Aronson WJ. Examining the relationship between obesity and prostate cancer. Rev Urol. 2004;6(2):73 –81.

11. Zeegers MPA, Friesema IHM, Goldbohm RA, van den Brandt PA. A prospective study of occupation and prostate cancer risk. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;46(3):271 –9.

12. Sauve JF, Lavoue J, Parent ME. Occupation, industry and the risk of prostate cancer: a case– control in Montreal, Canada. Environ Health. 2016;15:100.

13. Parent M-É, Siemiatycki J. Occupation and prostate cancer. Epidemiol Rev. 2001;23(1):138–43.

14. LeMasters GK, Genaidy AM, Succop P, Deddens J, Sobeih T, Barriera-Viruet H, et al. Cancer risk among firefighters: a review and meta-analysis of 32 studies. J Occup Environ Med. 2006;48(11):1189 –201.

15. Wirth M, Vena JE, Smith EK, Bauer SE, Violanti J, Burch J. The epidemiology of cancer among police officers. Am J Ind Med. 2013;56(4):439– 53.

16. The International Agency for Research on Cancer. Painting, firefighting, and shiftwork. Lyon; IARC. 2010. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/ vol98/mono98.pdf. Accessed 13 Apr 2017.

17. Pukkala E, Martinsen JI, Weiderpass E, Kjaerheim K, Lynge E, Tryggvadottir L, Sparen P, Demers PA. Cancer incidence among firefighters: 45 years of follow-up in five Nordic countries. Occup Environ Med. 2014;71:398 –404.

18. Howe GR, Burch JD. Fire fighters and risk of cancer: an assessment and overview of the epidemiologic evidence. Am J Epidemiol. 1990;132:
1039–50.

19. Vena JE, Charles LE, Gu JK, Burchfiel CM, Andrew ME, Fekedulegn D, Violanti JM. Mortality of a police cohort: 1950 –2005. J Law Enforc Leadersh Ethics. 2014;1(1):7–20.

20. Finkelstein MM. Cancer incidence among Ontario police officers. Am J Ind Med. 1998;34:157 –62.

21. Downs, Black. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998; 52:377–284.

22. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

Stat Med. 2002;21:1539 –58.

23. Bax L, Ikeda N, Fukui N, Yaju Y, Tsuruta H, Moons KGM. More than numbers:
the power of graphs in meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;169(2):249 –55.

24. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50(4):1088 –101.

25. Egger M, Smith GD, Scheider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629 –34.

26. Ma F, Fleming LE, Lee DJ, Trapido E, Gerace TA, Lai H, Lai S. Mortality in Florida professional firefighters, 1972 –1999. Am J Ind Med. 2005;47:509 –17.

27. Ma F, Fleming LE, Lee DJ, Trapido E, Gerace TA. Cancer incidence in Florida professional firefighters, 1981 to 1999. J Occup Environ Med. 2006;48(9):
883–8.

28. Demers PA, Checkoway H, Vaughan TL, Weiss NS, Heyer NJ, Rosenstock L.

Cancer incidence among firefighters in Seattle and Tacoma, Washington (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 1994;5:129 –35.

29. Demers PA, Heyer NJ, Rosenstock L. Mortality among firefighters from three northwestern United States cities. Br J Ind Med. 1992;49:664 –70.

30. Daniels RD, Bertke S, Dahm MM, Yiin JH, Kubale TL, Hales TR, Baris D, Zahm SH, Beaumont JJ, Waters KM, Pinkerton LE. Exposure-response relationships for select cancer and non-cancer health outcomes in a cohort of US firefighters from San Francisco, Chicago and Philadephia (1950 –2009).

Occup Environ Med. 2015;72(10):699 –706.

31. Tornling G, Gustavsson P, Hogstedt C. Mortality and cancer incidence in Stockholm fire fighters. Am J Ind Med. 1994;25:219–28.

32. Daniels RD, Kubale TL, Yiin JH, Dahm MM, Hales TR, Baris D, Zahm SH, Beaumont JJ, Waters KM, Pinkerton LE. Mortality and cancer incidence in a pooled cohort of US firefighters from San Francisco, Chicago and Philadelphia (1950–2009). Occup Environ Med. 2014;71(6):388–97.

33. Beaumont JJ, Chu GST, Jones JR, Schenker MB, Singleton JA, Plantanida LG, Reiterman M. An epidemiologic study of cancer and other causes of mortality in San Francisco firefighters. Am J Ind Med. 1991;19:357–72.

34. von Hippel PT. The heterogeneity statistic I
2 c a nb eb i a s e di ns m a l lm e t a -
analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:35.

35. Rao D, Yu H, Bai Y, Zheng X, Xie L. Does night-shift work increase the risk of prostate cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Onco Targets Ther. 2015;8:2817–26.

36. Weichenthal S, Lavigne E, Valois MF, Hatzopoulou M, Van Ryswyk K, Shekarrizfard M, Villeneuve P, Goldberg M, Parent MÉ. Spatial variations in ambient ultrafine particle concentrations and the risk of incident prostate cancer: a case–control study. Environ Res. 2017;156:374–80.

37. Parent MÉ, Goldberg MS, Crouse DL, Ross NA, Chen H, Valois MF, Liautaud A. Traffic-related air pollution and prostate cancer risk in Montreal Canada.

Occup Environ Med. 2013;70:511 –8.

38. International Agency for Research on Cancer. List of classifications by cancer site with sufficient or limited evidence in humans, volumes 1 to 119. Lyon: IARC. 2017. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/ Table4.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2017.

39. Flynn-Evans EE, Mucci L, Steve ns RG, Lockley SW. Shiftwork and prostate-specific antigen in the National Health and nutrition examination survey. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(17):1292 –7.

40. Parent ME, El-Zein M, Rousseau MC, Pintos J, Siemiatycki J. Night work and the risk of cancer among men. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;176(9):751– 9.

41. Papantoniou K, Castano-Vinyals G, Espinosa A, Aragones N, Perez-Gomez B, Burgos J, Gomez-Acebo I, Llorca J, Peiro R, Jimenez-Moleon JJ, Arredondo F, Tardon A, Pollan M, Kogevinas M. Night shift work, chronotype and prostate cancerr i s ki nt h eM C C - S p a i nc a s e–control study. Int J Cancer. 2015;137(5):1147 –57.

42. Fekedulegn D, Burchfiel CM, Hartley TA, Andrew ME, Charles LE, Tinney- Zara CA, Violanti JM. Shiftwork and sickness absence among police officers: the BCOPS study. Chronobiol Int. 2013;30(7):930 –41.

43. Moreno-Smith M, Lutgendorf SK, Sood AK. Impact of stress on cancer metastasis. Future Oncol. 2010;6(12):1863– 81.

44. Violanti JM, Vena JE, Petralia S. Mortality of a police cohort: 1950 –1990. Am J Ind Med. 1998;33:366 –73.

45. Blanc-Lapierre A, Rousseau MC, Weiss D, El-Zein M, Siemiatycki J, Parent ME. Lifetime report of perceived stress at work and cancer among men:
ac a s e–control study in Montreal Canada. Prev Med. 2016;96:28 –35.

46. International Association of Firefighters. Annual cancer screening and medical evaluations for firefighters. Ottawa: IAFF. 2017. http://www. iaff1782.org/index.cfm?zone=/unionactive/view_article.cfm&HomeID= 68377&page=Health20and20Safety. Accessed 11 July 2017.

47. Strand LA, Martinsen JI, Borud EK. Cancer incidence and all-cause mortality in a cohort of 21 582 Norwegian military peacekeepers deployed to Lebanon during 1978–1998. Cancer Epidemiol. 2017;39:571–7.

48. Yi SW. Cancer incidence in Korean Vietnam veterans during 1992 –2003: the Korean veterans health study. J Prev Med Public Health. 2013;46:309 –18.

49. Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center. Incidence diagnoses of cancers and cancer-related deaths, active component, U.S. armed forces, 2000 –2011.

Med Surveillv Mon Rep. 2012;19(6):18 –22.

50. Strand LA, Martinsen JI, Koefoed VF, Sommerfelt-Pettersen J, Grimsrud TK.

Cause-specific mortality and cancer incidence among 28 300 royal Norwegian navy servicemen followed for more than 50 years. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2011;37(4):307– 15.

51. Rogers D, Boyd DD, Fox EE, Cooper S, Goldhagen M, Shen Y, del Junco DJ.

Prostate cancer incidence in air force aviators compared with non-aviators.

Aviat Space Environ Med. 2011;82(11):1067 –70.

52. Cypel Y, Kang H. Mortality patterns of army chemical corps veterans who were occupationally exposed to herbicides in Vietnam. Ann Epidemiol. 2010;20(5):339–46.

53. Young HA, Maillard JD, Levine PH, Simmens SJ, Mahan CL, Kang HK.

Investigating the risk of cancer in 1990 –1991 US gulf war veterans with the use of state cancer registry data. Ann Epidemiol. 2010;20(4):265– 72.

54. Storm HH, Jorgensen HO, Kejs AMT, Engholm G. Depleted uranium and cancer in Danish Balkan veterans deployed 1992 –2001. Eur J Cancer. 2006; 42:2355–8.

55. Yamane GK. Cancer incidence in the U.S. air force: 1989 –2002. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2006;77:7789 –94.

Sritharan et al. Environmental Health (2017) 16:124 Page 11 of 12

397

56. Akhtar FZ, Garabrant DH, Ketchum NS, Michalek JE. Cancer in the US air force veterans of the Vietnam war. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;46(2):123– 36.

57. Silva M, Santana VS, Loomis D. Cancer mortality among service men in the Brazilian navy. Rev Saude Publica. 2000;34(4):373– 9.

58. Watanabe KK, Kang HK. Mortality patterns among Vietnam veterans. J Occup Environ Med. 1996;38(3):272– 8.

59. Darby SC, Muirhead CR, Doll R, Kendall GM, Thakrar B. Mortality among United Kingdom servicemen who served abroad in the 1950s and 1960s. Br J Ind Med. 1990;47:793 –804.

60. Leavy J, Gini A, Lin F. Vietnam military service history and prostate cancer.

BMC Public Health. 2006;6:75.

61. Sanderson M, Coker AL, Logan P, Zheng W, Fadden MK. Lifestyle and prostate cancer among older African-American and Caucasian men in South Carolina. Cancer Causes Control. 2004;15:647 –55.

62. Giri VN, Cassidy AE, Beebe-Dimmer J, Smith DC, Bock CH, Cooney KA.

Association between agent orange and prostate cancer: a pilot case– control study. Urology. 2004;63:757 –61.

63. Glass DC, Pircher S, Del Monaco A, Vander Hoorn S, Sim MR. Mortality and cancer incidence in a cohort of male paid Australian firefighters. Occup Environ Med. 2016;73:761 –71.

64. Brice A, Jean-Luc M, Frederic M, Stephane D, Gaelle C, Simone MP, Christian L, Ellen I, Patrick B. French firefighter mortality: analysis over a 30-year period. Am J Ind Med. 2015;58:437 –43.

65. Ahn YS, Jeong KS, Kim KS. Cancer morbidity of professional emergency responders in Korea. Am J Ind Med. 2012;55:768 –78.

66. Baris D, Garrity TJ, Telles JL, Heineman EF, Olshan A, Zahm SH. Cohort mortality study of Philadelphia firefighters. Am J Ind Med. 2001;39:463 –76.

67. Bates MN, Fawcett J, Garrett N, Arnold R, Pearce N, Woodward A. Is testicular cancer an occupational disease of fire fighters? Am J Ind Med. 2001;40:263–70.

68. Aronson KJ, Tomlinson GA, Smith L. Mortality among fire fighters in metropolitan Toronto. Am J Ind Med. 1994;26:89 –101.

69. Giles G, Staples M, Berry J. Cancer incidence in Melbourne metropolitan fire brigade members, 1980 –1989. Health Rep Stat Can. 1993;5(1):1 –38.

70. Guidotti TL. Mortality of urban firefighters in Alberta, 1927 –1987. Am J Ind Med. 1993;23:921–40.

71. Grimes G, Hirsch D, Borgeson D. Risk of death among Honolulu fire fighters.

Hawaii Med J. 1991;50(3):82 –5.

72. Vena JE, Fiedler RC. Mortality of a municipal-worker cohort: IV. Fire fighters.

Am J Ind Med. 1987;11:671 –84.

73. Tsai RJ, Luckhaupt SE, Schumacher P, Cress RD, Deapen DM, Calvert GM.

Risk of cancer among firefighters in California, 1988 –2007. Am J Ind Med. 2015;58(7):715–29.

74. Kang D, Davis LK, Hunt P, Kreibel D. Cancer incidence among male Massachusetts firefighters, 1987 –2003. Am J Ind Med. 2008;51:329 –35.

75. Krstev S, Baris D, Stewart P, Dosemeci M, Swanson GM, Greenberg RS, Schoenberg JB, Schwartz AG, Liff JM, Hayes RB. Occupational risk factors and prostate cancer in U.S. blacks and whites. Am J Ind Med. 1998;34:421– 30.

76. Gu JK, Charles LE, Burchfiel CM, Andrew ME, Violanti JM. Cancer incidence among police officers in a U.S. northeast region: 1976 –2006. Int J Emerg Mental Health. 2011;13(4):279– 89.

77. Forastiere F, Perucci CA, Di Pietro A, Miceli M, Rapiti E, Bargagli A, Borgia P.

Mortality among urban policemen in Rome. Am J Ind Med. 1994;26:785 –98.

78. Bouchardy C, Schuler G, Minder C, Hotz P, Bousquet A, Levi F, Fisch T, Torhorst J, Raymond L. Cancer risk by occupation and socioeconomic group among men – a study by the association of swiss cancer registries. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2002;28 suppl(1):1 –88.

79. Sritharan J, Demers PA, Harris SA, Cole DC, Peters CE, the Canadian Cancer Registries Epidemiology Research Group, Villeneuve PJ. Occupation and risk of prostate cancer in Canadian men: a case– control study across eight Canadian provinces. Cancer Epidemiol. 2017a;48:96 –103.

80. Sritharan J, Demers PA, Harris SA, Cole DC, Kreiger N, Sass-Korstak A, Lightfoot N. Natural resource-based industries and prostate cancer risk in northeastern Ontario: a case– control study. Occup Environ Med. 2016;73:
506–11.
• We accept pre-submission inquiries
 Our selector tool helps you to find the most relevant journal  We provide round the clock customer support
 Convenient online submission
 Thorough peer review
 Inclusion in PubMed and all major indexing services
 Maximum visibility for your research
Submit your manuscript at
www.biomedcentral.com/submit
Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central
and we will help you at every step:

Sritharan et al. Environmental Health (2017) 16:124 Page 12 of 12

398
Risk of Cancer Among Firefighters in California, 1988–2007 Rebecca J. Tsai, PhD1, Sara E. Luckhaupt, MD, MPH1, Pam Schumacher1, Rosemary D.

Cress, PhD2,3, Dennis M. Deapen, DrPH, and Geoffrey M. Calvert, MD, MPH1 1Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cincinnati, Ohio 2Public Health Institute, Cancer Registry of Greater California, Sacramento, California 3Department of Public Health Sciences, UC Davis School of Medicine, Davis, California Abstract
Background—Most studies of firefighter cancer risks were conducted prior to 1990 and do not reflect risk from advances in building materials.

Methods—A case–control study using California Cancer Registry data (1988–2007) was conducted to evaluate the risk of cancer among firefighters, stratified by race.

Results—This study identified 3,996 male firefighters with cancer. Firefighters were found to have a significantly elevated risk for melanoma (odds ratio [OR]=1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4–2.1), multiple myeloma (OR 1.4; 95%CI 1.0–1.8), acute myeloid leukemia (OR 1.4; 95%CI 1.0–2.0), and cancers of the esophagus (OR 1.6;95%CI 1.2–2.1), prostate (OR 1.5; 95%CI

1.3–1.7), brain (OR 1.5; 95%CI 1.2–2.0), and kidney (OR 1.3; 95%CI 1.0–1.6).

Conclusions—In addition to observing cancer findings consistent with previous research, this study generated novel findings for firefighters with race/ethnicity other than white. It provides additional evidence to support the association between firefighting and several specific cancers.

Keywords
cancer; firefighters; occupation; registry; risk
Correspondence to: Rebecca J. Tsai, PhD, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, R-17, Cincinnati, OH 45226. [email protected].

Author Contribution Statement: All authors contributed to the conception, acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data. Additionally, all authors were involved in reviewing and revising this manuscript for intellectual content, approving the final manuscript, and agreeing to account for all aspects of this manuscript.

Disclaimers: The collection of cancer incidence data used in this study was supported by the California Department of Public Health as part of the statewide cancer reporting program mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 103885; the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program under contract HHSN261201000140C awarded to the Cancer Prevention Institute of California, contract HHSN261201000035C awarded to the University of Southern California, and contract HHSN261201000034C awarded to the Public Health Institute; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Program of Cancer Registries, under agreement U58DP003862-01 awarded to the California Department of Public Health. The ideas and opinions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and endorsement by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the National Center for Health Statistics, the State of California, Department of Public Health, the National Cancer Institute, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or their Contractors and Subcontractors is not intended nor should be inferred.

Conflict of interest: All authors are federal or state government employees and preparation of this manuscript was completely funded by the US Government. Otherwise, no additional financial disclosures were reported by the authors of this paper.

HHS Public Access
Author manuscript
Am J Ind Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.

Published in final edited form as:

Am J Ind Med. 2015 July ; 58(7): 715–729. doi:10.1002/ajim.22466.

Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript

399

INTRODUCTION
Firefighting is considered one of the most hazardous occupations [Guidotti, 1993]. In 2013, there were about 354,600 (31%) career firefighters and 786,150 (69%) volunteer firefighters in the United States [
National Fire Protection Association, 2014]. Firefighters are expected to perform under stressful conditions and are at risk for physical, biological, and chemical- related injuries and illnesses, including cancer [Melius, 2001].

Firefighters are often exposed to known carcinogens in their line of work [Stefanidou et al., 2008]. Additionally, the introduction of newer building materials beginning approximately 40 years ago (e.g., engineered thermoplastics such as polyvinylidene fluoride, and laminated veneer lumber), may expose firefighters to potentially new carcinogenic combustion products [Beaumont et al., 1991; Grundahl, 1992]. The burning of plastics found in home appliances, furniture, and electronics may also introduce firefighters to new carcinogens [Korst, 2012
]. While the use of a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) can eliminate or significantly decrease respiratory exposure to toxic particles during firefighting [Bates, 2007], SCBAs are not always worn, especially during overhaul. Overhaul is a late-stage in fire suppression when the burned area is inspected for flammable sources that can rekindle a fire. During overhaul, firefighters can be exposed to combustion products through disassembling walls or removing furniture [Bates, 2007]. Furthermore, even when SCBAs are worn, firefighters can absorb combustion products through the unprotected skin on their neck [
Fent et al., 2014]. Several combustion products are classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A) or possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). These combustion products include benzene (Group 1), benzo[a]pyrene (Group 1), vinyl chloride (Group 1), formaldehyde (Group 1), 1, 3-butadiene (Group 1), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (Group 1) [
Melius, 2001; Stefanidou et al., 2008; International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2015]. Firefighters may also be exposed to asbestos (Group 1) and lead (Group 2A) when present in burning buildings [International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2015]. Non-fire-related exposures may also increase cancer risk, as firefighters can be exposed to diesel exhaust from fire trucks, and diesel exhaust was found to be associated with increased cancer risks [International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2015 ].

Studies have found that firefighting is significantly associated with an increased risk for developing the following cancers: colorectal [Vena and Fiedler, 1987 ; Burnett et al., 1994;
Baris et al., 2001; Daniels et al., 2014], lung [Pukkala et al., 2014; Daniels et al., 2015], melanoma [Howe and Burch, 1990; Sama et al., 1990], prostate [Grimes et al., 1991; Demers et al., 1994; LeMasters et al., 2006], testis [LeMasters et al., 2006; Ma et al., 2006], urinary bladder [Vena and Fiedler, 1987; Sama et al., 1990 ; Ma et al., 2006], kidney
[Burnett et al., 1994; Delahunt et al., 1995; Daniels et al., 2014], brain [Grimes et al., 1991; Demers et al., 1992; Aronson et al., 1994; Ma et al., 2006], myeloma [LeMasters et al., 2006], non-Hodgkin lymphoma [Burnett et al., 1994; Figgs et al., 1995; Golden et al., 1995], and leukemia [Morton and Marjanovic, 1984; Golden et al., 1995; Baris et al., 2001; Daniels
et al., 2015]. In recognition of these cancer risks, as of 2015, a total of 33 states cover firefighters for one or more cancers under workers’ compensation as a result of presumption legislation [International Association of Fire Fighters, 2015]. In 20 of these states, the Tsai et al. Page 2
Am J Ind Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.

Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript

400
language in the presumption legislation contains broad or nonspecific language that can be interpreted to cover any cancer experienced by a firefighter. In the other 13 states, only certain specific cancers are covered, most commonly leukemia (12 states), brain cancer (10 states), bladder cancer (9 states), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (9 states), and gastrointestinal cancer (8 states).

Ongoing assessment of cancer risks among firefighters is needed because of inconsistent findings across previous studies [International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2010], and because most studies were conducted prior to 1990 which may limit their ability to detect new risks arising from advances in building materials. In addition, few studies have examined the cancer risks among firefighters of other race/ethnicity. This study aims to update and expand a previous study by Bates [Bates, 2007], assessing cancer risks among firefighters using data from the California Cancer Registry (CCR). In addition, this is one of the first studies to include an examination of firefighter risk for subtypes of leukemia, esophageal cancer and lung cancer, and cancer risks among firefighters of other race/ ethnicity (e.g., blacks and Hispanics).

MATERIALS AND METHODS
California Cancer Registry (CCR)
CCR is a population-based cancer surveillance system that collects data on all cancers (excluding non-melanoma skin cancers and in-situ cervical carcinoma) among California residents. It is estimated that at least 95% of cancer cases are ascertained by CCR [North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, 2015]. Cancer reporting has been mandated by California law since 1985 and CCR has collected statewide cancer data from doctors, hospitals, and other medical facilities since January 1, 1988. Data collected by CCR include demographics, cancer characteristics, and cancer treatments. Information on the industry and occupation (I&O) of the job held longest by each case are also collected in narrative form. CCR provided the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) with de-identified cancer data collected from 1988 to 2007. Because this is a public health surveillance study with analyses conducted on anonymous data without links to personal identifiers, it was exempted from review by the NIOSH Institutional Review Board.

Firefighter Definition
To identify all cancer cases among firefighters, the I&O narrative fields were extensively searched for key words consistent with firefighting. The identified I&Os were coded using 1990 Bureau of Census (BOC) codes. Occupation codes used to indicate a career in firefighting are 413, 416, and 417. All firefighters with these codes were selected regardless of industry. The BOC manual states that the 417 code includes firefighters, fire chief’s aides, smoke jumpers, forest-fire fighters, and crash-crew men [U.S. Department of Commerce, 2000]. Their main duties are to control and extinguish fires that threaten life, property or environment, fire prevention, emergency medical service, hazardous material response, search and rescue, and disaster management [U.S. Department of Commerce, 2000]. A total Tsai et al. Page 3
Am J Ind Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.

Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript

401
of 29 search terms (e.g., firefighter, fire crew worker) were used to identify and code individuals as BOC code 417.

Individuals who work at a fire department but do not usually carry out firefighting duties have a BOC occupation code of 413 or 416. BOC code 413 indicates positions that supervise and coordinate the firefighter’s activities, as well as participate in fire prevention and control [U.S. Department of Commerce, 2000]. A total of 11 search terms (e.g., fire captain, fire chief, and fire marshal) were used to identify and code individuals as BOC code 413. BOC code 416 refers to positions that inspect buildings and firefighting equipment for fire hazards, enforce state and local fire-related ordinances, determine cause of fires or explosions, and recommend fire prevention measures [
U.S. Department of Commerce,
2000]. A total of 23 search terms (e.g., fire inspector, arson investigator, forest fire control officers, fire ranger, fire warden, and fire lookout) were used to identify and code individuals as BOC 416. Many of these individuals (i.e., those with BOC codes 413 or 416) likely started their career as firefighters (BOC code 417) and were labeled as firefighters in this study. Because our findings were very similar whether firefighters were defined as BOC code 417 only versus combining 413, 416, and 417, to maximize sample size we report only the findings for the combined definition.

Cancer cases can have multiple cancer records at CCR if they were diagnosed with the same primary cancer multiple times or diagnosed with two or more primary cancers at different times. A separate cancer record is created for each cancer diagnosis or recurrence. The I&O assigned to these cases with multiple cancer records were the I&O present at the initial diagnosis because I&O information from the earliest record is thought to provide the best indication for longest-held job. In addition, some individuals were found to have more than one primary cancer at initial diagnosis. CCR assigned the cancer with the worse prognosis as the “first” primary.

Exclusion Criteria
This study included only adult male subjects (18–97 years of age) who had I&O information available. Excluded were females, homemakers, those with insufficient I&O narratives (e.g., narratives that mentioned only unemployed, disabled, or retired, or were blank), those who never worked, and those in the military.

Selection of Cases and Control Cancers
In situ and benign tumors were excluded. Cancers that spread into surrounding tissues (malignant/invasive), and were identified as the first “malignant” primary were included in this study. The cancer risk among firefighters was assessed for all cancers that included at least 10 firefighters. Control cancers were selected after reviewing the literature for cancers that appeared to have little or no association with firefighting and its related exposures.

These control cancers were cancers of the pharynx, stomach, liver, and pancreas. Cancers and histological subtypes were defined using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) recodes.

Tsai et al. Page 4
Am J Ind Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.

Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript

402
Data Analysis
SAS ® 9.3 (Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC) was used. For each type of cancer analyzed, the proportion of cases who were firefighters was compared to the proportion of control cancer cases who were firefighters. Unconditional logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (OR) and ORs were adjusted for age at diagnosis (5-year intervals), year of diagnosis (5-year intervals), and race. The Wald test was used to test the level of statistical significance and was defined by a P < 0.05.

The risk of cancer among firefighters was examined in three ways: (i) all firefighters combined, (ii) firefighters of other race/ethnicity (i.e., blacks, Hispanics, Asians/Pacific islanders, Indian/Alaskan natives, other/unknown) and, (iii) white firefighters. Analyses of case and control groups were restricted by race category. That is, when other races/ ethnicities were assessed, only other races/ethnicities were included in the case and control groups. The analyses involving only whites were handled similarly. All cancers examined and reported in the “all firefighters combined” group, were also examined and reported in the race-stratified groups.

RESULTS
A total of 2,470,496 cancer reports did not meet the eligibility requirements and were excluded from analysis (Table I). The study sample was selected from 678,132 cancer subjects diagnosed in California who met all eligibility requirements. A total of 48,725 of those in the study sample had a control cancer. Among the control cancers, 31% were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, 29% with stomach cancer, 23% with liver cancer, and 18% with pharyngeal cancer.

The study sample included 3,996 firefighters. Compared to non-firefighters, firefighters in the study sample were slightly but significantly older (aged 63.3 years vs. 62.6 years) and more likely to be white (90.2% vs. 74%).

Among the 32 examined cancers, three were significantly elevated among all firefighters combined and among firefighters in both race groups (Tables II–IV). These three cancers were melanoma, prostate cancer, and brain cancer.

Three cancers were significantly elevated among all firefighters combined and among white firefighters: adenocarcinoma of the esophagus; non-specific, non-small cell lung cancer; and, acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Three cancers were significantly elevated among all firefighters combined and firefighters of other race/ethnicity: kidney cancer, multiple myeloma, and overall leukemia.

There were six cancers that were significantly elevated among firefighters of other race/ ethnicity only: tongue cancer, testicular cancer, bladder cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Neither of the two other groups (i.e., all firefighters combined and white firefighters) had a significantly elevated cancer risk that was unique (i.e., that was not observed in at least one of the other two groups).

Tsai et al. Page 5
Am J Ind Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.

Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript

403
There were 18 cancers for which a significantly elevated risk was not found among any firefighter group. These were: cancer of the lip; cancer of the salivary gland; gum and other mouth cancer; pharyngeal cancer; esophageal squamous carcinoma; stomach cancer; colorectal cancer; liver cancer; pancreatic cancer; laryngeal cancer; four lung cancer subtypes (i.e., adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, small cell carcinoma, and large cell carcinoma); soft tissue sarcoma; mesothelioma; thyroid cancer; and Hodgkin lymphoma.

DISCUSSION
To our knowledge, this study included more firefighters with cancer than any previous study. This allowed us to assess the association between firefighters and the development of 32 cancers in all firefighters combined, white firefighters, and firefighters of other race/ ethnicity. Of the 32 cancers assessed in this analysis of CCR data from 1988 to 2007, the risk for 14 cancers was significantly elevated in one or more firefighter groups. Firefighters of other race/ethnicity had significantly increased risk for more cancers than white firefighters. These findings warrant the need for further investigation of cancer risks among firefighters of other race/ethnicity.

Comparison With a Pooled Cohort of Firefighters from San Francisco, Chicago, and Philadelphia
Daniels et al. [2014] reported mortality and cancer registry findings for firefighters who were employed for at least one day between 1950 and 2009 in fire departments that served San Francisco, Chicago, or Philadelphia. Their findings were similar to ours. Both Daniels et al. [2014]
and our study found elevated risks for esophageal and kidney cancer among all firefighters combined and prostate cancer among firefighters of other race/ethnicity. In addition,
Daniels et al. [2014] also found significantly elevated risks for melanoma and brain cancer incidence among San Francisco firefighters only, which were also elevated in our study of firefighters in the entire state of California. However, differences were identified when we compared the
Daniels et al. [2014] overall findings (all three cities combined) with our study results. Daniels et al. [2014], unlike our study, found a significantly increased risk for mesothelioma and cancers of the pharyngeal/buccal cavity (including lip, tongue, other buccal, and pharynx), colon, larynx, and lung. Our study, unlike Daniels et al. [2014] , found
an increased risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma and overall leukemia among all firefighters combined, and an increased risk for testicular cancer, bladder cancer, and multiple myeloma among firefighters of other race/ethnicity. Study design dissimilarities that may explain some of the differences in findings include: (i) the types of firefighters included (structural firefighters in Daniels et al. [2014] vs. all firefighters in ours); (ii) location of fire departments (Daniels et al. [2014] studied three major US cities, whereas we studied California); (iii) Daniels et al. [2014] used a retrospective cohort study design whereas we used a case– control study approach involving cancer registry data only; (iv) Daniels et al.
[2014] had a smaller sample size of firefighters of other race/ethnicity with cancer; (v) inclusion of study participants for Daniels et al. [2014] was based on year employed (i.e., between 1950 and 2009), whereas ours was based on year of cancer diagnosis (i.e., between Tsai et al. Page 6
Am J Ind Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.

Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript

404
1988 and 2007); and (vi) inclusion of female firefighters in Daniels et al. [2014] but not in our study.

Comparison With Another Large Firefighter Study and a Meta-Analysis Two other reports are notable for including large numbers of firefighters: Pukkala et al. [2014] and a meta analysis by LeMasters et al. [2006]. Like our study, Pukkala et al. [2014] and
LeMasters et al. [2006] found firefighters to be at significantly increased risk for melanoma and prostate cancer. In addition, our study and LeMasters et al. [2014] found a significantly increased risk for brain cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Additionally, our study (i.e., only in firefighters of other race/ethnicity) and LeMasters et al. [2006] found an increased risk for multiple myeloma and testicular cancer. Unlike our study, neither Pukkala et al. [2014] or LeMasters et al. [2006] found increased risks for leukemia, or cancers of the esophagus, bladder, or kidney. Differences in findings between Pukkala et al. [2014] and our study may be attributed to sample size (2,536 firefighters with cancer in Pukkala et al. [2014]
vs. 3,996 in ours), and differences in geographic region studied (Nordic countries in Pukkala et al. [2014] vs. the state of California).

Commonly Observed Increased Cancer Risks Among Firefighters The only two cancers consistently found significantly elevated in three large studies [
Daniels et al., 2014, Pukkala et al., 2014, and ours] and a meta-analysis [LeMasters et al., 2006] were melanoma and prostate cancer. Significant elevations in two of the studies/meta- analysis, were observed for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and cancers of the tongue, esophagus, colon, testis, kidney, and brain. Significantly increased risks identified in at least one large study/meta-analysis but not ours included: larynx [Daniels et al., 2014]; lung and bronchus [Daniels et al., 2014; Pukkala et al., 2014]; mesothelioma [Daniels et al., 2014]; colon cancer [LeMasters et al., 2006; Daniels et al., 2014] and stomach cancer [LeMasters et al., 2006
].

Comparison With Bates [2007]
A previous study by Bates also assessed cancer risks among firefighters using CCR data; however, Bates did not conduct analyses by race and did not examine as many cancers [Bates, 2007]. Both Bates and our study found a significantly increased risk for esophageal, melanoma, prostate, and brain cancers among all firefighters combined. Cancers significantly elevated in one or more of the firefighter groups in our study, but not in Bates were bladder cancer, kidney cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and leukemia. No cancers were significantly elevated in Bates and not in our study.

In addition to conducting analyses by race, there were other differences in study design that likely explain at least some of the differences observed between Bates and our study. These include: (i) Our study used a more exhaustive keyword search for firefighters; (ii) Our study used four more years of data, as our study collected data from 1988 to 2007, while Bates only included data from 1988 to 2003; (iii) Differences in the cancers selected to serve as controls. For each examined cancer, Bates used all other cancers as the controls. In contrast, our study used cancers not thought to be associated with firefighting (i.e., cancers of the pharynx, stomach, liver, and pancreas); (iv) Our study examined more cancers. Only one Tsai et al. Page 7
Am J Ind Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.

Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript

405
cancer examined in our study but not by Bates had a significantly elevated risk: cancer of the tongue.

Firefighters of Other Race/Ethnicity
Firefighters of other race/ethnicity had significantly elevated risks for 12 cancers (tongue, melanoma, prostate, testicular, bladder, kidney, brain, non-Hodgkin, multiple myeloma, leukemia [overall], CLL, and CML). In contrast, only six cancers were significantly elevated among white firefighters.

Most of the 365 firefighters of other race/ethnicity in our study were Hispanic (62.2%) or black (27.7%). Since Hispanics and blacks generally have higher incidence rates for cancers than Asians [
United States Cancer Statistics Working Group, 2014] and less than 10% of firefighters of other race/ethnicity were Asians, cancer risks observed among firefighters of other race/ethnicity were most likely driven by the Hispanic and black firefighters.

The reasons for the race/ethnicity-associated differences in our findings are unclear. Race/ ethnicity is related to general constraints that can lead to differential access to opportunities in society [
Jones, 2001]. In addition, those of other race/ethnicity have historically been subjected to prejudice and discrimination [Jones, 2001], including those seeking employment or promotion in fire departments [Ricucci and Saldivar, 2014]. Furthermore, those of other race/ethnicity may have selectively been assigned to busier fire stations. This is supported by studies of other industries that demonstrated that workers of other race/ ethnicity may be more frequently exposed to occupational hazards than white workers [Birdsey et al., 2007]. These societally imposed conditions, as experienced by firefighters of other race/ethnicity, may lead to differential exposure to carcinogens or may heighten susceptibility to the effects of carcinogenic exposures.

To our knowledge, only two other studies reported cancer risks among firefighters of other race/ethnicity: Daniels et al. [2014] and Ma et al. [1998]. Ma et al. [1998] looked only at black firefighters, whereas Daniels et al. [2014] did not report the race/ethnicity distribution of firefighters of other race/ethnicity. Our study included more firefighters of other race/ ethnicity with cancer (n=365) than Daniels et al. [2014] or Ma et al. [1998] (n=240 and
n=66, respectively).

Daniels et al. [2014] found only prostate cancer at significantly increased risk among firefighters of other race/ethnicity. Ma et al. [1998] found significantly increased risks for cancers of the prostate and brain among firefighters of other race/ ethnicity, as in our study; they also found significant increases in nasopharyngeal and colon cancers, unlike our study. Differences between
Ma et al. [1998] and our study may be due to
our inclusion of nonwhite race/ethnicity other than blacks in our study, and different study periods. In addition, our larger study population of other race/ethnicity may have allowed us to detect more differences. Moreover, the evolving mix of carcinogenic exposures among firefighters may have also affected the types of cancer that were observed.

Prostate Cancer
The prostate is a hormone-regulated gland (i.e., testosterone). Chemicals, such as pesticides, cadmium, Bisphenol A (BPA), or PCB, have been shown to be endocrine disruptors [
Diamanti-Kandarakis et al., 2009] that interfere with androgen metabolism. This disruption Tsai et al. Page 8
Am J Ind Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.

Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript

406
elevates the bioavailability of androgen which can initiate prostate cancer. The increased prostate cancer risk could also be due to an increased frequency of prostate cancer screening among firefighters as compared to the general population. Such a screening effect is supported by a recent study showing a lack of a positive dose-response relationship between fire-fighting exposure and prostate cancer incidence and mortality [Daniels et al., 2015].

Melanoma
Although exposure to ultraviolet radiation (i.e., sunlight, tanning beds) is commonly associated with melanoma, melanoma has also been found on the unexposed skin of petrochemical refinery workers [Mehlman, 2006]. Researchers have found a significant positive association between melanoma and exposure to benzene, PAH, PCB, aromatic hydrocarbons, and heavy oil [Mehlman, 2006].

Esophageal Cancer
The inhalation of smoke and dust during fire suppression activities and overhaul may have contributed to an increased risk of esophageal cancer. It is possible that mucociliary clearance of combustion products in the trachea led to esophageal irritation and inflammation. The inflammatory response, such as the infiltration of reactive oxygen species and inflammatory mediators, may further damage esophageal tissue [ Kavanagh et al., 2014].

A study following a group of firefighters who responded to the 9/11 attack found an increased prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms (5.8% prevalence pre-9/11 to a prevalence of 40% 4 years post 9/11) [Webber et al., 2009]. GERD is a strong predictor for esophageal adenocarcinoma, the most common type of esophageal cancer today [Lagergren and Lagergren, 2013]. Our study found that 68% of esophageal cancer in firefighters was adenocarcinoma, and that only esophageal adenocarcinoma, and not squamous carcinoma, was significantly elevated among firefighters.

Limitations
This study has several limitations. First, using other cancer cases as controls may bias our findings towards the null if the selected control cancers are related to firefighting exposures.

To minimize this bias, we did a comprehensive literature review of cancers found to be elevated among firefighters. Cancers that consistently showed very weak or no association with firefighters were selected as control cancers. Second, I&O data were missing for approximately 50% of cancer cases in CCR. Individuals in the CCR dataset who had unknown I&O were more likely to be older and of Hispanic descent compared to the CCR cases meeting study eligibility. Ascertainment bias would be present if the proportion of firefighters who were ascertained by the CCR varied across the different cancers. However, the California cancer presumption law enacted in 1982 and amended periodically can award compensation and benefits to any firefighter diagnosed with any cancer within 10 years of their last day worked [
William Dallas Jones Cancer Presumption Act, 2010]. It should be noted that the employer can challenge the firefighter’s compensation filing on the basis of an insufficient latency period (i.e., 10 years or less), or if the employer can prove that the association between the cancer and firefighting has been examined scientifically and shown not to exist [
Heald, 2005]. Since firefighters can presume that any cancer was caused by work, it is unlikely that ascertainment bias was introduced. Third, because I&O recording is Tsai et al. Page 9
Am J Ind Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.

Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript

407
not standardized, I&O data obtained may not be the longest-held job, but rather the current job. It is reassuring that findings based on large representative samples of U.S. workers found moderate to high correlation between current and longest-held job [Gomez-Marin et al., 2005
; Luckhaupt et al., 2013], indicating that current job may be an acceptable surrogate for longest-held job. Fourth, those who worked as volunteer firefighters may have been classified as non-firefighters in our analyses because it is unlikely that volunteer firefighting was captured as the longest-held job. Conversely, some individuals with the designation of firefighter in this study may not have been involved in firefighting. The former misclassification of fire-fighting exposure may have biased the estimates towards the null, and it’s not clear how the latter misclassification would bias our findings. Fifth, CCR does not have information on smoking, alcohol consumption, obesity, workplace exposures, length of employment, and actual job duties. Although many cancers of interest are influenced by lifestyle factors, this study was not able to adjust for these potential confounders. Recent studies found that firefighters working in the central region of the United States were less likely to smoke [Haddock et al., 2011], but have high rates of heavy and binge drinking on their off-duty days [Haddock et al., 2012]. Any differences in lifestyle factors could have biased our estimates in either direction. Sixth, due to small sample sizes, we were unable to examine blacks, Hispanics, and Asians separately. Finally, this study did not adjust for multiple comparisons and some findings may have arisen due to chance.

Nevertheless, it is reassuring that many of the findings from this study are similar to those of previous studies.

Strengths
CCR is one of the most comprehensive and complete cancer registries with a case ascertainment rate of at least 95% [North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, 2008,
2015]. In addition, our study is among the largest cancer studies of firefighters. It is also one of the few studies that reported firefighter risk for cancer subtypes, including for leukemia, esophageal cancer, and lung cancer. Finally, ours is one of the few studies that reported findings for firefighters of other race/ethnicity.

CONCLUSION
This study found that firefighters had a significantly elevated risk for melanoma, multiple myeloma, leukemia (i.e., AML), and cancers of the esophagus, prostate, kidney, and brain.

Moreover, firefighters of other race/ethnicity, in addition to being at significantly increased risk for the same cancers identified for all firefighters combined, were found to have a significantly increased risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, leukemia (i.e., CLL, CML) and cancers of the tongue, testis, and bladder. The consistency of many of these findings with prior large studies (i.e., melanoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and cancers of the prostate, esophagus, testis, bladder, kidney, and brain) strengthens the evidence supporting the association between firefighting exposures and these cancers.

Acknowledgments
Contract grant sponsor: National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program; Contract grant number: HHSN261201000140C; Contract grant sponsor: National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Tsai et al. Page 10
Am J Ind Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.

Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript

408
Epidemiology and End Results Program; Contract grant number: HHSN261201000035C; Contract grant sponsor:

National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program; Contract grant number:

HHSN261201000034C; Contract grant sponsor: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Program of Cancer Registries; Contract grant number: U58DP003862-01; Contract grant sponsor: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Program of Cancer Registries; Contract grant number: 1U58DP000807-3.

The authors thank the following individuals for their review of earlier versions of this manuscript: Dr. Doug (Robert) Daniels and Dr. David Lee. The collection of data used in this publication was supported by the California Department of Health Services as part of the statewide cancer reporting program mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 103885; by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services under Contract No. N01-PC-2010-00035; and grant number 1U58DP000807-3 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The study was conducted at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

References
Aronson KJ, Tomlinson GA, Smith L. Mortality among fire fighters in metropolitan Toronto. Am J Ind Med. 1994; 26:89–101. [PubMed: 8074127]
Baris D, Garrity TJ, Telles JL, Heineman EF, Olshan A, Zahm SH. Cohort mortality study of Philadelphia firefighters. Am J Ind Med. 2001; 39:463–476. [PubMed: 11333408] Bates MN. Registry-based case-control study of cancer in California firefighters. Am J Ind Med. 2007; 50:339–344. [PubMed: 17427202]
Beaumont JJ, Chu GS, Jones JR, Schenker MB, Singleton JA, Piantanida LG, Reiterman M. An epidemiologic study of cancer and other causes of mortality in San Francisco firefighters. Am J Ind Med. 1991; 19:357–372. [PubMed: 2008922]
Birdsey J, Alterman T, Petersen MR. Race, occupation, and lung cancer: Detecting disparities with death certificate data. J Occup Environ Med. 2007; 49:1257–1263. [PubMed: 17993930] Burnett CA, Halperin WE, Lalich NR, Sestito JP. Mortality among fire fighters: A 27 state survey. Am J Ind Med. 1994; 26:831–833. [PubMed: 7892834]
Daniels RD, Bertke S, Dahm MM, Yiin JH, Kubale TL, Hales TR, Baris D, Zahm SH, Beaumont JJ, Waters KM, Pinkerton LE. Exposure response relationships for select cancer and non-cancer health outcomes in a cohort of US firefighters from San Francisco, Chicago and Philadelphia (1950–2009).

Occup Environ Med. 2015 Epub ahead of print. 10.1136/oemed-2014-102671 Daniels RD, Kubale TL, Yiin JH, Dahm MM, Hales TR, Baris D, Zahm SH, Beaumont JJ, Waters KM, Pinkerton LE. Mortality and cancer incidence in a pooled cohort of US firefighters from San Francisco, Chicago and Philadelphia (1950–2009). Occup Environ Med. 2014; 71:388–397. [PubMed: 24142974]
Delahunt B, Bethwaite PB, Nacey JN. Occupational risk for renal cell carcinoma. A case-control study based on the New Zealand Cancer Registry. Br J Urol. 1995; 75:578–582. [PubMed: 7613791] Demers PA, Checkoway H, Vaughan TL, Weiss NS, Heyer NJ, Rosenstock L. Cancer incidence among firefighters in Seattle and Tacoma, Washington (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 1994; 5:129–135. [PubMed: 8167259]
Demers PA, Heyer NJ, Rosenstock L. Mortality among firefighters from three northwestern United States cities. Br J Ind Med. 1992; 49:664–670. [PubMed: 1390274] Diamanti-Kandarakis E, Bourguignon JP, Giudice LC, Hauser R, Prins GS, Soto AM, Zoeller RT, Gore AC. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals: An Endocrine Society scientific statement. Endocr Rev. 2009; 30:293–342. [PubMed: 19502515]
Fent KW, Eisenberg J, Snawder J, Sammons D, Pleil JD, Stiegel MA, Mueller C, Horn GP, Dalton J.

Systemic exposure to PAHs and benzene in firefighters suppressing controlled structure fires. Ann Occup Hyg. 2014; 58:830–845. [PubMed: 24906357]
Figgs LW, Dosemeci M, Blair A. United States non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma surveillance by occupation 1984–1989: A twenty-four state death certificate study. Am J Ind Med. 1995; 27:817–835. [PubMed: 7645576]
Golden AL, Markowitz SB, Landrigan PJ. The risk of cancer in firefighters. Occup Med. 1995; 10:803–820. [PubMed: 8903750]
Tsai et al. Page 11
Am J Ind Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.

Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript

409
Gomez-Marin O, Fleming LE, Caban A, Leblanc WG, Lee DJ, Pitman T. Longest held job in U.S. occupational groups: The National Health Interview Survey. J Occup Environ Med. 2005; 47:79–

90. [PubMed: 15643162]
Grimes G, Hirsch D, Borgeson D. Risk of death among Honolulu fire fighters. Hawaii Med J. 1991; 50:82–85. [PubMed: 2061032]
Grundahl, K. National engineered lightweight construction fire research project. 1992. http:// www.carbeck.org/pdfs/NFPRF_Report_WTCA_version.pdf
Guidotti TL. Mortality of urban firefighters in Alberta, 1927–1987. Am J Ind Med. 1993; 23:921–940. [PubMed: 8328477]
Haddock CK, Jahnke SA, Poston WS, Jitnarin N, Kaipust CM, Tuley B, Hyder ML. Alcohol use among firefighters in the Central United States. Occup Med (Lond). 2012; 62:661–664. [PubMed:
23064207]
Haddock CK, Jitnarin N, Poston WS, Tuley B, Jahnke SA. Tobacco use among firefighters in the central United States. Am J Ind Med. 2011; 54:697–706. [PubMed: 21656838] Heald, K. Firefighters and the workers’ compensation cancer presumption. 2005. http:// www.sffdlocal798.org/Vol33no8/Cancer.html
Howe GR, Burch JD. Fire fighters and risk of cancer: An assessment and overview of the epidemiologic evidence. Am J Epidemiol. 1990; 132:1039–1050. [PubMed: 2260535] International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Painting, firefighting, and shiftwork. 2010; 98 http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/ Monographs/vol98/mono98.pdf.

International Agency for Research on Cancer. Agents classified by the IARC monographs. 2015; 1– 109 http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/ClassificationsGroupOrder.pdf.

International Association of Fire Fighters. Presumptive law coverage for cancer. 2015. http://
www.iaff.org/hs/phi/disease/cancer.asp
Jones CP. Invited commentary: “race,” racism, and the practice of epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2001; 154:299–304. discussion 305– 296. [PubMed: 11495851] Kavanagh ME, O’Sullivan KE, O’Hanlon C, O’Sullivan JN, Lysaght J, Reynolds JV. The esophagitis to adenocarcinoma sequence; The role of inflammation. Cancer Lett. 2014; 345:182–189. [PubMed: 23994342]
Korst, M. The high toll of cancer on the fire service: A proactive approach to preventing cancer. 2012. http://ceas.uc.edu/content/dam/aero/docs/fire/Papers/FF%20Cancer.pdf Lagergren J, Lagergren P. Recent developments in esophageal adenocarcinoma. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013; 63:232–248. [PubMed: 23818335]
LeMasters GK, Genaidy AM, Succop P, Deddens J, Sobeih T, Barriera-Viruet H, Dunning K, Lockey J. Cancer risk among firefighters: A review and meta-analysis of 32 studies. J Occup Environ Med. 2006; 48:1189–1202. [PubMed: 17099456]
Luckhaupt SE, Cohen MA, Calvert GM. Concordance between current job and usual job in occupational and industry groupings: Assessment of the 2010 National Health Interview Survey. J Occup Environ Med. 2013; 55:1074–1090. [PubMed: 23969506] Ma F, Fleming LE, Lee DJ, Trapido E, Gerace TA. Cancer incidence in Florida professional firefighters, 1981 to 1999. J Occup Environ Med. 2006; 48:883–888. [PubMed: 16966954] Ma F, Lee DJ, Fleming LE, Dosemeci M. Race-specific cancer mortality in US firefighters: 1984– 1993. J Occup Environ Med. 1998; 40:1134–1138. [PubMed: 9871891] Mehlman MA. Causal relationship from exposure to chemicals in oil refining and chemical industries and malignant melanoma. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006; 1076:822–828. [PubMed: 17119259] Melius J. Occupational health for firefighters. Occup Med. 2001; 16:101–108. [PubMed: 11107227] Morton W, Marjanovic D. Leukemia incidence by occupation in the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area. Am J Ind Med. 1984; 6:185–205. [PubMed: 6475965]
National Fire Protection Association. US fire department profile 2013. 2014. http://www.nfpa.org/~/ media/Files/Research/NFPA%20reports/Fire%20service%20statistics/osfdprofile.pdf North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Standards for cancer registries volume III:

Standars for completeness, quality, analysis, management, security and confidentiality of data.

Tsai et al. Page 12
Am J Ind Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.

Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript

410
2008. http://www.naaccr.org/LinkClick.aspx?
fileticket=hvFzJKUcRM8%3d&tabid=134&mid=474
North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Certification: Who is Certified?. 2015. http://www.naaccr.org/Certification/WhoisCertified.aspx Pukkala E, Martinsen JI, Weiderpass E, Kjaerheim K, Lynge E, Tryggvadottir L, Sparen P, Demers PA. Cancer incidence among firefighters: 45 years of follow-up in five Nordic countries. Occup Environ Med. 2014; 71:398–404. [PubMed: 24510539]
Ricucci N, Saldivar K. The status of employment discrimination suits in police and fire departments across the United States. Review of Public Personnel Admini. 2014; 34:263–288.

Sama SR, Martin TR, Davis LK, Kriebel D. Cancer incidence among Massachusetts firefighters, 1982–1986. AmJ Ind Med. 1990; 18:47–54. [PubMed: 2378369] Stefanidou M, Athanaselis S, Spiliopoulou C. Health impacts of fire smoke inhalation. Inhal Toxicol. 2008; 20:761–766. [PubMed: 18569098]
U.S. Department of Commerce. Standard occupational classification manual. White Plains, MD:

National Technical Information Service and Bernan Associates; 2000.

United States Cancer Statistics Working Group. United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2011 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute; 2014. http:// apps.nccd.cdc.gov/uscs/
Vena JE, Fiedler RC. Mortality of a municipal-worker cohort: IV. Fire fighters. Am J Ind Med. 1987; 11:671–684. [PubMed: 3605104]
Webber MP, Gustave J, Lee R, Niles JK, Kelly K, Cohen HW, Prezant DJ. Trends in respiratory symptoms of firefighters exposed to the world trade center disaster: 2001–2005. Environ Health Perspect. 2009; 117:975–980. [PubMed: 19590693]
William Dallas Jones Cancer Presumption Act. 2010. Labor code §32121.

Tsai et al. Page 13
Am J Ind Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.

Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript

411
Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Tsai et al. Page 14

TABLE I
Number of Individuals Eligible for Study Inclusion, and Number Excluded From Study by Reason n Total n
Total number of cancer records in CCR 3,148,628
Excluded: in-situ, benign, borderline cancers 346,379
Excluded: multiple records a 251,501
Excluded: non-first primary 168,696
Excluded gender: Females, other, unknown gender 1,159,007 Subtotalb 1,223,045
Industry and occupation (I&O) exclusions
Unemployed, or unknown I&O 308,753
Never worked 29,400
Homemaker 366
Retired 193,276
Military 10,475
Subtotal after I&O exclusions 680,775
Age exclusions
Age <18, or >97 years 2,644
Total eligible for study 678,132
aIndividuals with more than one cancer diagnosis may have more than one cancer record. The first primary malignant cancer diagnosis recorded in CCR was retained in this study.
bSubtotal after benign/in-situ tumors, non-first primary cancer, multiple record, and gender exclusions.

Am J Ind Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.

412
Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Tsai et al. Page 15

TABLE II
Odds Ratios for Various Cancers Among Firefighters—All Races Combined, California, 1988–2007 Cancer SEER code
Number of firefighters
N %a ORb 95%CI
Head and neck
Lip 20010 19 0.96 1.44 0.89–2.33
Tongue 20020 35 0.65 1.18 0.82–1.70
Salivary gland 20030 14 0.70 1.30 0.75–2.25
Gum and other mouth 20050 14 0.56 1.07 0.62–1.85
Pharyngeal 20060–20100 43 0.50 1.06 0.75–1.50
Digestive
Esophagus 21010 68 0.82 1.59 1.20–2.09
Esophagus-adenocarcinoma
46 1.04 1.85 1.34–2.55
Esophagus-squamous carcinoma 12 0.43 0.96 0.53–1.73
Stomach 21020 52 0.37 0.81 0.59–1.11
Colorectal 21041–21252 347 0.55 1.10 0.93–1.31
Liver 21071 39 0.35 1.07 0.75–1.53
Pancreas 21100 79 0.53 1.10 0.83–1.46
Respiratory
Larynx 22020 25 0.32 0.59 0.39–0.89
Lung and bronchus 22030 533 0.58 1.08 0.92–1.28
Lung-adenocarcinoma c
173 0.58 1.10 0.89–1.35
Lung-squamous cell c 95 0.48 0.89 0.69–1.14
Lung-small cell c 82 0.69 1.24 0.95–1.61
Lung-large cell c 25 0.48 0.84 0.55–1.28
Lung-non-specific non-small cell cancer c 42 0.87 2.01 1.38–2.93 Connective tissue/skin
Soft tissue, including heart 24000 26 0.54 1.16 0.76–1.77 Melanoma 25010 265 1.06 1.75 1.44–2.13
Mesothelioma d
21 0.75 1.40 0.89–2.21
Am J Ind Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.

413
Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Tsai et al. Page 16
Cancer SEER code
Number of firefighters
N % a ORb 95%CI
Urinary/reproductive
Prostate 28010 1397 0.72 1.45 1.25–1.69
Testis 28020 85 0.67 1.10 0.73–1.66
Urinary bladder 29010 106 0.56 0.99 0.78–1.26
Kidney 29020 115 0.62 1.27 1.01–1.59
Cranial/endocrine
Brain 31010 87 0.75 1.54 1.19–2.00
Thyroid 32010 41 0.64 1.27 0.88–1.84
Blood
Hodgkin lymphoma 33011–33012 29 0.52 1.15 0.72–1.83
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma 33041–33042 183 0.60 1.22 1.00–1.50 Multiple myeloma 34000 55 0.64 1.35 1.00–1.82
Leukemia 35011–35043 122 0.64 1.32 1.05–1.66
CLL 35012 43 0.74 1.34 0.96–1.87
AML 35021, 35031 42 0.69 1.44 1.02–2.02
CML 35022 21 0.73 1.51 0.95–2.40
SEER code = recode based on ICD-O-3 (http://seer.cancer.gov/siterecode/). A total of 187 firefighters had rare cancers (i.e., cancers with fewer than 10 firefighter cases) and these rare cancers are not included in this table. The race was not stated for 2,719 individuals. Bolded values indicate a statistically significantly elevated (or decreased) OR at P <0.05.

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; ALL, acute lymphocytic leukemia; CLL, chronic lymphocytic leukemia; Other LL, other lymphocytic leukemia; AML, acute myeloid leukemia; CML, chronic myeloid leukemia.
aControls consist of cancers of the pharynx, stomach, liver, and pancreas; 0.44% of individuals with control cancers were firefighters. This 0.44% applies to the comparison group for all case cancer examined except for pharyngeal, stomach, liver, and pancreatic cancers (which were also control cancers), where 0.42%, 0.46%, 0.46%, and 0.40% of individuals with control cancers were firefighters respectively (i.e., these represent the proportion of firefighters when the case cancer was removed from the control group). bAdjusted for age of diagnosis, race, and year of diagnosis. cHistological subtype of lung cancer. International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O3 codes) for Adenocarcinoma = 8050, 8051, 8140, 8141, 8143, 8147, 8200, 8201, 8250–8255, 8260, 8310, 8320, 8323, 8430, 8480, 8481, 8490, 8550, 8551, 8560, 8562, 8570–8576; Squamous Cell = 8052, 8070–8076, 8078; Small Cell = 8002, 8041–8045; Large Cell = 8012–8014; Non-Small Cell Cancer, unspecified = 8046.
dHistological subtype of mesothelioma: ICD-O3 code = 9050–9055.

Am J Ind Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.

414
Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Tsai et al. Page 17

TABLE III
Odds Ratios for Various Cancers Among Firefighters* of Other Race/Ethnicity—California, 1988–2007 Cancer SEER code
Number of firefighters
N %a ORb 95%CI
Head and neck
Lip 20010 1 0.67 6.56 0.87–49.58
Tongue 20020 4 0.41 3.57 1.23–10.35
Salivary gland 20030 2 0.45 3.60 0.83–15.59
Gum and other mouth 20050 1 0.16 1.50 0.20–11.15
Pharyngeal 20062–20100 4 0.15 1.35 0.45–4.05
Digestive
Esophagus 21010 5 0.26 2.14 0.81–5.65
Esophagus-adenocarcinoma
2 0.37 2.79 0.66–11.87
Esophagus-squamous carcinoma 2 0.18 1.44 0.34–6.14
Stomach 21020 10 0.17 1.61 0.71–3.65
Colorectal 21041–21052 30 0.18 1.41 0.82–2.41
Liver 21071 5 0.08 0.51 0.19–1.39
Pancreas 21100 5 0.12 0.90 0.33–2.45
Respiratory
Larynx 22020 0
Lung and bronchus 22030 26 0.13 1.01 0.57–1.78
Lung-adenocarcinoma c 8 0.11 0.89 0.40–2.00
Lung-squamous cell c 5 0.12 0.78 0.29–2.11
Lung-small cell c 1 0.05 0.36 0.05–2.71
Lung-large cell c 0
Lung-non-specific non-small cell cancer c,d 5 0.37 2.42 0.86–6.80 Connective tissue/skin
Soft tissue, including heart 24000 2 0.13 1.39 0.32–5.98 Melanoma 25010 7 0.61 4.51 1.85–10.97
Mesothelioma e
2 0.38 2.86 0.67–12.28
Am J Ind Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.

415
Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Tsai et al. Page 18
Cancer SEER code
Number of firefighters
N % a ORb 95%CI
Urinary/reproductive
Prostate 28010 125 0.27 2.42 1.53–3.84
Testis 28020 15 0.43 3.73 1.26–11.02
Urinary bladder 29010 8 0.29 2.37 1.05–5.33
Kidney 29020 18 0.33 2.59 1.40–4.80
Cranial/endocrine
Brain 31010 10 0.38 3.58 1.65–7.74
Thyroid 32010 5 0.25 1.92 0.66–5.60
Blood
Hodgkin lymphoma 33011–33012 4 0.25 2.50 0.76–8.28
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma 33041–33042 24 0.30 2.17 1.20–3.92 Multiple myeloma 34000 13 0.47 3.77 1.91–7.44
Leukemia 35011–35043 20 0.41 3.64 1.96–6.74
CLL 35012 7 0.86 7.04 2.99–16.56
AML 35021, 35031 2 0.11 1.12 0.26–4.76
CML 35022 6 0.61 4.91 1.84–13.12
SEER code =recode based on ICD-O-3 (http://seer.cancer.gov/siterecode/). Bolded values indicate a statistically significantly elevated (or decreased) OR at P <0.05.

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence Interval; ALL, acute lymphocytic leukemia; CLL, chronic lymphocytic leukemia; Other LL, other lymphocytic leukemia; AML, acute myeloid leukemia; CML, chronic myeloid leukemia.
*Other race/ethnicity consists of individuals who were Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, Indian/Alaskan Native, and Other/unknown race. aControls consist of cancers of the pharynx, stomach, liver, and pancreas; 0.13% of individuals with control cancers were firefighters. This 0.13% applies to the comparison group for all case cancer examined except for pharyngeal, stomach, and liver cancers (which were also control cancers), where 0.12%, 0.11%, and 0.15% of individuals with control cancers were firefighters respectively (i.e., these represent the proportion of firefighters when the case cancer was removed from the control group). bAdjusted for age of diagnosis and year of diagnosis.
cHistological subtype of lung cancer. International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O3 codes) for Adenocarcinoma = 8050, 8051, 8140, 8141, 8143, 8147, 8200, 8201, 8250–8255, 8260, 8310, 8320, 8323, 8430, 8480, 8481, 8490, 8550, 8551, 8560, 8562, 8570–8576; Squamous Cell = 8052, 8070–8076, 8078; Small Cell = 8002, 8041–8045; Large Cell = 8012–8014; Non-Small Cell Cancer, unspecified = 8046.
dFirth bias-correction applied.
eHistological subtype of mesothelioma: ICD-O3 code = 9050–9055.

Am J Ind Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.

416
Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Tsai et al. Page 19

TABLE IV
Odds Ratios for Various Cancers Among White Firefighters—California, 1988–2007 Cancer SEER code
Number of firefighters
N %a ORb 95%CI
Head and neck
Lip 20010 17 0.95 1.36 0.82–2.25
Tongue 20020 31 0.70 1.10 0.75–1.61
Salivary gland 20030 12 0.77 1.19 0.66–2.15
Gum and other mouth 20050 13 0.70 1.06 0.60–1.87
Pharyngeal 20062–20100 38 0.66 1.03 0.71–1.48
Digestive
Esophagus 21010 63 0.99 1.59 1.19–2.12
Esophagus-adenocarcinoma
44 1.14 1.84 1.32–2.56
Esophagus-squamous carcinoma 10 0.61 0.94 0.49–1.78
Stomach 21020 42 0.51 0.73 0.52–1.03
Colorectal 21041–21052 317 0.69 1.08 0.90–1.30
Liver 21071 34 0.70 1.21 0.83–1.76
Pancreas 21100 74 0.67 1.14 0.85–1.54
Respiratory
Larynx 22020 25 0.41 0.64 0.42–0.97
Lung and bronchus 22030 506 0.71 1.10 0.92–1.30
Lung-adenocarcinoma c
164 0.73 1.11 0.90–1.38
Lung-squamous cell c 90 0.58 0.90 0.70–1.17
Lung-small cell c 81 0.84 1.30 1.00–1.70
Non-large cell c 25 0.62 0.89 0.58–1.36
Non-specific, non-small cell cancer c 37 1.07 2.02 1.34–3.04 Connective tissue/skin
Soft tissue, including heart 24000 24 0.73 1.16 0.75–1.82 Melanoma 25010 254 1.09 1.71 1.40–2.09
Mesothelioma d
19 0.85 1.34 0.83–2.16
Am J Ind Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.

417
Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Tsai et al. Page 20
Cancer SEER code
Number of firefighters
N % a ORb 95%CI
Urinary/reproductive
Prostate 28010 1256 0.87 1.40 1.19–1.64
Testis 28020 70 0.78 0.91 0.58–1.44
Urinary bladder 29010 98 0.61 0.94 0.73–1.21
Kidney 29020 96 0.74 1.16 0.91–1.49
Cranial/endocrine
Brain 31010 76 0.85 1.41 1.07–1.87
Thyroid 32010 36 0.82 1.21 0.81–1.80
Blood
Hodgkin lymphoma 33011–33012 25 0.64 1.07 0.63–1.80
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma 33041–33042 159 0.71 1.16 0.94–1.45 Multiple myeloma 34000 42 0.73 1.17 0.84–1.64
Leukemia 35011–35043 101 0.73 1.17 0.91–1.49
CLL 35012 36 0.73 1.17 0.82–1.67
AML 35021, 35031 40 0.93 1.46 1.03–2.08
CML 35022 14 0.74 1.14 0.66–1.99
EER code =recode based on ICD-O-3 (http://seer.cancer.gov/siterecode/). Bolded values indicate a statistically significantly elevated (or decreased) OR at P <0.05.

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; ALL, acute lymphocytic leukemia; CLL, chronic lymphocytic leukemia; Other LL, other lymphocytic leukemia; AML, acute myeloid leukemia; CML, chronic myeloid leukemia.
aControls consists of cancers of the pharynx, stomach, liver, and pancreas; 0.63% of individuals with control cancers were firefighters. This 0.63% applies to the comparison group for all case cancer examined except for pharyngeal, stomach, liver and pancreatic cancers (which were also control cancers), where 0.62%, 0.67%, 0.62%, and 0.61% of individuals with control cancers were firefighters respectively (i.e., these represent the proportion of firefighters when the case cancer was removed from the control group). bAdjusted for age of diagnosis and year of diagnosis.
cHistological subtype of lung cancer. International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O3 codes) for Adenocarcinoma = 8050, 8051, 8140, 8141, 8143, 8147, 8200, 8201, 8250–8255, 8260, 8310, 8320, 8323, 8430, 8480, 8481, 8490, 8550, 8551, 8560, 8562, 8570–8576; Squamous Cell = 8052, 8070–8076, 8078; Small Cell = 8002, 8041–8045; Large Cell = 8012–8014; Non-Small Cell Cancer, unspecified = 8046.
dHistological subtype of pleural mesotheliomad (ICD-O3 code = 9050–9055).

Am J Ind Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 July 01.

418
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Lisa Warhuus, Director, Health, Housing, and Community Services Subject: Contract: Interior Motions for HHCS Public Health Division Furniture

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or her designee to execute a contract, and any amendments or extensions, with Interior Motions for new furniture for the Public Health Division offices.

The contract will be in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for the period January 1, 2022 through December 30, 2022.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Interior Motions, a City vendor, has been selected to furnish the Public Health Division Office in preparation for a number of staff and program moves. Interior Motions has met all of the steps of the City’s competitive Request for Proposal process and has submitted a revised quote with final pricing. The original and revised pricing proposal includes delivery, assemblage, and installation of all furniture.

The contract will have a total not to exceed amount of $100,000 from Account 011-51- 506-555-0000-000-451-651120.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Public Health Division provides a variety of services and programs to the community, including Maternal, Child, Health, Emergency Preparedness, Tobacco Programs, Oral Health, and Nutrition Services. The Public Health Division has several organizational changes underway, including multiple staff and program relocations across three locations, resulting in a need for additional furniture and equipment.

Additionally, furniture and equipment are needed to provide accommodations for social distancing and workplace ergonomics. Updated furnishings will enable our staff and community members to engage safely in socialization and health promotion activities.

The furniture contract with Interior Motions will enable the Public Health Division to provide welcoming and well-maintained facilities in order to foster dynamic and sustainable service provision to the community.

419
Contract: Interior Motions for HHCS Furniture CONSENT CALENDAR March 22, 2022

BACKGROUND
The City released a Request for Proposals (RFP) under Specification No. 22-11486-C, conducted a voluntary site walk-thru, and convened a panel of stakeholders to select Interior Motions as the most responsive and responsible bidder for this contract.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no environmental impacts identified at this time.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Interior Motions is a current City vendor. Their proposal includes high quality furniture that aligns with the intended multifunctional uses for HHCS facilities.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The City could not provide updated furniture to staff, and program, staffing and safety practices would be limited by the use of existing furniture.

CONTACT PERSON
Janice Chin, Public Health Division Manager, HHCS, (510) 981-5121 Attachments:
1: Resolution

420
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CONTRACT: INTERIOR MOTIONS FOR HHCS FURNITURE
WHEREAS, new office furniture and equipment will serve current and future staff to operate programs and services; and
WHEREAS, new office furniture and equipment will also provide a more efficient delivery of services to community members; and
WHEREAS, Interior Motions was selected by the City’s RFP process which includes bidding from vendors, draft proposals, and pricing; and WHEREAS, funds are available in the current year budget in the 011-51-506-555-0000- 000-451-651120
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager or her designee is authorized to execute a contract and any amendments, with Interior Motions to deliver, assemble, and install office furniture and equipment for the Public Health Division in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for the period January 1, 2022 thru December 30, 2022. A record signature copy of said contract and any amendments to be on file in the City Clerk Department.

421
422
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Lisa Warhuus, Director, Health, Housing, and Community Services Subject: Contract No. 32100178 Amendment: California Mental Health Services Authority Help@Hand Participation Agreement

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or her designee to execute an Amendment to the Help@Hand Participation Agreement with the California Mental Health Services Authority (CalMHSA) (Contract No.32100178) to increase the amount of funding by $140,800 for a total amount not to exceed $541,715 through June 30, 2024, and any amendments.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
In this amendment $140,800 will be provided from Medi-Cal Funds for a total not-to- exceed contract amount of $542,715. The funds will be appropriated into the Medi-Cal budget code 316-51-503-520-0000-000-451-636110 as part of the Second Amendment to the FY 2022 Annual Appropriations Ordinance. The City previously committed $400,915 of Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) funds to this project.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City receives State Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Innovations (INN) funds on an annual basis. MHSA regulations require that MHSA INN are to be utilized on short term pilot projects that increase learning in the mental health field.

Help@Hand is a MHSA INN funded multi-county collaborative project which provides broad public access to mental health technology applications. In the Help@Hand Project there are currently ten counties and two cities (Berkeley, and Tri-City) who have come together through the California Mental Health Services Authority (CalMHSA), a Joint Powers Authority (JPA), to fund free access to mental health technology applications.

In November 2021, Help@Hand launched a local marketing campaign and made free access to the HeadSpace and myStrength applications available to anyone who lives, works, or goes to school in Berkeley. Since then, public interest in Headspace has been much greater than originally anticipated. In order to provide access to Headspace for more people, the CalMHSA Help@Hand Participation Agreement (Contract No.

423
Contract No. 3210078 Amendment CONSENT CALENDAR
California Mental Health Services Authority March 22, 2022 Help@Hand Participation Agreement

32100178) needs to be amended to add $140,800 to the project. These funds will be used to purchase and manage an additional 5,000 user slots (for a total of 10,000) until fall 2023.

BACKGROUND
State of California MHSA funds are provided to mental health jurisdictions to transform the mental health system through five funding components. The INN component is comprised of annually recurring funds for short-term pilot projects that contribute new learning in the mental health field. The MHSA program requires jurisdictions receiving the funds to create a stakeholder-informed, locally-approved plan.

On June 26, 2018, per Resolution No. 68,493 –N.S., City Council approved the MHSA INN Technology Suite Project Plan, which has since been renamed, “Help@Hand”.

This project allocates $462,916 of INN funds to make mental health technology apps locally accessible in Berkeley. With Resolution 69,514 –N.S., the City Council approved entering into a Participation Agreement with CalMHSA and allocated $352,916 in MHSA INN funds to participate in this project. A portion of the remaining funds was used on project coordination services from Resource Development Associates. An evaluation conducted by Hatchuel, Tabernik and Associates will also be purchased with these funds. On November 30, 2021, per Resolution No. 70,122 – N.S., City Council approved the amendment of Contract No. 32100178 to add $47,999 of local project funds for this project.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects or opportunities associated with the subject of this project.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend allocating additional funds to the Help@Hand Participation Agreement in order to purchase access for the Headspace application for more people to meet community needs. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased isolation and limited access to mental health resources for many Berkeley residents; contributing to much greater demand for these applications than originally anticipated. Making HeadSpace available to the community is an innovative approach that has provided individuals with access to mental health resources, information, and supports.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
The City could choose not to increase the amount of funds for this project, which would limit the number of community members that would be able access the HeadSpace App. This action is not recommended as it is not consistent with the City’s MHSA Innovation Plan or Council’s previous direction.

424
Contract No. 3210078 Amendment CONSENT CALENDAR
California Mental Health Services Authority March 22, 2022 Help@Hand Participation Agreement

CONTACT PERSON
Karen Klatt, Community Services Specialist III, HHCS, (510) 981-7644 Attachments:
1: Resolution

425
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CONTRACT 32100178: AMENDMENT FOR HELP@HAND WITH THE

CALIFORNIA MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the City’s Department of Health, Housing & Community Services, Mental Health Division, currently receives Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Innovations (INN) funds on an annual basis for short term projects that will increase learning in the mental health field through strategies that will either improve the access, quality, or outcomes of services, and/pr promote community collaborations; and
WHEREAS, in order to utilize MHSA INN funds, the Mental Health Division must have a stakeholder informed, locally approved plan in place; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 68,493-N.S., the City Council authorized the City Manager to approve the MHSA INN Technology Suite Project Plan to implement technology-based mental health services and supports in Berkeley utilizing $462,916 by June 30, 2021; and WHEREAS, the MHSA INN Technology Suite project is part of a multi-county collaborative that utilizes a Joint Powers Authority (JPA), the California Mental Health Servjces Authority (CalMHSA), as the fiduciary intermediary for the project; and WHEREAS, the multi-county collaborative renamed the Technology Suite project to the “Help@Hand” project; and
WHEREAS, in order to allocate funds to the fiscal intermediary to participate in the multi- county collaborative, the City of Berkeley was required to enter into a Participation Agreement with CalMHSA; and
WHEREAS, per Resolution No. 69,514-N.S., the City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a Participation Agreement with CalMHSA and to extend the project to June 30, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the City executed Contract No. 32100178 to enter into a Participation Agreement and allocate $352,916 of Help@Hand project funds to CalMHSA; and WHEREAS, per Resolution No. 70,122-N.S., the City Council authorized the City Manager to amend Contract No. 32100178 to revise the Participation Agreement and add $47,999 of funds for the project for a total not to exceed amount of $400,915; and WHEREAS, public interest in the HeadSpace application has been higher than originally anticipated, and the City wishes to expand access to it; and WHEREAS, in order to revise the Participation Agreement and allocate additional funds for this project, the City must amend Contract No. 32100178 with CalMHSA; and

426
March 22, 2022

WHEREAS, funding for this contract has been included in the FY 2022 Budget and is available in ERMA GL Code 316-51-503-520-0000-000-451-636110 subject to approval of the Second Amendment to the FY2022 Annual Appropriations.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager or her designee is hereby authorized to execute an Amendment to Contract No. 32100178 to revise the Help@Hand Participation Agreement and any amendments with CalMHSA to increase the amount by $140,800, for a total amount not to exceed $541,715, through June 30, 2024.

427
428
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Lisa Warhuus, Director, Health, Housing and Community Services Department
Subject: Revenue Contract: Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager or her designee to execute a revenue contract amendment with Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services (ACBH) for the provision of mental health services, including Medi-Cal, Medicare, Educationally Related Mental Health Services (ERMHS), and Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) billing and reimbursement, with an Effective Date of July 1, 2021.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The proposed revenue contract sets out the conditions under which the City will receive reimbursement for mental health services provided to eligible individuals that are billed through Alameda County to the State of California, and for services funded by Alameda County directly. There is no fixed “not to exceed” amount in the contract because the amount of revenue will fluctuate each year based on the amount of billable services provided. ACBH will charge the City of Berkeley a flat fee of $100,000 annually for administrative services provided as part of the agreement. The fee is taken out of the City’s reimbursement. Revenue funds will be deposited in revenue budget codes 065- 4431-331-4090, 065-4401-331-4045, 065-4445-331.40-88, 065-4406-331.40-86, 065- 4455-331.40-89, 065-4431-331.40-87, and 065-4431-331.40-90.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Alameda County and the City of Berkeley are amending a revenue contract covering mental health services performed by the City of Berkeley as part of the Alameda County Behavioral Healthcare Plan. This amendment establishes a new “Effective date” rather than a start and end date, so that the agreement can be considered ongoing and will remain in place if future amendments need to be negotiated.

BACKGROUND
The City of Berkeley has had a contract with Alameda County for mental health services reimbursement since July 1, 2011 as a result of Resolution No. 65,438-N.S., passed by the Berkeley City Council on September 11, 2011. On April 20, 2021, via Resolution No.

429
Revenue Contract: Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services CONSENT CALENDAR March 22, 2022

69, 796-N.S., City Council approved entering into Contract No. 42100097 to clarify the relationship between the two parties.

In order to streamline the annual contract renewal process with City of Berkeley, the contract has an effective date rather than a specific time period. This is consistent with past practice. If there are updates needed for the contract, negotiated changes will be noted through subsequent amendments. This contract’s new Effective Date is July 1, 2021.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no identifiable environmental effects, climate impacts, or sustainability opportunities associated with the subject of this report.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
There is mutual interest by the City and County in execution of this contract. It ensures that the City’s mental health programs will follow applicable regulations and requires the County to provide the City with timely billing and reimbursement.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
No alternative action was considered because of the need to maintain this critical relationship with Alameda County for the provision of mental health services by the City of Berkeley.

CONTACT PERSON
Steven Grolnic-McClurg, Manager of Mental Health, (510) 981-5249 Conor Murphy, Assistant Management Analyst, HHCS, (510) 981-7611 Attachments:
1: Resolution

430
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

REVENUE CONTRACT: ALAMEDA COUNTY FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES WHEREAS, Alameda County and the City of Berkeley jointly agreed to create a new contract to clarify the relationship between these two parties. This revenue contract will facilitate the receipt of funding for the mental health services provided by the City’s Mental Health Division, including Medi-Cal, Medicare, Educationally Related Mental Health Services (ERMHS), and Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (ESPDT) billing and reimbursement; and
WHEREAS, there is mutual interest by the City and County in execution of this contract.

The agreement ensures that the City’s mental health programs will follow applicable regulations and requires the County to provide the City with timely billing and reimbursement; and
WHEREAS, the City utilizes the revenue received to fund a wide variety of mental health programs for residents of Berkeley. ACBH will charge the City of Berkeley a flat fee of $100,000 annually for administrative services provided as part of the agreement. The revenue received will be deposited into revenue budget codes: 065-4431-331-4090, 065- 4401-331-4045, 065-4445-331.40-88, 065-4406-331.40-86, 065-4455-331.40-89, 065- 4431-331.40-87, and 065-4431-331.40-90.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager or her designee is authorized to execute a contract and negotiate any amendments with Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services (ACBH) for mental health services, Effective Date July 1, 2021. A record signature copy of said contract and any amendments to be on file in the City Clerk Department.

431
432
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Lisa Warhuus, Director, Health, Housing, and Community Services Subject: Increase Taxi Scrip Window Daily Cash Redemption Limit

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing Berkeley Rides for Seniors & the Disabled (BRSD) to increase the Taxi Scrip Window daily cash redemption limit from $800 to $1,000, one day per week.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funds are currently available to support the increase as follows: $62,088 in Measure B (132-51-505-542-2038-000-444-612990) and $289,000 in Measure BB (136-51-505- 542-2038-000-444-612990).

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Through its implementation of Measures B and BB, the City distributes taxi vouchers (“scrip”) to seniors and people with disabilities, who use the scrip to pay for taxi rides.

The taxi drivers who receive scrip then come to the City to receive cash for the value of the scrip. The current cash drawer amount allows BRSD to disburse $800 per day, one day per week, to taxi drivers. Occasionally, taxi drivers earn a total in excess of $800 of taxi scrip in a given week. Increasing the daily cash redemption limit to $1,000 will help ensure drivers are reimbursed for the total amount earned each week.

BACKGROUND
Transportation is one of the most significant issues facing seniors and people with disabilities. To address this need, Alameda County voters approved the reauthorization of Measure B in 2000 and the passage of Measure BB in 2014, which enable the Alameda County Transportation Commission to continue to administer the proceeds from the one half cent transportation sales tax from each Measure. The inception date for the new Measure B was April 1, 2002 and Measure BB began on April 1, 2015.

Measure B and BB funds are critical resources in the Berkeley community to support the needs of disabled and senior Berkeley residents. The City of Berkeley utilizes these funds to administer the BRSD Taxi Scrip program and the BRSD High Medical Need (supplemental taxi scrip) Program which both increase transportation options for disabled and senior community members in Berkeley.

433
Increase Taxi Scrip Window Daily Cash
Redemption Limit CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
By allowing a larger daily cash redemption limit, taxi drivers will be required to make fewer trips to the cash window, saving on transport to and parking in the downtown area.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Berkeley taxi drivers are required by Berkeley Municipal Code Ordinance 7,336-NS to provide service to recipients of BRSD taxi scrip. Increasing the daily cash redemption limit to $1,000, one day per week, will allow taxi drivers more economic flexibility throughout the month, which is more suited to the current reality of the program

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Keeping the weekly limit at $800 will require some tax drivers to make multiple trips to the cash window and delay receiving payments.

CONTACT PERSON
Mary Triston, Transportation Services Coordinator, Aging Services, HHCS (510) 981- 5135
Attachments:
1: Resolution

434
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

INCREASE BERKELEY RIDES FOR SENIORS & THE DISABLED TAXI SCRIP

WINDOW DAILY CASH REDEMPTION LIMIT
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley Municipal Code Ordinance 7,336-NS provides for the use of taxi scrip as payment; and
WHEREAS, Alameda County voters passed Measure B in 2000 and Measure BB in 2014, which enabled the Alameda County Transportation Commission to continue to administer the proceeds from the one-half cent transportation sales tax from each Measure; and WHEREAS, Berkeley taxi drivers are providers of critical transportation services to Berkeley residents with disabilities and seniors; and
WHEREAS, funds are available to support an increase in the daily cash redemption limit as follows: $62,088 in Measure B (132-51-505-542-2038-000-444-612990) and $289,000 in Measure BB (136-51-505-542-2038-000-444-612990).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the Berkeley Rides for Seniors & the Disabled Taxi Redemption Window daily cash redemption limit be increased from $800 to $1,000, one day per week.

435
436
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Lisa Warhuus, Director, Health, Housing, and Community Services Subject: Amending Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 12.70 Sections

12.70.031 and 12.70.050A.1 to align with State and Local Laws

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the reading of an Ordinance amending Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 12.70 Smoking Pollution Control to incorporate two changes:
1) Amending BMC 12.70.030 to replace the outdated term “Dispensary” with “Cannabis Retailer” in order to align with the State’s Medicinal and Adult-Use of Cannabis Safety and Regulation Act (MAUCSRA); and
2) Revise BMC Chapter 12.70.050.A.1 to clarify that smoking tobacco is allowed at a tobacco retailer, and smoking cannabis is allowable at a Cannabis Retailer, subject to Council-approved BMC Sections 23.320.020.F.2, 12.21.020.U, V, and Y, and 12.22.040.F.2 allowing “Cannabis Lounges”.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The updates and amendments have no additional long-term financial impact to the City.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
In 2017 the State of California adopted MAUCSRA which established a new legal framework for cannabis cultivation, manufacturing, testing and distribution. A cannabis seller is now a “Cannabis Retailer” under MAUCSRA which allows pre-tested, pre- packaged cannabis products to be sold at retail. The proposed changes to BMC 12.70 will align the BMC with MAUCSRA.

Furthermore, BMC 12.70 “Smoking Pollution Control”, currently bans smoking in most workplaces with the exception of a Tobacco Retailer. The State of California and City of Berkeley defined smoking to include both tobacco and cannabis products during the adoption of BMC 12.70.020.V. However, the adopted definition of “smoking” in BMC

12.70 was not explicit to include cannabis. Therefore, the proposed amendment clarifies “smoking” to include cannabis at a Cannabis Retailer, which will enable the City

437
Amendment to BMC 12.70 CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022

to approve Cannabis Smoking Lounges, pursuant to Council’s approval of such lounges.

BACKGROUND
In the past, the City permitted and licensed cannabis sellers known as “Dispensaries.” The Dispensaries obtained cannabis directly from growers in bulk, sent samples to labs to test for contaminants, and if it passed, the cannabis product was packaged, labeled, and ready to be sold under tightly regulated circumstances. At the time, Berkeley was the only jurisdiction in California performing this degree of regulation, and in the process, developed a robust inspection program to ensure compliance with the City’s unique Dispensary program.

Since the passage of MAUCSRA the State took over most of these program responsibilities and created new permit classifications. This required the City to update its cannabis program, including governing regulations, to be consistent with State law.

On January 28, 2020, Council adopted comprehensive changes to the cannabis ordinances, including 23.320.020.F.1 and 2; 12.21.020.U, V, and Y; 12.22.040.F.1 and 2 that defined and specified conditions for the operation of lounges, necessitating the changes to BMC 12.70.050.A.1 in the attached ordinance.

On November 20, 2020, in alignment with State law, Council adopted a change to BMC

12.70 to define “smoking” to include cannabis, both medical and adult. Consequently, cannabis is now subjected to the same smoking restrictions in place for tobacco. The changes in the attached ordinance in BMC Chapter 12.70.050.A.1 clarify and align this section with the changes made previously.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
There are no known additional environmental sustainability and climate impacts associated with the recommended action.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The proposed changes in the attached ordinance will align BMC 12.70 with related changes already made at the state level and by Council.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
Staff did not identify any alternative actions that are consistent with state law and Council’s previous changes to the municipal code.

CONTACT PERSON
Ron Torres, Environmental Health Division Manager, HHCS, (510) 981-5231.

Attachments:
1: Ordinance

438
Amendment to BMC 12.70 CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022

Exhibit A: Ordinance with strike thru revisions

439
ORDINANCE NO. -N.S.

AMENDING BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 12.70 SMOKING POLLUTION

CONTROL
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That Berkeley Municipal Code Subsection 12.70.031 is amended to read as follows:

12.70.031 Smoking Medical Cannabis at Cannabis Retailers Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Chapter, the inhalation of medical cannabis through the use of an electronic smoking device inside a Cannabis Retailer and on the public right of way within 50 feet of such a Cannabis Retailer, is not prohibited by this Chapter.

Section 2. That Berkeley Municipal Code Subsection 12.70.050.A.1 is amended to read as follows:

12.70.050 Where Smoking is not Regulated
A. This chapter is not intended to regulate smoking in the following places and under the following conditions within the City:

1. Tobacco in retail tobacco stores and cannabis in State-permitted Storefront Cannabis Retailers within a Designated Smoking Room in compliance with the Environmental Health Division’s Lounge Operating Standards and except as stated in Section 12.70.031;

2. Private residences, which may serve as a place of employment except when used as a childcare or health care facility and except as stated in Sections 12.70.035 and 12.70.037.

B. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any owner, operator, manager, or other person who controls a business or other establishment may declare that entire establishment as a nonsmoking establishment.

Section 3. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

440
ORDINANCE NO. -N.S.

AMENDING BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 12.70 SMOKING POLLUTION

CONTROL
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That Berkeley Municipal Code Subsection 12.70.031 is amended to read as follows:

12.70.031 Smoking Medical Cannabis at Dispensaries Cannabis Retailers Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Chapter, the inhalation of medical cannabis through the use of an electronic smoking device inside a dispensary Cannabis Retailer and on the public right of way within 50 feet of such a Dispensary Cannabis Retailer, by a member of that dispensary, is not prohibited by this Chapter.

Section 2. That Berkeley Municipal Code Subsection 12.70.050.A.1 is amended to read as follows:

12.70.050 Where Smoking is not Regulated
A. This chapter is not intended to regulate smoking in the following places and under the following conditions within the City:

1. Tobacco in Rretail tobacco stores and cannabis in State-permitted Storefront Cannabis Retailers within a Designated Smoking Room in compliance with the Environmental Health Division’s Lounge Operating Standards and except as stated in Section 12.70.031;

2. Private residences, which may serve as a place of employment except when used as a childcare or health care facility and except as stated in Sections 12.70.035 and 12.70.037.

B. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any owner, operator, manager, or other person who controls a business or other establishment may declare that entire establishment as a nonsmoking establishment.

Section 3. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of the Maudelle Shirek Building, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way. Within 15 days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation.

Commented [DA1]: In the report these are referred to as Cannabis Lounges, and the names should match.

Where are the Lounge standards published? Are they in the BMC or published by EH? I think that should be clearer. If in the BMR, include the BMC section
Commented [BP2R2]: Agree

441
442
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Scott Ferris, Director, Parks Recreation & Waterfront Liam Garland, Director, Public Works
Subject: Amendments to On-Call Architectural Services Contract No. 31900137 (ELS Architecture and Urban Design), Contract No. 31900155 (Siegel & Strain Architects), and Contract No. 31900131 (Noll & Tam Architects)

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolutions authorizing the City Manager to:

1. Execute an amendment to Contract No. 31900137 for ELS Architecture and Urban Design increasing the contract amount by $900,000; and

2. Execute amendments to Contract No. 31900155 for Siegel & Strain Architects, and Contract No. 31900131 for Noll & Tam Architects by increasing the contract amount by $900,000 each and duration by 9 months each, from June 30, 2022 to March 31, 2023.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The following funding source and amount is an estimate as funding for these on-call contracts will be identified and expended only for actual architectural services required. $2.7M in funding is available in the FY 2022 budget in Measure T1 Fund and additional funding is subject to appropriation in the FY 2023 budget in the T1, Parks Tax and General Funds.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The capital divisions of the Departments of Public Works (PW) and Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront (PRW) require architectural services to implement the City’s Capital Improvement Program. Every 3-4 years, PW and PRW conduct a competitive Request For Qualifications process (RFQ) for On-call architectural, landscape architectural, engineering, construction management and a variety of other technical consultant services. This reduces the need for multiple RFQ processes and accelerates the time it takes to complete a project, sometimes by up to two years.

Currently the three On-call architecture firms for the City are ELS Architecture and Urban Design, Siegel & Strain Architects and Noll and Tam Architects. PW and PRW have begun the RFQ process for architecture services that will be awarded at Council later this

443
Amendment to Contract No. 31900137 (ELS Architecture and Urban Design), CONSENT CALENDAR Contract No. 31900155 (Siegel & Strain Architects), March 22, 2022 and Contract No. 31900131 (Noll & Tam Architects)

year and result in new On-call contracts being in place by the end of March, 2023. These new on-call contracts will potentially award over $10M in City work. In the meantime, staff recommends increasing the length of time on two existing On-call contracts by nine months and increasing the spending authority of all three on-call architecture firms by $900,000 each. The ELS and Urban Design contract length has already been extended to June 30, 2024.

Additional funding for the three existing On-calls is needed to fulfill both departments’ needs for current and upcoming projects in design and construction prior to the end of 2022. The current project list in need of these services includes, but is not limited to the following projects:
 Civic Center Design
 Corp Yard Improvement Projects
 Fire Station Upgrades
 John Hinkel Park Amphitheater, 2-12 Play Structure, and Picnic Area  Right of Way, Harrison and Ohlone Parks and Waterfront Restrooms  South Berkeley Senior Center Upgrades
 Tom Bates Regional Sports Complex and Restrooms
 West Berkeley Service Center Upgrades
The current contract amounts for both Siegel & Strain and ELS are projected to be depleted by March 31, 2022. This additional funding is required in order to proceed with design and construction services over the next year, especially for T1 projects that must be constructed within the next several years.

The Siegel & Strain contract, as well as the Noll & Tam contract will be increased by $900,000 to $2,600,000 each. The ELS contract will be increased by $900,000 to $3,500,000.

BACKGROUND
On August 15, 2018, the City issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for On-Call Architectural Services (Specification No. 18-11235-C). The City received Statements of Qualifications (SOQs) from 15 firms. After evaluation of the SOQs by the review panel, ELS Architecture and Urban Design, Noll & Tam, and Siegel & Strain Architects were among the firms selected.

On January 22, 2019, Council authorized a $1,700,000 contract for On-call architectural design services with ELS Architecture and Urban Design, Noll & Tam Architects, and Siegel & Strain Architects, respectively, for the period February 1, 2019 through June 30, 2022 (Resolutions No. 68,738-N.S., 68,739-N.S., and 68,740).

On September 14, 2021, the City authorized an amendment to the on-call architectural services contract for ELS Architecture to increase the on-call contract by $900,000 from

444
Amendment to Contract No. 31900137 (ELS Architecture and Urban Design), CONSENT CALENDAR Contract No. 31900155 (Siegel & Strain Architects), March 22, 2022 and Contract No. 31900131 (Noll & Tam Architects)

$1,700,000 to $2,600,000 and from June 30, 2022 to June 30, 2024 (Resolution No. 70,023–N.S.)

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Consultants and City staff evaluate water and energy efficiency upgrade opportunities during the design of improvement and renovation projects. Improving City facilities and reducing water and energy consumption is consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan goals.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The three On-call firms – ELS Architecture and Urban Design, Siegel & Strain Architects, and Noll & Tam Architects – includes highly-qualified staff for the projects, as previously evaluated through the City’s contracting process. They have the required expertise in design, architecture, project management, and support to meet the City’s on-going capital program needs, and complement the personnel and capacity available in the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Departments to complete existing projects.

City staff does not have the expertise to provide architectural services.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None

CONTACT PERSON
Scott Ferris, Director, Parks Recreation & Waterfront, (510) 981-6700 Liam Garland, Director, Public Works, (510) 981-6300
Elmar Kapfer, Supervising Civil Engineer, Public Works, (510) 981-6435 Evelyn Chan, Supervising Civil Engineer, PRW, (510) 981-6430 Attachments:
1: Resolution: ELS Architecture and Urban Design
2: Resolution: Siegel & Strain Architects
3: Resolution: Noll & Tam Architects

445
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT NO. 31900137 FOR ON-CALL ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES BY ELS ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2019, the City Council authorized Contract No. 31900137 with ELS Architecture and Urban Design in an amount not to exceed $1,700,000 for on- call architectural design services for various Department of Public Works and Department of Parks, Recreation and Waterfront capital improvement projects through June 30, 2022 (Resolution No. 68,738-N.S.); and
WHEREAS, on September 14, 2021, the City Council authorized an amendment to Contract No. 31900137 with ELS Architecture and Urban Design increasing the amount not-to-exceed to $2,600,000 and contract time to June 30, 2024 (Resolution No. 68,738- N.S.); and
WHEREAS, City staff does not have the expertise to provide architectural services; and WHEREAS, the current contract not to exceed amount is projected to be depleted by March 31, 2022 and the City has need of ELS Architecture and Urban Design’s continued architectural services through June 30, 2024; and
WHEREAS, funds are available from the Measure T1 Fund.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute an amendment to Contract No. 31900137 with ELS Architecture and Urban Design for architectural services increasing the amount by $900,000 for a revised contract amount not-to-exceed $3,500,000.

446

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT NO. 31900155 FOR ON-CALL ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES BY SIEGEL & STRAIN ARCHITECTS
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2019, the City Council authorized Contract No. 31900155 with Siegel & Strain Architects in an amount not-to-exceed $1,700,000 for On-call architectural design services for various Department of Public Works and Department of Parks, Recreation and Waterfront capital improvement projects through June 30, 2022 (by Resolution No. 68,740-N.S.); and
WHEREAS, City staff does not have the expertise to provide architectural services; and WHEREAS, the current contract not to exceed amount is projected to be depleted by March 31, 2022 and the City has need of Siegel & Strain’s continued architectural services through March 31, 2023; and
WHEREAS, funds are available from the Measure T1 Fund.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute an amendment to Contract No. 31900155 with Siegel & Strain Architects for architectural services increasing the amount by $900,000 for a revised contract amount not-to-exceed $2,600,000, and extending the contract term by nine months to March 31, 2023.

447

RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT NO. 31900131 FOR ON-CALL ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES BY NOLL & TAM ARCHITECTS
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2019 by Resolution No. 68,739-N.S. the City Council authorized Contract No. 31900131 with Noll & Tam Architects in an amount not-to-exceed $1,700,000 for On-call architectural design services for various Department of Public Works and Department of Parks, Recreation and Waterfront capital improvement projects through June 30, 2022; and
WHEREAS, City staff does not have the expertise to provide architectural services; and WHEREAS, the current contract not-to-exceed amount is projected to be depleted by March 31, 2022 and the City has need of Noll & Tam’s continued architectural services through March 31, 2023; and
WHEREAS, funds are available from the Measure T1 Fund.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute an amendment to Contract No. 31900131 with Noll & Tam Architects for architectural services increasing the amount by $900,000 for a revised contract amount not-to-exceed $2,600,000, and extending the contract term by nine months to March 31, 2023.

448
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Liam Garland, Director, Department of Public Works Subject: Purchase Order: Nicholas K Corp dba the Ford Store San Leandro for Fifteen Ford Interceptor Utility Hybrid Vehicles

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution satisfying requirements of City Charter Article XI Section 67.2 allowing the City Manager to participate in Alameda County bid procedures and authorize the City Manager to execute a purchase order for fifteen (15) Ford Interceptor Utility Hybrid vehicles with Nicholas K Corp dba the Ford Store San Leandro in an amount not to exceed $765,000.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The purchase of fifteen Ford SUV Hybrid Interceptors will not exceed $765,000 and includes CA tire fees and sales tax. Funding for the purchase of these vehicles is available in the FY 2022 budget for Equipment Replacement Fund (account code 671- 54-626-723-0000-000-473-664120).

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
This purchase will replace fifteen gas-powered existing vehicles that have reached far past the end of their planned useful life of 5 years with hybrid vehicles. They are needed by the City’s Police Department’s Patrol and Detective Divisions in their work to provide public safety services in Berkeley. Vehicles are equipped with advanced safety features including 75 mph rear impact protections; side protection and cabin enhancement architecture; and structural reinforcements to protect officers while working. Vehicles being replaced include the following:

Veh.# Year Veh.# Year Veh.# Year
1537 2004 1727 2013 1752 2011
1548 2006 1745 2011 1806 2013
1702 2006 1749 2011 1807 2013
1721 2008 1750 2011 1812 2016
1726 2009 1751 2011 1813 2016

449
Purchase Orders: Nicholas K Corp dba the CONSENT CALENDAR Ford Store San Leandro for Fifteen Ford Interceptor March 22, 2022 Hybrid Utility Vehicles

Replaced vehicles will be turned into Equipment Maintenance for auction unless otherwise authorized by the City Manager.

Failure to replace vehicles at the end of their planned useful life leads to higher operations expenses, decreased safety, increased pollution, decreased public safety service levels, and higher greenhouse gas emissions.

This purchase supports the City’s Strategic Plan Goal of being a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment.

BACKGROUND
Throughout the year, each City Department pays its proportionate share into the Equipment Replacement Fund, and those funds are utilized to replace equipment at the end of its useful life. If a vehicle purchase request exceeds $25,000, the Department of Finance General Services Division solicits bids or “piggybacks” off competitively bid contracts to ensure City Departments receive the best pricing.

City Charter XI Section 67.2 allows the City to purchase goods without undergoing a competitive bid process. On June 16, 2021 the County of Alameda General Services Agency released Request for Quotation (RFQ) No. 901979 for Vehicle Purchase. RFQ No. 901979 language required that the award go to the qualified bidder with lowest mark-up over triple-net dealer invoice price. Triple-net price is the dealer’s actual cost of the vehicles after all discounts, rebates and deductions are taken off. On July 27, 2021, one bid was received and opened and, upon review by the evaluation committee, Nicholas K Corp dba the Ford Store San Leandro was determined to be a responsive responsible bidder and was awarded County of Alameda Purchase Order contract (Master Contract No. 901979). The County of Alameda’s bid procedures satisfy the procurement requirements of the City of Berkeley.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
New vehicles will be powered by a 3.3l V6 Direct-injection Hybrid Drive System offered by the Ford Motor Company in a Police Interceptor SUV Model. The Hybrid design will significantly reduce idle time, reduce fuel consumption, decrease carbon footprint and tailpipe emissions, and reduce maintenance costs.

In June 2020, the City Council received the Municipal Fleet Electrification Assessment.

The assessment proposed by 2030 to install 51 charging stations with 100 chargers and to upgrade all 129 vehicles in the light duty fleet to EV. Public Works (PW) has made progress in implementing the recommendations. PW has installed 31 charging stations and 61 chargers. In 2020, the light duty fleet included 46 hybrids and 15 plug in hybrid- electric vehicles. Since then six EV sedans, three hybrid SUV’s for the Police Department, and four hybrid pickup trucks were added to the city’s fleet. In the current fiscal year, vehicle orders include 24 EV’s (sedans and pickups), 11 vehicles transitioning from unleaded to renewable diesel, two hybrid pickups, and these 15

450
Purchase Orders: Nicholas K Corp dba the CONSENT CALENDAR Ford Store San Leandro for Fifteen Ford Interceptor March 22, 2022 Hybrid Utility Vehicles

hybrid SUV’s for the Police Department. In FY23, Public Works will replace existing sedans with another 11 EVs. All together, these improvements are moving the City’s fleet towards a fossil-free goal and have reduced the City fleet’s consumption of traditional gasoline by 37% from its 2001 peak.

Public Works is on track to complete conversion of the light duty fleet to EVs by 2028, two years ahead of the assessment’s schedule. However, failure to fund and/or install the Corporation Yard charging stations may delay this schedule. The FY 2022 budget did not include the $850,000 necessary to construct the charging infrastructure for the Corporation Yard. In light of this funding gap, Public Works and Office of Energy and Sustainable Development continue discussions with East Bay Community Energy for their potential financing and management of this capital project.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
All City vehicles are due for replacement at the end of their recognized economic lifecycles. City departments that utilize fleet vehicles pay into the equipment replacement fund, which fully funds vehicle replacement as they reach the end of their lifecycle.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None, listed vehicles have reached the end of their lifecycle, and funded for replacement.

CONTACT PERSON
Greg Ellington, Superintendent, Department of Public Works (510) 981-6469 Attachment:
1: Resolution

451
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

PURCHASE ORDER: NICHOLAS K CORP DBA THE FORD STORE SAN LEANDRO

FOR FIFTEEN FORD INTERCEPTOR UTILITY HYBRID VEHICLES
WHEREAS, fifteen (15) new Ford SUV Interceptors are needed by the City of Berkeley Police Department, Patrol Division to provide public safety services in Berkeley; and WHEREAS, equipment unit 1537, 1548, 1702, 1721 1726, 1727, 1745 1749, 1750, 1751, 1752, 1806, 1807, 1812 and 1813; and
WHEREAS, equipment must be replaced on a reasonable schedule and allows Police Officers to efficiently and effectively carry out their duties; and WHEREAS, City Charter XI Section 67.2 allows the City to purchase goods without undergoing a competitive bid process if the City uses pricing obtained by another entity through a competitive process; and
WHEREAS, the County of Alameda General Services Agency bid procedures satisfy the procurement requirements of the City of Berkeley; and WHEREAS, funds in the amount of $765,000 are available in the FY2022 Equipment Replacement fund 671 (account code 671-54-626-723-0000-000-473-664120).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute a purchase order for fifteen Ford Interceptors with Nicholas K Corp dba the Ford Store of San Leandro in an amount not to exceed $765,000.

452
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Liam Garland, Director, Department of Public Works Subject: Purchase Order: Nicholas K Corp dba the Ford Store San Leandro for Three Electric Vehicle Ford Pickup Trucks

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution satisfying requirements of City Charter Article XI Section 67.2 allowing the City Manager to participate in Alameda County bid procedures and authorize the City Manager to execute a purchase order for three (3) Electric Vehicle Ford Pickup Trucks with Nicholas K Corp dba the Ford Store San Leandro in an amount not to exceed $135,000.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
The purchase of three Electric Vehicle (EV) Ford Pickup Trucks will not exceed $135,000 and includes CA tire fees and sales tax. Funding for the purchase of these vehicles is available in the FY 2022 Equipment Replacement Fund budget: 671-54-626- 723-0000-000-473-664120.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
This purchase will replace three existing vehicles that have reached the end of their useful life of 10 years. Vehicles #2906, #6890, and #9801 are beyond 13 years old.

Failure to replace vehicles at the end of their planned useful life leads to higher operations expenses, decreased safety, increased pollution, decreased public safety service levels, and higher greenhouse gas emissions.

In accordance with Municipal Fleet Electrification Assessment, the purchase will transition three gasoline internal combustion engine powered vehicles to all electric Ford F150 Lightning Pickups.

Public Works Fleet Maintenance Staff will utilize the vehicles to provide essential fleet support services to all City Departments.

This purchase supports the City’s Strategic Plan Goal of being a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment.

453
Purchase Order: Nicholas K Corp dba the CONSENT CALENDAR Ford Store San Leandro for Three Electric March 22, 2022 Vehicle Ford F150 Pickup Trucks

BACKGROUND
Throughout the year each City Department pays its proportionate share into the Equipment Replacement Fund, and those funds are utilized to replace equipment at the end of its useful life. If a vehicle purchase request exceeds $25,000, the Department of Finance General Services Division solicits bids or “piggybacks” off competitively bid contracts to ensure City Departments receive the best pricing.

City Charter XI Section 67.2 allows the City to purchase goods without undergoing a competitive bid process. On June 16, 2021 the County of Alameda General Services Agency released Request for Quotation (RFQ) No. 901979 for Vehicle Purchase. RFQ No. 901979 language required that the award go to the qualified bidder with lowest mark-up over triple-net dealer invoice price. Triple-net price is the dealer’s actual cost of the vehicles after all discounts, rebates and deductions are taken off. On July 27, 2021 two bids were received and opened, upon review by the evaluation committee, Nicholas K Corp dba the Ford Store San Leandro was determined to be the most responsive responsible bidder and was awarded County of Alameda Purchase Order contract (Master Contract No. 901979). County of Alameda’s bid procedures satisfies the procurement requirements of the City of Berkeley.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
New vehicles will be powered by a dual emotor, 96KW capacity standard range high- voltage battery system. The design is 100% electric powered and mitigates environmental concerns associated with internal combustion engine systems, while reducing maintenance costs associated with less moving parts.

In June 2020, the City Council received the Municipal Fleet Electrification Assessment. The assessment proposed by 2030 to install 51 charging stations with 100 chargers and to upgrade all 129 vehicles in the light duty fleet to EV. Public Works (PW) has made progress in implementing the assessments recommendations. PW has installed 31 charging stations and 61 chargers. In 2020, the light duty fleet included 46 hybrids and 15 plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles. Since then, the City’s fleet added 6 EV sedans, 3 hybrid SUV’s for the Police Department, and 4 hybrid pickup trucks. In the current fiscal year, vehicle orders include 24 EV’s (sedans and pickups which includes these 3 pickups), 11 vehicles transitioning from unleaded to renewable diesel, 2 hybrid pickups, and 15 hybrid SUV’s for the Police Department. In FY23, Public Works will replace existing sedans with another 11 EVs. All together, these improvements are moving the City’s fleet towards a fossil-free goal and have reduced the City fleet’s consumption of traditional gasoline by 37% from its 2001 peak.

Public Works is on track to complete conversion of the light duty fleet to EVs by 2028, two years ahead of the assessment’s schedule. However, failure to fund and/or install the Corporation Yard charging stations may delay this schedule. The FY 2022 budget did not include the $850,000 necessary to construct the charging infrastructure for the Corporation Yard. In light of this funding gap, Public Works and Office of Energy and

454
Purchase Order: Nicholas K Corp dba the CONSENT CALENDAR Ford Store San Leandro for Three Electric March 22, 2022 Vehicle Ford F150 Pickup Trucks

Sustainable Development continue discussions with East Bay Community Energy for their potential financing and management of this capital project.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
All City vehicles are due for replacement at the end of their recognized economic lifecycles. City departments that utilize fleet vehicles pay into the equipment replacement fund, which fully funds vehicle replacement as they reach the end of their lifecycle.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None, listed vehicles have reached the end of their lifecycle and are fully funded for replacement.

CONTACT PERSON
Greg Ellington, Superintendent, Department of Public Works (510) 981-6469 Attachments:
1: Resolution

455
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

PURCHASE ORDER: NICHOLAS K CORP DBA THE FORD STORE SAN LEANDRO

FOR THREE EV FORD PICKUP TRUCKS
WHEREAS, three (3) EV Ford Pickup Trucks are needed by the City of Berkeley Public Works Fleet Maintenance Department to provide support services in Berkeley; and WHEREAS, units 2906, 9801 and 6890 are at the end of their useful life and need to replaced; and
WHEREAS, equipment must be replaced on a reasonable schedule and allows Fleet maintenance personnel to efficiently and effectively carry out their duties; and WHEREAS, City Charter XI Section 67.2 allows the City to purchase goods without undergoing a competitive bid process if the City uses pricing obtained by another entity through a competitive process; and
WHEREAS, the County of Alameda General Services Agency bid procedures satisfy the procurement requirements of the City of Berkeley; and WHEREAS, funds in the amount of $135,000 are available in the FY2022 Equipment Replacement fund budget: 671-54-626-723-0000-000-473-664120.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Berkeley is authorized to execute a purchase order for three EV Ford Pickup Trucks with Nicholas K Corp dba the Ford Store of San Leandro in an amount not to exceed $135,000.

456
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Liam Garland, Director, Department of Public Works Subject: Contract No. 112725-1 Amendment: Du-All Safety, LLC for Safety Consulting and Training Services

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to Contract No. 112725-1 with Du-All Safety, LLC for continued safety training and consulting services up to $100,000 for a total contract amount not to exceed $400,000, and to extend the contract term through December 31, 2025.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding is available in the amount of $15,000 for the remainder of the FY22 budget in Zero Waste Fund 601 and Sewer Fund 611. Funding for the balance of the contract amendment is subject to appropriation as part of the FY23/24 budget process from the following funds: Sanitary Sewer Fund 611, Zero Waste Fund 601, Facilities Maintenance Fund 673, Street Light 142, Equipment Maintenance Fund 672, and Used Oil Payment Fund 329. Additional funds may be needed as training needs arise.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
Public Works employs over 300 staff in the following divisions: Zero Waste, Engineering, Transportation, Administration and Finance, Equipment Maintenance, Facilities, Streets and Utilities. Many of these divisions require job-specific safety training to comply with certain Cal/OSHA regulations including bloodborne pathogens, confined space awareness, and fall protection. Du-All supports the City’s in-house safety program and provides ongoing site inspections, policy recommendations, and identifies areas for improvement.

Authorizing this contract amendment supports the City’s Strategic Goal of creating a resilient, safe, connected, and prepared City.

BACKGROUND
The City issued a June 2016 Request for Proposals for safety training and support services, received two proposals, and selected Du-All Safety as the most responsive and qualified vendor to meet the needs of the Public Works safety program. On October

457
Contract No. 112725-1 Du-All Safety, LLC. CONSENT CALENDAR for Safety Consulting and Training Services March 22, 2022

24, 2016, the City Manager entered into a contract with Du-All Safety to provide these services in an amount not to exceed $50,000.

On May 30, 2017, City Council adopted Resolution No. 68,005-N.S. which authorized an amendment to the contract for an amount not to exceed $200,000 and extend the contract term through December 31, 2020.

On December 10, 2019, City Council adopted Resolution No. 69,229-N.S. which authorized the amendment of the contract for an amount not to exceed $300,000 and extend the contract term through December 31, 2022;
Du-All Safety is a Bay Area business that works with many municipalities to support and improve their safety programs by ensuring that employees are trained appropriately.

Du-All Safety will continue to provide ongoing support in implementation of these written programs and in person and virtual training.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Du-All Safety provides training to City staff in hazardous materials handling, spill response, and asbestos management. When staff are properly prepared for these occurrences, City employees and residents are protected, and the environment is safeguarded from the further release of toxic substances.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Public Works has an in-house Occupational Health and Safety Officer but the breadth of Cal/OSHA-required safety programs, plans, and trainings requires the services of Du-All Safety.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON(S)
Liam Garland, Director, Department of Public Works (510) 981-6303 David Peery, Occupational Health & Safety Officer, (510) 981-6485 Attachment:
1: Resolution

458
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CONTRACT NO. 112725-1 AMENDMENT: DU-ALL SAFETY, LLC FOR SAFETY

CONSULTING AND TRAINING SERVICES
WHEREAS, Du-All Safety, LLC has provided excellent safety training and written safety program improvements during the contract term and requires additional funding to provide required trainings; and
WHEREAS, in 2016 the Department of Public Works requested proposals for safety training and consulting services and Du-All Safety, LLC was selected as the most qualified firm to provide these services; and
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2016, the City Manager authorized Contract No. 103996 with Du-All Safety, LLC for safety training and consulting services, in an amount not to exceed $50,000 for the period of August 5, 2016 through June 30, 2019; and WHEREAS, on May 30, 2017, City Council adopted Resolution No. 68,005-N.S. which authorized the amendment of the contract for an amount not to exceed $200,000 and extend the contract term through December 31, 2020; and WHEREAS, on December 10, 2019, City Council adopted Resolution No. 69,229-N.S. which authorized the amendment of the contract for an amount not to exceed $300,000 and extend the contract term through December 31, 2022; and WHEREAS, City staff need additional support and training from the services provided by Du-All Safety, LLC; and
WHEREAS, funds have been identified from each participating division to support an estimated annual expenditure of $30,000 subject to appropriation as part of the FY 2023 through FY 2025 budgets.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute an amendment to the contract with Du-All Safety, LLC for on-going safety training and consulting services, increasing the contract amount by $100,000 for a total amount not to exceed $400,000, and extending the term of the contract to December 31, 2025. A record signature copy of the contract and any amendments to be on file in the City Clerk Department.

459
460
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Liam Garland, Director, Department of Public Works Subject: Contract No. 32100122 Amendment: Silao General Engineering for Site Improvements Project at 125/127 University Avenue.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend Contract No. 32100122 with Silao General Engineering, Inc. to complete the parking lot site improvements at 125/127 University Avenue increasing the current contract amount of $192,947 by $85,000.00 for a total amount not-to-exceed of $277,947.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding for the construction contract amendment in the amount of $85,000 is available in the FY 2022 Parking Meter Fund (631) budget as follows:

Current Contract:

Base Scope: Parking Meter Fund (631) ……………. $118,988
CO#01 Amendment: Facility Maint. Funds (501) …… $73,959 Total Current Contract……………………………….…$192,947
This Amendment:

Parking Meter Fund (631) ………………………………. $85,000
Amended Contract Amount…………………….………$277,947
No other funding is required, and no other projects will be delayed due to this expenditure.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The City has a current construction contract with Silao General Engineering, Inc. to construct improvements at the 125/127 University Avenue parking lot to support the Berkeley Police Parking Enforcement Unit’s relocation.

During the course of construction, staff identified changes needed to improve the day-to- day operations of the site, and these changes increased the scope of the original contract documents. Additionally, the project has encountered some unanticipated conditions that have required additional work and changes to the design. These changes include the following:

461
Contract No. 32100122 Amendment: Silao General Engineering, Inc. CONSENT CALENDAR for Site Improvements Project at 125/127 University Avenue March 22, 2022

 Electrical upgrades and facilities to support charging up to six (6) Go-4 vehicles, a storage container unit for motorcycle storage and trickle charging, and a mobile crisis trailer connection;
 Unanticipated additional trenching and backfill for new utilities servicing the site;  Analysis and proper disposal of impacted soil encountered during excavation activities;
 Security modifications to the fence height along a vulnerable side due to trees and a landscaped berm; and
 Additional remotes and ground detection loop for vehicle gate auto-open and closure.

The Berkeley Police Parking Enforcement Unit moved into the first-floor office space at 125/127 University Avenue on January 1, 2022.

BACKGROUND
On October 19, 2020 the City issued an Invitation For Bid (IFB) for the modifications to the existing parking lot including new lighting, fencing, and utility services (Spec No. 19- 11325). The City received nine (9) bids ranging from $118,988 to $637,200. Silao General Engineering, Inc. was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. On March 22, 2021, the City Manager authorized construction contract no. 32100122 in the amount of $118,988 and has subsequently authorized one change order in the amount of $73,959, which brings the current contract total to $192,947.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The parking site improvements have incorporated as many energy efficiency upgrades as feasible within the allotted budget such as solar powered parking lot lights, designing around and preserving an existing tree, and following the City’s construction waste management plan.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Contracted services are required for this project as the City does not have the in-house expertise to complete this specialized work.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None.

CONTACT PERSON
Liam Garland, Director, Department of Public Works, (510) 981-6403 Joe Enke, Manager of Engineering, Department of Public Works, (510) 981-6411 Elmar Kapfer, Supervising Civil Engineer, Department of Public Works, (510) 981-6435 Attachments:
1: Resolution

462
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CONTRACT NO. 32100122 AMENDMENT: SILAO GENERAL ENGINEERING, INC.

FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AT 125/127 UNIVERSITY AVENUE WHEREAS, on October 19, 2020 the City issued an Invitation for Bid (IFB) for the construction work for the modification to the existing parking lot including new lighting, fencing, and electrical service (Spec No. 19-11325); and WHEREAS, on March 22, 2021, the City Manager authorized construction contract no. 32100122 in the amount of $118,988 and subsequently authorized Change Order #01 in the amount of $73,959, which brings the current contract total to $192,947; and WHEREAS, funds are available in the FY 2022 Parking Meter Fund (631) budget; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute an amendment to the construction contract with Silao General Engineering, Inc. by increasing the construction contract amount by $85,000 for a total not to exceed of $277,947 to complete the parking lot site improvements at 125/127 University Avenue.

463
464
Office of the City Manager
1 CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Liam Garland, Director, Department of Public Works Subject: Contract No. 31900106 Amendment: Coastland Civil Engineering for On-Call Civil Engineering Services for the Sanitary Sewer Program

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend Contract No. 31900106 with Coastland Civil Engineering (Coastland) for On-Call Civil Engineering Services for the Sanitary Sewer Program, increasing the contract by $500,000, for a total amount not to exceed $1,400,000, and extending the term of the contract to June 30, 2023.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding for this contract amendment in the amount of $200,000 is available in the Sanitary Sewer Fund (budget code 611-54-623-676-3013-000-473-665130). Funding for FY 2023 is subject to appropriation in the future fiscal years’ budget based on the department’s need for civil engineering services.

Current Contract Amount $900,000
Contract amendment $500,000
Total revised not-to-exceed amount $1,400,000

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Sanitary Sewer Program (Program) needs additional civil engineering services from Coastland due to a reduction in the current availability of other consultants contracted with the City to provide services for the Program. The cost of additional service needs exceeds the available contract balance. The amendment will allow Coastland to take on more design work, allowing the City to meet its sewer rehabilitation regulatory requirements in a timely manner.

The services provided by Coastland support the City’s Strategic Plan goal of providing state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure and facilities.

BACKGROUND
On September 22, 2014, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), the City of Berkeley, and EBMUD’s other satellite agencies entered into a Consent Decree (CD)

465
Contract No. 31900106 Amendment: Coastland Civil Engineering CONSENT CALENDAR March 22, 2022
2 with the United States Environmental Protect Agency (EPA), the Regional Water Board, and the State Water Board. The mandate of this consent decree is to eliminate sanitary sewer overflows and reduce wet weather inflow and infiltration into the sanitary sewer system. The ultimate goal is to eliminate EBMUD facility discharges of untreated or partially treated wastewater into the San Francisco Bay during storm events. Under the CD, the City agreed to replace its sanitary sewer mains at an average annual rate of no less than 4.2 miles based on a three-fiscal-year rolling average. In order to meet this requirement, the City needs design and construction support from on-call consultants.

On July 24, 2018, Council authorized the City Manager to execute on-call civil engineering services contracts with three consulting firms, including Coastland. Based on forecasted needs for services, Coastland was awarded a contract for an amount not to exceed $400,000 over a three-year term. On September 24, 2019, Council authorized the City Manager to execute an amendment increasing the contract by $500,000, for a total amount not to exceed $900,000. Since then, the need for services from Coastland has increased as a result of a reduction in the availability of the other consultants contracted with the City to provide services for the Sanitary Sewer Program.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Improvements to the City’s sanitary sewer system will help to minimize the frequency of Sanitary Sewer Overflows, and reduce infiltration and inflow into the City’s sanitary sewer system, which in turn will protect water quality by minimizing untreated sewer discharges into the San Francisco Bay.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Of the firms currently contracted with the City to provide on-call civil engineering services, Coastland has staffing availability to provide the additional services the City needs in order to meet CD mandated sewer rehabilitation requirements.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
No alternative actions were considered. The City does not have the resources to provide the necessary civil engineering services in-house.

CONTACT PERSON
Liam Garland, Director, Department of Public Works, (510) 981-6303 Joe Enke, Manager of Engineering, Department of Public Works, (510) 981-6411 Danny Akagi, Supervising Civil Engineer, Department of Public Works, (510) 981-6394 Attachments:
1: Resolution

466
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CONTRACT NO. 31900106 AMENDMENT: COASTLAND CIVIL ENGINEERING FOR

ON-CALL CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR SANITARY SEWER PROGRAM WHEREAS, the delivery of sanitary sewer projects is part of the City’s on-going Sanitary Sewer Program (Program) to replace the aging and deteriorated sanitary sewer system; and
WHEREAS, the Program is a requirement of compliance with the Consent Decree (CD) filed September 22, 2014; and
WHEREAS, on-call consultant support is required because City staff cannot perform the volume of engineering design work needed to meet CD requirements; and WHEREAS, Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a contract with Coastland Civil Engineering for On-Call Civil Engineering Services for an amount not to exceed $400,000 on July 24, 2018 (Resolution No. 68,550-N.S.); and WHEREAS, Council authorized the City Manager to execute an amendment increasing increasing the contract by $500,000, for a total amount not to exceed $900,000 on September 24, 2019 (Resolution No. 69,115-N.S.); and
WHEREAS, the need for services from Coastland has increased as a result of a reduction in the availability of other on-call civil engineering consultants currently contracted to provide services for the Program; and
WHEREAS, Coastland Civil Engineering has the availability to provide additional services in support of the Program; and
WHEREAS, funding in the amount of $200,000 is available in the Sanitary Sewer Fund (budget code 611-54-623-676-3013-000-473-665130) and funding for FY 2023 is subject to appropriation based on the department’s need for civil engineering services; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute an amendment to Contract No. 31900106 with Coastland Civil Engineering for On-Call Civil Engineering Services for the Sanitary Sewer Program, increasing the contract by $500,000, for a total amount not to exceed $1,400,000, and extending the term of the contract to June 30, 2023.

467
468
Office of the City Manager
1 CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Liam Garland, Director, Department of Public Works Subject: Contract No. 31900094 Amendment: West Yost for On-Call Civil Engineering Services for the Sanitary Sewer Program

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend Contract No. 31900094 with West Yost Associates (West Yost) for On-Call Civil Engineering Services for the Sanitary Sewer Program, increasing the contract by $500,000, for a total amount not to exceed $1,200,000, and extending the term of the contract to June 30, 2023.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Funding for this contract amendment in the amount of $300,000 is available in the Sanitary Sewer Fund (budget code 611-54-623-676-3013-000-473-665130) and will support the necessary work through the end of FY 2022. Funding for FY 2023 is subject to appropriation in the future fiscal years’ budget based on the department’s need for civil engineering services.

Current Contract Amount $700,000
Contract amendment $500,000
Total revised not-to-exceed amount $1,200,000

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Sanitary Sewer Program (Program) needs additional civil engineering services from West Yost due to a reduction in the current availability of other consultants contracted with the City to provide services for the Program. The cost of additional services needed exceeds the available contract balance. The amendment will allow West Yost to take on more design work in FY 2022 and beyond, allowing the City to meet its sewer rehabilitation regulatory requirements in a timely manner and avoid costly regulatory penalties.

The services provided by West Yost support the City’s Strategic Plan goal of providing state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure and facilities.

469
Contract No. 31900106 Amendment: Wes Yost Associates CONSENT CALENDAR March 22, 2022
2 BACKGROUND
On September 22, 2014, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), the City of Berkeley, and EBMUD’s other satellite agencies entered into a Consent Decree (CD) with the United States Environmental Protect Agency (EPA), the Regional Water Board, and the State Water Board. The mandate of this consent decree is to eliminate sanitary sewer overflows and reduce wet weather inflow and infiltration into the sanitary sewer system. The ultimate goal is to eliminate EBMUD facility discharges of untreated or partially treated wastewater into the San Francisco Bay during storm events. Under the CD, the City agreed to replace its sanitary sewer mains at an average annual rate of no less than 4.2 miles based on a three-fiscal-year rolling average. In order to meet this requirement, the City needs design and construction support from on-call consultants.

On July 24, 2018, Council authorized the City Manager to execute on-call civil engineering services contracts with three consulting firms, including West Yost. Based on forecasted needs for services, West Yost was awarded a contract for an amount not to exceed $700,000 over a three-year term. Since then the contract has been extended for one year and the need for services from West Yost has increased as a result of a reduction in the availability of the other consultants contracted with the City to provide services for the Sanitary Sewer Program.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Improvements to the City’s sanitary sewer system will help to minimize the frequency of sanitary sewer overflows, and reduce infiltration and inflow into the City’s sanitary sewer system, which in turn will protect water quality by minimizing untreated sewer discharges into the San Francisco Bay.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Of the firms currently contracted with the City to provide on-call civil engineering services, West Yost has staffing availability to provide the additional services the City needs in order to meet CD mandated sewer rehabilitation requirements.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
No alternative actions were considered. The City does not have the resources to provide the necessary civil engineering services in-house.

CONTACT PERSON
Liam Garland, Director, Department of Public Works, (510) 981-6303 Joe Enke, Manager of Engineering, Department of Public Works, (510) 981-6411 Danny Akagi, Supervising Civil Engineer, Department of Public Works, (510) 981-6394 Attachments:
1: Resolution

470
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CONTRACT NO. 31900094 AMENDMENT: WEST YOST ASSOCIATES FOR ON-

CALL CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR SANITARY SEWER PROGRAM WHEREAS, the delivery of sanitary sewer projects is part of the City’s on-going Sanitary Sewer Program (Program) to replace the aging and deteriorated sanitary sewer system; and
WHEREAS, the Program is a requirement of compliance with the Consent Decree (CD) filed September 22, 2014; and
WHEREAS, on-call consultant support is required because City staff cannot perform the volume of engineering design work needed to meet CD requirements; and WHEREAS, Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a contract with West Yost Associates for On-Call Civil Engineering Services for an amount not to exceed $700,000 on July 24, 2018 (Resolution No. 68,548-N.S.); and
WHEREAS, the need for services from West Yost Associates has increased as a result of a reduction in the availability of other on-call civil engineering consultants currently contracted to provide services for the Program; and
WHEREAS, West Yost Associates has the availability to provide the additional design services in support of the Program; and
WHEREAS, funding in the amount of $300,000 is available in the Sanitary Sewer Fund (budget code 611-54-623-676-3013-000-473-665130) and will support the necessary work through the end of FY 2022. Funding for FY 2023 is subject to appropriation based on each project or program, or the department’s need for civil engineering services; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to execute an amendment to Contract No. 31900094 with West Yost Associates for On-Call Civil Engineering Services for the Sanitary Sewer Program, increasing the contract by $500,000, for a total amount not to exceed $1,200,000, and extending the term of the contract to June 30, 2023.

471
472
Office of the City Manager
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Liam Garland, Director, Public Works
Subject: Contract No. 090342-1 Amendment: Waste Management of Alameda County for Landfill Disposal Services

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend the City’s existing Contract No. 090342-1 with Waste Management, Inc. of Alameda County for Landfill Disposal Services through December 31, 2026 by increasing the Not to Exceed amount from $32,740,168 to $45,545,780.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
FY 2022 funding is available in the Zero Waste Fund; account code 601-54-627-734- 3023-000-472-612990. FY 2023-FY 2026 funding is subject to annual appropriation.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
This contract for landfill services is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing the City’s goals to provide state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities, and provide an efficient and financially healthy City government.

The City has a current contract with Waste Management, Inc. of Alameda County (WMI) for this landfill services at their Altamont Landfill located in Livermore. This contract provides for disposal of non-recyclable materials collected by the City’s Zero Waste Division or delivered to the Transfer Station by third parties. The initial contract term was March 1, 2012 through December 31, 2016 and included two five-year extensions.

On December 23, 2020, the City exercised the second five-year extension, thus extending the contract until December 31, 2026. However, the original 2011 contract included a not-to-exceed (NTE) amount that had not accounted for cost of living escalators included in the existing contract and had underestimated future landfilled tons. Without correcting the NTE, this contract would run out of funds sometime between September 2022 and February 2023.

473
City and Waste Management, Inc Contract CONSENT CALENDAR Increase Funding for Landfill Services March 22, 2022
This action increases the NTE from the 2011 contract, and ensures the City funds landfill services through December 31, 2026, increasing the NTE amount from $32,740,168 to $45,545,780.

BACKGROUND
The City released a Landfill Disposal Services RFP (Specification No. 11-105867-C) on June 6, 2011. The City received three proposals for these services, and based on an assessment of the proposals, the City’s evaluation panel recommended an award of the landfill disposal contract to WMI.

City Council’s last approved five-year Zero Waste rate schedule was effective from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2019. From July 1, 2019 through today, Zero Waste rates have stayed flat with no annual escalation. On December 7, 2021, staff and City Council discussed a new proposed five-year rate schedule. Staff are considering whether 2023 is better timing to initiate these five-year rate setting procedures, given the impact of inflation on the City’s customers and to coordinate with other revenue measure possibilities.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The continuation of this contract with WMI provides for the environmentally sound disposition of materials in a Federal and State regulatory-compliant landfill. Altamont Landfill has installed modern and updated technology that captures GHGs, specifically methane, and leachate created by the decomposition of these materials, which supports the City’s 2009 Climate Action Plan Goals.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The City’s Zero Waste Division provides curbside collection service to 23,000+ residents who live in up to five dwelling units, 5,000+ residents who live in multi-family buildings of 6 or more units, and commercial customers. The division also operates a Transfer Station that provides disposal services to 420+ drive-in customers daily. The extension of the current WMI contract provides the City’s continued access to WMI’s Altamont Landfill, which meets both Federal and State requirements.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
None. Without the NTE being corrected, the City will run out of authority for the current contract, which could result in hundreds of tons of material collecting at the Transfer Station with costlier options for landfill services.

CONTACT PERSON
Greg Apa, Solid Waste & Recycling Manager, Zero Waste Divison - Public Works, (510) 981-6359

474
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

CONTRACT NO. 090342-1 AMENDMENT: WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ALAMEDA

COUNTY FOR LANDFILL DISPOSAL SERVICES
WHEREAS, this landfill service is a Strategic Plan Priority Project, advancing the City’s goals to provide state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities, and provide an efficient and financially-health City government; WHEREAS, the City Council authorized the contract award with the initial term of March 1, 2012 through December 31, 2016 and provided for two five-year extensions, ending December 31, 2026;
WHEREAS, the City’s Zero Waste Division provides curbside collection service to 23,000+ residents, which includes multi-family units of up to 5, and 5,000+ commercial customers, which includes multi-family units of 6 or more. The Division also operates the City’s Transfer Station that provides disposal services to 420+ drive-in customers daily;
WHEREAS, the existing contract provides sufficient disposal capacity of non-recyclable materials collected by the City’s Zero Waste Division or delivered to the Transfer Station by third party; and
WHEREAS: on December 23, 2020, the City exercised, at its sole option, the second five-year extension, thus extending the contract until December 31, 2026. The extension of the current WMI contract provides the City’s continued access to WMI’s Altamont Landfill, which meets both Federal and State requirements.

WHEREAS, funding is available in the FY2022 Zero Waste Fund budget: 671-54-626- 723-0000-000-473-664120.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City Manager is authorized to increase the Not to Exceed amount from $32,740,168 to $45,545,780 of the City’s existing Contract No. 090342-1 with Waste Management, Inc. of Alameda County through December 31, 2026 for these state and city mandated landfill disposal services to ensure and protect the health and welfare of Berkeley’s community members and businesses.
..

475
476
Office of the City Manager
1 CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager
Submitted by: Liam Garland, Director, Department of Public Works Subject: Fiscal Year 2023 Street Lighting Assessments – Initiating Proceedings

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt two Resolutions describing proposed improvements to be used to determine the annual assessments levied for Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1982-1 and Street Lighting Assessment District No. 2018, and order the preparation of Engineer’s Reports.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Staff will prepare the Engineer’s Reports for Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1982-1 (1982 District) and Street Lighting Assessment District No. 2018 (2018 District). This effort to prepare the reports has been included in the budget process for the City’s operation and maintenance of the street lights. These reports will be prepared in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Act), promulgated in California Streets and Highways Code Section 22500 et seq., and are required to be prepared for each fiscal year (FY) for which assessments are to be levied and collected.

In FY 2023, the assessments for the 1982 District and the 2018 District will generate approximately $2.1 million in revenue for the Street Lighting program (Street Light Assessment District Fund 142).

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Act requires the City’s governing body adopt a resolution generally describing any proposed new improvements to be used to determine the annual assessments levied for the City’s street lighting districts, and order the preparation of Engineer’s Reports for the assessments. These are the first steps in allowing the City to levy and collect the assessments necessary to operate and maintain the street lighting districts. The improvements to be made in these assessment districts are generally described as maintenance and/or servicing of existing and future public lighting facilities. Collecting the street lighting fees are necessary to maintain and implement needed improvements and services to support the Strategic Plan goals of creating a resilient, safe, connected,

477
Initiating Proceedings - FY 2023 Street Lighting Assessment Districts CONSENT CALENDAR March 22, 2022
2 and prepared city and of providing state-of-the-art, well-maintained infrastructure, amenities, and facilities.

BACKGROUND
The 1982 District was established in accordance with the requirements of the Act on July 27, 1982 (Resolution No. 51,449-N.S.). The 2018 District was established in accordance with the requirements of the Act on June 12, 2018 (Resolution No. 68,482- N.S.). The Act requires the City prepare Engineer’s Reports for each fiscal year for which assessments are to be levied and collected. City staff will prepare the reports in accordance with the Act.

The City’s original assessment for the 1982 District failed to generate sufficient revenue to sustain the long-term operations of the City’s Street Lighting Program (Program). For a period beginning in FY 2006 and running through FY2017, the City used General Funds to sustain operations necessary to the Program. To establish financial sustainability for the Program and to avoid significant reductions to service in the future, the City moved forward with the formation of the 2018 District. This district was formed separately from the 1982 District, leaving the 1982 District’s structure and rates in place.

Assessments for the 2018 District were first levied in FY 2019. Allowable annual inflation adjustments of the 2018 District assessment rates are expected to raise revenues over the coming years.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
The City exclusively uses LED (light emitting diode) street lighting. LED lights provide environmental benefits by reducing the level of greenhouse gases emitted, reducing level of toxic materials disposed, maximizing energy cost savings, complying with the City’s illumination standards, and minimizing administration costs and staff time for street light maintenance. Assessing and levying the street lighting fees for the 1982 District and the 2018 District will allow the City to sustain environmental benefits of the LED lights.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Failure to adopt Resolutions ordering the preparation of Engineer’s Reports for the City’s street lighting assessments would result in non-compliance of the requirements set forth in the Act. Failure to comply with the Act would jeopardize the City’s ability to levy and collect assessments in Fiscal Year 2023. The collection of these assessments is needed to establish financial sustainability for the Program and to avoid significant reductions in service.

CONTACT PERSON
Liam Garland, Director, Department of Public Works, (510) 981-6303 Joe Enke, Manager of Engineering/City Engineer, (510) 981-6411

478
Initiating Proceedings - FY 2023 Street Lighting Assessment Districts CONSENT CALENDAR March 22, 2022
3 Attachments:
1: Resolution – Initial Proceedings – Street Lighting Assessment District 1982-1 2: Resolution – Initial Proceedings – Street Lighting Assessment District 2018

479
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR BERKELEY STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 1982-1 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023 AND ORDER CITY STAFF TO PREPARE AND FILE THE ENGINEER’S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023
WHEREAS, on July 27, 1982, the Council of the City of Berkeley Adopted Resolution No. 51,449–N.S. that completed proceedings to form the Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1982-1 pursuant to Chapter II of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 Streets and Highways Code Section 22585-22613; and
WHEREAS, Section 22622 of the Street and Highway Code requires the City Council to adopt a resolution generally describing any proposed new improvements to be used to determine the annual assessment levied for any assessment district created under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972; and
WHEREAS, Section 22622 further requires that the City Council order the preparation of an Engineer’s Report prior to initiating proceedings to set the annual levy and collection of assessments for such assessment districts.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Berkeley that improvements to be included in Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1982-1 for assessing Fiscal Year 2023 fees are generally described as maintenance or servicing, or both, of existing and future public lighting facilities, including, but not limited to, traffic signals and the installation and construction of public lighting or the maintenance or servicing thereof, including but not limited to grading, clearing, removal of debris, installation and construction of curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalk or paving, or water, irrigation, or drainage related to operation of the public lighting facilities.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, Pursuant to Street and Highways Code Section 22622, that City Engineer is hereby directed to prepare the annual Engineer’s Report prior to initiating proceedings to levy and collect the annual assessment for Berkeley Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1982-1 in Fiscal Year 2023.

480
RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S.

INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 2018 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023 AND ORDER CITY STAFF TO PREPARE AND FILE THE ENGINEER’S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023
WHEREAS, on June 12, 2018, the Council of the City of Berkeley Adopted Resolution No. 68,432–N.S. that completed proceedings to form the Street Lighting Assessment District 2018 pursuant to Chapter II of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 Streets and Highways Code Section 22585-22613; and
WHEREAS, Section 22622 of the Street and Highway Code requires the City Council to adopt a resolution generally describing any proposed new improvements to be used to determine the annual assessment levied for any assessment district created under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972; and
WHEREAS, Section 22622 further requires that the City Council order the preparation of an Engineer’s Report prior to initiating proceedings to set the annual levy and collection of assessments for such assessment districts.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Berkeley that improvements to be included in Street Lighting Assessment District 2018 for assessing Fiscal Year 2023 fees are generally described as maintenance or servicing, or both, of existing and future public lighting facilities, including, but not limited to, traffic signals and the installation and construction of public lighting or the maintenance or servicing thereof, including but not limited to grading, clearing, removal of debris, installation and construction of curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalk or paving, or water or irrigation, drainage related to operation of the public lighting facilities.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, Pursuant to Street and Highways Code Section 22622, that City Engineer is hereby directed to prepare the annual Engineer’s Report prior to initiating proceedings to levy and collect the annual assessment for Street Lighting Assessment District 2018 in Fiscal Year 2023.

481
482
Commission on Disability

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Commission on Disability
Submitted by: Commission on Disability, T. Michai Freeman (Chair) Subject: Vacancies on Commission on Disability

RECOMMENDATION
Appoint new members to fill vacancies on the Commission on Disability from District 3, District 4, District 5, District 6, District 7, and Mayor Jesse Arreguin

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
NONE

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
The Commission on Disability is charged with promoting the total integration and participation of persons with disabilities in all areas of economic, political, and community life. Currently three commissioners are seated on the Commission on Disability out of a nine-member panel. We ask councilmembers and Mayor Jesse Arreguin make appointments to the Commission on Disability to enable this body to effectively pursue the Commission’s mandate. Item passed January 19, 2022.

Submitted to Secretary February 9, 2022. (Motion: Freeman Second: Walsh, Freeman: aye, Walsh: aye, Singer: aye)

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
The Commission on Disability commissioners, while dedicated, are limited in their work to effectively advise the City of Berkeley.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
NONE

CONTACT PERSON
Secretary, Dominika Bednarska,
Department of Public Works
(510) 981-6418
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

483
484
Disaster and Fire Safety Commission
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

ACTION CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Disaster and Fire Safety Commission
Submitted by: Jose Luis Bedolla, Chairperson, Disaster and Fire Safety Commission Subject: Recommendation to Identify High Risk Safety Areas that are Exempt from State Imposed Housing Increases Due to Public Safety Considerations

RECOMMENDATION
The Disaster and Fire Safety Commission (DFSC) recommends that the City Council define the location of those areas in Berkeley in which residents are at high risk due to public safety considerations and use this information to help guide the Housing Element process so that greater density and development in those areas is avoided to the extent reasonably possible. These areas include:

1. Fire Zones 2 and 3 with narrow (26 feet or less in width), winding streets, or those with “pinch-points’ that do not allow emergency vehicle access and safe evacuation routes for residents in the event of a wildfire; and

2. Locations within the Alquist-Priolo (Hayward Fault) Earthquake Zone identified by the California Geological Survey; and

3. Locations within the Liquefaction or Landslide Zones identified by the California Geological Survey and areas associated with creeks, above and underground and subject to the impacts of Sea Level Rise.

A. Establish a Priority: The DFSC requests that the identification process begin with items 1 and 2 listed above. State legislation mandating increased development in these areas is effective January 1, 2022, and the identification of the boundaries of areas where residents are at high risk in Berkeley should be completed prior to that date. Item 3 is also important, but as a practical matter, it may take longer to review.

Therefore, completing identification may have to be done in steps over time.

An additional consideration in giving priority at this time to areas affected by fire is that we are now in the “traditional” wildfire season with the clear statewide warning that today’s wildfires are both more frequent and intense and are being fueled by the State’s continued severe drought with no relief in the foreseeable future.

B. Establish an Easy-to-Understand Map Format: The DFSC requests that the identification information presented be in an easy-to-understand map format that is available to the public and kept in an up-to-date format as the process progresses. This

485
Recommendation to Identify High Risk Safety Areas that are Exempt from State Imposed Housing Increases Due to Public Safety Considerations ACTION CALENDAR March 22, 2022
format should; within technical capability, clearly identify streets that are boundaries to the public safety areas. The California Geological Survey already maintains property- specific maps that address Items 1 and 2 above. The DFSC requests that the City produce similar maps for the other hazardous areas as they are identified.

C. Need for Timely Action: The Council has recently taken action to indicate their intent to begin a process to complete the Sate required new Housing Element for the City’s General Plan. Establishing high-risk public safety areas is a foundational tool in the work that needs to be done to complete a new Housing Element.

D. Provides an Opportunity to Inform the Public: Defining high-risk public safety zones not only informs residents about the nature of the risks but encourages individuals and groups to be part of the effort to reduce those risks.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Exact costs and staff time in changing the scope of work that has already been planned are to be determined.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
There is broad agreement that Berkeley’s Wildfire Urban Interface (WUI) areas, the existence of the Hayward Earthquake Fault and landslide areas present serious safety concerns for residents.

Added to these concerns is the emerging information regarding the stability of land subject to Sea Level Rise. These safety risks should be a bedrock consideration that helps guide the Housing Element process so that greater density and development in these areas can be avoided to the extent reasonably possible. In undertaking that process, the boundaries of high-risk public safety areas must be identified.

The CalFIRE map of Berkeley’s “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone” is reflected in the map shown in Attachment 1. The area to the right of the dotted line drawn through the gray area reflects a portion of Fire Zone 2 and all of Fire Zone 3, the ES-R zoned area known as Panoramic Way.

The portion of the gray area to the left of the dotted line is the rest of Fire Zone 2.

The gray area indicates all of Fire Zone 2. See Attachment 2 which shows this without the CalFIRE dividing line drawn through Fire Zone 2 that is shown in Attachment 1.

Around 2008, CalFIRE recommended and published maps for the Very High Fire Hazard Severity ones in what was called Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs). According to Fire Department staff, Berkeley found that while CalFIRE maps approximated the boundaries historically considered to be at risk for wildfire in Berkeley, there were areas that should be included under the LRA provision. This means that Berkeley’s High-Fire risk Areas are a combination of Fire Zone 3 and all of Fire Zone 2 as reflected in the Attachment 2 map.

486
Recommendation to Identify High Risk Safety Areas that are Exempt from State Imposed Housing Increases Due to Public Safety Considerations ACTION CALENDAR March 22, 2022
An additional reason to clarify the boundaries of public safety areas is found in a last minute addition to the new State housing legislation that provides than an urban lot split in a single-family zone may be denied if the building official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed housing development would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety or on the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. Having to consider this provision means that staff will have to have readily available information on a variety of factors. Identifying the boundaries of high-risk safety areas would be an essential part of the information which would be needed.

Since this recommendation pertains to more than wildfire areas, it is recommended that generally such areas should be known as “high-risk public safety areas.”

BACKGROUND
In response to a directive from Governor Newsom, the Association of Bay Areas Governments assigned the task of producing 441,176 new housing units to cities and counties in the Bay Area. Berkeley’s share is to provide from 7,730 to 9,025 new Rental Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goals over the next eight years. RHNA goals include percentages of groups ranging from very low income to above moderate-income levels which must be met. To accomplish this, Berkley is currently engaged in an 18-month process to update the Housing Element of our General Plan. The statutory deadline is that the result must be submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development by January 31, 2023. The Housing Element must include an inventory of sites where the new units will be located. Overall, the General Plan guides our future growth, and in addition to the Housing Element, it includes such other matters as preparation for disaster, natural and man-made. Goal 6 in the current Plan states that the intent is to make Berkeley a disaster resistant community that can survive, recover from, and thrive after a disaster.

Throughout all of the discussions that have occurred about disasters, it is recognized that certain areas are considered to be high-risk because of wildfires, but without confirmation of the exact boundaries of those areas. There has also been consistent mention of other public safety considerations such as Sea Level Rise, liquefaction and creeks, but no specific consideration regarding the impact of additional growth on public safety in these and other areas has followed. Land has already been identified by the City as being subject to Sea Level Rise and liquefaction. In March 2021, a new study indicated that land along our coast was currently sinking due to the weight of current development on non-engineered landfill.

Clearly the approval of a new Housing Element is a major task that must involve robust citizen participation by Berkeley residents. DFSC believes that we need to start by defining the geologic and other areas that pose a public safety threat. We must act immediately regarding the high-risk fire hazard areas as indicated in Items 1 and 2 on

487
Recommendation to Identify High Risk Safety Areas that are Exempt from State Imposed Housing Increases Due to Public Safety Considerations ACTION CALENDAR March 22, 2022
our list and any inability to develop maps for the hazards listed in Item 3 on a timely basis should not delay identification of other areas as we move through the list.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS
Reducing Berkeley’s contribution to climate change impacts is a large task given the State mandate to produce a new Housing Element that meets the assigned RHNA numbers. Ignoring the identification of high-risk public safety zones is not the answer.

Approving multi-family buildings that are accessible to public transportation, but still offer tenant parking and which do not contain affordable housing goals at all levels is not the answer. These are issues along with others which must be sorted out in the Housing Element approval process, but which do not impact the need for boundary identification of high-risk public safety areas.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
DFSCs recommendation is based on the concept that planning future growth is built on a foundation that identifies those areas which contain the elements that place both residents and the future of the City at risk. Increasing population in high-risk public safety zones should not be delayed because of side issues such as street parking, enforcement or past history. We need to look at this issue from a current comprehensive planning perspective that allows growth in a resilient city that can survive and thrive before, during and after a disaster.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED
There is no real alternative to undertaking an identification process that includes all parts of the city.

CITY MANAGER
The City Manager recommends referring this item the budget process.

Staff concurs that public safety considerations are a critical factor in the development and implementation of the City’s Housing Element Update. Already in alignment with the Disaster and Fire Safety Commission’s recommendation, the City’s Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element of the General Plan and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan provide substantial guidance towards hazard identification and public safety considerations. The City’s adherence with timelines and requirements for the Housing Element Update ensure that safety of residents is prioritized when identifying housing opportunity sites and affirmatively furthering fair housing. Furthermore, the statutory deadline for Housing Element certification and a requirement for Annual Progress Reports on the Housing Element State ensure timely action for implementation.

The Housing Element Update requires public input and provides the community with a level of understanding about the project process and materials. This outreach includes residents and community members, discussing program and policies that can reduce risks due to natural hazards. The community is engaged in the Housing Element Update and has provided valuable feedback at two City Council Worksessions (9/21/21

488
Recommendation to Identify High Risk Safety Areas that are Exempt from State Imposed Housing Increases Due to Public Safety Considerations ACTION CALENDAR March 22, 2022
and 12/9/21) and two public workshops (10/27/21 and 1/27/22). The next City Council Worksession will be held on 3/15/22, during which time the public will have an opportunity to address Council.

Per State law, the Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element of the General Plan needs to be updated prior to 2024. On January 25, 2022, City Council referred to the City Manager an update of the Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element. Staff will be requesting funding during the FY2022-2024 budget cycle to fund this project which will ensure that public safety considerations are kept up to date as the City continues to reach its goals on housing.

CONTACT PERSON
Keith May, Secretary, Disaster and Fire Safety Commission, 510-981-5508 Attachments:
1: Hillside Conditions Map
2: Berkeley Fire Zones Map

489
Recommendation to Identify High Risk Safety Areas that are Exempt from State Imposed Housing Increases Due to Public Safety Considerations ACTION CALENDAR March 22, 2022

490
Parks and Waterfront Commission
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Commission
Submitted by: Gordon Wozniak, Chair, Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Commission Subject: Letter of Support for Budget Referral: South Sailing Basin Dredging

RECOMMENDATION
Send the attached Letter of Support for Budget Referral: South Sailing Basin Dredging to be added to the scope of the project for the study of dredging the main channel.

BACKGROUND
At a regular meeting of the Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Commission on Wednesday, February 16, 2022, the commission took action to send to Council the attached Letter of Support (M/S/C: Floyd/Capitelli): Ayes: Birnbach; Capitelli; Cox; Diehm; Floyd, Kawczynska; Landoni; Srioudom; Wozniak; Noes: None; Abstain: None.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
This referral refers to the budget process the consideration of $350,000 for planning and evaluation work related to South Sailing Basin dredging. Combining the planning and evaluation work for both projects, may result in cost savings.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Staff should research and consider the environmental impact of dredging the South Sailing Basin.

CITY MANAGER
The City Manager concurs with the recommendation contained in this report.

CONTACT PERSON
Gordon Wozniak, Chair, Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Commission, 510-666-0662 Attachments:

1. Letter of Support – Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Commission to Council

2. Photo of South Sailing Basin dock and surrounding mudflats at low tide at 3:53 PM on Jan. 30, 2022

491
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.6700 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981.6710 E-mail: [email protected] Website http://www.cityofberkeley.info/parks City of Berkeley Date: Feb. 16, 2022
Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Commission
Re: Support for Dredging the South Sailing Basin
To the Berkeley City Council:

The Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Commission strongly supports the Budget Referral of $350,000 for planning and evaluation of dredging in the South Sailing Basin. At present, the City has hired a consultant for planning work for dredging the Main Harbor channel. Adding the South Sailing Basin dredging study to this contract could result in significant savings.

The South Sailing Basin provides water access for small-craft and aquatic recreation: e.g. small sailing boats, kayaks, paddle boards, windsurfing, and swimming. Since the basin has not been dredged in 50 years, the accumulation of silt and mud, make it impossible to launch boats on low tide days. See Attachment 2, which shows a low-tide event on Jan. 30, 2022, where the mudflats extended beyond the launching dock.

The silting of the South Sailing Basin threatens the long-term viability of aquatic recreation in this area and could jeopardize the City’s multimillion dollar investment in new docks, launch facilities, and parking. If dredging is not carried out, these important recreation facilities could eventually be closed, which would be a loss for everyone.

Respectfully,
Gordon Wozniak, Chair
Berkeley Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Commission
Attachment 1

492
Attachment 2
Photo of South Sailing Basin dock and surrounding mudflats at low tide at 3:53 PM on Jan. 30, 2022

493
494
Parks and Waterfront Commission
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager

CONSENT CALENDAR
March 22, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Parks and Waterfront Commission
Submitted by: Gordon Wozniak, Chair, Parks and Waterfront Commission Subject: Letter of Support for Infrastructure Improvement Projects in the Berkeley Waterfront from the Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Commission to State Senate Budget Chair Skinner and Assembly Budget Chair Ting

RECOMMENDATION
Send the attached Letter of Support for Infrastructure Improvement Projects in the Berkeley Waterfront from the Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Commission to State Senate Budget Chair Skinner and Assembly Budget Chair Ting.

BACKGROUND
At a regular meeting of the Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Commission on Wednesday, February 16, 2022, the commission took action to request Council send the attached Letter of Support (Attachment 1) (M/S/C: Kawczynska/Cox/U): Ayes:

Birnbach; Capitelli; Cox; Diehm; Floyd, Kawczynska; Landoni; Srioudom; Wozniak; Noes: None; Abstain: None.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The Berkeley Waterfront has $15 million in key improvement projects that are in need of immediate funding.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
No negative impact and consistent with City standards.

CITY MANAGER
The City Manager concurs with the recommendation contained in this report.

CONTACT PERSON
Gordon Wozniak, Chairperson, Parks and Waterfront Commission, 510-666-0662 Attachments:

1. Letter of Support – Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Commission – to the State

495
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7000 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7099 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/Manager City of Berkeley Date: Feb. 16, 2022
Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Commission
Re: Support for Infrastructure Improvements to the Berkeley Marina To Whom It May Concern:

The Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Commission voted unanimously at its meeting on Feb. 16, 2022, to express its support for the City of Berkeley’s funding request for Infrastructure Improvements at the Berkeley Marina. (See list in Attachment 2).

The Berkeley Waterfront is a beloved recreational area offering a 1,000-slip Marina, more than 100 acres of open space and seven miles of trails that delight dog owners, birdwatchers, sailors, windsurfers, bicyclists, kite flyers, and anyone seeking to enjoy fresh air and expansive views of the bay.

Over the last fifteen years, despite investing $40 million in capital improvement projects at the Marina, there remains $130 million in unfunded infrastructure needs.

To help the Marina recover from the Covid financial impact, it needs revenue-generating infrastructure investments. All projects in the $15 million City request to the State are directly related to revenue, except for the perimeter path at Cesar Chavez Park. An improved main channel that is passable at low tide and new berthing slips, with sizes attractive to the current market, will improve occupancy rates and annual revenues by ~$0.5M.

Looking ahead, and to ensure fiscal sustainability, the City has engaged in a long-range planning effort, the Berkeley Marina Area Specific Plan (BMASP), which will inform future development and provide alternative visions for a sustainable waterfront area. To protect the environmental jewel that is the waterfront and State land granted, a robust CEQA process shall be performed for all projects.

We respectfully request State support for these highest-priority capital improvement projects. If in the next budget cycle, additional funds are available, there are several priority projects that would improve fishing and recreational access to the Bay, but are non-revenue generating.

Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to working in partnership to ensure the vitality and longevity of the Berkeley Marina for decades to come.

Respectfully,
Gordon Wozniak, Chair, Berkeley Parks, Recreation, and Waterfront Commission Attachment 1

496
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.6700 TDD: 510.981.6903 Fax: 510.981.6710 E-mail: [email protected] Website http://www.cityofberkeley.info/parks Attachment 2
The Berkeley City Council’s request to State Senator Nancy Skinner for $15 million of investment in the following critical needs at the Berkeley Marina:

1. Dredging Main Channel - $6,000,000
Both the northern and southern entrances to the main Berkeley Marina need to be dredged. They were last partially dredged in 1989 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency after the Loma Prieta earthquake, to allow for large ferry use.

Currently, there are several spots where large boats cannot enter or exit during low tide.

2. Dock Piling Replacement - $1,300,000
The Berkeley Marina has approximately 500 pilings. Approximately 50 percent are the original wood pilings, many of which have failed or are near failure. The City has identified $1.2 million in City funding to replace the worst pilings, but is in need of additional funding to replace the remaining wood pilings.

3. Finger Dock Replacement - $850,000
Various small docks next to each slip that are adjacent to each boat need to be replaced in docks K, L, M, N and O. While the main docks are in decent shape, many of the finger docks are failing.

4. J Dock Replacement - $4,500,000
These docks are the oldest remaining unimproved docks since the initial construction in the 1960s. These docks will be converted from small boat slips to slips for medium and larger boats, which should generate more revenue.

5. J and K Parking Lot - $1,150,000
This parking lot is adjacent to the marina office, commercial fishing dock (K), a marina restaurant and the bait shop and has totally failed and needs complete replacement.

This parking lot is the busiest marina parking lot and serves multiple public uses in the Berkeley waterfront.

6. Cesar Chavez Perimeter Path - $1,000,000
This failing one-mile pathway needs to be widened to meet Bay Trail standards and there are several locations that do not meet current ADA standards.

7. Marina Office Piling Replacement - $200,000
The twenty wood pilings which hold up the marina office/public restroom and related platform are near failure and need immediate replacement.

497
498

2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-6750 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-6760 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.CityofBerkeley.info/auditor

CONSENT CALENDAR
MARCH 22, 2022

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Jenny Wong, City Auditor
Subject: Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime and Security Work for Outside Entities

RECOMMENDATION
We recommend City Council request that the City Manager report back by September 29, 2022, and every six months thereafter, regarding the status of our audit recommendations until reported fully implemented by the Berkeley Police Department (BPD). They have agreed to our findings and recommendations. Please see our report for their complete response.

FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION
Implementing the recommendations will ensure overtime worked by BPD officers is appropriate, saving BPD and the City costs related to unnecessary overtime. Implementation will also ensure the City is appropriately reimbursed for police services to outside entities.

If BPD and City do not implement recommended measures, overtime expenditures may continue to exceed BPD’s budgeted amount in the following years. Without the ability to track revenues and expenses of work for outside entities, BPD risks continually underbilling for their services and not recovering the full costs of officer overtime. BPD and the City may also encounter liability costs if BPD continues to provide services to outside entities without contracts that include indemnity agreements.

CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS
BPD relies on overtime to achieve their sworn staffing levels. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2020, nearly a quarter or $1.3 million of BPD’s sworn overtime costs went toward backfilling for officer vacancies and absences.

BPD lacks a process to regularly assess the efficacy of minimum staffing levels, and cannot ensure that minimum staffing reflects the current needs of BPD and the community. BPD’s minimum staffing levels could cause unnecessary overtime if not regularly updated.

BPD does not adhere to their overtime controls. In FY 2020, 21 percent of sworn officers exceeded BPD’s overtime limit at least once. Without adequate enforcement and tools to manage overtime, BPD cannot mitigate risks of officer fatigue.

BPD’s overtime security work for outside entities more than tripled in FY 2020. There are no procedures or contracts for this work, and it is unclear if BPD charges outside entities

499

Berkeley Police Department: Improvements Needed MARCH 22, 2022 to Manage Overtime and Security Work for Outside Entities

appropriately. Without policies and documentation, BPD cannot ensure transparent and equitable services.

BACKGROUND
BPD’s budget has increased significantly in the past several decades. BPD surpassed the budgeted amount four out of the last five years, with overtime being the primary cause of overspending. Though some amount of overtime is required, overreliance on overtime can increase fatigue and burnout, decrease productivity, and increase mistakes.

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Our office manages and stores audit workpapers and other documents electronically to significantly reduce our use of paper and ink. Our audit recommendation for BPD to use modern staffing software could also reduce the use of paper and ink.

RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION
Implementing our recommendations will improve BPD’s management of overtime and mitigate risks associated with excessive overtime and officer fatigue. The recommendations will also ensure BPD’s staffing levels are transparent, appropriate, and responsive to the current needs of the community. Additionally, the recommendation ensures BPD’s work for outside entities is equitable and transparent, and in full compliance with relevant laws and policies.

CONTACT PERSON
Jenny Wong, City Auditor, City Auditor’s Office, 510-981-6750

Attachments:
1: Audit Report: Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime and Security Work for Outside Entities

500

Promoting transparency and accountability in Berkeley government Audit Report
March 3, 2022
Berkeley Police:

Improvements
Needed to Manage
Overtime and
Security Work for
Outside Entities

Jenny Wong, City Auditor
Erin Mullin, Senior Auditor
Alejandra Barrio Gorski, Auditor I

501

Promoting transparency and accountability in Berkeley government Report Highlights
For the full report, visit:
http://www.cityofberkeley.info/auditor
Findings
Berkeley Police Department Top 10 Overtime Expenditures, FY 2020
Source: BPD Payroll Data
March 3, 2022
Objectives
 What policing functions does
BPD’s use of overtime cover?
 Does BPD regularly assess
minimum staffing levels to meet
community needs?
 Is BPD’s management of overtime
sufficient to reduce excessive uses
of overtime?
 Are BPD’s agreements to provide
work for outside entities
transparent and in accordance
with the law?
Why This Audit Is Important
BPD exceeded its General Fund
budget four out of the last five years.

In FY 2020, BPD surpassed its $71.0
million allocation by $4.8 million.

Overtime is the primary cause of
BPD’s overspending, and this report
seeks to understand why BPD’s
overtime spending has increased in
recent years. Some overtime is
required for various reasons. It is
often more cost-effective than hiring
staff and allows employees to meet
fluctuating workloads. However,
overreliance on overtime can increase
fatigue and burnout, decrease
productivity, and increase mistakes.

2. BPD lacks a process to regularly assess the efficacy of minimum staffing levels, and cannot ensure that minimum staffing reflects the current needs of BPD and the community. BPD’s minimum staffing levels could cause unnecessary overtime if not regularly updated.

1. Berkeley Police Department (BPD) relies on overtime to achieve their sworn staffing levels. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2020, nearly a quarter or $1.3 million of BPD’s sworn overtime costs went toward backfilling for officer vacancies and absences.

502

Promoting transparency and accountability in Berkeley government Report Highlights
For the full report, visit:
http://www.cityofberkeley.info/auditor
BPD Officers Exceed BPD’s Overtime Limit of 44 Hours in a Week in FY 2020

Source: BPD Payroll Data

3. BPD does not adhere to their overtime controls. In FY 2020, 21 percent of sworn officers exceeded BPD’s overtime limit at least once. Without adequate enforcement and tools to manage overtime, BPD cannot mitigate risks of officer fatigue.

Recommendations
We recommend that BPD publicly
document minimum staffing levels
and establish procedures to regularly
assess their efficacy. BPD should also
evaluate and update overtime policies,
and monitor overtime and
compensatory time using staffing
software.

We also recommend that BPD update
policies and procedures, create
contracts, and increase transparency
on work for outside entities. BPD
should also regularly evaluate their
billing and explore ways to track
revenues and expenses.

This audit does not propose
recommendations regarding BPD’s
staffing levels or service delivery
model.

Photo source: Berkeley Police
Department

4. BPD’s overtime security work for outside entities more than tripled in FY 2020. There are no procedures or contracts for this work, and it is unclear if BPD charges outside entities appropriately. Without policies and documentation, BPD cannot ensure transparent and equitable services.

503

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 4 Table of Contents

overtime if not regularly updated.

Introduction
In our 2021 Audit Plan, we identified the Berkeley Police Department (BPD) budget as an area needing objective and independent analysis of how limited City funds are allocated. In April 2020, our office produced a special report examining the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Berkeley’s finances. We found that the City may need to reduce expenditures to focus on essential activities that prioritize public health and safety, as well as community values.1 BPD’s overtime expenditures have increased in recent years, and this report seeks to understand why. Some amount of overtime is required due to vacancies, emergencies, special events, staffing shortages, workload fluctuations, etc. It is often more cost-effective than hiring additional staff and allows employees to meet fluctuating workloads. However, overreliance on overtime can increase fatigue and burnout, decrease productivity, and increase mistakes.

In December 2020, the City entered into a contract with outside consultants to research, analyze, and make recommendations in regards to BPD’s policing model including the size and scope of operations. It is important to have a staffing model that aligns with the needs of the community. To avoid duplication of work outlined in the City’s reimagining public safety process, this report does not assess the adequacy of BPD’s staffing levels or service delivery model. There are ongoing discussions in the City about appropriate staffing levels and what functions BPD should undertake. 1 Navigating the Impact of the COVID -19 Pandemic on Berkeley ’s Finances: https://www.cityofberkeley.info/ uploadedFiles/Auditor/Level_3_-_General/Navigating%20Impact%20of%20COVID-19%20Pandemic%20on% 20Berkeley%E2%80%99s%20Finances%20rpt.pdf

504

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 5 Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Our objectives were to determine:
 What policing functions does BPD’s use of overtime cover?  Does BPD regularly assess minimum staffing levels to meet community needs?  Is BPD’s management of overtime sufficient to reduce excessive uses of overtime?  Are BPD’s agreements to provide work for outside entities transparent and in accordance with the law?
We examined BPD spending on overtime for fiscal years (FY) 2019 and 2020. We focused on this scope period due to its timeliness and relevance, bearing in mind that 2020 data may reflect the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. We assessed historic funding levels going as far back as FY 1970 when data was available. We specifically assessed internal controls significant to the audit objectives. This included a review of selected policies and procedures, interviews with staff from BPD, and source documents for payroll data. In performing our work, we identified concerns about the department’s manual process for tracking officer schedules and hours worked to enforce overtime limits and manage staffing. For more information, see p. 43.

Background
BPD’s budget is the largest portion of the City’s General Fund.

BPD receives more General Fund money than any other department in the City. The Fire Department is the department with the second highest allocation of General Fund monies.2 In FY 2020, BPD’s allocation of General Fund monies accounted for 36 percent ($70.6 million) of the City’s $196.9 million General Fund budget. The percentage of the General Fund allocated to BPD increased from 21 percent in 1970 to 36 percent in 2020, with one notable dip to 10 percent in 1980. In the context of Berkeley’s total government expenditures, police spending has remained at a relatively constant level. BPD accounted for 14 percent of government expenditures in FY 2020 which is only a one percent decrease since 1970. Figure 1 only reflects the share of General Fund spending on police services and does not show how staffing and police operations have changed over time.
2 City of Berkeley, FY 2020 -2021 Biennial Budget: https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Manager/Budget/ FY-2020-2021-Adopted-Budget-Book.pdf

505

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 6 Figure 1. BPD Received 36 Percent of the City’s General Fund Budget in FY 2020 Source: FY 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020 Adopted City Budgets Most of BPD’s budget comes from the City’s General Fund.

Ninety three percent of BPD’s budget is paid for by the General Fund. Between 2015 and 2020, BPD’s funding streams were the General Fund, Parking Fund, Asset Forfeiture Fund, Federal Grants, and State/ County Grants. Appendix I provides further information about each fund.

Figure 2. The General Fund Makes Up 93 Percent of the BPD Budget, FY 2020

Source: FY 2020 Revised Budget Data

506

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 7 BPD’s budget has increased over time.

Since 1970, the BPD budget has grown significantly each decade, from $21.86 million in 1970 (adjusted to 2020 purchasing power) to $74.98 million in 2020. Personnel costs have accounted for the most significant portion of these budgets. Over the years, personnel costs have increased alongside BPD’s overall budget, but the portion of the budget that personnel costs account for has remained consistent at around 89 percent.

In contrast, since 1970, the number of BPD personnel has increased slightly by five percent, coinciding with a five percent increase in the City’s population during this period. Meanwhile, the average cost per employee has increased drastically: in 1970, 272 BPD personnel (sworn and non-sworn) cost the city $19.45 million (adjusted to 2020 purchasing power) in wages and benefits, and by 2020, 285.2 employees in the same department cost the City $67 million. On average, the cost of one BPD employee in 2020 was over three times that of one BPD employee in 1970.

Increases in fringe benefit rates contribute to the spike in personnel costs. We analyzed the overall cost of benefits, but did not look at the actual benefits personnel received. The cost of benefits for sworn police has increased significantly over the last five years, and police have the highest fringe benefit rate across the city.

Between 2016 and 2020, the fringe benefit rate for sworn police increased 15.92 percent due mostly to an increase in the employer’s CalPERS rate. Fire had the next highest rate of 88.28 percent in FY 2020 which was 17 percent lower than Police. With a fringe benefit rate at 105.6 percent of an officer’s salary, it is always cheaper to have an officer work overtime rather than hire a new officer. However, it can be more expensive to have a higher ranked sergeant or lieutenant work overtime in place of hiring a new officer.

Figure 3. Officer Fringe Benefit Rates Exceed 100 Percent of Salary Note: These rates are estimates. Non-sworn fringe benefits rates include benefited city employees that are neither a sworn officer nor a firefighter. The type of non-sworn work of an individual position (office, field, laborer) determines the total benefit rate.

Source: City of Berkeley compensation matrices

507

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 8 Patrol has received the greatest portion of funding.

BPD has four divisions that report to the Chief of Police: Operations, Professional Standards, Support Services, and Investigations. The greatest share of BPD’s funding has historically gone toward the Operations Division, which manages the department’s Patrol Unit. Patrol is a core function of BPD, with 24/7 operations responding to emergency and non-emergency calls for service, conducting criminal investigations, and providing additional policing services.

Figure 4 shows personnel expenditures from BPD’s General Fund, by divisions and subdivisions. In FY 2020, BPD’s Patrol Unit accounted for $41.1 million, or 60 percent of personnel costs within the department’s General Fund budget.

Figure 4. Patrol Operations Utilized 60 Percent of Personnel Costs from the Department’s FY 2020 General Fund Budget, in Millions of Dollars
Source: FY 2020 Adopted City Budget

BPD has exceeded its General Fund budget four out of the last five years.

BPD has spent more from the General Fund than budgeted. BPD was half a million dollars over budget in FY 2016, and by FY 2020 the overage was nearing five million dollars. In FY 2020, BPD spent $75.8 million of General Fund monies or approximately $4.8 million more than the budgeted amount. According to the City Budget Office, General Fund savings from other departments are used to cover BPD overages after BPD has exhausted savings within their department.

508

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 9 Figure 5. BPD Spent More General Funds than Budgeted Four Out of Five Years, FY 2016-2020 in Millions of Dollars
Source: BPD presentation to the Budget and Finance Committee on October 22, 2020 Overtime is the primary cause of BPD overspending, with increased costs each year.

The Operations Division, which contains the Patrol Unit, is BPD’s largest division and the biggest user of overtime. Policing is unpredictable and some overtime work is necessary and unavoidable. Officers may need to complete arrests at the end of their shifts, fill in to cover absences, or assist in safely facilitating public events. Police work also inevitably generates off-duty court appearances, trainings, and work on holidays. Some level of overtime can be viewed as a fixed cost of normal policing and will occur regardless of the number of officers employed. Knowing where, when, and why overtime was used is necessary if BPD is to anticipate overtime, to justify its payment, and to find ways to reduce the need for overtime expenditures.

BPD’s spending on overtime has consistently exceeded the $2.25 million that the City has budgeted annually over the past ten years. Although BPD exceeded other budget line items in FY 2020, overtime was the biggest reason for the department overages. BPD increased overtime expenditures for public safety power shutoffs, COVID-19, protests, and work for outside entities from FY 2019 to 2020, contributing to an overall increase in overtime expenditures by nearly $1.2 million (see Appendix II for more detail). According to the Budget Office, the City is committed to providing a police overtime budget that aligns with actual overtime expenditures going forward. In FY 2021, the City increased BPD’s overtime budget to $5.3 million with an additional $1 million in reserves.

509

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 10 The budget and expenditure data do not show the details of how overtime is paid. Some overtime is paid for by salary savings associated with department vacancies and other overtime is reimbursed from outside entities. However, reimbursements from outside entities are not credited back to the department, and we are unable to determine the reimbursed amounts under BPD’s current accounting structure (see page 33).

Figure 6 offers a simple snapshot of overtime spending, and does not incorporate other ways in which BPD and the City recover the costs of overtime.

Figure 6. The Cost of Overtime Has Increased, While the Budgeted Funding Has Remained Insufficient, FY 2016-2020 in Millions of Dollars
Note: Includes sworn and non-sworn personnel.

Source: BPD presentation to the Budget and Finance Committee on October 22, 2020 The majority of overtime activities are paid for using BPD’s General Fund budget. In FY 2020, 81 percent of overtime activities were budgeted from BPD’s General Fund. The remaining 19 percent of overtime activities were budgeted from Grants and the Parking Meter Funds.

510

Berkeley Police: Improvements Needed to Manage Overtime 11 Overtime is used to maintain minimum
patrol staffing set by BPD.

BPD relies on overtime to achieve the sworn staffing levels set by the department for regular duty operations. In FY 2020, overtime costs for sworn officers exceeded $5 million or 75 percent of the department’s total overtime expenditures. Overtime has a variety of beneficial uses, but a large part of overtime at BPD is simply backfilling officer vacancies and absences.

While it is generally less expensive to use overtime to fill shift vacancies than it is to hire more staff, BPD relies on backfill in patrol often. In FY 2020, 45 percent of sworn officer’s overtime hours in BPD were used to maintain regular duty operations and nearly half of those overtime hours were due to staffing vacancies and absences (Figure 8). Sworn officer vacancies contribute to BPD’s reliance on overtime, and more work is needed to understand the full impact. Additionally, BPD does not adequately monitor compensatory time to ensure it does not increase the need for overtime.

Backfilling for officer vacancies and absences was the
most common reason for overtime.

In FY 2020, backfilling for officer vacancies and absences was the most common and costly reason for overtime, accounting for 21 percent of sworn officer’s overtime hours and costing nearly $1.3 million, or 24 percent of the BPD’s total overtime costs (Figure 8). Backfilling is the practice of filling a position to maintain staffing levels after a sworn officer goes on a leave of absence or vacates the position. Sworn officers are most frequently used to backfill to meet minimum staffing levels in the Patrol Unit.

Minimum staffing levels are the lowest number of sworn officers determined by the department that can be deployed while still providing satisfactory levels of service and protection to the public. For BPD, patrol minimum staffing is based on the number of sworn officers needed to cover the City’s 16 beats at any given time of day.

According to Policy
1019, BPD overtime
compensation is
available to Officers,
Sergeants, and Lieutenants,
and overtime work should
ideally have prior approval by a
supervisor and be documented
with an overtime form.

The overtime form should be
reviewed and approved by the
Supervisor and Division Captain
before going to the Payroll
Clerk. Actual hours worked
should be recorded on a
timesheet.

Overtime is defined as time
worked by an employee in
excess of 40 hours per week.

All overtime is awarded at time
and a half unless specifically
stated otherwise. An employee
may request compensatory time
off in lieu of receiving overtime
payment (see extraordinary
duty form in Appendix III). 3, 4

3 Policy 1019: Overtime Compensation Requests, https://www.cityofberkeley.info/ uploadedFiles/Police/Level_3_-_General/1019%
20Overtime_Compensation_Requests.pdf
4 See Section 19: Overtime/Shift Extension in Berkeley Police Association MOU:
https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Human_Resources/Home/ Union_Negotiations/Signed%20BPA%20MOU%20-%20Final%2008262021.pdf