Pinole City Council Final Contract for Service with Confire Hybrid meeting- 10-10-2022, 6 PM

Pinole City Council will be having a special Hybrid meeting on Monday, 10-10-2022 to consider approving a final contract for service with Contra Costa Fire District (Confire) at 6 PM. You can find the agenda packet for the meeting here (pdf). You can join by zoom direct link, entering the webinar ID 893 3500 0272 into zoom directly, or calling +1 (669) 900-6833 or +1 (253) 215-8782 or +1 (346) 248-7799, then entering the meeting ID 893 3500 0272#. Once in the meeting by phone, you can raise your hand by pressing *9, and unmute by pressing *6 once called on. You can also attend the meeting in person at Pinole City Hall, 2131 Pear St.

As the agenda is 955 pages long, I am going to focus on key points as I see it, rather than a point by point review.

First and foremost, the contract would enable Pinole to have effectively double the fire coverage it has now at less than it is currently projected to pay for one station (through FY 27-28), by reopening and staffing Station 74 (page 24). We would also gain access to better response time, equipment access, logistics, fire inspections and public outreach (pages 21-22). I would encourage everyone who can to join Monday’s (and Tuesday’s) meetings to speak in support of the contract.

Unfunded liabilities that the city has already accrued (PERS, retiree healthcare) are accounted for and included in the projected cost per year, as is the cost to replace equipment (page 23). As opposed to the draft proposal, funds from the county are explicitly allocated through FY 27-28 with an escalator clause (page 26, page 41, page 62, page 86 for the draft). Staffing is guaranteed at 6 personnel, 2 3-person companies per shift with at least 1 paramedic per company (page 28). Additionally, there will always be at least 2 Type I fire trucks in Pinole year-round (which was made clearer from the draft, see page 67).

There will be quarterly updates on response times (page 29), and the district will continue to provide mutual aid (though whether it replaces the city’s obligation seems unclear) (page 29). The District will support development and operation of Pinole’s emergency operations center and plan (pages 30-31).

The city will accept paper copies of construction and fire suppression system plans to transfer to the district, with the goal (assisted by the district) of shifting over to an electronic system (page 33). This was clarified from the earlier draft (page 74).

The city is responsible for weed abatement. The district is not responsible for abating wildfire hazard parcels (page 34). The weed abatement responsibility was added from the earlier draft (page 76).

Calls for service and financial reports are tracked. Financial reports are not automatically provided, except for yearly audit. (page 36).

City is required to pay for new equipment required by development. (page 41). Fire development impact fees were added as a source of revenue from the prior draft (page 89). I suspect we may have met this threshold already, based on some of the recent planning commission projects.

The city keeps its already accrued OPEB (other post-employment benefit, like pension and retiree healthcare) costs, but does not accrue new ones from the district (page 43). This point was clarified from the draft (page 90).

The city is responsible for worker’s compensation claims before commencement date or claims linked to those claims (page 45).

The county in cost calculations routinely has the maximum 4% CPI escalator year over year (page 56). The city’s independent fiscal analysis goes on an assumption of 2.3% CPI, which seems more reasonable (page 144).

There’s also some additions worth noting from the prior draft- the dispatch costs are explicitly noted as part of the yearly bill (page 71), the city and district will coordinate on code enforcement issues (page 72), the Fire Chief will have the full powers granted to the City of Pinole Fire Chief by the municipal code without exception (page 78), the city can charge fees for services it (as opposed to the district) provides (page 81), updated 5-year budget projections will be provided yearly (page 85), the city and district will work together to communicate about the change to the public before the changeover date (page 94), and the mediators will pick a mediator, avoiding a mediation clash (page 97).

There’s some interesting points in the county’s presentation. They note that most calls are within Pinole’s city limits, and that until 2021 mutual aid was less than the number of calls answered outside of Pinole by Station 73. In 2021 they were roughly equal (page 123). They also note that the city previously had a ladder truck (page 125), and that the contract would allow for improved prevention and suppression services (page 127). They anticipate Station 74 opening on 3/1/2023 (page 131).

Finally, there’s the independent fiscal analysis. It seems reasonable, though I am not sure how the most likely Scenario 1 costs for FY 23-24 and FY 24-25 are *worse* than the worst case costs for those years (page 143). Generally speaking, it seems as though Scenario 2 (adopting the contract) would be a net fiscal benefit to the city most likely through FY 26-27 and a small additional cost after that. In the worst case scenario, there could be considerably increased costs from FY 27-28 onwards (page 146). I’m not sure whether the UAL in the fiscal analysis is accounting for unpaid retiree healthcare costs (page 152), which may worsen the projection.

Overall, I support this contract. It would improve Pinole’s fire service coverage, ensure adequate staffing, and be a reduced cost to the city compared to the status quo for most of the initial term of the contract.