Pinole City Council
October 10, 2022

ECCFPD, ConFire and MOFD report areas within their districts with ISO ratings of 9 or 10.

The new “split” rating system, which shows a “2/2X” for RHFPD, recognizes that there are areas within the District that are within 5 road miles of a fire station, but not within 1,000 feet of a hydrant (or “creditable water supply”); previously, the District would have been rated a “2/9” because of the lack of water supply in certain areas, but the new system recognizes benefits to being within 5 miles of a station. Similarly, SRVFPD received a “2/2Y”, which previously would have been a “2/8B.”
62 “Public Protection Classification (PPC) Frequently Asked Questions,” http://www.tdi.texas.gov/fire/fmppcfaq.html#.
63 “Understanding Fire Protection Class,” Jack Bradley, Sept. 23, 2013, http://www.jackbradley.com/news/2013/09/understanding-fire-protection-class. 627 of 801 781 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 4 – Overview of Fire Services 44
Table 9, below, provides an indication of area and population served by stations.

Most notable is the ECCFPD, which serves 249 square miles with only three stations; each station must cover a much larger area than typical for other agencies, which in turn significantly increases response times. A high number of residents per station, as is the case for ECCFPD, also indicates a greater likelihood of high call volume and potentially fewer resources available to respond to those calls. Currently there are times that ECCFPD had zero resources available due to simultaneous multi-incidents or working fires with all resources committed.64 Table 9
Station Service Measures – Population and Area per Station 64 Correspondence from Chief Henderson, April 14, 2016.

AREA
Agency

WEST COUNTY
City of Richmond 15,300 4.2
City of El Cerrito 12,000 1.3
City of Pinole 18,900 5.1
Kensington FPD 5,100 1.0
Rodeo-Hercules FPD 16,500 12.5
Crockett-Carquinez FPD 3,300 10.5
Subtotal

CENTRAL COUNTY
San Ramon Valley FPD 16,700 15.5
Moraga-Orinda FD 7,700 8.4
Subtotal

EAST COUNTY
East Contra Costa FPD 38,300 83.0
OTHER
Contra Costa County FPD (ConFire) 24,900 11.7
Countywide Average 19,900 14.0
Area (sq.mi.)
per Station
Residents
per Station
628 of 801 782 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 5 – Contra Costa County Fire Protection District 45

5. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
ConFire provides fire prevention, suppression and emergency medical response on its engines at the Advanced Life Support paramedic level to nine cities and much of the unincorporated territory in the Central and Western portions of the County.

While ConFire is not a primary focus of this MSR, the District plays a key role in the provision of fire and EMS services in the County, and can offer services that could further improve fire services of other, smaller agencies.

Since 2009, the District has addressed a number of fiscal and operational issues due to the significant reduction in revenue resulting from the economic downturn that began in December 2007. As noted in the 2009 MSR, the District’s reduced service levels, unmet capital needs and lack of reserves resulted in extended response times and inadequate service coverage. The District presented a Service Reduction and Fire Station Closure Plan to the BOS in November 2012 after severely depleting its reserves and offering a parcel tax measure (Measure Q) to the voters that would have raised roughly $17 million;65 the measure received insufficient support of only 53.01% “yes” votes rather than the required 66.6%.66 The BOS approved the closure of four fire stations.

In 2013, ConFire commissioned a Fitch & Associates study of options to address its deteriorating financial condition.67 The options were short-term solutions intended to help sustain ConFire for a period of three to four years, depending on the outcome of revenue estimates, cost increases, capital replacement, and natural disasters.

The District restructured its operations, and developed a “roadmap to sustainability” for the District that has utilized recent revenue growth to expand services and operational capacity. The District has made progress on retiring its Pension Obligation Bond debt and projects an annual budget surplus in FY 2017-18. The District’s retirement expenses for the CCCERA increased by 84% between FY 2013-14 and FY 2015-16—significantly reducing its operational flexibility. Current projections for retirement expenses show a leveling of costs and stabilization of this portion of the District’s operating expenses. The District is currently updating its fleet through lease-purchase agreements and is restoring a capital and equipment reserve fund.
65 “Measure Q a battle between Contra Costa fire services, pension reforms,” Lisa Vorderbrueggen, Contra Costa Times, October 12, 2012,
http://www.contracostatimes.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=2176145 5&siteId=571.
66 “Measure Q, Parcel Tax, ConFire,” http://www.smartvoter.org/2012/11/06/ca/cc/meas/Q/. 67 “Evaluation and Options Appraisal, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District,” prepared by Fitch & Associates, February 18, 2014.
629 of 801 783 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 5 – Contra Costa County Fire Protection District 46 In 2015, the District and AMR jointly responded to a Contra Costa Emergency Medical Services request for proposals to provide integrated emergency medical services response, as the sole bidder. The County approved this venture, and effective January 2016 the District and AMR implemented the expanded joint service program.68 Through the elimination of separate dispatch and other duplicated services, the agencies will share responsibilities for emergency services resulting in improved service to users. ConFire will also be eligible to seek Federal grants and State reimbursements for services only available to public agencies.

The revenues from these expanded services are projected to generate several million dollars of net revenue per year for the District.69 In the first quarter of 2016 “…the ambulance program exceeded its revenue goal and expenses were lower than projected”.70
Although ConFire has made significant financial progress and reduced expenditures, the total revenue available does not allow for expanded services without commensurate revenues to offset the additional services. Its current ability to provide aid to other districts, including ECCFPD, is constrained by limited resources; as a result, ConFire modified its aid agreement with ECCFPD, reducing its services to ECCFPD.

Challenges Faced by ConFire
ConFire faces a number of challenges similar to other fire service agencies. The District relies heavily on property taxes – which provide over 80% of the District’s total income. As exhibited in the December 2007 downturn, property taxes are largely determined by economic cycles, and it is uncertain when the current recovery will end. The District’s total costs for retirement and post-retirement costs, including medical insurance for retirees, pose another major challenge.

CCCERA determines the terms of ConFire’s retirement cost obligations, and future OPEB costs also create uncertainty regarding future revenue and expenditure projections.

The BOS has discussed a potential sales tax measure to provide additional funding for County Law Enforcement and ConFire services, but currently no formal action has been taken.

Establishing an equipment replacement reserve adequate to address the future needs of ConFire is another challenge facing the District. ConFire currently spends 68 Fire Chief’s Report to Board of Directors, August 18, 2015. 69 Excess ambulance revenue was recommended by Citygate to be applied to reduce ambulance fees to reduce the cost to the public and enhance EMS services Countywide to the community as specified in the new ambulance contract (P. Frost, April 15, 2016). 70 MOFD Directors Give Unexpected Kudos to ConFire Chief, www.lamorindaweekly.com, April 20, 2016.
630 of 801 784 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 5 – Contra Costa County Fire Protection District 47 $1.5 million from its operating budget for lease-purchase costs for a number of new pieces of equipment. Establishing a self-sustaining equipment reserve fund will require allocation of additional funds from the District’s ongoing operating budget. The District recently updated its 2009 Capital Facilities Plan, which was approved by the District’s Board in March of 2016.71

CONFIRE GOVERNANCE OPTIONS
The 2009 MSR presented a wide-ranging set of potential governance changes for the East and West County cities and districts, some of which were boundary cleanups, others were governance/reorganizations, and many involved ConFire’s active participation.

Due to ConFire’s continuing recovery from recent adverse financial conditions, ConFire’s ability to undertake additional service areas or service responsibilities depends on receiving additional revenues sufficient to offset its additional costs.

This means that any significant governance changes related to RHFPD or ECCFPD, the primary focus of this MSR, are likely to require that those agencies adopt special taxes or other new revenue sources that will enable a “revenue neutral” service arrangement with ConFire so that ConFire’s existing services are not diminished.

CONFIRE RECOMMENDATIONS
Opportunities may exist whereby ConFire, by virtue of economies of scale, can provide a variety of services to smaller agencies in a cost-effective manner, as described below.

1. Services to RHFPD – In the West County area there are opportunities for ConFire to assist RHFPD with organizational management, chief services, training, and facilities and equipment resourcing.

2. City of Pinole – Opportunities should be explored for potential utilization of a vacant station, organizational management, chief services, training, and facilities and equipment resourcing.

3. Battalion 7 service area – ConFire’s presence in the unincorporated areas of San Pablo provides opportunities for fire response coordination in the area.

4. ECCFPD – In East County, the significant impacts of automatic aid on ConFire when responding to requests for service from ECCFPD have taxed the resources available to the ConFire service area. As ECCFPD develops fiscal and operational 71 Correspondence with Lewis Broschard III, Deputy Fire Chief, ConFire, April 18, 2016. 631 of 801 785 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 5 – Contra Costa County Fire Protection District 48 resources, ConFire will be able to play a more complete role. ConFire already provides a number of technical and support activities for ECCFPD at the present time.

CONFIRE SOI UPDATE
There are several unserved areas in the County that ConFire many wish to consider annexing, including refineries (e.g., Tesoro). As noted above, these annexations will be contingent on ConFire receiving adequate revenues, through a combination of property taxes and service agreements, to offset increased costs. Figure 3, below, illustrates potential areas for ConFire to consider for annexation. In some cases, ConFire may already be responding to incidents in these areas; therefore, annexation and a property tax exchange to ConFire would recognize and help fund these responsibilities.

For example, ConFire has indicated that the Tesoro Golden Eagle Refinery should be considered for annexation into ConFire given the need for fire code and firerelated building code enforcement of hazardous materials and processes, primary EMS and structural fire response, and provision of oversight and fire protection consistent with the other refineries within the County. Tesoro is the only refinery that is not covered by a fire authority. Since September 1, 2014, ConFire has responded into the refinery 10 times for EMS or fire related incidents, and has handled 29 Community Warning System (CWS) notifications from the facility. Appropriate allocation of the property tax distribution from the facility to ConFire would be required by ConFire.72
Although in 2009, LAFCO expanded ConFire’s SOI to include the Roddy Ranch area, and removed the area from ECCFPD’s SOI, no related annexation has been proposed; thus, the area is still in ECCFPD’s service boundary. LAFCO should encourage the two districts to work together to pursue this boundary correction.

Similarly, there exists a small area of overlap just outside the boundaries of the City of Clayton.
72 ConFire Response to LAFCO’s Request for Information. 632 of 801 786 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/1
Chapter 5 – Contra Costa County Fire Protection District 49 Figure 3
ConFire District Boundary and Sphere of Influence
633 of 801 787 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 6 – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 50

6. EAST CONTRA COSTA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
The ECCFPD provides fire protection and BLS emergency medical response to the Cities of Oakley and Brentwood, a portion of the City of Antioch and the unincorporated communities of Bethel Island, Byron, Discovery Bay, and Knightsen. ECCFPD was formed on November 1, 2002 as a dependent district through the consolidation of three smaller, mostly volunteer fire districts, the Bethel Island, East Diablo and Oakley Fire Protection Districts.

Since 2009, the District has proposed several special tax measures that have been rejected by District voters. As a result, the District has closed the majority of its stations, and currently operates with only three open facilities. ECCFPD has relied on ConFire for mutual aid and assistance, which has been reduced pursuant to a revised automatic aid agreement. Continuing residential and commercial development in the ECCFPD service area has further exacerbated the gap between resources and service demands.

Response times have increased as a result of fewer stations and greater distances to respond to incidents. With only three engine companies, the District depends on aid from other agencies in the event of a structure fire, which requires a response from five companies. When all three engines are responding to an incident, no units remain available in the event of a simultaneous emergency, seriously jeopardizing life and property.

A multi-jurisdictional Task Force has been formed to provide interim funding to reopen a station, and to pursue longer-term options to improve the service capabilities of the District.

Challenges Faced by the District
ECCFPD faces a number of significant and some severe challenges that will require extraordinary efforts to address, these include:

1. Low property tax shares in the majority of the District’s tax rate areas.

Due to the volunteer and extraordinarily small service populations of the predecessor dependent districts prior to the formation of ECCFPD, low property tax rates were allocated to fire service. The average tax rate for the District is 7% compared to 12% for ConFire and 14% for SRVFPD. The low property tax rates were “locked in” when Proposition 13 was approved. The small low tax-rate districts were consolidated into the ECCFPD and fail to generate an adequate tax base to support their full-time operations. Reallocation of property taxes from other existing agencies to ECCFPD, notwithstanding dissolution of an agency, is a highly unlikely solution to this problem.
634 of 801 788 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 6 – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 51

2. The fiscal impact of CCCERA’s reallocation of costs has produced impacts on the cost of funding employee retirement. Until 1999,73 the County “pooled” participants, significantly reducing liabilities to smaller entities because of the size of the pool. CCCERA de-pooled the agencies and districts and established rates for each entity that would fully fund its retirement costs. The impacts of the “depooling” on the District were significant. Because ECCFPD has significantly reduced its workforce over the past 10 years, it is bearing the full costs of funding current retirees and current retirees’ retirement on a significantly reduced workforce and budget. This has driven the per-employee contribution by the agency to 126% of salary, which is significantly higher than ConFire’s contribution of 74% of salary.74

3. The impacts of benefit assessment and community facilities districts on residential properties. A variety of “Mello-Roos” Community Facilities Districts and other special districts have routinely been applied to residential development in non-urban development areas for the past 20 years. The essential infrastructure costs of roadways, drainage facilities, landscape and facilities maintenance as well as city and County services are often applied to individual residential units to create funding for improvement bonds to install the needed facilities and maintain them.

As a result, homeowners are often required to pay additional fees on their property tax bills that significantly increase their ongoing homeownership costs. Assuming the basic 1% property tax applies to a $350,000 home, the property tax will be about $3,500. In most of the established subdivisions in Oakley, Brentwood and Discovery Bay, additional sets of fees for infrastructure, landscaping and lighting and other facilities are applied which, in some cases, double the applicable property taxes. Fees for school bonds and other voter-approved measures can further increase the total tax burden. This can lead to voter fatigue and resistance to additional ongoing charges. In 2012 and 2015, ECCFPD attempted to pass a special tax and a benefit assessment, respectively. The voters rejected both efforts.

4. The lack of a unified community-based understanding of the value of fully operational fire and emergency services in serving the community.

As a formerly rural area (Brentwood’s population in 1990 was less than 7,500), ECCFPD and emergency services were largely provided by volunteer-based dependent districts until 2002. This history has led to a view that persists today 73 Starting with the December 31, 2009 Actuarial Valuation, the Board took action to depool CCCERA’s assets, liabilities and normal cost by employer when determining employer contribution rates (CCCERA Actuarial valuation and Review as of December 31, 2014; p. 16). 74 CCCERA Actuarial Valuation and Review as of December 31, 2014; rates are for FY 16-17, and include normal and unfunded liability.
635 of 801 789 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 6 – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 52 that a volunteer force with select professionals can provide adequate service in an urbanized environment.

Today, the ECCFPD consists of more densely populated areas in Brentwood, Oakley and Discovery Bay, and the lightly populated unincorporated County areas stretching from Bethel Island to Byron to Knightsen. This creates a 249 squaremile service area with a population of 119,000 which is much more difficult to serve than neighboring Antioch with a population of 108,000 in 29 square miles.

Unless the community accepts the need for fully staffed stations and equipment and a reasonable staffing level, service levels will continue to be substandard.

ECCFPD LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
Local Representation
ECCFPD was formed in 2002 in conjunction with the consolidation of three rural fire districts. LAFCO called for resolution of the issues of local governance, inadequate service and insufficient funding by December of 2004 as a part of the consolidation approval. LAFCO did not believe that it had the authority or the ability to impose conditions requiring that the consolidated district become an independent district with a board elected by residents of the District. LAFCO also did not feel that it could impose a requirement that a revenue measure be adopted as a condition of the consolidation.75
Initially, the BOS governed the ECCFPD. Transition towards local governance did not occur until late 2009, at which time the District Board was restructured to include representatives from the cities of Brentwood and Oakley and the unincorporated County.76 The appointed Fire Board took over the District in February of 2010,77 with a new nine-member Board consisting of four City Council Members from the City of Brentwood, three City Council Members from the City of Oakley, and two representatives appointed by the County from the unincorporated area.

At its December 15, 2015 board meeting, the Brentwood City Council decided that with the recent approvals of the recommendations from the multi-jurisdictional task force and Brentwood’s commitment to providing significant General Fund 75 “Consolidation of East County Fire Districts (LAFC 02-24),” from Annamaria Perrella, Executive Officer, to LAFC Commissioners, August 12, 2002.
76 Fire Service Update – East Contra Costa County, Contra Costa LAFCO, June 8, 2011 (Agenda Item 9).
77 Discussion of Fire Service in the City of Brentwood and Consideration of the Ad-Hoc Fire Subcommittee’s Recommendation to Proceed with a Detachment/Formation Fire District Application to LAFCO Brentwood City Council, Agenda Item 26, June 28, 2011. 636 of 801 790 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 6 – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 53 funds to the District, that the City’s appointed representatives should be current elected members of the City Council.78
Table 10, below, lists current ECCFPD Board Members and the appointing authority. As noted above, three of the four Brentwood representatives are City Council Members, and one of the three Oakley representatives is a current City Council Member.

Table 10
East Contra Costa FPD (ECCFPD) Board of Directors
Service Agreements
The ECCFPD has relied on ConFire for auto aid and assistance, which was recently reduced pursuant to a revised automatic aid agreement. According to the agreement, ConFire will no longer respond automatically to non-critical medical emergencies unless ECCFPD resources are unavailable.79
78 City of Brentwood, discussion and possible consideration of the recommendation of the Fire Ad-Hoc Subcommittee to select two members of the City Council to serve as the City of Brentwood’s appointments to the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Board, December 15, 2015 (Agenda Item E. 1).
79 “Automatic Aid Agreement for Exchange of Fire, Rescue, and Emergency Medical Services between the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District,” June 1, 2015 agreement revised 8-24-15.

Position Name
Appointing
Authority
Date Term
Expires
President Joel Bryant* Brentwood Dec-16
Vice President Ronald Johansen Oakley Sep-16
Director Steve Barr* Brentwood Dec-19
Director Robert Kenny County Feb-18
Director Jonathan Michaelson Oakley Apr-17
Director Cheryl Morgan County Feb-18
Director Randy Pope* Oakley Sep-16
Director Erick Stonebarger* Brentwood Dec-19
Director Joe Young Brentwood Dec-16
Source: ECCFPD website (2/27/16)
* Denotes current city council members of the appointing authority. 637 of 801 791 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 6 – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 54

ECCFPD SERVICE AREA AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
Figure 4, below, from the 2009 MSR, shows the ECCFPD boundaries, which correspond to its SOI; the only change adopted by LAFCO following the 2009 MSR was to remove the Roddy Ranch area from the ECCFPD SOI and add it to ConFire’s SOI (see Appendix C). In 2013, the East Bay Regional Park District purchased Roddy Ranch’s 1,885 acres of East Contra Costa ranching land, of which 646 acres had been planned within Antioch’s SOI to be developed with low-density residential units around a golf course. There are areas north and east of ECCFPD (Jersey Island, Bradford Island, Webb Tract, Franks Tract, Quimby Island) that have no fire service provider. ECCFPD is sometimes called upon to respond to fires in these areas.

Figure 4
ECCFPD District Boundary and Sphere of Influence

ECCFPD DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
As described in Chapter 2, a disadvantaged community is a community with 12 or more registered voters and an annual median household income that is less than 638 of 801 792 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 6 – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 55 80% of the statewide annual median income. Median household income in 2014 was $61,489;80 80% of that amount equals $49,190.

The County of Contra Costa identified several disadvantaged communities that fall entirely within the current SOI of the ECCFPD. These areas include Bethel Island, and an area to the east of Brentwood that includes the community of Knightsen.81 Those two areas experience among the worst response times in the ECCFPD of 13:37 and 18:18, respectively (90% of responses fall within those times), which fall significantly below overall District times, and well below national standards for “Best Practices” of 5 minutes and 20 seconds, as described in the “Service Adequacy” section of Chapter 4.

The Task Force, currently working towards a plan for expanding fire services in ECCFPD, is reopening the ECCFPD’s station in Knightsen for one year, as plans for increased funding have materialized. To the extent that funding could be more fully restored to ECCFPD, it is possible that its station on Bethel Island could be reopened as well; however, significant capital funding will be required because the Bethel Island fire station was condemned and uninhabitable due to mold, lead and asbestos.82 These stations, in addition to other increases in District stations and staff, would significantly improve response times to these disadvantaged communities.

ECCFPD FINANCING
The District is in the process of preparing an annual financial report.83 This report will document assets and liabilities in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

As shown in Table 11, below, the ECCFPD budget projects FY 2015-16 property taxes to finally recover to FY 2008 levels shown in the 2009 MSR. Expenditures are comparable to (or slightly below) FY 2008 levels; station closures since 2009 have offset the anticipated cost increases described in the 2009 MSR. The 2009 MSR pointed to a 14% expenditure increase for the FY 2009 budget compared to FY 2008, in order to bring compensation in line with neighboring jurisdictions, and to fund pension and health benefit cost increases, and costs attributable to aging facilities.
80 http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/06. 81 Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) Determination, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2009 - 2013), County of Contra Costa.
82 Correspondence from Chief Henderson, April 14, 2016. 83 According to ECCFPD Chief Henderson, the District is finalizing its audits for the last five years, which will be presented to the Finance Committee on May 19, 2016 (correspondence from Chief Henderson, February 24, 2016).
639 of 801 793 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 6 – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 56 Table 11
Summary of ECCFPD Budget

ECCFPD FUNDING SOURCES
The ECCFPD is heavily dependent on property taxes to fund its operations, although it utilizes a range of other sources and continues to seek additional revenues such as special taxes.

Property Taxes – Property tax revenues represents about 96% of total revenues.

The losses experienced during the recession created a significant hardship on the District, particularly as the District faced significant cost increases. The economic recovery and growth in real estate values boosted property tax revenues over 13% in FY 2014-15 compared to the prior budget year. The FY 2015-16 projected Item
Revenues
Property Taxes
Grants, Intergovernment
Other
Total Revenues
Expenditures
Personnel Services
Supplies and Services
County Charges
Internal Services
One-time Charges
Total Expenditures
Net Change
(1) ECCFPD Revenue/Exp
(ECCFPD Response to
(2) ECCFPD Fiscal Year 20
Response to LAFCO R
Three station model,
Actual (1) Projected (2)
FY14-15 FY15-16
$10,362,724 $11,654,565
tal $1,256,506 0
$828 $521,095
$11,620,058 $12,175,660
$8,290,191 $9,178,855
$2,500,862 $1,721,091
inc. above $711,065
inc. above $267,053
inc. above $187,600
$10,791,053 $12,065,664
$829,005 $109,996
pense Report - Summary by Fund as of 6/30/2015
o LAFCO Request for Information, Item 6a).
015-16 Operating Budget Changes (ECCFPD
Request for Information).
34 operational and 2 admin personnel.
640 of 801 794 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 6 – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 57 budget includes a 12.5% increase in property tax revenues; this increase offsets the loss of the SAFER grant that ended in November 2014.

The ECCFPD may benefit from an additional property tax allocation, depending on the outcome of a LAFCO application initiated in November 2015 by the County.

The action proposes to detach six overlapping areas from the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District, which are served by the Discovery Bay Community Services District. The detachment, if approved, would generate funds that could be reallocated to one or more of the affected taxing agencies. The potentially available funds total approximately $685,000 annually. The BOS’s action directed the County Administrator to develop a resolution of application for detachment to initiate the detachment process. The County Administrator was also directed to explore allocation of the property tax revenues from the overlap areas to the ECCFPD. Contra Costa LAFCO is currently processing the application for detachment.84
Operating Grants – The ECCFPD received a SAFER grant that provided over $3.7 million of funding in FY 2013-14, but ended less than midway through FY 2014-15.

Measure H – As described in Chapter 3, Overview of EMS Services, Measure H established an annual parcel charge for increased ambulance availability. A new, population-based formula now provides funding to all agencies regardless of engine staffing. 85 This formula enables the ECCFPD to maintain its funding from this source despite significant reductions in stations and staffing.

Community Facilities District (CFD) – The County collects special taxes from a CFD it formed in 2004, acting as the Board of the ECCFPD, for the Cypress Lakes development in Oakley.86 The maximum special tax initially was established at a rate of $200 per parcel (developed and undeveloped), adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). For FY 2015-16, the amount is $258.14 per parcel and is projected to generate $162,370.87
Special Taxes and Benefit Assessments – The District placed a special tax measure (“Measure S”) on the June 5, 2012 ballot to impose a $197 annual parcel tax on properties in the District. The tax would have increased by 3% per year, to 84 Memo from Mary Piepho to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, November 17, 2015. 85 Guidelines for Fire First Medical Response Population Based Allocation County Service Area EM1 (Measure H) Funds, July 5, 2013.
86 A Resolution of the Governing Board of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District of Formation of East Contra Costa Fire Protection District Community Facilities District No. 2004-1 (Fire Services), and Authorizing the Levy of a Special Tax Within the CFD, Resolution No. 2004/123. 87 ECCFPD CFD No. 2004-1 (Fire Services) FY 2015-16 Special Tax Levy, Goodwin Consulting Group, December 31, 2015.
641 of 801 795 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 6 – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 58 a maximum of $257 in 2022. Measure S required a two-thirds voter approval. It failed with a 43.6% vote in favor of the tax. The measure would have raised $8.6 million in the base year.88 As a result of the failure of the tax measure, the District laid off 15 of its 43 full-time firefighters and closed three stations; Bethel Island, Knightsen and downtown Brentwood lost stations.

A May 2015 Benefit Assessment District election would have imposed a $95 per household charge and raised $4.2 million annually. The measure required a majority vote but only received 47%.89 Consequently, the District closed two stations, one in Brentwood and the other in Knightsen—leaving the District with three stations to serve a 249 square-mile area with 115,000 residents.

Fees and Charges – The ECCFPD receives a small portion of its revenues from various fees and charges. The District recently adopted First Responder Fees, described below.

First Responder Fee – The ECCFPD held a public hearing and adopted a First Responder Fee at its February 1, 2016 Board meeting. The fee will enable the District to recover the cost of providing emergency medical response services in case of injury or illness. Revenue from the fee will be used to help fund EMT differential pay, which is a 5% pay increase to firefighters that obtain EMT certification.90 The initial fee is set at $337.61 per call (resident and non-resident).

ECCFPD OPERATING EXPENDITURES
Continued growth in labor costs and related health care and pension benefit costs exceeded ECCFPD’s ability to generate required revenues, resulting in station closures. Expenditure categories are described in the following sections.

Personnel Services
The FY 2015-16 ECCFPD budget allocated funding for 34 operational and two administrative staff equaling $2.9 million, or about one-third of total salary and benefits costs.

At its December 28, 2015 meeting, the ECCFPD Board approved a labor contract with the International Association of Firefighters, Local 1230. The contract provided a 5% increase in salary rates, adjustments to steps and certain 88 “East Contra Costa County parcel tax for Fire Services, Measure S (June 2012),” Ballotpedia, https://ballotpedia.org/East_Contra_Costa_County_parcel_tax_for_Fire_Services,_Measure_S_(June_ 2012).
89 “East Contra Costa Fire Releases Breakdown of Benefit Assessment Vote,” East County Today, July 6, 2015, http://eastcountytoday.net/east-contra-costa-fire-releases-breakdown-of-benefitassessment-vote/. 90 ECCFPD Staff Report for Meeting January 4, 2016.
642 of 801 796 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 6 – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 59 classifications, and added a 5% pay differential to all employees who possess and maintain the criteria for enhanced Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs). The salary adjustments were reflected in the proposed FY 2015-16 budget; the funding for the new enhanced EMT differential would come from the proposed First Responder Fee, which was adopted at the January 21, 2016 Board meeting.

Table 12, below, shows ECCFPD monthly salaries.

Table 12
ECCFPD Monthly Salaries (effective Jan. 1, 2016)
ECCFPD Step 5 firefighter salaries are approximately 30% less than top step firefighters at ConFire. This comparison does not account for other components of total pay that may include medic certification, longevity, and overtime.

ECCFPD Retirement Expenses
Retirement benefits are provided through CCCERA. Employees hired before January 1, 2013 receive benefits based on a formula commonly referred to as

3.0% at 50, based on the single highest year of salary, and a 3% COLA. New employees hired on or after January 1, 2013 receive 2.7% at 57.91 Over half of the benefits cost, or $3.6 million, represents retirement expenses paid to CCCERA. These rates are significantly higher than other fire protection agencies, largely due to ECCFPD’s retirement obligations burdened on significantly reduced staff levels. The FY 2015-16 budget is based on 19 fewer firefighters than shown in the 2009 MSR, but the District continues to pay for retirement expenses for past firefighters that staffed eight stations instead of the current three.

Retirement expenses represent about 124% of salaries, overall, although specific rates applied to individual firefighter salaries vary. For example, ECCFPD pays an amount equal to nearly 100% of salaries to fund CCCERA obligations for past firefighters. Additional payments for retirement benefits of current firefighters 91 CCCERA Actuarial Valuation and Review as of December 31, 2014.

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
Firefighter 4,400 4,619 4,850 5,093 5,220
Fire Engineer 4,841 5,083 5,337 5,603 5,744
Fire Captain 5,325 5,591 5,870 6,164 6,328
Source: ECCFPD Board of Directors Agenda Item No. D-1, Dec 28, 2015 643 of 801 797 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 6 – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 60 range from 16.2% to 28.6% of salary, for new (“PEPRA”) and other “Legacy” firefighters, respectively.92
ECCFPD Health Insurance Benefits and OPEB
The District’s FY 2015-16 budget allocates $915,000 for employee group health insurance, and approximately $260,000 for retiree health insurance. The budget pre-paid its OPEB obligations by about $380,000 in FY 2015-16. The payments total $1,555,000, which is about 55% of total permanent salaries of $2.85 million.93
No current OPEB financial report is available showing unfunded liabilities; however, the ECCFPD is in the process of finalizing its audits for the last five years, which will be presented to its Finance Committee. The OPEB actuarial will be conducted over the next several months. The last OPEB actuarial is a part of Contra Costa County’s 2012 study.94
For FY 2011-12, ECCFPD’s Accrued Actuarial Liability was $130 million; the value of net assets was not delineated in the County’s 2012 OPEB valuation. The “Normal Cost” at that time, given ECCFPD’s staffing levels, was $3,066,000 annually, and the Annual Required Contribution was an additional $3.8 million, or a total of $7.4 million.95
The FY 2014-15 budget funded 53% of the District’s OPEB liabilities. The Boardapproved goal is to fund 85% of the District's OPEB liability by FY 2018-19.96 The Finance Committee on September 18, 2014 recommended that the District fund the OPEB liability at the 85% goal starting in FY 2015-16.

ECCFPD CAPITAL ASSETS, CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES AND EXPENDITURES The ECCFPD’s primary source of capital funding, in addition to allocations of general revenues, consists of development impact fees. A balance of approximately $1.3 million is anticipated at the end of FY 2015-16. Development fee rates include:
 Unincorporated areas - $480 per single family unit;97 92 Retirement rates are from p. 5 of “ECCFPD Fiscal Year 2015-16 Operating Budget Changes.” 93 ECCFPD 2015-16 Budget 3 Station Model, 34 Operational Personnel, 2 Admin. (p. 3). 94 Correspondence with ECCFPD Chief Hugh Henderson, February 24, 2016. 95 “OPEB, Contra Costa County, GASB 43 and 45 Valuation Report as of January 1, 2012 and Annual Required Contribution for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2012,” Buck Consultants, March 5, 2012. 96 ECCFPD Board of Directors Special Meeting, Monday September 22, 2014, Agenda Item No. PH.1. 97 Chief Henderson, ECCFPD, correspondence with BA (March 22, 2016). 644 of 801 798 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 6 – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 61  Brentwood - $819.25 per single family unit;98 and
 Oakley - $749 per single family unit.99
The ECCFPD does not have a current Capital Improvement Program. An SOC Study, currently underway and anticipated to be complete by June 2016, will document service needs and related facilities and equipment throughout the District. Although operating stations are in good or excellent condition as noted previously in the “Infrastructure Needs or Deficiencies” section of this report, reopening of shuttered stations may trigger a need for facility improvements and equipment.

ECCFPD RESERVES AND OTHER FUNDS
The ECCFPD’s projected FY 2015-16 operating budget indicates an ending fund balance of $1.4 million.100 According to the budget document, ECCFPD’s goal is an ending fund balance of 20% of operating expenditures, which would require a fund balance of about $2.4 million.

In addition to the reserves for operations described above, the ECCFPD has established a number of special funds, as shown in Table 13, below. These funds enable the ECCFPD to segregate restricted revenues, and to allocate and accrue general and other revenues for particular purposes. For example, the projected developer fee balances, which are limited to capital expenditures, are projected to total $1.3 million.
98 City of Brentwood Development Impact Fee Program 2015. 99 City of Oakley Development Impact Fees, Impact Fees Valid October 1, 2015. 100 ECCFPD 2015-16 Budget, 3 Station Model, 34 Operational Personnel, 2 Admin. (p. 1). 645 of 801 799 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 6 – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 62 Table 13
ECCFPD Non-General Funds FY 2015-16

ECCFPD MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCE
Following the loss of the ECCFPD May 2015 special tax election, a Task Force was formed to make short- and long-term recommendations to the Board to address the current situation.

The Task Force and its members are charged with identifying long-term as well as short-term, temporary mitigation measures that will reduce public safety risks to the extent possible, by:

1. Identifying an “unconstrained” model for levels of service for 250 square miles of fire and medical response;

2. Examining long-term solutions;
Funds
Starting
Balance
Revenues
or Transfers
In
Expenditures or
Transfers Out
Ending
Balance
Developer Fees
Bethel Island 38,262 - - 38,262
East Diablo (1) 1,378,587 - 132,600 1,245,987
Oakley 32,060 - - 32,060
Total 1,448,909 1,316,309
CFD
Summer Lakes (2) 681,721 162,370 163,370 680,721
Capital
Capital Improvement 422,348 117,507 - 539,855
Equipment Replacement 401,485 152,759 - 554,244
Total 823,833 270,266 1,094,099
OPEB
Total 633,557 385,835 - 1,019,392
TOTAL 3,588,020 818,471 163,370 4,243,121
Source: ECCFPD Fiscal Year 2015-16 Budget, Other Funds
(1)Brentwood, Discovery Bay, Byron
(2) Summer Lakes was originally Cypress Lakes.
646 of 801 800 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 6 – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 63

3. Considering, discussing, and understanding data related to fire and medical services (i.e. response times, staffing, station location, etc.);

4. Identifying temporary mitigation measures to reduce public safety risks;

5. Developing a funding plan to fund and implement such mitigation measures; and

6. Accomplishing task force recommendations by August 2015.101 The Task Force recommended, and the Board approved, a plan for temporary funding to allow the District to reopen a fourth fire station located in Knightsen to improve District service. The temporary funding runs for a 16-month period during which the District will explore another ballot measure for a 2016 vote, and will work on long-term solutions for adequate fire and medical response services in the District. The ECCFPD has initiated an SOC study to develop impartial data on the current and future fire and medical emergency service needs of the District. The ECCFPD Chief indicates the study will be completed by June 2016.

The approximately $2.2 million in interim/one-time funds will be provided through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the District, the Cities of Brentwood and Oakley, and Contra Costa County. The BOS approved the expenditure of funds towards the interim plan with five conditions, requiring the District to:

1. Pursue achieving status as an “independent district”;

2. Pursue achieving an independently elected Board;

3. Seek a name change;

4. Create a citizens oversight committee to oversee the expenditure of the onetime funds, and

5. Reopen the Knightsen station.

The ECCFPD Board approved the interim plan at its meeting on November 2, 2015.

The Cities of Oakley and Brentwood have also approved the Plan.

ECCFPD currently has plans to re-open its Knightsen station for the period July 2016 through June 2017, a result of the funding plan developed in conjunction with Contra Costa County and the Cities of Brentwood and Oakley. 101 Fire and Medical Services Task Force Report to Elected Officials, October 21, 2015. 647 of 801 801 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 6 – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 64

ECCFPD GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
As shown in Table 14, below, the ECCFPD population is estimated to grow at about a 0.8% annual rate over the next 10 years. The City of Brentwood projects slightly higher rates than ABAG; the City’s budget assumes about a 1.5% annual rate, which would marginally increase the numbers shown.

Major new growth in the District includes the Summer Lake development in Oakley. As development is completed in the 625-home Summer Lake South, the developer (Shea Homes) has approvals to proceed with Summer Lake North, which includes 824 homes in a 409-acre area on the east end of East Cypress Road.102 Table 14
Projected Population Growth, ECCFPD 2015-2025
102 Summer Lake North development activity may be affected by pending legal action by the City of Oakley and ECCFPD to assure timely construction of a new fire station required by the development. 2015 2020 2025
Brentwood 56,493 57,603 58,851
Oakley 38,789 39,746 40,776
Unincorporated (1) 23,843 24,311 24,838
TOTAL 119,125 121,660 124,466
Annual Avg. % Change 0.4% 0.5%
Source: Contra Costa County GIS from ABAG Projections 2013, DOF 2015, Census ACS. (1) ABAG growth rate forecasts are applied to County GIS estimates of current population.
(2) Unincorporated equals ECCFPD population less city populations.

Growth assumed at ABAG growth rates for unincorporated areas Countywide. 648 of 801 802 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 6 – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 65

ECCFPD SERVICE DEMAND
As shown in Table 15, below, over 80% of the ECCFPD Code 3 calls for service (life-threat responses requiring lights and sirens to expedite response) are for EMS. Total calls, including Code 2 calls (semi-life-threatening), increased from 6,550 in 2014 to 6,918 in 2015.

Table 15
Summary of ECCFPD Fire & EMS Calls and Response Times, by Subarea

ECCFPD INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES
The three stations currently staffed by ECCFPD are all rated in “excellent” condition. The stations were built in 2002, 2003 and 2012. Other stations, which are currently closed but may be re-opened pending funding, were built in the ‘60s and ‘70s, and are rated in “fair” to “poor” condition.103 A new Fire Station #94, primarily serving the eastern area of the City of Oakley, was to be constructed in fiscal year 2015-16 and funded by developers; however, delays have prompted the City of Oakley and ECCFPD to pursue legal action to help 103 Meeting with Chief Henderson, December 3, 2015.

Code 3 Calls/
Service Area Subarea Population % Calls (2015) % 1,000 pop.

Brentwood
West 52 1,627
East 54 1,148
Total, Brentwood 56,493 47% 2,775 47% 49
Discovery Bay 58, 59 14,315 12% 541 9% 38
Byron 57 1,305 1% 187 3% 143
Oakley 93 38,789 33% 1,678 29% 43
Knightsen 94 1,644 1% 185 3% 113
Bethel Island 95 2,158 2% 339 6% 157
Marsh Crk / Morgan Ter.(1) UN 4,421 4% 165 3% 37
Total 119,125 100% 5,870 100% 49
Source: Contra Costa County GIS (population) 2/24/16;
ECCFPD, Contra Costa County Fire Reg'l Com. Center (calls, response times). (1) Marsh Creek/Morgan Ter. Pop. estimate from County GIS "Other" total. 649 of 801 803 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 6 – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 66 assure timely construction. This station will replace the existing station, currently closed, located at 215 A Street in Knightsen.104
A Standards of Cover (SOC) Study, currently underway and anticipated to be complete by June 2016, will document service needs and related facilities and equipment for the entire ECCFPD.

ECCFPD SERVICE ADEQUACY
Response Times
The ECCFPD currently does not have an adopted response time standard. As shown in Table 16, below, 90% of responses were within 12 minutes in 2015, which significantly exceeds national standards of 5 to 6 minutes. Knightsen and Bethel Island qualify as “rural” areas and therefore are subject to the longer response time standard of NFPA 1720, that recommends a response within 14 minutes to 80 percent of calls.

Table 16
ECCFPD Response Times, 2015
104 Correspondence with Chief Henderson, April 15, 2016.

Service Area Subarea Population %
Brentwood
West 52
East 54
Total, Brentwood 56,493 47%
Discovery Bay 58, 59 14,315 12%
Byron 57 1,305 1%
Oakley 93 38,789 33%
Knightsen 94 1,644 1%
Bethel Island 95 2,158 2%
Marsh Crk / Morgan Ter.(1) UN 4,421 4%
Total 119,125 100%
Source: Contra Costa County GIS (population) 2/24/16;
ECCFPD, Contra Costa County Fire Reg'l Com. Center (calls, resp (1) Marsh Creek/Morgan Ter. Pop. estimate from County GIS " Response
90th %
9:18
9:54
10:32-11:48
17:10
9:30
13:37
18:18
14:47-16:02
11:58
ponse times).
"Other" total.
650 of 801 804 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 6 – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 67 With its current three stations, ECCFPD relies on automatic aid from other agencies. In 2014, ECCFPD provided automatic aid to 227 incidents (almost entirely to ConFire) and received aid 588 times.

ConFire is the primary automatic aid responder, providing over 70% of aid responses to ECCFPD. In 2015, the automatic aid agreement between the two agencies was revised to limit aid for EMS incidents. For example, a ConFire engine company and ambulance will only be dispatched to an urgent medical call requiring rescue if no ECCFPD resources are available.105
ISO Ratings
Communities within the ECCFPD and five miles from a fire station and within 1,000 feet from a fire hydrant qualify for an ISO rating of 4; all other areas are a 10.

ECCFPD MSR DETERMINATIONS

1. Growth and population projections for the area.

Growth in the ECCFPD is expected to increase as the region recovers from the recession. Projections indicate growth of 0.8 to 1.5% annually, or about 240 new residents annually. This growth will increase calls for service and potentially reduce resources required for responses to other areas when multiple calls occur.

ECCFPD’s response times currently fall below national standards, and are likely to worsen as service calls increase.

2. The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the SOI.

Several disadvantaged communities fall entirely within the current SOI of the ECCFPD. Areas include Bethel Island, and an area to the east of Brentwood that includes the community of Knightsen.106 Those two areas experience among the worst response times in the ECCFPD of 13:37 and 18:18, respectively (90% of responses fall within those times), which fall significantly below overall District times, and well-below national standards for “Best Practices.” As described in the “Service Adequacy” section of Chapter 4, national standards recommend response times of 5 minutes and 20 seconds 90% of the time.
105 Automatic Aid Agreement between the ConFire and the ECCFPD, revised August 24, 2015. 106 “Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) Determination, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2009 - 2013),” County of Contra Costa.
651 of 801 805 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 6 – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 68

3. Capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services and infrastructure needs or deficiencies.

The three stations currently staffed by ECCFPD are all rated in “excellent” condition. The three stations were built in 2002, 2003 and 2012. Other ECCFPD stations, which are currently closed and may be re-opened pending funding, were built in the ‘60s and ‘70s and are rated in “fair” to “poor” condition.107 Three stations are inadequate to cover the ECCFPD’s 249 square-mile service area.

Response times fall below national standards. Limited firefighting resources also increase the probability that adequate response, e.g., to a structure fire which requires a minimum of 15 firefighters, will not arrive in time to contain a fire and minimize damage to property and risk of injury to residents. The District experiences multiple occasions each month when its firefighters are occupied and unable to respond to another call. While automatic aid from ConFire is available, it extends response times and potentially adversely affects ConFire’s ability to respond to incidents within its own service area.

4. Financial ability of agencies to provide services.

ECCFPD closed five stations since 2009 due to inadequate financial resources, significantly increasing response times from its remaining three stations to its 249 square-mile service area. A Task Force comprised of jurisdictions served by ECCFPD is developing plans for interim financing to re-open one of the closed stations, and preparing financial and operational strategies for longer-term financial sustainability and to increase the number of staffed stations.

Improved financial conditions will help to address infrastructure needs and service deficiencies. Other issues noted in these determinations, including lack of adequate financial documentation and elected representation, could also be better addressed as improved financial resources allow.

5. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities/services.

Currently, the City of Brentwood provides administrative support services to ECCFPD. ConFire provides fire prevention, fire investigation, and communications services.108 Contingent on obtaining additional revenues, expansion of administrative support services could provide a cost-effective means of addressing needed staff services related to preparation, oversight and public distribution of financial documents.
107 Meeting with Chief Henderson, December 3, 2015.
108 Correspondence with Lewis Broschard III, Deputy Fire Chief, ConFire, April 18, 2016. 652 of 801 806 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 6 – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 69

6. Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies.

The ECCFPD follows generally accepted practices and legal requirements for meeting noticing procedures. Website postings of minutes of Board meetings appear to be delayed by at least two months following a given meeting. The website includes a list of ECCFPD’s Board of Directors, but no contact information.

Operating budgets are posted to the website; however, explanation and descriptive information, which should be included with the budget, are found as a part of Board packets related to consideration of the budget.

No independent financial reports are posted on the website, nor were any recent reports available from the District, which is in the process of having reports prepared for the past five years. The most recent documentation of OPEB assets and liabilities is included in the valuation prepared for Contra Costa County in 2012. Pension assets and liabilities are included in Contra Costa County’s most recent valuation, but were not posted to the ECCFPD website.

Upon formation of the ECCFPD, LAFCO did not address issues regarding creation of an independent district, but chose to defer that process to the newly created agency. At that time, LAFCO staff concluded that an independent district would not be feasible without a special tax, and that the law required creation of an independent district via a two-step voting process that was outside of LAFCO’s conditioning power. While the District’s Board of Directors is generally proportionate to the relative population distribution between the two cities and unincorporated areas, the current structure is not an independent district with its own elected board of directors representative of, and accountable to, its residents.

ECCFPD Governance Options
The 2009 MSR considered a number of governance options; however, no action has occurred since 2009 related to changes in governance. Following is a review and update of potential options.
a. Detachment from ECCFPD of either the City of Brentwood or the City of Oakley, or both – If both cities detach, the remaining unincorporated area would essentially be a remnant district and would be financially unsustainable in its current form.

A detailed analysis of the impact of detachments has not been prepared; however, because Brentwood accounts for over 50 percent of the property taxes of the ECCFPD, the loss of revenues from detachment of Brentwood would not be offset by cost savings from detaching one fire station, or one-third of the total stations.

In addition, it is unlikely there would be a reduction in overhead, thus the average cost per remaining ECCFPD station would increase. Because Oakley represents 653 of 801 807 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 6 – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 70 about 20% of assessed value, its detachment would present less of an impact on the remaining ECCFPD; however, the latter scenario is unlikely since Oakley’s gain in tax revenue would be insufficient to fund its station, and likely additional mitigation payments to ECCFPD would worsen Oakley’s funding problem.

It is likely that LAFCO would allocate existing liabilities between the detaching entity and the remaining District; thus the detaching entities would not only assume the burden of annual operations, but would also be responsible for a share of current and long-term ECCFPD liabilities. LAFCO would determine this allocation, as well as any required mitigation payments, at the time of detachment.

If either Brentwood or Oakley detach from the ECCFPD, the remaining City and unincorporated area could potentially remain a dependent district, and would receive significantly less revenue with which to operate.

If the City of Oakley and/or the City of Brentwood detach and provide their own fire service, either directly or through a contract with another agency, there would be a transfer of property tax from ECCFPD to the new service provider (i.e., City).

It is likely that additional funding above and beyond the property tax allocation would be needed to support an adequate fire/emergency medical service.

If the City of Brentwood (population 57,000) were to establish its own fire service and was allocated its proportionate share (about half) of the District’s annual revenue (roughly $11 million), the City would receive approximately $5.2 million per year for fire service. By comparison, the City of Dublin (population 54,000) currently contracts with the Alameda County Fire Department for service, and the annual cost for service is approximately $11 million. If Brentwood funded its service at the $11 million level, an additional $6 million per year would be required to bring Brentwood to a comparable service level. Assuming the City of Brentwood has about 19,000 households, the $6 million would require a contribution of $315 per unit per year if the residential units were to fully support the costs.109 As a note, the City of Brentwood officials have estimated the cost for the City to bring the fire activities in-house would be $12 million.110 Also, there could be substantial costs associated with additional equipment and facilities that would be associated with an independent City-based service. Similar cost requirements for start-up and operating costs would apply to the City of Oakley. Effectively, both the City of Oakley and the City of Brentwood would have to raise substantial additional revenue directly from their businesses and residents if fire services were provided in-house.
109 Assuming commercial properties would also be assessed, this amount would be lower. 110 East County Today, September 12, 2015.
654 of 801 808 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 6 – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 71 If one or both cities detached from the ECCFPD, the remaining District areas would lose most of their funding, effectively leaving the District without adequate resources to provide service to the remaining unincorporated areas. It is virtually certain that the District could not contract with either ConFire or CAL FIRE, or create an independent district with the current taxing capacity to provide even minimum levels of service to the remaining service area. b. Consolidation of ECCFPD with ConFire – This change of governance would require the cooperation of the ConFire governing board, which is the Contra Costa County BOS; however, consolidation would effectively degrade service levels to ConFire, which would likely be unacceptable to the BOS. The County does not currently subsidize ConFire activities and has no plans to do so111. If ECCFPD requested consolidation, the expectation would be that ECCFPD would have adequate revenues to provide comparable salaries, benefits and service levels to those applied broadly across the ConFire service area. It may be possible, if the substantial funding issues were addressed, to create a service zone in the greater Eastern County region that would incorporate the additional resources available in the ConFire service areas in Antioch and Pittsburg.

Funding the consolidation with ConFire would require a substantial increase in the revenue generated by the ECCFPD, to meet ConFire’s and County Supervisors’ concerns, and a level of certainty that the increased level of funding is sustainable. c. ECCFPD contract for service with CAL FIRE – Financial savings are unlikely to result from this option given that CAL FIRE firefighter costs are generally higher than ECCFPD’s costs. ECCFPD would still need to resolve costs associated with its unfunded pension and OPEB liabilities. Some efficiencies in administration are likely considering CAL FIRE’s more extensive administrative operations. d. Establish ECCFPD as an independent district – This option is consistent with original ECCFPD formation goals, and recognizes the current de facto organization that functions independently of the County. 112 However, this option
alone does not alter the District’s ability to increase revenues. This option, in conjunction with other revenue-related actions, is discussed below under “ECCFPD MSR Recommendations.”

7. Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery.

No additional matters have been identified at this time. 111 ConFire does receive approximately $1.5 million of annual funding for EMS from Countywide Measure H funds.
112 LAFCO law defines an independent district as having a board elected by voters within its boundaries.
655 of 801 809 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 6 – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 72

ECCFPD MSR RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommended strategy for the ECCFPD to address its financial and service deficiencies is for the ECCFPD to become an independent district with a directly elected board and a revenue stream adequate to support an acceptable level of fire and emergency medical services.

There are a number of opportunities the ECCFPD and its government partners — the cities of Oakley and Brentwood, and the County — should thoroughly explore and implement as part of a “Go Forward Plan.” Such a plan would allow the District to be self-funded, independent and able to manage its resources effectively.

This option, rather than consolidation or dissolution, is the best and most practical for several reasons:
 It allows the District to retain its lower salary costs;  It does not materially affect other districts’ activities or dilute their service levels, e.g., ConFire;
 It fulfills ECCFPD’s original goals of becoming an independent district; and  It establishes a locally elected governance structure accountable to residents within its boundaries.

The District’s current Fire Task Force is working toward these objectives. The following items/actions should be explored and implemented to the degree possible as part of the Task Force’s activities.

1. Educate the community on the need for professional fire and emergency medical services.

It is critical for the community to have unbiased, objective and thorough explanations of the current service levels, the critical need for professional firefighters, and the SOC required to adequately serve the growing population.

Informed community participation is essential to the creation of a service plan, and to the review and development of the funding sources, improving the likelihood of support for a tax measure.

2. Establish an independent ECCFPD governing board.

While an independent board does not guarantee increased revenues, the community will have a greater opportunity and ability to engage in District governance and support needed financial measures if the Board is elected locally and accountable to the community.
656 of 801 810 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 6 – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 73

3. Develop a long-range service and cost plan that ensures adequate service levels.

The ECCFPD has engaged a consulting firm to conduct an SOC Study that will establish the basis for projecting service costs associated with the District’s service area over the long term. The costs for capital and operational needs identified in the SOC Study can provide a basis for constructing a financially viable long-range service plan for the ECCFPD, as well as provide support to the District in its efforts to justify and efficiently utilize increased revenues. As indicated previously, the District anticipates the study will be complete by this June.

4. Develop a funding plan for services that integrates the three governmental agencies’ powers to generate development-related revenues and, to the extent possible, justifies the use of additional tax revenues.

The funding plan, involving the County and the Cities of Brentwood and Oakley, will be based on the outcome of the SOC Study. Community education and involvement, described above, are essential to ensure community support for needed revenues, including tax measures. The ECCFPD does not have the ability to impose development impact fees, but can create a special tax with two-thirds voter approval. In any case, active engagement and support of the County and the Cities is essential to implementation of any new tax.

Revenue sources considered should include:

Development impact fees – All three agencies currently collect development impact fees for ECCFPD capital facilities on a coordinated basis. These fees are paid one time by new development, and can only be used to fund capital expenditures. These impact fees should be updated based on the District’s SOC Study currently underway. There is no voter requirement for the imposition or increase of impact fees, however, a nexus study is required to justify the fees.

Special Taxes (Gov. Code §§ 53970-53979) - The City of Oakley collects special taxes to fund annual law enforcement operations pursuant to Government Code Section 53970. The law permits creation of special zones of service to tax the property owners for either law enforcement or fire and emergency medical services. The fee is based on the impact of the development on the existing services, and the enabling legislation permits special taxes for fire as well as police services. Oakley, Brentwood and the County could establish a uniform, coordinated fee to fund the operational impacts of development on the ECCFPD on an ongoing basis.. The special tax requires two-thirds approval by the electorate.

Community Facility Districts (CFDs) – Contra Costa County required that the Cypress Lakes development, which was subsequently annexed to the City of Oakley, pay annual special taxes for fire services. The City of Brentwood has 657 of 801 811 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 6 – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 74 historically collected CFD revenues for public safety (police and fire) service impacts, including increased fire staffing, but in recent years the CFD proceeds have been used exclusively to fund law enforcement. CFD special taxes, or an equivalent annual payment (e.g., Gov. Code §§ 53970-53979) should be applied consistently by the County and cities to any and all new development within the District. The special tax requires voter or landowner approval, and is typically created during initial land development by a master developer.

ECCFPD SOI UPDATE
The existing SOI for ECCFPD is non-coterminous with its bounds.

The 2009 MSR indicated that the ECCFPD requested an expansion of its SOI to include areas being served beyond its SOI, including to the Delta islands of Jersey, Bradford and Webb. The only change adopted by LAFCO following the 2009 MSR was to remove the Roddy Ranch area from the ECCFPD SOI and add it to ConFire’s SOI (see Appendix C).113 However, the ECCFPD’s service boundary has not been changed to exclude that Roddy Ranch area, and the ECCFPD SOI remains noncoterminous with its service area boundaries.

Although in 2009, LAFCO expanded ConFire’s SOI to include the Roddy Ranch area, and removed the area from ECCFPD’s SOI, to date no related annexation has been proposed; thus, the area is still in ECCFPD’s service boundary. LAFCO should encourage the two districts to work together to pursue this boundary issue.

A second area of overlap exists outside the boundary of the City of Clayton. This area was considered for removal from the ECCFPD service area during the 2009 MSR, but no change was made at that time.

ECCFPD Proposal
The ECCFPD currently does not anticipate changes to its SOI in the next five years.114
SOI Determinations

1. The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands.

The District’s existing SOI encompasses residential, commercial, mixed-use, agricultural, recreational, open space, and watershed uses. The predominant uses 113 LAFCO removed the Roddy Ranch area from ECCFPD’s SOI; however, no corresponding detachment of the Roddy Ranch area has been submitted to LAFCO; thus this area is still in ECCFPD’s service boundary.
114 ECCFPD Response to LAFCO’s Request for Information. 658 of 801 812 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 6 – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 75 are agricultural and open space, which are located throughout the District.

Residential areas are concentrated in the Cities of Oakley and Brentwood, and in the communities of Discovery Bay and Bethel Island. Continued growth, primarily within the cities, is anticipated. ABAG projects more than 5,000 new residents will move into the ECCFPD’s service area over the next 10 years.

2. The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area.

New development in the ECCFPD service area will exacerbate an existing shortfall of needed fire stations and staffing. In recent years, ECCFPD reduced its number of stations from eight to the present three stations, which are inadequate to serve ECCFPD’s 249 square-mile service area.

3. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide.

Limited firefighting resources also increase the probability that adequate response, e.g., to a structure fire, which requires a minimum of 14 firefighters, will not arrive in time to contain a fire and minimize damage to property and risk of injury to residents. The District experiences multiple occasions each month when its firefighters are occupied and unable to respond to another call. While automatic aid from ConFire is available, it extends response times and potentially adversely affects ConFire’s ability to respond to incidents within its own service area.

4. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency.

There has been no change to the communities of interest identified in the 2009 MSR. Those communities within the District’s SOI include the incorporated cities of Oakley and Brentwood, and unincorporated areas including Bethel Island, Byron, Discovery Bay, Knightsen, the southern portion of the City of Antioch, and a portion of the City of Clayton SOI. Adjacent communities of interest include Jersey Island, Bradford Island and Webb Tract.

5. The present and probable need for the public facilities and services of any disadvantaged communities within the existing SOI.

Several disadvantaged communities fall entirely within the current SOI of the ECCFPD. Areas include Bethel Island, and an area to the east of Brentwood that includes the community of Knightsen.115 Those two areas experience among the worst response times in the ECCFPD of 13:37 and 18:18, respectively (90% of responses fall within those times), which fall significantly below overall District 115 “Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) Determination, American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2009 - 2013),” County of Contra Costa.
659 of 801 813 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 6 – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 76 times, and well-below national standards for “Best Practices.” As described in the “Service Adequacy” section of Chapter 4, national standards recommend response times of 5 minutes and 20 seconds 90% of the time.

6. The nature, location, and extent of any functions or classes of services provided (special districts only).

There has been no change to the services provided as described in the 2009 MSR, except the reduction in staffed stations as noted in Findings 2 and 3, above.

ECCFPD provides fire and emergency medical services, including BLS. Ambulance transport and ALS is provided by AMR, a privately owned ambulance company.

ECCFPD contracts with ConFire for dispatch, radio, information and fire prevention services.

ECCFPD SOI Options and Recommendations.

As described above in “ECCFPD MSR Recommendations,” this MSR recommends that the ECCFPD address its financial and service deficiencies by becoming an independent district with a directly elected board and a revenue stream adequate to support an acceptable level of fire and emergency medical services. Reductions in its current boundary, as discussed in the “Governance Options” section, above, would adversely affect the District’s financial position and ability to achieve independent status.

Current facility and service deficiencies indicate an inability of the District to provide adequate services, as stated in the determinations; affirmation of the current SOI would be inconsistent with these determinations.

However, the District currently is actively engaged with the County and the cities within the ECCFPD to reopen a fourth station, conduct an SOC Study, and seek new revenues to improve service. Therefore, it is recommended that the current ECCFPD SOI be designated as “provisional,” requiring that ECCFPD report back to LAFCO on at least an annual basis to inform LAFCO as to ECCFPD’s progress in implementing the recommendations of this MSR, and in meeting the objectives of independent governance, adequacy of services, and long-term financial sustainability.

Alternatively, LAFCO could consider a “zero SOI” designation, signaling that the District’s services will ultimately be provided by another agency. However, there are no current prospects for service by another agency given ECCFPD’s service deficiencies, financial obligations, and lack of funding; this designation would be contrary to the recommendations of this MSR that the ECCFPD pursue independent status and long-term financial sustainability.
660 of 801 814 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 6 – East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 77 SOI/Service Boundary
LAFCO should encourage ECCFPD and ConFire to work together to pursue the Roddy Ranch boundary correction described above, and correction to the overlap on the periphery of the City of Clayton.
661 of 801 815 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 7 – Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District 78

7. RODEO-HERCULES FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
The RHFPD provides fire protection and emergency medical services to the City of Hercules and the unincorporated community of Rodeo.

The 2009 LAFCO MSR stated that the RHFPD had the financial ability to provide adequate services and referred to its successful grant applications and well managed finances as major strengths. Due to external forces, including the impacts of the December 2007 downturn and other factors, the District closed one of its two stations in 2012. A number of additional setbacks, compounded by the District’s very low share of property tax revenue, resulted in an extremely challenging financial future for the District.

Despite these challenges, the District has undertaken a number of initiatives to maintain services in the face of constrained revenues. The District obtained a Federal SAFER fire grant and initiated a voter approved benefit assessment district in 2014 to fund operational expenses. Counteracting these efforts, the District has experienced increased retirement costs, faces the future expiration of the Federal grant, and the extinguishment of its recently approved benefit assessment district, culminating in losses of over $2 million of annual revenue. It appears likely that the District will return to a one-station service configuration during 2017, if not before. Even with the reduction in services, the District will need additional revenues to address its OPEB and unfunded pension obligations.

The one station configuration, if implemented, will significantly reduce the District’s capacity to respond to emergencies—both fire and medical. It will reduce the available in-District services, and force the District to rely on outside resources to perform even basic firefighting services. Response times for emergency medical services will increase significantly, adding precious minutes to response times; first response by ambulance could help in those areas where fire resources are limited.

In February 2014, the RHFPD received a Federal grant of almost $2.5 million spread over two years to allow the District to reopen its closed station, reestablish Engine 75 and rehire up to nine firefighters.

After working with the community for a number of years, on June 11, 2014, the District adopted a resolution for the purpose of levying a fire services assessment of up to $82 per single-family parcel. The assessment, if successful, would have provided the District with approximately $950,000 per year in additional revenue.

The proposed assessment was approved by a majority of the voters, but not by the two-thirds vote required for a special tax. As the result of a legal challenge, it was agreed that this assessment would terminate and would no longer be levied after 662 of 801 816 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 7 – Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District 79
FY 2016-17. The District used the grant and assessment district funds to implement the station reopening and add firefighter positions.

In October 2015, the District and the plaintiff reached a settlement that required the District to cease collection of the 2014 fee by July 2017. The District will be allowed to utilize the funds collected until the cessation in 2017. The District has indicated that it will be forced to reduce its workforce and close the reopened station as the Federal SAFER grant and Assessment District funding resources are depleted. The loss of the Assessment District revenue represents a $950,000 annual loss to the District.

The District’s operating costs have increased due to the CCCERA’s reorganization of its actuarial practices that removed the District from its larger employee pool, and reduced amortization periods. The net effect of this action is discussed in detail below.

Challenges Faced by the RHFPD
Even though the RHFPD has made strides towards managing its expenditures, including long-term reductions in pension obligations as a result of reduced benefits to new hires, the District continues to face significant financial challenges.

1. Low property tax generation.

The District relies on property taxes for the majority of its revenue now that its grant revenues have been expended and its recent benefit assessment terminated.

The District’s low share of property taxes is compounded by at least two issues noted below.

The RHFPD service area includes the City of Hercules that has extensively utilized redevelopment for reuse of a large portion of its developable properties. The creation of these Redevelopment Areas has reduced the property tax revenues that would otherwise have accrued to the District. The termination of redevelopment programs has not improved the District’s revenue stream from the affected properties due to the high bonded debt and other financial obligations undertaken by the Redevelopment Agency that continue to divert property tax revenue. In Fiscal Year 2015-16, RHFPD shifted 29 percent to redevelopment. This condition will persist for the life of the bonded indebtedness that could extend several decades.

A second property tax constraint involves the ConocoPhillips oil refinery property annexed to the District in 1996. The District receives a share of the property taxes generated from the facility, but the County retained the base revenue at the time of the annexation and has only agreed to share a portion of the revenue generated above the 1996 levels. The refinery has also successfully sought to reduce its property tax assessed value, which reduces the District’s revenues generated from 663 of 801 817 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 7 – Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District 80
the site. At this time, the RHFPD receives some minor operational assistance from the refinery, but the costs of RHFPD service exceed the revenues it receives from the refinery.116 There is little likelihood that the County will re-negotiate a tax sharing arrangement more favorable to the District.

2. Increased annual expenditures due to the CCCERA’s changes in actuarial practices and cost allocations.

Until 2009,117 the County “pooled” participants in the agency that spread the liabilities of smaller entities to all members of a larger pool. In 2009, CCCERA depooled the agencies and districts and established rates for each entity that would fully fund their retirement costs within a reduced period of time. The “de-pooling” reduced amortization periods, and interest earning assumptions effectively increased RHFPD’s annual expenditures for retirement obligations.118 The District’s workforce has fluctuated over the past 10 years, which has had an impact on the District’s retirement and post-retirement costs. The full costs of current retirees must still be funded, but by a significantly reduced budget. This has driven the per-employee contribution by the agency to about 90% of salary, which is significantly higher that ConFire’s contribution of 74% of salary.119 This high contribution rate reduces revenues available for non-retirement expenditures.

3. The RHFPD faces increased costs as a result of less than full contributions to the retirement and OPEB accounts.

The RHFPD has not been making the required contributions needed to fully fund its required annual contributions to its CCCERA obligations.120 While the District’s payments have been sufficient to avoid significant growth in its liabilities, its liabilities limit opportunities for changes in governance.

For example, if the District were to consolidate with a neighboring district such as ConFire or a PERS retirement agency such as Pinole, there would be a substantial cost of refinancing RHFPD’s unfunded liabilities with CCCERA. To address this issue, a pension obligation bond (POB) would need to be sold to satisfy these obligations, which would add to annual RHFPD (or consolidated agency) expenditures. At this point in time, it is not possible to speculate whether a POB would reduce the District’s retirement costs adequately to offset the costs of the 116 MRG/BA interview with Chief Hanley, December 9, 2015. 117 Starting with the December 31, 2009 Actuarial Valuation, the CCCERA Board took action to depool CCCERA’s assets, liabilities and normal cost by employer when determining employer contribution rates (CCCERA Actuarial valuation and Review as of December 31, 2014, p. 16). 118 MRG/BA interview with Wrally Dutkiewicz, Compliance Officer, CCCERA, February 26, 2016. 119 CCCERA Actuarial Valuation and Review as of December 31, 2014; rates are for FY 16-17, and include normal and unfunded liabilities.
120 MRG/BA interview with Wrally Dutkiewicz, Compliance Officer, CCCERA, February 26, 2016. 664 of 801 818 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 7 – Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District 81
debt service on the debt if a lower-cost retirement system was accessed (in the case of consolidation with a city). It is likely that normal retirement costs would be lower under the PERS system; for example, Pinole’s and El Cerrito’s normal costs range from 12% to 20% of salaries; however, as noted above, the cost of prefunding existing CCCERA pension obligations is likely a prohibitive prerequisite to leaving a CCCERA plan or to satisfying outstanding liabilities prior to consolidating with another CCCERA agency.

RHFPD LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE
Local Representation
Table 17, below, lists the current Board of Directors for the RHFPD. Chairperson Bartke resigned in March 2016, and the District is seeking a replacement.

Table 17
Rodeo Hercules FPD (RHFPD) Board of Directors
Service Agreements
RHFPD and other local fire agencies have entered into a number of agreements to augment existing services and help to jointly handle hazards that may be beyond the capability of any single agency.121 The agreements also help to ensure coordinated responses to wildland/interface incidents and to incidents on agency borders.

The RHFPD provides fire and rescue services to ConFire and CAL FIRE along the Highway 4 Corridor, including unincorporated Martinez, through a series of automatic aid and mutual threat zone agreements.
121 RHFPD 2012 Strategic Plan.

Position Name
Term
Expires
Chairperson Beth Bartke* 2016
Secretary John S. Mills 2016
Director Ernie Wheeler 2018
Director Raemona Williams 2018
Director Bill Prather 2018
Source: RHFPD website (3/3/16)
* Resigned, March 2016
665 of 801 819 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 7 – Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District 82
The RHFPD is dispatched by the Contra Costa County Regional Fire Communications Center; the RHFPD also provides 24-hour battalion coverage along with ConFire and the City of Pinole.

ConFire, Pinole and the RHFPD train together. Station 76 in Hercules serves as the Training Center for Battalion 7.

From February 2011 through June 2013, the RHFPD fire chief served as chief for the City of Pinole, and the District shared certain administrative costs with the City of Pinole.

RHFPD SERVICE AREA AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
Figure 5, below, shows the RHFPD boundary, which is coterminous with its SOI.

In 2009, LAFCO deferred the SOI update for RHFPD pending the formation of a West County Ad Hoc Committee to address issues raised in the 2009 MSR; however, no committee was formed. No consolidation study or other efforts occurred subsequent to the 2009 MSR due to lack of interest on the part of the service providers.

Figure 5
RHFPD District Coterminous Boundary and Sphere of Influence 666 of 801 820 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 7 – Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District 83

RHFPD DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
As described in Chapter 2, a disadvantaged community is a community with 12 or more registered voters and an annual median household income that is less than 80% of the statewide annual median income. Median household income in 2014 was $61,489.122 80% of that amount equals $49,190.

One community in Rodeo has been identified as a disadvantaged community. The area is within one mile of RHFPD Station 75, and therefore response times for the first-arriving engine company should meet or exceed Best Practice norms.

However, if Station 75 closes as a result of revenue shortfalls, the next closest station would be Station 76, over two miles away. Times required for arrival of additional engine companies in the event of a structure fire would increase.

RHFPD FINANCING
The RHFPD budget, shown in Table 18, below, suffered significant reductions compared to FY 2008-09, when the 2009 MSR was prepared. The General Fund budget declined from $6.1 million and $2.9 million in reserves, to $5.3 million and $1.3 million in reserves in FY 2014-15; reduced Phillips refinery assessments contributed to declining revenues.123
A SAFER grant helped to bridge budget shortfalls of $1.4 million in FY 2014-15, and reserves were augmented by special benefit assessments, enabling the District to fund a total of 23 employees and continue to operate two stations.

The FY 2015-16 budget benefitted from growth in property tax-related revenues, as real estate values continued their recessionary recovery. The SAFER grant funding was similar to the prior year, however, benefit assessments were lower than the prior year.

As a result of the settlement of a lawsuit brought against the District’s voter approved benefit assessment, the District will lose $950,000 annually in FY 2017- 18, which begins July 1, 2017. In addition, the SAFER grant will no longer provide funding. These two sources would account for a loss of over $2.6 million annually.

A structural deficit is likely to remain even if the District closes one station. The District has been setting aside the proceeds of its 2014-approved benefit assessment; over two years, this assessment reserve totals $1.8 million, as shown below in Table 20.
122 http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/06. 123 RHFPD Fiscal Year 2014-15 Operating Budget Presentation. 667 of 801 821 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 7 – Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District 84
Table 18
Summary of RHFPD Budget
Actual (1) Projected (2)
Item FY14-15 FY15-16
Revenues
Property Taxes $2,774,330 $3,010,983
Intergovernmental (3) 261,295 328,545
Charges for Services 118,972 89,500
Benefit Assessments (6) 1,331,556 1,338,993
Grants (SAFER) 1,165,187 1,287,202
Phillips (4) 0 0
Other 233 15,000
Total Revenues $5,651,573 $6,070,223
Expenditures
Personnel Services $5,767,812 $5,265,829
Supplies and Services 860,169 756,837
Other (5) 8,643 0
Total Expenditures $6,636,624 $6,022,666
NET -$985,051 $47,557
(less) Transfer to SAFER Reserves -$50,000 $0
Net after Transfer -$1,035,051 $47,557
(1) Fiscal Year 2014-15 Financial Report for Year-end June 30, 2015 Includes expenditure of a portion of SAFER Grant No. 2. (2) RHFPD 2015/16 GF Budget,6/1/15, SAFER Grant budget.

RHFPD 2015/16 Revenue Projections, July 17, 2015
(3) Includes Home Owners Property Tax Relief (HOPTR)
and RDA pass-through.
(4) Excludes Phillips 66 Capital #3 ($50,000)in FY14-15 and Capital #4 ($65,000) and #5 ($65,000) in FY15-16.
(5) Levy Code Fee.

Capital expenditures not included.
(6) Excludes revenue from 2014 Benefit Assessment, which were set-aside in reserves.
668 of 801 822 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 7 – Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District 85
RHFPD Funding Sources
Relative to other fire service agencies, the RHFPD funds a smaller portion of its budget from property taxes. This is the consequence of the District receiving a very small share of property taxes as a consequence of the Prop. 13 process in 1978, which effectively penalized low-tax districts by memorializing low rates in perpetuity, and the District’s offsetting efforts to fund acceptable service levels through the use of non-property tax revenues such as grants and benefit assessments.

Property Tax – Property tax represents about 50% of the FY 2015-16 budget.

The District’s property tax rate averages about 6% of each property tax dollar paid by property owners, the lowest rate of all fire districts in Contra Costa County; to compensate, the District sought grants and assessments to fill its funding gap.

The District’s total assessed value has not quite fully recovered to pre-recession levels due to real estate defaults, reduced refinery assessed value, and former redevelopment agency obligations. RHFPD lost 29 percent to redevelopment in Fiscal Year 2015-16. The District anticipates a nearly 10% increase in property tax revenues from FY 2014-15 to FY 2015-16 as a result of real estate market recovery.

Fees and Charges – Charges for services account for a relatively small, 1% to 2% share of the budget. The District is in the process of reviewing its policies fees charged regarding EMS services, and is considering expanding its charges to bill insurance companies of residents who receive transport and other medical emergency services.

Special Taxes and Benefit Assessments – On June 11, 2014, the District adopted a resolution levying a fire services assessment, generating about $940,000, to supplement an existing assessment yielding about $1.3 million annually. The new assessment was challenged by a resident’s lawsuit, and the District entered into a settlement allowing collection of the new assessment through FY 2016-17 (ending June 30, 2017), after which the new assessment will expire.124 The District has been accruing the revenue in a fund separate from the General Fund.

Grants – The District received a SAFER grant that extended over two years. The grant provides about $1.3 million of funding for the FY 2015-16 year (and $1.2 million the prior year), then terminates in future years. The District also received $65,000 in FY 2014-15 from Phillips Refinery for District operations; no operating revenue from Phillips is included in FY 2015-16.
124 Settlement and Release Agreement, signed by RHFPD Chief Hanley November 2, 2015. 669 of 801 823 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 7 – Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District 86

RHFPD OPERATING EXPENDITURES
The RHFPD has experienced continued growth in expenditures, including labor and pension-related costs. The District has taken a number of steps to control these costs, as noted in the following sections.

Personnel Services
The District’s budget funds 12 firefighters, one Battalion Chief, and one Fire Chief.

The budget also pays for a reserve firefighter program, and for one part-time administrative services staff person. Table 19, below, shows salaries as established by the most recent MOU extension.125 The salaries do not show the required deduction for OPEB (3.75% for “Other Post-Employment Benefits”). In addition, according to the MOU extension, all employees are responsible for their entire employee retirement contribution.

Table 19
RHFPD Monthly Salaries
RHFPD Firefighter III Step 4 salaries are approximately 5% higher than top step firefighter salaries for ConFire.126 This comparison does not account for other components of total pay that may include medic certification, longevity, and overtime.

RHFPD Retirement Expenses
Retirement benefits are provided through CCCERA. Employees hired before January 1, 2013 receive benefits based on a formula commonly referred to as 125 Agreement Between RHFPD and I.A.F.F. Local 1230, November 6, 2013. 126 ConFire employees also pay 100% of the CCCERA basic employee benefit contributions.

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
Firefighter
Firefighter I 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000
Firefighter II 5,268 5,532 5,809 6,099
Firefighter III 6,692 7,027 7,379 7,748
Fire Engineer 7,375 7,743 8,130 8,537
Fire Captain 8,339 8,755 9,193 9,653
Source: Agreement between RHFPD and I.A.F.F. Local 1230, Nov. 6, 2013 670 of 801 824 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 7 – Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District 87

3.0% at 50, based on the single highest year of salary, and a 3% COLA. New employees hired on or after January 1, 2013 receive 2.7% at 57.127 RHFPD’s average employer contribution for FY 2016-17 is 89.27% of estimated payroll (salaries), or a payment of $1,977,156 annually. The estimated annual payment increased about $200,000 over the prior year, an 11% increase.128 CCCERA’s overall average employer contribution for FY 2015-16 is 40.06% of payroll, down from 43.58% from the prior year as a result of improved investment returns.129
The District asked CCCERA to lower its annual payments on unfunded retirement debt by extending the amortization schedule to 30 years; CCCERA met with the RHFPD and agreed to allow the District to make an annual payment sufficient to prevent additional interest accruals on unfunded balances, but not sufficient to amortize the unfunded balance.

RHFPD Health Insurance Benefits and OPEB
The District provides health insurance to current and retired employees. No dental, vision, or life insurance benefits are provided. The District contracted in 2008 with the California Employers’ Retirement Benefit Trust (CERBT). In FY 2011-12, the District implemented a 3.75% employee contribution to the OPEB Trust Fund. Since then, the employee contributions have continued, and the District has been funding its annual benefit costs on a “pay as you go” basis each year.

The last OPEB valuation was prepared in January 2014. The report indicated that the District’s Unfunded Accrued Actuarial Liability (UAAL) would total $11.3 million in FY 2013-14, resulting in an Annual Required Contribution (ARC) of $903,000 for FY 2014-15.130 The report projected the UAAL to grow to $12.1 million by FY 2015-16, assuming no pre-funding payments were made in the interim, increasing the ARC to over $1 million. The District’s FY 2015-16 budget shows no payments, in addition to a required 3.75% employee contribution towards the ARC, allowing the UAAL to grow.

The District’s “pay as you go” health insurance costs totaled $316,000 for retirees in the FY 2015-16 budget, and $348,000 for active employees; the total, $664,000, is about 38% of salaries.
127 Side Letter of Agreement to Extend MOU Between RHFPD and I.A.F.F. Local 1230, November 14, 2012. Employee contributions are those established by AB 340 and AB 197. 128 CCCERA Actuarial Valuation and Review as of December 31, 2014 (p. v). 129 December 31, 2014 Actuarial Valuation, Adopted by the Board on July 8, 2015, CCCERA. 130 RHFPD Retiree Healthcare Plan, June 30, 2013 Actuarial Valuation Final Results, Bartel Associates, LLC, December 13, 2013 (see Results, p. 18).
671 of 801 825 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 7 – Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District 88

RHFPD CAPITAL ASSETS, CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES AND EXPENDITURES The RHFPD has a number of sources available for funding capital improvements; however, it is likely that most of the current fund balances shown in Table 20, below, will be needed as reserves for operations to buffer the impact of reduced assessment and grant revenues.

Grants and Contributions – The Phillips 66 Refinery in Rodeo provided capital funding to purchase and equip a new rescue pumper in FY 2013-14.131 The subsequent two years’ budgets show contributions of $50,000 and $65,000 towards purchases totaling $296,000.132
Developer Fees – Developer fees are collected by the City of Hercules on behalf of the District. The fee for a single-family residence is $1,029; fees are also collected from multi-family and commercial developments.133 According to a 2009 RHFPD fee schedule, impact fees in Rodeo are $1,012.134 Projected impact fee fund balances will total $117,000 by the end of FY 2015-16.

The RHFPD appeared before the County BOS Finance Committee on March 16, 2016 and requested Prop 172 funding; these are funds generated by a statewide sales tax that are distributed to counties for public safety purposes. As a matter of policy, Contra Costa County historically has allocated these funds to the SheriffCoroner and the District Attorney, and the County Administrator’s response to the request was to recommend against the requested allocation.135

RHFPD RESERVES AND OTHER FUNDS
As indicated in Table 20, the RHFPD projected FY 2015-16 budget shows a minimal ending General Fund balance of approximately $50,000. However, the 2014 assessment fund is projected at $1.9 million, or about 32% of expenditures.

It is likely that a majority of this balance will be required to offset the SAFER grant funds that provided $1.3 million of funding for operations in FY 2015-16, but which 131 RHFPD Basic Financial Statements for the Year Ended June 30, 2014, p. 12. 132 A condition of approval (COA 84) for a project at the Phillips 66 Refinery was originally designated for the purchase of a Hazardous Materials Response Unit. The COA was changed by the BOS at the request of Phillips 66, and the amount was increased - the refinery agreed to pay half the cost of a rescue pumper with a larger capacity pump, foam and rescue capability to better serve the District. 133 Approved by Resolution 10-088, effective July 1, 2010; downloaded from City of Hercules website January 30, 2016.
134 Correspondence from RHFPD to MRG/BA (March 29, 2016). 135 Memorandum from Timothy Ewell, Senior Deputy County Administrator, to the Finance Committee, March 16, 2016. According to the Finance Committee record of action, the BOS Finance Committee did not allocate funds to the RHFPD, noted that there must be a plan for going forward, suggested the RHFPD seek city funding, and requested that the County Administrator meet with the RHFPD Chief to discuss options for city funding similar to the ECCFPD Task Force. 672 of 801 826 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 7 – Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District 89
have been fully utilized. The remaining fund balance will be insufficient in FY 2016-17 to fully offset the absence of SAFER grant funds and the pending termination of 2014 benefit assessment revenues, an additional loss of over $900,000 annually beginning July 1, 2017.

Table 20
RHFPD Fund Balances FY 2015-16

RHFPD GROWTH AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS
A number of significant new projects are anticipated to open in the City of Hercules over the next one to two years; however, because of the continued diversion of revenues to repay redevelopment obligations, the City’s budget shows minimal Funds
Starting
Balance
Revenues
or Transfers
In
Expenditures
and/or Transfers
Out
Ending
Balance
General Fund
Total $66,293 $4,783,021 $4,800,464 $48,850
2014 Fire Assessment
Total 937,083 947,106 0 1,884,189
SAFER Grant
Total 32,494 1,287,202 1,287,202 32,494
Capital Projects
Total (1) 149,973 65,000 137,213 77,760
Developer Fees
Hercules 1,358 100,000 0 101,358
Rodeo 15,367 0 0 15,367
Total 16,725 100,000 0 116,725
TOTAL $1,202,568 $7,182,329 $6,224,879 $2,160,018
Source: RHFPD FY2015/2016 Financial Report for Year-End June 30, 2016, (Sept. 3, 2015) (1) Phillips 66 Capital #5
673 of 801 827 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 7 – Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District 90
growth in property tax revenues. Projects expected to open within the next two years include:136
Victoria Crescent – 43 residential units;
“Parcel C” – 144 residential units;
Sycamore Crossing – 130,000 sq. ft. of retail and a gas station; and Market Hall – 90-room hotel, gas station, drug store, and drive-thru restaurant.

These projects will contribute to the residential growth shown in Table 21, below, as well as contribute to employment and visitor growth in the RHFPD.

Table 21
Projected Population Growth, RHFPD 2015-2025
According to the RHFPD, the Phillips refinery is planning new projects that would increase the RHFPD’s service responsibilities.137
136 Long Range Forecast, Staff Report to the Finance Commission meeting, November 23, 2015. 137 RHFPD Response to LAFCO Request for Information.
2015 2020 2025
Hercules (1) 26,500 28,900 31,300
Rodeo (2) 6,500 6,628 6,771
TOTAL (3) 33,000 35,528 38,071
Annual Avg. % Change 1.5% 1.4%
Source: ABAG Projections 2013
(1) ABAG forecast is shown for 2015; Cal. Dept. of Finance, E-1 Population Report, 2015 estimates a slightly lower 2015 population for Hercules. (2) Rodeo 2015 assumed to equal District population estimate less Hercules population.

Rodeo projections assume average rates for unincorporated areas Countywide. (3) RHFPD 2015 estimate is from RFHPD response to LAFCO Request for Information. 674 of 801 828 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 7 – Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District 91

RHFPD SERVICE DEMAND
Table 22, below, summarizes calls for service for the RHFPD. Call volume is below Countywide averages; however, if one of its two stations closes, the calls per station will effectively double.

Table 22
RHFPD Calls For Service, 2014

RHFPD INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OR DEFICIENCIES
The 2009 MSR rated the two RHFPD stations as being in “good” condition. Fire Station 75 was originally designed in 1927 and has had one significant renovation in 1995. Fire Station 76 (owned by the City of Hercules) was dedicated in 1991.

Though functional, the two stations do not meet current “essential services” and “best practices and design” standards, according to the District.138 The District’s Business Plan includes a strategy to construct a new fire station to replace Station 75. The facility would consolidate all Fire District operations on one centralized campus and improve response times.139
Attached to Fire Station 76 is a modular training classroom, fitness and storage area. The grounds of Station 76 are utilized to house a mobile training tower, a firefighting live burn trailer, and a fire prevention safety house. Most recently, 138 RHFPD Strategic Plan 2012.
139 RHFPD Business Plan 2012-16.

Station Fire (1) EMS (2) Other (3) Total
Station 75 14 164 85 263
Station 76 114 1,081 701 1,896
Total 128 1,245 786 2,159
% of Total 6% 58% 36% 100%
Source: RHFPD Response to LAFCO Request for Information. (1) Codes 100-151.
(2) EMS include vehicle accident with injuries.
(3) Includes "611: dispatched and cancelled en route".
2014
675 of 801 829 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 7 – Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District 92
each Fire Station is being upgraded with solar panels and other energy efficient features to reduce power costs.

The District’s Business Plan includes implementation of the elements and recommendations of the Fleet Management Study, including Best Practices for apparatus replacement, repair, troubleshooting and preventative maintenance.140

RHFPD SERVICE ADEQUACY
Response Times
The RHFPD currently does not have an adopted response time standard. According to the District, 90% of responses141 were within 9 minutes and 43 seconds in 2014, which significantly exceeds national standards of five to six minutes. This response time is nearly the longest of all Contra Costa fire service agencies, second only to ECCFPD.

While the total land area served by the two stations is not excessive, the geography of the District imposes additional travel times. Many of the areas served by the District require access via Interstate 80, which can impose additional delays during commute times, as well as less direct routes due to the multiple valleys that cross the District.

ISO Ratings
Prior to 2014, RHFPD’s ISO was reported to be 3/9; in 2014, the classification was changed to 2/2X.142 The second factor of the split classification, a new system adopted by ISO in 2014, applies to properties within five road miles of a fire station, but beyond 1,000 feet from a creditable water supply.

RHFPD MSR DETERMINATIONS

1. Growth and population projections for the area.

Growth in the RHFPD is expected to increase as the region recovers from the recession. Projections indicate growth of 1.4 to 1.5% annually over the next 10 years, or about 480 new residents annually. This growth will increase calls for service and potentially reduce resources required for responses to other areas when multiple calls occur. Response times, which currently fall below national standards, will worsen, particularly if one of the RHFPD’s two stations is closed. 140 RHFPD Business Plan 2012-16, Strategy 2013.4.
141 Response times measured from time of dispatch to “on scene.” 142 RHFPD response to LAFCO Request for Information.
676 of 801 830 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 7 – Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District 93

2. The location and characteristics of any disadvantaged communities within or contiguous to the SOI.

One community in Rodeo has been identified as a disadvantaged community. The area is within one mile of RHFPD Station 75, and therefore response times for the first-arriving engine company should meet or exceed Best Practice norms.

However, if Station 75 closes as a result of revenue shortfalls, the next closest station would be Station 76, over two miles away. Times required for arrival of additional engine companies in the event of a structure fire would increase as well.

3. Capacity of public facilities, adequacy of public services and infrastructure needs or deficiencies.

Though functional, the two RHFPD stations do not meet current “essential services” and “best practices and design” standards, according to the District.143 The District’s Business Plan includes a strategy to construct a new fire station to replace Station 75; however, current revenues, particularly given pending reductions in assessment and grant revenues, will not be sufficient to construct the new station.

RHFPD response times are among the longest in the County, second to those of ECCFPD. Closure of Station 75, which could occur due to financial constraints, will worsen response times. First responder times will increase, and the RHFPD will become increasingly reliant upon aid from other agencies, increasing the probability that adequate response, e.g., to a structure fire, which requires a minimum of 15 firefighters, will not arrive in time to contain a fire and minimize damage to property and risk of injury to residents.

4. Financial ability of agencies to provide services.

Within the next one to two years, RHFPD revenues will decline by over $2.6 million, or 40% of its revenues, due to its SAFER Grant ending and the elimination of its recently adopted 2014 benefit assessment. These reductions will force the closure of Station 75, resulting in a significant adverse impact on service levels. The District can apply for another SAFER grant, however, the likelihood and timing of receiving another grant is unknown. A subsequent SAFER grant application cannot be submitted for the same activities and the same personnel who were hired under the current grant.

Growth within the District’s boundary is occurring in Hercules, particularly its former redevelopment area, as the economy improves. However, because of ongoing debts that survive the elimination of the redevelopment agency, property tax revenues that would otherwise accrue to the RHFPD from assessed value growth will be diverted to continue to pay off redevelopment debts. 143 RHFPD Strategic Plan 2012.
677 of 801 831 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 7 – Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District 94

5. Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities/services.

The fire providers in the West County have established informal and effective cooperative agreements to address the fire and emergency medical services needs of their constituent communities. The RHFPD, City of Pinole and ConFire all participate in the Battalion 7 configuration sharing Battalion chiefs who manage and coordinate fire and medical emergency activities.

If all West Contra Costa fire agencies acknowledge and implement improved cooperation, all participating agencies will benefit financially, and their communities will benefit by receiving an improved level of fire and rescue services.

For this approach to work, it is essential that all agencies recognize the value of:
implementing meaningful shared service agreements; cooperative sharing of scarce resources; and elimination of unnecessary duplication of special services.

Agencies should agree to: share training management and delivery; improve dispatch and emergency communication functions; and share senior management and leadership positions, as practical.

6. Accountability for community service needs, including governmental structure and operational efficiencies.

The RHFPD follows generally accepted practices and legal requirements for meeting noticing procedures. Meeting agenda and packets are posted on its website for 2016, including minutes from meetings two months prior. Archival access to meeting minutes from 2011 is available on another section of the website.

The Board requested preparation of summary financial information, a draft of which is included in the January 16, 2016 meeting packet. Financial reports, including a 2014 financial report, are posted on the website, along with prior years’ budgets and budget presentation materials, and employee information.

The District prepared a Business Plan and a Strategic Plan in 2012 that provide clear direction and strategies; however, implementation has been stymied by the District’s lack of financial resources.

RHFPD Governance Options
The 2009 MSR considered a number of governance options, however, no action has occurred since 2009 related to changes in governance. Following is a review and update of potential options.
a. Annexation of area served by Crockett-Carquinez FPD – While there would be benefit to a unified command structure and some shared internal support services, the cost reductions (net of revenues) to the RHFPD would not be significant enough to overcome RHFPD’s financial shortfalls. Increased financial and operational efficiencies, in conjunction with other actions, could improve the long-term financial sustainability of RHFPD; however, this option does not appear 678 of 801 832 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 7 – Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District 95
to be an area of interest to either district at this time. Crockett-Carquinez FPD, as an agency relying on volunteers, does not provide a significant increase in access to funding, and a revenue measure would bring limited revenues; the RHFPD and Crockett-Carquinez FPD have held multiple discussions regarding this issue; however, RHFPD does not have the staff to support fire prevention, training or fleet management for Crockett-Carquinez FPD.144
b. Consolidation among West County fire providers – Historically, major impediments to implementing this recommendation have included political, financial, operational, employee compensation and training differences as well as an expressed lack of interest. The recent proposal by ConFire for a “shared Chief” position for the City of Pinole, RHFPD and ConFire is a significant indicator that the agencies are currently considering a cost-effective, inter-agency solution to the overhead costs for the three agencies. If implemented, this initial step, followed by the recommendations earlier in this report could decrease operational costs for the agencies significantly and materially improve service. Significant issues remain to be addressed, including pay and benefit differentials, pension costs and unfunded OPEB obligations between RHFPD, ConFire and the City of Pinole are a few of the issues that would need to be addressed before a complete West County consolidation were enacted.

As is the case with ECCFPD, a consolidation of the RHFPD with ConFire, or dissolution of the RHFPD and expansion of ConFire’s SOI to include the RHFPD territory, would require the cooperation of the ConFire governing board, which is the Contra Costa County BOS; however, the change potentially could degrade the service levels to the existing ConFire service area, and would not contribute a significant increase in revenues, which would likely be unacceptable to the BOS.

The County does not currently subsidize the ConFire activities and does not currently have plans to do so. If the RHFPD requested consolidation, or dissolution occurred, it is likely that new special taxes in the RHFPD area would be needed to fully fund the current two RHFPD stations, as well as fully fund all RHFPD financial obligations, including pension and OPEB obligations.

Although a “grand solution” that includes a consolidation or annexation is unlikely to occur in the near-term, more extensive “functional” consolidation, which does not require governance or boundary changes, could provide a more efficient and expedient application of resources in the West County area. Functional consolidation does not offset the inherent deficiencies of service that exist in the RHFPD as a result of unfunded service demands and closed fire stations. In conjunction with other actions, functional consolidation could improve the longterm financial sustainability of the RHFPD. 144 Correspondence from Chief Hanley to MRG, March 23, 2016. 679 of 801 833 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 7 – Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District 96

7. Any other matter related to effective or efficient service delivery.

No additional matters have been identified at this time.

RHFPD MSR RECOMMENDATIONS
Addressing RHFPD’s service and financial challenges, and assuring that its two station service configuration remains intact, requires at least two strategies:
(1) RHFPD should secure a new funding source to replace its grant revenues and benefit assessments; and (2) new levels of cooperation among West Contra Costa fire agencies can help address individual agency deficiencies and improve services to the region, thereby contributing to RHFPD operational efficiencies, improved service levels, and financial sustainability.

1. Pursue New RHFPD Funding Sources.

The RHFPD should pursue a voter approval of a special tax measure, which would require a two-thirds voter approval. The tax revenues, in addition to potential cost savings from operational efficiencies, could significantly improve the RHFPD’s ability to sustain adequate levels of service.

As part of the planning efforts for a tax measure, the RHFPD should participate in an SOC Study for the West County area to identify operational improvements and other measures to ensure efficient and cost-effective use of existing and new financial resources.

2. Create a Battalion 7/West County Fire and Emergency Services Task Force.

It is recommended that a Battalion 7/West County Fire and Emergency Services Task Force be established with representatives from all of the involved jurisdictions. The Task Force would be required to meet regularly to develop, review and implement a regional SOC Study, apply for grants, refine operational practices, and develop cooperative agreements to improve services through collaborative efforts described above in “No. 5. – Status of, and opportunities for, shared facilities/services.”

3. Undertake a West County Standards of Cover Study
The study would objectively review the current level of fire and rescue services in the studied communities. The SOC analysis will identify the service area’s strengths, deficiencies and areas of overlap. The results of the SOC study could be used to improve the coordinated services in West County and form the basis for implementation of further service efficiencies, as well as to document service standards and improvements that support the RHFPD request for special tax revenue from voters.
680 of 801 834 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 7 – Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District 97

RHFPD SOI UPDATE
The existing SOI for the RHFPD extends into the San Francisco Bay; this area in the Bay was considered for detachment as part of the options noted in the 2009 MSR. The 2009 MSR also considered detachment of the refinery area.

LAFCO deferred SOI updates for the RHFPD pending the formation of a West County Ad Hoc Committee to address issues raised in the 2009 MSR; however, no committee was formed. No consolidation study or other efforts occurred subsequent to the 2009 MSR due to lack of interest on the part of the service providers.

Agency Proposal
The RHFPD does not anticipate changes to its SOI in the next five years.145 No agencies expressed interest in consolidation with RHFPD, nor in serving as a successor agency to the responsibilities of the RHFPD in the event of its dissolution.

SOI Determinations

1. The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands.

Following preparation of the 2009 MSR, many of the planned land uses, including those planned as part of the redevelopment of the Hercules Town Center, the waterfront in Hercules and Rodeo, and other infill development, were stalled by the recession. Renewed development activity is occurring with the improved economy, despite the elimination of redevelopment agencies in California.

Other existing uses within RHFPD, noted in the 2009 MSR, are primarily residential, commercial, industrial, and open space. Residential areas are concentrated in the western portion of the District's land area, with higher densities generally located west of I-80. Commercial areas are located along highways and major roads, but also concentrated in the town centers. Industrial activity is located along the coastline and consists of a large industrial park and the headquarters of a biological research company in Hercules, and the ConocoPhillips San Francisco Oil Refinery in Rodeo. Open space is located in the eastern half of the District's land area.

2. The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area.

Renewed growth and development within the RHFPD service area will increase the need for adequate RHFPD facilities and services. Closure of one of its two fire 145 RHFPD Response to LAFCO Request for Information.
681 of 801 835 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 7 – Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District 98
stations, which is imminent in the absence of new funding sources, will have a significant adverse impact on service levels.

3. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide.

With two staffed stations, the RHFPD is generally able to provide adequate services to its service area. However, increased growth and development in Hercules, including potential projects at the ConocoPhillips Refinery, will add to the service demands currently experienced by the District. As noted above, closure of one of its two stations due to inadequate financial resources will have a significant adverse impact on response times and ability to respond to multiple calls simultaneously. The need for aid from adjacent agencies will increase, and the ability to provide aid to other agencies will be diminished.

4. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency.

No significant change in communities of interest has occurred since the 2009 MSR; those communities of interest include the City of Hercules and the unincorporated Rodeo area, along with the surrounding Cities of Pinole and San Pablo, the unincorporated communities of Bayview, Tara Hills, El Sobrante, North Richmond, Crockett, and Port Costa.

5. The present and probable need for those public facilities and services of any disadvantaged communities within the existing SOI.

One community in Rodeo has been identified as a disadvantaged community. The area is within one mile of RHFPD Station 75, and therefore response times for the first-arriving engine company should meet or exceed Best Practice norms.

However, if Station 75 closes as a result of revenue shortfalls, the next closest station would be Station 76, over two miles away. Times required for arrival of additional engine companies in the event of a structure fire would increase as well.

6. The nature, location, and extent of any functions or classes of services provided (special districts only).

RHFPD provides fire and emergency medical services including paramedic services.

RHFPD contracts with ConFire for dispatch and radio services. AMR, a privately owned ambulance company, provides ambulance transport services.

RHFPD SOI Options and Recommendations
As indicated in the “RHFPD Governance Options” discussion, significant annexations or consolidations among West County agencies are unlikely due to perpetuation of current financial shortfalls, as well as a lack of interest among agencies.
682 of 801 836 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 7 – Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District 99
While the RHFPD currently is providing adequate services, increased demands as well as the impending loss of over $2 million in grant and assessment revenues will force the closure of one of its two stations, significantly lengthening response times, reducing the ability to respond to multiple simultaneous incidents, and reducing the District’s ability to provide needed aid to nearby agencies.

Affirmation of the current RHFPD SOI would be inconsistent with the near-term risk of significant service inadequacies if only one station is staffed.

However, the District is actively engaged in seeking new sources of revenue in order to staff its second station and retain adequate service levels. Therefore, it is recommended that the current RHFPD SOI be designated as “provisional,” requiring that the RHFPD report back to LAFCO on at least an annual basis to inform LAFCO as to RHFPD’s progress in implementing the recommendations of this MSR, and in meeting the objectives of adequacy of services and long-term financial sustainability.

Alternatively, LAFCO could consider a “zero SOI” designation, signaling that the District’s services will ultimately be provided by another agency. However, there are no current prospects for service by another agency given RHFPD’s service deficiencies, financial obligations and impending reductions in funding. Through a successful combination of actions as recommended in this MSR, including support for new taxes and increased collaboration among West County agencies, the District will be in a much better position of financial sustainability, and potential SOI changes will be more viable at that point in time.
683 of 801 837 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 8 – Review of Aid Agreements 100

8. REVIEW OF AID AGREEMENTS

MUTUAL AID PLAN
All fire agencies in the County have signed the California State Master Mutual Aid Agreement that is administered by the State Office of Emergency Services. All agencies have also signed the Contra Costa County Fire Chiefs’ Mutual Aid Plan, which was last updated in 1997. The County Fire Chiefs are assigned the responsibility to establish and manage the County Mutual Aid Plan that governs day-to-day interagency cooperation when an emergency exceeds the operational capability of any fire agency, by the State Office of Emergency Services, under the State Master Mutual Aid Agreement.

To activate the Mutual Aid Plan, the incident commander will contact the communication center and request additional fire personnel and equipment. The Contra Costa Fire emergency communication center would then be notified of the request, and using the County Mutual Aid Plan, identify which agency has the resources to fulfill the specific request, and contact the agency in accordance with the County Mutual Aid Plan. The agency that is being requested to respond is not required to respond, but voluntarily determines if its resources can be sent to the emergency without compromising that agency’s ability to protect the people and communities in its primary service area.

AUTOMATIC AID
Automatic aid agreements are different and distinctive in every case. Each agency enters the discussions with potential automatic aid partners with its interests and needs. Seldom are automatic aid agreements a one-for-one exchange of like services. In some cases an agency has a difficult service area in terms of response times, and its neighboring agency is in a better position to serve that area, and the agency may need additional fire engines or a truck company that its neighbor can provide. These agencies can both be satisfied with the agreement even if it does not appear to be a one-for-one exchange.
684 of 801 838 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 8 – Review of Aid Agreements 101
Table 23, below, indicates differences in automatic aid received compared to aid provided. In some instances, the disparity may stretch an agency’s resources to the point where it must reduce available services in order to maintain its own service area standards, as exemplified by recent changes in the agreement between ConFire and ECCFPD. Similarly, there are concerns that closure of one of RHFPD’s two stations will adversely affect aid responses within West County, as noted below.

Table 23
Summary of Incidents where Aid was
Provided vs. Aid Received, 2014
In response to an information request for the purpose of this MSR, the City of El Cerrito’s fire department provided information for aid to and from Kensington.

Agency
Aid
Provided Aid Received

WEST COUNTY
City of Richmond 1,862 1,321 541
City of El Cerrito (1) 687 424 263
City of Pinole 322 418 (96)
Kensington FPD (1) na na na
Rodeo-Hercules FPD 230 415 (185)
Crockett-Carquinez FPD 107 39 68

CENTRAL COUNTY
San Ramon Valley FPD (2) 199 17 182
Moraga-Orinda FD 206 215 (9)

EAST COUNTY
East Contra Costa FPD 227 588 (361)

COUNTYWIDE/OTHER
ConFire 1,673 2,175 (502)
CDF 228 na 228
Other (TNT) 12 na 12
Source: ConFire (inside.cccfpd.org/suppression/reports/MutualAidProvided.asp) 1) El Cerrito Fire Dept., 4/11/16. Includes Kensington (not separately reported). 2) SRVFPD, 12/8/16.

NET
Aid Provided or
(Aid Received)
685 of 801 839 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 8 – Review of Aid Agreements 102
Call data is reported monthly to the KFPD Board; however, the individual call data for calls to/from Kensington are not separately totaled for Kensington. The information indicated that the Kensington Engine 65 responded to 306 incidents in Kensington, and to 302 incidents outside of Kensington. A total of 139 units from the Cities of El Cerrito and Richmond responded to 57 incidents in Kensington.146 In addition to the County Mutual Aid Agreement, which is a reactive process that occurs while an emergency is in progress, automatic aid agreements have been developed and agreed upon between specific fire agencies that are generally in close proximity to each other. Automatic aid agreements differ from Mutual Aid Agreements in that agencies agree in advance of an emergency occurring to provide assistance upon the report of an incident requiring an appropriate response by a Fire agency.

In Contra Costa County, every fire agency is party to at least one, and often, multiple automatic aid agreements, as illustrated in Table 24, below. In some instances, a neighboring agency’s fire personnel and apparatus are located closer to the emergency than the agency having jurisdiction for the area in which the emergency is occurring. In other cases, the neighboring fire agency might send one or more resources to supplement the agency having jurisdiction as part of a multi-apparatus response, such as would occur for a report of a working structure fire, vegetation fires, or a multi-vehicle accident, or a hazardous material incident.

In October of 2006, the agencies that contract with the Contra Costa Regional Fire Communications Center (CCRFCC) entered into a “Boundary Drop” agreement.

This agreement was approved by the County-wide Fire Operations Committee, a subordinate committee of the Contra Costa County Fire Chief’s Association. The agreement was put into effect quickly to align with a CCRFCC CAD upgrade.

Presently, there is no written agreement.

The review of the automatic aid agreements signed by the various Fire agencies in the County appear to be monitored and changed on a regular basis as needed.

REFINERY FIRE BRIGADES
In 1980, several refineries signed a cooperative mutual aid agreement, known as the Petro-Chemical Mutual Aid Organization (PMAO). This emergency response cooperative was formed with the purpose of providing materials and equipment during an emergency. Presently, all four refineries, Dow Chemical, the Valero refinery (in Benicia), ConFire, and West Sacramento Fire are participating members. PMAO meets monthly. Emergency services include specially trained personnel, high capacity fire pumps, and large quantities of firefighting foam. 146 Correspondence from Chief Maples, City of El Cerrito Fire Department, April 19, 2016. 686 of 801 840 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 8 – Review of Aid Agreements 103
These resources are also available to municipal fire agencies for large petrochemical incidents through mutual-aid requests. The PMAO agreement is not integrated into the County Mutual Aid Plan.147
Table 24
Overview of Aid Agreements
147 Source: Fire Chief Stephen Healy, MOFD, Contra Costa County Operational Area mutual aid Coordinator; Lewis Broschard III, Deputy Chief, ConFire. See attached Appendix for additional information about fire brigades.

Boundary Automatic Aid Provided to
Automatic Aid
Received from Mutual Aid Partners
City of El Cerrito FD (ECR)
Participates in the CCRFCC
Boundary Drop Agreement
Cities of Albany,
Berkeley*, Pinole and
Richmond; ConFire*,

MOFD, RHFPD
Cities of Albany,
Berkeley* and
Richmond
Cities of Berkeley and Oakland,
ConFire, EBRPD, and CAL FIRE
City of Pinole FD (POE)
Participates in the CCRFCC
Boundary Drop Agreement
City of El Cerrito,
ConFire**, CCFPD RHFPD**
ConFire**, CCFPD
RHFPD**
EBRPD and CAL FIRE
City of Richmond FD Cities of El Cerrito and
Pinole, ConFire*, RHFPD
Cities of El Cerrito
and Pinole, ConFire*,
RHFPD

ECCFPD, CAL FIRE, CCFPD, EBRPD,

MOFD, SRVFPD
Contra Costa County FPD
(ConFire, or CON)
Participates in the CCRFCC
Boundary Drop Agreement
Cities of Benicia, Pinole**
and Richmond*; ECCFPD,
MOFD, RHFPD**, SRVFPD
Cities of Richmond*
and Pinole**,

ECCFPD, MOFD,
RHFPD**, SRVFPD

EBRPD, CAL FIRE
Crockett-Carquinez FPD (CCFPD,
or CRK)
Participates in the CCRFCC
Boundary Drop Agreement
City of Vallejo, RHFPD RHFPD City of Vallejo, EBRPD, CAL FIRE East Contra Costa FPD (ECCFPD,
or CCE)
Participates in the CCRFCC
Boundary Drop Agreement
ConFire ConFire, CAL FIRE** Alameda County FD, CAL FIRE**, EBRPD, Stockton (STO), Tracy (TRY)
Moraga-Orinda FD (MOFD, or
MOR)
Participates in the CCRFCC
Boundary Drop Agreement
City of Oakland, Confire Cities of Oakland and
El Cerrito, Confire
Cities of Berkeley* and Oakland, CAL
FIRE, EBRPD*, Alameda County
Rodeo-Hercules FPD (RHFPD, or
RDO)
Participates in the CCRFCC
Boundary Drop Agreement
City of Pinole**,
ConFire**, CCFPD*
City of Pinole**,
ConFire**, CCFPD*
EBRPD, and CAL FIRE
San Ramon Valley FPD (SRVFPD) Alameda County, ConFire Alameda County, ConFire
Cities of El Cerrito, Richmond, and
Pinole, Alameda County, ECCFPD, CAL
FIRE, CCFPD, MOFD, RHFPD, LAP (Camp
Parks ArmyTraining near Dublin)
* Written agreement in place ** Battalion-7 Cooperative Agreement Agencies in BOLD denote frequent responses. "CCRFCC" refers to Contra Costa Regional Fire Communications Center Source: Fire Chief Stephen Healy, MOFD, Contra Costa County Operational Area mutual aid coordinator. 687 of 801 841 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 8 – Review of Aid Agreements 104

WEST COUNTY AGREEMENTS
Battalion 7
The Battalion 7 “shared resources agreement” is an operational agreement, which includes the following fire departments: City of Pinole, ConFire (San Pablo and other unincorporated pockets) and RHFPD. Each of the three partner agencies provides an operational Battalion Chief to cover one of the rotating three 24-hour shifts. Each 24-hour Battalion Chief is responsible for the operational activities of the on-duty personnel from all three separate fire agencies.

Although the other West County fire agencies, specifically Crockett-Carquinez FPD, El Cerrito, Kensington FPD and Richmond participate in mutual and automatic aid agreements, they each operate completely independently of each other, and of the Battalion 7 agencies, with the exception of some operational training and the actual emergency response as dictated by separate automatic aid agreements.

The agencies in West Contra Costa County, although they all actively participate in mutual and automatic aid agreements, do not have a single set of unified operational guidelines to govern interagency operations. However, all of the West County fire agencies are aware of each other's basic operating principles and they follow the County Operations agreements and policies including: two in/two out; fire ground communications; rapid intervention crew (RIC); personnel accountability; high-rise structure response; and freeway response.

The City of Pinole – Administered by the Pinole Fire Chief, the City provides fire and rescue services for the Tara Hills, Bayview, Montara Bay Park148 and the Alhambra Valley corridor (formerly the Pinole Fire District). This is a cooperative agreement with ConFire.

Emergency Dispatch and Communications – Fire agencies are dispatched by two different emergency communications centers, one operated by the City of Richmond Police Department – used by the El Cerrito and Richmond Fire Department – and the other, operated by ConFire, which provides dispatch services for all of the other West County Fire agencies.

A single dedicated fire communication center, responsible for primary dispatch and incident coordination, also referred to as “single point ordering,” would provide a needed operational improvement in the West County operations area. The current impediment to creating a desired single point of ordering communications rests with the City of Richmond. If the Richmond Fire Department were to leave the current City public safety dispatch center, which is operated by the Richmond Police Department, the Fire Department would still be required by the City of Richmond to contribute funding towards 18% of the operating costs of the City’s 148 Montara Bay Park is northeast of Point Pinole Regional Shoreline, southwest of Pinole. 688 of 801 842 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 8 – Review of Aid Agreements 105
dispatch center. The San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District’s communication center acts as the back-up communication center to ConFire Communications.

Impact of Closure of RHFPD Station
Based on the RHFPD’s prior experience, there will be delayed responses within RHFPD, the Battalion 7 response area, and in the Crockett-Carquinez FPD. In the event of a fire or other significant emergency incident, another West County Fire agency will be called upon to fill the vacancy in the response dispatch call out order. These vacancies result in faster drawdown of the available Fire resources in the Battalion 7 area of West County. Historically there has existed a “quid pro quo” reciprocal service arrangement where the participating agencies in Battalion 7 automatically provide two fire companies and a Battalion Chief to certain types of emergencies, like structure fires. The City of Pinole Fire Department no longer has that response capacity, since the closure of one of its fire stations in 2010. The RHFPD will face the same limitation when its Station 76 is closed.149and it returns to a one station configuration.

The Crockett-Carquinez FPD is anticipating an increase in emergency response requests by the RHFPD if one of the two RHFPD fire stations is closed. The increased service level requested by the RHFPD service area could significantly impact the response times to other emergency calls within the Crockett-Carquinez FPD.

One mitigation to the closure of the fire station in RHFPD would be for the Crockett-Carquinez FPD to cease its practice of sending a fire engine to cover the remaining RHFPD fire station when the station is uncovered during an RHFPD emergency response.150 This was an adjustment to the West County automatic response plan that ConFire and Crockett-Carquinez FPD employed the previous time RHFPD closed one of its two fire stations. The reciprocity basis for the automatic aid services between the Districts would be nullified due to the RHFPD’s inability to respond to a neighboring jurisdiction’s need for coverage for a vacant station.

This potential lack of staffing at RHFPD’s one station during a response will adversely affect response times to other parts of RHFPD, and eliminate the ability for an engine company to provide aid to other agencies from the vacant RHFPD station. In addition to response times increasing, when more than one fire engine is assigned to an emergency response, the strategy and tactics employed at the emergency scene will need to be altered to reflect the reduced number of fire personnel on scene to mitigate the emergency.
149 Chief Hanley, RHFPD, correspondence with MRG, March 21, 2016. 150 Chief Littleton, Crockett-Carquinez FPD correspondence with MRG, March 24, 2016. 689 of 801 843 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
Chapter 8 – Review of Aid Agreements 106
The ability of the RHFPD to conduct the multiple firefighting evolutions,151 including water supply; fire attack, search and rescue, ventilation and other necessary tasks, will be severely compromised, largely due to the lack of on-site Fire personnel due to increased response times when services are provided from distant stations.

CENTRAL COUNTY AGREEMENTS
ConFire and SRVFPD have added portions of ConFire’s response area in Walnut Creek as the result of the closure of a ConFire station in 2013.152 The Fire Chiefs from the ConFire and SRVFPD support the current automatic aid response plan for the Central Contra Costa area. Should the situation change, both Chiefs and agencies agree to meet and discuss the benefits and challenges related to the current automatic aid plan and to revise their agreement as needed to ensure that the emergency response needs of that area are met to the satisfaction of each of these separate Fire Departments.

Moraga Orinda Fire District (MOFD), in addition to its previous automatic aid agreements with ConFire, CAL FIRE and East Bay Regional Parks, has recently entered into an automatic aid agreement with the City of Berkeley to provide improved emergency response to portions of Tilden Park. Berkeley Fire responds as the closest resource into portions of Tilden park when their (ALS) Engine is available from their fire station on Shasta Road (Berkeley Station-7). MOFD reciprocates with an agreement to cover Berkeley Station-7 in the event of a 2ndAlarm (or greater) fire in Berkeley if MOFD has sufficient resources available.

EAST COUNTY AGREEMENTS
The ECCFPD has relied on ConFire for mutual aid and assistance, which has been reduced pursuant to a revised automatic aid agreement. According to the agreement revised in 2015, ConFire will no longer respond automatically to noncritical medical emergencies unless ECCFPD resources are unavailable.153 151 Evolutions are defined as: “Uniform sequence of practiced steps by squad carrying out common tasks such as selection and placement of ladders, stowing hoses, putting hoses and tools into service in particular patterns; intended to result in predictability during emergencies” (Glossary of Firefighting, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_firefighting#E). 152 ConFire Station #4 was closed in January 2013 (Broschard, April 18, 2016). 153 Automatic Aid Agreement for Exchange of Fire, Rescue, and Emergency Medical Services between the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and the East Contra Costs Fire Protection District, June 1, 2015 Agreement, revised August 24, 2015.
690 of 801 844 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16

APPENDIX A
Appendix A

FIRE SERVICE RESPONSE ADEQUACY
691 of 801 845 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
APPENDIX A Page A-1
Fire Service Response Adequacy
In well-planned and properly funded fire agencies, fire stations are located strategically throughout the community in order to place fire apparatus within acceptable response distances to the areas that the fire resources are expected to serve. If a fire department does not have sufficient fire apparatus and personnel available to respond to a moderate structure fire in time to suppress the fire and keep it from reaching the flashover stage, the fire will spread throughout the structure and could threaten neighboring homes and other structures.

Response time is one of the most important measurements of the fire department performance.

Two commonly referred to criteria used to assess the adequacy of the fire department’s response times are:

1. Fire: Fire response focuses on the time that elapses between the moment the fire originates to “flashover” in a structure fire. Flashover is defined as the point where a fire grows beyond the control capability of the first alarm fire department response.

The National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA), an international non-profit organization established to increase fire and electrical safety, administers over 300 applicable codes. NFPA developed NFPA 1710 as an industry standard for the deployment of fire suppression operations to ensure safe and effective fire service operations. That Standard stipulates that the first fire engine should arrive to 90% of emergency calls within a range of 6:15 and 6:45 minutes. It is recognized that the NFPA 1710 Standard is the optimal nationally and is clearly not regularly achieved in Contra Costa County fire agencies.

2. Emergency Medical Service (EMS): EMS focuses on the time from the onset of a life threatening medical emergency to the point of irreversible brain damage from which point successful resuscitation is greatly reduced – especially for patients that are pulseless and not breathing. Nationally, high performing EMS systems have a generally accepted response time goal of 8:59 minutes from onset to arrival at the scene. Other measures of response consider time from dispatch to arrival at the scene. The “Gold Standard” for cardiac arrest survival, validated by experience in Contra Costa County, is bystander CPR and AED, which relies on community CPR, law enforcement AED and Public Access Defibrillation to improve chances of survival.154
154 Correspondence with Pat Frost, Contra Costa Health Services, April 15, 2016. 692 of 801 846 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
APPENDIX A Page A-2
Adequacy
Firefighting adequacy is determined by several factors, including the time elapsed between the origin of a fire and the initiation of firefighting activities. To illustrate this concept, the following materials describe the staffing and equipment resources required to successfully suppress and extinguish a fire. The situation describes the response times and equipment for a moderate-risk fire in a two-story 2,000 sq. ft. +/- home to contain the fire to the room or compartment/area of origin.

Well-trained and effective firefighting personnel perform their duties in a manner designed for maximum efficiency, effectiveness and safety. They train on a regular basis on performance of firefighting “evolutions.” Evolutions involve the performance of different activities that provide for firefighting activities to be completed in a minimum amount of time. The materials below contain references to a number of these activities.

The tasks and evolutions that are commonly required of firefighting personnel to effectively contain a fire to the room or area of origin may require between 11 and 14 personnel performing a variety of tasks in a coordinated manner. These include:

Within 6 minutes and 45 seconds of notification of an emergency to the dispatch center, the first due fire engine arrives and should be capable of advancing an attack hose line with a fire flow of at least 150 gallons per minute of water from the onboard 500-gallon water tank.

The balance of the required fire apparatus and fire personnel, referred to as the effective response force (ERF), should arrive at the scene within a total of 11 minutes from the incident notification to the dispatch center.

A list of common tasks and required evolutions at a moderate risk structure fire includes:
 Establish command;
 Conduct scene assessment;
 Communicate the plan of action to involved personnel;  Request additional resources as needed;
 Prepare for rescue operations of occupants as needed;  Establish an uninterrupted water supply to provide water;  Establish a scene safety officer;
 Establish the two in two out and rapid intervention crews;  Provide additional fire attack lines;
693 of 801 847 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
APPENDIX A Page A-3
 Establish back up and exposure protection hose lines;  Assign personnel to ventilate the fire, heat and smoke from the structure;  Conduct primary and secondary search of the structure;  Secure and control utilities; and
 Perform salvage operations of personal property and overhaul fire damaged areas to extinguish all fire within the structure.

The order of task assignment and deployment of fire personnel is determined by the incident commander, and is dictated by the dynamics related to that particular fire.

Task Fire Personnel Company
Command/Size Up 1 Battalion Chief
Fire Attack Lines 2 1st Engine
Pump Operator 1 1st Engine
Primary Search/Rescue 2 2nd Engine
Water Supply 1 2nd Engine
Two Out/Utilities and Safety 3 3rd Engine
Ventilation/Ladders 2 1st Truck company
Forcible Entry/Search/Rescue Support 2 1st truck company Total Initial Fire Attack Personnel 14 5 fire apparatus 694 of 801 848 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16

APPENDIX B
Appendix B

DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
695 of 801 849 of 955
Richmond
Richmond
Antioch
Concord
Oakley
Danville
Hercules
Pittsburg
Orinda
Pinole
San
Ramon
Lafayette
Walnut
Creek
Martinez
Brentwood
Moraga
Clayton
Pleasant
Hill
El
Cerrito
San
Pablo
Richmond
Bay Point
Bethel Island
North Richmond
Mountain View
Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) Determination
American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2009 - 2013) 0 2 4 8
Miles
µ
Legend
Disadvantaged Cities or Census Designated Places (CDPs) Disadvantaged Communities
Disadvantaged Community includes Census Tracts, Block Groups, and Places where the median household income is less than 80% of the statewide median household income
APPENDIX B Page B-1 696 of 801 850 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16

APPENDIX C
Appendix C
2009 EMS/FIRE MSR – STATUS OF SOI UPDATES
697 of 801 851 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
APPENDIX C Page C-1
2009 EMS/Fire MSR – Status of SOI Updates

AGENCY SOI UPDATE
County Service Area (CSA) EM-1 Retained existing coterminous SOI Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
(ConFire)
Expanded SOI to include area southeast of
Clayton, Roddy Ranch area, eastern
boundary areas in the cities of Antioch and
Pittsburg already served by ConFire;
removed from SOI Bogue Ranch area
previously annexed to SRVFPD, and 101
acres in Orinda previously annexed to
MOFD; and continued to exclude from SOI
the western boundary areas (i.e., City of
San Pablo, and unincorporated areas
including Bayview, East Richmond Heights,
El Sobrante, Montalvin Manor, North
Richmond, Tara Hills) in anticipation of a
future West County fire consolidation
Crockett-Carquinez Fire Protection District
(CCFPD)
Deferred SOI update pending the formation
of a West County Ad Hoc Committee to
address issues raised in the 2009 MSR
report
East Contra Costa Fire Protection District
(ECCFPD)
Removed from SOI Roddy Ranch property
Kensington Fire Protection District (KFPD) Deferred SOI update pending the formation of a West County Ad Hoc Committee to
address issues raised in the 2009 MSR
report and to complete MSR for Kensington
CSD
Moraga Orinda Fire District (MOFD) Expanded SOI to include 101 acres previously annexed to MOFD
Rodeo Hercules Fire Protection District
(RHFPD)
Deferred SOI update pending the formation
of a West County Ad Hoc Committee to
address issues raised in the 2009 MSR
report
San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District
(SRVFPD)
Expanded SOI to include previously annexed
areas (Tassajara Valley/Morgan Territory,
Bogue Ranch)
City of El Cerrito Retained existing SOI following West County Sub-regional MSR covering city services
City of Pinole Retained existing SOI following West County Sub-regional MSR covering city services
City of Richmond Removed from the SOI areas east of Bonita Road and at North Arlington
698 of 801 852 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16

APPENDIX D
Appendix D

FIRE STATIONS AND STAFFING
CHANGES RELATIVE TO THE 2009 MSR
699 of 801 853 of 955
Table 3-8 from 2009 MSR, Updated 2015: Fire Station Condition, Staffing and Apparatus FS Address Condition Staff Needs Year
Built
1 1330 Civic Dr.,
Walnut Creek CA 94596
Fair 2 Captains, 2 Engineers, 2
FirefightersStaffing reduced to 5
Firefighters
1965
2 2012 Geary Rd., Pleasant Hill CA
94523
Fair 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter 1966
3 1520 Rossmoor Pkwy., Walnut Creek
CA 94595
Good 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter 1997
4 700 Hawthorne Dr., Walnut Creek CA
94596
Fair Poor 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
FirefighterStation currently closed
1956
5 205 Boyd Rd., Pleasant Hill CA
94523
Fair 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter 1963
6 2210 Willow Pass Rd., Concord CA
94520
Fair Poor 2 Captains, 2 Engineers, 2
FirefightersStaffing reduced to 5
Firefighters
1939
7 1050 Walnut Ave., Walnut Creek CA
94598
Good 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter 1991
8 4647 Clayton Rd., Concord CA 94521 Fair Poor 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1 Firefighter 1953
9 209 Center Ave.,
Pacheco CA 94553
Fair Poor 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter 1956
10 2955 Treat Blvd., Concord CA 94518 Fair 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1 Firefighter 1967
11 6500 Center Ave.,
Clayton CA 94517
Excellent
Good
1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter 2002
12 1240 Shell Ave.,
Martinez CA 94553
Fair Poor 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter Station currently
closed
1956
13 251 Church St.,
Martinez CA 94553
Fair 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter 1964
14 521 Jones St.,
Martinez CA 94553
Fair 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter 1951
15 3338 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Lafayette CA
94549
Good Fair 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter 1968
16 4007 Los Arabis Dr., Lafayette CA
94549
Poor 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter Currently closed
Replace, relocate
(planned) 1958
17 620 St. Mary's Rd., Lafayette CA
94549
Fair 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter 1957
18 145 Sussex St.,
Clyde CA 94520
Fair Unstaffed with 10 on-call No
longer in use, being sold
Per ConFire, 4/18/16 1946
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ConFire)
APPENDIX D Page D-1 700 of 801 854 of 955
Table 3-8 from 2009 MSR, Updated 2015: Fire Station Condition, Staffing and Apparatus FS Address Condition Staff Needs Year
Built
19 1019 Garcia Ranch Rd., Martinez CA
94553
Fair Poor Unstaffed with 10 on-call
Reserve Station 1973
22 Crystal Ranch Pkwy., Concord CA
94521
Excellent
Good
1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter 1998
69 4640 Appian Way,
El Sobrante CA 94803
Fair Poor 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter 1959
70 13928 San Pablo Ave., San Pablo CA
94806
Fair Poor 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 2
Firefighters Staffing increased
from 3 to 5 Firefighters
Replace or expand 1993
81 315 W. 10th St.,
Antioch CA 94509
Good Fair 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter 1957
82 196 Bluerock Dr.,
Antioch CA 94509
Excellent
Good
1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter 2003
83 2717 Gentrytown Dr., Antioch CA
94509
Good Fair 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter 1973
84 200 E. 6th St., 1903 Railroad
AvePittsburg CA 94565
Fair
Excellent
1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter
Replace, relocate
(planned) 1969
85 2555 Harbor St., 2331 Loveridge
Rd.Pittsburg CA 94565
Poor
Excellent
1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter
Replace, relocate
(planned) 1969
86 3000 Willow Pass Rd., Bay Point CA
94565
Fair Poor 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter
Replace, relocate
(planned) 1946
87 800 W. Leland Dr., Pittsburg CA
94565
Excellent
Good
1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter Currently Closed 1999
88 4288 Folsom Dr.,
Antioch CA 94531
Good 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter 1996
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (ConFire) Cont'd APPENDIX D Page D-2 701 of 801 855 of 955
Table 3-8 from 2009 MSR, Updated 2015: Fire Station Condition, Staffing and Apparatus FS Address Condition Staff Needs Year
FS Address Condition Staff Needs Built Year
Built
30 11445 Windemere Pkwy. San Ramon
CA 94583
Excellent 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter/Paramedic, Training
Captain/Safety Officer
2002
31 800 San Ramon Valley Blvd., Danville
CA 94526
Good 1 Battalion Chief, 2 Captains, 2
Engineers, 2
Firefighters/Paramedics
1970
32 1101 Stone Valley Rd. Alamo CA
94507
Fair - to
be
replaced
2 1 Captains, 2 1 Engineers, 2
3 Firefighters/Paramedics
Replace, relocate
(planned) 1957
33 1051 Diablo Rd.

Danville CA 94526
Good 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter/Paramedic 1965
34 12599 Alcosta Blvd. San Ramon CA
94583
Good 2 Captains, 2 Engineers, 2
Firefighters/Paramedic 1980
35 505 Silver Oak Ln. Danville CA
94506
Good 2 Captains, 2 Engineers, 2
Firefighters/Paramedics
1985
36 2001 Lusitano St. Blackhawk, CA
94506
Excellent 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter/Paramedic 2009
37 10207-A Morgan Territory Rd.,
Livermore CA 94551
Good Unstaffed (15 on-call firefighters
11 on-call volunteers)
1992
38 1600 Bollinger Canyon Rd., San
Ramon CA 94583
Good 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter/Paramedic 1989
39 9399 Fircrest Ln.

San Ramon CA 94583
Good 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 3
Firefighters, 2 Paramedics3
Firefighter/Paramedics
Relocate farther north
1998
40 9017 Double Tree Lane Livermore,
CA 94550
Good Unstaffed (3 on-call firefighters
volunteers)
NP
41 1280 Moraga Way
Moraga CA 94556
Fair/Poor 1 Captain, 2 Engineer, 2
Firefighters
Replace or rehabilitate
Rehabilitation planned
2019
1967
42 555 Moraga Rd.

Moraga CA 94556
Excellent 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter 2001
43 20 Via Las Cruces Orinda, CA 94563 Fair/Poor 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1 Firefighter
Replace or rehabilitate.

Rebuild in-progress;
expected completion
2017
1952
44 295 Orchard Rd.

Orinda CA 94563
Excellent 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter 2006
45 33 Orinda Way
Orinda CA 94563
Good 1 Captain, 2 1 Engineers, 21
Firefighters, 1 Battalion Chief;
add'l risk-based staff as needed
Remove fuel tanks
(planned)(completed) 1969
San Ramon Valley FPD
Moraga-Orinda FD
APPENDIX D Page D-3 702 of 801 856 of 955
Table 3-8 from 2009 MSR, Updated 2015: Fire Station Condition, Staffing and Apparatus FS Address Condition Staff Needs Year
Built
52 201 John Muir Parkway, Brentwood
CA 94513
Excellent 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter
2002
54 739 1st St., Brentwood CA 94513 Poor 1 Captain, 1 Engineer CLOSED Replace, relocate (planned)CLOSED
Early
1940s
57 3024 1st St., Byron CA 94513 Fair 1 Engineer, 1 FirefighterCLOSED 1970s 58 1535 Discovery Bay Blvd., Discovery
Bay CA 94514
Poor 1 Captain, 1 Firefighter CLOSED Repair or close
CLOSED (Sept. 21,
2014)
1970s
59 1801 Bixler Rd., Discovery Bay CA
94513
Excellent 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter
Relocate farther south
2003
93 215 2nd Street, 530 O'Hara Avenue,
Oakley CA 94561
Fair
Excellent
1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter
Replace, relocate farther
south (planned)New
station constructed
1960s
2012
94 215 A St., Knightsen CA 94548 Fair 1 Captain, 1 Firefighter CLOSED CLOSED (May, 2015) 1960s 95 3045 Ranch Ln., Bethel Island CA
94511
Poor 1 Captain, 1 Firefighter CLOSED Repair 1961
61 140 W. Richmond Ave. Richmond CA
94801
Fair 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter
New roof n/a 1960
62 1065 7th St.

Richmond CA 94801
Fair 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter
Seismic upgrade Late
70s
63 5201 Valley View Rd. El Sobrante CA 1974
94803
Fair 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter
Replace Late
80s
64 4801 Bayview Ave. 1992
Richmond CA 94804
Fair 2 Captains, 2 Engineers, 2
Firefighters
Seismic upgrade Late
70s
1976 66 4100 Clinton Ave.

Richmond CA 94805
Fair Poor 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter
Replace Early
1940s
67 1131 Cutting Blvd. 1942
Richmond CA 94804
Fair 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter
Seismic upgrade 1942
1943
68 2904 Hilltop Dr.

Richmond CA 94806
Fair 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter
Seismic upgrade,
renovate
1984
1982
71 10900 San Pablo Ave. El Cerrito, CA
94530
Fair 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter, Battalion Chief
Expand or replace 1960
72 1520 Arlington Ave. El Cerrito, CA
94530
Excellent 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter
2001
1997
65 217 Arlington Ave.

Kensington CA 94707
Good Fair 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter 1971
City of Richmond
City of El Cerrito
East Contra Costa FPD
APPENDIX D Page D-4 703 of 801 857 of 955
Table 3-8 from 2009 MSR, Updated 2015: Fire Station Condition, Staffing and Apparatus FS Address Condition Staff Needs Year
Built
73 880 Tennent Ave
Pinole, CA 94564
Good
Poor
1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter/Paramedic
Replace or relocate
south 1984
74 3700 Pinole Valley Rd. Pinole, CA
94564
Good 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
FirefighterUnstaffed
2003
75 326 Third St.

Rodeo, CA 94572
Good 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter/Paramedic 24 1995
76 1680 Refugio Valley Rd. Hercules, CA
94547
Good 1 Captain, 1 Engineer, 1
Firefighter/Paramedic 1991
77 49 Canyon Lake Dr. Port Costa, CA
94569
Good Unstaffed
1990
78 746 Loring Ave.

Crockett, CA 94525
Fair Three (7 p.m. - 7 a.m.)
None (7 a.m. - 7 p.m.)
Repair 1957
79 1425 Lillian St.

Crockett, CA 94525
Excellent Unstaffed by CCFPD AMR
paramedic housed 2002
City of Pinole
Rodeo-Hercules FPD
Crockett-Carquinez FPD
Source: 2009 MSR; 2015 LAFCO Request for Information
Notes:
(1) Fire station condition definitions: Excellent—relatively new (less than 10 years old) and requires minimal maintenance.

Good—reliable and requires only routine maintenance. Fair—non-routine renovation, upgrading and repairs are needed to ensure continued reliable operation. Poor—replacement or major renovations are required to restore the facility and ensure reliable operation.

APPENDIX D Page D-5 704 of 801 858 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
APPENDIX E Page E-1
Appendix E

FIRE BRIGADES
705 of 801 859 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
APPENDIX E Page E-1

FIRE BRIGADES
Private Fire Brigades – Within Contra Costa County, there are four fuel refineries (Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Shell, and Tesoro), one large chemical plant complex (Dow Chemical), and one large sugar processing plant (C&H Sugar).

One refinery, Chevron, has a full-time, paid fire department. The others operate fire brigades, with a manager functioning as the Fire Chief in addition to other duties. Initial attack response capabilities for these six facilities are summarized as follows:
 Chevron (Richmond) – Chevron operates its own, private fire department, which is comprised of 31 full-time personnel, including a full-time Fire Chief, six subordinate Chief Officers, Captains, Lieutenants, and Firefighters.

Chevron Fire has an on-duty daily minimum staffing level of four (4) personnel, who are supplemented by 10-15 Operators.
 Chevron Fire employs an Emergency Response Preparedness Coordinator (ERPC), who is a direct report to the Fire Chief.
 Chevron Fire has an operating agreement with the City of Richmond Fire Department.
 ConocoPhillips (Hercules) – Conoco operates a private fire brigade, comprised of Operators who work at the refinery.
 ConocoPhillips has an operating agreement with the Rodeo-Hercules Fire District.
 Shell (Martinez) – Shell operates a private fire brigade, comprised of Operators who work at the refinery.
 Tesoro (Unincorporated Contra Costa County) – Tesoro operates a private fire brigade, comprised of Operators who work at the refinery.  Dow Chemical (Pittsburgh) – Dow Chemical operates a private fire brigade, comprised of Operators who work at the site.
 C&H Sugar (Crockett) – C&H Sugar operates a private fire brigade, comprised of Operators who work at the site.

All refineries have members that attend biannual or annual refinery training at the Texas A & M Engineering Extension (TEEX) facility in Texas.

Chevron Fire is presently aligned with the California State Fire Training standards for Firefighter-I and II; Hazardous Materials Technician and Specialist; and TEEX.

Chevron Fire offers training opportunities for local government firefighters through its training center and free TEEX courses in Texas.
706 of 801 860 of 955
MRG and Berkson Associates MSR/SOI Updates –2nd Round EMS/Fire Services Final Draft Report 8/3/16
APPENDIX E Page E-2
C&H Sugar and Tesoro lie outside any fire district boundary in unincorporated areas of the County.

Presently, local government fire service agencies are expected to respond to both routine and major emergencies at all these facilities to provide personnel, equipment, ALS first-responder medical care, ALS ambulance transport, and fire investigation. These responses are provided either through automatic-aid, mutualaid, or as the AHJ.

Mutual Aid from the refineries is infrequent and only Chevron could provide services other than petro-chemical emergency response off-site.

These facilities have the operational and overhead capacity to handle small incidents without mutual aid from local government agencies. Medium and large incidents require support and management from local agencies. Large incidents, particularly those involving off-site releases, require the use of an incident management team (IMT), the activation of emergency operations center(s) (EOCs), and public information functions. These are not presently well defined or exercised.

In 1980, several refineries signed a cooperative mutual aid agreement, known as the Petro-Chemical Mutual Aid Organization (PMAO). This emergency response cooperative was formed with the purpose of providing materials and equipment during an emergency. Presently, all four refineries, Dow Chemical, the Valero refinery (in Benicia), ConFire, and West Sacramento Fire are participating members. PMAO meets monthly. Emergency services include specially trained personnel, high capacity fire pumps, and large quantities of firefighting foam.

These resources are also available to municipal fire agencies for large petrochemical incidents through mutual-aid requests. PMAO mutual-aid response capabilities are organized into four (4) taskforces, which are categorized as follows:

1. Firefighting tactics

2. Foam and water supply tactics

3. Tank fire suppression (tanks <200-ft in diameter)

4. Tank fire suppression (tanks >200-ft in diameter)
The PMAO agreement is not integrated into the County Mutual Aid Plan.

Source: Fire Chief Stephen Healy, MOFD, Contra Costa County Operational Area mutual aid Coordinator; Lewis Broschard III, Deputy Chief, ConFire. 707 of 801 861 of 955
Likely Voter Survey
City of Pinole
November 2019

ATTACHMENT H
708 of 801 862 of 955
19-7342 City of Pinole Voter Survey | 2
Methodology
Please note that due to rounding, some percentages may not add up to exactly 100%.  Survey of likely November 2020 voters in Pinole, California  Hybrid phone and email-to-web methodology
 Survey conducted November 4 – 12, 2019
 426 interviews; overall margin of error ±4.75 percentage points  Surveys conducted by phone were done by trained, professional interviewers; landlines and mobile phones included
 Respondents were sent an email invitation with a link to take the survey online
 Offered in English and Spanish
709 of 801 863 of 955
19-7342 City of Pinole Voter Survey | 3
Key Findings
 Voters in Pinole are feeling optimistic about the direction of the City and rate City services very favorably.
 A potential $698 parcel tax to fund enhanced fire services falls short of the two-thirds threshold needed for passage.
 An alternate option of $498 to re-open Fire Station 74 and continue providing services independently also falls short of two-thirds.  Additional information does not move the needle in terms of support for the measure, but modest opposition messaging does negatively impact support. 710 of 801 864 of 955
Issue Environment
711 of 801 865 of 955
19-7342 City of Pinole Voter Survey | 5
Right Direction/Wrong Track
Voters are feeling optimistic about the direction of the City.

Right Direction
47%
Wrong Track
16%
(Don't Know)
38%
Q4. Do you feel that things in the City of Pinole are generally going in the right direction or do you feel things have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track? 712 of 801 866 of 955
19-7342 City of Pinole Voter Survey | 6
Most Important Problem
14%
13%
9%
8%
7%
6%
6%
5%
4%
4%
2%
2%
7%
3%
11%
Traffic/Transportation
Public Services Funding/Spending
Crime/Policing
City Budget/Policies
Housing/Overpopulation
Infrastructure/Roads/Power issues
Jobs/Economy/Development
Schools/Education
Community Improvements
Wildfires/Fire Safety
Homelessness
Taxes
None/Nothing
Other
Don't Know
There is not one single top of mind issue for voters, but transportation and public services spending rise to the top.

Q5. What do you think is the most important issue facing the City of Pinole today? 713 of 801 867 of 955
19-7342 City of Pinole Voter Survey | 7
65%
51%
11%
21%
29%
36%
10%
8%
35%
2%
8%
14%
1%
3%
5%
86%
80%
46%
4%
12%
19%
The Pinole Fire Department
The Pinole Police Department
The Pinole City Council
Strongly
favorable
Somewhat
favorable
No opinion/
Never heard of
Somewhat
unfavorable
Strongly
unfavorable
Pinole Favorable Ratings
Q6-8. I'm going to read you a list of several people and organizations. Please tell me if you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or strongly unfavorable opinion of each one. If you have never heard of one, please just say so.

Total
Fav.

Total
Unfav.

Voters have a very favorable opinion of the Pinole Fire Department. The Pinole Police Department is also viewed favorably, albeit with less intensity. One-third of Pinole voters cannot rate the City Council, but it is generally viewed favorably by those with an opinion. 714 of 801 868 of 955
19-7342 City of Pinole Voter Survey | 8
49%
41%
35%
22%
9%
30%
50%
45%
51%
32%
10%
1%
3%
8%
37%
9%
7%
14%
14%
15%
2%
1%
2%
4%
7%
79%
91%
81%
73%
41%
11%
8%
17%
18%
23%
The overall quality of the city's fire services
The overall quality of life
The overall safety of the city
The job the City of Pinole is doing to
provide city services
Management of city finances
Very
Satisfied
Somewhat
Satisfied
Don't Know/
No Opinion
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Very
Dissatisfied
Satisfaction with City Services
Q9-13. Would you say you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with each of the following in Pinole?
Total
Sat.

Total
Dissat.

Voters are satisfied with the overall quality of life in Pinole, and the City’s fire services receive a strong satisfaction rating. 715 of 801 869 of 955
19-7342 City of Pinole Voter Survey | 9
37%
34%
29%
14%
37%
33%
21%
38%
9%
4%
10%
14%
11%
15%
21%
21%
6%
14%
18%
14%
74%
67%
51%
52%
17%
29%
40%
35%
I am satisfied with the current level of
service provided by the Pinole Fire
Department.

It is crucial to have high-quality fire
protection services in Pinole, even if it
means raising taxes.

Taxes in Pinole are already high enough,
I'll vote against any new tax measure.

I trust the City of Pinole to properly
manage tax dollars.

Strongly
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Don't Know/
Refused
Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Agree/Disagree Statements
Q27-30. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each of the following statements.

Total
Agree
Total
Disagree
There is satisfaction with the current level of service provided by the PFD. While a majority agree it is crucial to have high quality fire services, even if it means raising taxes, a majority also indicate they will vote against any new tax measures. 716 of 801 870 of 955
Support for a Potential Parcel Tax
717 of 801 871 of 955
19-7342 City of Pinole Voter Survey | 11
Initial Vote – $698 Parcel Tax
Q14. Next I’m going to read you a measure that may appear on the ballot in the future. 55%
41%
Lean 2%
Lean 1%
Yes
57%
No
42%
(Undecided)
1%
Yes No (Undecided)
To re-open Fire Station 74 on Pinole Valley Road
to improve 911 response times, increase
disaster response capabilities, and enhance fire
protection services by contracting with Contra
Costa Fire Protection District, shall the City of
Pinole adopt a measure to levy $698 per single
family parcel, other parcel types at specified
rates, until ended by voters, raising $4,500,000
annually, with exemptions for low-income
seniors, with all money spent on fire protection
services in Pinole?
If the election were held today, would you vote yes to
approve or no to reject this measure?
A majority of residents initially support a $698 Parcel Tax, but the initial support falls well-short of the two-thirds threshold required for passage.
718 of 801 872 of 955
19-7342 City of Pinole Voter Survey | 12
Initial Vote – Alternative Option
Q15. The City of Pinole could consider an alternate option to the measure you just heard... Based on what you heard, would you vote yes to approve or no to reject this option? 48% 48%
Lean 1% Lean 1%
Yes
49%
No
49%
(Undecided)
2%
Yes No (Undecided)
The City of Pinole could consider an alternate
option to the measure you just heard. This option
would result in the City reopening Fire Station 74
and continuing to provide fire protection services
independently. This option would NOT include
additional service capacity with Contra Costa Fire
Protection District, and the annual levy would be
$498 per parcel per year, raising approximately
$3,000,000 annually.

Based on what you heard, would you vote yes to
approve or no to reject this option?
Opinion is evenly split on the $498 alternative parcel tax option. 719 of 801 873 of 955
19-7342 City of Pinole Voter Survey | 13
Measure Components Importance
Q16-26. I’m going to read you a list of items that this measure could help pay for. After each one, please rate how important that item is to you, using a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means not at all important, and 7 means extremely important. 55%
52%
52%
50%
49%
43%
21%
27%
21%
30%
31%
31%
12%
14%
11%
11%
13%
15%
5%
4%
8%
4%
4%
7%
7%
3%
7%
5%
3%
4%

5.80 5.93

5.63 5.78

5.86 5.66
Requiring all money from this measure is spent
only on fire protection services in the City of Pinole
Improving 911 fire and medical emergency
response times
Exempting low-income seniors from paying the tax
Attracting and retaining qualified professional
firefighters
Enhancing disaster response capabilities
Improving local emergency fire protection services
7 - Extremely Important 5-6 4/(Don't Know) 2-3 1 - Not At All Important Mean Top measure components include the requirement that all funds be spent in Pinole on fire protection, and improving 911 response times. Retaining quality firefighters, and enhancing disaster response are also very important. 720 of 801 874 of 955
19-7342 City of Pinole Voter Survey | 14
Measure Components Importance (Cont.)
Q16-26. I’m going to read you a list of items that this measure could help pay for. After each one, please rate how important that item is to you, using a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means not at all important, and 7 means extremely important. 42%
38%
36%
32%
32%
26%
32%
35%
31%
32%
13%
19%
17%
18%
20%
10%
6%
7%
10%
10%
9%
4%
4%
8%
6%

5.31 5.55

5.49 5.14

5.21 Re-opening fire station 74 on Pinole Valley Road
Replacing hoses, fire engines, and other emergency
equipment
Expanding firefighter training and supervision
Expanding and enhancing fire protection services
by partnering with Contra Costa Fire Protection
District
Increasing the number of firefighters in the City of
Pinole
7 - Extremely Important 5-6 4/(Don't Know) 2-3 1 - Not At All Important Mean Less important to voters (but still important overall) are the expansion of the Contra Costa Fire Protection District partnership, and increasing the number of firefighters in Pinole. Re-opening Station 74 is rated as unimportant to 1-in-5 voters. 721 of 801 875 of 955
19-7342 City of Pinole Voter Survey | 15
Parcel Tax Support Statements
Q31-39. Next, I’d like to read you statements people who support the proposed measure for Pinole might say. After each one, please tell me how convincing that statement is as a reason to vote for the measure.

That the great majority of calls routed to the PFD are medical emergencies is the most convincing reason to support a measure that increases fire protection services in the City. Medical response improvements are a compelling theme. 46%
37%
36%
36%
35%
32%
38%
33%
37%
40%
78%
75%
69%
73%
75%
Nearly eighty percent of 911 calls routed to the fire department are medical emergencies. Firefighters are the first to arrive, and have a paramedic with them. This measure will provide resources so emergency help comes quickly.

This measure will help local firefighters better prepare for fighting wildfires by enhancing fire prevention services including increasing inspections, controlling weeds, tall grass, and brush and providing additional training.

Inadequate funding forced the City to close a fire station. This measure would provide additional revenue to hire more firefighters, reopen an additional fire station, and to improve response throughout our community.

Right now we must depend on help from other fire agencies when there is more than one fire department emergency. This measure would increase the number of available firefighters and equipment so help comes more quickly.

This measure will allow the City to reopen Fire Station 74 on Pinole Valley Road. This means improved 9-1-1 fire and medical response times, more and better trained firefighters, and first responders on both sides of Highway 80.

Very Convincing Somewhat Convincing
722 of 801 876 of 955
19-7342 City of Pinole Voter Survey | 16
Parcel Tax Support Statements
Q31-39. Next, I’d like to read you statements people who support the proposed measure for Pinole might say. After each one, please tell me how convincing that statement is as a reason to vote for the measure.

Voters are less convinced by information focused on population growth and hiring and training of firefighters. 34%
33%
31%
25%
38%
40%
38%
39%
72%
73%
69%
64%
This measure guarantees that the money raised by this measure will be spent on fire protection and emergency response services. Strict financial accountability provisions will ensure that money is spent properly and not used for any other purpose.

This measure offers the best protection for our community, by re-opening Fire Station 74 and entering the City into a partnership with the Contra Costa Fire Protection District, so our firefighters have access to the best training.

Fire and medical emergency call volume has increased in the past several years, and with the population in our region growing we need this measure now so we can protect fire services in Pinole from being overwhelmed in the future.

This measure will provide our local firefighters with additional training, resources, and flexibility so that they can better serve our community.

Very Convincing Somewhat Convincing
723 of 801 877 of 955
19-7342 City of Pinole Voter Survey | 17
Vote After Support – $698 Parcel Tax
After additional information, there is not a significant change in voters’ approval of the measure.

Q40. Given what you’ve heard, I’d like to ask you about the measure again… If the election were held today, would you vote yes to approve or no to reject this measure? 55%
41%
54%
43%
Lean 2%
Lean 1%
Lean 1%
Yes
57%
No
42%
(Undecided)
1%
Yes
56%
No
43%
(Undecided)
2%
Yes No (Undecided) Yes No (Undecided)
Initial After
Support
724 of 801 878 of 955
19-7342 City of Pinole Voter Survey | 18
Parcel Tax Opposition Statements
Q41-43. Next, I’d like to read you statements that people who oppose the proposed measure for Pinole might say. After each one, please tell me how convincing that statement is as a reason to vote against the measure.

Potential opposition arguments are compelling to voters. 35%
25%
15%
28%
35%
27%
63%
60%
42%
The City needs to do a better job of managing the money they already have instead of asking taxpayers for more.

With so many of the Fire Department’s calls coming for medical purposes, we do not need to re-open Fire Station 74. It would be more cost effective and a better use of taxpayer money to fund an additional medical unit in Pinole.

Fire services in Pinole are just fine with only one fire station. This tax is unnecessary, especially because the population of our city isn’t anticipated to grow quickly in the near future.

Very Convincing Somewhat Convincing
725 of 801 879 of 955
19-7342 City of Pinole Voter Survey | 19
Vote After Potential Opposition
Even modest opposition messaging erodes support for a potential measure.

Q44. Now given everything you’ve heard, if the election were held today would you vote yes to approve or no to reject the proposed $698 per parcel tax in the City of Pinole to fund fire services? 55%
41%
54%
43%
48% 50%
Lean 2%
Lean 1%
Lean 1%
Lean 1%
Yes
57%
No
42%
(Undecided)
1%
Yes
56%
No
43%
(Undecided)
2%
Yes
49%
No
50%
(Undecided)
1%
Yes No (Undecided) Yes No (Undecided) Yes No (Undecided) After
Support
After
Opposition
Initial
726 of 801 880 of 955
19-7342 City of Pinole Voter Survey | 20
Vote After Information – Alternative Option
After messaging, the alternative option that sees a lesser per-parcel levy on residents is not viewed more favorably by a significant margin.

Q45. Lastly, if the election were held today would you vote yes to approve or no to reject the alternate option… with an annual levy of $498 per parcel per year in the City of Pinole to fund fire services? 48% 48% 50% 47%
Lean 1% Lean 1% Lean 1%
Lean 1%
Yes
49%
No
49%
(Undecided)
2%
Yes
51% No
48%
(Undecided)
2%
Yes No (Undecided) Yes No (Undecided)
Initial After
Information
727 of 801 881 of 955
19-7342 City of Pinole Voter Survey | 21
Conclusions
 Voters are satisfied with current service levels and indicate a potential willingness to invest in fire services.
 A potential parcel tax to fund maintained or enhanced fire services in Pinole does may be challenging at this time at the tax amount tested.  This research could provide opportunities to refine the ballot language, based on known interests of the community, in the event re-testing language next year is of interest to the City.
 Should the City place a measure on a future ballot, a privately funded campaign effort is recommended.
728 of 801 882 of 955
Emily Goodman
[email protected]
510.550.8932
Brendan Kara
[email protected]
202-686-5902
729 of 801 883 of 955

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
Administrative Fire Captain Duties and Responsibilities • Report Management System (RMS) Administration
o Our Fire RMS system is not operating optimally. Not all incidents generate reports in the software, and of those generated, some reports are retrievable, while others are not. This represents potential serious liability for the City. The solution is to have a program manager who can audit reports, and work with IT to address these systemic problems, thereby facilitating proper completion and archiving of emergency incident reports. The Administrative Captain would be this program manager. • Electronic Daily Staffing Software Administration
o Currently, PFD is using an antiquated method for managing daily staffing and accountability – pen and paper in a logbook – for payroll and other purposes. PFD is the only fire agency in the County who still does this.

Electronic staffing software like Telestaff and CrewSense interface with payroll software and streamline this and other processes such as leave management and overtime assignment. The Administrative Captain would manage this program as well.
• Policy/Procedure Implementation and Administration
o The Fire Department currently has no cogent, cohesive set of departmental policies and procedures.
▪ We have contracted with Lexipol, a program designed to address the issue above. However, Lexipol assumes that there is a program manager dedicated to overseeing and administering this endeavor. The Administrative Captain would fill this role. • Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Administration
o Narcotics tracking and inventory
▪ Management/administration of the County-mandated software for narcotics tracking.
➢ PFD is the only agency in the County who does not have an electronic narcotics tracking system. Currently, we conduct a manual daily inventory on a paper log sheet, then email same to County EMS on a weekly basis. The County EMS
Medical Director has mandated that PFD adopt a narcotics tracking software system comparable to other County fire and EMS agencies. The Administrative Captain would serve as this program manager.

ATTACHMENT I
730 of 801 884 of 955
City Council Report
Meeting Date: March 16, 2021 2
o EMS Training Program Design
▪ Quarterly classroom instruction
▪ Continuing Education (CE)
▪ Skills Verification
▪ Liaison with contracted skills instructor.
▪ Liaison with County EMS Agency (LEMSA)
▪ Mandatory Standards Compliance (National, State, and LEMSA) ▪ Certification/Accreditation
▪ Records Keeping
• Fire Training
o Fire Training Program Design
▪ Develop, revise, and evaluate departmental company performance standards
▪ Secure training sites
▪ Schedule single company drills/Multi-company drills
▪ Liaison for new recruits in training academies (Berkeley, Confire, or other)
▪ Target Solutions training software administration and assignment of online classes
▪ Mandatory standards compliance (NFPA, OSFM)
▪ Certification/accreditation
▪ Maintain awareness of new developments in the field of firefighter safety and incorporate new developments as appropriate into programs
▪ Records keeping
• Vehicle Maintenance
o Scheduling
o Records keeping
• Cost Recovery
o Management/administration of incident cost recovery program (primarily via motor vehicle accidents and associated auto insurance claims) • Departmental Projects
o Manage the department’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and Emergency Operations Center (EOC)
o Act as liaison with California Office of Emergency Services and Contra Costa County Emergency Management
o Other projects as needed
• Other Essential Duties and Functions
o Receive and evaluate a variety of documents, reports, and statistical information for the department
731 of 801 885 of 955
City Council Report
Meeting Date: March 16, 2021 3
o Prepare and maintain special reports, letters, proposals, and records on fire activities
o Review incident reports
o Prepare and present staff reports and other necessary correspondence o Oversee and control the purchasing, maintenance, and inventory of all fire related equipment and property including communication equipment, vehicles and related equipment, computer equipment, and safety equipment. Identify additional funding requirements
o Coordinate purchasing of departmental supplies
o Provide administrative oversight and coordination support for all annual employee physicals
o Participate in the department’s recruitment and promotional selection processes
o May respond to incidents at the request of the Incident Commander o Represent the Fire Department to other departments, elected officials, and outside agencies; act as liaison to other agencies; serve on a variety of committees and task forces; attend and participate in professional group meetings
o Act as the departmental safety officer
o Ensure fire personnel are developed to prepare for succession planning within the agency
o Assist the Fire Chief in the development and implementation of a comprehensive strategic plan for the Fire Department
o Develop tactical objectives to reach departmental strategic goals o Assist the Fire Chief in the annual development and administration of the departmental budget
o Monitor expenditures
o Ensure compliance with financial priorities as determined by the Fire Chief o Recommend budget adjustments as needed
o Research grant opportunities
o Respond to and resolve citizen inquiries and complaints 732 of 801 886 of 955

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT
How Having an Administrative Fire Captain Will Fortify the Fire Department
• Better Performance
o Manage the department’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and Emergency Operations Center (EOC).
o Act as liaison with California Office of Emergency Services and Contra Costa County Emergency Management.
o Develop, revise, and evaluate departmental company performance standards. o Assess, analyze, and determine required skills and capabilities of all departmental personnel to meet requirements of job descriptions. o Provide administrative oversight and coordination support for all annual employee physicals.
o Participate in the department’s recruitment and promotional selection processes.
o Provide oversight to the department’s apparatus and equipment maintenance program; ensure all Fire Department vehicles, apparatus, and equipment are maintained at a highly operational level.
o May respond to incidents at the request of the Incident Commander. o Represent the Fire Department to other departments, elected officials, and outside agencies.
o Act as liaison to other agencies; serve on a variety of committees and task forces; attend and participate in professional group meetings. o Coordinate assigned activities with those of other departments, outside agencies, and organizations.
o Ensure fire personnel are developed to prepare for succession planning within the agency.
• Better Analytical Ability
o Administer report management system (RMS), electronic daily staffing software, policy/procedure implementation, emergency medical services (EMS).
o Receive and evaluate a variety of documents, reports, and statistical information for the department.
o Assist the Fire Chief in the development and implementation of a comprehensive strategic plan for the Fire Department.
o Develop tactical objectives to reach departmental strategic goals. o Prepare and maintain special reports, letters, proposals, and records on fire activities.

ATTACHMENT J
733 of 801 887 of 955
City Council Report
Meeting Date: March 16, 2021 2
o Prepare and present staff reports and other necessary correspondence. • Better Trained
o Supervise all training functions.
o Develop training budget and compose various departmental reports relative to training functions.
o Develop, deliver, and monitor basic on-the-job and advanced training programs.
o Evaluate in-service training classes and drills to include training exercises on public or private property.
o Attend, and schedule personnel to attend, outside local and state training classes.
o Prioritize, formulate, and publish an Annual Training Agenda. o Schedule and chair Annual Training Meeting to include establishing training goals and objectives.
o Develop and maintain a Department Training Manual.
o Supervise shift and crew during training.
o Determine subject matter to be taught.
o Provide for and schedule instructors, training aids, and materials. • Better Fiscal Accountability
o Oversee and control the purchasing, maintenance, and inventory of all fire related equipment and property including communication equipment, vehicles and related equipment, computer equipment, and safety equipment. Identify additional funding requirements.
o Coordinate purchasing of departmental supplies.
o Assist the Fire Chief in the annual development and administration of the departmental budget.
o Monitor expenditures.
o Manage incident cost recovery program.
o Ensure compliance with financial priorities as determined by the Fire Chief. o Recommend budget adjustments as needed.
o Research grant opportunities.
• Decreased Liability
o Assist in directing disaster preparedness and other fire protection programs to minimize the loss of life and property within the community. o Act as the departmental safety officer.
o Review incident reports.
o Respond to and resolve citizen inquiries and complaints. o Establish and maintain training records on all personnel. 734 of 801 888 of 955
City Council Report
Meeting Date: March 16, 2021 3
o Maintain awareness of new developments in the field of firefighter safety and incorporate new developments as appropriate into programs. o Ensure that the Fire Department meets accreditation standards. 735 of 801 889 of 955

CITY COUNCIL
REPORT 11A
DATE: APRIL 19, 2022
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CHRIS WYNKOOP, FIRE CHIEF
SUBJECT: FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE

RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends that Council receive the Fire Chief’s update regarding departmental improvements and progress toward reopening Pinole Fire Station 74 using County Measure X funds in collaboration with Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (Confire).

INTRODUCTION
In March of 2021, the Pinole Fire Chief addressed Council with recommendations to fortify fire service delivery in response to the study conducted by Emergency Services Consulting International (ESCI) in 2019/20. The Fire Chief recommended three strategies; they were:

1. Adding an Administrative Fire Captain position

2. Transitioning from a contract Fire Inspector to a sworn Fire Prevention Captain

3. Returning to Council in Q3 FY 2021-22 with an update regarding:
a) Restoring pre-2003 staffing of 15 frontline personnel deployed as an enginesquad model from Station 73 and/or b) Contract for service/integration with Confire

BACKGROUND
Regarding the first strategy, the Fire Chief and City staff recommended that the Pinole Fire Department (PFD) add staff to address certain fundamental managerial and administrative functions such as planning, policymaking, training, records management, and evaluation. These functional deficiencies created liability and made it difficult to observe industry best practices and achieve maximum efficiency. The addition of the Administrative Fire Captain assignment supports the City’s Strategic Plan initiative of creating and maintaining a “High Performance Pinole” through “optimizing efficiencies” (Goal #4; Strategy #2).

As to the second strategy, the Fire Chief and City staff advised that the PFD should perform a broader set of fire prevention activities. Although fire prevention functions had been well performed through a contract with a private company, the Fire Chief and City

ATTACHMENT B
736 of 801 890 of 955
City Council Report
Meeting Date: April 19, 2022 2
staff determined that it would be more cost effective and productive in the long run to inhouse that function by eliminating the contract for service and creating a Fire Prevention Captain position which could also be tasked with restoring the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program. This strategy supports the City’s Strategic Plan initiative of maintaining a “Safe and Resilient Pinole” by “restoring the (CERT) program” (Goal #1; Strategy #3). The Administrative and Prevention Captains also add a layer of organizational versatility by being available to backfill fire engine personnel when backfill is difficult because of limited staff, as was encountered during COVID staffing shortages.

The third strategy was to return to Council with an update regarding either 1) returning to the staffing configuration prior to the original opening of Station 74 in 2003 (15 frontline staff deployed as an engine-squad model from Station 73); and/or 2) engaging in discussions with Confire about a contract for service/integration through which Station 74 could be reopened. Because some potential opportunities, such as Measure X and consolidation discussions among other agencies, were still unfolding at the time of the Fire Chief’s last address, City staff recommended returning to Council in Q3 FY 2021-22 with a clearer picture as to how Confire and PFD could most effectively collaborate.

Measure X funds were subsequently allocated to Confire for fire service fortification countywide under their superintendence in November of 2021, thus the picture has indeed become much clearer.

DISCUSSION
The Administrative Fire Captain assignment was filled in February 2022. In the brief two months since then, the appointment has already yielded significant dividends; among them are:
• Implementation of a recognized industry best practice narcotics tracking software (PSTrax). The program is currently enabled in its testing phase among departmental personnel. It is scheduled to go live May 1st. • Establishment of an electronic daily staffing application (Vector Scheduling) which interfaces with the City’s current Tyler Incode payroll software. This program is also enabled in its testing phase and is scheduled to go live May 23rd. • Initiation of a cost recovery program to capture billable service fees from vehicle accident insurance claims and other insurance claim-related incidents. First bills for service are anticipated to be submitted the week of May 2nd with monthly cost recovery reimbursements expected to start in June.
• Pinole representation at county-level fire operations and EMS meetings.

Additionally, the Administrative Captain oversees the departmental report management system (RMS), policy/procedure implementation, emergency medical services (EMS) administration, fire training, vehicle maintenance, and departmental projects. The PFD is already a more efficient organization because of the addition of the Administrative Captain.
737 of 801 891 of 955
City Council Report
Meeting Date: April 19, 2022 3
The Fire Prevention Captain was also chosen for assignment in February; however, the prospective Prevention Captain was reassigned to Engine 73 due to operational need, as another PFD Captain accepted a position with a neighboring fire agency. The department is scheduled to conduct a Captain’s promotional exam in June 2022, after which a new Prevention Captain will be assigned. In the meantime, fire prevention services continue to be offered through the department’s contract Fire Inspector.

Opportunities identified over the past year have brought clarity regarding whether to consider using City funds to restore pre-2003 staffing at Station 73 versus reopening Station 74 using County Measure X funds in collaboration with Confire. Measure X, which passed in the November 2020 election, is a ½ cent sales tax intended to “keep Contra Costa’s regional hospital open and staffed; fund community health centers; provide timely fire and emergency response; support crucial safety-net services; invest in early childhood services; protect vulnerable populations; and for other essential county services.”
In May of 2021, the Contra Costa County Executive Fire Chiefs presented a request to the County Measure X Advisory Board for funding to:
• Reopen five (5) closed fire stations and add 45 firefighters countywide • Mitigate extreme wildfire danger
• Address aging facilities and infrastructure
• Improve training facilities
• Update communications/emergency operations centers
• Improve emergency preparedness/planning
• Support diversity and inclusion in the workforce
Among the five fire stations proposed for reopening was Pinole Station 74. Council submitted letters to the Measure X Advisory Board as well as the County Board of Supervisors (Attachments A and B, respectively) supporting the County Chiefs’ proposal, and in November of 2021, the Board of Supervisors approved funding to support the County Chiefs’ request. $2M annually (plus COLA) of that funding was allocated toward reopening Station 74 under an integrative agreement with Confire.

With Council’s approval, the City has initiated discussions with Confire regarding a contract for service whereby the City’s budgetary contribution, subsidized by the $2M Measure X allocation, would enable both Station 73 and Station 74 to be fully staffed and operational under Confire’s superintendence. It is anticipated that the City’s contribution would be comparable to that which it currently budgets to operate one station.

At the time of submission of this staff report, the Pinole City Manager, City Attorney, and Fire Chief will have just met, or be scheduled to meet, with representatives from the County Administrator’s Office, County legal counsel, and the Confire Fire Chief, to discuss the finer points of a proposed contract between our respective agencies. Once tentative contract terms are agreed upon, an independent fiscal analysis, service plan, letter of 738 of 801 892 of 955
City Council Report
Meeting Date: April 19, 2022 4
agreement from the labor group, and resolution of Council support, will need to be submitted with the contract to the Contra Costa County LAFCO for approval. Anticipated timeline for completion of contract and LAFCO submission/approval is fall of 2022, with an estimated implementation, to include the reopening of Station 74, in late winter/early spring of 2023.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact related to receiving this update. Regarding the fiscal impact of collaborating with Confire through contract for service, it is the City’s intent to negotiate a contract with Confire through which Pinole is served by two fully staffed fire stations for a cost comparable to that which is currently being budgeted for a single station.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Council Letter of Support to the Measure X Advisory Board for Measure X Funding for Fire and Emergency Services
Attachment B Council Letter of Support to the County Board of Supervisors for Measure X Funding for Fire and Emergency Services
739 of 801 893 of 955

CITY OF PINOLE
City Hall Phone: (510) 724-9000
2131 Pear Street FAX: (510) 724-9826
Pinole, CA 94564 www.ci.pinole.ca.us
Date: July 6, 2021
To: Contra Costa County Measure X Advisory Board
From: Pinole City Council
Subject: Support of the Contra Costa County Executive Fire Chiefs’ Request for Measure X Funding to Address Critical Community Fire and Emergency Services Needs Dear Board Members,
The Pinole City Council submits this letter supporting the Contra Costa County Executive Fire Chiefs’ request for $28.85M (and $27.35M annually thereafter) in County Measure X funding to:
• Reopen five (5) closed fire stations and add 45 firefighters countywide • Mitigate extreme wildfire danger
• Address aging facilities and infrastructure
• Improve training facilities
• Update communications/emergency operations centers
• Improve emergency preparedness/planning
• Support diversity and inclusion in the workforce
Council shares the County Chiefs’ confidence that these measures will reduce countywide community risk through:
• Improved response times
• Increased services for underserved communities
• Equitable distribution of services
• Operational and administrative efficiencies
A robust fire service delivery model is a top priority for our citizens in Pinole, especially given the designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) in which many of our residents live.

Moreover, the scarcity of West County hospital emergency room services since the closure of Doctor’s Medical Centers in Pinole and San Pablo, resulting in reliance on firefighters as first-line medical assistance for many of our underserved citizens, underscores Pinole’s local concern within the broader context of the regional risk reduction strategy proposed by the County Chiefs.

In addition to serving our local citizens, the Pinole Fire Department (along with Richmond FD) serves the County’s interests by responding to the emergency needs of residents in the unincorporated County areas of Tara Hills, Bay View, and Montalvin Manor. With regard to the Advisory Board’s commitment to equity, Montalvin Manor, as defined in SB 1000, is a "Disadvantaged Community" as is Rodeo, which the Pinole FD serves in support of the RodeoHercules Fire Protection District through our County Battalion 7 automatic aid agreement.

ATTACHMENT A
740 of 801 894 of 955
Council agrees that this regional approach represents an equitable and sustainable solution to the issue of providing critical life-saving emergency response services countywide, and we urge the Measure X Advisory Board to approve the County Chiefs’ proposal as requested.

Sincerely,
Norma Martínez-Rubin
Mayor
City of Pinole
cc. Honorable Members of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors County Administrator Nino
County Finance Director Driscoll
Contra Costa County Executive Fire Chiefs
741 of 801 895 of 955

CITY OF PINOLE
City Hall Phone: (510) 724-9000
2131 Pear Street FAX: (510) 724-9826
Pinole, CA 94564 www.ci.pinole.ca.us
Date: November 8, 2021
To: Honorable Members of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors From: Pinole City Council
Subject: Support of the Contra Costa County Executive Fire Chiefs’ Request for Measure X Funding to Address Critical Community Fire and Emergency Services Needs Dear Board Members,
The Pinole City Council submits this letter supporting the Contra Costa County Executive Fire Chiefs’ request for $28.85M (and $27.35M annually thereafter) in County Measure X funding to:
• Reopen five (5) closed fire stations and add 45 firefighters countywide • Mitigate extreme wildfire danger
• Address aging facilities and infrastructure
• Improve training facilities
• Update communications/emergency operations centers
• Improve emergency preparedness/planning
• Support diversity and inclusion in the workforce
Council shares the County Chiefs’ confidence that these measures will reduce countywide community risk through:
• Improved response times
• Increased services for underserved communities
• Equitable distribution of services
• Operational and administrative efficiencies
A robust fire service delivery model is a top priority for our citizens in Pinole, especially given the designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) in which many of our residents live.

Moreover, the scarcity of West County hospital emergency room services since the closure of Doctor’s Medical Centers in Pinole and San Pablo, resulting in reliance on firefighters as first-line medical assistance for many of our underserved citizens, underscores Pinole’s local concern within the broader context of the regional risk reduction strategy proposed by the County Chiefs.

In addition to serving our local citizens, the Pinole Fire Department (along with Richmond FD) serves the County’s interests by responding to the emergency needs of residents in the unincorporated County areas of Tara Hills, Bay View, and Montalvin Manor. With regard to the Advisory Board’s commitment to equity, Montalvin Manor, as defined in SB 1000, is a "Disadvantaged Community" as is Rodeo, which the Pinole FD serves in support of the RodeoHercules Fire Protection District through our County Battalion 7 automatic aid agreement.

ATTACHMENT B
742 of 801 896 of 955
Council agrees that this regional approach represents an equitable and sustainable solution to the issue of providing critical life-saving emergency response services countywide, and we urge the Board to approve the County Chiefs’ proposal as requested.

Sincerely,
Norma Martínez-Rubin
Mayor
City of Pinole
cc. County Administrator Nino
County Finance Director Driscoll
Contra Costa County Executive Fire Chiefs
743 of 801 897 of 955
DRAFT 9.7.22
1 AGREEMENT
between the

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
and the

CITY OF PINOLE
for Fire Protection Services
THIS FIRE PROTECTION AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is dated January 1, 2023 (the “Effective Date”) and is between the CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, a fire protection district formed under the Fire Protection District Law of 1987 (Health and Safety Code Sections 13801 et seq.) and governed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa as its Board of Directors ( “District”), and the CITY OF PINOLE (“City”), a municipal corporation, referred to herein collectively as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
A. The City desires to expand and supplement the current fire protection services provided within the City. Currently only one of the City’s two fire stations (Fire Station 73) is operational. Fire Station 74 has been closed since 2011.

B. The District is willing and able to provide a level of fire protection services within the City that would exceed current service levels. The Parties intend that the District will be paid for all direct and indirect costs incurred in the performance of services under this Agreement.

C. The Parties intend to leverage those Measure X funds that are available for increasing the level of fire protection services in the City to facilitate this partnership for services between the District and the City. The Parties acknowledge that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has allocated from Measure X funds $2,000,000 annually through fiscal year 2023/24 for this purpose. The Parties also acknowledge that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors may take additional actions to further allocate or commit Measure X funds that may be utilized by the Parties to offset costs incurred in the provision of fire protection services under this Agreement.

D. Because the City is not within the District service boundary, the Parties propose to enter into this fire protection agreement pursuant to Government Code section 56134. The Parties acknowledge that the services provided for in this Agreement may not commence unless and until this Agreement is approved by the Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission.

E. Simultaneous with the execution of this Agreement, the City and the District are entering into two leases, one for Fire Station 73 and one for Fire Station 74 (each a “Lease” and together, the “Leases”) that set forth the terms under which the District will occupy the two stations during the term of this Agreement. The Leases and any amendments thereto are incorporated into this Agreement by reference.

AGREEMENT
In consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the Parties agree as follows:

ATTACHMENT C
744 of 801 898 of 955
DRAFT 9.7.22
2 Section 1. Recitals.

The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

Section 2. Definitions.

As used in this Agreement:
a. “Board of Directors” means the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors acting as the Board of Directors of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and governing body of the District. b. “Board of Supervisors” means the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors acting as the governing body of the County of Contra Costa.
c. “District” means the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District or any successor organization or successor governmental entity.
d. “City” means the City of Pinole.
e. “City Council” means the City Council of the City of Pinole. f. “City Manager” means the City Manager of the City of Pinole. g. “County” means the County of Contra Costa.
h. “Fire Chief” means the fire chief of the District.
i. “Fiscal Year” means the annual period commencing on July 1 and ending June 30. j. Fire specific terminology used in this agreement (e.g. Shift, Company, Quint, Engine, etc.) shall be used in a manner consistent with the definitions published by the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) on its website at https://www.nfpa.org/Codes-and-Standards/Resources/Glossary-ofTerms, as revised from time to time.

Section 3. Scope of Services.

Within the boundaries of the City, the District will provide and be fully responsible for the following services.
a. Incident Response.

1. General Service Criteria.

A. Response Area.

The District will provide the services identified below to the areas within the incorporated limits of the City, as shown on Exhibit 1.
745 of 801 899 of 955
DRAFT 9.7.22
3 B. Station Location/Staffing.

There are two fire stations located in the City. The stations will be staffed at a minimum as described below.

Response Configuration
Fire Station 73
880 Tennent Avenue
Pinole, CA 94564
1 Engine Company 3 Personnel
Fire Station 74
3700 Pinole Valley Road
Pinole, CA 94564
1 Engine Company 3 Personnel
Within the City boundaries, the District will maintain a minimum staffing level of six (6) personnel, consisting of two three­person companies per shift. Each company will consist of one Captain, one Engineer, and one Firefighter. Each company will be staffed at a minimum with one paramedic and two EMT-I trained personnel. In the absence of ranked positions, personnel working “out-of-class” (acting) will be used. From June through October, a Type I Fire Engine and a Type VI Wildland Unit shall be located at each of the two fire stations within the City’s boundaries, except that a Type III Wildland Unit may be located at one of the fire stations. The Fire Chief may substitute the required apparatus for other apparatus on a limited, temporary basis when necessary for maintenance or other operational needs.

If engine companies stationed in the City leave the City for automatic aid within the District’s Battalion 7 area (Pinole, El Sobrante, San Pablo, Hercules, and Rodeo), the District will arrange for appropriate back-up coverage to ensure that the City has adequate response capability. When companies stationed in the City leave the City for any planned (e.g., administrative or training) needs, the District will arrange for appropriate back-up coverage to ensure that the City has adequate response capability, with a minimum of one (1) Advanced Life Support (“ALS”) company.

The response configuration above will only be changed upon mutual agreement between the Fire Chief and City Manager.

C. Response Levels.

The District will respond to incidents consistent with the District standard alarm assignments with the same level of response it provides to other areas served by the District and in a manner consistent with approved Contra Costa Operational Area policies.

D. Response Time.

On a single fire unit Priority 1 or Priority 2 emergency medical response, the District will endeavor to arrive at the scene within eight minutes and 30 seconds or less from the time that the company is first dispatched for 90% of all incidents. In multiple unit fire incidents, the District will endeavor to have the first due company arrive at the scene of an emergency incident within eight minutes and 30 seconds or less from the time that the company is first dispatched for 90% of all such incidents. The District will endeavor to have the remaining District first alarm units arrive at the scene of the incident within 18 minutes or less from the time that the first due company is dispatched for 90% of all such incidents. 746 of 801 900 of 955
DRAFT 9.7.22
4 In the event that the District is unable to meet the above response times, the Fire Chief and the City Manager will confer regarding the District’s ability to meet the above response times. The Fire Chief and the City Manager will discuss strategies to ensure such response times are met in the future.

Data on response times will be provided to the City Manager within 30 days of the end of the calendar quarter in which the responses occur. Data on response times will be reviewed on a quarterly basis as part of the scheduled meetings between the Parties.

E. Chief Officer Coverage.

The District will provide a Battalion Chief response for all first alarm fire and multiple apparatus incidents. For incidents of three alarms or greater, the District will also provide an Assistant Fire Chief (or greater rank) response and sufficient management staff to ensure appropriate management of the emergency.

F. Mutual Aid.

The District will continue to meet the District’s pre-existing obligations with respect to mutual aid in accordance with but not limited to the Contra Costa County Fire Mutual Aid Plan, and all appropriate S tate of California interagency service agreements. The parties anticipate that the resulting mutual aid provided within the City will be equivalent to, or greater than, mutual aid provided to the City immediately prior to the Commencement Date. The District will work to develop expanded mutual aid, automatic aid, and mutual response areas with other fire departments adjacent to the City. The Parties acknowledge that the District has no obligation to independently meet the City’s mutual aid obligations, if any, while performing services under this Agreement. The City shall notify its mutual aid partners that the City will not directly provide mutual aid during the term of this Agreement.

2. Fire Suppression.

Fire Suppression services will be provided in accordance with Section 3(a)(l) above, as applicable and except as otherwise provided in this Section 3(a)(2).

3. Emergency Medical Response.

Emergency Medical Response Service will be provided in accordance with Section 3(a)(l) above, as applicable and except as otherwise provided in this Section 3(a)(3).

The District will fulfill and does hereby assume the City’s obligations under the City’s First Responder Agreements with the Contra Costa County Emergency Medical Services (“EMS”) Agency, with the exception of response times which the District will make every reasonable effort to fulfill, which are hereby assigned to the District. The District’s duty to fulfill the City’s obligations under the First Responder Agreements with the EMS Agency will not affect any rights the City may have to receive revenues from the EMS Agency due to the City under the above agreements, as they may be amended from time to time, which revenues may be used by the City to pay the District for services performed under this Agreement.

However, if the Contra Costa County EMS Agency pays any such revenues directly to the District due to the District’s fulfillment of the City’s obligations, those revenues paid directly to the District will be credited to the City as if payment had been made by the City to the District for the performance of services under this Agreement.
747 of 801 901 of 955
DRAFT 9.7.22
5 4. Hazardous Materials Response.

Response to Hazardous Material incidents will be in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(a)(l) above, as applicable and except as otherwise provided in this Section 3(a)(4).

The District will provide a Type II (as defined by FIRESCOPE) Hazardous Materials Team level of service to the City.

The District will provide trained personnel to perform hazardous materials operations when required in the City. These positions are staffed and equipped each day. Response time to the City will be the time necessary for notification and travel of the closest available District resource that meets the needs of the emergency incident.

5. Rescue Services.

The District will provide the City with rescue services in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(a)(l) above, as applicable and except as otherwise provided in this Section 3(a)(5).

The District will provide Type II (as defined by FIRESCOPE) rescue services to the City. This service is available as needed.

The District will provide trained Urban Search and Rescue Team (USAR) personnel to perform confined space and trench rescue operation when required in the City. These positions are staffed and equipped each day. Response time to the City will be the time necessary for notification and travel of the closest available District resource that meets the needs of the emergency incident.

6. Response to Mass Casualty Incidents.

The District will respond to mass casualty incidents in the City with the same level of response it provides to other areas served by the District.

7. Other Calls for Service.

The District will respond to all other calls for services, including, but not limited to fire alarms, hazardous conditions, flooding conditions, smoke investigations, and public service calls, in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(a)(l) above, as applicable and except as otherwise provided in this Section 3(a)(7).

8. Homeland Security.

The District will represent the City, and proactively participate on its behalf, in the planning, coordination, and development of programs to address homeland security threats. The District will maintain a state of awareness and readiness to respond to incidents related to homeland security within the City.

9. Major Disaster Response.

In the event of a major disaster, the District will supplement the fire personnel assigned to the City by providing additional resources for direct response to an incident or move-up coverage from District stations outside of the City provided that supplemental resources are available. 748 of 801 902 of 955
DRAFT 9.7.22
6 Upon activation of the City’s Emergency Operations Center (“EOC”), the District will provide sufficient staff to operate assigned functions in the EOC. Release of personnel and resources may occur after evaluation of local conditions and upon mutual agreement by the City Manager and the Fire Chief.

The District will work cooperatively with the City to participate in the development and implementation of the Emergency Operations Plan (“EOP”) by ensuring that it is reviewed, revised and updated as necessary, and exercised regularly. The District will recommend to the City plan updates to the EOP pertaining to fire, rescue, and emergency medical services issues.

The District will continue to participate in local or regional organizations necessary to ensure the City is represented in disaster preparedness and response.

10. Evacuation Coordination.

The District will coordinate with the Pinole Police Department for all evacuations in a manner consistent with standardized and unified incident command principles and procedures. b. Dispatch Service.

The District manages the Contra Costa Regional Fire Communication Center which supplies fire and ambulance dispatch services to various areas in the County, including to the City, on a cost reimbursement basis. The City will continue to pay its proportionate share of annual dispatch-related fees and charges, which is billed annually and will be in addition to any payments made pursuant to this Agreement. The City’s obligation to pay its proportionate share of annual dispatch-related fees and charges is not co-terminus with this Agreement and survives termination of this Agreement. c. Community Education.

1. Fire Safety Programs.

To help preserve life and property, the District will coordinate the planning, development, and implementation of fire prevention and safety education training programs, which will be tailored to educate City residents and other members of the Pinole community, such as schools, businesses, community associations, and childcare providers. Fire prevention and safety training programs to be provided by the District will include the following programs, with such changes and adjustments as mutually agreed to by the Fire Chief and the City Manager.

Carbon Monoxide Alarm installations
CERT Fire training
CPR courses, BP checks
Eldercare and safety
Elementary School Fire Safety Programs
Exit Drills in the Home (EDITH)
Fire extinguisher use
Fire safety
Firewise Communities
Injury and fall prevention
Juvenile fire-starter program
749 of 801 903 of 955
DRAFT 9.7.22
7 Smoke alarm installations
Wildland fire and evacuation preparedness

2. CPR Training.

The District will provide opportunities for CPR training to members of the Pinole community at no charge to the participant. This training will be provided within the boundaries of the City.

3. Community Emergency Response Team (CERT).

The District will work with City departments to offer fire-based Community Emergency Response Team training to members of the Pinole community. The District and the City will work together to ensure the training complements the City’s current disaster preparedness programs.

4. Miscellaneous.

The District will respond to specific requests from the Pinole community including but not limited to fire station tours and ride-alongs.
d. Fire Prevention.

1. General.

The District, through its Fire Prevention Bureau, will provide fire prevention services consistent with the level of prevention services provided to other areas served by the District.

2. Fire Prevention Staffing.

The District will provide Fire Prevention Bureau staff to conduct annual state-mandated occupancy inspections and Fire Code enforcement. Additional staff may be provided as necessary as determined by the District to review plans for new construction and inspect new construction.

3. Pre-development/Preliminary Planning.

The Fire Prevention Bureau will provide pre-development planning services. Pre-development planning will include but not be limited to the following activities:

A. Adherence to the pre-development/preliminary planning project review process established by the City’s Community Development Department and as may be modified at the City’s discretion.

B. Preparation of written comments based upon development/construction submittals made to the City.

C. Attendance (in person or virtually) at scheduled meetings with applicants as reasonably requested by the City.

D. Participation (in person or virtually) in requested modifications to the City’s predevelopment/preliminary planning process as reasonably requested by the City. 750 of 801 904 of 955
DRAFT 9.7.22
8 E. Attendance (in person or virtually) at development review meetings as reasonably requested by the City.

4. Plan Submittal Review.

The District will review and provide comments on proposed construction plans and fire protection system plans to ensure compliance with the City’s adopted codes and applicable standards. Applications and plans shall be submitted by the applicant directly to the Fire District’s Fire Prevention Bureau at 4005 Port Chicago Highway, Suite 250, Concord . Written comments, in a format consistent with District policies and procedures, will be attached to approved plans to inform applicants of District requirements.

District review of submitted plans will be completed within the timelines established by the City and the District, provided the review can be performed with the staffing levels provided by this Agreement. The District will coordinate with the City to propose and evaluate the feasibility of process modifications, such as the District accepting electronic submission of plans, protocols for information exchange, and the integration of District and City plan review and permitting processes.

The City’s current practice is to meet with applicant when plan check process extends beyond three reviews. As reasonably requested by the City, the District will attend (virtually or in person) meetings with applicants to discuss plan check comments when the plan check process extends beyond three revisions.

5. Fire Inspections.

The District will provide inspection and permit issuance services in accordance with the City’s adopted Fire Code. All inspections will be conducted by qualified personnel.

A. General Inspections. In accordance with the City’s adopted Fire Code, the District personnel will perform fire inspections relating to each of the following:
i. The hazard of fire and explosion arising from the storage, handling, or use of structures, materials, or devices.
ii. Conditions hazardous to life, property, or public welfare in the occupancy of structures or premises.
iii. Fire hazards in the structure or on the premises from occupancy or operation.
iv. Matters related to the construction, extension, repair, alteration, or removal of fire suppression or alarm systems.

B. Fire Protection System Inspections. As part of the City’s permitting process, District personnel will inspect fire protection system installations approved for permit by the District to verify compliance with the approved plans and applicable codes and standards.

C. Mandated Inspections. District personnel will conduct inspections of those occupancies mandated by the California Office of the State Fire Marshal. 751 of 801 905 of 955
DRAFT 9.7.22
9 D. Construction Permit Inspections. District personnel will perform fire inspections for any required construction permit issued in accordance with the City’s adopted Fire Code.

E. Operational Permit Inspections. District personnel will perform fire inspections for any required operational permit prior to initial issuance in accordance with the City’s adopted Fire Code. Operational permit inspections will be completed based on the current District inspection schedule for non-State mandated occupancies.

F. Business License Fire Inspection Program. Following a request by the City, the District will conduct business inspections for fire code compliance.

6. Pre-fire Plan Inspections for Target Hazard Occupancies.

The District will perform pre-fire plan inspections for relevant target hazard occupancies. Results of the inspections will be shared with other City departments as requested.

7. Fire Code Administration.

A. The District will administer and enforce City’s adopted F ire Code, and applicable ordinances, and applicable state and federal codes and regulations.

B. The District will monitor changes to fire codes and provide the City with recommendations regarding proposed changes. The District’s Fire Marshal will work with City Staff to complete the code adoption process.

8. Weed Abatement and Wildfire Management.

A. Weed Abatement Enforcement. The City will continue to provide weed abatement through its Code Enforcement Division. The District will assist in administering fire prevention related aspects of the City’s weed abatement program including inspection of those parcels potentially needing abatement. The District will provide the City with information and supporting documentation, as requested and necessary, relating to any parcels that require additional enforcement and abatement. All work and abatement orders will be initiated and completed by the City for weed abatement issues.

B. Wildfire Mitigation Project. The City and the District will coordinate regarding wildfire mitigation projects that are not directly related to weed abatement issues, but the District is not responsible for conducting abatement of hazard parcels.

Additionally, when applicable, the City and the District will coordinate in the preparation and submittal of grant funding applications relating to wildfire mitigation and in developing processes to prioritize and initiate wildfire mitigation projects.

9. Fire Investigation Service.

District fire investigators will be assigned to determine the cause of every major fire (2nd or 3rd 752 of 801 906 of 955
DRAFT 9.7.22
10 Alarm), or where an injury or fire fatality occurs as a result of a fire incident within the City, and will conduct an investigation of every incident in which there is knowledge or suspicion that the crime of arson may have been committed. The District will attempt to determine the cause of all fires within the City as required by the Fire Code. District fire investigators will work with the Pinole Police Department and any other appropriate law enforcement agencies in the investigation process, as needed. e. Administration.

1. Contract Administration.

The District designates the Fire Chief, or the Fire Chief’s designated representative, to represent the District in all matters pertaining to the administration of this Agreement.

The City designates the City Manager, or the City Manager’s designated representative, to represent the City in all matters pertaining to the administration of this Agreement.

The Parties desire to work cooperatively to ensure that the City receives cost effective services.

Accordingly, the Parties desire to set forth a process for reaching agreement on mutually acceptable alterations to service delivery standards and material changes to the budget.

The City and the District will formally notify one another prior to a service delivery change. The notification will provide adequate time for the other party to provide comment, express concerns, and to allow for agreement on the aforementioned changes and modifications. Except for temporary changes lasting fewer than ten (10) days, the District will obtain written approval from the City prior to making a service delivery change . Any changes to the staffing levels per company or fire stations identified in Section 3(a)(l)(B) are modifications to the Agreement subject to Section 9(j).

2. Fire Chief Designation.

The Fire Chief is hereby designated by the City as the City of Pinole Fire Chief and will have and possess such authority as the City Municipal Code and general laws provide for the City’s Fire Chief, except that the Fire Chief shall not….

3. Liaison to City.

A. The District designates the Fire Chief or designee (at no time below the rank of Assistant Fire Chief) as the direct liaison to the City Manager. Liaison responsibilities will include but are not limited to:
i. Attendance by the Fire Chief or designee at City Council meetings when requested by the City Manager upon reasonable advance notice; and ii. Meetings with the City Manager as requested by either the Fire Chief or City Manager to discuss budget, operational, or other issues which may arise.

B. The District will promptly notify the City Manager when any of the following significant incidents occur within the City.
753 of 801 907 of 955
DRAFT 9.7.22
11 i. Incidents involving deaths or serious injuries to citizens or first responders.
ii. Mass casualty incidents involving more than six patients. iii. Second-alarm, and better, structure fires.
iv. Structure fires resulting in displacement of multiple residents. v. Third-alarm wildland fires, or any wildland fires utilizing air support resources.
vi. Hazardous materials incidents requiring entry.
vii. Incidents with significant impacts on residents based on size, scope, or duration.
viii. Any incident that has attracted, or is expected to attract, significant media attention.

4. Community Events.

As reasonably requested by the City Manager, the District will participate in the planning and implementation of community activities, such as local fireworks celebration, tree lighting ceremonies, Chamber of Commerce functions, and similar events, to address fire safety issues.

5. Reports and Records.

A. The District will maintain sufficient records to enable the City to meet its reporting obligations and needs as they relate to the provision of services as provided for in this Agreement, including but not limited to the District’s obligation to provide quarterly reports on response times. The records maintained by the District will also include: (i) the total number of calls for service responded to by each of Fire Station 73 and 74; (ii) the number of calls for service responded to by each of Fire Station 73 and 74 for incidents occurring outside of the City; and (iii) the number of calls for service responded to by the District from locations other than Fire Stations 73 or 74 for incidents occurring within the City.

B. The District will maintain financial records related to the performance of services under this contract.

C. The District will provide the City Manager with financial reports reasonably requested by the City Manager.

D. Upon request by the City Manager, the District will make available its records related to services performed under this Agreement for audit and inspection by the City Manager, or the City Manager’s designated representative.

E. Upon request, the District shall provide City with copies of any records related to 754 of 801 908 of 955
DRAFT 9.7.22
12 this Agreement that are subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act.

F. The District will conduct or have conducted a yearly independent audit of the District’s overall financial performance. The District will provide the audit reports to the City Manager within 30 days of publication. The District will provide any financial information required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board for the City’s financial reporting that is in the District’s possession or control.

6. Fire Complaints and Requests for Service.

A. The District will inform the City Manager of any and all complaints received by the District regarding the services provided to the City by the District.

B. The District will strive to provide a high level of customer service to the City in accordance with the District and the City’s customer service philosophies.

7. Fire System Planning.

A. The Fire Chief will assist the City in planning the extension of fire services and facilities as the City grows.

B. If, as a result of annexation of territory, the City requires additional contract services to provide fire and emergency services to areas not currently served by the City through its contract with the District, the Fire Chief and the City Manager may negotiate a mutually acceptable amendment to this Agreement to provide such services. Any amendment to this Agreement will become effective upon its approval by the governing bodies of the District and the City.

C. This paragraph does not apply to those services provided under mutual aid, automatic, and/or other interagency response agreements.

8. Fees.

A. The District will assist the City in the development of an appropriate fee schedule for fire services rendered in the City by the District. The District will provide the documentation necessary to support the imposition of fees by the City.

B. All fees attributable to the services provided by the District under this Agreement shall accrue to and are the property of the District.

C. Any fees collected by the City for services performed by the District will be accounted for by the City and remitted to the District.

9. Miscellaneous Revenue Collection.

A. The District will endeavor to implement a program consistent with District policy for seeking reimbursement for the cost of the District’s response to accidents or other events. Any cost reimbursements received by the District for incidents 755 of 801 909 of 955
DRAFT 9.7.22
13 occurring within the City will be credited to the City as if payment had been made by the City to the District for the performance of services under this Agreement.

B. The District will use reasonable efforts to obtain grants for one-time and ongoing capital and operational expenditures.

Section 4. Facilities, Apparatus, and Equipment.
a. Buildings and Real Property.

1. Use of Pinole Fire Station Nos. 73 and 74.

The City will provide the District use of the City-owned fire stations described as Fire Station 73, 880 Tennent Avenue, Pinole, CA 94564, and Fire Station 74, 3700 Pinole Valley Road, Pinole, CA 94564, for performance of services under this Agreement. The City will provide the District use of these facilities at no cost to the District. Responsibility for maintenance of the building and grounds are as set forth in the Leases.

To the extent there is a conflict between this Agreement and the Leases concerning the use and maintenance of Fire Stations Nos. 73 and 74, the terms of the Leases shall control. In all other respects, the terms of this Agreement shall control

2. Office Space.

Fire Station 73 includes office space for use by District fire inspectors. In accordance with the Lease for Fire Station 73, the City will provide the District use of these facilities at no cost to the District.

3. Return Upon Termination.

Upon termination of this Agreement, the District will vacate Fire Station Nos. 73 and 74, and will remove any and all materials, equipment, and improvements that are not to remain on the premises as set forth in the Leases.
b. Apparatus/Equipment.

1. Transfer of Apparatus and Equipment.

The City will transfer to the District ownership of the apparatus and equipment identified in Exhibit 2 (City Fire Apparatus/Equipment Inventory) in consideration of the District’s performance of services under the terms of this Agreement. The District will be responsible for maintaining registration and licensing of all transferred apparatus and equipment.

2. Maintenance.

The District will be responsible for maintenance and repair of all apparatus and equipment. The City will pay the District a fee, fixed annually and specified in the budget approved pursuant to Section 5 (Cost of Services), for the costs of maintenance and repair of apparatus and equipment utilized in the performance of services under this Agreement.
756 of 801 910 of 955
DRAFT 9.7.22
14 3. Reserve Apparatus.

The District will provide a reserve apparatus that will be placed in service as soon as possible if a frontline apparatus is to be out of service for an extended period of time.

4. Apparatus and Equipment Replacement.

The timing of apparatus and equipment replacement shall be determined by the District, consistent with the District’s standard equipment and apparatus replacement practices and schedules. The District will submit a proposed apparatus replacement schedule to the City indicating the anticipated dates for replacement of major pieces of apparatus. The District will provide the City with advanced notice regarding the need to replace apparatus and equipment.

The City will pay the District a fee, fixed annually and specified in the budget approved pursuant to Section 5 (Cost of Services), for the costs to replace apparatus and equipment utilized in the performance of services under this Agreement. The District will use reasonable, good faith efforts to submit applications on behalf of the City for grants to defray the replacement cost for apparatus and major equipment utilized in the performance of services under this Agreement.

5. Return Upon Termination.

Upon termination of this Agreement, the District will return to the City the apparatus and equipment identified in Exhibit 2 (City Fire Apparatus/Equipment Inventory) that was transferred to the District pursuant to Section 4(b)(1) if the apparatus and equipment are fit for service. The Parties acknowledge their mutual intent that the District return to the City, if necessary, the same equipment and apparatus that was transferred to the District pursuant to Section 4(b)(1), and that some or all of the equipment or apparatus may no longer be fit for service at the time of return. If some or all of the equipment or apparatus are no longer fit or service or are otherwise not able to be returned to the City, the District will endeavor to lease to the City such apparatus and equipment necessary for the City to conduct fire protection activities within the City, for a reasonable period of time and upon terms agreeable to both parties, until the City has procured replacement apparatus and equipment. The Parties will identify the specific apparatus and equipment to be returned or leased to the City in the transition plan to be developed pursuant to Section 9(b).

6. New Equipment.

The District may purchase new equipment as necessary in order to maintain adequate service levels and to ensure safe working conditions. The City will pay the District a fee, fixed annually and specified in the budget adopted pursuant to Section 5 (Cost of Services), for the costs to purchase new equipment related to the performance of services under this Agreement

Section 5. Cost of Services.
a. Fire Budget.

1. Operating Budget.

For purposes of budgeting and billing for both the direct and indirect cost of services to be provided under this Agreement, the Fire Chief will annually prepare and submit a proposed budget for the succeeding fiscal year to the City Manager by January 15th. Prior to preparation of the proposed budget, the Fire Chief 757 of 801 911 of 955
DRAFT 9.7.22
15 and City Manager, or their designees, shall meet to discuss factors potentially affecting the budget necessary to cover costs for the upcoming fiscal year.

Budgeted costs include but are not limited to those costs listed in Exhibit 3. Excluding labor-related costs (for example, employee salaries and benefits), if a proposed budget exceeds the approved budget from the immediately preceding fiscal year by more than 5%, the Fire Chief and City Manager will meet and confer in an attempt to identify potential cost savings and/or increases in revenue. The Fire Chief and City Manager will use their best efforts to, by March 1 of the same year, agree on a recommended budget that will be recommended for approval by their respective governing bodies.

If the City Manager and Fire Chief are unable to reach agreement concerning a recommended budget or the recommended budget is reduced to provide specified cost savings or the City does not approve the budget jointly recommended by the Fire Chief and the City Manager, the Parties acknowledge that services provided under this Agreement may be reduced accordingly.

For the term of this Agreement, the District has provided a 5-year cost projection as shown in Exhibit 4 (5-Year Cost Projection Provided by the District). The City acknowledges that Exhibit 4 contains projected costs, and that while the District will make good faith efforts to provide annual budgets in accordance with these projections, the amounts set forth in the annual budgets will differ from the 5-year cost projection.

The annual fire budget for Fiscal Year 2022/23, the first fiscal year during which services are provided under this Agreement, is attached as Exhibit 5. The Parties approve the attached Fiscal Year 2022/23 budget upon approval of this Agreement. Payments by the City pursuant to the Fiscal Year 2022/23 budget will be appropriately pro-rated based on the Commencement Date.

2. Capital Requirements.

The Fire Chief will recommend any capital needs for Fire Station 73 or 74, as well as modifications to services that the City provides to directly support the provision of the District’s contractual services.

These recommendations will be submitted along with the annual fire budget and will be reflected in the recommended budget, as necessary.

3. Management of Budget.

A. If during the fiscal year, the Fire Chief believes in good faith that due to unanticipated circumstances the approved fire budget is insufficient in any respect to ensure the provision of service at the service levels required by this Agreement, the Fire Chief will immediately notify the City Manager in writing specifying the budgetary deficiency, along with a request for a budget modification that identifies all reasons for the proposed modification. “Unanticipated circumstances” means circumstances that the Fire Chief was not aware of prior to the District’s approval of the fire budget; it does not include cost overruns that could reasonably have been anticipated or planned for.

B. The District will obtain written approval from the City, which will require authorization from the City Council, prior to making a modification to the budget approved by the City. If the budget modification is not approved by City, then the Parties acknowledge that there may be a decrease in service levels commensurate 758 of 801 912 of 955
DRAFT 9.7.22
16 with the deficiency identified in the budget modification request.

C. Notwithstanding Sections 5(a)(3)(A) and (B) above, where new labor agreements are approved by the District Board of Directors that result in an increase to laborrelated costs under this Agreement, the budget shall be deemed modified to account for such cost increases upon 5 days’ written notice from the District to the City of such new labor agreements and associated budget modification, and without further approval by the City.

D. The Fire Chief shall notify the City Manager of matters pertaining to labor relations between the District and its recognized employee organizations, when the matters and the resolution of them will affect the service levels to the City or the City’s costs pursuant to this Agreement.
b. Payment for Services.

1. City Payment.

The City will pay to the District the approved budget amount in consideration for the District providing any and all services to the City under this Agreement. Budget modifications are subject to Section€ 5(a)(3).

2. Method of Billing and Payment.

City will pay the District monthly in arrears within 30 calendar days of receipt of the monthly invoice. In the event than an invoice is not paid (partially or in full) by the due date, a late fee of 1% simple interest of the unpaid balance will be assessed for each month or portion thereof that the invoice remains unpaid. The late fee will be assessed on the 1st day of each month following the due date. The monthly invoice amount will be equal to the annual fire budget divided by twelve (12), plus any Budget Modification Prorations. A “Budget Modification Proration” is calculated by dividing a budget modification made pursuant to Section 5(a)(3) by the sum of one and the number of months remaining in a fiscal year. Budget modifications that occur mid-fiscal year will result in post-modification monthly invoice amounts that differ from pre-modification monthly invoice amounts.
c. Costs Associated with New Development.

In the event that the Fire Chief determines new development in the City is likely to require new facilities, apparatus, or equipment, the Fire Chief shall notify the City Manager. The Parties acknowledge that the City, and not the District, should bear the costs of increased fire services necessary due to new development. The Parties will meet and confer as provided for in Sections 3(e)(l) and 5(a)(3) to discuss planned and prospective new development within the City, the associated impacts to the services provided under this Agreement, and the options for funding of any changes to services or the need for new equipment or apparatus.

Section 6. Personnel.
a. The Parties anticipate that as a result of this Agreement and the District’s provision of fire protection services to the City, some or all of the persons identified in Exhibit 6 (City of Pinole List of Fire Department Employees) may elect to leave City employment to become District employees. 759 of 801 913 of 955
DRAFT 9.7.22
17 b. The City is not responsible for directly paying salaries, wages, or other compensation to District personnel performing services under this Agreement for the City. The City is not directly liable for compensation or indemnity to any District employee for injury or sickness arising out of their employment with the District, except as part of the City’s payment of indirect expenditures and Risk Management costs to the District and as otherwise provided in this Agreement. This Section does not negate any of the City’s obligations pursuant to Section 5 (Cost of Services) above. c. The District is not liable for compensation or indemnity to any District employee for injury or sickness arising out of their employment with the City. The District is not liable for any retirement obligation or other post-employment benefit to any District employee arising out of their employment with the City.

Section 7. Indemnification.
a. Indemnification by the City.

The City shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the District, its governing body, officers, employees, representative, and agents from any and all demands, losses, claims, costs, suits, liabilities, and expenses for any damage, death, or injury to persons or property from any cause whatsoever arising directly or indirectly from or connected with any act or omission of or purported act or omission of the City, its governing body, officers, employees, representative, or agents in connection with or arising out of the performance by the City, its governing body, officers, employees, representative, or agents of this Agreement, and with regard to any alleged illegality or unconstitutionality of a City ordinance. The City shall reimburse the District for any expenditures, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, the Distirct may make by reason of such matters and, if requested by the District, shall defend any such suit at the sole cost and expense of the City. The City’s obligations under this subsection shall exist regardless of concurrent negligence or willful misconduct on the part of the District or any other person; provided, however, that the City shall not be required to indemnify the District for the proportion of liability a court determines is attributable to the negligence or willful misconduct of the District, its governing body, officers, employees, representative, or agents.

The District agrees to give the City prompt written notice of any claims or other matter as to which the District believes this indemnification provision is applicable. The City will, at its sole cost and expense, provide counsel reasonably acceptable to the District, to contest or defend any such claim. Neither party, nor their successors or assigns, shall admit any liability to any matter for which indemnification is sought, or settle, compromise, pay, or discharge the same without the prior written consent of the other party, which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, and the District shall reasonably cooperate with the City in the contest and defense thereof.
b. Indemnification by the District.

The District shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its governing body, officers, employees, representative, and agents from any and all demands, losses, claims, costs, suits, liabilities, and expenses for any damage, death, or injury to persons or property from any cause whatsoever arising directly or indirectly from or connected with any act or omission of or purported act or omission of the District, its governing body, officers, employees, representative, or agents in connection with or arising out of the performance by the District, its governing body, officers, employees, representative, or agents of this Agreement. The District shall reimburse the City for any expenditures, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, the City may make by reason of such matters and, if requested by the City, shall defend any 760 of 801 914 of 955
DRAFT 9.7.22
18 such suit at the sole cost and expense of the District. the District’s obligations under this subsection shall exist regardless of concurrent negligence or willful misconduct on the part of the City or any other person; provided, however, that the District shall not be required to indemnify the City for the proportion of liability a court determines is attributable to the negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its governing body, officers, employees, representative, or agents.

The City agrees to give the District prompt written notice of any claims or other matter as to which the City believes this indemnification provision is applicable. The District will, at its sole cost and expense, provide counsel reasonably acceptable to the City, to contest or defend any such claim. Neither party, nor their successors or assigns, shall admit any liability to any matter for which indemnification is sought, or settle, compromise, pay, or discharge the same without the prior written consent of the other party, which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed, and the City shall reasonably cooperate with the District in the contest and defense thereof.
c. Indemnification Obligations Survive Termination.

The obligations created by this Section 7 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement as to activities occurring or being carried out during the term of this Agreement in the performance of this Agreement.

Section 8. Insurance.
a. General and Auto Liability.

The District will maintain general and auto liability insurance, including bodily injury and property damage, with a single combined liability limit of not less than $10 million insuring all liability of the District and its authorized representatives arising out of and in connection with the provision of service by the District under this Agreement, including the use and/or occupancy of City-owned real property and premises.

The City will be named as an additional insured and the policy must contain cross liability endorsements. An endorsement must be provided which states that the District coverage is the primary insurance. The District may self-insure to these limits of coverage. The District will furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The District will provide complete certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications, to the City upon request. b. Property Insurance.

The District will not maintain any insurance for City-owned real property and buildings, including but not limited to City-owned fire stations, or the contents of the City-owned buildings, except as otherwise specified in this Agreement or in the Leases. The District will maintain a standard All Risk policy to ensure its own personal property.
c. Workers’ Compensation Insurance.

The District will maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance as required by the State of California in Employers Liability Insurance. Employers Liability Insurance shall have limits of no less than $1 million per accident for bodily injury or disease. The District may self-insure to the limits of coverage. The District 761 of 801 915 of 955
DRAFT 9.7.22
19 will provide the City with a waiver of subrogation against the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers for all claims on or after the Commencement Date arising during the term of this Agreement. d. Workers’ Compensation Claims for Employees in Exhibit 6.

1. The City is fully responsible for all Workers’ Compensation claims with date of injury prior to the Commencement Date, with respect to the persons identified in Exhibit 6 (City of Pinole List of Fire Department Employees). The City will administer the claims and is solely liable for all administration and settlement costs. The City is also responsible for claims that are incurred prior to the Commencement Date AND that are:

A. Reopened;
B. Incurred but not reported;
C. Submitted for new and further disability; or
D. Incurred subsequently and consequently to the original claim

2. The District is responsible for Workers Compensation claims of District employees that are not the responsibility of the City pursuant to paragraph 1 above or another entity. The District will administer the claims and is solely liable for all administration and settlement costs.

3. The District will administer cumulative trauma claims that span the City and the District; however, the District will, immediately upon receipt of a cumulative trauma claim, send a copy of said claim to the City. The Parties will meet and confer prior to the District taking any action on the claim, unless the District is required to take immediate action or circumstances do not allow adequate time to meet and confer, in which case the District will notify the City as soon as possible. The cost of administration and settlement shall be pro-rated between the District and the City based on the length of services for each employer. Should the claim involve prior employers, the City will be responsible for the service time. The City and the District agree to cooperate with each other in the administration of the claims that involve both Parties, including any decisions or determinations regarding industrial disability retirement. This includes, but is not limited to, the sharing of notes, reports, and other documents. The City will have the right to review and contest any determination of a recurrence of a prior injury. In the event that an agreement cannot be reached, the City and the District will accept the Worker’s Compensation Appeals Board decision as the final decision and without further appeal rights on this limited issue.
e. Industrial Disability Retirement.

The City will be solely responsible for making the determination of industrial disability retirement for CalPERS retirement application for the employees listed in Exhibit 6.

Section 9. Miscellaneous.
a. Term and Extension by Mutual Agreement; Commencement of Services.

This Agreement will commence at 12:01 a.m. on the Effective Date, and will continue until 11:59 p.m. on June 30, 2028, unless extended as mutually agreed upon in writing by both Parties in accordance with the provisions herein. The District will commence services provided for under this Agreement on a 762 of 801 916 of 955
DRAFT 9.7.22
20 date (“Commencement Date”) mutually agreed upon and authorized in writing by the Parties, which authorization may be given by the Fire Chief for the District and the City Manager for the City. In order to provide notice to the affected employee organization, the Parties will endeavor to mutually agree upon and authorize a Commencement Date at least 30 days prior to the Commencement Date.

The term of this Agreement and the term of the Leases may be extended for one 5-year term by mutual written agreement of the Parties executed by the Fire Chief and by the City Manager for City. Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, the extension agreement must be fully executed at least 12 months prior to the then-effective termination date.

The City and the District agree to jointly prepare a review and analysis of services provided to the City by March 31, 2027. The District will prepare an updated 5-year cost projection, for the purpose of inclusion in an extension agreement, if any such extension agreement is agreed to and executed by the Parties.
b. Termination.

Notwithstanding Section 9(a) above, this Agreement may be unilaterally terminated by either party by giving 12 months’ written notice of termination to the other party. The contract termination date specified in the notice of termination may be extended by mutual agreement. The Parties acknowledge that the termination of this Agreement would require extensive operational adjustments for both Parties. The Parties further acknowledge that any fire service interruption would result in risks to public welfare. Within 60 days of a notice of termination by either party, the Parties will coordinate to develop a transition plan.

The transition plan will include specific implementation deadlines, including any modification to the contract termination date, and will address matters including but not limited to service levels during the transition period and the return or lease of apparatus and equipment by the District to the City.

The Parties will meet and confer in good faith regarding any dispute between the Parties over the implementation of any provisions in this Section 9(b). Any dispute that is not resolved by meeting and conferring will be submitted to non-binding mediation conducted by a JAMS mediator. The Parties agree to meet and confer as soon as practically possible regarding the selection of the mediator and, if possible, agree to mediate the dispute within 45 calendar days. However, nothing in this provision shall be construed so as to delay any of the time periods above, including the development of a transition plan and implementation thereof.
c. Notices.

All notices required or permitted hereunder will be deemed sufficiently given if delivered by hand or mailed, by United States mail, postage prepaid, certified or registered mail, addressed to the Parties at the addresses set forth below or to such other address as may from time to time be designated in writing.

To DISTRICT:

Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
Attn: Fire Chief
4005 Port Chicago Highway, Suite 250,
Concord, CA 94520
With a copy to:

Contra Costa County
763 of 801 917 of 955
DRAFT 9.7.22
21 Public Works Department
Attn: Principal Real Property Agent
40 Muir Road
Martinez, CA 94553
To CITY:

City of Pinole
Attn: City Manager
2131 Pear Street
Pinole, CA 94564
d. Further Obligations.

The Parties recognize that this Agreement cannot represent a complete expression of all issues, that may arise during the performance of the Agreement. Accordingly, the District and City agree to meet and confer in good faith over any issue not expressly described herein. e. No Assignment.

Neither party may assign, delegate, sell, mortgage, hypothecate, or otherwise transfer their respective interests or obligations in this Agreement without the express prior written consent of the nontransferring party. f. Exhibits.

All exhibits referred to herein are attached hereto and are, by this reference, incorporated herein.

Exhibits to this Agreement include:

Exhibit 1: Service Area Map
Exhibit 2: City Fire Apparatus/Equipment Inventory
Exhibit 3: List of Budgeted Costs
Exhibit 4: 5-Year Cost Projection Provided by the District Exhibit 5: Fiscal Year 2022/23 Fire Budget
Exhibit 6: City of Pinole List of Fire Department Employees g. Severability.

If any provision of this Agreement (including without limitation any phrase, provision, covenant, or condition) is found to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. h. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue.

The interpretation, validity, and enforcement of this Agreement is governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any suit, claim, or legal proceeding of any kind related to this Agreement is to be filed and heard in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Contra Costa. i. Alternative Dispute Resolution.

Except as otherwise provided for in this Agreement, all claims, disputes, and controversies arising 764 of 801 918 of 955
DRAFT 9.7.22
22 out of or in relation to the performance, interpretation, application, or enforcement of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, breach thereof, shall be referred to non-binding mediation before, and as a condition precedent to, the initiation of any legal proceeding. The Parties will jointly select a qualified professional with expertise in the subject matter of the dispute. In order to commence the mediation process, a party must notify the other party in writing of its intent to commence mediation. Each party will propose one or more mediators within 14 days of the date notice is sent. The proposed mediators must be available to conduct the mediation within the following 60 days. The Parties will make a good faith effort to agree to a mediator within 30 days of the date the notice is sent. If the Parties cannot agree to a mediator or the mediation cannot be conducted within these timeframes, then each party’s obligation to refer the matter to mediation will be deemed discharged. The cost of mediation shall be divided equally between the Parties. j. Amendment of Agreement.

This Agreement may be amended or modified only by the mutual agreement of the Parties. No amendment or modification of this Agreement shall be binding unless it is in writing and signed by authorized representatives of both Parties.
k. Authority.

Each party, or the representative(s) signing this Agreement on behalf of a party, represents and warrants that it has full power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to perform the obligations set forth herein.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
765 of 801 919 of 955
DRAFT 9.7.22
23 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FIRE

PROTECTION DISTRICT
_____________________________
Chair, Board of Directors
Attest:

Clerk of the Board
By: _____________________________
Deputy Clerk
Approved by County Administrator:

MONICA NINO
By: _____________________________
County Administrator/Designee
Approved as to form:

MARY ANN McNETT MASON,
County Counsel
By: _____________________________
County Counsel/Designee

CITY OF PINOLE
_____________________________
Mayor
Attest:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Approved by City Manager:
_____________________________
City Manager
Approved as to form:
_____________________________
City Attorney
766 of 801 920 of 955
Exhibit 1
Service Area Map
767 of 801 921 of 955
Exhibit 2
City Fire Apparatus/Equipment Inventory
768 of 801 922 of 955
Exhibit 3
List of Budgeted Costs
Permanent Salaries – 18 positions
Holiday Pay
Scheduled FLSA Overtime
Uniform Allowance
Retirement
Health Insurance
Workers’ Compensation Insurance
FICA
Fuel
Apparatus Replacement
Firefighting and EMS Supplies and Equipment
Apparatus Maintenance and Repair
Overtime and Backfill Compensation
Training and Classes
Misc. Household Expenses
Personal Protective Equipment
Battalion Chief Allocation
Shift Training Captain Allocation
Administration Allocation
Communication Center Allocation
769 of 801 923 of 955
Exhibit 4
5-Year Cost Projection Provided by the District
770 of 801 924 of 955
Exhibit 5
Fiscal Year 2022/23 Fire Budget
771 of 801 925 of 955
Exhibit 6
City of Pinole List of Fire Department Employees
772 of 801 926 of 955

ATTACHMENT D
773 of 801 927 of 955
September 7, 2022
This Independent Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis (“analysis”) was prepared for the City of Pinole, California (“City”) as its officials navigate the decision of whether to enter a cooperative shared services fire protection agreement with Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (“CCCFPD”). Per the Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”), the initiation process includes a variety of required steps and due diligence items the City of Pinole must complete prior to applying for collaborative fire protection. Specifically, the State of California Government Code Section 56134 requires a submission of an independent fiscal analysis to ascertain whether the financial terms of the service contract are feasible and sustainable. The specific scope of this independent fiscal analysis must review and document all the following:

1. A thorough review of the plan for services submitted by the public agency.

2. Analysis of how the costs of the existing service provider compare to the costs of services provided in service areas with similar populations and of similar geographic size that provide a similar level and range of services and make a reasonable determination of the costs expected to be borne by the public agency providing new or extended fire protection services; and

3. Any other information and analysis needed to support the proposal.

4. Evaluation that the proposed affected territory is expected to receive revenues sufficient to provide public services and facilities and a reasonable reserve during the three fiscal years following the effective date of the contract or agreement between the public agencies to provide the new or extended fire protection services.

Our analysis was completed using budgetary, census, and departmental statistics that were publicly available on the individual units’ websites or data portals. We completed a thorough review of the plan for service and supporting documents during the month of June 2022 and communicated with city, county, and fire leadership officials on clarifying questions at that time over multiple worksessions. A list of the comparative agencies was selected with the assistance of city officials on June 15th . Assumptions were used in the estimation of certain direct and indirect costs and are noted within the contents of the report.

It is our goal to be conservative in forward looking estimates while also illustrating what the potential fiscal impact may likely be from the proposed cooperative fire service plan. I can be reached at [email protected] or at (317) 476-2826 for questions or additional information as needed.

Sincerely,
Adam D. Stone
Adam D. Stone, CPA
Stone Municipal Group | Municipal Advisor | Principal-in-charge STONE MUNICIPAL GROUP 1
774 of 801 928 of 955
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 3
Purpose of Report 3
How to Use Navigate & Use Report 3
Plans and Document Review 4
Analysis of Existing Service Provider Cost 5
Comparison of Existing Service Provided to Similar Entities 6 Entity Selection 6
Entity Comparison 6
Budget Comparison 7
Scenarios Overview 8
Scenario 1 - Continuation of Current Service Level 8
Expected Costs of Current Service Level (“Most Likely”) 8 Current Service Level Sensitivity Analysis 9
Scenario 2 – Cooperative Fire Service Agreement with CCCFPD 10 Expected Costs of Cooperative Fire Agreement (“Most Likely”) 11 Cooperative Fire Agreement Sensitivity Analysis 12
Additional Information & Analysis 13
Cost Comparison of Scenarios 13
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Administrative Cost 14 Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Revenue Sufficiency 14 City of Pinole Feasibility 15
CalPERS Fire Department Unfunded Accrued Liability 17
Budget Impacts - Remaining Items 18
Budget Impacts - Transitioning Items 19
STONE MUNICIPAL GROUP 2
775 of 801 929 of 955
Executive Summary
In November, 2021 the County Board of Supervisors approved certain expenditures of Measure X funds.

Included in this decision was an intent to provide $2 Million in funding from Measure X to assist in providing full funding, when combined with City of Pinole (“PFD”) funds, to reopen Fire Station 74 in Pinole Valley as part of a contract for fire services to be provided by Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (“CCCFPD”) for the full operation of fire, rescue, emergency medical, fire prevention, training, and administration to the City of Pinole.

Background information related to the contract for service:
● Fire Station 74 in Pinole Valley was closed in 2012.
● The proposed service plan will provide for the reopening and staffing of Fire Station 74.

Purpose of Report
This report was prepared to assist the City of Pinole with the Contra Costa County Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”) process related to contracting with another unit or agency of local government to provide fire contractual services. An independent fiscal report is required and outlined by the State of California Government Code Section 56134 to ascertain whether the financial terms of the service contract are feasible and sustainable. To comply with the requirements, our firm completed a detailed and thorough review of the proposed service plan, comparable costs, and other documentation that outlines the proposed plan to contract with CCCFPD to provide fire service to City of Pinole residents.

How to Use Navigate & Use Report
This report is prepared for external technical financial review purposes and is not intended to argue one method over another. This report does not make a recommendation or advice regarding negotiation terms, plan for service proposals, or details into day-to-day fire operations. This report is intended to project the most likely budget and financial outcomes of the options available to the City of Pinole and provide stakeholders with information to make an informed decision. As such, readers of this report are encouraged to review the table of contents to select areas of interest. The report is organized into broad sections to comply with California Government Code Section 56134.

STONE MUNICIPAL GROUP 3
776 of 801 930 of 955
Plans and Document Review
This report was prepared using estimates, calculations, and management plans that were made available during June and July 2022. Specifically, we completed a detailed review of the CCCFPD proposed station budgets, proposed Pinole Fire Plan for Services, proposed staffing standards, staffing growth plans, position cost schedules, and operating statistics.

In addition to the plans for service and management reports, we reviewed the City of Pinole’s line-item budgetary and financial documents for fiscal years 2018-2022. We also reviewed the most recent CalPERS Annual Valuation Report for Pinole City safety. (i.e. Safety & PEPRA Safety) The FY21 report was not yet published at the time of this report. Therefore, all CalPERS related estimates are dated as of June 30, 2021.

Comparative entity data was sourced through publicly available data on comparable entities which included annual adopted budgets, annual reports, and Census data. For the comparison entities, major assumptions include Fire runs (incidents), staffing levels, and budgetary estimates.

Certain assumptions we made to project future cost of operations under different scenarios. To assist in this forecast, we enlisted the help of the report review team to help create growth plans into our forecast.

The core report review team consisted of the following individuals:
● City of Pinole
○ Chief Chris Wynkoop
○ Ms. Markisha Guillory
● Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
○ Chief Lewis Broschard
● Contra Costa County
○ Mr. Adam Nguyen
○ Mr. Paul Reyes
With the help of this group, we were able to prepare a seven-year capital improvement plan for the City of Pinole Fire Department that incorporates apparatus replacement, facility improvements, and necessary equipment needs. While an estimate, this plan will allow us to better compare the scenarios as they more accurately reflect the complete cost of operating the Fire Department long term. Note, the CCCFPD budget scenario assumes an annual programmatic apparatus replacement of $250,000 per year. The City of Pinole Capital Improvement Plan (“CIP”) assumes a non-programmatic “pay-as-you-go” apparatus replacement project which results in large swings in the annual capital budget. Comparing the CCCFPD to the average annual capital outlay amount creates a better comparison. The average across all categories is $417,286 per year including building improvements. (i.e. FY 24 - FY 30) STONE MUNICIPAL GROUP 4
777 of 801 931 of 955
Analysis of Existing Service Provider Cost
The City of Pinole Fire Department Budget is sourced by multiple governmental funds. The funds reviewed are General Fund, 2006 Measure S Fund, 2014 Measure S Fund, Equipment Reserve, and the Growth Impact Fund. We reviewed combined actual and budgeted results for fiscal years 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. Below is a categorical summary which shows combining current and historic results for the Fire Department.

Source: City of Pinole financial reports and budget documents provided July 14, 2022. (unaudited) STONE MUNICIPAL GROUP 5
778 of 801 932 of 955
Comparison of Existing Service Provided to Similar Entities Entity Selection
Part of the LAFCO process is to conduct comparative cost analysis. For this report, we selected comparison entities that were similar in population and geographic size. (i.e., land area) Additionally, we looked at entities that provide a similar range and level of service. We selected fire runs, number of stations, and staffing level as indicators for range and level of service. Lastly, we selected comparable entities of differing government structure and fire service. As each entity is different, the data for each was normalized to produce as close to an “apples-to-apples” comparison as possible. Therefore, the data was normalized on per capita, per full-time firefighter, and per run incident metrics to help in the comparability. It should be noted that comparing public safety departments on an apples-to-apples basis is extremely challenging as run data can be grossly under or over inflated due to different entities counting runs differently. (e.g. EMS, apparatus dispatched, etc.) For the purposes of this report, we are taking the publicly available data at face value and make no opinion on the type of runs reported.

Entity Comparison
STONE MUNICIPAL GROUP 6
779 of 801 933 of 955
Comparison of Existing Service Provided to Similar Entities (Cont.) Budget Comparison
STONE MUNICIPAL GROUP 7
780 of 801 934 of 955
Scenarios Overview
For the comparison of current service level (“Scenario One”) and CCCFPD cooperative agreement (“Scenario Two”) we made several significant assumptions. First we calculated the most likely cost projections under the two primary options being considered; 1.) Continuation of “in-house” Pinole Fire Department service to operate one station, and 2.) Contractual Service for Fire Service with CCCFPD to operate two stations. Within each scenario we also calculated the worst case and best case scenarios to illustrate the sensitivity based on different assumptions. (e.g. inflation, Measure X allocations, economic conditions)
Scenario 1 - Continuation of Current Service Level
In this scenario we assumed no transition to CCCFPD and no change in existing level of service. (i.e. stations or staffing) This scenario forecasts operating and capital expenditures for the budget periods FY 2022/23 – 2029/30.
● Budget estimates based on FY 2022-23 Fire Department combined budget of $5,514,428. (General, Measure S 2006, and Measure S 2014 funds.)
● Assumes no growth in existing staffing or funded staffing levels. (17 current FTEs) ● Assumes six percent (6%) annual increase in salary and wages. (e.g., 3% cost of living increase and 3% market equity increase)
● Assumes employee benefits remain constant as a percentage of gross salaries and wages. ● Assumes a stair-stepped inflation of eight percent to five percent (8% - 5%) annual increase in materials, supplies, and services due to rising prices. ● Assumes an initial $146,250 capital outlay expenditures. (e.g., equipment replacement, vehicle replacement, and station improvements)
● Assumes a seven-year capital improvement plan of $2,925,000 average of $417,286 per year including facility and computer equipment. The average vehicle and apparatus replacement need is estimated at $292,875 per year. To help with apples-to-apples comparison we have assumed a level sinking fund replacement to smooth out large budget differences in future years. ● Assumes five percent (5%) annual increase in capital expenditures due to rising prices.

Expected Costs of Current Service Level (“Most Likely”) If the City of Pinole chooses to not enter into a cooperative fire agreement with CCCFPD, 100% of current employee salary and employee benefit costs will remain in the City’s budget. The current level of service does not include any of the recommendations outlined in the growth plan.

STONE MUNICIPAL GROUP 8
781 of 801 935 of 955
Current Service Level Sensitivity Analysis
For scenario one we projected future expected costs using the most likely, worst case, and best case assumptions. Across the different potential outcomes, we assumed different sets of future inflation and economic assumptions.

We calculated the future expected budget outcome and annual budget variance between the CCCFPD scenario two and City provided service scenario one cost forecasts. These are intended to provide the City of Pinole a reasonable range of likely future cost of service as well as the favorable (unfavorable) results of each.

STONE MUNICIPAL GROUP 9
782 of 801 936 of 955
Scenario 2 – Cooperative Fire Service Agreement with CCCFPD In this scenario we assumed a complete staffing transition to CCCFPD and that the City would effectively outsource 100% of its going forward costs for fire protection staffing to CCCFPD. This scenario forecasts operating and capital expenditure for the budget periods 2022-23 through 2029-30. ● Budget estimates based on FY 2022-23 Fire Department combined budget of $5,514,428. (General, Measure S 2006, and Measure S 2014 funds.)
● Assumes Contra Costa County will allocate two million dollars ($2,000,000) of Measure X funding annually towards the cooperative fire service agreement throughout the contract term.

Note, the current contract language only includes Measure X funding for FY 2022-23 and FY 2023-24.
● Assumes Pinole Fire would transfer all positions, equipment, and apparatus to CCCFPD at no cost.
● Assumes existing (1) active and (1) inactive Fire Stations would remain as a fixed capital asset of the City of Pinole. Facility repairs and maintenance to be the responsibility of City of Pinole ● Assumes (1) inactive station would be activated and staffed by CCCFPD to restore the level of service achieved in the past.
● Assumes Pinole Fire would continue to be responsible for following existing budgetary items moving forward: Fire allocated CalPERS Unfunded Accrued Liability (“UAL”), abatement services, station utilities, station repairs and maintenance, legal charges, and property liability.

Total remaining budgetary cost estimated at $753,489 or 13.66% of current budget. ● Assumes CCCFPD staffing of (3) Captains, (3) Engineers, and (3) Firefighters per station.

Pass-through and/or of other CCCFPD related expenditures. (e.g. employee benefits, operating expenses, apparatus replacement)
o Assumes direct station staffing related costs of $3,000,786 per station. o Operating cost of $114,436, and equipment replacement of $125,000 per station. o Assumes $172,498 in allocated communication center dispatch cost. Assumes the communication center allocated cost grows at 4% per year. o Assumes a shared services administrative cost of 10% billed to the City of Pinole. The administrative cost will be charged on all budgeted costs minus the communication center charges. The basis for the 10% administrative cost is the annual adopted budget, of which the City of Pinole will be made known of increases or decreases year to year. A list of indirect costs are included in the additional information section of this report. ● Assumes initial gross annual contract amount of $7,300,987 or $441,749 per month beginning January 1, 2023 net Measure X. Cost to be billed out monthly based on the annual budget less the two million in Measure X allocation. Future budgets are subject to change and appropriation by the fiscal body.
● Future adjustments or escalations of the Measure X allocation are being evaluated. To be conservative, we have assumed the allocation remains a constant $2,000,000. ● One-time budgetary impact to the City of Pinole File Department in the amount of $52,969.63 to cover the payout of accrued vacation.
● Assumes fiscal impact under full budget year scenario. Contract likely to become effective mid-fiscal year (January 1, 2023) and therefore the initial cost will be based on the remaining six fiscal months of budget year 2023.
● Assumes that from the date CCCFPD hires such staff, CCCFPD will be responsible for all salaries, employee benefits, including contributions for retiree-related benefits, and future accruals of unfunded liability for retiree-related benefits.

STONE MUNICIPAL GROUP 10
783 of 801 937 of 955
● Assumes the City of Pinole will be responsible for 100% of retiree-related and other post-employment benefits, including accrued CalPERS unfunded liability for retiree-related benefits, for such staff for the period during which they were employed by the City of Pinole. ● Assumes personnel costs at the top step for each class of employee. ● Assumes a stair-stepped inflation of eight percent to three percent (8% - 3%) annual increase in materials, supplies, services, and personnel services.

Expected Costs of Cooperative Fire Agreement (“Most Likely”) If the City of Pinole enters into a cooperative fire agreement with CCCFPD, 100% of current employee salary and employee benefit costs will be converted into a contractual service expenditure. The initial contract value is based on the budgeted cost of the positions and it is expected to increase over the contract period as cost-of-living adjustments are approved. To recover indirect administrative costs, CCCFPD is expected to charge an administrative cost of 10%. This administrative cost is included within the initial proposed two-station budget of $7,300,987. Adjusted for the Measure X allocation, the initial budget to be billed to the City of Pinole is anticipated to be $5,300,987, or $441,749 per month. In addition to the personnel costs, the City of Pinole will continue certain services and supplies costs associated with the department.

STONE MUNICIPAL GROUP 11
784 of 801 938 of 955
Cooperative Fire Agreement Sensitivity Analysis
For scenario two we continued with projecting costs using the most likely, worst case, and best case assumptions. In addition to inflation and economic assumptions, we added a worst case scenario where the Measure X income tax allocation expires after the second fiscal year of operations. This change materially affected the future net budget impact to the City of Pinole and is one of the single largest future cost variables. Under the best case scenario, we assumed Measure X would continue for every year services are contracted and would increase annually at a reasonable growth rate.

We calculated the future expected budget outcome and annual budget variance between the CCCFPD scenario two and City provided scenario one cost forecasts. These are intended to provide the City of Pinole a reasonable range of likely future cost of service as well as the favorable (unfavorable) results of each.

STONE MUNICIPAL GROUP 12
785 of 801 939 of 955
Additional Information & Analysis
Cost Comparison of Scenarios
Based on the most likely assumptions and the annual sinking fund for capital outlays, the CCCFPD (“scenario two”) option provides the lowest net budget impact to the City of Pinole in FY 2023-24 (“Yr 1”) . Over time, the CCCFPD is expected to cost slightly more than the current operations by $34,613 per year on average. This amount assumes the Measure X allocation remains constant for all years a contract for service is in place. While the cost is projected to be higher, note the City’s current staffing of fifteen full time equivalents (15 firefighters) supplies one station currently, whereas CCCFPD staffs two stations.

STONE MUNICIPAL GROUP 13
786 of 801 940 of 955
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Administrative Cost Below is a list of indirect costs that together represent the rationale behind the 10% proposed administrative cost.
● Administration - Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief, Fire Marshal ● Public Information Officer
● General and automobile liability
● Information Technology Support and Infrastructure
● Payroll, Accounting, Fire District Human Resources
● Fire Investigation Services
● Training Administration, Vector Solutions
● EMS Training and Quality Improvement
● County General (legal, County Administration, Auditor) Charges Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Revenue Sufficiency For this report, we assume year one (“Yr 1”) for scenario two is FY 2023-24. Based on the assumptions, the anticipated monthly CCCFPD cost of service incurred and billed to Pinole Fire Department during the first three years would be as follows:

STONE MUNICIPAL GROUP 14
787 of 801 941 of 955
City of Pinole Feasibility
The City of Pinole maintains five separate funds which have supported the Fire Department over the past few fiscal years. Two of those funds relate to the City of Pinole’s Measure S funds. (i.e. 2006 & 2014) For the 2023 fiscal year budget, the total Measure S funds are estimated at $4,902,000. Historically, the Fire Department has received approximately 25%, or $1,039,873, of the total Measure S funding. The City of Pinole’s Measure S funds do not currently have a predetermined sunset or expiration date. As of the FY 2023 budget, there were $4.9M of Measure S funds appropriated, which represented 13% budget growth year over year.

Source: City of Pinole Budget (FY 2021-22, FY 2022-23, & ACFR 06/30/2020 & 06/30/2021) Looking beyond the Measure S funds, the Fire Department has averaged $187,748 in department specific revenues that are expected to remain as a local funding source.

Additionally each year the City Finance Department prepares a detailed budget and annual report that has certain financial policies to drive decisions. One such policy is a general reserve policy of 50%. That reserve level is currently met and the last audited financial statement reflects a General Fund Unassigned balance of $12,488,526. This amount is up 15% year over year and creates an unrestricted funding source to help stabilize operations in a period of budget contraction.

Based on the anticipated lower cost of scenario two, Measure S revenues, Measure X allocation, and the annual appropriation process, it appears that the City of Pinole has the financial means to enter into an agreement if their fiscal body finds that appropriate. However, if the Measure X allocation is not secured during the contract term, the additional $2M to the budget would create a materially unfavorable budget result. We would caution the City to take upon that future unfunded liability.

STONE MUNICIPAL GROUP 15
788 of 801 942 of 955
City of Pinole Feasibility (Cont.)
The City of Pinole Fire Department’s actual expenditures have increased an average of 10% per year between FY 2018 and FY 2022. Based on the current assumptions, the annual cost escalation under scenario one is 8.65%. Comparatively, scenario two is expected to grow by

7.81% per year and is projecting an initial cost increase based on the current assumptions. Below is a comparison of actuals versus projected future cost under both scenarios. To be conservative with forward estimates, the forecast for both scenarios include a plus or minus 10% margin of safety.

STONE MUNICIPAL GROUP 16
789 of 801 943 of 955
CalPERS Fire Department Unfunded Accrued Liability
Using the most recent June 30, 2020 valuation report the cumulative unfunded accrued liability (UAL) is $22,253,952 across the PERS-PEPRA Safety Fire and PERS-Safety plan. In order to allocate the amount retained by the City of Pinole, the percentage of full-time Fire Department employees vs total safety related positions could be used. At the time of this report, the pro rata portion of total CalPERS unfunded liability and amortization payments was allocated to the Fire Department was 23%. Therefore, for the 2022-23 budget cycle the remaining UAL budget impact that would remain with the City of Pinole is estimated to be $406,927.

PERS-PEPRA Safety Fire:

PERS-Safety:

UAL Cost Projection:

STONE MUNICIPAL GROUP 17
790 of 801 944 of 955
Budget Impacts - Remaining Items
Below is the current budget itemized by the expenditure account. Certain expenditure amounts would remain the responsibility of the City of Pinole Fire Department and be incurred above and beyond the contractual services agreement cost. The current 2022-23 budget includes an estimate of $1,105,953 for 41004 - Employee Benefits PERS Retirement. This amount includes the CalPERS Unfunded Accrued Liability (“UAL”) related to the Fire Department. Under scenario two, a portion of that budget expense would become the future responsibility of Contra Costa County. However, the UAL portion would remain the financial responsibility of the City of Pinole. Therefore, we have estimated the allocation and incorporated the remaining UAL component within the retained budgetary expenditures.

STONE MUNICIPAL GROUP 18
791 of 801 945 of 955
Budget Impacts - Transitioning Items
Below is the current budget itemized by the expenditure account. The expenditure accounts are anticipated to be included within the cost of contractual services agreement cost.

END OF REPORT
STONE MUNICIPAL GROUP 19
792 of 801 946 of 955
Pinole Fire Department
New Station 74 Impact
Analysis
2022
STUDY ON THE PREDICTED IMPACT REOPENING STATION 74 ON
PINOLE
DECCAN INTERNATIONAL | August 31, 2022

ATTACHMENT E
793 of 801 947 of 955
Deccan International, pg. 1
Contents
Analysis Needs...................................................................................................................................2 Explanation of Methodology ...............................................................................................................2 Current Deployment....................................................................................................................2 Comparison of Scenario Results...................................................................................................2 Current Call Volume and Incident Reporting.........................................................................................3 All Pinole: Current Total Call Volume from January 1, 2021 - December 31, 2021 ............................3 Station 74 First Due: Current Total Call Volume from January 1, 2021 - December 31, 2021.............3 Incident Distribution from January 1, 2021 - December 31, 2021:...................................................4 Response Performance Based on Current Deployment.........................................................................5 First Paramedic Unit Total Response Time for ALS calls Time Target: 05:20):...................................5 First Engine Total Response Time on Structure Fire Calls (Time Target: 05:00):................................5 First Paramedic Unit Total Response Time for ALS calls Time Target: 05:20):...................................6 First Engine Total Response Time on Structure Fire Calls (Time Target: 05:00):................................6 Scenario 1: Response Performance After Reopening Station 74.............................................................7 First Paramedic Unit Total Response Time for ALS calls Time Target: 05:20):...................................7 First Engine Total Response Time on Structure Fire Calls (Time Target: 05:00):................................7 First Paramedic Unit Total Response Time for ALS calls Time Target: 05:20):...................................8 First Engine Total Response Time on Structure Fire Calls (Time Target: 05:00):................................8 794 of 801 948 of 955
Deccan International, pg. 2
Analysis Needs
The Pinole Fire Department is analyzing the impact of reopening Station 74 and adding a 3 person ALS Engine and Type 3 engine (cross-staffed) on Station 74’s current first due, as well as on the city as a whole.

This report investigates the predicted impact ofresponse performance for First ParamedicTotal Response Time on ALS Calls and First Engine Total Response Time on Structure Fires. Each scenario considers the impact of all over Pinole as well as the impact on the first due areas of station 74.

Things to take into consideration with this analysis: the predictive modeling component (ADAM) has been calibrated with the last year of data from Jan. 2022. Please note that when using ADAM projections these results are projected based off historical performance but are not hard & fast values.

Explanation of Methodology
Current Deployment
The first part of the analysis is to provide a baseline of where Pinole is currently is regarding call volume and incident distribution within Pinole. We will provide the baseline based on January 1, 2021 - December 31, 2021 call volume for all of Pinole, as well as call volume in each of the first due areas for stations: 73 and 74
Comparison of Scenario Results
This report creates 2 predictive scenarios modeling the response performance impact of reopening Station 74 on Pinole as well as specifically Station 74’s first due.

Using the “Scenario Comparison” tool in ADAM, we will be able to show improvement of performance against the current deployment. This tool allows us to show the delta number improvement/worsening between the current deployment response times versus the new scenarios as well as a visual of the areas most impacted on the map itself.
795 of 801 949 of 955
Deccan International, pg. 3
Current Call Volume and Incident Reporting
This represents the baseline of what Pinole currently looks like. Call Volume and Incident Reporting is based on data from January 1, 2021 - December 31, 2021
All Pinole: Current Total Call Volume from January 1, 2021 - December 31, 2021

Station 74 First Due: Current Total Call Volume from January 1, 2021 - December 31, 2021 796 of 801 950 of 955
Deccan International, pg. 4
Incident Distribution from January 1, 2021 - December 31, 2021:
209
165
200 195
229
197 194 184
244 234
209 219
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
Count
Incident Counts over time
1721
758
0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Station 73 Station 74
Count
Incident Counts by PDG
797 of 801 951 of 955
Deccan International, pg. 5
Response Performance Based on Current Deployment
Predicted Response performance of base deployment.

Average Response Time refers to the average predicted time for all responses for any given response criteria
Time Target Compliance represents the percentage of responses predicted to meet the time target for any given response Criteria
First Paramedic Unit Total Response Time for ALS calls Time Target: 05:20):

All Pinole:

Average Response Time: 05:36 Time Target Compliance: 51%

First Engine Total Response Time on Structure Fire Calls(Time Target: 05:00):

All Pinole:

Average Response Time: 05:57 Time Target Compliance: 27%

798 of 801 952 of 955
Deccan International, pg. 6
First Paramedic Unit Total Response Time for ALS calls Time Target: 05:20):

Station 74 First Due:

Average Response Time: 06:21 Time Target Compliance: 37%

First Engine Total Response Time on Structure Fire Calls(Time Target: 05:00):

Station 74 First Due:

Average Response Time: 07:16 Time Target Compliance: 12%

799 of 801 953 of 955
Deccan International, pg. 7
Scenario 1: Response Performance After Reopening Station 74 Impact after reopening Station 74 and adding 3 Person ALS Engine/Type 3 Engine (Cross-Staffed) First Paramedic Unit Total Response Time for ALS calls Time Target: 05:20):

All Pinole:

Average Response Time: (-00:27) Time Target Compliance: (+7.87%)

First Engine Total Response Time on Structure Fire Calls(Time Target: 05:00):

All Pinole:

Average Response Time: (-00:22) Time Target Compliance: (+7%)

800 of 801 954 of 955
Deccan International, pg. 8
First Paramedic Unit Total Response Time for ALS calls Time Target: 05:20):

Station 74:

Average Response Time: (-01:13) Time Target Compliance: (+21.6%)

First Engine Total Response Time on Structure Fire Calls(Time Target: 05:00):

Station 74:

Average Response Time: (-01:52) Time Target Compliance: (+35%)

801 of 801 955 of 955